[Senate Hearing 106-632]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-632
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4690
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE,
AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, 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
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-766 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Jim Morhard
Kevin Linskey
Paddy Link
Dana Quam
Clayton Heil
Lila Helms (Minority)
Sonia King (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, February 24, 2000
Page
Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary.................. 1
Tuesday, February 29, 2000
Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General............ 45
Thursday, March 2, 2000
Department of State: Secretary of State.......................... 117
Tuesday, March 7, 2000
Department of Justice:
Immigration and Naturalization Service....................... 183
Federal Bureau of Investigation.............................. 215
Drug Enforcement Administration.............................. 215
Tuesday, March 21, 2000
Federal Communications Commission................................ 289
Securities and Exchange Commission............................... 323
Departmental witnesses:
The judiciary................................................ 337
Independent agencies: The Asia Foundation.................... 365
Nondepartmental witnesses:
Department of Justice........................................ 371
Department of Commerce....................................... 398
Department of State.......................................... 421
Independent agencies......................................... 425
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg and Hollings.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. DALEY, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LINDA J. BILMES, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
DEBORAH K. KILMER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATIVE AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
ELLEN BLOOM, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
BARBARA RETZLAFF, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET
Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing of the Commerce,
Justice, and State Subcommittee.
I understand Senator Hollings will be coming a little
later.
We are honored to have the Secretary of Commerce with us.
Mr. Secretary, rather than our taking your time with
opening statements, please proceed with your statement.
OVERVIEW OF SECRETARY DALEY'S STATEMENT
Secretary Daley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say that I am very pleased to be here to present our
Commerce Department's budget for the new fiscal year, and let
me first thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the
subcommittee and all of your hardworking staffs for the support
and counsel which you have all given us over the last 3 years.
This will be our last visit together, so I look forward to
working with the subcommittee, obviously, to make this one of
the best ever.
As you know, we are in the longest economic expansion in
our Nation's history. As a result, we are in an era of
unprecedented budget surpluses. Obviously, our goal is to try
to continue this for many years to come, and we are requesting
a budget that covers our everyday chores, from taking the
Census to advancing U.S. trade and protecting our marine
resources.
But we are also requesting $875 million in new strategic
investments that will help us do our jobs better and at the
same time prepare us for the future. These investments are not
only consistent with President Clinton's priorities, but in my
opinion, they reflect many of the priorities of you in
Congress.
All told, our budget calls for $5 billion next year, which
is down 37 percent from last year's $8.5 billion, but of
course, the decline is because the bulk of the work of Census
2000 will be done in the current fiscal year. I might add that
we are on track for completing the Census on time.
To complete the work, we are requesting $393 million in
fiscal year 2001 for the processing and distributing of the
data and also for closing down the hundreds of local Census
offices. To be honest, we have prided ourselves in this
Department for keeping the lid on our budget, and aside from
the Census, our core budget has remained fairly constant at
about $4 billion for the last few years.
But the time has come to invest in the future so we can
continue delivering high-quality services to the American
people. In my opinion, this is a very prudent budget that,
despite the increases, will pay dividends in the long run. I
would like to briefly highlight some of our proposals.
E-commerce is the growth engine of the future. We have
never seen anything like it before. But this revolution is
definitely not without challenges. All of us got a wake-up call
a few weeks ago that showed how vulnerable the Internet can be
to cyber attacks. Obviously, it is smart business to make sure
we have tighter security so we can maintain public confidence
in the Internet. So we are proposing $76 million to work on
this problem.
To fully exploit the Internet's potential, everyone needs
to be plugged into the revolution, so we are seeking $175
million to help narrow the digital divide and also help promote
e-commerce. This money would be used to increase computer use
in the home, to triple NTIA's Technology Opportunities Program,
and also to install high-speed Internet technology in rural
communities and in the very distressed urban areas.
As we all know, accurate measurement of the economy is an
absolutely vital Government function, so we are seeking $29
million for tracking e-commerce growth and for enhancing our
statistical infrastructure.
We also want $54 million to promote economic development in
our Native American communities; $28 million for minority-
serving institutions to help them educate more scientists and
engineers; and $10 million as part of a Government-wide effort
to revitalize communities throughout the Mississippi Delta.
For NOAA, which makes up the lion's share of our budget, we
are requesting nearly $2.8 billion. This includes $376 million
in new money for protecting our environment. Much of this
supports the President's Land Legacy Initiative, which is one
of the greatest efforts to save natural resources since Teddy
Roosevelt was President. So we are asking for resources to set
up a new Cultural Impact Assistance Fund and increase the
grants in our Coastal Zone Management Program. We are also
requesting $60 million so we can honor our commitment to the
1999 Pacific Salmon Agreement.
Predicting the weather and maintaining the largest non-
military fleet of satellites in the world are our key
priorities, so we are requesting increases in those areas.
This will once again be another banner year for trade. We
are requesting $72 million for these programs. Bringing China
into the WTO obviously would help us reduce our trade deficit
by opening many markets in China that are now closed to U.S.
exporters. By granting China permanent normal trade relations
and bringing them into the WTO, we would have the opportunity
to gain better access to many markets, from agriculture to
telecommunications.
As a member of the WTO, China for the first time will have
to play by global trade rules. Given the sheer volume of our
trade with China and other nations, especially in Asia, we need
more resources to remain effective at enforcing our trade laws
and agreements that are already on the books. We are requesting
$21 million for that purpose.
To be frank, how can we expect the American people to
support those of us who agree that more liberal trade is good
for us if they see that we are not doing a good job at
enforcing and policing existing agreements? We can trust our
trading partners, but we must verify that our trade deals are
being lived up to.
There is also $16 million for promoting environmental
exports and exports by small manufacturers. We are also
proposing $30 million to help communities adjust when a plant
closes due to trade or other economic shocks.
The last area I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, is
management. Without a doubt, the number one challenge for our
Government in the years ahead is to find ways to deliver our
basic services more efficiently. Over the past few years, we
have made improvements at Commerce, from producing clean
financial statements for all of the bureaus to improving
security. But in the 21st century, Government must be E-ready.
For several years now, we have asked for money to rewire our
building with optical fiber so we can be a fully digital
Department. With fiber, our network would operate 10 times
faster than it does today. Ten years ago, people could wait
overnight for an urgent letter, but to get the job done for the
taxpayers, people need the information delivered instantly to
their computers.
As the first Commerce Secretary of this, the Internet
century, and if I may say, the longest-serving Commerce
Secretary of this century, I strongly urge the subcommittee to
provide the $6 million we need to rewire this building. I
believe it is essential to the future effectiveness of the
Department.
Finally, we are requesting funds for a number of critical
building projects, notably, NOAA and the Census Bureau.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, that completes a brief outline of our 2001
budget request. Again, it has been an honor to appear before
your subcommittee and to engage with you and your staff, and I
would like to thank you once again and also thank the men and
women of the Department of Commerce for the support that they
have given me in the last 3 years as we have gone through the
budget process; our CFO and all the people who have worked so
hard in our budget department not only to get me ready, but to
get this budget put together to effectively present to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William A. Daley
Good morning. I am pleased to be here to present the Commerce
Department's budget for the new fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank you, the members of this
Subcommittee, and all your hardworking clerks for the support and
counsel over these past three years.
This will be our last year together, so I look forward to working
with the Subcommittee to make it one of the best ever.
As you all know, we are in the middle of the longest economic
expansion in our nation's history. As a result, we are in an era of
unprecedented budget surpluses. And I think all of us want this to
continue for many years to come.
We are requesting a budget that covers our everyday chores, like
taking the Census, advancing U.S. trade, and protecting marine
resources. But we also are requesting $875 million in new, strategic
investments that will help us do our job better, and prepare for the
future.
In my opinion, these investments are not only consistent with
President Clinton's priorities, but they also reflect many of your
priorities in the Congress.
All told, our budget calls for $5 billion next year, down 37
percent from this year's $8.5 billion budget. Of course, the decline is
because the bulk of the work for Census 2000 is being done right now,
in the current fiscal year. I might add that we are on track for
completing the Census on time, which in no small measure is due to the
support of the Congress. For that we thank you.
To complete the work, we are requesting $393 million in fiscal year
2001, for processing and distributing the data, and for closing down
local census offices.
To be honest, I have prided myself on keeping a lid on our budget.
Of course, we have had to request substantial sums to cover the Census.
But our core budget has remained fairly constant at about $4 billion
for the last few years.
But the time has come to invest in the future: for promoting
exports and enforcing our trade laws, for delivering high quality
services, and for helping communities adjust to economic forces.
In my opinion, this is a very prudent budget that, despite the
increase, will pay big dividends in the long run.
Let me briefly highlight some of our proposals.
First are investments for accelerating the E-Commerce Revolution.
Obviously, E-Commerce is the growth engine of the future. We've never
seen anything like it before. In my three years as Secretary, I have
watched it grow from hardly a decimal point in world economic
statistics, to what will be a trillion dollar business in a few years.
But this revolution is not without its challenges. All of us got
the wake up call a few weeks ago that showed how vulnerable the
Internet is to cyber attacks. President Clinton's meeting with
industry, and your Subcommittee hearing last week, clearly underscore
the need for tighter Internet security. While our information economy
is strong and resilient, we must work together with the private sector
to develop solutions to these problems.
Obviously, it is good business practice to do so to make sure that
public confidence in our economy remains.
In our budget, we are proposing $76 million to work on the problem,
including $50 million for an institute to begin Internet security R&D.
It will be housed at NIST and will involve the private sector.
To fully exploit the Internet's potential, everyone needs to be
plugged into the revolution.
So we are seeking $175 million to help narrow the digital divide,
and to promote E-Commerce.
We are requesting: $50 million for NTIA to increase computer use in
the home; a tripling in NTIA's Technology Opportunities Program to $45
million; and $23 million for EDA to install broadband technology in
rural communities and distressed areas, where high-speed Internet
access is as vital as good roads and bridges.
As we are often reminded--accurate measuring of the economy is an
absolutely vital government function. So we are seeking $29 million for
tracking E-Commerce growth, and for enhancing our statistical
infrastructure.
Next, we are seeking $54 million to promote economic development in
our Native American communities. Turning things around for Native
Americans is a key goal of President Clinton's New Markets program.
We also are requesting $28 million in new funding for Minority
Serving Institutions to help them educate more scientists and
engineers. NOAA and NIST will administer the funding.
Another community struggling to move ahead is the Mississippi Delta
region, where unemployment rates are double and triple the national
average. We are asking Congress for $10 million as part of a
government-wide effort to revitalize this multi-state area.
As you know, NOAA makes up the lion's share of our budget. We are
requesting nearly $2.8 billion for NOAA.
Let me highlight a few of the new investments we're requesting.
There's $376 million in new money for protecting the environment. Much
of this supports the President's Lands Legacy initiative, which is one
of the greatest efforts to save our natural resources since Teddy
Roosevelt was President.
We will be working on a number of fronts. There's $100 million for
a new Coastal Impact Assistance Fund, and a $93 million increase in
Coastal Zone Management grants.
Our marine resources are a top priority. Your support on this is
extremely important as we negotiate with other nations, and work to
protect these resources.
We are requesting $60 million so America can continue to honor its
commitment to the 1999 Pacific Salmon Agreement. We also want a $10
million increase for our National Marine Sanctuaries, which is nearly
double what we received this year.
In other areas, we request: $12 million to expand efforts to stop
declines in a number of endangered species; and $10 million to help
fishermen deal with over-fished waters.
Predicting the weather and maintaining the largest non-military
fleet of satellites in the world are key priorities. We are seeking
$100 million to finish modernizing the National Weather Service, and
for maintaining our satellite systems.
And we need $28 million as part of a multi-year effort to improve
forecasts of El Nino, and other climate events.
In the area of trade, we are requesting $72 million. Despite our
past successes in expanding trade, we still have a nagging deficit.
Obviously, one of the main reasons for that is our strong economy, and
strong demand for imports. But in my opinion, we can do more to help
shrink the deficit.
Bringing China into the WTO obviously would help. A quarter of
humanity lives in China, but many of their markets are now closed to
exporters.
By granting China permanent normal trade relations, we would gain
better access to many markets . . . from agriculture to
telecommunications. And as a member of WTO, China for the first time
will have to play by global trade rules.
To make sure that it does, we also are requesting $21 million to
get more aggressive about enforcing our trade laws, and our agreements
with other nations. Last year, we did a great job on steel dumping. But
given the sheer volume of our exports and imports, we need more
resources to remain effective.
To be frank, how can we expect the American people to support us on
trade, if they see we aren't doing a good job of policing our
agreements?
We can trust our trading partners, but we must verify that our
trade deals are being lived up to. So, for the first time, we plan to
put trade compliance people in China, Japan, and Korea. This alone will
help with about half the trade agreement problems businesses face.
There's $16 million, also, for promoting environmental exports, and
exports by small manufacturers. And we are proposing $35 million to
help communities adjust when a plant closes due to trade, or other
economic shocks.
The last area I want to mention is management. Without a doubt, the
number one challenge for government in the years ahead is to deliver
services more efficiently. One way of doing that is making government
e-ready.
For several years now, we have asked for money to re-wire our
building with optical fiber, so we could become a truly Digital
Department. With fiber, our network would operate ten times faster than
it does today. Ten years ago people could wait overnight for an urgent
letter. But to get the job done today, people need the information
delivered instantly to their computers.
As the first Commerce Secretary of the Internet Century--and the
longest serving!--I strongly urge the subcommittee to provide the $6
million we need to rewire the building. It is absolutely essential.
We also are requesting funds for a number of critical building
projects, notably for NOAA and the Census Bureau.
We are very big on other good management practices. In the last two
years, we have improved security for our workers, property and
information. And for the first time, we have received clean financial
statements from all the bureaus. And, we need to continue to implement
PTO's reforms passed last year.
And, finally, let me add that as part of a supplemental request, we
now have a plan on the table to close down NTIS, which has become
outdated by the Internet. In my opinion, our plan would maintain public
access to the scientific and technical information NTIS distributes,
and minimize the impact a closure would have on federal workers.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my brief outline of our 2001 budget
request.
I am prepared to answer your questions.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
We have appreciated your forthrightness before this
committee over the last couple of years and have enjoyed
working with you. I think you may be a little premature in your
estimation that you will not be before the committee again.
There may be other issues that come up that we would love to
hear from you on, and hopefully, we will have a chance to do
so.
HOME INTERNET ACCESS PROGRAM (HIAP)
I would like to focus initially on all the various
initiatives in, for lack of a better word, the e-commerce area.
It appears to be sort of a shotgun approach where almost every
agency has thrown in a few million and in some cases, tens of
millions of dollars, of requests and put ``e-commerce'' on
them. It almost looks like it is an IPO exercise, where you
change the company's name and put dot.com behind it and ask for
a filing which gets you all sorts of money in the marketplace.
What I would like to do is try to sort out what you are
proposing here and especially sort it out in the context of
what other agencies are doing to the extent that there is
overlap.
Let us begin with the home Internet access proposal which
as I understand is $79 million of new grants for home Internet
access along with information infrastructure grants. Maybe you
could explain that and explain it in the context of the
Universal Service Fund which has been set up and is funded by
$1 billion already, which deals with schools and libraries,
some of which spins off into this area.
INTENT OF HIAP
Secretary Daley. The $50 million that we are requesting for
the home Internet access program is intended to supply low-
income families with connections, training, and the support
which would be necessary for full involvement in today's
information economy.
Senator Gregg. Let me stop you there. I heard the Vice
President give a speech in which he said it was a new civil
right--a new civil right--that people should have access to the
Internet. Is that the policy of the administration, that this
is a civil rights issue?
DIGITAL DIVIDE
Secretary Daley. I think that if you look at what has
happened with our society and this divide, what we have phrased
the ``digital divide,'' there is no question that there is a
growing gap between our races on the accessibility and the use
of this extremely important technology for people's futures.
There is no question that if you are not capable of using these
technologies--and there are very few, if any, businesses left
where you do not need some level of competence at the computer
and computer skills--it is going to be very difficult to keep
up with the rest of our economy.
Senator Gregg. Are you planning to put physical hardware in
homes, or are you planning to educate people?
Secretary Daley. It is not about putting hardware into
homes. We obviously hope that the hardware ends up in the
homes, because the fact of the matter is that if there is--one
thing that our digital divide study showed was not only that
this gap is widening, but where there is accessibility, people
will take advantage of that; whether it is in the schools, as
the E-rate has given us now in I think 90 percent of the
schools, or the libraries, people will take advantage of that.
There is no question that the marketplace is moving toward
trying to get----
Senator Gregg. What are you going to do with the $50
million? Are you going to put hardware in the homes?
Secretary Daley. No. It is going to be a combination of
working with community organizations to get training and to get
hardware into communities. Whether it is actually put in the
home or not, it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that that would
not be a step within the program, to actually put hardware in
the homes.
Senator Gregg. You are going to use it to train people at
the local community level in how to teach people?
Secretary Daley. And have community organizations that
can--hopefully, we can bring hardware and capabilities to them,
so people can access through those organizations the use of
these technologies.
Senator Gregg. Walk me through this. I am a person of low
income. How am I going to interface the Commerce Department's
$50 million? How are our paths going to cross?
Secretary Daley. We will interface within an organization
at your community level--not with the Department coming into
your home or coming face-to-face with you. This is a program
that we will work with Government----
Senator Gregg. So this is going to be a new initiative
with, like, the CAPS agencies to go out as part of their
initiative, which is today basically involved with nutrition
and housing; they are now going to, in addition, have an
Internet education portfolio?
Secretary Daley. Many local organizations are already doing
that. We had a digital summit and were visited by over 800
organizations, companies and community organizations, civil
rights organizations, which very much believed that at the very
local level, their organizations have got to be providing for
their people the technologies and the training. Basically, we
will deal with those organizations.
Senator Gregg. So this is not actually going to get to the
low-income person. This is going to get to the bureaucracy that
is in existence already that allegedly works with the low-
income individuals.
Secretary Daley. Well, I would say that our goal and our
plan would be to get this to the people and not have it lost in
between the Department and that low-income person. That is the
goal, and we would hopefully structure it in a way that we
would not have that sense when the program is reviewed by you.
Senator Gregg. This is an exploding technology. We do not
know where it is going. There are some who would argue that
people who have a television set today will have a computer
tomorrow and will have Internet access tomorrow. My question is
with this dramatic explosion in technology, which we have no
idea where it is going to end up--we are just in the infancy
stage of it--why do we think that the Federal Government with
$50 million is going to be able to accomplish what the
marketplace is probably going to accomplish on its own by
simply creating the demand and having a technology where the
prices are dropping so radically that it is available to most
people anyway who have a TV? And most people in America do have
a TV even if they are extremely low-income.
Secretary Daley. As you say, Mr. Chairman, it may end up
where your TV is your unit. I doubt it would be the TV that you
and I have in our homes today.
Senator Gregg. It probably will be, with a cable box on top
of it.
Secretary Daley. It may be. But it has been pretty obvious
that in this explosion, there have been a lot of people left
out by the private sector. And to allow that group to grow and
to continue to be ignored by the private sector will make this
gap and this divide that we have seen over the last couple of
years even worse.
Senator Gregg. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in
our society who are left out of a lot of different areas. I
would start with education. We have an educational system that
is failing a large number of people, and we do have an
obligation to try to improve that.
It seems to me to be the creation of a new program the
purpose of which is to find a home in order to address a
political statement versus a substantive problem. I do not yet
hear that there is a program here to back this up that is going
to do much more than just send a bunch of money out to a bunch
of different advocacy agencies which have in some instances
been successful, and in some instances, simply have
bureaucratic funding mechanisms. So I have very serious
reservations about this, but we can go on to another topic,
because, obviously, we may have some disagreement there.
I will turn to my ranking member for whatever statements he
wants to make and questions he wants to ask.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am intrigued also by the idea of having a computer as a
civil right. The Vice President made that statement just
recently at Morgan State in Maryland, and said that every home
ought to have a computer. And then we have the Secretary of
Commerce come up here and start it.
We believe in the schools and libraries, and we put that
program in with respect to the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
and we got the education feature to connect every school and
every library across America, and we are still working on that.
But as far as a civil right, I can take you to places in South
Carolina that do not have indoor toilets, or telephones, or
TVs, much less a computer. This thing could grow like Topsy.
I will go along with the $19 million to help the small and
medium manufacturing firms with technical assistance and e-
commerce, or the $10 million for the export initiative targeted
at small and medium-sized manufacturers. Those kinds of things
are fine, but the other $100 million in here for EDA and some
other grants and whatever it is, I am going to be at the end of
the phone ringing, saying I want one of those grants--you have
a $1 billion program--that is a foot in the door, and I do not
know where you stop that, to get everybody a computer and get
it all interconnected.
COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE FUND
Specifically, I am mainly interested in NOAA. You are
building up a Coastal Impact Assistance Fund, which could
really take care of the Coastal Zone Management State grants.
In fact, that is the part of the State grants that takes care
of an oil spill where you have exploration. But you have $100
million sitting around there, and then you cut the NOAA fleet.
We have one vessel in there, and we are supposed to get another
one, but you have eliminated that, and you have more or less
eliminated NOAA's budget; you just leave it level-funded when
we have over 100 lawsuits. Environmental groups are gathering
the country around now to shut down the fisheries, and we have
all these lawsuits backed up, and we cannot get the
information, you cannot get the ships out there, you cannot
back up your position. So they have enjoined them, and they are
withholding, and what you are really doing is starting the
Department of Commerce as a sort of grant program, leaving out
the research and the expertise necessary for the fisheries and
oceans programs there--as the longest-lasting Secretary of
Commerce in this century.
Can't we just transfer that $100 million Coastal Impact
Assistance Fund, just sitting down and not doing any drilling,
but the environmentalists are drilling us--they are closing
down the fisheries. We have all of these lawsuits backed up,
and you do not even give us the money to do the work, so we
have an incompetent NOAA. So they say, well, let us abolish
that anyway. Many a Secretary has come along and tried to
abolish NOAA because they do not understand it, and they never
really support it strongly. I see that here in this particular
budget request.
What is your response?
Secretary Daley. First of all, Senator, I firmly believe
that NOAA is an integral part of this Department. It is not a
side thought of mine. I have spent a tremendous amount of time
on NOAA issues and on fish issues. There is no question about
it. I am sued repeatedly. I do not think there is an amount of
money that you could appropriate that would slow down the
number of lawsuits that we get, many of which are justified and
many of which are not.
DELAY OF NOAA FLEET
We have a strong effort within NOAA to repair the depletion
of the fisheries throughout our country, and as you know it is
from Alaska all the way down and around and back up to New
Hampshire that we have problems with just about every fishery.
On the issue of the fleet, we have delayed the second boat
because of a problem on putting the procurement program
together with the Navy, and the Navy has backed out on working
with us on that second ship, so we have delayed, but we have
only delayed the plans for that second ship, and we believe
that by the fourth quarter of 2000, the award for the first
ship will be done, and hopefully, shortly into next year, we
will move forward on the plans. But the only reason the second
one is delayed, Senator, is because of the difficulties we had
with the Navy as a procurement agent; so we have had to bring
it back in.
NOAA LAWSUIT
Senator Hollings. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the committee,
rather than starting a new, $100 million Coastal Impact
Assistance Fund, with money just sitting around, where we do
have these lawsuits and are we not responding to them because
we do not have all that fisheries information--we have
fisheries responsibilities, as you describe, around the
continent, but we are not responding, and we need an additional
research vessel rather than starting a new Coastal Impact
Assistance Fund, which is the Coastal Zone Management Act's
original intent anyway. So we have the money there, and another
$93 million, but I just cannot see that.
TOURISM
Jumping to tourism, I see $4.5 million for an--and listen
to this one--International Trade Administration's Cultural
Heritage Community Development Export Initiative. You have
somebody from the Pentagon who has gotten loose in your
Department; I can tell you that right now.
Senator Gregg. Does that have an acronym?
Senator Hollings. I do not know. I cannot get that many
initials----
Senator Gregg. ``ITRAVEL'' or ``IFLY''?
Senator Hollings. Yes, ``ITRAVEL,'' or whatever the heck it
is.
I have just come from a primary, and I spent $5 million
trying to get reelected the year before last, and I can tell
you that Governor Bush spent $10 million in my State, because I
had no time buys, and I did not have any mailings, plus the
telephones, so I do not know what $4.5 million is going to do
for trade.
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS)
How about the Technical Information Service, NTIS--you have
taken $4.5 million out of the Advanced Technology Program to
close down a service that is privately rendered up in Vermont.
We had that with the rural information band, the WIC Program.
In Commerce years back, we had the argument with Barron's that
if you paid $1,000 a year, you could get it privately, but we
had too many small businesses that did not have $1,000 to
subscribe, so we put it in, and the Technical Information
Service has worked out extremely well. I know that with the
Internet, everybody has advanced, but everybody, as you say in
the early part of your request, does not have it. Small
businesses do not have it, and many, many others do not have
it, and they do not have the infrastructure. So it seems to me
that rather than take it out of the Advanced Technology
Program, we could just continue that, Mr. Chairman, rather than
closing it down.
Mr. Secretary, would you comment, please?
Secretary Daley. Senator, obviously, Congress a few years
ago changed the structure of that and the focus of it and
directed it to be self-sufficient. It then had to become
competitive with the private sector, which is very difficult.
NTIS FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED TO LIBRARY OF CONRESS
There is no question that there is a public purpose of
parts of the NTIS that should be and we have encouraged that
they be taken over by another agency, primarily the Library of
Congress if that would work. There has been a Library
Commission that has made recommendations, and we appreciate the
work with them, but the fact of the matter is that for that
organization to be competitive the way Congress wanted them to
be, they were going to be in violation of the anti-deficiency
laws. We took the steps believing that there are functions of
that organization that, as I say, should continue, but they
should not necessarily continue in the Commerce Department, and
that is why we recommended that the important functions that
you have stated be moved to somewhere else, but that----
Senator Hollings. To the Library of Congress, to just store
the information there.
Secretary Daley. Basically, that is what their function
would be, right, because they cannot compete----
Senator Hollings. The scholars can find it, but I do not
believe any businessman has ever been caught over at the
Library of Congress.
Secretary Daley. Well, not too many of them were being
caught at our organization when they were being charged--for
example, Senator, if I could, the NTIS, when we did our digital
divide report, was costing somebody, a general citizen, $20-
some if they went to NTIS to get that report, and they could go
on the Internet and get it for nothing. That showed that their
business plan was somewhat flawed.
IIP VERSUS ATP
Senator Hollings. At the new Institute for Information
Infrastructure Protection at NIST, Mr. Secretary, you have
research for computer security technology. Why not at the
Advanced Technology Program, where you have matching funds?
This is an outright grant. You have four universities in it,
and the probability is that rather than attracting other
universities, they know how to make out the grant applications,
they have the expertise, so you are just going to finance it at
four universities and not extend it to the other universities,
on the one hand; and on the other hand, for the industries that
would be getting into it on a maximum basis with new
technologies, you have that established program, the ATP,
rather than just starting an outright grant of $100 million--
excuse me--I think it is $50 million.
Secretary Daley. It is $50 million that we are requesting,
Senator. We believe that NIST, with their expertise and their
scientists actively working with the universities and with the
private sector, can be the most efficient way to do this as
opposed to through the ATP program. The ATP program has been
effective, no question about it, with some long-range, high-
risk investments. We believe, based upon not only the incidents
of 2 weeks ago, but just an overall feeling, that the security
of our infrastructure is most important to be protected; that
the NIST scientists and their unique relationship with the
private sector and with universities can create a program that
will be extremely helpful to the Government long-term. ATP, as
we also know, has been a controversial program at times, and
you have continued to fund it at a level that we believe is
quite adequate. But NIST and their expertise, we believe, for
this problem of Internet security, is uniquely qualified.
ELIMINATION OF TEXTILE PROGRAM
Senator Hollings. And on the International Trade
Administration, I see that you have eliminated the textile
program, but you have put one in for Native Americans. I have
worked with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Native Americans,
and that $22.5 million--when you start getting into that Bureau
and take a formative program that is more needed now than ever.
In the early days, under President Kennedy, we had to have
hearings and a finding by the Cabinet that the particular item
involved, before the President could take emergency action, was
important to the national security. So the Secretary of
Commerce, with Defense and State, Treasury and Labor, had
Cabinet hearings and findings. In May of 1961, then President
Kennedy put his seven-point program out, and that has worked
extremely well until you folks came with that white tent and
all those Republicans underneath it to ship all the industry
down to Mexico. I have lost 33,300 textile jobs. Look at the
Bureau of Labor Statistics--it is probably more now; that is an
old figure. But in my little State [South Carolina], we have
lost 33,300 textile jobs.
Now, the only way that we can sustain an industry important
to the national security as was found back under President
Kennedy is with this particular cooperative research with
private industry and the Government and the textile program.
So, rather than eliminate that, I would hope that the $22
million--I will talk to Senator Inouye, and I am sure he can
help the Bureau of Indian Affairs get that moving, if that is
really what you are interested in--but I would hope we could
maintain the textile program.
Do you have any comment on that?
NATIVE AMERICANS
Secretary Daley. We have not eliminated our textile
programs. On the issue of the Native Americans, Senator, as you
know, they have had an economic situation that has been
unparalleled with any other group of citizens, no question
about it. As you mentioned, many of the textile workers in your
State and other States have suffered over the last number of
years by virtue of not only NAFTA, but by virtue of the global
competition which has become extremely fierce in the textile
industry. That is something that is real, and we are sensitive
to it, and we are attempting to keep the opportunities for
those workers in other areas, and as your State has experienced
such an explosion in other job opportunities, quite frankly,
that is not equalled or even matched in many other States and
surely not on the Indian reservations. Our program with Native
Americans is to try to address, through EDA, a horrendous
situation where their unemployment and their economic
opportunities are much, much less than any group of people,
especially those in a State as vibrant as yours, even though
that industry, no question about it, has been terribly
challenged over the last couple of years.
NATIONAL TEXTILE CENTER
Senator Hollings. Well, I will look at it again, but there
is no provision for the National Textile Center or for the T-
squared, the one they have at NC State. You did not request any
money there.
I will yield, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
RESCISSION CRITERIA
Senator Gregg. I want to follow up on one of Senator
Hollings' questions relative to NOAA. It seems to me that NOAA
took a disproportionate hit when the 0.38 percent cut was made
across the board, as compared, for example, to Census. I am
wondering why, following up on Senator Hollings' concerns about
the way the base budget of NOAA has been treated in the budget
proposal. I also agree with his concern that the base NOAA
budget appears to be getting short shrift here for initiatives
which are basically grant initiatives, which I also support,
but which I think has to be done in the context of a strong
base budget. Why did you, in allocating that cut, hit NOAA so
hard in comparison with the Census?
Secretary Daley. Well, the Census took a hit of about $5
million, as opposed to if it were straight across the board,
they would have taken somewhere around $11 million. That, as we
all know, is an effort which has been very controversial, one
that we believe is moving forward, one that, however, is a
massively difficult task to undertake and will be over at the
end of this year, the vast majority of it, and to give them a
hit of the extra $6 million would have been a difficult thing
for them to take--pardon me, I have just been told that it was
$16 million, not $11 million, and I apologize.
We did exempt some of our most essential programs like the
National Marine Sanctuaries Program, and we cut every other
program except the Census by the 0.38 percent that the Congress
indicated. It was determined that Census would have to have
some flexibility on where to take this money. And then we cut
the other earmarks of Congress by about 7.5 percent. There were
a number of earmarks in NOAA, and that may be the reason why
they took a little larger percent of hits than other bureaus;
they have more earmarks and more programs that were
susceptible. But we tried to exempt some of our more critical,
as I said, programs, like National Marine Sanctuaries and
others that we exempted. We had a policy that was really the
same and consistent with all the other departments and other
actions by Secretaries.
Senator Gregg. I understand that the flexibility was given
to you. Actually, I would have taken it out of Census. In fact,
Census has a huge amount of money, and I suspect it is going to
end up with more money than it needs if it does the program
effectively; that would have been the more practical place to
apply the cut.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
On the critical infrastructure issue, can you give us a
little background here? It seems to me that you are basically
being a front organization for the National Security Council. A
lot of the money that comes to you is being funnelled back to
the NSC, and the NSC is managing those dollars.
My question to you is what type of control do you have over
these dollars, which are basically under the direction of the
NSC, which you are basically getting or desiring to get?
Secretary Daley. First of all, we believe strongly that we
play a unique role in this whole debate of trying to protect
our----
Senator Gregg. I accept that. I accept the premise that
business would rather deal with you than with the FBI in
developing systems for protecting infrastructure. What I do not
accept necessarily is the idea that you should be a front
organization for the Security Council.
Secretary Daley. Well, I do not think we are a front
organization for them. I think we play a unique role, no
question about it, along with our role working closely with the
business community. There is, no question, a national security/
law enforcement piece to this that is constant, and we all kind
of interrelate. So I do not deny that there is a national
security role in this----
Senator Gregg. Who is responsible for the funds--who is
responsible for the funds under the control of the National
Security Council--you or Clarke [ed. Dick Clarke, National
Coordinator for Security Infrastructure Protection and
Counterterrorism]?
Secretary Daley. We are.
Senator Gregg. Who is making the decisions on how the money
is spent?
Secretary Daley. We make it in conjunction with Clarke.
Ms. Bilmes. Senator, I would just say that out of our $76
million request for CIP [Critical Infrastructure Protection]
funding, there is only $3 million in our request which goes to
the CIAO [Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office]. We have
$60 million at NIST [National Institute of Standards and
Technology], $6.3 million at NTIA [National Telecommunication
and Information Administration] for our lead agency
responsibilities, $2.2 million at PTO [Patent and Trademark
Office], $4 million at NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration], and there is a $3.5 million request at BXA
[Bureau of Export Administration], of which $3 million goes to
the CIAO. So it is a very small portion of our request which is
at issue here.
Senator Gregg. Well, there is some disagreement over that,
so what I would like to get from you, to the extent that you
can get it to us, would be an overlay of different accounts
that are being used in your Department which are at the
discretion of the National Security Council--not only in your
Department, but I would like to get it in all the departments,
so we can get a sense of where this money ends up when we give
it to you. Does it end up on your desk, or does it end up on
somebody else's desk whom we have no jurisdiction over and no
oversight control over, which is obviously our concern.
We have a vote on, and I do not want to have you sit here
until I come back, but there are a number of other issues which
I do feel need some explanation, so we will send you some
specific questions on those areas.
I also have reservations about this IIIP [Institute for
Information Infrastructure Protection] program, very
significant reservations about what its directive is going to
be, and how it is going to coordinate, and whether it is going
to overlap with other initiatives in other agencies. I do not
want to see us get into a situation where we are creating
another power center on the issue of terrorism and the issue of
cyber crime. I want to make sure everybody is coordinating
here--that is a big concern that I have with the budget as
presented.
We also have other concerns with NOAA. I happen to agree
with your idea on NTIS--although obviously, Senator Hollings
has some reservations about it, I think you are making the
right move there. And I am not sure where we are going with
public broadcasting. It appears that this could be opening the
door to a fairly sizable effort, and I would like to get some
idea as to what is the projected cost that we are going to be
asked to put up in order for PBS to go digital, and what is the
contribution that we are going to get from the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting to offset this. In other words, are we
going it alone, or will there be some matching funds coming out
of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
Those are some of the issues, and of course, I have a
continuing concern with ATP [Advanced Technologies Program].
There appears to be a fairly significant carryover in ATP, and
I am wondering why we need any new dollars in that account,
considering the carryover that is coming at us.
ADDTIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Those are some of the specific issues, and we will probably
ask you to respond in writing, or perhaps you and our staff can
go over them.
Secretary Daley. We will cooperate quickly, Mr. Chairman,
and we will get the answer to your question on the CIAO and the
critical infrastructure funding to you very quickly.
Senator Gregg. I appreciate that.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PROGRAM
Question. Doesn't the request for $79.5 million in new grants for
``Home Internet Access'' and Information Infrastructure Grants really
duplicate what is being done through the schools and libraries program
as well as other initiatives throughout the Government?
Answer. Neither program duplicates other Federal initiatives. Each
plays a unique role in addressing different aspects of the digital
divide.
Home Internet Access
The Home Internet Access program focuses on the issue of affordable
access to the Internet. The goal of the program is to increase the
number of low-income families that have access to the Internet in their
homes. Other Federal programs do focus on the access issue, but with
very different approaches. The E-Rate program, which is administered by
the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service
Administrative Company, provides affordable access to advanced
telecommunications services for all eligible schools and libraries in
the United States. The E-Rate provides discounts on telecommunications
services, Internet access, and internal connections. This program helps
schoolchildren gain access to the Internet in their schools and helps
the general public gain access through their local libraries. However,
neither the E-Rate nor any other Federal programs attempts to increase
the number of low-income families that can use the Internet in their
homes.
Technology Opportunities Program
The TOP focuses on a different aspect of the Digital Divide--the
issue of nonprofit and public sector applications of the Internet and
other emerging telecommunications and information technologies. Through
TOP grants, rural and other under served communities demonstrate how to
provide better services to their residents. TOP grantees use technology
to help police identify suspects, to enable home-bound individuals to
receive medical care remotely, to help sick children stay in touch with
their classes, to help rural communities develop worker skills, and to
help neighborhood organizations prevent urban decline.
For example, in 1997, TOP provided funds for the Virtual Campus of
New Hampshire to extend the delivery of online course work, counseling,
evaluation and assessment, and training for technical positions in such
industries as biotechnology, telecommunications, and electronics. The
goal of the project is to apply interactive Internet technology as a
means of extending technical education that will lead to productive
employment for under served populations in New Hampshire. New Hampshire
residents are able to participate in the online courses at access
points on our college campuses and four additional pilot sites--a
public library, a high school, a public housing complex, and a
community outreach center. In addition to access to basic courses,
students are able to use the Internet to interact with mentors in a
variety of technology-based industries.
The TOP plays a unique role by supporting demonstration projects
that serve as national models for other communities to follow. By
supporting, evaluating, and showcasing these projects, TOP helps all
communities to see what is possible, what works and what doesn't. As a
result, when those institutions invest in computers, software, local
area networks, and Internet connections, they will be able to do so
wisely and efficiently.
NTIA has safeguards to ensure that the TOP does not duplicate the
efforts of other Federal programs. Each year, the NTIA Administrator
uses the ``avoidance of redundancy and conflicts with the initiatives
of other Federal agencies'' as a selection factor in making final grant
award determinations. Program staff consult with staff at approximately
30 other Federal agencies to ensure that TOP grants do not duplicate
any of their efforts.
With specific reference to the E-Rate program, note that in the
1999 fiscal year, TOP gave no grants to K-12 schools and only one grant
to a public library. In addition, language in the TOP's fiscal year
2000 appropriation places clear restrictions on eligible costs for
applicants that are recipients of Universal Service Fund discounts. The
statute provides:
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, no entity
that receives telecommunications services at preferential rates
under section 254(h) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) or receives
assistance under the regional information sharing systems grant
program of the Department of Justice under part M of Title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796h) may use funds under a grant under this heading to
cover any costs of the entity that would otherwise be covered
by such preferential rates or such assistance, as the case may
be.
Finally, a 1999 GAO study confirmed that there were no instances of
duplication among any Federal programs, including TOP, that allow
educational institutions to use funds for technology investments.
EDA INTERNET ACCESS
Question. Has the Department looked at some of the creative ways
states are wiring their towns without a major expenditure of funds? For
example, in some states, prison inmates have been wiring schools and
facilities. Why should EDA be giving out grants for this purpose?
Shouldn't this be a state and local responsibility?
Answer. EDA is just beginning to look at some of the creative ways
states and local governments are using to install fiber-optic cable in
schools and other facilities. It will give full and fair consideration
to various types of proposals that economically distressed communities
propose for installing the necessary and appropriate infrastructure,
including equipment, that is needed for the deployment of broadband,
high-speed Internet access. Since EDA's program responds to local needs
and plans, and given that the primary focus of the e-commerce
initiative is to assist distressed communities, and thereby their
existing businesses, industries and institutions, become more
technologically and globally competitive, EDA anticipates that it will
fund a broad array of creative, public-private partnerships that are
based on locally-developed strategies and that will assure that
America's distressed communities are connected to the Internet.
While the wiring of schools is important, this initiative will be
focused primarily on the external infrastructure and facilities that
are needed beyond the walls of schools, libraries, etc., in order to
connect the whole community, and primarily the businesses of the
community, to the global markets of commerce and trade. Given the
speciality of this type of construction and equipment, e.g., wireless
technology, we anticipate that various type of systems and public/
private partnerships will be used to provide broadband deployment in a
variety of distressed communities that EDA's program is designed to
serve.
Just like other types of infrastructure--water and sewer systems,
industrial parks, highways and bridges, port facilities, skill training
facilities--state and local governments have the primary governmental
interest in their construction, operation and maintenance however, some
communities, especially economically distressed communities, can't do
it alone, they need help in financing their infrastructure systems
because their tax base and general revenues won't support the full
funding at the local level.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Question. Can you outline and defend the Department's request for
funds in fiscal year 2001 under the Presidential Decision Directives 62
and 63.
Answer. Emerging threats such as weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
and cyber attack challenge traditional concepts of national security.
Although the Department of Defense plays a key role, the leadership for
protecting the Nation from these asymmetric threats rests with civilian
agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice,
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency because of their
authorities and resident expertise. A comprehensive defense demands the
participation of many agencies, including those involved in law
enforcement, foreign affairs, health and emergency services, and more.
The Administration has worked to define, strengthen, and coordinate
each agency's contribution to this effort.
Two Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs) provide strategic
direction. PDD-62 created a new and more systematic approach to fight
the emerging threat of WMD, clarify and coordinate the mission of the
U.S. agencies charged with defeating terrorism. PDD-63 called for a
national effort to assure the security of critical infrastructures.
Both PDDs clarify the roles and responsibilities of the many U.S.
agencies involved in the wide range of programs necessary to defend
against WMD and protect our infrastructure. The Administration
developed more specific guidance for agencies in its ``Five-Year
Interagency Counter-Terrorism Plan'' and its ``National Plan for
Information Systems Protection'' which includes the establishment of
the U.S. government as a model of information security, and the
development of a public-private partnership to defend our national
infrastructures. The PDD-63 missions are of particular concern to the
Department of Commerce.
Presidential Decision Directive (PDD)-63
Pursuant to the PDD-63, the Critical Infrastructure Assurance
Office (CIAO) was established on May 22, 1998. PDD-63, titled
``Critical Infrastructure Protection,'' directs that a National Plan
Coordination Staff (the CIAO) be formed to coordinate the government
and industry-wide efforts to implement the provisions of the PDD. The
CIAO coordinates the overall effort to write the National Plan for
Information Systems Protection (The Plan), helps agencies identify
their dependencies on critical infrastructure, conducts coordination on
national education and awareness efforts, and assists the national
coordinator with legislative and public affairs. Necessary follow-on
actions to Version 1.0 of The Plan include the overarching strategy for
government and industry cooperation relating to protecting
infrastructures, development of a process to identify critical
government systems, interdependencies between government systems, and
dependencies of government systems on private sector systems.
The CIAO has initiated a partnership and outreach program to engage
(1) the critical infrastructure industries as supported by the lead
agencies, (2) the business risk management communities, (3) the
mainstream business community (including support for the National
Infrastructure Advisory Council), (4) state and local governments, and
(5) selected audiences representing the general public, including
Congressional staff education. It has also developed a methodology for
determining which programs within an agency are critical, determining
the interdependencies between agencies, and the dependencies of these
programs on private sector infrastructure. This methodology worked
successfully in a pilot program in the Department of Commerce, and will
be conducted at other agencies in the near future. Further, the CIAO is
sponsoring a national education and awareness program targeted toward
increasing public understanding and participation in protection
efforts. The focus of the program will be to better inform the public
about vulnerabilities resulting from interdependent networks, as well
as facilitate methodologies to enhance academic opportunities relating
to computer ethics and information security.
Question. Can you provide additional information about total funds
requested by the administration throughout the Government under the
blanket of these presidential directives? Can you point to any law that
authorizes these activities?
Answer. There has been much interest expressed in the overall
Government-wide efforts to implement the mandates of PDD-62 and PDD-63.
With respect to the latter, many Federal agencies have developed their
own specific requirements and have submitted funding requests for
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) activities accordingly.
Overall, funding to combat terrorism has steadily increased over the
past four years--up 40 percent to $9.1 billion--while funding for new
missions such as WMD preparedness and CIP has doubled in that time. The
fiscal year 2001 Budget proposes increases for each of these areas,
bringing WMD defense to $1.6 billion and CIP to over $2 billion. These
funds enhance ongoing efforts and launch new initiatives to strengthen
our ability to deter and respond to attacks. Attached is a matrix
reflecting Government-wide CIP funding by Department.
PDD-63 reflects a Presidential decision about how to organize the
Executive Branch to respond to critical infrastructure protection. In
issuing PDDs, the President relies on his constitutional authority and
existing statutory authority. Agencies use existing authorities to
carry out activities covered by PDD-63. This decision was validated by
the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill, Public Law 105-277,
where Congress appropriated money for this activity.
FUNDING FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION BY AGENCY \1\
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Department 2001
1998 Actual 1999 Actual 2000 2000 President's
Request Enacted Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture.................................... 0.70 1.22 3.10 2.51 17.89
Commerce....................................... 9.35 21.81 43.18 17.75 92.10
Education...................................... 3.59 4.45 5.23 5.23 2.51
Energy......................................... 1.50 3.60 47.22 21.98 45.30
EOP............................................ 0.05 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.56
EPA............................................ 0.12 0.24 0.08 0.08 2.30
FEMA........................................... ........... ........... 0.80 0.80 1.47
GSA............................................ ........... 3.00 8.40 ........... 15.40
HHS............................................ 21.85 14.39 22.11 22.11 27.60
Interior....................................... 1.29 1.60 2.65 2.65 1.83
Justice........................................ 25.61 54.09 63.80 44.02 45.51
NASA........................................... 41.00 43.00 66.00 66.00 61.00
National Science Foundation.................... 19.15 21.42 32.85 26.65 43.85
National Security.............................. 974.56 1,185.22 1,314.94 1,402.94 1,458.91
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................. ........... 0.20 ........... ........... 0.25
OPM............................................ ........... ........... 13.65 2.00 7.00
Transportation................................. 20.33 24.88 53.50 50.68 99.34
Treasury....................................... 22.91 48.89 83.22 76.22 87.03
Veterans Affairs............................... ........... ........... 17.33 17.33 17.39
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total.............................. 1,142.00 1,428.57 1,778,54 1,759.42 2,027.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Protection of Federal Infrastructure and Assistance/Outreach to Private Sector.
NIST/INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Secretary, this subcommittee will once again be faced
with an extremely tight allocation and we must make sure that in
creating new initiatives to protect our Nation's Critical
Infrastructure that no duplication in effort occurs. There are many
agencies such as the FBI, NSA, CIA and others who are currently
operating information infrastructure programs. Will this I\3\P project
overlap any current government efforts?
Answer. Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection (IIIP)
will not duplicate any government information infrastructure protection
programs. The complex, extensive problem of information infrastructure
protection requires close cooperation and assignment of
responsibilities among several Federal agencies, and a close
partnership between the private sector and government. The unique role
of the IIIP will be to fund longer-term R&D (typically 3 years to 5
years) to develop solutions for protecting the Nation's information
infrastructure against possible future threats, as both the
infrastructure and the threats become more sophisticated, complex, and
extensive.
No other Federal agency conducts such a program. As noted in the
President's National Plan for Information Systems Protection, ``in R&D
and other key technical areas, neither the private sector market
demands nor agency mission objectives fully meet the Nation's
requirements.'' The Institute will help fill this gap by supporting R&D
that companies and government agencies will use to develop new products
and services to protect America's information infrastructure.
In designing the IIIP, NIST worked closely with President's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), National Security Council (NSC),
and Federal agencies to ensure that IIIP's mission and role complements
efforts in other agencies and the private sector, and fills critical
gaps in current information infrastructure protection programs. PDD #63
and the National Plan for Information Systems Protection clearly and
strongly identify the need for continuing R&D to develop information
security solutions to protect the Nation's information infrastructure
against current and future threats: ``The Federal Government shall,
through its research, development and procurement, encourage the
introduction of increasingly capable methods of infrastructure
protection.''
PDD #63 assigns lead responsibility for coordination of R&D to
OSTP: ``OSTP shall be responsible for coordinating research and
development agendas and programs for the government through the
National Science and Technology Council.'' The plan for the Institute
was developed in consultation with OSTP and NSC to help meet the
Nation's information infrastructure R&D needs. This plan allows I\3\P
to meets its objectives of working effectively and productively with
the many public an private sector organizations concerned with
information infrastructure protection.
The IIIP will complement the information security roles of other
Federal agencies without duplication. For example, PDD #63 assigns DoJ/
FBI with the lead responsibility for law enforcement and internal
security, including deterring attacks against critical infrastructures.
The IIIP will not have any direct role in law enforcement or deterring
attacks, but will fund R&D to develop new generations of information
security solutions that DoJ/FBI, other agencies, and the private sector
could use to prevent and respond to future cyber-threats.
Question. Could you please explain how duplication will be avoided
and how cooperation and information sharing between agencies will work?
Answer. As stated above, NIST designed the IIIP in close
consultation with PCAST, OSTP, NSC, and other Federal agencies to
ensure that the new Institute will fulfill its mission without
duplicating the work of other Federal agencies. An interagency process
exists to coordinate existing and planned Federal agency critical
infrastructure protection R&D. This process, which has operated for two
years, culminates in a coordinated R&D agenda, which will be available
to IAP to ensure that the Institute's R&D does not overlap other
Federal agency R&D programs. And NIST will continue working closely
with Federal agencies, private sector leaders, and the Institute to
keep it focused on its core mission and avoid duplication of efforts.
Sharing research results from Institute-supported projects will be
crucial to the success of the program, and IIIP will ensure that both
Federal agencies and the private sector are fully informed of IIIP
information. Classified information (including descriptions of
strategic vulnerabilities) will not be publicly shared but will be
shared with Federal agencies and other cleared organizations as
appropriate.
Question. What types of standards are being discussed and how will
establishing standards protect our critical infrastructure? What
criteria will NIST use to determine who will receive grants from the
Institute?
Standards
Answer. The goal of III is not to develop standards, although III-
supported work may lead NIST and other government agencies to develop
standards, best practices, and guidelines for both Federal and private
sector information infrastructure protection.
NIST has requested a separate $5 million appropriation (``C.P.
Research and Development'') to work with the private sector on
developing standards, measurements, best practices, and guidelines for
various information security applications, including cryptography,
security management, best security practices, and security of
supervisory systems that control building environments, manufacturing,
provision of utilities, and other tasks. The C.P. Research and
Development initiative is not directly related to IIIP. However, it is
likely that III-funded R&D will become the basis of new standards, best
practices, and guidelines developed by NIST, other agencies, and the
private sector.
Examples are appended of the types of information security
standards and best practices work that NIST conducts for reference. But
such work will not be funded by IIIP.
Criteria for project selection
Projects will be funded through merit-based competitions open to
U.S. companies, consortia, research institutions, universities, and
non-profit organizations. All proposals will be peer-reviewed by teams
of information technology and security experts. Proposals will be
evaluated on criteria including technical merit, track record of the
proposers, fit to the mission and goals of the IIIP, and anticipated
impact on National information security.
The Institute will support research in areas that are identified in
close consultation with those in the private sector who manufacture,
own, operate, and use information technology. The research will be
conducted by those best qualified to carry it out, whether they be in
private companies, universities, government laboratories, or other
research facilities. Given the close and continuing relationship with
the private sector that the Institute will have to maintain, the
Administration is currently engaged in intensive discussions with
representatives from the private sector and academia on the precise
organizational structure and operational procedures for the Institute.
The private sector Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security is
also providing its recommendations.
IIIP expects that most proposals will be funded for approximately 3
to 5 years, with funding provided on an annual basis contingent upon
successful yearly reviews of project progress.
ADDENDUM: EXAMPLES OF NIST INFORMATION SECURITY STANDARDS,
MEASUREMENTS, AND BEST PRACTICES.
Recent Work and Ongoing Programs--Key Examples
Security ``Best Practice'' guidance identification, development,
and dissemination.
Provide guidance to other agencies on how to protect their systems
against hackers.
Publish guidance documents that aid industry and government in
securing their computers.
Identifying trends in the discovery of vulnerabilities in order to
guide industry in the prevention of the most common types of flaws.
Creation of a database of threats to public computer systems that
points to appropriate countermeasures.
Web site that provides industry and government with computer
security information on a broad variety of subjects.
Research and Development Activities--Key Examples
NIST has underway R&D activities designed to enhance the security
of the Internet and the national information infrastructure in the
following areas: network architectures that resist denial of service
and other forms of attack; automated testing of systems and network
elements for security flaws; and secure protocols and automated testing
methods for both the current and the Next Generation Internet (IPSE).
The Advanced Encryption Standard (ES)
Standardization of interfaces to efficient and secure encryption
algorithms to protect e-commerce and government transactions.
Securing electronic commerce activities through Public Key
Infrastructure (P.I.) and P.I.-Enabled Applications.
More efficient and effective methods by which to evaluate the
security of commercial products against known and emerging threats.
Mobile agent systems to ensure secure use in e-commerce
applications.
Advanced access control architectures to allow efficient and
effective control of organizational resources.
Use of smart cards to enable higher security in e-commerce
applications.
Healthcare Security Project.
NAP Security Specification Tool Project.
NAP Telecommunications Security Project.
Infrastructure Development and Protection
These activities are helping establish the security services needed
within the broader national information infrastructure (including the
Internet) to combat hacking and other misuse.
Government P.I. Pilots
Validation of commercial cryptographic modules against the NIST
Federal standard (over 100 products validated).
Work with industry and government to promote the development of a
private sector IT security testing program within the United States.
FedCIRC--Development and piloting the concept and operational
requirements for a government-wide computer incident response
capability. Now operational under GSA Common Criteria Evaluation and
Validation Program.
ATP
Question. ATP carried forward into fiscal year 2000 $24.5 million
for grants it could not make in the previous fiscal year. For fiscal
year 2001, the Department is requesting an additional $65 million for
new grants. Mr. Secretary, what is the status of the funding provided
in previous fiscal years earmarked for new grants?
Answer. ATP was not able to award all of the $66 million
appropriated for new awards in fiscal year 1999. The balance carried
over into fiscal year 2000 and the Conference Report for the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation provided that these funds be used for this
fiscal year's mortgages. ATP will award $50.7 million in new awards in
fiscal year 2000 with its fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
Question. What confidence do you have that the additional funding
for grants you are requesting will be expended in the fiscal year it is
appropriated?
Answer. The ATP has aggressively expanded its outreach program in
fiscal year 2000 to help potential proposers, particularly small
businesses, understand the ATP selection criteria and competition
structure and how to write a good proposal. As a start, the ATP held
its National Meeting in November providing several opportunities to
learn more about these issues. It was a huge success with about 1,000
participants. The ATP has also intensified its state outreach effort in
fiscal year 2000, engaging the 50 governors, state technology councils,
economic development organizations and university research parks. In
addition, ATP has revised its outreach materials to improve their
clarity. ATP expects to award $50.7 million of new awards in fiscal
year 2000 and $65 million of new awarded as requested in fiscal year
2001.
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
Question. Mr. Secretary, what is the status of your proposed
legislation to cease NTIS operations? What contingency plans has the
Department developed in the event that authorization legislation is not
approved?
Answer. The Department's proposed legislation has been submitted to
Committee and Subcommittee staffs. The proposed bill has not yet been
introduced on the floor. We are urging both the Senate and the House to
consider passing the legislation in conjunction with our fiscal year
2000 Supplemental Request of $4.5 million in transfer funds from NIST.
If our proposed legislation is not approved, NTIS is mandated to
continue its functions and activities as a fee-funded entity. Under
this scenario, NTIS would continue to operate, but would struggle to
remain solvent.
Question. Mr. Secretary, it has been alleged to us that line
offices in ITA are being assessed for funds to cover the costs of the
agency's execution direction--despite an appropriations line item for
that purpose--could you tell us or report back to us whether this is
the case?
Answer. No, this is not the case. All funds to cover the costs of
operating ITA's executive direction function (the offices of the Under
Secretary, Deputy Under Secretary, Public Affairs, and Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs) come from ITA's executive direction line
item appropriation.
RESEARCH IN SUPPORT OF THE AGENCY'S PROGRAMS
Question. The increases in the fiscal year 2001 budget are not
supporting the basic mission of the agency or increased research in
support of the agency's programs, for example fisheries management, a
major problem nationwide. Can you comment on any concerns you may have
about the failure to increase funding for NOAA's research nationwide?
Answer. The requested funding increases for fiscal year 2001 are
within the stated mission goals of NOAA, i.e. environmental stewardship
and prediction. In addition, the President's budget request does
include increases for research, particularly in climate, mariculture,
weather research, and Sea Grant. NOAA's request for fiscal year 2001
will begin to address some areas of critical infrastructure to enable
research to continue in the future.
EMPHASIS ON FUNDING PROGRAMS
Question. Is not there too much emphasis on funding assistance
programs in specific areas to the detriment of other areas of the
country?
Answer. In order to further our environmental stewardship and
assessment missions, NOAA strives to allocate funds in a consistent
manner to address National and regional needs. Our fiscal year 2001
budget seeks a balance in funding programs by dividing resources
equitably across the country, either through a formula-based approach
or based on specific needs in the region.
Various assistance programs, such as the Coastal Zone Management
Program, address the needs of the majority of eligible coastal states
and territories (33 of the 35 coastal states and territories).
NOAA, at times, also acts in response to natural and environmental
disasters and directs funds to specific areas of the country. For
example, funding is requested as emergency spending in fiscal year 2000
to provide assistance to Connecticut, New York, Florida, North
Carolina, Washington, Oregon, and Georgia. Assistance is necessary as a
result of recent hurricane and declared fishery disasters. Our fiscal
year 2001 request as well includes funds to address the outbreak of
harmful algal blooms experienced in specific regions of the country,
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, and restoration of the South Florida
Ecosystem.
PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PROGRAM
Question. Has the Department had discussions with the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting (CPB) about digital conversion and how
realistic it is to expect all stations nationwide to be broadcasting
digitally by 2003?
Answer. NTIA has had continuing discussions with the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting about digital conversion. These discussions
have addressed the system as a whole but have not addressed the status
of individual stations. The Administration's goal and the industry's
goals are the same; we want to ensure that all public television
transmitters are converted to digital by fiscal year 2003. As a whole,
the public television stations are making great efforts to meet the
deadline. At this point, it appears that the primary obstacle to
meeting the 2003 deadline is the raising of the hundreds of millions of
dollars required to complete the process.
PTFP recently received detailed digital conversion proposals from
over 100 of the 175 public television licensees. These stations are
requesting over $200 million in funds that would be matched by over
$260 million in non-Federal funds. The Federal amount requested
includes $100 million for fiscal year 2000 and the balance for future
years. Based on industry demand for grants, we believe that if funding
is available, public stations will be able to meet the FCC's schedule.
Congress and the Administration must deliver the Federal share of
funding in order to accomplish the conversion in a timely manner.
Question. How much is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
funding the conversion? Is all assistance for equipment conversion
expected to come from the PTFP program, or is CPB requesting funds to
assist stations?
Answer. The Administration has requesting $450 million for the
digital conversion initiative which includes $355 million for PTFP and
$95 million for CPB covering fiscal years 1999-2003. Funding through
PTFP will primarily be for the basic equipment necessary to pass
through and transmit a digital signal. The Administration envisions
that funding through CPB will be for digital program production,
development, and distribution. CPB has an appropriation of $10 million
in fiscal year 2000 that requires authorization from Congress and is
requesting $85 million for CPB over fiscal year 2001-2003 as part of
the initiative.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
BEA'S E-COMMERCE INITIATIVE
Question. Mr. Secretary, it is crucial that policymakers have the
most accurate economic data possible. This is particularly the case for
budgeting. We use Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data for
constructing our baseline. If this data is off, it can have an enormous
effect on our numbers.
Here's an example. Last year, there was a notable upward revision
to BEA's wage and salary data. If this represents persistent under-
measurement, federal tax revenues would be understated by more than $70
billion over the next 5 years. This is enormous.
I'd like to close by making an observation. Yesterday, Chairman
Greenspan said spending on economic data is one of the few types of
spending he supports unreservedly. I concur and believe it is very
important that BEA receives its full budget request this year--for both
ongoing operations and its new e-commerce initiative. I believe the
potential dividends would be enormous.
I am concerned that BEA's data responsibilities are becoming even
more difficult, in light of ongoing changes in our new economy. I
understand that you have proposed an initiative to enhance BEA's
understanding and measurement of e-commerce. Could you tell me a bit
about this?
Answer. In recognition of the growing complexities of the economy,
BEA proposed a multi-year project to update and improve its statistical
accounts. Due to budgetary constraints, BEA is behind schedule in its
plan to update and improve its economic accounts and incorporate e-
business into them. As a first step to identifying e-business, BEA will
update these accounts. In fiscal year 2001, BEA will develop new Gross
Domestic Products (GDP) computer processing systems that fully
incorporate recent e-business-related improvements in the GDP accounts.
This will include new measures of computer software, new measures of
electronic and other banking services, and expanded chain index
information. These improvements will provide the infrastructure needed
to accurately account for e-business. In addition, BEA will begin to
address gaps in key e-business-related components of GDP, gross
domestic income, quality-adjusted prices, and international trade,
improving its ability to measure e-business and alleviating some of the
serious problems plaguing the GDP and other economic accounts.
EFFECT OF NOT FUNDING E-COMMERCE INITIATIVE
Question. What will happen if BEA doesn't get the $3 million in e-
commerce funds it has requested for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. In order to maintain the quality of the GDP and trade
statistics, BEA would have no choice but to either decrease the
frequency at which it reports updates, such as the quarterly GDP data
that now is updated every month, or delay the collection and production
of other data, such as foreign direct investment data for U.S. and
foreign multinationals.
LACK OF INCREMENTAL FUNDING FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
Question. Since the Boskin Initiative in the early 1990's, has BEA
received any incremental funding to allow it to maintain the quality of
the GDP statistics in the face of the unprecedented economic growth and
the explosion of e-commerce we've seen since then?
Answer. No, BEA has not. Its funding has decreased in real terms
since 1993, putting real resources this year at roughly the level
provided in 1992. With about 70 percent of its funding going to
personnel costs and half the remainder to computer support, BEA is now
undergoing a hiring freeze to ward off a projected budget deficit in
the current year.
MAINTAINING STANDARDS WITHOUT BUDGET INCREASES
Question. Given that BEA has experienced shrinking real budget
resources since 1993, how can it have kept up with the impressive
standards of the Department of Commerce as the prototype ``Digital
Department?''
Answer. In past years, BEA eliminated several lower-priority
programs--including leading indicators, pollution abatement and
control, and regional projections--and reallocated those resources to
its core economic accounts programs. That enabled BEA to continue
making progress, albeit at a slower pace than originally expected, in
its plan to improve GDP and the other economic accounts. Now only its
core programs remain. Although its web-site dissemination of GDP and
other data is often praised, that dissemination is not at the state-of-
the-art level. For example, the massive ``benchmark revision'' release
of updated GDP accounts in October 1999 (a once-every-5-years event)
revealed critical weaknesses in both the estimation and dissemination
software on which BEA relies. The $3 million budget increase for fiscal
year 2001 is necessary for BEA to overcome these problems.
FUNDING FOR DATA ON GLOBAL ECONOMY
Question. Demands of the newly globalized economy of the 1990's
have brought the need for more economic data. For example, the IMF has
promulgated requirements for more-detailed data on international
capital flows; and the Bank for International Settlements is calling
for more data on financial derivatives. Has BEA been provided funding
to respond to those new demands?
Answer. Although, BEA has not been provided with additional funding
to respond to those and other calls for new data, BEA has responded by
employing its resources to meet the request. This is not, however, a
long term response and additional resources will be needed to continue
this level of reporting.
EMERGENCY OIL AND GAS LOAN PROGRAM
Question. Last year the Congress enacted the Emergency Oil and Gas
Loan Guarantee Program. Applicants were given less than 6 weeks during
the holiday season to find a bank and process a loan under the program.
Not surprisingly, only 19 companies seeking $56 million were able to
complete all of the necessary paper work in this short period of time.
Does the Board intend to modify the regulations in order to attract
applications from more small oil and gas producers and service
companies?
Answer. As background, the Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan
Program Act was signed into law on August 17, 1999. The Guarantee Loan
Board issued the program regulations 60 days later on October 18, 1999.
In recognition of the program's ``emergency'' designation, the Board
established a ten-week application window which ran from October 18,
1999 to December 30, 1999. However, when alerted by outside
stakeholders that potential applicants needed more time, the Board
twice extended the application deadline, first to January 31, 2000, and
then subsequently to February 28, 2000 to allow additional applicants
to apply. In total, the application window has been open for over four
months. At the close of the February 28 application deadline, the Board
had received 23 applications requesting $68.2 million.
Specifically, in current market conditions, the Board has no
intention of substantially modifying the program's regulations. The
Board will, however, consider amending the regulations if market
conditions change and additional application windows are opened. Any
such adjustments, however, will be made in keeping with the
Congressional mandate to provide support for sound, quality commercial
transactions. It is the position of Board staff that the primary
challenge for the program is not the content of the current
regulations, it is the ability to attract qualified lending
institutions.
Question. Is the Board processing the applications received to date
and when does the Board expect funding of those applications?
Answer. All applications to the program will be reviewed and
processed functionally at the same time. This ``batch-processing''
approach is set up in order to balance all applications and allocate
guarantees based on comparative credit quality. Board staff initiated
the review process on the applications when received and expects to
have formal responses ready within 60-90 days of the final application
deadline. The Board understands the urgency associated with the
application requests and will work diligently to respond in a timely
fashion.
Question. Why didn't the Board process the applications received by
the 1/31/00 deadline?
Answer. All applications will be reviewed and processed
functionally at the same time in order to balance all applications and
allocate guarantees based on comparative credit quality.
Question. Many small companies have had difficulty identifying
banks which are interested in making smaller loans (i.e. less than $25
million)?
Answer. A necessary ingredient to the success of this type of
program is the involvement of the funding party, the commercial banks.
It became clear to Board staff early into the process that most of the
more significant and experienced domestic-energy lending institutions
were not interested in participating. This was due to a combination of
declared factors, among others: the $10 million loan size limitation;
newness of and unfamiliarity with the program (the ``fear of the
unknown''); a reluctance to deal with any government program; the
requirement to retain risk on a pari passu basis with the government.
As a result, it has become very difficult for potential borrowers to
find willing and able lenders.
Question. Is the Board willing to simplify the process and assist
companies in identifying participating lenders?
Answer. Board staff has attempted to engage the energy lending bank
market through industry meetings, face-to-face visits and liaisons
through trade associations. Despite these ongoing efforts, there
remains a rather clear lack of enthusiasm to participate.
PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PROGRAM
Question. Secretary Daley, I am pleased to see that the
Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget does not again propose to
terminate or significantly reduce funding for the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP), which provides grants to
public radio and TV stations for equipment. The PTFP program was funded
at $15.25 million in fiscal year 1997; Congress provided $21 million
for each of fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, and $26.5 million is
approved for this year.
Mr. Secretary, I have been a longtime supporter of the PTFP because
it is an important source of funding to rural states like New Mexico.
PTFP grants enable local broadcasting stations to provide quality
programming to populations that are generally under served.
The budget includes $110.1 million for PTFP for fiscal year 2001,
an increase of $83.5 million above 2000. The request represents a
quadrupling of the program with the significant increase to assist
broadcasters with the purchase of digital equipment as we approach the
2003 conversion date. The Subcommittee approved a $5.5 million increase
for this year to assist in this conversion, but also to assist rural
broadcasters not yet ready for conversion to digital technology. How is
the Department implementing the Committee's guidance for this year?
Answer. NTIA is committed to preserving the current public
television services provided by analog stations during the transition
to digital technology, especially those stations in rural areas. The
program will continue to fund the replacement of obsolete equipment
with the current appropriations. Over the past decade, however,
broadcast technology has made an almost complete transition to digital.
As a result, NTIA's funding of equipment to maintain current services
almost always results in the purchase of broadcast equipment which is
digital or digital compatible. Current technology also allows stations
to purchase a broadcast transmitter which broadcasts both an analog and
digital signal. Nevertheless, NTIA continues to support the purchase of
pure analog equipment when such equipment is required to maintain
existing broadcast service.
NTIA's budget anticipates considerable demand for digital
conversion projects during this fiscal year because of the mandatory
date for conversion to digital transmission for all television
stations. Rural stations, however, lack the large populations to raise
the private funds necessary to convert to digital technology. The
difficulty in obtaining matching funds for the conversion of stations
in rural areas is being addressed by the PTFP program.
To ensure that the needs of rural areas are satisfied, several
grant policies for the PTFP program have been revised to assist rural
stations and their conversion projects. For example, NTIA grant policy
now recognizes that many small (often rural) public television stations
will have difficulty in raising local funds for digital television
conversion projects. Therefore, as part of the PTFP application process
for fiscal year 2000, NTIA will permit small stations to qualify for 67
percent Federal funding for their digital conversion projects. This
level of Federal funding is significantly greater than the norm of 40
percent for digital conversion projects funded by the PTFP.
For fiscal year 2000, NTIA instituted the acceptance of multi-year
applications for digital conversion projects. The acceptance of multi-
year applications will assist smaller public television stations who
cannot raise the local portion of their project in a single year or who
need more time to complete their digital conversion projects. Multi-
year applications will permit stations to spread out their digital
conversion project over several years so they can complete their
digital conversion projects as they raise local funds.
NTIA is also permitting all stations to include equipment
replacement as part of a digital conversion project. This change will
help stations to begin their digital conversion projects through phased
upgrade of their facilities.
In many rural states, public television stations are operated by
state agencies or state universities. Several state legislatures have
appropriated funds to assist the public television stations in their
state with their digital conversion projects. State funds often must be
obligated by the end of the fiscal year, and NTIA has revised its
policies so that state or local matching funds obligated during the
current fiscal year for digital conversion will remain eligible for
Federal funding in future phases of multi-year projects.
NTIA also set July 1, 1999, the start of many state fiscal years,
as the applicable date for which local funds could be expended towards
applications submitted for the fiscal year 2000 grant cycle.
NTIA believes that these actions will greatly assist public
television stations serving rural areas in completing their digital
conversion projects as well as preserving analog service during the
transition.
Question. How is the $26.5 million approved for this year being
allocated?
Answer. PTFP's grant applications were received in February and
awards will be made in September. At this point, it is not possible to
anticipate how the funds will be allocated. NTIA does not allocate
grant funds, for specific types of projects, until it can review the
applications taken as a whole and respond to station needs as contained
in their requests. During the most recent cycle, NTIA awarded almost 80
percent of the $21 million in fiscal year 1999 funds to television
grants, almost all of which purchased digital equipment. The remaining
20 percent were awarded to radio and distance learning projects.
Question. How much of the $5.5 million increase is being devoted to
digital conversion? Was any of this funding used to assist rural
broadcasters not yet ready for digital conversion?
Answer. NTIA anticipates that most of the additional $5.5 million
will be devoted to digital conversion projects. NTIA will ensure that
the needs of rural stations are met to preserve their analog service
and help them begin the transition to digital service. The budget
increase that is requested and changes to the program's fiscal year
2000 grant round will help stations from rural areas in meeting the
digital conversion mandate.
Question. The budget justification documents indicate that the
Administration expects the additional $83.5 million ``to continue . . .
assisting broadcasters with the purchase of digital broadcasting
equipment needed to meet the Federal mandate to convert to digital
transmission by 2003.'' Am I correct that the Administration's budget
supports the basic PTFP program at approximately the existing level of
$26.5 million for the next fiscal year?
Answer. The Administration's request for the PTFP program, both the
base program and the additional funds, supports its traditional
mandate--to extend public broadcasting service to unserved areas and to
strengthen the capability of existing public radio and television
stations--and assist stations with the rapid transition to digital
formats called for by the 2003 time limit. Over the past decade,
broadcast technology has made an almost complete transition to digital.
As a result, NTIA's funding of equipment to maintain current services
almost always results in the purchase of broadcast equipment which is
digital or digital compatible. The additional funds are necessary to
ensure that all stations purchase the basic equipment necessary to meet
the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) time line for broadcasting a
digital signal.
Question. How much does the Administration budget assume will be
needed for the administrative costs for the ongoing PTFP program?
Answer. The PTFP program would require $2.5 million to adequately
administer the grant program in fiscal year 2001 at the fiscal year
2000 budget level. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $4.1 million
(less than 4 percent of the budget) to administer the PTFP grant
program. This level of funding is required as the program expects a
large increase (more than 80 percent) in the number of applications to
be reviewed and in the ongoing oversight of the grants awarded.
Question. Are those funds included in the salaries and expenses
account for NTIA, or are they assumed to come out of the overall $25
million provided for PTFP grants?
Answer. Funds to administer the program are included as a separate
line item in the appropriation for the PTFP account. In fiscal year
2000, PTFP was appropriated $26.5 million, which included $1.8 million
for program administration. NTIA's salaries and expenses account does
not include funding for PTFP's administration.
Question. The Administration again proposes that PTFP work ``in
coordination with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB),'' on
digital conversion. Originally, the Administration proposed that the
digital conversion program be funded through CPB. What is the rationale
for providing these funds through PTFP rather than the larger CPB?
Answer. For the past several years, NTIA has worked closely with
the CPB and other national public broadcasting organizations to assist
public television with conversion to digital broadcasting. The
Administration initially proposed for fiscal year 1999 that CPB manage
the entire digital transition program. The Administration, however,
transferred the funding for transmission equipment from CPB to PTFP in
the fiscal year 2000 budget to ensure that grants are awarded on PTFP's
competitive (need- and merit-based) basis rather than CPB's formula-
based allocation.
PTFP has a proven record of assisting public broadcasters with
facilities purchases. For over 35 years, the program has funded
projects that extended the delivery of public telecommunications
services to over 95 percent of the American public and strengthened the
capabilities of existing public television and radio stations. Over the
past six years, the PTFP program has been funding digital equipment as
part of public television's and radio's funding requests.
In the 2001 Budget, the Administration has retained funding for the
digital transition program in both the PTFP and CPB budgets for fiscal
years 2001-2003. The Administration still expects CPB and PTFP to work
together in helping public broadcasting complete the transition.
Question. The budget also proposes advanced appropriations of $110
million in fiscal year 2002 and $87.5 million in fiscal year 2003 for
the digital conversion program. Is the Administration's current
estimated cost for public broadcasters to make the transition from
analog to digital broadcasting the $307.6 million proposed in this
budget, or are there other costs associated with this initiative?
Answer. The Administration's budget for public broadcasting's
digital conversion initiative includes $307.6 million for PTFP and
approximately $85 million for CPB covering fiscal years 2001-2003. The
PTFP program has been assisting stations with their digital conversion,
and at this stage in the digital conversion process, the additional
$392.6 million for Federal support is reasonable. The Administration's
initiative estimates that it will cost public television stations over
$700 million to meet the FCC's May 2003 time line to begin digital
broadcasts. Accordingly, stations will contribute several hundred
million dollars to match PTFP's planned funding.
Question. Does the budget request anticipate that PTFP in making
grants for digital conversion will include public broadcasting entities
other than those participating in the PTFP program?
Answer. All public television stations in the United States are
eligible to apply to the PTFP program for Federal matching funds and we
anticipate that, over time, all stations will use the PTFP program to
assist with their digital conversion.
Question. These grants have been characterized as ``competitive,''
but this year the budget also indicates that these grants will also
have to be matched. What criteria does the Department plan to use in
making these awards competitively? What is the anticipated matching
requirement?
Answer. The PTFP program has always been a competitive grant
program that required matching funds from grant recipients for
equipment replacement projects. Under its authorizing legislation (47
U.S.C. 390-393), PTFP can award no more than 75 percent of the eligible
project costs for equipment projects.
The criteria that the Department of Commerce uses to make awards
are contained in the PTFP Final Rules as published in the November 8,
1996 Federal Register (Vol. 61., No. 218, page 57966) as supplemented
in the fiscal year 2000 Notice of Availability of Funds published in
the December 23, 1999 Federal Register (Vol. 64, No. 246, p. 72225).
These documents are made available to all potential PTFP applicants
through the Internet or by printed copy.
The process for selecting digital conversion awards can be briefly
summarized as follows:
--Digital conversion applications are placed into one of three
priority categories based on the availability of a digital
public television signal or the cooperative efforts of
stations;
--the applications are then reviewed by a panel of at least three
peer reviewers on the basis of six evaluation criteria:
applicant eligibility, financial and technical qualifications,
project objectives, urgency, and participation in the project
by minorities and women;
--the program also receives input from: staff and technical
assessments, State Single Point of Contact offices, state
telecommunications agencies, a national advisory panel composed
of representatives of major national public broadcasting
organizations, and public comments; and
--NTIA then determines awards by applying selection factors, which
include the panel and staff reviews, type of project,
priorities, whether the applicant has any current NTIA grants
that might affect the proposed project, geographic distribution
of awards, availability of funds, whether the FCC is prepared
to issue a required authorization and the degree to which the
slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the programs
purposes as stated in the Final Rules.
The matching requirement is based on a station's ability to raise
local funds. In the Notice of Availability of Funds mentioned earlier
in this answer, NTIA established a three step matching requirement for
digital conversion projects. As part of its revisions in the PTFP
application process for fiscal year 2000, NTIA will permit smaller
stations, primarily in rural areas, to qualify for 67 percent Federal
funding for their digital conversion projects if they can demonstrate
hardship. These stations must demonstrate that annual cash revenues for
the previous four years is less than $2 million or the project costs
are greater than the applicant's average annual cash revenue for the
previous four years. This level of Federal funding is significantly
greater than the 40 percent Federal funding which will be the norm for
digital conversion projects funded by the PTFP. NTIA will encourage
other stations to reduce their reliance on Federal funds by awarding
additional credit on the scores of applications that only request
matching Federal funds of 25 percent or less. The Notice of
Availability of Funds, however, pledges that NTIA will ensure that
there is an acceptable balance between stations that request a 25
percent Federal share and those requesting 40 percent or 67 percent.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
CENSUS 2000
Question. Is the Commerce Department taking any steps to get
reimbursed from the contractor who made such a grievous error, or at
least a reduced rate?
Answer. The Department of Commerce is not taking any direct steps
with this incident. The Government Printing Office (GPO) is
investigating this incident because the work was performed under a GPO
contract issued on behalf the Department. When GPO completes its
investigation, we fully expect the GPO will take the appropriate steps,
which may include reducing the payments under the contract. GPO
recently sent a letter to the contractor requesting a written
explanation of why the defect occurred and indicated the Government may
reduce the invoice billing.
Question. Is there any quality control system within the federal
procurement system to identify this contractor with this major error?
Answer. We have been told that the GPO will take this incident and
the results of their investigation into account in considering future
print work awards. In a recent letter to the contractor, the GPO
requested a written explanation of why the defect occurred and the
steps being taken to assure that this problem will not reoccur in
future procurements.
Question. Will the same contractor be conducting additional
mailings for the census in the future?
Answer. In addition to printing the advance letter, the contractor
did complete other Census 2000 printing work, including the
experimental forms, the Update/Leave Short Form (Spanish) for Puerto
Rico, the Update/Leave Short Form (English), and other language short
forms. We have sampled these other products and no similar defects were
found. This printer is not scheduled to do any future Census 2000
printing.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S MARINE RESOURCE ROLE
Question. The Department of the Interior is continuing its efforts
to expand its role in the conservation and management of marine
resources. While I appreciate the additional financial resources the
Interior Department is willing to dedicate to this effort, particularly
in the area of coral reefs, I am concerned about Interior's efforts to
exert exclusive jurisdiction over these resources to the exclusion of
the Department of Commerce.
For example, the Interior Department is urging the President to
issue an Executive Order to extend Interior's jurisdiction around the
Northwest Hawaiian Islands, which are part of the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands Refuge Complex administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
out to twelve miles. I understand that the Interior Department is
considering superseding the Commerce Department's jurisdiction under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act over fishery resources by prohibiting
commercial fishing activities in these areas. The Interior Department's
proposal has major implications beyond just the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands (NWHI). Some would argue that this is the first step toward
dismantling the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). I would like
to know the extent of your involvement in these discussions and the
position you are taking on Interior's efforts to expand its
jurisdiction over marine resources.
Answer. There has been ongoing discussions in Hawaii and in
Washington D.C. about the Interior Department's interest in extending
management authority around the NWHI. NOAA (e.g., Magnuson-Stevens Act,
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act) have
serious concerns with the concept, both because it could conflict with
Commerce Department's exclusive fishery management jurisdiction under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and because the same conservation objectives
can be achieved using the existing authorities of the Department of
Commerce and the Management Council. Imposing an additional and
potentially conflicting authority for managing living marine resources
could negatively impact marine resource access and management.
Both the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior
are discussing ways to improve management of living resources in the
NWHI. For example, the WPFMC is committed to implementing a
comprehensive Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan for the
NWHI. The plan development process has involved all interested agencies
and constituent groups, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Imposing a different management regime under a new management
authority at this time could seriously damage progress towards
constituent consensus on the conservation and management of important
resources in this area.
Background: The Department of the Interior has responsibility for
two National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) in the region. The Northwest
Hawaiian Islands NWR was designated in 1909 and consists of 1,766 acres
of emergent land and 610,148 acres of submerged lands; Midway Atoll NWR
was established initially as an overlay refuge in 1988 to assist the
Navy in managing its unique wildlife resources, and transferred to the
USFWS in 1996. Midway Atoll NWR includes 1,549 acres of emergent land
and 296,820 acres of submerged lands. A significant portion of the
refuge submerged lands are within the 0 to 3 mile state jurisdiction.
For the most part, the USFWS has not had fishery management expertise
or activity in the NWHI. A limited catch and release recreational
fishery has been allowed in the Midway Atoll NWR since tourism
activities began there. Until recently, USFWS also had very limited
coral reef activities in the refuges, but has recently added a coral
reef expert to its Hawaii staff and advertised several additional
positions.
Under the Endangered Species Act, NMFS has responsibility in the
NWHI for the protection of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal and
threatened and endangered sea turtles when they are in the water as
well as other marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Commercial and recreational fisheries are currently managed under three
Fishery Management Plans (FMPs): the Crustacean and Lobster,
Bottomfish, and Precious Coral. NMFS, through its Honolulu Laboratory,
has been the main scientific presence doing coral reef and fisheries
research in the NWHI since the formation of NOAA in the 1970s.
While NOAA exercises fisheries management jurisdiction over
managing living marine resources in the three to two hundred mile U.S.
exclusive economic zone, NMFS and USFWS have collaborated
constructively on a number of non-management related activities in the
NWHI. A recent example is the NWHI debris clean-up which was led by
NMFS but included significant collaboration by the State of Hawaii,
Coast Guard, USFWS, and the Center for Marine Conservation and National
Ocean Services (Hawaii Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary). NMFS,
USFWS and other partners have proposed new joint monitoring activities
on reefs in the NWHI in fiscal year 2001. NMFS values this
collaborative relationship.
The Marine Mammal Commission, the Monk Seal Recovery Team, and the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources have identified a number of issues
related to existing and planned fisheries that should be addressed to
enhance the recovery of the endangered monk seal and ensure the
continued protection of the NWHI outstanding coral reef resources.
These include additional no-take reserve areas where fisheries are
excluded. NMFS believes that the necessary actions could be taken by
the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council under existing authority
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BACKLOG
Question. I am very concerned about the National Marine Fisheries
Service's (NMFS) backlog of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). In
some cases, the NMFS's failure to complete EIS's in a timely manner has
led to court ordered closures of fishing areas, causing great economic
hardship on domestic fishermen.
What is the Department doing to ensure that the most critical of
these EIS's are completed? What additional resources are needed to
assist you with these efforts?
Answer. Through NMFS, the Department of Commerce is working to
complete or revise a number of Environmental Impact Studies, including
some for Northeast scallops, west coast salmon fisheries, Alaskan
groundfish, and in the western Pacific, along with Environmental Impact
Studies for pelagic fish, bottom fish, crustacean fisheries, and coral
reef ecosystems. The fiscal year 2001 request continues our current
level of effort for these activities.
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO FISHERMEN
Question. What options are available to provide economic assistance
to fishermen who are economically harmed by the closures resulting from
NMFS's inability to complete EIS's in a timely manner?
Answer. Under programs administered by such Federal agencies as the
Economic Development Administration, Small Business Administration, the
Department of Labor, impacted fishermen or communities may qualify for
various types of economic assistance. NMFS currently does not have
programs or funding to provide direct economic assistance to fishermen
for losses from a fishery closure due to an incomplete or insufficient
Environmental Impact Study.
SHARK FINNING
Question. Similarly, I would like to know what options may be
available to assist fishermen who are economically harmed by the
Commerce Department's policies which lead to area closures or the
prohibition of certain fishing practices, such as shark finning.
Answer. As in the response to the previous question, there are
Federal programs within the Economic Development Administration, Small
Business Administration, Department of Labor, etc. that could assist
fishermen and affected communities as a result of necessary
prohibitions on certain types of fishing through loans, job retraining,
community planning, or other forms of direct assistance. In addition,
the fiscal year 2001 request includes a new $10 million Fisheries
Assistance Fund within NOAA that is available to communities around the
Nation. The funds would support buyouts and cooperative research and
management.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
EFFECT OF E-COMMERCE INITIATIVE ON SMALL BUSINESS
Question. Secretary Daley, I understand that you have created a
package of new initiatives which are designed to accelerate the e-
commerce revolution for our small business owners. Could you elaborate
on how this initiative will improve the efforts of America's small
business owners to compete in the e-commerce driven economy? Since this
initiative covers various bureaus within the Department of Commerce,
each bureau that is affected follows:
Census
Answer. The e-commerce market is estimated to be worth more than
$300 billion annually. During calendar 2000 the Census Bureau will
publish quarterly estimates of retail sales occurring over the
Internet. Although there are many large nationwide retailing companies
in the United States, it is still a fact that most retailers are small
businesses. The Census Bureau data will give small retailers a reliable
indication of the magnitude of Internet selling, thereby helping them
determine whether they might enter into retailing over the Internet.
During calendar 2000, the Census Bureau will also collect data on
Internet activities through its annual surveys of retailing,
wholesaling, manufacturing, food and accommodations, and the services
sector. Results of these surveys will be released in early 2001. While
much of the attention to e-commerce has focused on business to consumer
activity, it is widely recognized that the largest share of e-commerce
will occur in business to business activity. The Census Bureau data
will give small businesses benchmark measures of a broad range of e-
commerce activities. This information should help small businesses
contemplating entering e-commerce craft strategies about how to operate
in the Internet world.
Census Bureau plans include a $8.5 million initiative to fund a
comprehensive electronic business measurement program. This new program
will keep Census economic statistics accurate and relevant, demonstrate
to the business community and policymakers that our programs are
responding to fundamental changes in our economy, improve the quality
of BEA's National Income and Product Accounts, reduce business
reporting burden by 5 percent in fiscal year 2002 and 10 percent in
fiscal year 2003, and cut Economic Census data collection and
processing costs by $4 million in fiscal year 2003.
Bureau of Economic Affairs
Funding for the e-commerce initiative will enable Bureau of
Economic Affairs (BEA) to improve and update its GDP and other economic
accounts and to provide a more accurate and comprehensive picture of
economic activity, including e-commerce. BEA's national, regional, and
international accounts provide business people, as well as governments
and households, with the essential economic information they need to
make informed decisions. Our initiative will allow us to better monitor
and understand the impacts of e-commerce on small businesses, thereby,
providing government officials with the information they need to make
better policy decisions concerning small businesses.
Minority Business Development Agency
First, the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) is
demonstrating leadership to the minority business community by using e-
business practices in its internal and external operations. Because
MBDA has Internet and extranet capabilities, the Agency is able to
provide both MBDA staff and the minority business community information
resources to function more effectively. In addition, an advanced
information technology infrastructure of hardware and software supports
electronic communications and transactions among staff, field offices,
grantee organizations and the public.
MBDA also is using information technology as the primary mechanism
for creating and distributing services to minority businesses. An e-
commerce course has been developed for minority executives. Desktop
software is available in selected business development centers to
provide sophisticated market research.
E-commerce tools that are being made available to support MBDA's e-
business practices are:
--The Phoenix-Opportunity databases which provide electronic matching
of minority businesses with market opportunities;
--The Virtual Business Centers which are online one-stop information
sources for growth industries in aquaculture, international
trade, franchising and manufacturing technology;
--The Resource Locator which uses geographic information systems
technology to quickly find business development organizations
in a local area; and
--The Emerging Minority Marketplace, which is a series of reports,
maps and research tools about the fast growing minority
population as a lucrative market for minority firms.
Patent and Trademark Office
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) supports improvements in our
e-commerce economy, including efforts of America's small business
owners, by offering free access to patent and trademark information via
the PTO web site. PTO currently offers more than two terabytes of
science and technology covering all patents issued since 1976 and more
than 100 years of marketing creativity covering all pending,
registered, abandoned, canceled, and expired trademarks via its web
site. In fiscal year 2001, we will begin expanding web site offerings
to ultimately provide additional U.S. patent text and image data from
1790 to 1975. One of the primary benefits of this proposal is that the
public will have access to the same data base content as patent
examiners, thereby, giving individuals the opportunity to search for
patent and trademark information themselves. This brings access to
patent and trademark information closer to citizens and businesses who
need such information to make important business and investment
decisions to successfully compete in the global economy.
International Trade Administration
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget for International Trade
Administration (ITA) includes an Increasing Manufacturers Exports
Through E-Exporting increase request totaling 12 FTE and $10,000,000.
ITA's Trade Development (TD) and U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service
(US&FCS) units will work together to carry out the programs included in
this initiative.
TD's portion of this increase will fund an outreach effort to
Small- and Medium-Size Exporters (SMEs) to create an awareness of the
opportunities e-commerce presents and to assist them to establish a
web-based presence in the international marketplace. This increase will
also underwrite e-commerce public/private partnerships under the
umbrella of our highly successful Market Development Cooperator
Program. Thirdly, this increase will fund the development and
maintenance of a web site which will include a comprehensive database
of import taxes, tariffs and other regulatory data to help U.S.
manufacturers determine product pricing, anticipate and comply with
foreign market entry requirements and expedite international business
transactions.
This increase request builds upon pilot work that has been
undertaken within base resources. Currently, to assist SMEs to take
advantage of e-commerce, TD is working with one of our Market
Development Cooperator Program grantees, the Software and Information
Industry Association, to plan domestic and international e-commerce
outreach efforts. These joint activities will take the form of seminars
directed at SMEs that will foster business-to-business exports using e-
commerce. Internationally, we plan to conduct a series of trade
missions to selected markets, with e-commerce suppliers as the
participants. These missions will be coordinated with US&FCS staff at
the respective posts.
TD is in the process of developing new market intelligence reports,
including Internet use and e-commerce applications, that will review
information technology markets in countries in Europe, Latin America,
Asia and Southern Africa. These reports will cover key conditions
affecting the uptake of e-commerce in overseas markets and identify the
best e-commerce export markets for U.S. firms, particularly SMEs. The
reports will cover issues such as national cyber laws and regulatory
regimes, and highlight potential barriers to electronic commerce, such
as network pricing and bandwidth issues.
In order to help SMEs export to countries where English is not a
native language, we are working through a contractor to host a
multilingual web site that will have company and product profiles of
several domestic software and telecom SMEs covered. The first languages
will be English, German and Spanish. The site will allow foreign
business visitors to register and then contact the companies through
specially designated officials at the respective U.S. SMEs. This
structure will also allow performance measures to be captured.
ITA is also actively working on a wide range of policy issues aimed
at ensuring that unnecessary regulatory requirements do not stifle the
growth of e-commerce. This includes active efforts in multilateral fora
such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Asian-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (OPEC), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and on
a bilateral basis. This policy work will benefit all U.S. firms,
especially SMEs.
The US&FCS budget requests will enable ITA and its units to address
challenges facing prospective SME manufacturer exporters. The advent of
global connectivity and e-commerce have created a new globalized
business environment in which any company with an Internet presence is
a potential exporter. The objectives of these projects are to reach out
to smaller and less-experienced businesses, create an awareness of the
export assistance resources available, and assist those firms that have
an interest in exporting but require additional business
sophistication. These projects use a mix of traditional and web-based
outreach strategies to reach new clients and provide them with the
information and international context they require, as well as basic
``starter'' approaches to help them proceed internationally.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Research indicates that small businesses have not strategically
embraced e-commerce. Over 50 percent of all supply-chain participants
are small businesses, making it extremely important to trading partners
that small firms be capable of using e-commerce technology. Many
experts predict that companies will likely fail if they do not
strategically transform their business processes to include e-commerce.
In addition, a 1999 survey by the National Association of Manufacturers
(NAM) revealed that although 80 percent of smaller manufacturers have a
web site, 75 percent do not use the Internet for any direct sales. It
also noted that over 50 percent of smaller manufacturers use the
Internet less than 5 hours a week. This funding initiative will assist
small manufacturers adopt e-business by doing the following:
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) will develop and
implement an outreach and adoption program. The MEP outreach program
will focus on business-to-business e-commerce--the largest and fastest
growing sector of e-commerce, expected to surpass $3 trillion annually
by 2003.
The principal focus of the outreach program is the addition of
approximately 200 information technology professionals to work at MEP
centers throughout America helping small businesses adopt e-business
practices. These e-commerce outreach field agents will help small
businesses learn about e-commerce opportunities and challenges, and
provide hands-on training and assistance, utilizing both internal and
external resources, in all aspects of e-commerce, from the basics of
Internet communications to designing e-commerce websites to integrating
complex information systems. The field agents will help small
businesses understand the broad range of commercial e-business
solutions provided by the private sector and make informed and
appropriate choices among different private sector solution providers.
The additional field agents will help the MEP centers provide a range
of services through individual consultations with companies and group
seminars and workshops.
To expand the reach and impact of the field agents, MEP will also
work with USDA's Extension Service and SBA on its e-commerce outreach
program. MEP will develop, produce, and distribute at least 600,000
copies of an e-commerce jump start kit to small businesses across the
Nation. The jump start kit will contain fundamental information to help
small businesses--many of them struggling with the fundamentals of
information technology and not even having Internet access--begin the
process of adopting e-business practices. The MEP centers, bolstered by
additional information technology field agents, will help the small
businesses make the next steps toward e-business success after the
companies have become familiar with e-commerce issues through the jump
start kits.
MEP will also begin work on a series of e-commerce adoption kits
providing more advanced information and e-business solutions. The
adoption kits will be focused by industry sector, addressing the
specific standards and interoperability issues within that sector for
increasing levels of business-to-business e-commerce adoption, creating
true supply chain integration.
The combination of jump start and adoption kits for initial broad
outreach with the hands-on help from the expanded MEP center staff
provides a powerful combination of nationwide coverage and focused
individual assistance.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
The NTIA increase of $2 million is proposed for enhancing the
environment of broadband (wireless and wire line) technology. NTIA's
Institute for Telecommunication Sciences will provide broadband
technology research and standards development to the successful
commercialization and widespread deployment of the Next Generation
Internet (NGI)--including the economical deployment of broadband
capabilities in rural and disadvantaged areas. While the deployment and
operation of the NGI will be a private sector responsibility, the U.S.
Government has a significant role in the development of the enabling
technologies and assuring universal access. As stewards of the Federal
spectrum allocation and experts in spectrum- and network-related
research, NTIA must provide the tools that support the information and
communication needs of our public education, safety and health
officials as well as facilitate opportunities for small businesses to
compete in the world economy. The Broadband for the Next Generation
Internet effort will focus on improving the quality and performance of
current services so that advanced Internet, voice, and video services
are available for all Americans.
In addition, NTIA's Technology Opportunities Program grants include
model projects of how communities are using such networks to build
economic strength and to improve their quality of life. These projects
provide the opportunities and know-how for small businesses to flourish
in the new economy.
DIGITAL DIVIDE
Question. The number of Americans who increasingly use the Internet
as an economic and information tool continues to increase. What steps
is the Commerce Department taking to narrow the ``digital divide''
between Americans who enjoy this new and powerful medium and those who
continue to be left out?
Answer. The Department of Commerce's Falling Through the Net
report, which has gained widespread attention, describes a gap that
separates those who have access to telecommunications--through
computers, the Internet, and other telecommunication services--and
those who do not. It found that those who are low-income, Black and
Hispanic, living in rural areas, and single-parent households are less
likely to have access to the information tools that are now essential
for finding a job, acquiring new skills, starting a small business, or
getting lower prices for goods and services.
The Commerce Department is committed to closing the digital divide.
The Administration's pro-competitive policies, as advocated in
Department of Commerce filings with the Federal Communications
Commission, have helped to spur private investment in the
infrastructure and new technologies and to reduce the price of
computers and the Internet.
The NTIA will produce the Falling Through the Net report on an
annual basis ($400,000), so that the digital divide can be monitored
over time. In addition, NTIA promotes ``universal access'' to the
Internet through its Technology Opportunities Program ($45 million) and
the Home Internet Access program ($50 million), which will assist under
served families connect to the Internet. In addition, NTIA will work
with U.S. industry and other public agencies to conduct research and
establish standards to support low-cost options for deployment of
broadband capabilities in rural and disadvantaged areas ($2 million).
The Economic Development Administration's program ($23 million) to
deploy broadband capabilities in distressed areas will provide public
works grants to build the infrastructure needed to access the Internet
in under served communities.
These programs combined with the myriad of private sector
initiatives are helping to close the digital divide.
CHINA--INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Question. China may soon ascend to the World Trade Organization and
Congress will have to decide whether to grant Permanent Normal Trade
Relations to China. Perhaps one of the most important issues affecting
American business will be the protection of American intellectual
property. What strategies are in place to protect our intellectual
property interests as we participate in the new markets of China and
other emerging economies?
Answer. We are already preparing for the monitoring and enforcement
effort required to ensure China and other trading partners abide by the
World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments in intellectual property
protection. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests Congress
to appropriate $22 million for new compliance and enforcement resources
at the Commerce Department, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
Department of Agriculture and other branches of government with
enforcement responsibilities. China WTO compliance will be a prominent
feature of this enhanced monitoring and enforcement effort.
At the Commerce Department, we plan to triple Commerce's China
office in size and to increase our Trade Compliance Center's resources
as well. We plan to assign compliance staff to be posted in China, both
to work with U.S. businesses and with the Chinese government. We plan
an extensive monitoring effort of China's WTO accession protocol. For
example, we plan to designate specific individuals in Washington and at
our embassy in Beijing responsible for specific parts of the
agreement--someone will be responsible for monitoring the intellectual
property aspects of the agreement. We will work closely with United
States Trade Representative (USTR) and the interagency process, to
enhance participation in WTO committees in Geneva overseeing WTO
implementation to ensure that when our monitoring effort finds
problems, these problems can be acted upon immediately, including
initiating WTO consultations or WTO dispute settlement as necessary.
All these plans are contingent upon Congressional approval of this part
of the President's budget request.
We will involve U.S. exporters, large and small, in our monitoring
efforts through trade associations, District Export Councils, our
Commerce Department and SBA offices around the country, the U.S.-China
Business Council, the American Chambers of Commerce in China, labor
organizations, and other non-governmental organizations. We will have a
China compliance hotline on the web. This endeavor is intended to
identify and resolve every possible compliance violation.
We will continue to use the full range of U.S. trade laws,
including Special 301, to ensure that U.S. technology-based and
creative industries are guaranteed adequate and effective intellectual
property rights protection, and fair and equitable market access,
worldwide. Under Special 301, the Executive Branch must identify
annually those countries that deny adequate and effective protection
for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market
access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection.
Countries that have the most onerous or egregious act, policies or
practices and those that have the greatest adverse impact (actual or
potential) must be designated as Priority Foreign Countries. This
year's annual review process is currently underway.
In the past, China was identified as a Priority Foreign Country
under Special 301, resulting in several Section 301 investigations.
Section 301 has also been an effective tool to address unfair Chinese
practices affecting U.S. exports of products that rely on intellectual
property protection. Before our Intellectual Property Agreements in
1992 and 1995 and the enforcement action in 1996, China was one of the
world's largest producers and exporters of pirated products. Today,
China has improved its legal framework, and has substantially
eliminated the illegal production and export of pirated music and video
CDs and CD-ROMS. China's active enforcement efforts continue with a
renewed campaign initiated last fall.
China has committed to implement the Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) immediately upon its
accession to the WTO, without a transition period. TRIPS requires that
a country make available enforcement measures and sanctions adequate to
deter further infringing activity, thus, increasing our leverage for
intellectual property rights enforcement.
The United States will strengthen its enforcement capabilities
through the multilateral nature of the WTO. The WTO will apply a
multilateral review mechanism to monitor the implementation of all of
China's commitments, including intellectual property protection. In
previous disputes over Chinese compliance with agreements, notably
those over intellectual property protection, the United States had to
act alone. With China in the WTO, we will be able to work with 134
other members, many of whom will be concerned about the same issues we
raise and all of whom will have the legal right to challenge China's
implementation practices and seek redress.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
DIGITAL DIVIDE
Question. The Commerce Department did an excellent job in showing
that a digital divide exists in America. Your report ``Falling Through
the Net'' showed that the digital divide is still widening--especially
for those communities that are currently isolated or falling behind.
For example, your report showed that 46 percent of white households own
computers--only 25 percent of Hispanic household's own computers. What
is the role of the Department of Commerce in ensuring that no American
is left out or left behind in the new technologically based economy?
Answer. The Commerce Department is committed to closing the digital
divide. The Administration's pro-competitive policies, as advocated in
Department of Commerce filings with the Federal Communications
Commission, have helped to spur private investment in the
infrastructure and new technologies and to reduce the price of
computers and the Internet.
The NTIA will produce the Falling Through the Net report on an
annual basis ($400,000), so that the digital divide can be monitored
over time. In addition, NTIA promotes ``universal access'' to the
Internet through its Technology Opportunities Program ($45 million) and
the Home Internet Access program ($50 million), which will assist
underserved families connected to the Internet. In addition, NTIA will
work with U.S. industry and other public agencies to conduct research
and establish standards to support low-cost options for deployment of
broadband capabilities in rural and disadvantaged areas ($2 million).
The Economic Development Administration's program ($23 million) to
deploy broadband capabilities in distressed areas will provide public
works grants to build the infrastructure needed to access the Internet
in under served communities.
These programs combined with the myriad of private sector
initiatives are helping to close the digital divide.
Question. What are your priorities in the budget to achieve this
goal?
Answer. The Department of Commerce's priorities to achieve the goal
of closing the digital divide include: $50 million for a public/private
partnership grant program at the Department of Commerce to expand home
access to computers and the Internet for low-income families; $45
million to triple the Department of Commerce's highly successful
Technology Opportunity Program which promotes innovative applications
of information and communications technology for under served
communities; $23 million through programs at the Department of
Commerce's Economic Development Administration to accelerate private
sector deployment of broadband networks in underserved urban and rural
communities; $2 million at NTIA to conduct research and establish
standards to support low-cost options for deployment of broadband
capabilities in rural and disadvantaged areas; and $400,000 for NTIA to
produce the Falling Through the Net survey annually to track the
digital divide.
CENSUS
Question. The 1990 census counted only 98.4 percent of the
population--this was the first year since 1940 in which coverage did
not improve. The undercounting of the minority population was the
largest ever. Those who are undercounted include: people with language
difficulties; neighborhoods who don't trust outsiders or the
confidentiality of the census; people who work more than one job and
are rarely home; and non-traditional housing arrangements (extended
families, roommates, borders, etc.). What are you doing to ensure that
the census reaches those populations that have been undercounted in the
past?
Answer. In fact, the problems in 1990 were even more serious. The
1990 Census missed about three percent of residents and double counted
or otherwise miscounted almost 1.5 percent for a net undercount of 1.6
percent. From the beginning of the planning process for Census 2000,
the Census Bureau has focused on the vital importance of partnerships
with state, local, and tribal governments, along with the crucial
partnerships we are able to form at the community and neighborhood
level. For Census 2000, we have designed the most robust partnership
program in census history in order to reach out to those populations
that are often undercounted. The Bureau has now almost 100,000
partnerships in place including, for example, a group of school
children in Georgia that have raised their own money to promote the
census by renting a billboard.
Because language is perhaps the most challenging barrier for a
significant number of those in historically undercounted populations,
Census 2000, questionnaires are printed in five languages in addition
to English, is the most multi-lingual census in history. We also offer
multi-lingual assistance for these five languages over the phone via a
toll free number, for those people who need it. Foreign language guides
are also available for 49 languages, and questionnaire assistance
centers will be located in areas where we expect language to be a
barrier to enumeration. Assistance is also available as part of the
Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) program--an easily accessible,
customer-friendly service that we believe will be an effective part of
our strategy to address the undercount issue in these populations. When
we first launched the TQA program it proved to be in higher demand than
the Bureau had anticipated, and we did have difficulty managing the
volume of calls. This initial difficulty has been overcome.
In addition to unparalleled efforts in the partnership programs, we
are instituting the first-ever paid advertising campaign for Census
2000. This effort, designed in partnership with the advertising firm
Young and Rubicam and its partners, includes a national media campaign
with prime-time television (both broadcast and cable), radio and print
media, and outdoor advertising. Through its partners, Young and Rubicam
has also designed an advertising effort specifically targeted to
historically undercounted populations on the national, regional, and
local level. The local effort uses community news outlets, posters,
flyers, and mass transit advertising. Further, Census 2000 has designed
an early educational message targeted to hard-to-enumerate populations
and a second national campaign designed to increase public awareness of
the non-response follow-up operation.
SUITLAND FACILITIES
Question. I would like to discuss the condition of the Census and
NOAA facilities at the Suitland Federal Center in Maryland. The current
condition of these building poses serious health and safety risks for
thousands of federal employees. They are ridden with asbestos and there
are high levels of lead in the water so that employees have to use
bottled water for drinking and don't know if its safe for them to wash
their hands.
In addition, these buildings are over 60 years old and have
received little maintenance during the past several years. Roof leaks
and floods from old pipes are not an uncommon occurrence, and ceiling
tiles, possibly contaminated with asbestos fall down on employees
desks.
As you know, the Census Bureau employs over 4,000 employees at the
Suitland facilities and is the sixth largest employer in Prince Georges
County. The Bureau is extremely disadvantaged by having to carry out
its work in substandard, unhealthy conditions. Likewise, NOAA's
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
(NESDIS) and its Satellite Operations Control Center, cannot complete
their mission within these buildings.
In fiscal year 2000, there was $3 million for NOAA to plan and
design a new facility and report language to direct Census to come up
with a long-range plan for its facilities. NOAA's budget for fiscal
year 2001 includes an advance appropriation for $15 million for fiscal
year 2002 when NOAA will be able to begin construction on the new
facility. Census' budget for fiscal year 2001 includes $3.3 million to
plan and design the rehabilitation of their facilities. Both NOAA and
Census have responded separately.
SUITLAND FACILITIES--CENSUS
Question. Do you agree that the current condition of the Census and
NOAA facilities at the Suitland Center endanger the health and safety
of the federal employees who work there?
Answer. Current conditions at the Federal Center in Suitland,
Maryland have deteriorated to the point that constant monitoring is
required to be sure that employee safety and health are not endangered.
For example:
--Remedial action by GSA has failed to correct the contaminated water
sources thus, bottled water is being and will continue to be
provided for building occupants. Problems with the water are
expected to persist until the entire system is replaced.
--Census is engaging an independent environmental firm to conduct
periodic air sampling in problem areas throughout the buildings
where antiquated ventilation systems do not provide adequate
air circulation resulting in numerous complaints of respiratory
problems. Also, microbial problems have been identified in a
number of areas as a result of leaking or improperly
functioning heating/cooling equipment.
--Ineffective heating and cooling systems have caused extreme
temperatures in numerous locations resulting in employee health
issues. The extreme temperatures divert employee attention from
assigned work resulting in lost productivity. Power outages
often result when electric space heaters are used to provide
relief to areas where the heating system is inadequate.
--The periodic rupture of water and steam pipes has caused
considerable flooding resulting in temporary relocation of
employees. The repair and cleaning of affected areas results in
further disruption of work and lost productivity.
--A recent sewage pipe leak in one of the buildings could have caused
serious health affects from methane gas and/or bacteria from
waste, and pigeon infestation has been reported in a number of
locations within the buildings.
--The facilities have been subject to repeated flooding during
rainstorms because of leaking roofs and poorly drained building
expansion joints. The numerous attempts to patch the roof have
been unsuccessful and problems will continue until the facility
is fully renovated and the roof replaced, not patched.
SUITLAND FACILITIES NOAA
Yes, we agree the space NOAA occupies at the Suitland Federal
Center, Federal Building No. 4 (FB) poses a significant health and
safety concern for all Federal employees who work there. The space has
significant asbestos problems. In addition to the asbestos concerns,
water-testing results confirmed the presence of a harmful substance in
the water (coliforms), thereby, warranting the use of bottled water for
human consumption. Due to the age of the facility, numerous roof leaks
and other building system failures constitute threats to NOAA's
critical infrastructure activities housed in the building. DOC, NOAA
and GSA are diligently working to assure safe utilization of the
building until the replacement building is complete.
SUITLAND FACILITIES--CENSUS
Question. Do you agree that the replacement or rehabilitation of
these buildings should therefore be a top priority for the Department
of Commerce?
Answer. Yes. GSA publicly stated that remedial action to correct
contaminated water sources has failed and that bottled water will
remain in the buildings until such time as a new facility/water system
is provided.
PCBs recently were detected in machinery, just four months after a
GSA survey indicated that the buildings had no equipment containing
PCBs.
While these situations are being addressed and pose no immediate
hazard, they contribute to an overall sense of unease with the work
environment which is shared by managers and employees.
In addition, the necessary removal of asbestos in one of our major
buildings has disrupted workplaces, and contributed to low morale. And
the Asbestos Management Plan implemented by GSA to prevent further
asbestos contamination has seriously impeded our mission by hampering
our ability to access telecommunications wiring, install new equipment,
and to troubleshoot.
SUITLAND FACILITIES--NOAA
Yes, we agree that the replacement or rehabilitation of these
buildings should be a top priority for the Department of Commerce. In
fact, both NOAA and GSA have designated this new NOAA building as a
high priority with a target completion date of fiscal year 2004. In
addition to the obvious health and safety concerns, the operational
requirements for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service (NESDIS) are not being met. This facility is an
impediment to all employees working for NESDIS and its Satellite
Operations Control Center, making it difficult for them to complete
their mission. The GSA has determined that the construction of the new
satellite operations facility is #3 on their priority list.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Last year, when the Department of Commerce first proposed
closing the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), initial cost
estimates ranged from $1.35 million to $9.1 million. Now, the
Administration has requested $4 million in the supplemental for fiscal
year 2000. Can you provide the Committee with an explanation of how you
calculated this final figure? Will there be any additional funds
required to complete the closure?
Answer. The Administration has requested a $4.5 million
supplemental transfer from NIST to NTIS. This figure represents the
estimated cost of closing NTIS and transferring the collection of
scientific and technical information to the Library of Congress,
assuming the Department is allowed to begin the closure and transfer
process in midyear. The later in the fiscal year that Congressional
approval is given, the less time the Department has for placement of
employees while minimizing reductions-in-force. Timely action is needed
by Congress for the closure and transfer to be accomplished for $4.5
million and be effective by October 1, 2000.
Question. In the past, I voiced my concerns that the World News
Connection paid subscription database service provided by NTIS competed
directly with on-line subscription products produced by private
companies. I oppose subsidizing a government service which competes
directly with services provided by the private sector. However, NTIS
also provides the Federal government with the unique service of acting
as a clearinghouse for scientific, technical, and other business-
related materials. How do you intend to ensure that this important
function of NTIS is preserved?
Answer. The Department's proposal will transfer the NTIS collection
and bibliographic database to the Library of Congress. In addition, the
plan will ensure that Federal government agencies provide the Library
with electronic copies of future documents as well as maintain such
information on their own web sites for at least three years. The
Library will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the
collection and bibliographic databases. In addition, the centralized
Federal Depository Library System would be continued and actually
strengthened under our plan by creating incentives for the chief
information officers of each executive agency that produces materials
for the scientific, technical, and engineering (STE) collections to
notify the archivist and superintendent of documents of the
availability of these products. The chief information officer would
have to report to Congress on their agency's compliance with these
requirements.
Question. I understand that, in the absence of NTIS, Commerce will
direct each Federal agency to post its own documents on the web for a
period of at least three years. Many Federal agencies are already
posting these documents. Do you have an assessment of which federal
agencies are equipped to handle the posting of documents on its own web
site? How do you intend to ensure that the agencies comply with this
directive? How did you arrive at the time of only three years and how
will individuals locate documents that have been removed after three
years?
Answer. The Department has not conducted an assessment of which
Federal agencies are equipped to handle the posting of documents on its
own web site. Under our proposal, each agency that produces STE
information must supply that information in a timely manner to the
Library of Congress for permanent access, and, to the extent possible,
must provide that information through a compatible electronic format.
In addition, each agency will make its STE information available to the
public for at least three years through online dissemination. The
agencies' compliance with this directive will be ensured by requiring
that each chief information officer of each executive agency that
produces materials for the STE collection report annually to Congress
on his/her agency's compliance. The Library will be responsible for the
maintenance and upkeep of the collection and, thus, would be the source
of documents that have been removed from the web site.
E-COMMERCE REVOLUTION
Question. I am pleased to see that the President's budget request
includes a $175 million initiative to accelerate the e-commerce
revolution. It is my understanding that part of this initiative will be
directed towards helping small manufacturers become e-commerce ready.
Please provide me with details on how this funding will benefit small
manufacturers. The three bureaus that are affected have responded as
follows:
NIST
Answer. Research indicates that small businesses have not
strategically embraced e-commerce. Over 50 percent of all supply-chain
participants are small businesses, making it extremely important to
trading partners that small firms be capable of using e-commerce
technology. Many experts predict that companies will likely fail if
they do not strategically transform their business processes to include
e-commerce. A 1999 survey by the National Association of Manufacturers
(NAM) revealed that although 80 percent of smaller manufacturers have a
web site, 75 percent do not use the Internet for any direct sales. It
also noted that over 50 percent of smaller manufacturers use the
Internet less than 5 hours a week. This funding initiative will assist
small manufacturers adopt e-business by doing the following:
--Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) will develop and
implement an outreach and adoption program. The MEP outreach
program will focus on business-to-business e-commerce--the
largest and fastest growing sector of e-commerce, expected to
surpass $3 trillion annually by 2003.
--The principal focus of the outreach program is the addition of
approximately 200 information technology professionals to work
at MEP centers throughout America helping small businesses
adopt e-business practices. These e-commerce outreach field
agents will help small businesses learn about e-commerce
opportunities and challenges, and provide hands-on training and
assistance, utilizing both internal and external resources, in
all aspects of e-commerce, from the basics of Internet
communications to designing e-commerce websites to integrating
complex information systems. The field agents will help small
businesses understand the broad range of commercial e-business
solutions provided by the private sector and make informed and
appropriate choices among different private sector solution
providers. The additional field agents will help the MEP
centers provide a range of services through individual
consultations with companies and group seminars and workshops.
--To expand the reach and impact of the field agents, MEP will also
work with USDA's Extension Service and the Small Business
Administration on their e-commerce outreach programs. MEP will
develop, produce, and distribute at least 600,000 copies of an
e-commerce jump start kit to small businesses across the
Nation. The jump start kit will contain fundamental information
to help small businesses--many of them struggling with the
fundamentals of information technology and not even having
Internet access--begin the process of adopting e-business
practices. The MEP centers, bolstered by additional information
technology field agents, will help the small businesses make
the next steps toward e-business success after the companies
have become familiar with e-commerce issues through the jump
start kits.
--MEP will also begin work on a series of e-commerce adoption kits
providing more advanced information and e-business solutions.
The adoption kits will be focused by industry sector,
addressing the specific standards and interoperability issues
within that sector for increasing levels of business-to-
business e-commerce adoption, creating true supply chain
integration.
--The combination of jump start and adoption kits for initial broad
outreach with the hands-on help from the expanded MEP center
staff provides a powerful combination of nationwide coverage
and focused individual assistance.
Addendum: Examples of NIST information security standards,
measurements, and best practices
Recent Work and Ongoing Programs--Key Examples
Security ``Best Practice'' guidance identification, development,
and dissemination:
--Provide guidance to other agencies on how to protect their systems
against hackers
--Publish guidance documents that aid industry and government in
securing their computers
--Identifying trends in the discovery of vulnerabilities in order to
guide industry in the prevention of the most common types of
flaws
--Creation of a database of threats to public computer systems that
points to appropriate countermeasures
--Web site that provides industry and government with computer
security information on a broad variety of subjects
Research and Development Activities--Key Examples
NIST has underway R&D activities designed to enhance the security
of the Internet and the national information infrastructure in the
following areas:
--System and network architectures that resist denial of service and
other forms of attack
--Automated testing of systems and network elements for security
flaws
--Secure protocols and automated testing methods for both the current
and the Next Generation Internet (IPSec)
--The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
--Standardization of interfaces to efficient and secure encryption
algorithms to protect e-commerce and government transactions
--Securing electronic commerce activities through Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI) and PKI-Enabled Applications
--More efficient and effective methods by which to evaluate the
security of commercial products against known and emerging
threats
--Mobile agent systems to ensure secure use in e-commerce
applications
--Advanced access control architectures to allow efficient and
effective control of organizational resources
--Use of smartcards to enable higher security in e-commerce
applications
--Healthcare Security Project
--NIAP Security Specification Tool Project
--NIAP Telecommunications Security Project
Infrastructure Development and Protection
These activities are helping establish the security services needed
within the broader national information infrastructure (including the
Internet) to combat hacking and other misuse.
--Government PKI Pilots
--Validation of commercial cryptographic modules against the NIST
Federal standard (over 100 products validated)
--Work with industry and government to promote the development of a
private sector IT security testing program within the United
States
--FedCIRC--Development and piloting the concept and operational
requirements for a government-wide computer incident response
capability now operational under GSA
--Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Program
MBDA
MBDA's request is to expand the Phoenix Database. The Phoenix and
Opportunity Databases electronically match minority business
capabilities with contract and other opportunities. The Phoenix
Database consists of minority-owned firms that register their
capabilities online through the MBDA website. The Opportunity Database
permits any individual or institution including small manufacturing
centers to register procurements or other business opportunities
online. The system will automatically match firms with opportunities
and provide follow-up tracking. The databases became operational in
fiscal year 1998 and are now populated with more than 40,000 firms. For
the short history of the system, the results have been positive.
State and local governments have many available opportunities to
enrich the business community. MBDA is seeking the participation of
these governments to increase the database population of registered
opportunities and vendors. By recruiting state and local governments to
participate, the accompanying databases containing minority vendors
will result in the expansion of the Phoenix database by 250,000 names.
MBDA's in-house computer program is designed to permit data entry
personnel in MBDA's five regional offices to call and confirm
information from these businesses and update the records with
electronic mail addresses.
Limited resources and the physical absence of MBDA in many parts of
the country have necessitated a system to make accessible business
information to the national minority business community.
International Trade Administration
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget for ITA includes an
Increasing Manufacturers Exports Through E-Exporting increase request
totaling 12 FTE and $10,000,000. ITA's Trade Development (TD) and U.S.
and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS) units will work together to
carry out the programs included in this initiative.
The US&FCS is ITA's first line of outreach to SMEs and provides
assistance to SMEs through its network of domestic and foreign offices.
Through the 2001 budget requests, the US&FCS is intending to both
broaden its outreach and enhance its assistance to SMEs primarily
through e-commerce initiatives. The US&FCS works with all SMEs and
helps them determine if and where export opportunities exist for their
products and/or services.
--E-commerce is the foundation of the US&FCS request because it is a
genuinely new and transforming method of service delivery that
responds directly to the many historical and structural reasons
SME manufacturers do not aggressively pursue international
markets. These reasons include: geographic distance, travel
costs, additional time and cost perceived for international
transactions, difficulty in identifying and evaluating overseas
business partners, perceived risk, habitual focus on the local
U.S. market, and cultural barriers and differences.
--E-commerce, is an ideal medium in which to expand services to small
and medium-sized businesses and increase exports. E-commerce
provides the needed support to the US&FCS's unique global
network capacity with an information technology system that
provides an expansive and effective client management database,
office automation support, and a worldwide electronic mail
network that links all field offices and headquarters. The
US&FCS website is now being upgraded to include on-line
ordering and delivery of products and services, automated
market research and trade lead distribution and easier access
to counseling and assistance. E-Commerce type products include:
--a virtual trade show, E-Expo, which already has nearly 700
clients and has received 90,000 hits on the Internet from
around the world since its launch in September 1999;
--a push technology project to push key market information to 200
SMEs that first provide a customize interest profile of
markets and sectors they wish to penetrate overseas;
--Video Gold Keys which allow companies in different countries to
communicate on desktop computers. Video Gold Keys offer a
low cost, low risk opportunity to meet trade partners
overseas, a particularly critical concern for small
companies;
--Webcast programs, which are broadcast over the Internet and are
designed to target the information needs of U.S.
manufacturing exporters. Webcasts can be ``on-demand''
events--meaning that they are available 24 hours--7 days a
week for viewing by interested companies; and
--global satellite video-conferences such as Video Market Briefs
and E-Commerce Export Seminars.
--The US&FCS budget request will enable ITA and its units to address
challenges facing prospective SME manufacturer exporters. The
advent of global connectivity and e-commerce have created a new
globalized business environment in which any company with an
Internet presence is a potential exporter. The objectives of
these projects are to reach out to smaller and less-experienced
businesses, create an awareness of the export assistance
resources available, and assist those firms that have an
interest in exporting but require additional business
sophistication. These projects use a mix of traditional and
web-based outreach strategies to reach new clients and provide
them with the information and international context they
require, as well as basic ``starter'' approaches to help them
proceed internationally.
--The US&FCS will host, with assistance from our partners and other
units within ITA, a series of conferences to promote export
assistance programs and services, disseminate information on
how e-commerce is affecting exporting and making it easier for
the small manufacturer to communicate knowledge of the benefits
of exporting (e.g., greater profits, job creation, increased
plant/resource utilization), and instill a global perspective
to SMEs.
Our Trade Development unit will fund an outreach effort to small-
and medium-size exporters (SMEs) to create an awareness of the
opportunities e-commerce presents and to assist them to establish a
web-based presence in the international marketplace. This increase will
also underwrite e-commerce public/private partnerships under the
umbrella of our highly successful Market Development Cooperator
Program. Thirdly, this increase will fund the development and
maintenance of a web site which will include a comprehensive database
of import taxes, tariffs and other regulatory data to help U.S.
manufacturers determine product pricing, anticipate and comply with
foreign market entry requirements and expedite international business
transactions.
TD is in the process of developing new market intelligence reports,
including Internet use and e-commerce applications, that will review
information technology markets in countries in Europe, Latin America,
Asia and Southern Africa. These reports will cover key conditions
affecting the uptake of e-commerce in overseas markets and identify the
best e-commerce export markets for U.S. firms, particularly SMEs. The
reports will cover issues such as national cyber laws and regulatory
regimes, and highlight potential barriers to electronic commerce, such
as network pricing and bandwidth issues.
In order to help SMEs export to countries where English is not a
native language, we are working through a contractor to host a
multilingual web site that will have company and product profiles of
several domestic software and telecom SMEs covered. The first languages
will be English, German and Spanish. The site will allow foreign
business visitors to register and then contact the companies through
specially designated officials at the respective U.S. SMEs. This
structure will also allow performance measures to be captured.
ITA is also actively working on a wide range of policy issues aimed
at ensuring that unnecessary regulatory requirements do not stifle the
growth of e-commerce. This includes active efforts in multilateral fora
such as the WTO, the OECD, APEC, the FTAA, and on a bilateral basis.
This policy work will benefit all U.S. firms, especially SMEs.
EDA INTERNET ACCESS
Question. As part of the $175 million initiative, the
Administration proposes to spend $23 million to deploy high speed,
broadband Internet access in distressed urban and rural communities.
How does the Department intend to distribute those funds among the
states and local areas? If there is a competitive grant process, what
will be the criteria? Does the Department have any plans to give senior
citizen communities priority consideration for funding?
Answer. EDA will implement the e-commerce initiative using its
existing Public Works and Economic Development Program authority. All
$23 million of the initiative funding will be allocated to EDA's
regional offices, for project invitation, selection and distribution,
using EDA's existing Public Works allocation formula. Additional
factors such as broadband Internet access availability in rural and
intercity areas and interest (or lack of interest) by private service
providers may also be considered in making this allocation.
Funding will be available to all entities eligible under EDA's
current economic distress criteria, based on unemployment, per capita
income, and other special need. Special emphasis, however, will be
placed on mitigating broadband Internet access gaps as characterized by
the ``digital divide.'' Proposals will have to arise out of a local
planning process, including processes developed for other Federal
programs.
EDA headquarters will set policy for the initiative and, as part of
its normal oversight of the regions, review projects selected to make
sure they are appropriate for the demonstration, but we do not
anticipate a headquarters role in the project selection process itself.
EDA has no plans to give senior citizens priority funding
consideration; funding prioritization will be based on existing program
criteria (i.e., levels of economic distress) regardless of other
demographic characteristics. EDA's programs, including the proposed e-
commerce initiative, are geared toward creating long-term economic
development opportunities and diversified local economies.
DIGITAL DIVIDE
Question. I understand that the Administration proposes to spend
$50 million on a Home Internet Access initiative for a new grants
program that would provide low-income individuals and families with
access to the Internet and training. Please provide me with details on
how the Department intends to implement this program.
Answer. The Administration has proposed a new $50 million
Department of Commerce pilot program to expand access to computers and
the Internet for low-income families, and to give these families the
skills they need to use these new Information Age tools effectively.
The goal of the Home Internet Access Program (HIAP) is to increase the
number of low-income families that have access to the Internet in their
homes.
NTIA will disburse Federal funds as competitive grants to
intermediate organizations--non-profit entities; state, local, and
tribal governments; and colleges and universities--to develop local
programs for providing home-based access to families in need. The
grants will require non-Federal matching funds.
This new program will build on the lessons of the highly successful
Technology Opportunities Program (TOP). In particular, the HIAP will be
designed around two of the hallmarks of the TOP program; locally-driven
solutions and public-private partnerships. NTIA's experience has shown
that the most creative, innovative, and effective solutions come not
from the Federal government, but from local communities. Therefore,
NTIA will challenge low-income communities--both rural and urban--to
devise solutions that best reflect their circumstances and best meet
their needs. NTIA's experience has also shown that strong partnerships
and broad community support are key ingredients in sustaining
information technology projects. The HIAP will encourage community-
based partnerships and partnerships among local organizations,
academia, and private industry. In order to demonstrate the local and
private sector commitments, NTIA will require applicants to provide
matching funds. In keeping with the formulas that have proven
successful in the Public Telecommunications Facilities (PTFP) and TOP
programs, applicants will be required to provide a 50 percent (1:1)
match, unless extraordinary circumstances warrant a Federal share of up
to 75 percent of the total project cost. In addition, NTIA is
considering requiring that significant portions of the matching funds
come from private businesses and co-payments from the individuals that
receive home Internet access.
The list of allowable uses for the awarded funds is still under
discussion. As a general guideline, costs must relate to the provision
of the hardware, software, telecommunications services, training, and
user support necessary to provide effective and efficient Internet
access to eligible households. NTIA will also allow grant recipients to
expend funds on project administration, evaluation, and reporting of
results.
NTIA will not provide direct subsidies to individuals. Because NTIA
will encourage communities to innovate and experiment, NTIA will not
rule out the possibility that a grant recipient would be allowed to
provide direct subsidies. In that event, NTIA would take the necessary
steps to ensure that subsidies were used for the purposes of
establishing and maintaining home Internet access.
Finally, NTIA will use the data from the Falling Through the Net
survey to target the program's resources and as an ongoing performance
measurement tool. The survey data will identify the communities and
populations most in need of assistance, initially and on an ongoing
basis.
SAFE HARBOR AGREEMENT ON PRIVACY
Question. Please provide me with details on the Administration's
progress in reaching an agreement with the European Union on privacy
and personal data sharing and the implications of this tentative accord
for America's businesses. Will this agreement apply to information
collected by Web sites? How will this agreement impact trade between
the United States and the EU?
Answer. The European Union (EU) Directive on data protection
prohibits transfers of personal data to third countries such as the
United States unless adequate privacy protection is provided. Because
we recognized that disruptions in personal data transfers could have
serious implications for commerce between the United States and Europe,
we started an informal dialogue with the European Commission two years
ago to try and bridge gaps between our different approaches to privacy
protection. Working with the Commission, we developed the concept of
the safe harbor, under which U.S. companies that wish to would be able
to decide voluntarily to participate in the safe harbor and do so by
self-certifying to the Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce and European Commission have
reached a tentative agreement on implementation of the proposed safe
harbor. The agreement bridges the differences between the EU and U.S.
approaches to privacy protection and ensures adequate privacy
protection for EU citizens' personal information.
We are still working with the European Commission to determine the
length of the implementation period and how to properly integrate U.S.
national privacy legislation into the safe harbor. The Department of
Commerce has requested an adequacy finding for the Gramm, Leach, Bliley
Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Department of Commerce is
also consulting officials within the U.S. Government. A meeting with
private sector and consumer groups to review the agreement was held on
Friday, March 3, 2000. The European Commission is presently consulting
with the Member States.
Application to Web Sites
With the safe harbor arrangements, the Department of Commerce is
providing guidance for companies that do business in Europe. U.S.
Internet companies that collect information from Europe may also rely
on this guidance. We have, however, explicitly left open the difficult
questions raised by the Internet of jurisdiction and applicable law.
Trade Impact between the U.S. and the EU
With the safe harbor accord we are providing industry on both sides
of the Atlantic with the certainty and predictability that is needed to
run their businesses. It eliminates the need for prior approval from
the appropriate EU Member State to begin data transfers, and is
expected to offer a simpler and lower-cost alternative to compliance
with the Directive, which should benefit small and medium enterprises
in particular. This accord will allow billions of dollars of trade to
continue unimpeded by our different approaches to privacy.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. Our next hearing is with the Department of
Justice on Tuesday at 10 a.m., in SD-192.
I thank you, Mr. Secretary for your time. Have a good day.
Secretary Daley. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, February 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
March 2.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Domenici, Hutchison, Campbell,
Hollings, Lautenberg, and Mikulski.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
STATEMENT OF JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Gregg. We will start. I know that Senator Hollings
is probably on his way. I am sure he is on his way, as are a
number of other members who are going to participate in this
hearing. But in order to move it along, so we do not take an
overabundance of the Attorney General's time, I think we will
begin.
Rather than having opening statements, we would like to
hear from the Attorney General.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO OPENING REMARKS
Attorney General Reno. What I would like to do is thank
you, both of you, and you too, Mr. Morhard. We have done an
awful lot in 7 years, Mr. Chairman. And it has been, as I said
2 weeks ago, an opportunity to work together, and I just
appreciate your leadership, your constructive opposition to
some of my ideas.
I just think we have an extraordinary chance in this
country, the next couple of years, and that is for once and for
all end the culture of violence in this country. We will never
eliminate it, but based on what we have done, I think if we
continue we can do that. And I pledge to you, wherever I am,
that I am going to be pursuing that effort.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Campbell, I just salute you for your leadership on
Indian issues, and I hope we can work together in this session
to make some real meaningful difference on the reservations and
in Indian country.
So why do you not ask me questions?
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET RENO
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure once
again to appear before you to present the President's budget request
for the Department of Justice.
This is likely my last appearance before this panel. These hearings
have been a model for the oversight process, and I want to take this
opportunity to thank you for the partnership you have forged with me,
the federal law enforcement community and our state, county, and local
counterparts. We have worked together to improve our Nation's justice
system and to address the very real crime problems that have plagued
our neighborhoods and communities.
Since 1993, funding for Department of Justice programs has grown by
92 percent, including a $3 billion increase for grants to state and
local criminal justice agencies. The overall increase in funding has
paid for additional federal agents and prosecutors, put cops on the
beat in our neighborhoods, expanded prison capacity, provided new
crime-solving tools, improved technology, funded innovative approaches
to fighting crime, worked to secure our Nation's borders, and helped to
train and equip first responders to address the threat of terrorism.
Your commitment to the Department and its programs has had an
impact. For the 7th consecutive year, our crime rate has fallen--for
every type of crime and in every region of the Nation. Our communities
are safer than they were 7 years ago. Yet, there is still much work to
be done and new challenges to confront. This morning I would like to
leave you with my thoughts about the direction we must take to prepare
for these new challenges.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request recognizes the need
for continued vigilance against crime. It includes $23.4 billion for
the Department--an increase of $1.8 billion above fiscal year 2000--to
combat gun violence, enhance community law enforcement, curb the cycle
of drugs and crime, battle cybercrime, respond to the threat of
terrorism, secure our borders, and fund new prisons.
COUNTERTERRORISM AND FOREIGN COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
Preventing terrorism and thwarting foreign espionage are among the
most serious challenges facing our Nation today. The Department of
Justice is the lead federal agency in the fight against terrorism. Your
Subcommittee has worked with us to provide the necessary tools to
address this threat and to ensure that the Department is able to carry
out this very important responsibility.
In fiscal year 2000, with your support, we established the National
Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO). You also provided significant
guidance in the development of a blueprint laying out NDPO's role as a
central coordinating office and information clearinghouse for federal
assistance programs to state and local communities with the goal of
integrating and streamlining government assistance. Our blueprint
represents a deliberate, conservative effort that people will
understand and support. You also helped us to establish the Office for
State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, within the Office of
Justice Programs, and to develop a process for equipping and training
state and local first responders to prepare them to handle a terrorist
incident.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request builds on the infrastructure
that is now in place in the Department to address terrorism and
includes a $119.6 million increase to fight terrorism and combat
hostile intelligence activities.
We are requesting an increase of $15 million for the
Counterterrorism Fund, established in response to the Oklahoma City
bombing, bringing the total 2001 request for the Fund to $25 million.
This funding is used to address unforeseen expenses incurred in
countering, investigating, or prosecuting terrorism; to finance reward
payments; and to restore the operational capacities of offices damaged
by terrorist acts.
Our fiscal year 2001 request includes funding for some of the most
important activities that the FBI will undertake in the future.
Included are increases of $35.3 million for the counterterrorism/
counterintelligence activities of the FBI. Specifically, we are asking
for $19.1 million and 138 positions to enhance the FBI's ability to
conduct national security investigations and thwart hostile
intelligence services operating in the United States; $3.1 million and
55 intelligence analysts to engage in strategic intelligence analyses;
$5 million to continue counterterrorism research and development
related to explosives detection and forensic science; $3.5 million for
Weapons of Mass Destruction preparedness activities, including $2.9
million for a chem/bio helpline and hotline; $2.9 million to support
state and local bomb technician training at the Hazardous Devices
School at Redstone Arsenal, AL; $1.1 million to plan and provide
security for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games to be held in Salt Lake
City; and $600,000 to provide additional contract guard services for 3
additional FBI field offices.
Identifying threats to our national security is a unique federal
responsibility, and one which the FBI must be equipped to meet. With
your help, I am hopeful that we can come out of this appropriations
process leaving the FBI well equipped to meet the challenges terrorism
presents.
Assuring that we are able to respond to threats of terrorism
whenever and wherever they occur must include providing the FBI with
adequate prosecutor expertise in the Criminal Division and the U.S.
Attorneys' offices. Balance is critically important in the criminal
justice system. The very best agent or investigator will find his
efforts thwarted if unable to request and receive specialized legal
support in times of crisis. I cannot stress too strongly how important
it is that increased resources for law enforcement agencies be
accompanied by resources for our important litigation responsibilities
as well. Without sufficient litigation support, the system will break
down.
The Department's counterterrorism request also includes $185
million for the Office of Justice Program's domestic preparedness
efforts, an increase of $33 million. I anticipate that the President
will direct the transfer of primary responsibility for the Nunn-Lugar-
Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program from the Department of Defense
to the Department of Justice, effective on October 1, 2000. In
anticipation of this transfer, we are requesting $31 million for the
costs associated with providing first responders with classroom
training, various levels of practical exercises, and equipment and
training aids to prepare for nuclear, biological and chemical
incidents. We also request $17 million for OJP's counterterrorism
technology programs.
We also request counterterrorism enhancements for OJP of $9 million
for a Law Enforcement Training program; $6 million to provide technical
assistance to state and local communities for domestic preparedness; $3
million to expand the First Responder Equipment Acquisition program,
and $2 million to expand operations at the Center for Domestic
Preparedness at Fort McClellan, AL.
We request an increase of $1 million and 10 positions for the
Department's Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR). This
office is responsible for reviewing all requests for surveillance or
searches under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA
applications have grown by over 80 percent since 1992, and a 1999
amendment to the FISA statute (50 U.S.C. 1801 et.seq.) expanded the
types of authorized FISA applications that OIPR must review to include
pen register and trap and trace device surveillance.
Finally, for the Criminal Division, we seek increases of $210,000
for the Office of Enforcement Operations to address victim assistance
needs related to the Pan Am 103 case and provide the capacity for
future terrorist-related victim assistance. In addition, this would
allow the Criminal Division to keep pace with witness service demands
and would improve its ability for special administrative measures aimed
at isolating, for investigative purposes, those indicted and convicted
for terrorist-related offenses.
We are seeking $92,000 to support the Criminal Division's Terrorism
and Violent Crime Section's work related to the Five-Year Interagency
Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan, the latest update which I
will transmit to you in the next few days. This increase will fund 1
position to provide the coordination and planning that is necessary
among the Department and other agencies that participate in the
development and annual updates of the Plan.
COMBATTING CYPERCRIME
The improvements in information technology and the development and
proliferation of the Internet have expanded our horizons, literally
putting knowledge at our fingertips and changing the way we think and
do business. The Nation's information infrastructure--the banking
system, the stock market, the electricity and water supply, the
telecommunications network and critical government services--rely on
computer networks. These systems are the foundation upon which our
society functions; and by virtue of our growing dependence on
computers, they are increasingly the target of criminals at home and
abroad. As greater numbers of people develop proficiency in
manipulating electronic data and navigating computer networks, and as
worldwide access to the Internet continues to expand, the opportunity
for cybercrime increases rapidly.
Two weeks ago, Director Freeh and I came before you to discuss
cybercrime and the recent attacks against popular on-line Internet
sites including Yahoo, Amazon.com, ebay, E-Trade and others. As I told
you at that time, we need a long-term coordinated strategy to deal with
cybercrime. I will work with you to develop and implement a five-year
plan that will focus our existing and future resources to react and
prevent cybercrimes by forging partnerships that include sharing
expertise, training, equipment and technology among federal, state and
local law enforcement officials. The strategy must address the
challenges we face, both here and abroad. The problems demand personnel
and expertise at all levels--in both the investigative and
prosecutorial sides--the latest cybercrime fighting equipment, and
educating our young people and others about the responsible use of the
Internet. And, we must accomplish this in a manner that respects and
upholds our cherished privacy and freedoms.
We appreciate your interest in and support for our requests to
address cybercrime. In fiscal year 2000, you provided a total of $107.4
million in funding for efforts underway in the Department's Criminal
Division, the FBI, DEA, U.S. Attorneys Offices, and the Office of
Justice Programs. We seek to establish a permanent cadre of experts
dedicated to preventing computer crime and to prosecuting those
responsible. In fiscal year 2001, the President's budget includes an
additional $37 million to continue the fight against cybercrime. This
request will serve as the baseline for future efforts. It will improve
our capacity to address the challenges that high technology presents,
and it will shape our ability to cope with crime in the future.
Our 2001 request includes cybercrime increases totaling $12 million
for the FBI--$11.4 million to expand the Computer Analysis and Response
Teams (CART) and to further develop the Automated Computer Examination
System (ACES), a software tool that expedites the computer forensics
process by scanning files from seized computers to identify known
format and executable program files; and $612,000 for personnel to
support a joint FBI-Customs Service Intellectual Property Rights Center
to enhance our Nation's ability to investigate and prosecute
intellectual property rights crimes by sharing information among
agencies.
CART teams are the forensic investigators in a computer world. CART
personnel provide the specialized expertise needed to extract data from
computers and network systems, conduct forensic examinations, and
provide on-site support to criminal investigations that require
computers as evidence. The FBI has a total of 142 trained CART
examiners who supported approximately 2,000 cases during 1999. By 2001,
the requirement for forensic examinations is expected to more than
double the number required in fiscal year 1999. To keep pace with this
expanding workload, we seek an additional $8.6 million and 100
additional CART examiners and $2.8 million to further develop ACES.
For the Office of Justice Programs, the 2001 request includes
$15.75 million, including $8.75 million to expand training initiatives
at the National White Collar Crime Center for state and local law
enforcement and regulatory agencies; $6 million to develop regional
forensic computer labs; and $1 million for the Bureau of Justice
Statistics to collect computer crime and cyber fraud statistics to
measure the magnitude and consequences of computer crime.
Our new initiative to develop regional forensic computer labs
recognizes the need to establish computer expertise at the state and
local level. It also addresses the need for training and backup
resources so that state and local law enforcement can successfully
conduct investigations and prosecutions of computer crimes in their
jurisdictions. These labs will build on a concept that we have found to
be highly successful and one which has, as its foundation, an approach
involving partnership and information sharing among federal, national,
state and local organizations and agencies. One model that we have for
this new program is the Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory in San
Diego, California. This lab brings together expertise from state and
local representatives and government personnel, including the FBI, and
serves as a resource for the San Diego area to solve crimes involving
complex computer forensics.
To ensure that there is balance within the system and adequate
litigation resources to support our cybercrime investigations, we are
requesting additional funding for the United States Attorneys and the
Criminal Division.
For the U.S. Attorneys, the fiscal year 2001 budget includes $8
million to investigate and prosecute cybercrimes and to enable the
vigorous prosecution of child pornography cases, including those cases
involving the use of the Internet. The fiscal year 2001 request will
bring total U.S. Attorneys funding availability for cybercrime to $12.7
million.
For the Criminal Division, we seek an additional $586,000 for the
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS). CCIPS acts as
a link for federal, state, local and foreign agencies seeking guidance
on how to respond to the threat of cybercrime/cyberterrorism. In
addition, the fiscal year 2001 budget includes $560,000 for the
Criminal Division to stay abreast of technological changes and
developments and to target those who use computers, computer bulletin
board systems and computer online services to traffic in child
pornography.
We believe our fiscal year 2001 request provides balanced and
responsible approaches to addressing this growing threat. The
tremendous growth in the Internet and the interconnectivity of our
information infrastructure means that Congress, law enforcement,
industry and the private sector must all work together as never before.
Computers bring the world closer together and create new bonds of
understanding. However, they can provide criminals with tools to
conceal their identity and greater access to those who seek to cause
harm. Crimes perpetrated via the Internet can reach a larger and more
accessible pool of victims which can encircle the globe. The Internet
has made it easier for wrongdoers to find each other, to congregate, to
socialize, and to create an online community of support and social
reinforcement for their antisocial behaviors. We welcome your
assistance and persistence in this battle for the future.
COMBATING GUN VIOLENCE
The Department's fiscal year 2001 budget includes an increase of
$215.9 million to continue our vigorous efforts to pursue those who
violate our gun laws and to provide state and local law enforcement
with assistance and technology to solve and prosecute gun crimes.
Although gun violence has dropped, and gun prosecutions have increased,
we must do more to stem the tide of gun violence. Every day, 89 people
are shot and killed in America; and every year, in addition to the
immeasurable costs of human suffering, gun violence costs the American
people $20 billion in medical care, public service, and lost
productivity. These costs are unacceptable.
Those who use guns to commit crimes must be swiftly and severely
punished. At my direction, United States Attorneys--working within
their communities--have put together innovative plans to reduce gun
violence. For fiscal year 2001, our budget requests an additional $14.5
million and 163 positions for the United States Attorneys to bolster
firearms prosecutions and to build on the successes of pilot projects
such as Operation Ceasefire in Boston, MA and Project Exile in
Richmond, VA. Last year, you earmarked $7.125 million for intensive
firearms prosecution projects. I hope that this year you will provide
additional resources to enhance our firearms prosecution projects
throughout the country.
Recognizing that the majority of gun prosecutions must occur at the
state and local levels, we are requesting $190 million in new funding
for the Community Prosecution program. We propose that $150 million of
this increase be used to hire or redeploy 1,000 local prosecutors to
combat gun violence through intensive local enforcement initiatives.
In addition to punishing those who commit gun crimes, we must do
all we can to stop gun violence before it occurs. Our 2001 budget
includes an increase of $40 million for programs aimed at preventing
gun violence. This includes $10 million for the Office of Justice
Programs (OJP) to develop and test ``smart gun'' technologies; $10
million to be made available within the Byrne Discretionary Grant
program to support local media campaigns that help spread the word
about gun violence; and an increase of $10 million from within current
Juvenile Justice funding to expand innovative Partnerships to Reduce
Juvenile Gun Violence. Also within OJP, we are requesting $10 million
to reimburse state and local law enforcement agencies for the cost of
destroying weapons, rather than reselling them and recouping costs.
This is not a ``gun buyback'' program, but it will help prevent weapons
seized or used by law enforcement from being circulated back into the
community.
As with fingerprints, every firearm has unique characteristics--a
``gun print''--that can be captured, electronically stored and compared
to other gun prints through the use of ballistics technology.
Ballistics technology enables law enforcement to link one or more
seemingly unrelated crimes to a single firearm. At the present time,
both the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in
the Treasury Department operate separate ballistics imaging systems,
but an agreement has been reached to integrate these two systems, using
the best features of each, to establish a single National Integrated
Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). This new system will improve
law enforcement's ability to identify crime guns. For fiscal year 2001,
the Department is requesting $1.4 million for the FBI to provide the
communications infrastructure required to implement NIBIN. In addition,
we are seeking $10 million through OJP to provide assistance to help
state and local law enforcement input data into their ballistics
systems and reduce their backlogs. Funding is requested in Treasury's
budget to upgrade state and local ballistics systems.
IMPROVING COMMUNITY LAW ENFORCEMENT
Our 2001 budget continues the Department's commitment to improve
community law enforcement efforts and to build closer relationships
between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
We seek an additional $740 million for the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) program, for a total of $1.3 billion in fiscal
year 2001. The COPS request includes an increase of $225.3 million for
the Public Safety and Community Policing Grants program, of which up to
$50 million will be used to fund law enforcement officers who will work
in police/prosecutors' offices. We have also requested $190 million, as
I mentioned earlier, to expand funds for community and local
prosecutors. I regard the expansion of community law enforcement to
include community prosecutors as the single most important lynchpin of
further crime prevention.
We request an increase of $220 million, for a total of $350
million, to provide state and local law enforcement with the latest
crime fighting technologies, This includes $199 million for the Crime
Identification Technology Assistance program; $70 million for upgrades
to criminal history records; $50 million to improve forensic labs and
to reduce the convicted offender DNA sample backlog; $10 million for
crime mapping technologies; $10 million in base funding for National
Institute of Justice's (NIJ) Technology Centers; $6 million for
regional forensic computer labs; and $5 million for continued base
funding for the NIJ DNA Research Development program.
We seek $70 million for community crime prevention programs to
address youth and school safety, including $5 million to fund a value-
based program between youth and police, $30 million for school-based
problem solving partnerships, and $35 million for the Safe Schools/
Healthy Students program; $20 million for a police integrity training
initiative; $5 million for a COPS police diversity recruitment
initiative; and $5 million for citizen problem-solving academies that
will provide citizens with tools to work collaboratively with policing
agencies.
The Office of Justice Programs supports a number of new,
innovative, and exciting programs to assist communities in addressing
crime and public safety concerns. I am particularly excited about a
pilot project known as the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety
Initiatives (SACSI) that is underway in five cities--Indianapolis, IN;
Memphis, TN; New Haven, CT; Portland, OR; and Winston-Salem, NC. SACSI
experiments with a new way of doing business that makes heavy use of
statistical data and information analysis, boosts the U.S. Attorney's
role as a community problem solver and uses researchers to serve as
navigators to ensure that the crime-fighting approaches taken are
supported by the data. In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting an
additional $10 million to expand SACSI.
In Indianapolis, under the SACSI umbrella, law enforcement agencies
from the federal, state, and local levels came together with community
groups to form the Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership (IVRP),
with the goal of reducing homicides, bringing the community into the
problem-solving process and improving communication among federal,
state, and local law enforcement. The Indianapolis Division of the FBI,
as a participating member of the IVRP, shares intelligence data and
provides technical oversight to the state and local intelligence
gathering community. The IVRP is an example of the benefits that accrue
from SACSI projects involving cooperation, coordination, and
collaboration between law enforcement at all levels and the community,
as well as the importance of incorporating sound research and analysis
into problem-solving. The IVRP team analyzed data for every homicide
that occurred in Indianapolis and Marion County, IN in 1997 and 1998,
identified common elements and developed a strategy that included
community intervention with offenders on probation or parole. Initial
results show that homicides were down 36 percent for the first 6 months
of 1999, as compared to the same period a year earlier.
I have visited the Indianapolis project, and I can tell you that
the work they are doing there holds great promise for the future. SACSI
brings community organizations and law enforcement together to create
new, effective and lasting relationships across agencies and
disciplines, using local data, crime control theory, street level
information, and organizational capacities to attack problems and
develop solutions. It is a wise investment.
Other enhancements requested for OJP community law enforcement
programs include $15 million for a new Building Blocks initiative to
address delinquency and crime; an $8.5 million increase for Weed and
Seed; $5 million earmarked for NIJ from within the Drug Courts program
and JJ formula grants for dependency courts to address child abuse and
neglect; $5 million for the NIJ to conduct family violence research and
evaluation; $2 million to develop protocols and guidelines for
investigative and forensic sciences; and $1 million to begin developing
a new Justice Online Information Exchange system.
For the U.S. Attorneys, we are requesting $3.98 million to support
the operations of the D.C. Superior Court by funding investigative
resources to augment work performed by the Metropolitan Police
Department and $172,000 to expand the Short Term Witness Protection
program.
BREAKING THE CYCLE OF DRUGS
One of the most pressing criminal justice challenges we will face
as a Nation in the next few years is the reentry of offenders into
society upon their release from prison. We have nearly 2 million
Americans incarcerated, two-thirds of them in state and federal
prisons. This year, nearly 570,000 inmates will return to communities
across the country. Unfortunately, many of them will return home with
the same problems they had when they entered prison. And as a result,
two-thirds of all returning offenders will be rearrested within three
years of release. This is unacceptable. We must have programs in place
to break the cycle of drug use and its consequences and to provide
support services to help these former offenders successfully reenter
their communities. Our fiscal year 2001 budget addresses these needs.
Our request includes $75 million for OJP's Zero Tolerance Drug
Supervision program. This initiative will provide discretionary grants
to states, units of local government, Indian tribes, and state and
local courts for comprehensive drug testing and treatment programs. Of
the total, $25 million will be devoted to a new Offender Re-entry Grant
program, which along with $35 million from the COPS program, will
provide a total of $60 million to combine surveillance sanctions and
support services in ways that afford increased protection to
communities that experience unusually high returns of inmates.
The re-entry grant program addresses a problem that will impact all
of us. It will help to manage the reintegration of prisoners into
society and to minimize public safety risks while maximizing productive
activity. This new program includes funding for re-entry partnerships
in our communities that enhance monitoring and follow-up and strengthen
support systems. The program includes funding for ``re-entry courts''
modeled after our highly successful Drug Courts program. The re-entry
court would oversee an offender's return to the community after release
from prison or jail, while on probation or parole. It would use its
authority to apply graduated sanctions and positive reinforcement in
much the same way that drug courts do. The message of the court would
be--work with us, stay clean, stay out of trouble, get a job, and we
will help you in those efforts. But if you come back testing positive
for drugs, if you commit further crimes, if you violate the conditions
of your release, you're going to face a more serious punishment, every
step of the way.
Also included in the fiscal year 2001 request is funding for other
drug prevention programs, including $20 million for the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) Drug Prevention
Demonstration program; $50 million for OJP's Drug Courts program, an
increase of $10 million above last year; $5 million to expand NIJ's
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring System (ADAM); $4.5 million for OJP's
national demonstration initiative on alcohol and crime; $4.4 million to
evaluate OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious Violent and Chronic
Juvenile Offenders program; and a $2 million increase for the
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program, bringing the total
available for this program to $65 million.
In addition to its drug prevention efforts, the Department is
requesting a total of $1.73 billion for drug enforcement activities,
including an increase of $3.1 million and 18 positions to support DEA's
Special Operations Division (SOD) investigations along the Southwest
Border and to establish a money laundering/financial investigative unit
within SOD. SOD is a multi-agency program aimed at dismantling entire
national and international trafficking organizations. It includes
participation from the DEA, FBI, IRS, U.S. Customs Service and the
Criminal Division in the Justice Department.
An increase of $389,000 and 5 positions is requested to enhance the
Criminal Division's international drug money laundering and forfeiture
activities and to support the increasing number of new wiretaps
relating to narcotics enforcement arising from initiatives such as SOD.
ENHANCING DETENTION AND INCARCERATION
The Department's detention and incarceration requirements continue
to grow. In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting increases totaling $1.1
billion to meet our detention, incarceration, and prisoner
transportation needs.
Federal Bureau of Prisons
As a result of tougher sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum
sentences, the abolition of parole, and significant increases in law
enforcement, we have seen our federal prison population more than
double since 1990. We project that the current population will increase
by another 50 percent by 2007. To meet this projected demand for prison
bedspace, for the Bureau of Prisons, we are requesting a 2001
appropriation of $4.4 billion and advance appropriations in buildings
and facilities for 2002 and 2003. This funding will reduce overcrowding
and accommodate future growth, including absorption of D.C. sentenced
felons and long-term INS detainees. The request seeks program increases
of $874.5 million this year.
For the Salaries and Expenses account, our increases include $80
million and 1,404 positions to activate 4 new facilities. These
activations are needed to address the 53 percent overcrowding rate in
high security prisons, to house District of Columbia felons, and to add
much needed pre-trial detention beds. In addition, we are requesting
$13.1 million to open 6 low security facilities; $8.1 million to begin
the initial purchase of equipment for 2 federal prison facilities
scheduled to activate in the first half of 2002; $84.5 million and
oversight positions for an additional 6,000 contract beds (above the
current year 6,000 beds for long-term criminal alien detainees and D.C.
inmates); and $7.4 million to increase inmate participation in GED,
English proficiency, special education and vocational training
programs.
For BOP Buildings and Facilities, we request a total of $835.6
million for 2001, including a program increase of $681.3 million for
the full construction costs of 6 prisons, 2 associated with the
absorption of INS long-term detainees, as well as the site and planning
costs for 5 new facilities.
I would call your attention to and ask your support for our
proposal to provide advance appropriations for fiscal years 2002 and
2003 to ensure that we have adequate facilities to house an expanding
prison population. Advance funding will accelerate and bring certainty
to our construction program. We ask that you provide an advance
appropriation of $791 million in fiscal year 2002 to fund the
construction costs of the 5 facilities for which we are seeking site
and planning money in 2001. Similarly, we ask that you provide site and
planning funding in 2002 for 5 new facilities, which would require
advance appropriations of $535 million for construction in 2003.
Thus, our budget request for the Buildings and Facilities
appropriation includes a total of 17 new prisons over the next 3 fiscal
years. Without the new prisons in this request, over-crowding will
reach an unmanageable 94 percent in our penitentiaries and 74 percent
in our medium security facilities by 2007. With this proposed funding,
we estimate overcrowding will be reduced to approximately 30 percent
system-wide.
Detention Trustee
Our detention requirements are becoming an increasingly large
portion of the Department's annual budget request, with funding located
in several different appropriations accounts within the Department. In
an effort to better manage these growing detention resources, we are
proposing to create a Detention Trustee who will report to the Deputy
Attorney General and be responsible for managing detention resources
within the Department. While we have not moved detention funding from
the various components' accounts, it is anticipated that the Detention
Trustee would exercise oversight of detention resources and operations.
Our budget request includes 6 positions and $26 million in the new
Detention Trustee account; $25 million is available without limitation
to meet unanticipated costs associated with the care, maintenance,
detention and repatriation of illegal aliens held outside the
continental United States.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
The Department's request for INS Detention needs includes increases
of $92.5 million for 1,000 additional contract beds to detain and
remove criminal aliens. This includes 82 new juvenile beds and funding
for transportation and to implement detention standards. Also requested
are increases of $24.8 million for detention facility construction to
continue the multi-year southwest border initiative at critical
detention locations in El Paso and Port Isabel, TX; El Centro, CA; and
to improve facilities in Florida. The proposed reauthorization of
Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is expected to
provide $37.5 million to replace one-time detention resources made
available as part of the fiscal year 2001 appropriation, to support the
increase in the number of juvenile detention beds, and increase the
number of Justice Prisoner Air Transportation (JPATS) movements.
United States Marshals
For the United States Marshals Service, our request seeks an
increase of $64.4 million in the Federal Prisoner Detention account to
fund costs associated with approximately 9.53 million contract jail
days, a 8 percent increase above the 2000 level. The detainee
population has grown considerably over the last few years due to
significant increases in apprehensions by our growing law enforcement
personnel in the FBI, DEA, and INS Border Patrol. In fiscal year 2001
the average daily population is expected to reach 38,531.
In addition to the needs of the Federal Prisoner Detention program,
the fiscal year 2001 budget request includes increases of $35.7 million
for the U.S. Marshals Service to handle the increased workload
generated by staff increases in other federal law enforcement agencies,
to provide the personnel and equipment necessary to ensure new
courthouses and new courtrooms in existing facilities can open on
schedule and with adequate security to handle increased prisoner
movements and to increase security in the District of Columbia Superior
Court cellblock.
The work of the U.S. Marshals Service is uncontrollable in nature
in that the organization must meet the requirements of the federal
courts and of our federal investigators and prosecutors. The Marshals
Service cannot control the number of threats facing our federal
judiciary, nor can it control the number of prisoners that come into
its custody.
Office of Justice Programs
Funding is requested, within the Prison Grants program, for the
Cooperative Agreement Program ($35 million) and for detention
facilities in Indian country ($34 million).
ENFORCING OUR CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS
The Justice Department is our Nation's chief enforcer of civil
rights laws. Through the enforcement efforts of the Civil Rights
Division, the U.S. Attorneys offices, and the FBI, the Department seeks
to protect the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to ALL Americans.
The fiscal year 2001 budget requests a total civil rights
enforcement budget of $107.8 million. For the Civil Rights Division,
alone, this represents an increase of $16 million for civil rights
funding--19 percent more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level of
$82.2 million, and 41 percent more than the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level of $69.3 million.
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). The increased resources will enable the Civil
Rights Division to fund new initiatives to further implement the ADA.
This funding will also allow the Division to continue prosecuting
criminal civil rights cases; promote compliance with our Nation's laws
that prohibit discrimination in housing, lending, voting, education,
and employment laws; protect the rights of institutionalized persons;
and expand investigations and prosecutions of cases involving ``pattern
or practice'' of police misconduct.
The Community Relations Service (CRS) plays a pivotal role in civil
rights issues through the delivery of conciliation and conflict
resolution services. Included in the request for enhanced civil rights
resources is an increase of $2.35 million and 30 positions (15
conciliators and 15 administrative staff) to enable the Community
Relations Service to deploy professional conciliators to communities
threatened by racial tensions, community conflict, and unrest.
Within the Office of Justice Programs, we are seeking increases
totaling $5.9 million for programs addressing police use of force, hate
crimes, and for statistical programs that will look at police-initiated
traffic stops; felony case processing to determine if there is a
disparity in the way a defendant is treated based on their race; and
the victimization of people with disabilities.
SECURING OUT BORDERS
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is charged with
enforcing immigration laws by securing our Nation's borders from
illegal immigration and expediting the legal flow of commerce and
people into the United States. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for
INS supports the immigration goals and strategies of improving customer
service, facilitating legal immigration while deterring illegal
immigration, and removing criminal and other illegal aliens from the
United States. The fiscal year 2001 budget request seeks a total of
$4.8 billion for immigration-related activities.
For the Border Patrol, we are requesting an increase of $52 million
to add 430 new Border Patrol agents. These new agents will bring Border
Patrol staffing to more than 9,800 agents by the end of the fiscal
year, representing an increase of about 147 percent over the 1993
staffing level of 3,965 agents.
The 2001 request recognizes the difficulties INS encountered in
recruiting agents in a tight labor market and seeks an additional $69.9
million for a Border Patrol and Immigration Inspector Pay Reform
package. Of the total, $56 million is requested from appropriated
resources, and $13.9 million will come from user fees. The initiative
would upgrade the journeyman grade levels for the Border Patrol and
inspectors from GS-9 to GS-11. It would also modify the overtime
provisions for Border Patrol agents, making them eligible for Law
Enforcement Availability Pay. We are hopeful that pay reform, coupled
with more aggressive recruitment and hiring initiatives, will improve
our ability to recruit and retain agents.
Our Border Management request includes an increase of $20 million
to support force-multiplying technology efforts by expanding the
Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System. This technology provides
agents with the ability to monitor the border from remote sites, thus
increasing the efficiency and safety of our agents. In addition, $22.3
million is requested for 269 Immigration Inspectors to staff 3 new
ports of entry in Texas, to handle increased workload associated with
the expedited removal process at land ports of entry, and to provide
additional staff at international airports. The Department also plans
to dedicate $5 million from the Assets Forfeiture Fund Super Surplus to
continue efforts to evaluate the possible integration of INS' IDENT
fingerprint system with the FBI's IAFIS system.
For Border Patrol construction, we are seeking an additional $51.3
million to construct and maintain Border Patrol stations and sector
headquarters to accommodate the growth that has occurred in the Border
Patrol.
In fiscal year 1999, INS met its naturalization goal of completing
more than 1.2 million naturalization applications, and the agency is on
target to meet its fiscal year 2000 goal of processing 1.3 million
applications and achieving a nationwide average processing time of 6-9
months to naturalization.
To support the provision of immigration services, the Department is
proposing additional resources totaling $152.3 million. Of this amount,
$80 million will be derived from the establishment of a new Premium
Processing Fee that will permit business applicants to choose expedited
processing of their applications for a $1,000 fee.
Of the total receipts to be generated by this new fee, $25 million
will be used to process business applications and to increase our anti-
fraud efforts, and $55 million will be deposited into a new Immigration
Services Capital Investment Account. This new account will fund
immigration service and benefits initiatives, targeting backlog
reductions, through system and infrastructure upgrades. The budget also
requests $34.8 million in appropriated resources for backlog reduction
efforts in other immigration benefit programs and to capitalize the new
Capital Investment Account and $37.5 million in receipts derived from
the proposed reauthorization of Section 245(i).
We are requesting $10.1 million to strengthen INS' financial
management operations by hiring additional staff at INS' Burlington, VT
Debt Management Center and the Dallas, TX Finance Center; adding staff
to respond to increased demands at the Administrative Service Centers;
and to address staffing requirements in the Legal Proceedings program.
When resources are added to INS, they reverberate through other
Justice agencies, resulting in increased workload for agencies such as
the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the United
States Attorneys who must prosecute many immigration cases. To ensure
balance in the system, the Department is requesting enhancements for
these agencies.
For EOIR, our request includes an increase of $5 million to meet an
estimated increase of 10,000 cases in its Immigration Judge caseload
and an increase of 1,200 cases in its appellate caseload.
For the U.S. Attorneys, we are seeking an additional $3.8 million
and 48 positions to complement enhancements provided to INS over the
last 4 years. The increase will permit the U.S. Attorneys to
aggressively enforce our immigration statutes by prosecuting illegal
aliens, including aliens who, after deportation, attempt to reenter or
remain in the U.S. illegally; alien smugglers and smuggling
organizations; and those who produce, distribute, or sell false
identification.
State and local governments are also impacted by increased federal
immigration enforcement. The 2001 budget includes a requested increase
of $15 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance program (SCAAP)
which reimburses state and local governments for the cost of
incarcerating criminal illegal aliens. With the proposed increase,
total funding for SCAAP in fiscal year 2001 will reach $600 million.
FIGHTING CRIME THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
The increased sophistication in technology has made significant
changes and improvements in the way we work and live. Just as society
as a whole has become dependent on new technologies, so too has law
enforcement. When I came to the Department in 1993, I found a crumbling
technological infrastructure, and I have worked hard to improve the
tools available to our agents and prosecutors. We have come a long way
in the last 7 years, but there is still much to be done.
Our 2001 budget includes an additional $358 million for federal
information resources management software and hardware, wiretapping
systems, cryptology equipment, DNA collection efforts, on-going
research and development projects and data driven crime control
strategies.
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA)
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
(Public Law 103-414) authorizes the Attorney General to reimburse
telecommunications carriers for costs associated with modifying digital
equipment installed before January 1, 1995, in order that court-
authorized wiretaps may be performed.
The Department has recently submitted a fiscal year 2000
reprogramming proposing to use up to $100 million in Assets Forfeiture
Super Surplus funds to continue reimbursing the telecommunications
industry for certain costs associated with modifying their networks. We
urge your support of this reprogramming. In addition, for fiscal year
2001, we are seeking an increase of $105 million for the Department's
CALEA activities, bringing total funding to $120 million. Recognizing
the contribution of CALEA to national security, an additional $120
million for CALEA is also requested in the Department of Defense.
The budget request for the FBI in 2001 includes $2.1 million to
test and verify the technical solutions proposed by manufacturers under
CALEA.
Drug Enforcement Administration
For DEA, the budget request includes technology enhancements
totaling $57.5 million. Included within this total is $56 million and 2
positions to continue deployment and support the operational
requirements of DEA's primary office automation infrastructure,
FIREBIRD; and $1.5 million to enhance the El Paso Intelligence Center's
(EPIC) Information System. The EPIC information system distributes and
analyzes sensitive intelligence data on worldwide drug movements and
organizations.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
We have made significant improvements in the FBI's automated
systems over the last few years. In fiscal year 1999, three new
critical information systems became operational. The National Instant
Background Check System (NICS), used to perform automated Brady Act
background checks for gun purchases, came on-line in November 1998. In
July 1999, the FBI's NCIC 2000 and Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS) became fully operational. Despite these
advancements, there is much that still needs to be accomplished to
bring the FBI into the 21st Century in terms of its technology
requirements.
For fiscal year 2001, we are requesting a total of $104.7 million
for FBI technology initiatives. Our request includes $40.8 million in
new funding for the Information Sharing Initiative; $25.3 million and 4
positions for digital collections systems; and $10 million from the
Assets Forfeiture Fund Super Surplus to support a multi-year automated
information initiative to store and manage lawfully collected
electronic surveillance intelligence and evidentiary material among FBI
field offices. In addition, $14.3 million is requested to fund the
annual lease costs associated with the Justice Consolidated Network's
ATM circuits. For counter encryption activities, we are seeking $7
million to provide the tools necessary to intercept encrypted
communications, when permitted by court order. And, we are seeking $5.3
million and 5 positions to implement a federal offenders DNA database
and $2 million to provide digital body recorders in all field offices.
Narrowband Communications
Federal agencies are required by law to make more efficient use of
their radio spectrum, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce has issued
regulations to require all federal spectrum users to narrow by one-half
the bandwidth used to transmit radio signals. Our fiscal year 2001
request includes an increase of $88.6 million to accelerate the
necessary equipment upgrades to comply with the new requirements. The
Department's narrowband communications account consolidates the needs
of all DOJ federal law enforcement agencies to achieve efficiencies of
scale in the acquisition of this new technology. Total funding
requested for narrowband efforts in fiscal year 2001 is $205 million.
PROTECTING AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKAN NATIVE COMMUNITIES
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $173.3 million to fund the
third year of our Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative begun with
the support of this Subcommittee in fiscal year 1999. The request
represents an increase of $81.8 million above the fiscal year 2000
enacted level.
Our Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative will improve public
safety for the residents of American Indian and Alaskan Native
communities by increasing the number of law enforcement officers on
Indian lands, providing equipment, expanding detention facilities,
enhancing juvenile crime prevention and improving the effectiveness of
tribal courts. While violent crime has declined nationally for the 7th
consecutive year, it is on the rise in many Indian communities.
American Indians are the victims of violent crimes at more than twice
the rate of all U.S. residents.
The Federal Government has unique law enforcement responsibilities
in Indian communities. In order to fulfill these responsibilities and
to fight violent crime effectively, both the Justice Department and the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs must have a full
spectrum of criminal justice resources to promote public safety.
For Indian Country programs within the Office of Justice Programs,
the fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $10 million to establish a
new Zero Tolerance and Drug Intervention program for alcohol and
substance abuse; $15 million for the Tribal Courts program; $20 million
for Title V Juvenile Justice incentive grants for local delinquency
prevention to serve Indian youth by developing, enhancing, and
supporting tribal juvenile justice systems; $8 million for a new Tribal
Youth Mental Health and Behavior Problems Initiative; $8 million for a
new Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Diversion program to develop
strategies and services to break the cycle of alcohol and crime; $5
million to establish Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Units to gather
evidence in prosecuting sexual offenders; $6 million for a Tribal
Criminal and Civil Legal Assistance program for criminal and civil
legal services support and for criminal and legal assistance curriculum
development and training at tribal colleges; $34 million within the
Prison Grants program for the construction of detention facilities; $2
million for a new Tribal Criminal Justice Statistics Collection
program; and $5 million for a new Police Corps program to provide
advanced educational opportunities for police in Indian country.
Within the COPS program, we are seeking $45 million for additional
law enforcement officers, equipment, and training in Indian Country and
$5 million for an Indian Country Forensics Laboratory to augment tribal
forensic capabilities.
For Department of Justice agencies, the Indian Country request
includes $4.6 million for the FBI to fund 31 victim/witness coordinator
positions in Indian Country, contracts for evidence forensic exams, and
Safe Trails Task Force overtime costs; $4.7 million and 60 positions
for the United States Attorneys to augment current investigative and
prosecutorial efforts in Indian Country; and $932,000 to establish a
permanent Office of Tribal Justice under the Associate Attorney
General.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION, ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS AND DEFENSE OF U.S.
INTERESTS
As the Department's responsibilities and caseload continue to
expand, we are seeking additional resources to prosecute unlawful
activities and protect the interests of the American people in court.
As I noted earlier, balance in the criminal justice system is vitally
important. Without adequate litigators to handle the caseload that is
generated by increased investigative resources, our system breaks down
and the interests of the American people are compromised.
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes increased resources to enable
the Department to perform its role as the Nation's litigator.
Specifically, the request includes a program increase for the Antitrust
Division of $20.95 million from fee revenue to provide for the hiring
of additional staff. This is critical if merger enforcement is to keep
up with the accelerating number and complexity of merger deals being
proposed and the rapid technological change currently affecting
American markets. It will also help address an increasing number of
civil non-merger matters, and handle an expanding international
workload, including large global criminal cartels from which the
Division has obtained $1.4 billion in criminal fines in just the past
two years. This additional funding will help ensure that America's
marketplace remains the most freely competitive and innovative in the
world.
For the Criminal Division, we are seeking $1.2 million and 14
positions to support the Division's fight against international crime.
For the United States Attorneys, an increase of $5.74 million is
requested to prepare for and defend civil lawsuits against the United
States and to promote the effective defense of lawsuits through
training and efficient use of resources in order to protect public
funds and programs, policy initiatives, and statutes. Congress
established the Judgment Fund, a permanent indefinite appropriation, to
pay settlements and judgments against the United States. Disbursements
from the Judgment Fund are increasing. In 1995, payments from the Fund
totaled $300 million. By the end of 1997, nearly $1 billion was paid
out of the Fund. The civil defensive litigation of our United States
Attorneys helps to prevent losses from the United States Treasury and
is a wise investment.
For the Environment and Natural Resources Division, we are seeking
an increase of $1.15 million and 8 attorneys to support the Division's
efforts to defend federal programs and regulations and $988,000 to
expand the Division's civil enforcement caseload.
The 2001 request for the Tax Division includes increases of $2
million to expose and attack the use of illegal tax evasion offshore
schemes, prosecute and combat the use of illegal domestic trusts, and
provide automated litigation tools.
For the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), our request includes $93,000
and 1 position to assist OLC in its review of legal documents to
implement Presidential decisions or transmit Presidential requests in
emergency situations.
The Justice Department strongly endorses the use of alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve conflicts which reduce costly
litigation and requests an additional $1.31 million in fiscal year 2001
to promote the use of ADR to resolve conflicts and establish a full
operating budget for the Office of Dispute Resolution, and to disburse
funding to appropriate litigating components to pay ADR costs. In
addition, we are requesting $1 million for the Fees and Expenses of
Witnesses appropriation for ADR expenses.
OTHER CRIME-FIGHTING INITIATIVES
In addition to the special initiatives that I have outlined above,
the fiscal year 2001 request includes $86.1 million for other important
enhancements.
For the FBI, we are requesting $12 million and 48 positions for
Health Care Fraud Enforcement; $6.5 million and 4 positions to provide
essential training resources to fully utilize the FBI Academy space to
provide technical and analytic training to agents and other
professionals; $5 million to contract for additional linguist support
so that investigators can analyze intelligence in foreign languages;
$2.1 million for additional criminal confidential case funds to pay for
costs associated with undercover operations; and $1.9 million for
environmental and safety related construction efforts at the FBI
Academy firing range.
To support our United States Attorneys, the fiscal year 2001 budget
includes enhancements of $12.1 million to provide the information
technology equipment and staff to support large case document files, e-
mail among U.S. Attorneys' offices and other Justice Department
components and general office automation needs; and $5 million to
support efforts by the U.S. Attorneys to ensure the payment of child
support to custodial parents.
An increase of $3.9 million and 24 positions is requested to
enhance DEA's financial and resource management oversight functions. In
fiscal year 1999 at Congress' direction, the Department undertook a
comprehensive budget and financial review of DEA. A report was provided
to the Committees on Appropriations in July 1999, which recommended a
series of management reforms to be implemented by DEA. This requested
increase will ensure that DEA will be able to fund ongoing needs for
their federal financial system and become fully compliant with accepted
federal financial management practices. Similarly, we are requesting
$1.42 million and 32 positions to provide the U.S. Marshals Service
with the capability to improve its financial operations, increase
financial oversight and policy compliance, and provide daily systems
maintenance and support to its accounting system.
In the Office of Justice Programs, we are requesting additional
resources totaling $22.3 million for a number of important initiatives,
including the Domestic Violence Victims' Civil Legal Assistance
program, the Public Safety Officers Dependants Education Assistance
program, a new International Crime Research program, a national study
tracking the justice system's handling of domestic violence cases; an
On-line Collection and Analysis of Information initiative to begin
converting paper-based collections of administrative data from state
and local units of government to an Internet-based, paperless
collection; and to improve the management and administration of OJP and
COPS programs.
Finally, we are seeking an appropriation of $13.7 million to
support the mission of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which
provides monetary compensation for specific diseases to underground
uranium miners, persons who participated onsite in atmospheric nuclear
tests or individuals downwind of the Nevada Test site.
CLOSING
As we enter the 21st Century, criminal schemes are more technical
and sophisticated than ever. Our response as the Nation's leader in law
enforcement must be swift and proportionate. To ensure such a response,
we must expand our on-going efforts to improve the performance of our
programs and achieve the results that the American people rightfully
expect. Soon, you will be receiving a copy of our 1999 Accountability
Report, which includes our annual performance report. And, along with
our budget request, I have submitted a summary performance plan for the
entire Department that highlights the strategies, goals, indicators and
resources we will employ to accomplish our mission in fiscal year 2001.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support you have given to me and the
Department of Justice over the last 7 years. We have made tremendous
progress and I am committed to working with you during the remainder of
my tenure as Attorney General to prevent waste and duplication and
ensure that we are using our limited federal resources in the best
possible manner so that we improve performance, meet our very broad
mission, and build on the progress that we have made to date.
Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Gregg. That is very generous of you. We have had
our differences, but we have also had our agreements. I have
enjoyed working with you, Madame Attorney General. On issues
where we have agreed I think we have made great progress. On
issues where we have disagreed we have disagreed cordially, and
I have appreciated that.
NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS OFFICE
One of the issues that we have agreed on, clearly, is
counterterrorism, and the issue of how we address
counterterrorism has been a priority of yours. It has been a
priority of mine. It has been a priority of this committee,
Senator Hollings, Senator Campbell, for 3 or 4 years now, and I
think we have made progress.
But in that vein, we still have a long way to go, as you
both know. One of my concerns is about the National Domestic
Preparedness Office, which I personally saw as being the
opportunity to give the first responders especially a one-stop
shopping location. In other words, if you are a State emergency
management director, if you are a specialist in terrorism in
New York City--which is probably not a good example, because
they are way ahead of everybody else--but if you are a
specialist in terrorism assigned in some other city that is not
yet up to speed, this was to be the office where you could come
and be given not only substantive advice but substantive
support.
It was also to be the office, and is to be the office, and
I do not put it in the past, it is to be the office that
coordinates the national effort, to a great degree, brings the
various agencies into one central location, and allows us to
have an effective coordinated response to our efforts first to
get ready to respond to a terrorist event. But if the terrorist
event occurs, to be able to handle it.
My concern is that the office seems to be a bit adrift. In
fact, having just been started, it does not seem to be up and
running yet at a level of strength that it should be. I am a
little concerned that its mission is already being diluted, and
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on where this is
going.
Attorney General Reno. First of all, fear not, I am
absolutely, unequivocally committed to it. But you quite
rightly raised some questions early on and you considered the
reprogramming. You wanted us to make sure that we had heard
from the stakeholders in the community, and the authorization
for it was some time in coming as you satisfied yourself that
we were going in the right direction.
It has been 3 months now since you gave the signal. We
followed up, as you directed, with the blueprint. And I think
the blueprint spells out very clearly where we are and what we
want to do.
Senator Gregg. On that point, do you think there is any
reason that any of the agencies, whether it is the FBI or
anybody else, should not presume that the blueprint is still
the managing document for the purposes of national domestic----
Attorney General Reno. The blueprint is the managing
document.
Now, in that regard, you made a statement. It is the
National Domestic Preparedness Office. And what we saw was that
it would be a coordinator. What was the latest equipment? What
was the best training? How could we best prepare? A one-stop
shop so that they did not have to go different places to find
out about different procedures, training, equipment, the latest
developments in the whole area.
But it was not meant to be operational in the sense of
response in terms of the terrorist act, and we spell that out
in the blueprint. But we are committed to it and I want to work
with you. We have enjoyed the opportunity to work with you, and
I had determined that reprogramming dollars, and you should get
the reprogramming request soon, is not a trivial matter. It has
taken more time than I had anticipated.
Senator Gregg. I know they are not the physical responding
agency, but they are the agency which a State would look to to
figure out how to respond.
Attorney General Reno. The way I see the National Domestic
Preparedness Office is it would have every bit of information.
Here is my overall vision of where we should be going. Every
State should have a State emergency preparedness plan, that we
should automate and develop a capacity to know where the
hospitals are, where the backup hospitals are, what the key
assets are, who the key people are, what the major
transportation routes are, and everything that should be
considered.
This same organization would have the latest information
with respect to equipment, what had become obsolete, what had
been learned from a recent exercise, and that we would be able
to exchange that information in an appropriately prompt manner.
At the same time, what to do is going to depend on how
people have planned together at the State and local level; and
how to respond, in terms of the particular type of weapon, is
going to depend on the facts and circumstances of the time, and
that is going to have to be judged by the people on the ground.
CDC, DOD, HHS INVOLVEMENT WITH NDPO
Senator Gregg. So far, as I understand it, neither DOD
[Department of Defense] or HHS [Department of Health and Human
Services], which have responsibility for a large amount of the
chemical attack or the biological attack response capability,
certainly CDC [Centers for Disease Control] and the chemical
weapons specialist at the Defense Department, have not detailed
anyone to the office.
Attorney General Reno. As I indicated, it took some time to
get----
Senator Gregg. Do you expect them to detail someone?
Attorney General Reno. I certainly do.
Senator Gregg. And you expect those individuals to have a
significant role? I mean, they are not going to be more than
just low level folks? They are going to have a role in actually
being able to carry some weight?
Attorney General Reno. Here is what we are doing. For
example, we met recently in New York with public health experts
on the issue of biological weapons, because it has become clear
from our stakeholders meetings and from meetings with first
responders around the country, that the issue of bioterrorism
is a singularly unique problem. We tend or had tended to link
bio and chem together, but biological weapons present new
issues.
There was concern expressed and I met with the Secretary
and her staff and CDC to develop a working relationship between
the Bureau and HHS in terms of how we prepare to identify the
pathogen involved if there is a biological weapon used, to
recognize that, unlike a chemical weapon or nuclear weapon, the
dispersion or the distribution of the weapon or the use of the
weapon would not be known immediately, and it would begin to be
evident in ways that it might be masked as an epidemic of some
disease or something like that.
These are issues that we are addressing. And as we develop
the information, as we develop it through research and work
with academia, this will be made available through NDPO across
the nation in a way that can be used by all.
Senator Gregg. I guess my question was more, have you for
example, talked to the Secretary of Defense and the head of
CDC, to see if they are going to send somebody over to NDPO who
has really got some clout?
Attorney General Reno. I have not talked to them yet,
because I do not have the thing up and running yet.
Senator Gregg. But you plan to? Is that the intention?
Attorney General Reno. I do.
NDPO FACILITY
Senator Gregg. And the physical location of the facility,
where is that going to be?
Attorney General Reno. As we were going through this
process, and before you had authorized the NDPO, there was an
attempt to rent space. And I think you were somewhat concerned
by the increase in the space, and I was concerned.
Senator Gregg. That was actually the House of
Representatives.
Attorney General Reno. Then I am mistaken, because I got
word that you were concerned. At any rate, I was concerned and
there is space at the FBI building, and I think we should use
that first and make sure that we use the resources that we have
as wisely as possible. And then as necessary, expand it.
Senator Gregg. I do think it makes sense to have it linked
to the FBI physically.
Attorney General Reno. You have seen the situation over
there. The more I can keep that together around the SIOC--the
Strategic Information Operations Center.
Senator Gregg. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Attorney General Reno. And I am trying.
Senator Gregg. If we can help with that, tell us.
I have a lot of other questions but we have a lot of other
members here, and so to give everybody an opportunity we will
try to limit the first round of questions to 7 minutes or so.
Senator Hollings has arrived. Do you have an opening
statement?
DECLINE IN CRIME
Senator Hollings. Madame Attorney General, what happens is
that I have watched over the years many an Attorney General
come and go. And for some 33, going on 34 years now, crime has
risen, except under your administration as Attorney General. So
I wanted to note for the record that 7\1/2\ years I think in a
row that crime rates have fallen.
Is that in your statement?
Attorney General Reno. I make reference to it.
Senator Hollings. Tell somebody you better get it and put
it in your statement, because that is a dramatic result. There
is no question that it is in every type of crime. And violent
crime, in and of itself, has fallen some 24 percent. So I
commend you for that and comment you for more or less restoring
the integrity of the Attorney General's office.
CERTIFICATION OF MEXICO
Now having given you the good government award, Attorney
General Reno, are you going to give Mexico the good government
award one more time? I mean, if you are, evidently you have not
read this morning's paper. Have you got a subscription to the
Washington Post?
Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir. My father taught me never
to believe everything I read in the newspaper, and he was a
reporter for the Miami Herald for 43 years.
Senator Hollings. I believe you believe the fellow is dead,
do you not? The chief of police of Tijuana?
Attorney General Reno. I do.
Senator Hollings. David Dow, the ambassador down there, he
said that Mexico was the headquarters for narcotrafficking
crime in this world, just as Sicily was for the Mafia. And that
is exactly what I am finding. Constantine, the head of the DEA,
said last time--I am leading up, of course, to this March
certification here in several days--please give your utmost
attention to that and let us not play this game that we are on
top of it because we have got a meeting down there, because
when you meet with them you are meeting with the criminals.
There is not any question in my mind it permeates
everything about that government when, as they said in the
morning paper, they take over as the chief of police they send
you first a bag of money. And if you do not accept that, then
they send you a bag with a gun in it.
When is that certification due, do you know?
Attorney General Reno. My understanding is that the
President must make certification decisions by the first of
March.
Senator Hollings. Have you made a recommendation?
Attorney General Reno. I do not discuss what I have
recommended to the President.
Senator Hollings. Would you recommend to me, and this
committee then? What would you recommend about Mexico?
Attorney General Reno. Senator, you know that if I told you
that, then it would be in the context of what I was
recommending or not recommending to the President and he----
Senator Hollings. Not necessarily. We have had many a
Cabinet officer tell us one thing and tell the President
another.
Attorney General Reno. Well, I try not to do that, Senator.
Can I say something about the credit you gave me?
Senator Hollings. Yes, ma'am.
DECREASED CRIME RATES
Attorney General Reno. You were not here, and I would like
to give you some of the credit and the committee some of the
credit, and an awful lot of wonderful people all over this
country. I am not sure that I should be getting good government
awards.
But I do think that the experience that we have had in the
last 7 years, as I alluded to earlier with the Chairman, we
have an extraordinary opportunity, ladies and gentleman. We can
continue our efforts at reducing crime. We can avoid
complacency, which is what tends to happen when crime rates go
down. We can continue the mixture of efforts of good solid,
fair enforcement, intervention, prevention, and aftercare and
follow up. And we can once and for all end the culture of
violence in this country. This country is still far too violent
a nation.
In the time I have remaining--I think this is the last
hearing I will probably have before this committee but I will
be working with you in the months remaining. I want to do
everything I can to continue that effort and to expand it in
Indian Country, Senator Campbell. But we have a wonderful
opportunity because this committee has been great to work with.
You just do it the right way.
Senator Hollings. Well, Chairman Gregg has done an
outstanding job and it has been a pleasure to work with him,
and I agree with you.
INDIAN COUNTRY
Let me ask you about the Bureau of Indian Affairs, because
we just had the Secretary of Commerce up. You can tell when
election time comes around, whoopee for the Indians. We have
got millions over in the Commerce Department all of a sudden
for Indians. And now we have got an $82 million increase in
here for the Indians. That is for a total of $173 million.
And yet you have got the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and they
are increasing, it appears to me, for the same thing. Have you
checked that out?
Attorney General Reno. Yes, and I am going to tell you on
that, Senator, that it is not election time for me. When I was
about 10 years old, an old man walked into the yard and he was
covered with mud. And he said I see you have two Jeeps and my
Jeep is stuck in the mud out in the Everglades, would you come
pull me out? And Daddy and I went and pulled him out. And he
was a Firestone tire salesman. He had big super balloon tires
and he knew the Everglades like the back of his hand. And he
had the Sippy Super Suction Snakebite Kit because he had gotten
bit so often, and he attached it to the windshield wiper.
About 2 weeks later he called my mother and he said I have
got a problem on the Indian reservation, babies are dying and
sick. There is an epidemic of something and we do not know what
it is, and they need pumps and blankets. And my mother wrote a
story that appeared in the paper and got a lot of goods and
medicine and the like. And the Indians have been my friends
ever since, not just in election time. I do not even know when
election time is, in terms of my relationship with the Indian
community.
And when I came to Washington, I was concerned that the
Federal Government, historically, had not done its job with
respect to its trust relationship in Indian Country. As violent
crime has come down in the rest of the nation, it has not come
down in Indian Country. And I am dedicated to doing everything
I can to work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to make sure
that we do what is right by people in Indian Country.
When you talk about proliferation, I think the Justice
Department, respectfully, and I do not mean to be boasting, but
I think we know better how to do things from a Federal law
enforcement perspective than the other agencies.
Senator Hollings. There was a wonderful doctor named Dr.
Arnold Schaefer from Nebraska who headed up the United States
Department of Public Health, that did surveys. I happened to
ask him about the hunger in America. And he said they had
surveys in 32 countries but never in the United States.
So we gave him 5 years and $10 million. And he came back
and he had the report that we had 12 million hungry. And
working on the thousands of reports that we had over the
country to do something about it, the Nixon Administration sent
all those reports down to the CDC, Communicable Disease Center
in Atlanta, and told them do not communicate. That problem has
been solved. We had hunger in the days of Christ. We are going
to have hunger in the days when you and I are dead and gone.
And told Dr. Schaefer not to say anything about it and he
could get reappointed. But if he said otherwise, he was going
to get disappointed. So he did say and he was disappointed, and
he went up and got a special study of Indian hunger and study
of health. He got it out of the United States Army. It is very
interesting how this government works.
But going into the Indian reservations, he found the chief
cause for Indian fatality and illness and everything else was
alcoholism and diabetes. They had nothing to do.
I got with Senator Montoya and found out, at that
particular time, that we were paying out $25,000 for each
Indian. Now we have proliferated. Indians have really gotten
conjugal here in the last 20 or 30 years because of the
casinos. Everybody I run into in South Carolina wants to get up
a tribe and open up a casino.
But we have put millions and millions in there, and now you
have got crime, and we find the millions we are paying for
everything from education, health care, crime control, whatever
else, on the reservation, these chiefs somehow take the money
and it does not get down. It is like delivering lettuce by way
of a rabbit.
We have got to do something about Indian affairs, but I say
Mr. Chairman, we cannot get into that. One question about the
Border Patrol before my time is up.
BORDER PATROL
Is it the case that they do not have any need for any more
Border Patrol agents? I notice that by the request that is made
by the INS on the Border Patrol, that they are not asking for
any really additional Border Patrol agents. Whereas, you are
only going to hire, in other words, 430 when Congress said hire
1,000 new agents down there on the one hand.
And then, as you are looking at up, Attorney General Reno,
with respect to the pay, I had a note somewhere where they are
going to take them from a GS-7 to a GS-11. That will give them
more pay. But then you come around and, instead of giving
uncontrollable overtime provision, they lose that pay. So I am
trying to check into make sure I am giving them an increase in
pay. We are not paying these Border Patrol agents anything, to
really speak of. They can get a good job elsewhere. We just
underpay and expect everything of them, to risk their lives and
otherwise.
Fine, let us put them up to a GS-11, but do not take away
the overtime.
Attorney General Reno. Senator, first with your remarks
about Indian Country. We are going to do everything we can to
make sure our money is well spent. And we are going to do it in
a comprehensive way.
And Senator, if you saw some of those young people and the
great work that they are doing, you would be really proud.
There is such a spirit, and what we need to do is work with
them to fulfill our trust responsibilities. I am committed to
doing that, and I am committed to doing it in a way that money
is spent wisely.
With respect to the Border Patrol, I share your commitment
to the issues with respect to the Border Patrol, and to the
need to enhance border security. I believe that more agents are
needed along the border. But rather than asking just for new
agents, the fiscal year 2001 budget request also seeks border
technology, which enhances each agent's force along the border.
In addition, INS is having difficulties hiring new agents
with the economy as good as it is, and some of these isolated
areas where they have to serve, it has been difficult. But we
are going to continue our effort and continue to try to provide
a balanced effort of technology and people power along the
border.
With respect to the issue of pay reform, we continue to
believe that in order to make significant inroads in
recruitment and retention, a fundamental change is required.
Those changes include upgrades to the GS-11 level, providing
eligibility for law enforcement availability pay and
recruitment bonuses. I think, from all that I have heard, this
will be the package that is, first of all, fairest, and
secondly, competitive.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator. Senator Campbell?
INDIAN COUNTRY
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Attorney General Reno, as this may be the
last time you appear before this Committee, I want to commend
you on your years of public service.
Anybody that runs for office, or anybody that serves in
your capacity, has to take a lot of heat, as you probably know.
And you have. So I wanted to thank you for those years and
certainly the reduction of crime in America, in my view, has
been at least partly--and a good part--related to your efforts
and your leadership. So I want to thank you for that.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Campbell, I want to be associated
with those remarks. I think they were well stated, and I would
like to be associated with them.
Senator Campbell. Thank you.
Let me talk maybe about Indians a little bit, since you
mentioned it and since our ranking member also mentioned it.
You simply cannot turn around things in a culture that has been
in the form of a forced dependency for 130 years. If you look
at all the numbers, as you know, Madame Attorney General,
whether it is unemployment of 60 and 70 percent, with its high
school dropout, death by violence, fetal alcohol syndrome,
housing, hunger, diabetes, as you mentioned, all of those
things. You multiply what is happening in America by anything
from four and five up to maybe 10 times, and you get what an
average Indian person has to live with on a reservation.
That cannot be fixed in just a matter of days. And it
cannot be fixed simply by providing more money without some
very clear efficient uses of the money, particularly in self-
help programs.
I hope I do not offend any people of color in the room, but
I will tell you that I can take you to places in South Dakota
where Indians are regularly called prairie niggers in the most
vulgar sense you can imagine. And if they go to stores in some
towns, they are followed because everybody knows they steal.
So I have no problem at all with the emphasis you have put
in trying to help reduce crime on Indian reservations. And I
had a couple of questions about it, too.
One, I sent you a letter about half a year ago. It was
regarding a poster that had been sent to me from South Dakota
advertising ``Indian hunting season.'' I do not know if you
remember that or not, but it was really a mean poster. It
talked about how you could go out and kill Indians for sport,
how you could hunt them down like jackrabbits or coyotes or
something of that nature.
I received the Department response in January indicating
you had referred that to the FBI. I was wondering, I have not
heard anything from the FBI. Have you heard anything back at
all from them about pursuing how that was printed and
disseminated?
Attorney General Reno. I have not heard back. One of the
things that we have got to make sure that we are careful about
is First Amendment issues. We look at all of these issues very
carefully, and I was advised that there may be no basis for
action.
Senator Campbell. You mean, people can print fliers
advocating killing somebody else under First Amendment?
Attorney General Reno. Wait, Senator. And I said what?
Senator Campbell. That is what I would have said.
Attorney General Reno. I said at least we have to follow up
to see what the facts are. So we are doing that, and I have not
heard what the conclusion is.
Senator Campbell. Well, when Louis Freeh [ed: Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation] appears before this
committee, I will ask him, but I did want to ask you if you had
heard anything about it.
Attorney General Reno. Neither of us should really comment
on what we found or what the status is.
TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Senator Campbell. I appreciate that.
Let me go on then to something else that Senator Hollings
did allude to. That is the problem we have with some of the
tribes that are on the Mexico border is that, as I understand
it, there is much more freedom to move back and forth through
holes in the fence on reservations than most people realize in
America, and certainly more than any of us would support. I
wanted to ask you about that.
Does the Department include tribal law enforcement
departments when you are talking about people coming across our
borders illegally?
Attorney General Reno. Do you mean tribal law enforcement?
Senator Campbell. Yes. Does the Attorney General's office
work with tribal law enforcement to try and decrease that?
Attorney General Reno. To increase tribal law enforcement
in dealing with illegal immigration?
Senator Campbell. Yes.
Attorney General Reno. I cannot point to specific
instances, but I am sure that the Border Patrol works with
tribal law enforcement on a regular basis. What I would like to
do, Senator, is make sure that I have an accurate answer for
you, in terms of what precisely we have done.
[The information follows:]
TRIBAL ENFORCEMENT
Several Indian reservations are located on or near the border with
Mexico. Two of the tribes on these reservations, the Kickapoo Tribe in
Texas and the Tohono O'odham Nation in Arizona, have territory adjacent
to the border. The Blackfeet Indian Nation in Montana and the
Akwesasne/St. Regis Reservation in upper New York State have territory
adjacent to the border with Canada. Several other tribes are located on
reservations near the borders but do not own land directly adjacent to
the borders.
Law enforcement activity conducted by Border Patrol agents on
Indian lands is limited primarily to enforcing immigration laws. Border
Patrol agents have authority to access, without warrant, any private
lands located ``within a distance of twenty-five miles from any
external boundary [of the United States] but, not dwellings for the
purpose of patrolling the border, to prevent the illegal entry of
aliens into the United States'' (8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3)). The authority of
Border Patrol agents to go onto private land without permission or
without warrant beyond the 25-mile border area is governed by the
Fourth Amendment rule against unreasonable searches and seizures. Those
reservations with borders passing through them present a challenging
working situation for our agents. Border Patrol agents enforce
immigration law on borders intersecting Indian lands by coordinating
and cooperating with tribal law enforcement.
The Border Patrol has a long tradition of striving to maintain good
working relationships with tribal authorities and tribal police
departments. Border Patrol agents working in these areas strive to
respect Indian lands and authority when entering onto reservations.
Reports from the field reflect an overall cordial to good working
relationship with their tribal counterparts. Reports from Border Patrol
stations along the southern and northern borders indicate that the
degree of cooperation between them and the tribal law enforcement in
their respective areas depends largely upon the current tribal police
chief. Tribal governments, which choose their own police chiefs, often
dictate the kind of relationship that will be maintained with U.S.
counterparts. The process of building these relationships is an ongoing
and time-consuming process for Border Patrol agents. Also, other
internal and external factors, not related to law enforcement, often
affect this working relationship.
In addition, Border Patrol stations near Indian reservations have
received intelligence concerning smuggling of illegal aliens,
narcotics, and contraband on these lands. There is growing concern over
the amount of such smuggling. Depressed economies, diminished personal
opportunities for residents of reservations, and the proximity to the
border create an environment that fosters smuggling. With limited
manpower and difficulties patrolling on some Indian lands, the Border
Patrol faces a continuing challenge in performing its duties and
maintaining control in these areas. The Border Patrol will continue to
do its part in meeting the challenges caused by sensitive issues and
situations beyond its control by continually trying to build and
maintain solid working relationships with tribal law enforcement along
the borders.
RESOLVING ISSUES IN INDIAN COUNTRY
Senator Campbell. Okay. Well, you got into all kinds of
things, and so did Senator Hollings, dealing with a snake bite,
alcoholism, and everything else. But there is no question that
the alcoholism problem on reservations is high. I know that,
even though some of them have what are called dry reservations.
And more people get snakebit out of bottles than they do by
snakes unfortunately.
When you have a depressed economy, a depressed people, and
high alcoholism, you are going to have a lot of escapism
through everything from violent crime to you name it, but I
know you are aware of that.
Attorney General Reno. But what is happening is very
exciting because we had a group come to the Justice Department,
at our invitation, to discuss alcohol in Indian Country and
determine what would be the appropriate steps to take. The
studies that they had done indicated, first of all, that it was
not genetic or inherent. And I think everybody should
understand that. Much of it arises from a sense of
hopelessness. Where can they pursue job opportunities while
living in distant reservations, being one of the factors?
What is exciting is that when a tribe comes together, when
it has resources, when it can deal with the issue, they are
having some success. I think we can build on that and again,
working together, make a difference, making sure that Senator
Hollings is satisfied that we are not wasting money. I am very
encouraged by what we can do and very encouraged at the spirit
of the tribes that we have been working with.
Senator Campbell. Well, I am concerned about it, too, and I
am not into wasting money. But unfortunately, a lot of the
Federal regulations make it almost impossible for tribes to be
able to expand their opportunities, as you probably know.
Casinos, in some cases, have done that, but only about one out
of ten is really profitable. A number of them have already gone
into receivership, as you probably know. The casinos surely are
not the answer.
COPS IN SCHOOLS
Let me get away from that, if I can. Let me just ask you
about the COPS in Schools program. I introduced the legislation
that established the COPS in Schools program. It was signed
into law October 27, 1998 by the President. And certainly, I
thank Chairman Gregg for really going to bat for that bill, and
all the members of this committee who really helped with it.
But I did want, as my last question in this round, to ask
you how is the COPS in Schools program going? Because as you
know, unfortunately, I introduced it before Columbine and it
certainly did not help there. But I understand that more
schools are availing themselves to police being resource people
in the schools. Do you know how that is working?
Attorney General Reno. I do not have statistics for you.
All I have are anecdotes that it is working beautifully. When
you have a police officer in the schools whom the kids and the
administration and the teachers can work with, it is one of the
most effective partnerships that can be built in a neighborhood
or a community. And from that, so much more can come after
school and in the evening.
Police officers can be key in teaching kids to resolve
conflicts without knives and guns and fists. They can become
mentors. And they can become problem solvers. When the police
officer is trusted in the community, people will come and give
him tips that solve some of the more serious crimes.
It is an excellent way, done right, to build a community
and bring a community together, rather than split it apart.
Senator Campbell. I would like to know if you can find the
number, how many resource officers have been placed. I think
this committee would appreciate that number.
Attorney General Reno. You will get that.
Senator Campbell. I know that not many schools were
particularly interested before Columbine, and that a number of
our schools in Colorado are now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will relinquish the mike.
[The information follows:]
NUMBER OF RESOURCES OFFICES PLACED IN SCHOOLS
More than 9,900 COPS officers are working to some capacity in local
schools. More importantly, of the 2,200 full-time COPS in Schools
officer grants funded to date, over 307 officers have been placed on
the beat to work full-time in local schools and an additional 70 are in
training.
2001 FUNDING FOR COPS IN SCHOOLS
Senator Gregg. On that point, Madame Attorney General, we
cannot find any funds in this budget request that came up for
COPS in Schools. This committee funded that aggressively last
year but there is no money in here specifically allocated for
that. There is $80 million in a general statement for school
violence, but that is not specifically to this account.
Attorney General Reno. Let me check on that, Mr. Chairman,
and understand exactly where we are at.
More than 9,900 of the 60,000 cops that had been put on the
streets, to date, are working in local schools.
Senator Gregg. About one out of six is working in schools
as volunteer time?
Attorney General Reno. That is correct.
[The information follows:]
The COPS Office derives authority and funds for the COPS in Schools
(CIS) program through the existing Universal Hiring Program. Therefore,
within the total amount of hiring funds requested ($422,286,000) in the
President's Budget, COPS will continue to provide grants to localities
to hire School Resource Officers, according to the demand for these
grants.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Senator Hutchison?
BORDER PATROL
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madame Attorney General, the Illegal Immigration Reform Act
of 1996 is very clear. It states that the Attorney General, in
each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall
increase by not less than 1,000 the number of positions for
full-time active duty Border Patrol agents in the INS.
This year you requested, in your budget, 1,000. But in
fact, the President has come back with 430. In fact, in only
one of 5 years did the President actually request 1,000 agents
and in none of those years did you actually produce 1,000.
I think the lack of emphasis of this Administration on
keeping illegal activity from coming across our southern border
is appalling. I share the view of many on this committee about
your integrity. But the lack of emphasis on Border Patrol is a
lapse for which we are paying dearly.
In fact, it is estimated that $10 billion in illegal drugs
has come across our border in the last year. One billion
dollars was apprehended. So the other $9 billion is somewhere
in our country.
I want to ask you a direct question. We included an
amendment in this appropriation bill in language that said if
we did not hire 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, as was
required, by June of this year that the money would be used for
an increase in pay for non-supervisory agents serving at the
GS-9 level to the GS-11 level. I wanted to ask you what is the
progress of hiring this year. And do I have your commitment
that this pay raise will be made in June if you have not
reached the 1,000 goal?
Attorney General Reno. First of all, let me address your
earlier comments. I appreciate your comment about my integrity
but I think I have just been blamed for all the drugs and the
illegal activities. If I am responsible for it, I accept the
responsibility.
But I think what we have been able to do in reducing crime
might be a good model for what we can do along the borders,
both southern and northern. When I came into office I found an
agency that had been sorely neglected. It did not have
resources. It did not have cars, in some instances, for Border
Patrol agents. It did not even have radios in some instances.
Others did not have vests.
We have built the Border Patrol significantly in these last
7 years. We have reduced crime in some of the areas along the
border, and we have tried to deal with these issues. I think it
is important that we look at the whole history and work
together to try to address these problems.
BORDER PATROL PAY REFORM VERSUS PAY RAISE
Now with respect to the issue of pay, we have proposed a
comprehensive pay reform. I think the best way to do that is to
work together to try to develop that. And I will commit to
doing that, and I will commit to coming by and talking with you
and doing everything we can to do it the right way.
Senator Hutchison. Will you comply with the intent of
Congress that the GS-9 level will go to GS-11 in June if you do
not reach the 1,000?
Attorney General Reno. I would be happy to check and see
and come by and tell you what I can and cannot commit to.
Senator Gregg. Senator, on that point could I just get a
clarification? Because Senator Hollings asked the same question
and I thought it was a good question. Are you offsetting the
pay increase from GS-9 to GS-11 by eliminating overtime?
Attorney General Reno. But it is starting in October. It is
not June.
Senator Hutchison. But Madame Attorney General, our
provision last year said if you did not have the 1,000 by June,
the money that would not be spent that we allocated for the
1,000 would go for the pay raises. That is for this year. That
is in lieu of the October effect of the 2001 budget.
Attorney General Reno. As I have said, my understanding is
that that is report language. What we have proposed is a
comprehensive pay reform package. What I would like to do is
sit down with you, go over what you propose, go over what the
comprehensive pay reform package is, and see how we can do it
as wisely as possible.
Senator Hutchison. Madame Attorney General, it was report
language. But the absolute intent of Congress was for the money
that you could not spend that is in our budget in June, if you
were not going to be able to spend it on hiring new agents,
that it would immediately go to the GS-9 increase up to GS-11.
Because we know we have retention problems with this level of
employee.
And we, as a Congress, directed you to do that. Why would
you consider it necessary to wait until October when we have
not met the 1,000 goals yet in your administration?
Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to address it and
get back to you and see just what should be done. And if I
think that the pay reform package best meets the needs of
reducing attrition, attracting the best people, maintaining the
Border Patrol in the best way possible, I will come talk to you
about it.
Senator Hutchison. Madame Attorney General, obviously you
are not going to----
Attorney General Reno. I am not trying to be obstinate, I
just----
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Keep the word today that we
have given you clear mandates to keep. I cannot, in my wildest
imagination, imagine what could be more important for the
expenditure of the funds that we have allocated for hiring
1,000 new Border Patrol agents, if that money is not going to
be spent mid-year, that you would not take the step directed by
Congress for you to take, which would be a bold statement that
border control is important in this administration, when you
have all the evidence that illegal drugs and illegal
immigration is occurring in droves.
I understand that you are clearly not going to give us your
word today.
Attorney General Reno. You do not want me to give you my
word today because if I had given you my word, Senator, and I
backed off on it, I would want you to really speak sharply to
me.
Senator Hutchison. How about giving us your word today and
keeping it?
Attorney General Reno. What I have found is that it is
better not just to react, but to sit down, look at it, come
talk to you, hear you, and then tell you what I can and cannot
do. And then if I tell you I am going to do something, you
ought to expect me to do it.
Senator Hutchison. Madame Attorney General, you have been
directed by Congress, as of October 1 of last year, that this
is a priority, that if you did not have the hiring by June 1,
that this is where we believe the money should go to address
retention problems in the Border Patrol. It is not like I
sprung this on you this morning. This has been part of the bill
that you have been living with since last October.
Attorney General Reno. And what I am suggesting is my
understanding that that was report language. I would just like
to sit down and give you my reasons for it after I have
reviewed everything, and then try to do what I say I am going
to do.
Senator Hutchison. With all due respect, Madame Attorney
General, report language is the will of Congress, and I would
hope that you would comply with it, even if you will not agree
to comply with it this morning.
Attorney General Reno. Well, I am going to do my best to do
what I think is right and I am not trying to be obstinate with
you. I am just trying not to make snap judgments when we have
tried to carefully think about a pay reform package.
And Senator, I bet you do not know any other--you talk
about a commitment to border issues. I bet you do not know any
other Attorney General that has been to the border as much as I
have, or who has tried to back up the Border Patrol as much as
I have. They do a great job and we are going to do everything
we can to give them the resources, not just on the southern
border but the northern border, to do the job.
Senator Hutchison. Madame Attorney General, I think the
record of this administration is abysmal on our southern
border. We have given you a directive for 5 years to hire 1,000
new Border Patrol agents. And when I asked Doris Meissner if we
were giving incentives for Spanish language proficiency, she
said no because we have teaching classes in the INS to teach
people basic Spanish.
That is outrageous, when we have so many people who would
be qualified and could hit the ground running. We did not even
test on the border. We required people to go up to Dallas and
Fort Worth to have the testing for Border Patrol. These are
things that we brought up because we heard it from the base
down on the border, where we had the most resources.
I just have to say that I think success in meeting the
mandate of Congress to increase Border Patrol by 5,000, when
Barry McCaffrey says we need 20,000 and we are not halfway
there, I do not think the record stands for itself. I do not
think this is a surprise, you have had 6 months to comply with
the June 1 deadline to raise the GS-9 to GS-11. And I just hope
you will consider it.
Senator Gregg. We are going to have to move on.
Attorney General Reno. Senator, there are 150 percent more
agents on board now than there were in 1993.
Senator Hutchison. Woefully short.
Senator Gregg. We are on to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. I am going to defer, if I may Mr.
Chairman, for one moment that I have promised to Senator
Mikulski.
REMARKS OF SENATOR MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
Madame Attorney General, I have to leave to be with
Governor Glendenning, who is hosting a meeting with all of the
governors with the members of the Senate. But I could not leave
today without thanking you. Thanking you for the outstanding
job you have done as Attorney General, the service you have
provided to the Nation, the excellent team that you have had
working with you, and I do know that we are safer, our streets
are stronger, our borders are stronger than when you took
office.
So I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you,
wish you Godspeed, and lots of good health.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you very much, Senator. It has
been a pleasure to work with you.
Senator Gregg. Senator Lautenberg?
REMARKS OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Reno, I am glad to see you. You and I are
in the senior class and we will be graduating with this term.
It is kind of the end of our relationship at the U.S. Senate
campus.
I know that all of us feel that you leave having compiled
an illustrious and distinguished record and I commend you for
your tenacity and for your ability to get the job done. The
statistics only serve to substantiate the views that we have of
the job that you have done. I admire so much the fact that you
seem so even-tempered through it all. I am not sure that if
some of us were on that side of the table, the volume of
response, and perhaps the acidity of the language might have
changed. I commend you for that, as well.
GUN VIOLENCE
I want to get onto a question about gun violence. In your
statement, you point out the fact that there are still 33,000,
approximately, gun deaths a year in this country, far, far too
many, and especially if you compare us to other societies
around the world. One wonders why we cannot do better there. We
keep on thinking, at least I speak for myself here and I am
sure for many of my colleagues, I keep thinking that we have
seen the ultimate outrage, the ultimate assault on our families
and our children and our sensibility. You would think that that
would turn into a positive legislative response instead of the
old saw that says guns do not kill, people kill. It is so trite
and so unbelievable.
And yet, we cannot seem to move sensible gun legislation in
this country. The Second Amendment does not say that you can
buy an unlimited number of guns or that you can store them any
way you want. There are no specifics about what you have to do
with the guns, and we have every right therefore, to adopt
reasonable gun safety measures even if one said okay, take the
Second Amendment as it is. But at least we are going to make
sure that if you want to buy one of those things you have to
have a background check.
The thing that I have worked on so hard was closing the gun
show loophole. Rather than for the gun lobby to come in and say
okay, look, this is not going to hurt us. It is not going to do
anything to diminish our love of guns or our support for gun
ownership. Just common sense. So instead of trying to
cooperate, the response is always negative, some ridiculous
response that says that we want to take away everybody's gun.
There may be some people who would like to do that, but we
know that that is improbable, if not impossible.
I want to ask you this. Do you hear from police officers,
Federal law enforcement people, people who are working in the
field, people who are out there working to enforce the law, do
you hear from them about the gun show loophole?
Attorney General Reno. In these last months and year, I
have heard from a whole range of people about the gun show
loophole, and I appreciate your leadership in trying to close
it.
Senator Lautenberg. I thank you. Again, I am still trying
to fathom what it is that prevents the gun lobby from simply
saying yes, go along with this. Why the urgency to get that gun
immediately, especially from unlicensed dealers. You could be a
member of the 10 most wanted list, go up to the counter, put
your money down, and no one will ask you a question, not one
question. With regard to the terrible tragedy at Columbine,
Robin Anderson, recently testified before the Colorado
legislature that she went with Klebold and Harris to a gun show
and they looked for gun dealers who they knew would not ask
them one question about who they were or anything like that.
She said it was too easy to buy guns.
What in the world can possibly be wrong with background
checks at gun shows?
Attorney General Reno. We have kept guns out of the hands
of criminals through the checks that have been run. Why they
should not be run with respect to gun show situations is beyond
me.
THE BRADY LAW
Senator Lautenberg. What do you think would happen if law
enforcement was limited to even shorter periods for background
checks? Let us say 24 hours to conduct criminal background
checks on gun buyers? Would that impair their ability to run
even the most cursory check?
Attorney General Reno. The Brady Law now currently allows
law enforcement up to 3 business days to complete a background
check on a prospective gun buyer. This is very important. But
it does not mean that all buyers have to wait 3 days.
In fact, about 75 percent of gun buyers wait less than 3
minutes, and 95 percent of all gun buyers have their checks
completed in less than 2 hours. But for a very small number of
gun buyers, about 5 percent, that 3 days can make a significant
difference.
Senator Lautenberg. And if we were to reduce that, because
I have seen complaints registered by the FBI and by the BATF
that if we were to shorten this period--as it is there are a
number of people who escape through the loopholes now with
shorter periods for background checks, the number of prohibited
people getting guns would go up substantially.
In your view, are stronger laws necessary to reduce
juvenile crime? Are stronger gun laws necessary? Or is it
simply a cultural thing, in your judgment?
Attorney General Reno. I am not sure I understand.
Senator Lautenberg. The statements that so often come out
are that we should just enforce existing laws, we do not need
to create more laws. Does that make sense to you?
Attorney General Reno. Those people suggest, I think, that
they would rather see the crime committed and then somebody
take action, rather than trying to prevent it from happening in
the first place. And I think sensible approaches to the
purchase and use of guns can prevent, as we have seen what the
Brady Law can do, can prevent guns from getting into the hands
of people who are not lawfully entitled to have them.
Senator Lautenberg. I close, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your indulgence, with a statement about the law that I
authored to take guns away from domestic abusers and the battle
that we had, and the names that I was called. We have stopped
about 33,000 people, since that law has been on the books, from
getting guns because of spousal abuse. We have the trauma that
a child experiences when a mother typically, or a girlfriend,
has a gun pointed at their head.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BORDER PATROL PAY RAISE
Senator Gregg. Before I turn to Senator Domenici, I would
just like to note that I would like to work with Senator
Hutchison, Senator Hollings, and I am sure other members of
this committee, on this Border Patrol issue. Should there be a
supplemental, I would think we would want to put in the
supplemental language directing that the pay raise begins on
June 1 and that it not be offset by the overtime issue.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate that.
Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici?
RIO ARRIBA COUNTY
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madame Attorney General, first, I want to thank you for the
joint effort that you involved your department in with regard
to Northern New Mexico and the black heroin scourge that
existed in a county up there called Rio Arriba County. As a
result of the effort, a very large arrest has taken place of
open heroin dealers. The community is much calmer. They are
working on some long-range plans. I just hope that whomever you
have that is looking at that would continue to look at it and
continue to have some cooperation with state, FBI, and other
agencies.
I did not bring it to you because I wanted to bring a
county in New Mexico to get special attention, but rather it
was a county where more deaths were occurring because of black
tar heroin, more overdose deaths, than anyplace in America. I
thank you for that.
Attorney General Reno. Senator, I thank you for doing it
because what we have learned there, as we are learning across
the Nation, when we approach something from a comprehensive
point of view, whether it be meth getting a toehold in a new
community, or something such as what occurred in New Mexico,
and go after it in terms of vigorous enforcement, but develop
long-range plans that can address treatment issues as well. It
can be extremely successful and I thank you for your
leadership.
SOUTHWEST BORDER DRUG PROBLEM
Senator Domenici. Madame Attorney General and fellow
senators, I was asked by the judges from the Federal districts
that include California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, to
attend a conference they held in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That
conference was held because they wanted to discuss and bring to
the public attention, and to your attention and other
officials, that 30 percent of all of the criminal indictments
are taking place in those four States. Of all America, because
of the pressure on the drug pushers and the like, those four
States are getting 30 percent of the Federal crime indictments
and prosecutions.
Clearly, they are not equipped, either at the court level
in terms of sufficiency of judges, or the marshal level, or in
incarceration on an interim basis by the Marshals Service, to
handle such a huge caseload. The more we put pressure on, the
more we follow the lead of Senator Hutchison and others, and
put more people guarding our borders and making arrests, the
more these four districts feel this inordinate pressure from
having to try cases beyond their capacity.
I would like very much, since you do have some extra money
in the budget, the President asked for some, I would ask you to
look at those four areas. It is not New Mexico specifically,
but Arizona has a terrible problem, the Texas courts have an
enormous problem, so does California. We need somebody looking
at setting some priorities.
Otherwise, what is going to happen is we are going to
continue to put the pressure on, and then in a couple of years
they are going to be saying they cannot try any of them, or
they can only try 10 or 15 percent. This is a rather serious
problem. I wonder if you know about it? And if you do, are you
working on it? And if you do not, would you?
Attorney General Reno. Yes, we do know about it, because we
are the ones that have increased the filings. Alan Bersin was
the head of the Southwest border, he was my representative down
there, and he designed the system. So we initiated it to try to
deal with the issues that we share a concern for.
We have got to plan all the way down the line to do it,
because, as we are successful in the courts, then we will see
an increase in the prison population.
But the other thing we have got to really focus on, as
well, is that it is not just the Southwest border, in terms of
illegal aliens, in terms of drug smuggling. It is the country,
and we have got to make sure that we have got a balance, based
on drug related crime, and crime related to illegal aliens.
Senator Domenici. I understand that, but I just think it is
relevant to our Nation that 30 percent of all of the criminal
trials are occurring there. Regardless of what it ought to be,
they are there. I do not think they have the capacity to handle
them. I hope we will be looking at it, and I hope you will be
looking at it.
Attorney General Reno. We have looked at it very carefully,
and we are trying to do everything we can.
INDIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Senator Domenici. Senator Campbell, I was not here when you
spoke of the criminal justice system, or lack thereof, on
Indian reservations. I want to tell the Attorney General, I
went to Indian Country, in particular Navajo country, to look
at their judicial system as part of a 2-day trip to the largest
Indian tribe in America.
I would challenge anybody that is concerned about Indian
justice and the Indian courts, to go look at what the largest
Indian tribe in America has to house its judiciary. We are
expecting them to have a court system. We pay a little bit of
money for a court system. It is evolving.
Senator Hollings, if you went down there and said where
does your Supreme Court sit and where does your District Court
sit for jury trials, you would be absolutely amazed at the kind
of facilities they have. They are no more symbolic of what
justice ought to be and hold something out to people. They are
little huts and little buildings that have been added. Jury
trials are held in a quonset hut-type facility that, in
America, we would immediately say that is exactly the wrong
symbol to give about the importance of justice, to have such
second-rate facilities.
So I know there is more money in this year's budget for
those kinds of things. I wonder if you would just take a look,
as you answer some of my specific questions, at what is going
to be done in Navajo country with reference to their court
system, which I think is in desperate need.
I will submit the other questions as to specifics that I
would like to ask, about how you are allocating resources in
the court system.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you, and I will get back to
you on specifics for Navajo country. But you will see, in our
budget request, a significant increase requested for law
enforcement in Indian Country.
Senator Domenici. We did not get quite what we asked the
President. We had a big meeting with him and we got less of an
increase, but we got something like a $90 million increase for
criminal justice.
[The information follows:]
IMPROVEMENTS TO JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN INDIAN COUNTRY
There is a severe lack of resources for law enforcement in Indian
Country. Many of the 1.9 million Indians living on or near Indian lands
do not receive even minimal law enforcement services. Indian
communities lack sufficient trained law enforcement personnel, have few
adequate jails, and face chronic under-funding of their justice
systems.
The impact of strengthening tribal justice systems is far-reaching.
It benefits Native Americans in Indian Country and raises the level of
respect for their adjudicatory role with Indians, non-Indians, and
state and Federal judges. Tribal justice systems are essential
mechanisms for resolving civil and criminal disputes and family
problems arising on Indian lands. Strong tribal justice systems also
encourage the development of, and investment in, Indian land by Indians
and non-Indians. Moreover, interaction with Federal and state judges on
Indian issues will improve communication and coordination between
jurisdictions, which are intimately connected, but know very little
about each other. Informed decisions by tribal, Federal and state
judges are essential in the delivery of justice for Indian people and
others residing on Indian lands.
In the 2001 President's Budget request, OJP proposes the following
initiatives:
Indian Tribal Courts.--In both 1999 and 2000, $5 million has been
appropriated for the Tribal Court Program. In 2001, a $10 million
enhancement is requested for this program, bringing the total program
level to $15 million. This program is designed to provide resources for
the necessary tools to sustain safer and more peaceful tribal
communities by focusing on juvenile and family issues, as well as non-
traditional approaches to justice, enhancing the administration of
civil and criminal justice on Indian lands, and encouraging the
implementation of the Indian Civil Act by tribal governments. While
promoting greater cooperation among tribal, state, and Federal justice
systems, this program assists tribal justice systems to coordinate
programs and services within its tribal structure with law enforcement,
victims services, treatment providers and others. Tribal Courts also
assists with technology development to ensure that tribal justice
systems can communicate within the tribal and non-tribal justice
community. Just as in other parts of the country, crime has spread on
reservations at a rapid rate, thereby increasing the need for criminal
adjudication in tribal courts.
Tribal Criminal and Civil Legal Assistance.--$6 million is
requested to develop and enhance the legal services provided to Indian
tribes through a mix of program funds, training and technical
assistance, and program research and evaluation. The $6 million
requested will provide for the following:
$4.5 million, for the Tribal Criminal and Civil Legal Assistance
Program, will provide Indian tribes, tribal consortia, and private/non-
profits legal services organizations serving a reservation-based
constituency resources to develop or enhance their capacity to provide
criminal and civil assistance.
$1 million, for discretionary grants to the 31 existing Tribal
Colleges to create, develop and enhance a 2-year curriculum on
paralegal studies, law advocate studies, indigenous justice systems or
other areas directly related to criminal and civil legal assistance.
$500,000 will support a variety of activities, such as, training
and technical assistance, research and evaluation, and data collection.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. My last question has to do with something
way over on the other side of the spectrum, the radiation
exposure compensation program. Believe it or not, you have a
big hand in that also, along with all these other things we are
talking about.
We are being asked to put $7.2 million into the radiation
exposure compensation trust fund. Will you just generally tell
me, why do we need that now? Last April, I would just add, you
finalized additional regulations under that exposure act, for
which $21.7 million was requested by the administration. Why do
we need this urgent amount at this point?
Attorney General Reno. Here is what I understand. We
project a trust fund shortfall of approximately $7.2 million,
as noted. We requested the $21.7 million. That request assumed
implementation of regulation changes and enactment of statutory
changes similar to those proposed by the administration in
1997.
Congress appropriated $3.2 million. The $3.2 million
appropriation plus carry forward from 1999 and interest
provided $11.8 million in availability. Payments of about $19
million are projected, assuming about 228 awards will be
approved in the year 2000. The resulting shortfall is the
estimated $7.2 million.
The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2000
Appropriations Act stated that the administration has expanded
the number of claimants, through the issuing of regulations
when Congress has not chosen to do so through the normal
legislative process. No additional funding is provided to cover
the claims of the individuals provided for.
Congress took these actions because it mistakenly assumed
the Department of Justice modified the regulations in order to
circumvent the legislative process. In fact, the modifications
did not expand the program beyond Congressional boundaries, nor
create a new category of claimant. The changes were made to
keep the program in line with the current consensus of medical
opinion. Congress delegated to the Attorney General the
authority to issue regulations in Section 6 of the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act. Because the regulations carry the
force and effect of law, the program cannot legally distinguish
those claims that can only be approved under the original
regulations, as was suggested in the act, in the report.
Senator Domenici. I have about six more specific questions,
but I will submit them on that issue. I will just close by
submitting three written questions.
We are asking questions about the Government Performance
and Results Act of every subcommittee, because there is no use
having put that on the books and then not get some actual
results, in terms of objective analysis. So I have some
questions about that, and also about the expenditures that you
have for the first responder training program. It is easy to
forget about, but if we have one of these national disasters,
we will be asked what happened to the first responder program.
So I am wondering whether you are allocating the money
correctly, and I have a few questions on that issue.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you, sir.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
First responder is a big issue and this committee has tried
to be very sensitive to that, and we certainly want to work
with the Senator from New Mexico to make sure, if he has got
some concerns, that we follow up on them.
ELIMINATION OF MAJOR GRANT PROGRAMS
I want to address quickly here the COPS program, because
first off, as I look at the budget as it was presented to us,
there are some fairly significant reductions in what this
committee has traditionally funded in order of law enforcement
to assist local law enforcement agencies.
For example, the local law enforcement block grant is not
funded at all. That is a $500 million item. The juvenile
accountability incentive block grant is not funded at all, and
that is a $250 million item. And the State Prison Grants
programs is funded $75 million, and that is a $686 million
item. That means you are talking somewhere in the vicinity of
$1.3 billion in funding that has traditionally been going to
local agencies.
I guess my first question is why did you eliminate those?
Attorney General Reno. First of all, I would like to just
take a personal moment to tell you that I am the one, perhaps
more so than anybody else, that is not going to forget about
first responders. I have a nephew who has been a city of Miami
fireman for a year now, and I have seen some of the
circumstances. And I will assure that for as long as I am here,
I am not going to forget first responders.
With respect to State and local, the juvenile
accountability grants and the law enforcement block grant, what
we have tried to do, in general terms, is react based on
principles of federalism, recognizing--and I think most
everybody on the committee would agree--that State and local
law enforcement should not be dependent in a permanent way on
the Federal Government, but that it should be able to operate
independent and perform its functions based on State revenue
and State resources and local resources.
Where the Federal Government can play a very important role
is addressing emergency situations, addressing new ideas, to
try them out, to see if they work. Examples being the drug
court, the COPS program, to use the monies as wisely as
possible to ensure that we are able to evaluate what is done
with the money and make sure that we are spending it as wisely
as possible.
COPS BUDGET
Senator Gregg. Let me stop you there. If that is the case,
if that is the philosophy behind the cuts, then I guess my
question is why give the COPS program a significant increase?
The appropriated funds last year for the COPS program were $595
million. You have asked for a $740 million increase in
appropriated funds for the COPS program.
The National Police Chiefs Association has made it fairly
clear. Now we have reached the 100,000 COPS on the street last
May, so the 100,000 commitment has been reached. You talk to
the police chiefs, and they will say very bluntly, and in fact
I think it is their public policy right now--I may be wrong,
but I do not believe I am misquoting it--their public policy is
that they do not need more officers on the street funded by the
COPS program.
What they need is the technology assistance and the
capacity to get the officers already there skilled, through
training and technology so that they can fight crime.
So I guess my question is, if your logic is that you should
not be undertaking local responsibility, and you view LEA [Law
Enforcement Assistance], Byrne grants, and the prison grant
program as local responsibility, and if you have local police
officers saying what they want for local responsibility is
things like LEA and Byrne, which both address the technology
and the training issue, then why would you come forward with a
request that significantly increases the COPS program, which is
putting police officers on the street, which is the ultimate
local responsibility?
Attorney General Reno. I have been hearing from some other
people, if you have not been hearing, that people still need
COPS in order to address the issues.
Senator Gregg. Is this not a local responsibility, COPS? Is
not putting a police officer on the street the ultimate local
responsibility, which you just said was not an appropriate
action for us to pursue in these other accounts?
Attorney General Reno. I think on a permanent basis. But as
I said earlier, Senator, we have a chance to end the culture of
violence in this country, not to let up until we really turn
this around, not let up until we develop a capacity in this
nation to deal with violence so that we are on the equivalent
with most other large nations in the world, large industrial
nations.
We are trying to do it wisely. For Indian Country, that has
not had an opportunity, we are trying to address the issues
there, which go to personnel needs. For the school resource
officers, we are trying to address that through the universal
hiring program. We are trying to use it as wisely as we can.
And we have also increased technology funding from $230 million
in fiscal year 2000 to $350 million in fiscal year 2001. We are
working with the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
and other police organizations, to make sure that we use the
technology as wisely as possible, to avoid duplication, to
avoid fragmentation, and to make sure that we are linked in
terms of communication, in terms of information exchange, and
in terms of the capacity to use DNA for the remarkable tool
that it is.
INCONSISTENCY IN FUNDING GRANT PROGRAMS
Senator Gregg. I appreciate all that, but I do not think it
gets to the underlying question, which is there is an
inconsistency here. Not only are you suggesting that we hire
more police officers, above the 100,000 which were originally
proposed, but now you are suggesting we start a community local
prosecutor's office and we start hiring local prosecutors and
police officers.
And yet, at the same time, you are saying we should not be
funding LEA, block grants, Byrne grants, and prison grants,
which are all part of the continuum of law enforcement. There
is a disconnect here.
It seems to me that you are initiating something like 19
new programs under the COPS program, the community
investigators, prosecutors.
Attorney General Reno. There is not a disconnect, because
what we are trying to do is to show that the experience with
community policing can be enhanced and that, as a project for a
community, let us look at community prosecution. Let us see
what we can do when a community is given enough resources in a
focused way to see what happens when a neighborhood knows who
its prosecutor is, knows the judge, knows the police officer,
knows the probation officer, and works together with them in
building trust to bring a community to a safer situation and to
a less divisive situation.
And I am not suggesting the Federal Government should fund
the community police officers forever and ever, nor am I
suggesting that they fund community prosecutors or community
police officers. But these are examples of what we can do to
show that something works. Or maybe it will not work and we
scrap it.
Senator Gregg. Let me just make this policy point. You have
eliminated three of the major funding streams that run to the
local police force. You have increased and created a brand new
initiative in the area of the COPS program, not only in adding
more cops above what was originally requested, but adding this
community prosecutors program and 19 other programs on top of
that.
And at the same time, you have not funded the Border
Patrol. The 3,000 we originally requested is now, I do not know
how far behind you are, but you have reached maybe half of
that. And we need more than that. We need more than the 3,000.
And that is a Federal responsibility. Protecting our borders is
a Federal responsibility.
So if you are going to use your logic on LEA and Byrne and
State prison grants, we should use it on COPS, and we should
probably take all this money that is being proposed here, new
program money, and put it into the Border Patrol, which is a
Federal responsibility. We are not doing well there and fully
fund the Federal Border Patrol. Fund them so that they are
adequately paid. GS-11, grade 11 is not even an adequate level.
As a result, I am thinking, and this is just something I am
germinating. I am thinking maybe I will accept your LEA numbers
and when the police officers come to me and complain I will
say, hey, it is an administration decision. Maybe I will accept
your Byrne number and when they come to me I may say, hey, this
is the administration position. And I may even accept your
prison grant program and when the governors come to me, who I
am going to see in a few minutes, I will say that was the
administration's decision.
At the same time, I may say we are not going to do any of
these new programs. We are going to fund the COPS program in
the way it was supposed to be. And let us really put some
serious money into the Border Patrol where it should be, which
is a Federal responsibility, and follow your logic to its
appropriate conclusion.
Attorney General Reno. I like the way you take my logic,
but I take it a different way. So let us look at it from the
point of view of how we can hire the Border Patrol, how we can
keep them, how we can train them, how we can deal with it, and
I will work with you in every way possible to achieve that.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
HIRING BORDER PATROL AGENTS
Senator Hollings. Let me, Madame Attorney General, get this
record clear because you indicate you intend to hire 1,800
agents this year. Only 430 positions are for the 1,000
authorized and funded for the year 2000. The money is there, as
Senator Hutchison has pointed out. And 600 of those positions
are for the positions authorized and funded back in fiscal year
1999. So the remaining 770 positions are for attrition.
How do you justify proposing only to hire 430 for the year
2000 when Congress directed you to hire 1,000? I think that is
what other senators want to know and what I would like to know.
Attorney General Reno. What we are faced with is the fact
that it is very difficult to find people who want to go out to
the border, or go to lonely spots along the border, in a time
of very low unemployment, in a time where they can find jobs in
other places. We are constantly trying to review our recruiting
procedure to see what can be done along those lines.
Senator Hollings. Well, you start them off at a GS-7, at
$28,000. That is one of the obvious reasons you cannot get
them.
Why they are able to hold on to any of them is this
overtime pay, what we call administrative uncontrollable
overtime provision. That is fine. But when you try to buck them
up to a GS-11 and give them almost $42,000, I am told that you
are then going to lose the law enforcement availability pay
provisions which eliminates that overtime. In reality, they
could actually lose money from the switch, rather than make
more money.
Can you look into that, or respond now? Maybe the Assistant
[ed: Assistant Attorney General Stephen Colgate] here knows the
actual fact, but that is what I am told, that they are going to
end up, when it sounds better, they are going to go up to a GS-
11, they are going to be eliminating the overtime and so they
are not going to get as much.
Attorney General Reno. Senator, my understanding of the pay
reform package provides not only for the upgrade to GS-11, not
just for the availability pay, but also for a special factor
that will adjust for the administratively uncontrollable
overtime. I would like for Mr. Colgate to come by and show you
just what is involved, so that you will feel comfortable with
it.
Senator Hollings. Well, the reality is that we are getting
an administration some day that will put in a Marshall Plan for
Mexico. There is not any question, Mexico is our friend, our
neighbor, our responsibility. We have been going over the same
drill year in and year out. They bring in these presidents and
the American Enterprise Institute gives them the outstanding
industrialists of the year award, and everything else like
that, whoopee for NAFTA. And they end up as a fugitive from
justice.
The whole thing is crooked. Under NAFTA they are making
less pay. We have lost jobs there. It is corporate corruption
galore down there, as well as the crime. And so it will
continue on. You just smooth over that 2,000 to hire enough
Border Patrolmen until you get some basic change in the Mexican
government down there. It is going to cost money and it is
going to take money that I am willing to spend. But rather than
spend it down there to finance Wall Street, because that is
what we did when they devalued the peso, the $12 billion went
down to Mexico and then back on up to Wall Street and they got
no advantage or improvement from it.
ATTORNEY OVERTIME
Talking about the retirement, though, in pay, we have got
almost a cancer, I think, in these assistant U.S. attorneys.
They have got 9,000 attorneys who have joined in a suit for
overtime. Can you tell the assistant U.S. attorneys that they
come for public service and not to make money?
We Senators know how to make money. We can get out and make
more. I have had two leave my staff in the last year, making
$400,000 and $500,000, so we know how to go and make money. We
get these bright young folks that come in, they get the
experience, they are willing to try cases and everything else,
but now we have got almost a tenure. We passed a bad law back
in 1988 and gave them tenure and of the thousands of assistant
U.S. attorneys, you have got a bunch of them just sitting
around and worrying about overtime.
We put in, under the leadership of our chairman here, a ban
for 1 year of that overtime pay. I think we ought to make it
permanent and maybe repeal that 1988 statute, so we will take
away the tenure maybe.
Senator Gregg. That makes sense. Maybe we ought to put them
on an hourly basis and ask them to punch in and punch out, if
that is the way they approach the job.
Senator Hollings. Well, they are that intelligent. They
would know how to punch in and punch out. You would not get any
work out of them.
COPS IN SCHOOLS PROGRAM
The school resource officers, Madame Attorney General, that
came from the local experience. We found in schools, for
example, in my backyard where we had about 800 and all kind of
offenses and drugs and what have you, that we hired a deputy
sheriff to go out there and teach classes. And then he
associated in the afternoon with the athletic program. Before
long, he became a sort of a school hero, and instead of 800
potential violators, we had 800 potential enforcers of the law
because all they had to do is make a motion and whatever it is,
somebody bringing a knife on the campus that did not involve
the student to that extent, and it worked. And we put $125
million in it. And now you eliminate it. Why?
Attorney General Reno. My understanding is that the COPS
office expects to continue to fund school resource officers
through its COPS in Schools program in the year 2001.
Senator Hollings. Well, I am like the chairman, we will
have to look at that one.
Attorney General Reno. Senator, it ties in with the whole
concept of building a community capacity to deal with crime.
And it makes good sense. And it is the partnerships that we are
talking about.
Senator Hollings. Thank you.
ATTORNEY OVERTIME
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, may I just say
something? I cannot talk about the overtime litigation, but I
can talk about the assistant United States attorneys who serve
the people of this country. They work long hours. They care
deeply. They are excellent lawyers. And I have not seen
examples of many of them sitting around.
They do a really wonderful job for this country. They are
very special. And I cannot let this time go by without
acknowledging the great work that they do.
Senator Hollings. I would like to reiterate, they ought to
get a job up here in the Senate, and know how to really work.
Attorney General Reno. Senator, from what I have seen, I
would praise the Senate staff in the same way.
Senator Hollings. And they are not suing for overtime.
Senator Gregg. Not yet.
Attorney General Reno. You probably would not let them.
Senator Hollings. You have got it.
Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, now that we know how to
really work, I wonder if I could ask Senator Hollings to send
me a memo on where these $500,000 jobs are when I get out of
here.
GROWING PRISON POPULATION
I read with interest almost all of your testimony, Madame
Attorney General, while our other committee people were asking
questions. Let me start just by making a small social
commentary you have heard me preach about before. I am sure you
understand it, too, from reading your testimony.
Our prison population has doubled in 10 years. In your
testimony, in fact, you say this year 570,000 people will get
out of prison, starting on page 19. You know as well as I do
that twice that many will be going into prison. In fact,
probably 70 or 72 percent of the ones that get out are going to
go back in. A lot of it is related to drugs, and you have
alluded to that in testimony and in private conversations, too.
I have said this before, I do not know how we are ever
going to reduce that cycle and reduce that supply until we get
to what we have talked about. That is somehow we have got to
decrease the demand. As long as the demand is there, it will
get here some way. It will come in on boats or drop out of
airplanes or come through underground like moles or something.
But I am glad you appreciate that because you have
mentioned things along that line. I think it is really a sad
commentary, and I know that the Attorney General's office is
not supposed to be running social programs, but I think it is
really a sad commentary that so many communities in America
have seen prisons as a form of economic development. We have
them competing with each other to see where a prison is
located. It just seems there is something wrong with that, when
we think of America being the beacon of freedom, and yet we
have got more people going into prisons than anyplace in the
world, in fact.
But I do not want to pursue that, frankly. My question had
nothing to do with that, I just wanted to mention that in
commentary.
CYBERCRIME
In the last few weeks we have seen on the news endless
stories about these hacking of the web-based businesses. I
understand it has increased a great deal, by roughly 40 percent
or so in this last year. I know you and Louis Freeh are working
on a 5 year plan to develop some kind of program to combat
cybercrime. Your budget this year has $37 million in it to hire
159 prosecutors and launch 10 computer forensic labs around the
country. I applaud you for that.
But my question was that, you just mentioned, we are having
so much trouble getting people in the Border Patrol, as an
example. Is it realistic to believe that we can create and fill
159 new positions on top of the vacancies that already exist?
The other part of that question is what are we doing to be more
competitive with private firms in order to be able to recruit
the type of people that can do this highly technical work?
Attorney General Reno. The answer is exactly what the
chairman said at the last meeting that he called especially to
address this issue of cybercrime. The greatest single challenge
we face is how do we attract people who have the know-how, both
legal and technical, to deal with the issue. The administration
has addressed it through a scholarship program that is similar
to ROTC. For a bachelor's degree you commit to the government
for a certain number of years. That will be one way to do it.
It is going to be a very difficult challenge but we are
going to do everything we can to meet it. And I will tell you
that this, as I told the chairman, is probably one of the most
important issues that law enforcement will face for many, many
years to come. How we address it now is going to influence how
people, I think, react to the Internet. Do they have confidence
in it? Do they believe that their privacy can be protected? Do
they believe it will work? Do they believe that they will not
be victims of it, as opposed to beneficiaries of it?
We are committed to doing everything that we can, but you
have touched on what I think is one of the most difficult
issues of all.
DIFFICULTIES IN HIRING
Senator Campbell. I applaud you and I wish you well, but I
will tell you, when you see our bright young university
graduates coming out, that can hire on to engineering firms,
with the kind of skills that it takes to be a hacker for
$50,000 and $60,000 a year, we are not going to get them to
come into government service for $20,000 or $25,000. It is as
simple as that.
I think Senator Hollings has brought that up. If we are
going to pay the best, we have got to pay the best salaries.
Attorney General Reno. I just want to point out to you, I
have been impressed, for example, with FBI agents that I have
met. One was a trauma surgeon and decided to become an FBI
agent. Another was a newscaster. People, I think, appreciate
the opportunity to serve and to serve the people of this
country. Fortunately, we have some wonderful people, both in
the Bureau and in the Department of Justice, who have the know-
how and want to put it to use for the American people.
I would like to suggest something to you all. Some people
say to me how can you stand public service when you get cussed
at, fussed at, and figuratively beaten around the head. This
committee never does it to me. You kind of encourage public
service, as far as I am concerned. You disagree with me on an
awful lot and we agree on an awful lot.
But if we could establish a tone where people thought that
public service was done the way it is done in this committee, I
think we would be a lot further down the line.
Senator Campbell. We have a few surgeons that have given up
their practice to come into the Senate, as you know, and the
House, and I certainly applaud them. But when you talk about
these youngsters, so much depends on how much they are going to
get paid, because they have got a life to live and a family to
feed, too, in many cases.
I just think that you are going to have difficulty filling
those positions unless we offer some pretty big incentives.
Attorney General Reno. Do not let young lawyers hear you
say that, because when I graduated from law school I could not
find a job that paid very much money. And I was appalled at
what my colleagues in law school were receiving when they were
hired on Wall Street.
Senator Campbell. If they could see you today.
Attorney General Reno. Well, they had a reception for me
and they said you know, we envy you the opportunity at public
service. You understand how important and how rewarding it is.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. You certainly, Senator Campbell, touched a
very important issue which is how do we adequately compensate
for these technology skills that are so critical? Not only to
law enforcement, but we see this in the Department of Commerce
with NIST and the agencies there. These folks are in great
demand, and we are capitalists and a market oriented society,
and the government is going to have to react to that, and we
are going to have to structure something.
PLAN COLOMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL
My last question to you, Madame Attorney General, deals
with this Colombia supplemental. I noticed that of the
supplemental that is being requested for Colombia, which is a
$1.6 billion supplemental, only something like $3 million of it
is under the control of the law enforcement agency responsible
for drug enforcement in this country, DEA. I guess my question
is to what extent was DEA in the loop on this? To what extent
was the FBI in the loop on this? If they were in the loop, why
are they not players? Should they not be players in one of the
most massive undertakings this country has ever considered in
the area of trying to stop drugs in a foreign country, and the
production of drugs, which is the responsibility of the DEA and
the FBI to a degree?
Attorney General Reno. I checked with Donny Marshall [ed:
Administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration] this
morning to make sure that what I say accurately represents what
he believes, and he said that he was involved and DEA was
involved throughout the considerations. He said he supports the
plan. He might have done it differently, but he thinks that the
expenditures that are provided for are important. And I think
it presents a balanced approach, balanced in terms of
investments that have been made before and investments that
need to be made now.
Senator Gregg. What is DEA's role? For $3 million out of
$1.6 billion, my sense is that it is minor, to say the least.
Attorney General Reno. I think we need to do everything we
can to support the Colombian national police, and he and I are
committed to doing that. But what we have now is success in
terms of arrests in Colombia. We need to work with Colombian
authorities to build institutions, to ensure that once the
arrest has been made that there are further processes in terms
of investigation, prosecution, conviction, appropriate sentence
served.
The way the plan is designed is to try to achieve that.
Senator Gregg. I would just say, looking at it as an
observer, that if you took $1.6 billion and we were to put it
into the Border Patrol, the DEA, and the detention capabilities
of INS and the Bureau of Prisons, I think we would have a heck
of a lot bigger impact on drugs coming into this country than
what is going to happen by spending $1.6 billion to buy six
Blackhawk helicopters to be flown around in Colombia.
It just seems to me that it is not the most effective use
of our resources, in light of there being a crying need which
we have already highlighted here in the area of Border Patrol,
DEA, which we have not really gotten into, and detention, which
we also have not gotten into.
Senator Hollings. Along that line, Mr. Chairman, Madame
Attorney General, we have gotten an experience, and we have got
to double check it and make sure. I will never forget under
President Carter, as the First Lady Rosalynn was going to go to
Colombia and had a little talk all prepared in Spanish and what
have you, but they thought the piece-de resistance would be to
send two helicopters down there to help them enforce law. I
opposed it and opposed it and finally gave in.
The bottom line, the two helicopters went down there and it
went to what I guess would be their defense minister, who
turned out to be the head of the cartel. Instead, they were
telling us how it was going to help. We were going to have such
big law enforcement. We were going to have those choppers, we
could get up on the mountain, we could just end all drug
activity in the country of Colombia.
The fact of the matter is, we facilitated, accelerated, and
increased the drug activity. And when you talk of helicopters,
you have just got the country of Mexico sending them back, the
Huey helicopters. They were too expensive to run, on the one
hand, and they could not operate and keep them up and maintain
them.
So we have sent a bunch of them down there and we have got
a lesson already learned, so we had better be awfully careful
how we just find a problem and say put in x millions of dollars
and that problem is solved. We do not seem to learn anything.
Attorney General Reno. That is one of the reasons, Senator,
that in terms of the law enforcement and administration of
justice side of the coin, I think we have got to build it
carefully. And that we cannot just focus on arresting people if
we do not have the capacity to prosecute them, to get them
convicted, and to get them imprisoned for a sentence that meets
what they did.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Madame Attorney General, we want to thank
you for your courtesy over the years. It has been a pleasure to
work with you. You have been generous in your comments, so let
us be generous in ours also. I have personally enjoyed very
much working with you. I think we have made tremendous strides.
Attorney General Reno. Well, it is not over yet, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Gregg. I noticed you said you did not plan to be
here again. We may have you again.
Attorney General Reno. If you do, it will be my pleasure.
Senator Gregg. We have got some issues, especially the
Border Patrol and Internet, that we might want to take up with
you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
In any event, this hearing is completed but there will be
questions submitted for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JUDD GREGG
COPS PROGRAM
Question. The COPS program reached its goal of putting 100,000 COPS
on the street on May 12, 1999, and as originally authorized, the
program is scheduled to terminate at the close of fiscal year 2000. How
do you justify the program's continuation and expansion when its stated
goal has been reached and violent crime rates continue to fall?
Answer. The 21st Century Policing Initiative directs federal
resources to the most pressing local law enforcement needs by building
on the success of the COPS program and adding up to 50,000 additional
officers to the street. It takes the philosophy of community policing
to the next level. By engaging the entire community in the fight
against crime and funding community prosecutors as well as officers, we
are helping create an infrastructure to sustain our progress into the
next century. Every major law enforcement group--representing labor and
management alike--and the Conference of Mayors strongly supports the
continued funding for the COPS program.
With American communities safer than they have been in decades, now
is not the time to pat ourselves on the back and go home. Crime is
still too high. The continuation of the COPS program would serve to
reinforce this progress by funding much-needed officers, vital
technologies, innovative crime prevention strategies, and valuable
training and technical assistance.
Question. The Administration's new goal is to hire 150,000 officers
by 2005. Can you tell me how many officers you believe would be the
right number?
Answer. We are focused on funding up to 50,000 additional officers
between now and 2005. The demand for COPS grants has not diminished
over the last 5 years, and we have no reason to expect that it will do
so anytime soon. Just last year, over 250 law enforcement agencies
applied for funding for the first time. There are still neighborhoods
that have not benefited from the recent drop in crime.
Question. Do you need authorization language for any of the new
programs you have requested?
Answer. All of the programs that are requested under the COPS
appropriation in the fiscal year 2001 budget request would be
authorized with the passage of the Administration's proposed 21st
Century Policing Initiative bill.
COMMUNITY PROSECUTION
Question. The President's budget request asks for $200 million to
establish a Community Prosecutors Hiring Program. Within that amount
there is $150 million to hire 1,000 community prosecutors to target
gun-related violence in DOJ-determined ``High Gun Violence Areas.''
What are ``High Gun Areas'' and how will they be determined?
Answer. Since 1999, a total of $15 million has been appropriated
under COPS and administered by the OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA) for the Community Prosecutor Program. In fiscal year 1999, $5
million was appropriated and awards were announced for the planning,
implementation, and enhancement of community prosecution programs
around the country. In fiscal year 2000, $10 million was appropriated
and will be awarded to other jurisdictions for the planning,
implementation, and enhancement of their community prosecution
programs.
In fiscal year 2001, an increase of $190 million is requested to
establish a Community and Local Gun Prosecution Initiative bringing the
total funding level to $200 million. These funds are requested under
COPS and will be administered by OJP. OJP proposes to make
discretionary grants to state, local and tribal prosecutors' offices to
increase substantially the number of prosecutors interacting directly
with members of the community and to encourage local prosecutors to
reorient their emphasis to tough enforcement at a community level. Of
the total, $150 million would be used to hire 1,000 gun prosecutors for
urban, suburban, and rural communities that are experiencing gun
violence. These prosecutors will focus on gun-related crime. High gun
violence areas are those areas--whether urban, suburban or rural--which
are impacted by gun violence. OJP will reserve funds for jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
Question. How was it determined that 1,000 prosecutors is the right
number?
Answer. As a result of the Administration's successful efforts to
put an additional 100,000 police officers in communities across the
nation, we are experiencing an increase in the prosecutorial workload
of the criminal justice system. This burden is largely felt in local
communities where prosecution resources are limited. This initiative
attempts to bridge the gap by providing additional prosecution
personnel at the local level to encourage and facilitate community
partnerships to address the unique local criminal problems.
MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS (MECP)
Question. My first question is whether the current funds
appropriated to the MECP are sufficient to carry out all the activities
and programs necessary to support missing and exploited children, their
families, and the agencies that serve this population?
Answer. Since the Missing Children's Assistance Act was enacted in
1984, OJJDP has maintained a national leadership role in providing
training and technical assistance to law enforcement and other service
providers involved on the front line in assisting missing and exploited
children and their families. This training, for the most part, is not
available to law enforcement practitioners through other sources. While
current funding is sufficient to maintain existing programs, the
significant increase in the numbers of new law enforcement officers on
the streets today, and the critical need for informed action and
accurate reporting of all categories of crimes against children,
funding beyond current levels would allow the MECP to enhance current
training and technical assistance programs to reach more law
enforcement practitioners. It would also allow expansion of our
training and technical assistance program into new areas.
Question. If additional funds were appropriated to the MECP, what
types of programs and activities would these funds support?
Answer. Additional funds would provide for the expansion of
existing training and technical assistance programs to the field. The
Department currently has all training slots for fiscal year 2000
filled. We typically have as many applicants on waiting lists as we
have in the actual training programs. Additional funding would allow us
to reach many more of these law enforcement practitioners.
Second, additional funding would allow the MECP to expand program
offerings into new training areas related to missing and exploited
children and their families, including training for law enforcement,
parents, prosecutors, and the judiciary on international parental
abduction to enhance the United States' response to the recovery and
return of these children. The MECP could conduct new research on
missing, runaway, and throwaway children as needed, along with research
on the growing problem of child prostitution. As many states and
localities are adopting child fatality review teams, multi-disciplinary
training could be conducted to assist these practitioners in
implementing that concept. Additional funding would also assist MECP in
increasing the number and quality of related publications and
developing new publications in areas such as international parental
abduction and hand guides for law enforcement on investigating child
homicides.
Question. What would be the cost of these activities?
Answer. Additional funding needed for all activities would be
approximately $5 million.
Question. If additional funds were appropriated, would OJJDP commit
those funds to the newly formed Child Protection Division with the
emphasis placed upon increased training for law enforcement?
Answer. Yes, all activities of the old MECP have already been
consolidated into the new Child Protection Division (CPD). Any
additional funding would be administered by that Division with an
emphasis on state and local law enforcement needs as discussed in our
response to the first question.
VOCA LEGISLATION
Question. The Victim's of Child Abuse Act (VOCA) provides funds to
support child abuse training programs for prosecutors and judicial
personnel as well as funds to support children's advocacy centers. One
constituent group that is clearly absent from the legislation is state
and local law enforcement. Because state and local law enforcement are
integral partners in the effective resolution of child abuse cases,
does the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention believe
that state and local law enforcement should be included in the VOCA
legislation?
Answer. We believe that the training and technical assistance needs
of state and local law enforcement could appropriately be included in
the VOCA legislation. In cases of crimes against children, law
enforcement responders often ``make or break'' a criminal investigation
of the perpetrator before a prosecutor or judge is even aware of the
case. Their initial investigative actions are key to the effective
prosecution of the perpetrator and the protection of the child. Their
knowledge and ability to effectively investigate crimes against
children is at least equal to that same requirement for prosecutors and
the judiciary.
Question. If VOCA funds were allocated for training for state and
local law enforcement agencies, how would these activities be used in
relationship to the current activities that are offered by OJJDP
through the Missing and Exploited Children's Program?
Answer. As indicated above, the activities of the MECP have been
consolidated, through reorganization, into the new OJJDP Child
Protection Division. Additional funding would allow the new CPD to
increase the number of offerings of existing training programs to state
and local law enforcement and to enhance the overall training effort
with the development of needed new programs.
Question. How would OJJDP, the Missing and Exploited Children's
Program and the Child Protection Division insure that these funds
complemented and supported the current training and technical
assistance programs?
Answer. To insure that purpose is met, the Department suggests that
language in any amendment to VOCA require that the funds be
administered by OJJDP for the purpose of expanding and enhancing
missing and exploited children training and technical assistance
programs for state and local law enforcement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
RIO ARRIBA COUNTY BLACK TAR HEROIN PROBLEM
Background: Attorney General Reno, I want to begin by thanking you
for all that you have done in the last year to help address the black
tar heroin problem in northern New Mexico.
It was at the hearing last year that you and I first discussed this
issue, and the record will reflect that your response to my request for
help was immediate, comprehensive and extremely helpful. On behalf of
the citizens of Rio Arriba County, thank you.
Within a few weeks after our discussion here, Senator Gregg was
generous enough to hold a field hearing on the issue in Espanola, New
Mexico. You sent out your deputy, Laurie Robinson, who did a great job
engaging with the state and local leaders and identifying the problems
that the community faced in trying to address this problem. I
understand that Ms. Robinson will soon depart her post at DOJ, and I
wanted to relate to you how much I appreciated her help as well.
Within months, your staff returned to New Mexico and consulted with
state and local leaders. They formulated a comprehensive plan to
address the problem, which emphasized community-based law enforcement,
treatment and prevention. In this committee, we targeted prevention
resources for the Boys and Girls Club and an after-school program in
Rio Arriba. The State of New Mexico dedicated funds for treatment. And,
law enforcement did a great job.
Soon after the field hearing, federal FBI, DEA and ATF agents,
along with state law enforcement officials, rounded up more than 50
individuals involved in the drug trade in northern New Mexico.
Indictments were handed down, and there have been numerous guilty pleas
already.
News reports out of Rio Arriba County indicate that the streets are
quieter, the drug trade has been suppressed, and the community is on
its way to healing itself after decades of drug abuse.
Of course, we haven't solved the drug problem in northern New
Mexico. I hope that you'll pledge to continue to work with me
throughout the remainder of your time at DOJ as the need arises to
ensure that Rio Arriba stays on the path toward reducing its drug
problem.
Question. I am interested in your Department's recommendation about
a second phase of help for the county, including any follow-up
prevention or law enforcement efforts we might undertake to make sure
that our efforts of the past year do not go to waste.
Answer. At the March 30, 1999, hearing in Espanola, Laurie
Robinson, the then Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice
Programs (OJP), emphasized the importance of government agencies and
service providers collaborating with each other, working in partnership
with the community, and embracing a balanced and coordinated approach
to crime prevention, control and community empowerment. As a result of
this hearing, in August 1999, a report was published that outlined a
technical assistance action plan to support and sustain efforts to
respond to the illicit drug and crime issues in Rio Arriba County. The
centerpiece of this plan was the Community Health and Justice Council,
which would provide a shared infrastructure of federal, state and
county stakeholders in order to provide a unified response to crime and
substance abuse problems in Rio Arriba County. In addition, OJP, in
partnership with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National
Institute of Corrections, and Project SEARCH, committed technical
assistance resources. OJP also committed to fund two drug court
extensions, regional drug free coalition building efforts, and a
community prosecution planning project.
Phase II of this effort is well underway. The technical assistance
response team is scheduled to visit Rio Arriba during mid-May to
follow-up on the recommendations outlined in the August 1999 report.
The response team has three objectives: (1) assess the status of the
Rio Arriba Community Health and Justice Council; (2) conduct follow-up
interviews with key government and community stakeholders to reassess
their commitment in efforts to address identified substance abuse
prevention and treatment needs; and (3) track the status of several OJP
initiatives to facilitate implementation of the report's programmatic
and technical assistance recommendations.
FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING PROGRAM
Background: The Department of Justice has requested a total of $29
million to support the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium--$15
million for the headquarters at Fort McClellan, Alabama, and $14
million to be shared equally ($3.5 million each) by the four training
partners--New Mexico Tech; the University of Texas; Louisiana State
University; and the Nevada Test Site. Fort McClellan is again proposed
for an increase--$2 million for the purposes of installing a computer
system and to provide a student tracking system. The actual training
partners are held to a freeze level, while the Administration proposes
additional resources for technical assistance, law enforcement
training, and research and development.
Question. Ms. Reno, the Office of Justice Programs funds domestic
first responder training at several sites of the Domestic Preparedness
Consortium. Request for funding for Fort McClellan's program continue
to increase, while more first responders are actually being trained at
the university sites. Wouldn't the Department maximize the budget by
providing more training at the most cost-effective sites?
Answer. Each member of the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium (NDPC), along with the Office of Justice Programs' (OJP)
other training partners, have individual strengths of critical
importance to the emergency responder community. For example, the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology's (NMI) explosives expertise,
and the availability of live agent training at the Center for Domestic
Preparedness (CDP), both represent unique assets central to a robust,
and comprehensive domestic preparedness effort. At each NDPC site,
training is offered in the most effective and efficient manner possible
given the unique training products provided. When judging the value of
this training, the unique nature of members' facilities, assets, and
training provided to the emergency responder community must be taken
into account. In fact, the emergency responder community has
specifically indicated the value of such individual strengths as NMI's
explosives expertise, and the CDP's live agent training. In the same
manner, all NDPC facilities play a unique and critical role in OJP's
overall domestic preparedness effort.
Question. First responder travel is a necessary expense.
Heretofore, the Department has deducted travel expenses from funds
appropriated to the Domestic Preparedness Consortium, instead of
reimbursing first responders from Department of Justice funds. To
maximize the funds spent on actual training, would it make sense for
the Subcommittee to designate travel funds for first responder use?
Answer. First responder travel is a necessary expense associated
with training. These travel expenses, however, are provided for within
the training budgets for each of the NDPC members. Student travel is
integrated as a component of overall per student training costs.
Separating out travel funds for all first responders being trained is
an artificial distinction, and would have no real effect other than to
complicate the administration of such funds, and create inefficiencies
in the development of NDPC member budget plans. Building travel costs
into per student training costs allows each NDPC member the flexibility
to maximize its resources when developing training and budget plans.
Creating a single ``first responder travel fund'' would cause each NDPC
member to have to compete for available travel funds for its students
with other NDPC members.
Question. The training of first responders is a primary issue of
readiness as the Department of Justice takes the agency lead on
counterterrorism for the Federal Government. What has the Department
accomplished through the First Responder training initiatives over the
past 2 years?
Answer. OJP's first responder training program was initiated with
the development of the Firefighter and Emergency Medical Services
training course in fiscal year 1997. Since that time, however,
programmatic efforts and available funding have increased dramatically.
Over the course of the past 2 years, OJP has developed a comprehensive,
robust domestic preparedness program, created the Office for State and
Local Domestic Preparedness Support (OSLDPS) to administer it, and
organized that office and its programs based on recommendations
obtained from the state and local emergency response community through
a variety of needs assessments and stakeholder conferences. OSLDPS
focuses its preparedness efforts in four functional areas: provision of
grants to support equipment procurement, training, exercises, and
technical assistance. OSLDPS is engaged in a continual outreach effort
to the state and local community to elicit feedback and guidance on its
program execution. Since 1998, OSLDPS has developed and implemented
programs to provide $87.5 million in grants to state and local
jurisdictions for the procurement of specialized response equipment and
the development of state-wide strategic plans for domestic
preparedness; organized a comprehensive training program utilizing
existing expertise and national assets to enhance the capabilities of
state and local jurisdictions and response agencies in responding to
WMD terrorism; undertaken the planning of the TOPOFF exercise, a major
national-level WMD exercise; and created a focused technical assistance
program to respond directly to the needs of individual jurisdictions.
Question. How many local law enforcement and fire and medical
personnel have been trained?
Answer. OSLDPS trains approximately 46,000 students under its
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Medical Services basic awareness
training program annually. In 1999, OSLDPS trained 1,156 emergency
responders at the CDP and 1,672 at the other NDPC institutions.
Further, OSLDPS is working with other training providers, including but
not limited to Pine Bluff Arsenal for the provision of equipment
sustainment training, the National Sheriffs Association, and the
National Guard Bureau.
Question. What is the status of equipping these first responder
training teams?
Answer. A key element of OSLDPS' efforts to assist state and local
jurisdictions in enhancing their ability to respond to WMD terrorism is
the provision of grants for the procurement of critical emergency
response equipment. Such equipment will enable fire departments, law
enforcement agencies, emergency medical services, and hazardous
materials response units to enhance their response capabilities in
state and local jurisdictions to incidents of domestic WMD terrorism.
Numerous needs assessments have consistently highlighted these
jurisdictions' need for specialized equipment in order to meet the
requirements presented by WMD incidents. In fiscal year 1998, OSLDPS
provided $12 million in grants to 41 local jurisdictions for the
procurement of specialized response equipment, including personal
protective, chemical/biological detection, decontamination, and
communications equipment. In fiscal year 1999, OSLDPS will provide an
additional $31 million to 157 local jurisdictions, as well as $33.8
million to the 50 states, for the procurement of such equipment. An
additional $8 million will be provided to the 50 states for the
development of Three-Year Statewide Strategic Domestic Preparedness
Plans, which will guide the use of future funding. To date
approximately 115 of the 157 local jurisdictions receiving grants in
fiscal year 1999 have been funded under the fiscal year 1999 County and
Municipal Domestic Preparedness Support Equipment Program.
LAW ENFORCEMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY
Question. Attorney General Reno, the Administration continues to
focus on the law enforcement situation in Indian Country, and promotes
cooperation between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the
Department of Justice agencies. In fiscal year 1999, this Subcommittee
provided $88.7 million through various Department of Justice programs
to enhance law enforcement in Indian Country, and for this year another
$91.5 million. This year, the budget includes an additional $82 million
as part of this joint initiative with the Department of Interior and
BIA to address public safety on Indian lands. First I'd like to turn to
the funding for tribal courts and its implementation. The tribal courts
have received $10 million over the past two years. How have these funds
been allocated to tribal courts?
Answer. In each 1999 and 2000, $5 million has been appropriated for
the Tribal Court Program. This program, which is part of the broader
DOJ Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, is designed to provide
grant resources on a competitive basis to support the development,
enhancement and continuing operation of tribal judicial systems. The
goal of this program is to provide resources and assistance to tribes
to sustain safer and more peaceful communities by focusing on juvenile
and family issues, as well as non-traditional approaches to justice,
enhancing the administration of civil and criminal justice on Indian
lands, and encouraging the implementation of the Indian Civil Act by
tribal governments.
The 1999 Tribal Court Program plan was approved in May 1999. The
grant solicitation process began in June 1999, and applications were
due March 8, 2000. BJA is currently reviewing these applications and
expects to begin awarding grants in May 2000.
In 2000, BJA plans to award additional planning, implementation,
and enhancement grants, as well as provide technical assistance. Tribes
that have completed the planning process (either with BJA assistance or
on their own) are eligible for implementation grants in 2000. Tribes
that received 1999 planning grant will receive priority for these
implementation grants. After Congressional approval of the 2000 plan,
BJA anticipates soliciting applications in July/August 2000.
Question. Congress also approved $34 million in each of 1999 and
2000 through the State Prison Grants program to help with the addition
of detention facilities in Indian Country. How is the Department
expending these funds? What is the analysis of need for these
facilities across the nation?
Answer. The 1999 appropriation for the construction of adult and
juvenile detention facilities in Indian Country was $34 million. In
1999, OJP awarded the following projects on a competitive basis:
Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold (ND)........... $2,000,000
Native Village of Barrow (AK)........................... 6,000,000
San Carlos Apache Tribe (AZ)............................ 2,158,550
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (WA).... 4,579,550
Pueblo of Zuni (NM)..................................... 2,334,000
Northern Cheyenne Nation (MT)........................... 3,482,629
Oglala Sioux Tribe (SD)................................. 1,327,659
Rosebud Sioux Tribe (SD)................................ 6,100,770
Shoshone Paiute Tribe (NV).............................. 2,862,132
Red Lake Band of Chippewa (MN).......................... 574,870
Nisqually Indians (WA).................................. 371,473
Technical Assistance.................................... 900,000
For 2000, OJP remains committed to assisting tribal governments in
building comprehensive and effective law enforcement and public safety
systems to provide the foundation for healthy communities. We believe
it is critical to continue to support initiatives that were funded in
1998 and 1999 in order to address appropriately the myriad problems
experienced in Indian country including, but not limited to the
following: violent crime, domestic violence, child abuse, aggravated
assaults, and violent crime strongly correlated with alcohol abuse.
In 2000, $34 million is available on a competitive basis and will
be awarded as follows:
--$24 million to tribes that demonstrate the greatest potential for
successful development and implementation of their
comprehensive crime control strategy and who have determined
the most appropriate facility consistent with the
characteristics of their offender population. Of the $24
million, approximately $1 million will be needed for technical
assistance.
--$10 million to the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community for
construction of an adult/juvenile facility. Salt River
submitted an application in response to the OJP/CPO
solicitation for proposals for 1999 BIA Designated Tribes,
however, resources were not available to fund the project
fully. The Attorney General has committed $10 million in 2000
for the construction of a facility.
The need for culturally appropriate correctional facilities remains
great throughout Indian Country as demonstrated by the response to the
OJP/CPO 1999 Program Guidance and Application Kits. In 1999, OJP
received 33 applications requesting a total of $100.3 million. Because
of limited funding, OJP was able to fund only 6 of the 33 projects
totaling $31.8 million. The total amount of unfunded projects in 1999
was $68.5 million. Furthermore, BIA has done independent assessments in
Indian Country that substantiate the need for approximately $180
million in new construction.
Question. The Initiative also has received $75 million to assist
Indian tribes and pueblos with the hiring of additional law enforcement
officers, to purchase equipment, and to train new and existing
officers. What is the status of obligating these funds? How did the
Department decide to implement this portion of the initiative?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, COPS received $35 million for the
improvement of law enforcement capabilities on Indian lands. With that
funding, COPS developed the Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP). With
this program, the COPS Office attempted to meet the most serious needs
of law enforcement in Indian communities through a broadened,
comprehensive hiring program that offered a ``menu of options'' from
salary and benefits for new police personnel to funding for law
enforcement training and equipment for new and existing officers. This
$35 million program focused on tribal communities, many of which have
limited resources and are affected by high rates of crime and violence,
and was meant to enhance law enforcement infrastructures and community
policing efforts in these communities.
Funding provisions under the TRGP included 3 years of salary and
benefits for new police officers, as well as funding for law
enforcement training and basic standard issue equipment, ranging from
bullet-proof vests and uniforms, to firearms, portable radios and
funding for background investigations. Funds were also available for
law enforcement training and equipment for existing officers. Training
included basic and specialized police training at a state academy or
the Indian Police Academy in Artesia, N.M., as well as community
policing, grants management, and computer training. Departments were
also able to request funding for other types of department-wide law
enforcement equipment and technology.
In addition, $7.3 million of the $35 million went toward the CIRCLE
Project which was a Department of Justice collaborative effort to
assist Indian Tribes. It involved multiple components of the DOJ
working together to address the equipment, training, technical
assistance, and hiring needs of three specific tribes.
In fiscal year 2000, COPS received $40 million for tribal
assistance programs and will award grants under the Tribal Resources
Grant Program 2000. This program has been designed with the same
parameters as the fiscal year 1999 TRGP.
The funding allocated in fiscal year 1999 has been obligated. The
application deadline for the fiscal year 2000 program was May 5, 2000,
and funding for fiscal year 2000 will not be obligated until all
applications have been received.
Question. A total of $22.5 million was approved for the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for programs to
combat tribal youth crime. What is the status of this program? What
types of programs does the Department plan to fund with these dollars?
What indication is the Department getting as to the nature of this
problem in Indian Country and the need for resources?
Answer. In 1999, $10 million was appropriated for OJJDP's Tribal
Youth Program. Of this amount, 10 percent ($1 million) was used by
OJJDP to support research, evaluation and statistics, and $200,000 to
provide direct technical assistance and training for tribal programs.
Additionally, $600,000 was designated to support the Comprehensive
Indian Resources for Communities and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) project
and $330,000 to support the activities of the Volunteers for Tribal
Youth (VTY) program. Through a solicitation and peer-reviewed process,
the Tribal Youth Program (TYP) provided funds for comprehensive
delinquency prevention, control, and juvenile justice system
improvement for American Indian youth to 34 grantees in fiscal year
1999 totaling approximately $7.9 million. Individual grants range from
$75,000 to $500,000 for a 3-year project period. Federally-recognized
tribes applied directly to OJJDP for grants. Inter-tribal coalitions
and Alaskan Native villages were also eligible to apply. OJJDP made
funding eligibility determinations for grantees based on the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) tribal service populations numbers.
In 2000, $12.5 million was appropriated for the Tribal Youth
Program. Of this amount, 10 percent ($1.25 million) will be to support
research, evaluation and statistics, and $250,000 to provide direct
technical assistance and training for tribal programs. Additionally,
$600,000 has been designated to support the CIRCLE project for a second
year. Through another competitive solicitation process in 2000, TYP
will provide funds for comprehensive delinquency prevention, control,
and juvenile justice system improvement for American Indian youth. The
same funding structure, project period and eligibility criteria will be
used as in 1999 for TYP. A separate competitive solicitation focusing
on mental health and delinquency for American Indian youth will also be
issued in 2000, and will have the same funding structure, project
period and eligibility criteria as the TYP juvenile justice program.
Provided below are the types of tribal youth programmatic
activities funded. A strong cultural component is tied to all of these
activities.
--Category I--Reduce, control, and prevent crime both by and against
tribal youth.--Acceptable activities include but are not
limited to: Identification of risk factors; community needs
assessments; family strengthening; truancy reduction; drop-out
prevention; parenting; anti-gang education for young children;
conflict resolution; bullying; child abuse prevention; gang
reduction strategies for children and youth; and youth gun
violence reduction.
--Category II--Interventions for court-involved tribal youth.--
Acceptable activities include but are not limited to: Graduated
sanctions; restitution; home detention, foster and shelter
care; community service; improved aftercare services; teen
courts; and mentoring.
--Category III--Improvement to tribal juvenile justice systems.--
Acceptable activities include but are not limited to: Training
for juvenile court personnel, including judges; intake
assessments; model tribal juvenile codes; advocacy programs;
gender-specific programming; probation services; and aftercare
programs.
--Category IV--Prevention programs focusing on alcohol and drugs.--
Acceptable activities include but are not limited to: Drug and
alcohol education; drug testing; substance abuse counseling;
peer counseling; family substance abuse counseling.
Nature of the Problem
The 2.3 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United
States represent just under one percent of the total population, but a
recent nationwide Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey finds that
American Indians are victimized by violent crime at a rate more than
twice that of the general population. Past testimony by tribal leaders
regarding higher rates of homicide and gang violence corroborates
information gathered by the FBI, BIA, U.S. Attorneys, and tribal
police. Of the 6,002 Indian country cases opened by the FBI between
1994-97, 83 percent were either violent crimes or involved child
physical or sexual abuse. Violent crime by juvenile offenders and
Indian youth gangs is on the rise in many Indian communities. The
number of Indian youth in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody has increased
by 50 percent since 1994. Given the unique nature of federal
jurisdiction in Indian country and the rise in juvenile crime, 67
percent of the youth in the BOP's custody were American Indian, as of
December 1998. Demographics may contribute to the problem of juvenile
delinquency and violence in Indian country. The median age of American
Indians is 24.2 years compared with 32.9 years for other Americans. On
many reservations, roughly half of the population is under 18 years of
age, again showing the need for increased attention to juveniles within
Indian country.
Question. Finally, would the Department please provide the
Subcommittee with a summary of the funding proposed to be allocated
under the Indian Law Enforcement initiative in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The following chart provides the requested information.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FISCAL YEAR 2001 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET--INDIAN COUNTRY LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Item Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Bureau of 31 pos. (victim/witness coordinators) and funds for contracts for evidence forensic exams and Safe \1\ $4,639,000
Investigation. Trails Task Force overtime.
United States Attorneys...... 60 pos. (33 Assistant U.S. Attorneys, 27 support) to augment current investigative and prosecutorial \1\ 4,699,000
efforts in Indian country.
Criminal Division............ 1 pos. to augment analysis of Indian law enforcement issues............................................. \1\ 70,000
Office of Justice Programs... Drug Testing and Treatment Program for alcohol and substance abuse testing and treatment in Indian \1\ 10,000,000
country.
Tribal Courts Program to assist tribal government in the development, enhancement, and continuing \2\ 15,000,000
operation of tribal judicial systems.
Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention to serve Indian youth by developing, \2\ 20,000,000
enhancing, and supporting tribal juvenile justice systems.
Tribal Youth Mental Heath and Behavior Problems Initiative for youth support services to address the \1\ 8,000,000
needs of native youth with mental health, behavioral, or alcohol and substance abuse problems.
Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Diversion Program to develop strategies and services to break the \1\ 8,000,000
cycle of alcohol and crime.
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Units for gathering evidence for use in prosecuting sexual offenders...... \1\ 5,000,000
Tribal Criminal and Civil Legal Assistance Program for criminal and civil legal services support and for \1\ 6,000,000
tribal colleges criminal and legal assistance curriculum development and training.
State Correctional Grant Program for the construction of detention facilities in Indian country......... 34,000,000
Tribal criminal justice statistics collection........................................................... \1\ 2,000,000
Office of Tribal Justice to establish a permanent office under the Associate Attorney General........... \1\ 932,000
Police Corps Program to provide advanced educational opportunities for police in Indian country......... \1\ 5,000,000
Community Oriented Policing Grants to Tribes for additional law enforcement officers, equipment, and training. (12 positions, 4.5 \4\ 45,000,000
Services. FTE).
Indian Country Forensics Laboratory to augment tribal forensics capabilities............................ \1\ 5,000,000
----------------
TOTAL.................. ........................................................................................................ 173,340,000
(Total Increase)............. ........................................................................................................ (81,840,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New.
\2\ $10 million increase.
\3\ $7.5 million increase.
\4\ $5 million increase.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Background: Last year, the Administration requested $21.7 million
for the payment of claims under RECA with the assumption that pending
regulations would be finalized and that Congress would enact one of the
bills expanding the program. While the regulations did go into effect
in April, during conference on the CJS Appropriations bill, the
conferees approved only $3.2 million and stated in report language only
that no additional funding was provided to cover the claims under the
new regulations. Thus, there is now a shortfall of $7.25 million to pay
anticipated claims in fiscal year 2000, and the Department of Justice
estimates that fund balances will be exhausted in May or June with the
effect that approved claims will not be paid.
In addition, the Department tells staff that the fiscal year 2001
budget request of $13.7 million is also insufficient to pay anticipated
claims in the amount of $2.3 million needed.
Question. Ms. Reno, you are aware of my longstanding interest in
implementation of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, which I
authored and for which I have sought sufficient funding to fulfill its
purpose of compensating those who have sustained injury as a result of
the United States open-air nuclear testing and uranium mining
activities in the 1950s through 1970s.
In fiscal year 2000, the Congress appropriated $2 million to
administer the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, and $3.2
million for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund from which
payments are made. At the time, an estimated $8 million was available
in the Fund from which to pay approved claims. Yet, my staff tells me
there is a shortfall in the Fund to pay anticipated claims in the
current fiscal year to the tune of $7.25 million.
Answer. It is important to understand that it is difficult to
predict accurately the number of awards and payments that will be made
in a given year. The estimates depend upon a variety of factors
including, but not limited to: (1) the number and distribution of new
filings across the three categories of claimants, (2) the extent to
which the applicants meets the eligibility criteria and (3) the pace at
which applications are processed. Most of these factors are outside our
control. Accordingly, our estimates are subject to change over time.
Question. Will you please explain why the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Trust Fund needs an additional $7.25 million in fiscal
year 2000 to pay valid claims?
Answer. The 2000 President's budget requested a $21.7 million
appropriation for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. The
request assumed: (1) implementation of regulatory changes and (2)
enactment of statutory changes similar to those proposed by the
Administration in 1997. The regulatory changes were implemented in
April 1999, but no statutory changes were enacted. Congress
appropriated $3.2 million for 2000. This appropriation, plus $8.4
million carried forward from 1999 and estimated interest provide $11.8
million in availability. Payments of about $19 million are projected,
assuming about 228 awards will be approved in 2000. The resulting
shortfall is estimated at $7.25 million.
The 228 awards projected in 2000 are comparable to the 227 awards
approved in 1999. The projection takes into account that the modified
regulations will be in effect for a full year, compared to just 5
months in 1999. In particular, awards to miners, who are most affected
by the regulatory changes, are expected to increase from 114 in 1999 to
130 in 2000. Awards to downwinders and onsite participants are expected
to decline slightly.
Question. Last April the Administration finalized additional
regulations under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). Of
the $21.7 million requested by the Administration in its fiscal year
2000 budget, how much of the request was associated with the new
regulations?
How much was associated with the assumption that Congress would
enact changes to RECA through statutory changes?
Answer. When the 2000 President's budget was developed in January
1999, it assumed that: (1) statutory changes would be implemented about
April 2000, (2) regulatory changes would be implemented as soon as
February 1999, (3) $8.3 million would be carried forward from 1999 and
(4) interest would total $563,000. An appropriation of $21.7 was
requested to make expected payments of $30.6 million. Of the $30.6
million estimate, about $16 million was associated with the statutory
changes and about $14.6 million was associated with the Program under
the modified regulations--including a rough estimate that $3 million
would be needed in connection with the regulatory changes.
Question. Of your current estimates of the number of claims to be
paid in the current fiscal year, can the Department tell the
Subcommittee how many are associated with the changes by regulation?
How many claims overall does the Department expect to pay in fiscal
year 2000? In fiscal year 2001?
Answer. When approving claims, we do not determine whether the
claim also would have qualified under the original regulations. Thus,
we do not have an accurate basis upon which to make an estimate of the
number of claims paid in 2000 associated with the changes. We have made
a rough estimate of the impact of one significant change, which revised
the definition of ``non-smoker'' to include any uranium miner who
ceased smoking at least 15 years prior to the diagnosis of a
compensable disease. A review of previously denied miner claims
indicated that about 317 miners may qualify for compensation valued at
$31.7 million under the revised ``non-smoker'' regulation. In 1999,
about 21 miner awards valued at $2.1 million were approved based on the
change. The remaining 296 miners who may qualify will likely be
processed over the next 2 to 3 years. The number in any given year will
depend on when potential applicants choose to apply.
As noted above, the 2000 President's budget estimated payments of
$14.6 million in 2000, absent statutory changes. Over a year has
elapsed since those estimates were made. Today, 2000 payments are
estimated at $19 million (despite availability of $11.8 million). These
estimates are considerably higher than projected in the 2000
President's budget, as a result of several, interrelated factors:
--Exclusive of the impact of the regulatory changes, award estimates
in the 2000 President's budget were extrapolated from 1998 data
trends. The current estimates take into account significant
increases from 1998 to 1999: (1) total approvals grew almost 50
percent, from 153 to 227; (2) awards to miners nearly doubled,
from 59 to 114; and (3) the overall approval rate rose from 42
percent to nearly 62 percent. One explanation for the higher
approval rate is that far more comprehensive data on miner work
histories is available now, compared with earlier years of the
Program.
--The 2000 President's budget was based on speculation about the
impact of the modified regulations; we now have a 10-month
history. New filings have more than doubled since the changes
were implemented. Beforehand, an average of 22 claims were
filed per month in 1999. Afterwards, an average of 46 claims
have been filed per month. The growth was likely spurred by
outreach efforts surrounding the regulatory changes and
publicity concerning several bills to amend the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act. As more and more of the new filings
are reviewed in 2000, it is reasonable to expect that the
number of claims approved in 2000 will be on par with 1999
approvals.
--When the 2000 President's budget was developed, the proposed
regulation to amend the definition of a ``non-smoker'' was
expected to apply only to miners who developed primary cancer
of the lung. Subsequently, the final regulation was expanded to
also include miners who developed non-malignant respiratory
disease. Since the vast majority of awards to miners are based
on claims that document non-malignant respiratory disease, this
expansion portends additional approvals.
It is unlikely that the level of approvals in 1999 and projected
for 2000 will be sustained over the long term. Accordingly for 2001,
awards are projected to decline by about 10 percent. Exclusive of the
projected 2000 shortfall, payments in 2001 are estimated at $16.2
million--although the budget pending with Congress requests $13.7
million. We expect to approve about 205 awards, but the request level
will cover payouts for only 170 awards. Assuming interest of about
$200,000, we would need $16.0 million instead of the $13.7 million we
are requesting in 2001.
Question. Congress has appropriated more than $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 2000, the Department has approved a total of 3,302 claims
valued at over $244 million.
Question. What is the current balance in the Trust Fund with which
to pay claims during fiscal year 2000? When does the Department
estimate that balances available to the Trust Fund will be exhausted
and the federal government will no longer be able to pay claims in
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Of the $11.8 million available in the Trust Fund in 2000,
as of February 29, 2000, a total of $8.1 million had been paid out or
had been committed for awards approved, but not yet paid. Just $3.7
million was available to pay for awards approved in the 7 months
remaining in the fiscal year.
The Trust Fund could be depleted in the April to June timeframe.
Once the Trust Fund has been exhausted, claims will continue to be
adjudicated. Letters will be issued to qualifying claimants stating
that, although the criteria for approval have been met, no payment can
be made until additional funds have been appropriated.
Question. Would you please provide the Subcommittee with updated
information on the number of claims approved for payment from the Trust
Fund, the average amount of the claims approved, the number of claims
denied, and the general reason for denial of these claims?
Answer. Through February 2000, a total of 3,302 claims were
approved--with an average value of $73,983--and 3,500 claims were
denied. Claims are denied if one or more of the following eligibility
criteria are not met: disease, exposure and identification of the
proper party to file a claim. Downwinder and onsite participant claims
are most frequently denied for failure to establish a compensable
disease. Most uranium miner claims are denied because documentation
does not establish exposure to the requisite amount of radiation during
the course of underground uranium mining employment.
Question. For the record would you please provide the Subcommittee
with a breakdown of the types of claims approved or disapproved
(childhood leukemia, other downwinder, onsite participants or uranium
miners), the number of claims currently pending and the amounts
disbursed by type of claim paid?
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 2000.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM APRIL 1992-APRIL 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ........ 9 ....... .......
Other Down-winder..................................... 78,070,000 2,898 1,540 1,258 212 22 185 100 5
Onsite Participant.................................... 13,431,106 983 180 738 155 15 133 65 7
Uranium Miner......................................... 151,691,500 3,269 1,422 1,623 331 101 217 224 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 244,292,606 7,191 3,164 3,638 707 138 544 389 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For my use, would you please provide this same
information specifically for claims from New Mexico, including the
total claims received, the total claims approved, the total claims
denied and the total claims pending?
Answer. With respect to claims for which the primary claimant
resides in New Mexico, the Department has approved 396 claims and
appeals, with a total value of over $39 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 2000.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM--NEW MEXICO APRIL 1992-FEBRUARY 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Down-winder..................................... 250,000 18 5 12 2 ........ 2 1 .......
Onsite Participant.................................... 600,000 34 7 25 6 1 5 2 .......
Uranium Miner......................................... 38,134,500 1,076 348 645 117 34 75 83 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 39,034,500 1,129 361 682 125 35 82 86 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The request for the payment of claims for fiscal year
2001 totals $13.7 million. Is this amount sufficient to pay anticipated
claims for that year? Why didn't the Administration request the full
amount needed to fund the Program in 2001?
Does this assume that there will be any further changes either
regulatory or statutory in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program?
How many claims are projected to be filed and processed under
current law in the upcoming year?
Answer. As noted above, the 2001 request, $13.7 million, is an
estimated $2.3 million short of requirements. The Department of Justice
prepared its 2001 budget for OMB review prior to the enactment of the
2000 appropriation. The 2001 request was based on an ``anticipated''
appropriation for 2000. When the OMB budget was prepared, the House
mark provided no new funding for the Trust Fund, identifying carryover
of $8.3 million that would be available in 2000. The Senate mark was
$20.3 million. The Department believed at the time that the Senate mark
was the most likely scenario for 2000 and prepared its OMB request of
$13.7 million based on this assumption. OMB approved the full request.
While the Department received more funds from OMB during the appeals
process, they were only sufficient to fund a limited number of high-
priority programs.
The 2001 request assumes that the current RECA statute and the
regulations as modified in April 1999 will be in effect; no further
changes are assumed.
The following projections are based on the current statute and
regulations: In 2000, we estimate that about 539 claims and appeals
will be filed and that 378 will be processed. In 2001, we estimate that
about 365 claims and appeals will be filed and that 379 will be
processed.
Question. Does the Administration have any long-range estimates as
to the number of claims that might be filed under the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act under current law and regulations?
Answer. No. It is difficult to estimate with certainty the number
of claims that might be filed under the Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act. The difficulty is compounded because claimants who have been
denied compensation are permitted to file up to three times. Further,
the Department continues to work to identify potential claimants, and
to make information about the existence of the Program readily
available to larger numbers of Americans through outreach efforts. For
example, last spring we sent notification of the Department of
Justice's modified regulations to over 3,200 individuals, including
formerly-denied claimants, advocacy groups and attorneys. In November
1999, our website went ``on-line,'' providing information about the
Program and making e-mail communication available to the public. This
year alone, hundreds of individuals have visited the website.
Interest about the Program has also been generated outside the
Department. During January and February 2000, the Public Health
Service's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
notified approximately 12,000 former uranium miners and their families
of the results of two NIOSH mortality studies involving white and
Navajo uranium miners. The notification letter included information
about the Program. Finally, this summer, several staff members will
travel to many of the affected communities to provide information about
the Program and the regulatory changes.
EVALUATION OF RESULTS--EXPENDITURE FOR STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Background: While it is clear that good evaluation information is
difficult to obtain. Each of the tasks involved--measuring outcomes,
ensuring the consistency and quality of the data collected,
establishing the causal connection between outcomes and program
activities, and separating the influence of extraneous factors--raises
formidable technical or logistical problems that are not easily
resolved. Thus, evaluating program impact generally requires a planned
study and, often, considerable limited by their ability to make useful
links between budget requests and performance goals and to clearly
explain how programs will achieve goals. A number of the Crime Act or
the Byrne discretionary grant awards appear to have been made only on
the basis of supposed benefit, and little empirical data has been
advanced to support the continuation of these programs let alone the
expansions proposed in the 21st Policing Initiative.
Question. In the last seven years, the DOJ has awarded billions of
dollars for state and local assistance. Beginning with 1993's Police
Hiring Supplement program and later the COPS program, and then
continuing through such program examples as drug courts and violence
against women, the development of many of these programs was permitted
on the basis of a deference to the executive branch's initiatives.
Nonetheless, there was a clear expectation that these programs would be
evaluated. Consistent with this expectation, millions of dollars were
directed to the National Institute of Justice to evaluate these
programs.
Of these model or experimental programs, what solid evaluation
results can you cite that these programs did anything beyond employ
consultants? How have results led to program modification or
termination, or conversely were used to validate a program so as to
lead to its replication?
Answer. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), in partnership
with program offices in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), has undertaken a
broad and varied evaluation agenda involving most program initiatives
implemented under the 1994 Crime Act. Some of these projects, such as
the COPS National Evaluation, comprise comprehensive evaluations of a
major Crime Act Title. Others, such as the Drug Courts evaluation are
narrowly focused on one part of a program office's activity. In
addition, NIJ uses a research and evaluation strategy designed to
capture the outcomes of criminal justice innovation by local programs
funded through Crime Act program offices. Where possible, process
information and preliminary findings are used to refine and modify
Crime Act programs, and to make recommendations for future changes. A
few examples are provided below.
In partnership with the COPS Office, an evaluation of the Chicago
Alternative Policing Strategy program found that, on average, citizens
in neighborhoods where community policing was implemented improved in
their perception of police in comparison to communities without
community policing programs. Residents in neighborhoods with community
policing were more optimistic about future policing trends and were
more satisfied with police responsiveness to neighborhood problems.
These results have been replicated in places like Aurora, Joliet, IL
and Tempe, AZ, and have been used to make informed modifications to
programs, and to further facilitate implementation of effective
community policing programs across the country.
The NIJ and COPS cooperated in funding direct analytical support to
local police departments through the Locally-Initiated Research
Partnership (LIRP) program. LIRP provides another example of how
research can be used to directly inform policy and assist in policy
development. NIJ and COPS have funded over forty partnerships between
police departments and researchers to enhance analytic and strategic
planning capabilities in local police departments. Working together,
partners identify and analyze local crime issues, and develop
strategies to effectively address identified problems. Topics
effectively addressed in planning at the local level through the LIRP's
program include community policing implementation, domestic violence,
unreported crime, crime mapping and analysis, performance evaluation,
multi-lingual capability, and the use of the Internet for police/
citizen communications.
For instance, the partnership between the Berkeley, CA Police
Department and the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership
developed a preliminary risk assessment tool for police to use in
making decisions about appropriate interventions based on the risk of
recidivism. This Domestic Violence Safety Assessment/Supplemental
Report is used by the Berkeley Police Department in all domestic
violence cases and assists officers in assessing whether a case needs
special attention.
A partnership between six sheriffs' offices in the State of Florida
and the University of Florida trained sheriffs patrolling neighborhoods
in communication skills; established a permanent partnership that
allowed the members to identify needs to pursue funding; trained
sheriffs on using research to guide practice; evaluated the impact of
the training by interviewing citizens and provided police with a
guidebook on effective communication practices; and set up a mechanism
to expand the research partnership.
In a partnership between Northeastern University and the Boston
Police Department, police members were guided through a strategic
planning process that resulted in the creation of 16 neighborhood teams
to identify salient issues in their areas and develop and implement
strategies. Benefits of the partnership included increased visibility
of police, greater involvement by community members in controlling
crime and disorder, and improved relationships between police and the
community.
In cooperation with COPS, NIJ continues to examine a wide range of
issues pertaining to the implementation of community-oriented, and
problem-solving policing. Research findings have been continuously
applied since the beginning of the COPS/NIJ collaboration. For
instance, the evaluation of the Boston Ceasefire project documented a
way in which researchers and practitioners may work in partnership to
develop data-informed strategies to reduce youth gun violence. Through
this partnership the Boston group developed strategies that reduced
homicide and victimization by 60 percent and serious gang violence in
the targeted area became a rare event. As a result, the approach used
in the Ceasefire Project is being replicated across the country in
cities such as Minneapolis, MN, Baltimore, MD, Los Angeles, CA,
Stockton, CA, Lowell, MA, Bronx, NY and High Point, NY.
The success of this research/practitioner partnership approach has
prompted further development of similar programs like Strategic
Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI). Currently in five
pilot communities, researchers are teaming with local decision makers
and practitioners to identify and analyze local problems, develop and
implement policies and strategies, and tailor these interventions to
crime problems at the local level.
The Drug Court Program Office (DCPO) also has actively encouraged
both local drug court evaluation efforts and national research through
the NIJ. As another example of research leading to program modification
and innovation, research results suggest incentives to be an effective
means of reducing drug use. Also, results from a study of the
experimental drug treatment/drug court program in the District of
Columbia Superior Court demonstrate that sanctions should be
consistently and immediately applied in order to enhance their impact.
With these findings, drug courts have implemented policies to provide
both timely sanctions and incentives as a means reducing drug use and
program violations.
To further study the effectiveness of this specialized type of
court, NIJ awarded two research grants examining 4 of the older drug
courts in the country. First phase reports of these evaluations have
been recently submitted and findings show specialized drug courts are
working to reduce substance abuse. Both studies examined re-arrest
rates of drug court participants. In Portland, OR, the median time to
re-arrest for drug court participants was 104 days, compared to 51 days
for those who ``never entered'' and 29 days for those who ``never
attended'' the drug court program. In Las Vegas, NV, the median time to
re-arrest for drug court participants was 94 days, compared to 52 days
for their counterparts. Analysis over a 12-month period showed that re-
arrest rates are lower among drug court participants; and, drug court
participants are rearrested later when compared to those not
participating in the drug court (who are most often rearrested in the
first month). Similar results were also found in a second study
indicating that recidivism rates decline and the time to re-arrest
increases with drug court participation. Effective program
modifications and refinements such as these have been disseminated
through educational and technical assistance provided by the DCPO and
the National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
As another example, NIJ's evaluation of the Violence Against
Women's office funded, Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors (STOP)
program demonstrates the importance of a coordinated community
response, and the impact of victims' services as a response to the
serious problem of violence against women. Preliminary results show
increasing numbers of women victims of violence are being served, and
more perpetrators of domestic and sexual violence are being arrested
and convicted as a result of STOP programming. Results from a 1999
survey of programs indicate that the percentage of domestic violence
victims served increased annually for 85 percent of agencies providing
domestic violence data. Similarly, the percentage of sexual assault
victims served increased with STOP funding for 86 percent of the
agencies providing sexual assault data. In one program site, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Washington, DC increased the rate of cases charged
and tried by 76 percent, and dramatically increased the rate of cases
resulting in conviction by 324 percent.
Based upon results like these, the Administration has proposed that
Violence Against Women Act-II include provisions to promote
collaboration, to add specific types of program activities to be
funded, to make distribution of funds more flexible, to lengthen the
time frame for spending STOP dollars, to expand funding to include
sexual assault projects, to promote projects for women from under-
served communities, and to develop better data and evaluation systems
among other recommendations.
Because measuring and documenting the ongoing program activities
and outputs is a priority, NIJ requires all grantees to regularly
report on all evaluation efforts. In this way, NIJ helps to facilitate
the continuing improvement and refinement of criminal justice practice
and policy by striving to provide empirically-based evaluation findings
in a timely fashion. In many cases, OJP programs are attempting to
alter the very foundation of criminal justice practice, and these
program efforts often require a longer time frame for adequate
evaluation of outcomes and impact. Since these long-term outcomes are
at least as important as short-term effects, many of these evaluations
initiated with the Crime Act are on-going.
NIJ recognizes that practitioners and policy-makers need up-to-date
evaluation findings and research results. Whenever preliminary findings
from these evaluations have become available, NIJ uses dissemination
vehicles such as the annual research and evaluation conference,
Research in Progress seminars, and Research Preview publications and
lectures. In these ways, NIJ strives to inform policy-makers and
practitioners while still preserving the integrity of the evaluation
design and guarding against forming premature conclusions or
promulgating findings not yet supported by the data or the design of
the evaluation.
GPRA--MANAGING FOR RESULTS--IS DOJ BUDGET INFORMATION CREDIBLE?
Background: As a key element, credibility of agency performance
information is understood through a set of best practices. To be
credible, this set must include a clear description of how the agency
verifies and validates performance information. We can also recognize
credible information if an agency's plan describes data limitations,
including actions used to compensate for poor quality or missing data,
as well as the implications of data limitations in terms of assessing
performance. While it is understood that developing sharp performance
information is a difficult process, there is little excuse for lack of
reliability of financial information. This is troubling when, for
example, considering the problems with the stewardship of the COPS
program and its grant awards.
Question. The credibility of performance information remains a
problem since agencies have: (1) offered limited indications that data
are reliable; (2) failed to identify the actions needed to compensate
for weak data; or (3) neglected to compensate for the impact on
implications for decision making caused by weak performance data and
protect against these data limits. The DOJ was one of four agencies
that GAO has determined to have credible performance information.
Congratulations. However, on February 4, 2000 the GAO noted that as
required under the Chief Financial Officer's Act, the audit opinion for
DOJ's fiscal year 1998 Financial Statement contained the following
disclaimer from the auditor: ``The auditor does not know if the
financial statements are reliable in all material respects.''
Given that reliable financial information is the basis for decision
making and oversight of performance within any agency, how troubling is
this disclaimer? What needs to be done to insure timely, complete,
accurate financial information?
Answer. On March 1, 2000, GAO and OMB were notified that DOJ
received a ``qualified opinion'' from the auditors on the fiscal year
1999 DOJ Financial Statement. Of the 10 DOJ entities audited, 9
received unqualified or ``clean'' opinions, while 1, the INS, received
a qualified opinion based on difficulties supporting deferred revenue
and intragovernmental accounts payable data. The overall qualified
opinion means the auditors, except for the cited INS items, found that
the DOJ financial statement presented reliably and fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of the Department. This was a
significant improvement in financial data reliability over the fiscal
year 1998 disclaimer.
DOJ senior leadership recognizes that reliable financial data is a
cornerstone for decision making and accurate performance measurement.
The fiscal year 1998 disclaimer was extremely troubling, and DOJ
components implemented aggressive and detailed corrective action plans
to resolve the weaknesses cited in the audit. While the fiscal year
1999 audit opinion was an improvement over fiscal year 1998, DOJ
components will again be implementing detailed corrective action plans
to address remaining weaknesses. These plans will be pursued
aggressively and monitored closely by the Attorney General and senior
component management as DOJ works towards an overall clean opinion for
the fiscal year 2000 audit.
GPRA--MANAGING FOR RESULTS--LINKING DOJ COMPONENT BUDGET RESOURCE
REQUESTS AND GOALS
Background: In its July, 1999 review, ``Agencies Fiscal Year 2000
Performance Plans,'' GAO commented that most of the annual performance
plans do not sufficiently address how agencies will use their human
capital to achieve results. Specifically, the report charges that few
of the plans explain how the agency will build and maintain the human
capital necessary to achieve performance goals. Although recruitment
and training are addressed generally by agencies, GAO concluded that
the failure to integrate human capital planning with the systematic
integration of mission and program planning (one of the characteristics
of a high performance organization) is a ``very serious omission.''
Question. Agency plans to use resources and strategies to achieve
performance results are often limited by their ability to make useful
links between budget requests and performance goals and to clearly
explain how programs will achieve goals. For example, the GAO
characterized the failure to strategically develop human capital to
achieve results as a government-wide problem.
What strategies has DOJ put in place to develop human capital
necessary to achieve results?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 Summary Performance Plan reflects our
efforts in the area. The plan identifies the resources dedicated to the
achievement of each strategic and annual goal. This includes human
capital as well as the skills those individuals require and the IT
systems upon which they depend to achieve stated objectives and
targets. The plan also identifies, by annual goal, the significant
training required by not only by our staff but others including state
and local enforcement regulators and other service providers. This
typically includes training in areas of high risk or new technology and
includes training in law enforcement; counter-terrorism efforts to
respond to terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons, referred to as first responder training; and training in
missing and exploited children. While these do not focus on individual
DOJ staff development (which would be inappropriate for this document)
they reflect our role as a federal leader in developing the human
capital required to achieve results for these areas. Furthermore, DOJ
conducted an informal assessment of our staffing and recruitment and
found one area that warranted Departmental oversight; border patrol
agents. As a result, targeted performance was developed for this area
and is included in our plan.
In addition, we are revising our DOJ Strategic Plan, which is due
to the Congress in September 2000. We will be including strategies to
address human capital development in our revised plan.
CASELOADS IN FEDERAL COURTS
Question. Madam Attorney General, 2 weeks ago, I spoke to a group
of federal judges in Albuquerque from all 4 Southwest border states--
California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
As you must be aware, our border courts are swamped--these 4
districts handle 30 percent of the entire federal criminal caseload
pertaining to illegal drugs and illegal immigration.
I understand that the President's Budget requests increases for the
U.S. Attorneys, the Marshals Service, and other resources, including
for the federal courts.
Does the Department have an overall plan to address these resource
needs to be sure that the federal system can handle the increasing
caseload that is generated by our investment in law enforcement
personnel and equipment?
Answer. The Department is concerned about the rising caseload in
the border districts. We have considered these needs in developing our
2001 budget request. For USAs, we are requesting 48 positions (27
attorneys), 24 workyears and $3,844,000 to complement the additional
INS resources and to address a projected increase in the number of
immigration cases filed. The USMS is requesting $10,345,000 and 194
positions to handle the increased court security and prisoner workload
that will result from staffing increases in other law enforcement
agencies. The USMS is also requesting 43 positions and $2,063,000 to
augment staff in districts where exceptional growth in the prisoner
population has eclipsed the growth in the USMS workforce, principally
along the Southwest Border.
In addition, the Department's Detention Planning Committee (DPC),
which is chaired by the Deputy Attorney General and includes heads of
the Department components, is responsible for the Department's
Detention Plan. This committee meets periodically to resolve detention
issues, and oversees the Detention Plan revisions. The DPC also directs
various working groups that address current and future bedspace needs.
The Detention plan calls for strengthening coordination of the law
enforcement and prosecutorial role in detention to predict more
accurately the impact on detention and to identify, track and assess
bedspace needs.
We are also requesting $1 million for the creation of a Detention
Trustee, who will report to the Deputy Attorney General, to improve our
detention management department-wide. The Detention Trustee will focus
on four areas: (1) managing the $25 million we are requesting for the
detention and removal/repatriation of illegal aliens apprehended
outside the continental U.S.; (2) contract management for all USMS and
INS contracted detention space; (3) financial management of USMS and
INS detention resources; and (4) implementing detention health and
safety standards. The Trustee will also ensure that detention needs are
considered along with any new enforcement or prosecutorial initiatives.
Question. For example, our federal court in Las Cruces, New Mexico
handles 65 percent of all the federal criminal cases in New Mexico, yet
it has no full-time sitting judge. It is also in dire need of another
Assistant U.S. Attorney, more U.S. Marshals, and more pre-trial and
administrative personnel.
Will you pledge that the Department will target a significant
portion of these additional resources to the Southwest border courts to
help address this backlog?
Answer. As you correctly point out, the Southwest border is the
source of a very large percentage of our overall criminal caseload. And
when one considers just the immigration caseload, an even larger
majority of these cases originate along the Southwest border. In
determining the appropriate geographical allocation of new Assistant
United States Attorneys, we follow a very detailed, analytical process
whereby the competing needs of all the districts are taken into account
and the most deserving districts are selected to receive the new
resources. Because it is important to safeguard that proven, analytical
process, we would not want to commit at this point to a specific
geographical allocation, before we have had the opportunity to consider
all the facts. However, it is very likely, given the caseload numbers
that we have mentioned, that a significant portion of the new attorney
positions would be allocated along the Southwest border.
BIENNIAL BUDGETING--TIME-CONSUMING NATURE OF ANNUL PROCESS
Background: The process to produce an annual budget takes almost 3
years: (1) nearly 1 year to put together the President's budget; (2)
another year for Congress to legislate the budget; and (3) the final
year to actually execute the budget. Today, an agency manager is in the
process of working on three different annual budgets. That manager is
executing the fiscal year 2000 budget, he is preparing testimony and
support materials for the fiscal year 2001 budget, and he will shortly
begin preparation on the President's fiscal year 2002 budget.
I am very pleased to see that, for the second year in a row, the
President's budget supports biennial budgeting and appropriating.
Question. Can you describe the steps involved in the process for
developing a President's budget?
Answer. The Department of Justice develops its President's budget
in three main parts:
Component Request to the Department:
--Component develops budget estimates and presents them to the
Attorney General
--The component request is reviewed by the Justice Management
Division and recommendations are made to the Attorney General
and Departmental management
--The Attorney General and Departmental management make final
decisions for submission to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)
Departmental Request to OMB:
--The Department provides budget estimates to OMB
OMB provides a passback of approved levels the Department provides
OMB with an appeal of the passback levels the Department policy level
and OMB management or White House (and, if necessary, the President)
negotiate to arrive at budget levels (President's Request) for
submission to Congress
President's Request to Congress:
--The Department presents a final budget request to Congress
Question. Congress seems to be constantly working on the budget.
Are the agencies and OMB also constantly working on the budget?
Answer. OMB and the Department's budget offices spend a
considerable amount of time preparing, formulating, presenting and
executing three budget cycles, concurrently, for most of any given
fiscal year. At the present time, the Department is developing fiscal
year 2002 estimates, presenting the fiscal year 2001 budget to
Congress, and executing the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
The Department's program and policy offices spend the majority of
their time implementing programs and projects passed by Congress, and
executing the appropriated budget.
Question. Do you think that under the current budget process there
is a preoccupation with budget projections and resource allocation as
opposed to actually running programs and reviewing how they are
operating?
Answer. Program and policy offices within the Department spend the
majority of their time implementing programs and projects passed by
Congress, and executing the appropriated budget. The budget offices
provide an oversight role on all budgetary matters for the programs of
the Department. This enables the program and policy offices to manage
their programs, within Congressional intent and budget constraints.
Question. Can you describe how your job as the head of a major
cabinet department would change if we moved to a system of biennial
budgeting and appropriations?
Answer. The Department strongly supports reforms to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government. We believe that
biennial budgeting offers a management tool with potential to enhance
our performance. The primary benefit to a 2-year budget would be that
the Department would be allowed more time to implement and manage
projects, and provide long-range planning and oversight of programs.
However, in order for biennial budgeting to work, Congress must afford
agencies the flexibility to respond to changing and unforseen
circumstances that may arise as a result of the time lag between budget
years. Mid-cycle reviews would have to occur, with possible
supplementals to the appropriations bill. If this process becomes too
cumbersome with excessive negotiations and supplementals, then the time
saved, essentially, would be lost.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
TOBACCO LITIGATION
Question. Price increases resulting from any damage award in the
federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry would cause a decline in
the demand for cigarettes. Price increases resulting from the
settlement of the state health care reimbursement suits have already
led to a 45 percent decline in burley tobacco quota and an 18.5 percent
decline in flue-cured tobacco quota. Have you estimated the likely
declines in domestic tobacco quotas if the government prevails in the
tobacco lawsuit?
Answer. We have not prepared any such estimates. The litigation
filed by the Federal Government--United Sates v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
et al.--was brought under the Medical Care Recovery Act (MCRA) and the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) to recover money spent by the
Federal Government on smoking-related health care costs, and under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to obtain
equitable relief, and to prevent and restrain certain unlawful conduct.
Issues related to the effect that potential recoveries by the United
States may have on tobacco domestic tobacco quotas are not presented by
the case.
That does not mean that the concerns of tobacco farmers are not
shared by the Administration. Indeed, as the Administration has said on
numerous occasions, it is committed to protecting tobacco farmers and
their communities. As you know, the Administration fully supported the
$5 billion settlement to compensate tobacco farmers, which was agreed
to by the states and industry last year. Second, the President signed
and supported the fiscal year 2000 Agricultural Appropriations bill,
which provides $328 million to compensate tobacco farmers who had
quotas reduced in 1999, and we also note that the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000 includes $340 million for tobacco farmers in
fiscal year 2001. And in the context of the pending litigation, the
Administration supports legislation that would ensure that an adequate
portion of any recovery the Department may obtain is used to ensure the
financial security of tobacco farmers and their communities.
Question. Have you estimated the economic and other effects on
tobacco farmers of a government victory in this lawsuit?
Answer. No. See response above.
Question. Have you estimated the economic effect on communities in
which tobacco is grown if the government prevails in the tobacco
lawsuit?
Answer. No. See response above.
Question. Please provide any documents relating to your responses
to the above questions.
Answer. For the reasons above, the Department has not performed any
analyses of the type that you have requested, and therefore has no
documents responsive to this request.
Question. The Justice Department's request for $20 million in
fiscal year 2000 for tobacco litigation was denied. How is the
Department funding its ongoing efforts in that litigation?
Answer. During the appropriations process, Congress made clear that
the Department could use existing funding sources to support its
litigation effort, which seeks to recover billions of dollars for the
American taxpayer. Indeed, Senator Judd Gregg, Chairman of the
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, stated in a
colloquy on the Senate floor on July 22, 1999:
While the Committee was unable to provide new funding [for
the tobacco litigation] as the Administration requested,
nothing in the bill or the report language prohibits the
Department from using generally appropriated funds, including
funds from the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses Account, to
pursue this litigation if the Department concludes it has merit
under existing law.
In the same colloquy, Senator Durbin stated:
I think the record is eminently clear that the Department of
Justice has the authority to move forward on tobacco litigation
without any limitation whatsoever from this legislation.
Accordingly, the Department is drawing on funding sources that it
regularly uses to support litigation on behalf of the United States. In
particular, the Justice Department is using base funding provided to
the Civil Division ($1.8 million) and funds from the Health Care Fraud
and Abuse Control account ($4 million), which are used in cases that
seek to protect, among other things, the Medicare trust fund.
Department funding for tobacco litigation currently planned for fiscal
year 2000 totals $5.8 million.
In addition, as the Department has done in other significant cases,
we have obtained agreements from three client agencies--the Departments
of Defense, Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services--to
reimburse the Department for up to $7.95 million in total. Congress
expressly authorized such reimbursements agreements in Section 109 of
the fiscal year 1995 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill,
which stated:
Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 or any other law, in
litigation involving unusually high costs, the Department of
Justice may receive and retain reimbursement for salaries and
expenses, for fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, from any other
governmental component being represented in the litigation.
DOD, VA and HHS are being represented in the cigarette litigation;
indeed, damages recovered under the theories advanced in the litigation
will flow in large measure directly to those Departments for the
provision of health care. This approach is consistent with a 1998 Sense
of the Congress, where Congress went on record to urge the Attorney
General to pursue a federal suit to recover the costs of tobacco-
related damages from the cigarette companies. In the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178, Congress passed
the following language:
It is the sense of the Congress--(1) that the Attorney
General or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as appropriate,
should take all steps necessary to recover from tobacco
companies amounts corresponding to the costs which would be
incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of
tobacco-related illnesses of veterans.
Congress further expressed its view that funds recovered in such a
suit should be used to fund VA health care for veterans made ill by
tobacco use.
These agency reimbursement agreements are discussed in more detail
in the responses below. If the agency reimbursements are unavailable,
and absent any other funds being made available, this litigation could
not proceed.
Question. The Justice Department has not requested any money in its
fiscal year 2001 budget for tobacco litigation. There is, however, a
line-item request for $4 million in the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) budget in the Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund. Why is this request in the HHS budget and not in the
Justice Department budget?
Answer. The Administration plans to spend up to $26.2 million for
tobacco litigation in fiscal year 2001. This estimate is based on
anticipated agency reimbursements totaling $12 million, including $4
million from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), $4
million from Department of Defense (DOD), and $4 million from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The remaining $14.2 million will
be funded out of the Department's base budget request which is pending
Congressional approval and the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Act
(HCFAC) Trust Fund. Specifically, $10.4 million will be allocated from
the HCFAC, and $1.8 million will be provided from the Civil Division's
base funds. Additionally, we estimate using up to $2 million from the
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses appropriation to fund potential expert
witness expenses.
Since the enactment of Section 109, the Civil Division has depended
heavily on agency reimbursements, particularly for high-stakes cases
that require a substantial dedication of resources. Indeed, the
Department has relied on this provision to obtain from client agencies
more than $338 million for litigation that has a potential liability to
the Federal Government of more than $36 billion, and for litigation
that could return billions more to the Treasury of the United States.
The reimbursements we receive fund personnel, automated litigation
support, alternative dispute resolution, and consultant services that
are critical to meeting discovery requirements and preparing for trial.
In the case of the Department's litigation against the cigarette
companies, U.S. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., we have received funds
from three of the agencies on whose behalf it was brought: HHS, VA, and
DOD. The litigation seeks to recover funds that these agencies have
paid to cover the costs of treatment for tobacco-related illnesses
under programs including: Medicare, the Veterans Health Administration
(VHA), the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the VA (CHAMPVA),
the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS), TRICARE, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act
(FEHBA).
The Department of Justice (DOJ) consulted with these agencies
during the development of the cigarette litigation. These agencies
supported the filing of the suit, and continue to support the
litigation in active cooperation with DOJ. In light of the billions of
federal dollars spent each year on cigarette-related diseases, we
believe that these agencies and the federal taxpayers will recoup their
investment in this litigation many times over.
Question. Has HHS provided any funding or support to assist in its
prosecution of the tobacco lawsuit in fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year
2000?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, HHS did not provide the DOJ with any
funding to support the cigarette litigation. As in other litigation
involving Medicare and other HHS programs, HHS personnel did assist the
Department in developing the litigation, primarily by providing the
Department with access to relevant HHS information. Whenever the
Department of Justice litigates on behalf of an agency, we must
necessarily work closely with agency staff who have access to relevant
information, primarily those individuals involved in the matters at
issue in the litigation and attorneys in agency general counsel's
offices. In the cigarette litigation, the Department is seeking to
recover funds expended by HHS to treat cigarette-related illnesses. As
the agency that incurred the costs, HHS possesses the information
needed to document these expenditures.
In fiscal year 2000, in addition to the type of assistance outlined
above, HHS has reimbursed the Department $2.65 million for costs
incurred in pursuing this litigation.
Question. If so, how has HHS provided this assistance to the
Department of Justice? Has HHS made any direct payments to the
Department of Justice? Have HHS personnel provided support for the
Department of Justice? Has HHS retained outside consultants or
contractors to provide support?
Answer. See response above. As far as the DOJ is aware, HHS has not
hired any outside consultants or contractors to support our litigation
efforts.
Question. How much has this support totaled, in time and estimated
dollars expended?
Answer. We have no records that would indicate the time or money
expended by HHS personnel to assist the Department, other than the
reimbursement payment outlined above.
Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of these
expenditures.
Answer. We estimate that we will use the entire fiscal year 2000
reimbursement from HHS for litigation consultants. This year, these
services will be aimed primarily at establishing an empirically-sound
mechanism for measuring damages. Other than that, we do not have
records that would indicate other expenditures by HHS to assist DOJ in
this litigation.
Question. What program items in HHS's budget were used to provide
funds for tobacco litigation support for the Department of Justice?
Answer. The DOJ does not have information regarding the source of
the funds provided by HHS in support of cigarette litigation.
Question. Are there any other funding requests for tobacco
litigation in the Administration's budget? If so, please specify the
specific budget(s) and the amount(s) of the request.
Answer. There are no funding requests for cigarette litigation in
fiscal year 2001 from any sources other than those identified in the
response above.
Question. The Administration requested $20 million for fiscal year
2000 for tobacco litigation but apparently requested only $4 million
for tobacco litigation in fiscal year 2001. Why the dramatic decrease?
Answer. As outlined in more detail in the response above, the
Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request for cigarette
litigation totals $26.2 million.
Question. Do you plan to submit a reprogramming request for fiscal
year 2000 for tobacco litigation?
Answer. The Department has no plans to submit a reprogramming
request for the cigarette litigation in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Will the Administration seek additional funds for tobacco
litigation in the fiscal year 2000 supplemental appropriations?
Answer. The Department has not sought additional funds for the
cigarette litigation in the fiscal year 2000 supplemental
appropriation.
Question. How much has the Department spent to date on the tobacco
lawsuit?
Answer. As of May 9, 2000, the Civil Division had filled 26
positions and spent $3.9 million in connection with the cigarette
lawsuit.
Question. Did any of the personnel currently working on the tobacco
lawsuit formerly work on any of the criminal investigations of the
tobacco industry? Are they able to make use of any of the information
gained in those investigations?
Answer. No personnel working on the lawsuit previously worked on
any criminal investigation of the tobacco industry. The litigation
filed by the Department was developed without any access to information
obtained during the course of the Department's criminal investigation
against the tobacco industry.
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits any
government attorney who is not involved in a grand jury proceeding from
having access to that grand jury information absent a court order.
Question. To date has the Department hired any consultants or
contractors or counsel to assist the Department in the tobacco lawsuit?
Answer. The Department has entered into contracts to assist the
Department in the development of its litigation. Information on one of
those contracts, a legal consulting arrangement with the law firm of
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P. (Robins, Kaplan), is outlined
below. Because litigation is currently on-going, and the Department is
relying on consultants to assist in the lawsuit, to provide detailed
information on these consultant activities and expertise on the public
records could prove damaging to the interests of the United States.
Such information would not be available to other parties in the
litigation.
In addition, the presiding judge in the cigarette litigation, D.C.
District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, has issued an order requiring the
parties to pay for the services of a court approved neutral, whose job
it is to assist in the development of a pre-trial case management plan.
Information on the Department's share of the funding of this court
approved neutral is also outlined below.
Question. If so, please provide: the names of such consultants,
contractors or counsel; the dates on which they were retained; the
terms of their retention, including any caps on the compensation that
such consultants, contractors or counsel may receive either in total or
on an hourly basis, and the length of time they are expected to be
retained; the specialties or expertise that each such consultant,
contractor or counsel has, and why this specialty or expertise is
required to enable the government to prevail in this case.
Answer. The Department entered into a contract for legal consulting
services with the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
(Robins, Kaplan) to provide assistance the Department in the
development of our potential litigation against the major cigarette
companies. This included assistance in gathering and analyzing
evidence, developing potential litigation strategies, and conducting
other similar activities. The Robins, Kaplan firm represented the state
of Minnesota and Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Minnesota in their
litigation against the major cigarette companies.
The contract was entered into on April 5, 1999, and ended on June
30, 1999. Pursuant to the contract, Robins, Kaplan was compensated at
the rate of $75 per attorney hour, substantially below the firms'
normal billing rates. The total cost paid under this contract, which
ended on June 30, 1999, was $50,113.34. This figure includes both
attorney time ($28,023.75) and reimbursement of costs ($22,089.59).
(The contract had an outside cap on total compensation of $81,670; that
cap was not met.)
In addition, pursuant to a court order, the DOJ and the other
parties to the current cigarette litigation are paying for the services
of a court approved neutral. The parties selected Donald H. Green of
Pepper Hamilton, LLP. Retained last January, he is experienced in
complex litigation as well as alternative dispute resolution. Mr. Green
is assisting the parties in developing a pre-trial case management
plan. After the pending motions have been resolved, he will likely be
used to assist in planning the discovery phase. He is being compensated
at $360 per hour. The Department is paying 50 percent of his hourly
rate, or, $180 per hour.
Question. Have any other federal agencies provided funding or
assistance to the Department of Justice (including any legal,
paralegal, expert or technical services or cooperation by government
employees, contractors or others) in connection with the tobacco
lawsuit? If so, please identify those agencies, the nature of the
funding or assistance, and the estimated cost of providing that
assistance.
Answer. Yes. Discovery in the cigarette litigation is likely to
involve the production of documents from numerous federal agencies.
Judge Kessler has ordered the Federal Government to preserve its
tobacco-related documents. In addition, pursuant to the informal
discovery process ordered by Judge Kessler, the Department and the
cigarette company defendants have begun discussions concerning the
scope of documents that the defendants are likely to seek in discovery.
Accordingly, federal agencies with such documents have provided
assistance to the Department in complying with the court's order and
preparing for discovery in the case. In addition, agencies such as
DOD), VA, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which have paid
for the medical care of beneficiaries suffering from cigarette-related
diseases, have assisted the Department by providing the Department
access to information necessary to develop the case. Such assistance is
regularly provided to the DOJ in other cases. The DOJ does not have any
records that would indicate time expended by agency personnel on the
litigation.
As discussed in our response to the second question above, the HHS
has entered a reimbursement agreement with the Civil Division which
will fund up to $2.65 million. In addition, the DOD and VA have entered
into agreements with the DOJ to reimburse Justice for a portion of the
costs incurred to bring this litigation. Each agency is providing the
Department with a reimbursement of $2.65 million. These reimbursements
were arranged primarily to fund the fiscal year 2000 costs we estimate
in connection with the pretrial phase of the litigation. The Division
expects to incur significant expenses for the services of consultants
skilled in damage assessment as well as individuals or firms possessing
expertise in medical specialities. A portion of our Automated
Litigation Support costs arising from discovery activities will also be
funded through these reimbursement agreements.
LITIGATION AGAINST FIREARM MANUFACTURERS
Question. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has
proposed that litigation be filed against firearm manufacturers on
behalf of various public housing authorities. Has the Department of
Justice engaged in any evaluation or analysis of the possibility of a
lawsuit by the Federal Government or by any recipients of federal funds
against firearm manufacturers?
Answer. Following the filing by private parties of several suits
against the gun industry, the Department of Justice, at the request of
HUD, reviewed possible litigation against the gun industry in late
1998.
HUD is not filing or planning to file litigation, in its own name
or on behalf of any agency of the Federal Government, against the
nation's gun manufacturers to recover costs spent to address gun-
related violence in public housing. DOJ is not filing or planning to
file such a suit on HUD's behalf.
The Administration indicated that certain Public Housing
Authorities (PHAs) may bring litigation against gun manufacturers. The
PHAs are not federal entities, but are separate legal entities
organized under state laws that can sue and be sued. For that reason,
if the PHAs choose to sue gun manufacturers, the Justice Department
would have no role in the litigation. Accordingly, the Justice
Department has not expended its resources to examine the merits of such
a suit.
Question. How much activity--expressed in time and estimated dollar
expenditures--has the Department of Justice devoted to possible
litigation against the firearm manufacturers?
Answer. As stated above, the Department has no plans to bring
litigation against the firearms industry. As you know, the
Administration has engaged in discussions with certain gun
manufacturers to discuss policies the manufacturers can adopt to
improve the safety of their products, and keep their products from
falling into the hands of criminals, and has entered into an agreement
with one manufacturer, Smith and Wesson. The Justice Department has
always played a leading role in developing the Administration's views
on gun policy, and we will continue to do so. Our contribution,
however, has been limited to a policy role.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
METHAMPHETAMINE TRAFFICKING
Question. In Colorado, particularly the Western Slope and Grand
Junction, the methamphetamine problem has been described as ``beyond
crises.'' Can you please tell the Committee what type of resources the
Department plans on devoting to fighting the meth problem? What are
your plans for working with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
to fight this problem?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the Community Oriented Policing
Service (COPS) is providing $1 million to the Rocky Mountain
Methamphetamine Initiative in Colorado. This funding will be used for
additional law enforcement officers and to train local and state law
enforcement officers on the proper recognition, collection, removal,
and destruction of methamphetamine. COPS is currently working with DEA
and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to administer this funding
and provide technical assistance, if necessary.
DEA has provided clandestine laboratory safety certification
training to 55 state and local police officers and 18 DEA agents in the
State of Colorado over the past 5 years. Each of these officers were
issued over $2,000 in specialized clandestine laboratory safety
equipment. In addition to the 55 Colorado officers who graduated from
DEA's 1 week Clandestine Laboratory Safety Certification School,
numerous officers have been provided annual clandestine laboratory re-
certification training. This training is mandated by the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR--1910.12), and allows the officers to maintain
their current certification status. DEA will continue to provide this
basic and re-certification training to law enforcement personnel in the
State of Colorado, this year and in the years to come.
DEA recently distributed $63,000 to the Denver Field Division for
the acquisition of additional specialized clandestine laboratory safety
equipment (i.e., air purified respirators, air monitors, nomex fire-
resistant ballistic vests, etc.) for DEA special agents and task force
officers who participate in clandestine laboratory raids. It is
anticipated that another $63,000 in funding for this type of safety
equipment will also be provided to the Denver Field Division before
September 2000. In addition, DEA recently purchased two new clandestine
laboratory safety trucks for utilization within the Denver Field
Division.
The State of Colorado will also continue to benefit from programs
specifically aimed at addressing the statewide methamphetamine
trafficking problem. DEA's Operation Velocity and Operation Backtrack
provide funding and investigative support to the field for
methamphetamine investigations, clandestine laboratory investigations,
and investigations involving rogue chemical companies that divert
methamphetamine precursor chemicals for illegal use. Both of these
programs are currently supporting cases in Colorado.
Question. The DEA is planning on opening a new office in Grand
Junction, Colorado, which will be an off-shoot of the Glenwood Springs
office. What impact will the office have on the Western Slope of
Colorado? How many agents should be assigned to that office?
Answer. DEA opened a Post of Duty (POD) in Grand Junction in March
1999, and plans have been approved to upgrade this office to a Resident
Office. DEA currently has two special agents in the Grand Junction POD,
which is co-located with a state and local HIDTA task force. As part of
the Grand Junction upgrade, DEA will move four special agent positions
from its Glenwood Springs Office (thereby reorganizing Glenwood Springs
to a POD) to Grand Junction in an effort to address drug trafficking
issues in the Western Slope region of Colorado more fully.
DEA agents in Grand Junction currently participate in the 14-member
Grand Valley Joint Task Force, which includes law enforcement officers
from the MESA County Sheriff's Office, the Grand Junction Police
Department, and the Colorado Highway Patrol.
The Grand Valley Joint Task Force has investigated 28 cases,
resulting in 247 arrests. The following case summaries exemplify the
close collaborative relationship between DEA and state and local law
enforcement on the Grand Valley Joint Task Force.
--A methamphetamine case which resulted in the arrest of 25
defendants, the seizure of 5 pounds of methamphetamine, 1
kilogram of cocaine and $60,000 in cash. Further coordination
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) resulted
in the arrest of nine illegal aliens.
--The intelligence gathered as a result of this case enabled DEA's
Los Angeles Field Division to initiate five Title III wiretaps,
resulting in the seizure of three methamphetamine laboratories.
These seizures were traced to an important Mexican
methamphetamine group working along the Southwest border, and
led to 7 arrests and the seizure of 41 gallons of
methamphetamine solution, the equivalent of 160 pounds of
methamphetamine.
The addition of four special agent personnel to DEA's upgraded
Grand Junction Resident Office will allow the agency to expand its
investigation of major methamphetamine traffickers operating within the
Western Slope region and increase the agency's participation in
programs like the Grand Valley Joint Task Force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
DRUG TREATMENT/OFFENDER REENTRY PROGRAM
Background: As you know, there are now more than 1.8 million people
in our prisons and jails. A recent study indicates that at some point
this year the population of prisoners will increase to 2 million.
Studies also show that more than 80 percent of the prison
population has some kind of substance abuse problem. But many prisoners
are not being treated for their drug problem. According to the Office
of National Drug Control Policy, only about 15 percent of all state
inmates complete substance abuse treatment before their release. Each
year, 500,000 offenders are released without adequate drug treatment.
So we wind up with a cycle of drug use and crime. Prisoners who
have not received drug treatment get back on the streets and commit
crime.
Madame Attorney General, the Department's budget request includes
funding for a number of programs that will help prisoners get drug
treatment and assist their return to society. There is $171 million in
additional funding for drug treatment programs; $75 million for grants
to help states and localities implement drug supervision programs; $65
million for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program; and $60
million for an Offender Reentry Program which will fund partnerships
between law enforcement entities and community leaders to better
prepare communities to handle inmates reentering society.
Question. How far will these funds go in providing drug treatment
to all of the prisoners who need it? If 85 percent of prisoners are not
getting drug treatment, we have a long way to go.
Answer. Of the estimated 1.4 million offenders currently housed in
our nation's prisons and jails, over 80 percent are substance abusers
and, therefore, candidates for some sort of intervention. It is well
established that the need for residential substance abuse treatment
outpaces the Federal Government's ability to provide it--for example,
during 2000, OJP's Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program
estimates it will provide drug treatment services to 20,000 inmates.
However, it should be noted that OJP's training and technical
assistance activities continue to do much in the way of educating state
and local criminal justice agencies on the value comprehensive
substance abuse treatment, lessons learned, and best practices.
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. When
compared to substance abusers who voluntarily enter treatment, those
coerced into treatment through the criminal justice system are just as
likely to succeed.
Moreover, studies suggest that, not only do treatment interventions
work, they are cost-effective. In 1994, the RAND Corporation reported
that drug treatment is the most cost-effective drug control
intervention. Another 1994 study examined CALDATA, a comprehensive drug
and alcohol treatment program in California, and concluded that for
every dollar invested in drug treatment, taxpayers saved $7. This
savings was attributable to decreased use of drugs and alcohol and the
resulting reduction in costs related to crime and health care.
One major lesson we have learned is that leveraging the coercive
power of the criminal justice system to provide substance treatment and
impose sanctions against the offender is effective in breaking the
cycle of substance abuse and crime. This is evident in the success of
OJP's Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, which
provides formula grants to states for drug testing and treatment, and
the Drug Court program, which provides discretionary grant funding for
planning, implementing and enhancing of state and local drug courts,
which provide specialized drug treatment and rehabilitation for non-
violent substance abusing offenders. To help bridge the funding gap, in
2001, OJP requests $75 million to establish the Zero Tolerance and Drug
Intervention Initiative, which will provide discretionary grants to
state, local and tribal governments to institute comprehensive drug
testing and treatment programs. Local and tribal governments are
expected to be the largest beneficiaries as very little state funding
``flows through'' to local and tribal jails. All three of these
programs fall under the Administration's ``Stop Drugs--Stop Crime''
Initiative.
Compounding the problem, are the estimated 500,000 inmates who will
return to communities this year. Historically, two-thirds of this
population are rearrested for new crimes within three years. Reentry
programs, such as the proposed $60 million Community Supervision
Initiative: Project Reentry, would provide resources to assist in
preparing offenders for transition from prison to the community by
addressing critical self-sufficiency issues including substance abuse
and mental health problems, and job readiness and placement.
The Department continues to leverage available funding to provide
state and locals with the necessary building blocks to implement
comprehensive offender drug testing and treatment interventions. By
utilizing the federal resources provided, state and local communities
can create broad partnerships that use their combined resources to
implement comprehensive drug treatment programs and maximize the number
of offenders reached.
Question. Also, can you give us some additional information on the
Offender Reentry Program? What types of assistance will that program
provide?
Answer. The focus of the Offender Reentry Program is to help
communities address the public safety challenges posed by state and
federal prisoners returning to the community. The Initiative would
enable states and local communities to create broad partnerships that
will use their combined resources to provide the necessary combination
of surveillance, sanctions, incentives, and support services to provide
increased protection to both urban and rural communities that
experience a high percentage of returning inmates.
In 2001, a total of $145 million is requested for Project Reentry,
which will be administered through a joint partnership between DOJ's
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Department of Labor (DOL), and
the Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Of this amount, OJP would
administer $60 million in program funding, the DOL would target $75
million to develop a broad range of pre- and post-release job training
and placement and other programs in the same communities, and SAMHSA
would dedicate $10 million in substance abuse and mental health
treatment to support these efforts.
Central to OJP's efforts is helping communities ensure that
offenders are prepared for their return to communities through adequate
planning and monitoring prior to and following release in such critical
areas as employment and substance abuse testing and treatment. Our
efforts also focus on helping to prepare communities for returning
offenders by supporting the analysis of reentry statistics and
development of adequate supervision and support systems. Offender
reentry plans would be developed at both the individual and community
levels, and would draw upon and coordinate the resources of criminal
justice agencies (i.e., institutional corrections, probation, parole,
and police) as well as community resources (i.e., employment,
treatment, family, business, and faith-based organizations).
Specifically, OJP's $60 million would provide for the following:
The Reentry Partnerships Initiative ($40 million) focuses on
developing broad governmental and community partnerships to oversee the
development and implementation of offender as well as community reentry
plans, including the use of graduated sanctions and incentives and
enhanced offender supervision mechanisms to keep offenders on track.
Funding could be used to hire community safety officers--community
corrections (probation/parole) officers--to work with offenders while
still incarcerated and to help supervise offenders in the targeted
neighborhoods as well as to hire case managers who would work in
partnership with police and community leaders to develop the necessary
support network to ensure successful transition to jobs and treatment.
Funds could be also used for drug and alcohol testing and treatment,
community planning and analysis, developing appropriate progress
tracking tools, convening victims panels, and other surveillance and
service efforts.
The Reentry Courts Initiative ($10 million) focuses on creating
court-based oversight programs for returning offenders that would use
the authority of the court not only to develop and monitor offender
reentry plans and to apply graduated sanctions and incentives, but also
to draw in other essential partners such as community corrections,
local law enforcement, and a full range of service providers to help
supervise and support the offender reentry process. Patterned after
successful drug courts, reentry courts would create judicial oversight
of returning offenders to promote positive offender behavior.
The Juvenile Reentry Initiative ($5 million) would help states
develop an intensive juvenile transition support program to address the
public safety concerns and needs of youth in custody of the juvenile
justice system. Local juvenile justice agencies, juvenile correctional
agencies, juvenile courts, parole agencies would work in partnership
with community-based service providers, law enforcement agencies, and
state and local Workforce Investment Boards to develop and implement a
comprehensive juvenile reentry program with an emphasis on job training
and placement services as well as educational, treatment, and family
support.
Research and Development ($5 million) would be used to track the
progress of the Reentry Partnerships and Reentry Courts and to improve
program content. NIJ would undertake a series of coordinated activities
that will inform state and local efforts over time. NIJ would also
sponsor research on a range of issues relating to reentry programs,
including drug and alcohol testing and treatment outcomes, the ability
of transition programs to prepare offenders for return to the
community, the effects of family and community ties on job performance
and compliance with release conditions, and the attitudes of the
business community toward returning offenders as employees. NIJ will
evaluate the results of this information as well as a cross section of
the projects funded under the joint Justice/Labor/HHS initiatives.
These results will be communicated rapidly to participating programs
through cluster conferences, information dissemination to the field,
and a national teleconference.
DEATH PENALTY
Question. In recent years, a number of death row inmates have used
DNA testing to prove that they were innocent. Since 1976, when capital
punishment was reinstated, 610 people have been executed. During the
same time, 85 people have been found innocent and were released from
death row. They were not freed on some technicality, there were freed
because DNA evidence proved that they did not commit the crime. So, for
every seven executions, one innocent person has been wrongly sentenced
to death. That is a very disturbing statistic.
These findings have renewed concerns about the death penalty. The
American Bar Association has called for a moratorium on executions.
George Ryan, the Governor of Illinois, has announced a moratorium on
executions until a study of the death penalty system in that state is
completed.
According to the most recent Department of Justice report, there
are 19 prisoners facing a death sentence in the Federal Prison System.
Are you confident that the federal death penalty system is being
administered properly with adequate protections for defendants?
Answer. Yes. Before a decision is made to seek the death penalty,
the potential capital case is the subject of extensive Department
review, which includes the evidence to support a determination of guilt
and the aggravating and mitigating factors. In addition, federal
capital defendants have the assistance of highly qualified and
experienced counsel at trial and all subsequent stages of review.
CHEMICAL SAFETY INFORMATION, SITE SECURITY AND FUELS REGULATORY RELIEF
ACT
Question. I have a question about the implementation of the
Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief
Act (Public Law 106-40).
This measure was signed into law on August 5, 1999, after
significant consultation with the Department of Justice and the
Environmental Protection Agency. The law requires the Administration to
prepare within 1 year regulations governing the distribution of off-
site consequence analysis information, collected pursuant to section
112(r) of the Clean Air Act, or to allow full public access to that
information under the Freedom of Information Act. We agreed that the
development of those regulations would be informed by an assessment of
the increased risk of terrorism due to Internet access to this
information and by an interim report designed to inform Congress on the
vulnerability of stationary sources to criminal and terrorist activity.
The negotiators were assured by Department of Justice and
Administration representatives that this time line could be followed
and that the interim site security report would cost approximately
$200,000-$500,000. Recently, however, I was informed that the necessary
funds are more accurately $7 million and that those funds are not
readily available. I am concerned that the interim report produced by
August 5, 2000 may not fully discuss the site security issues
identified in the law, and that it may instead be a scoping study for
the final report due in 2002. Clearly this would be unacceptable. If
there is a security threat to the nation's chemical facilities, our
constituents would surely want us to spend no more than one year
assessing it. I am also concerned that the regulation promulgated under
the law may be imbalanced and possibly biased against the public's
right to know, including more severely limiting local access to useful
information than Congress intended.
Does the Department agree that its responsibility under the law is
to produce by August 5, 2000 an interim report with its findings to
date, rather than merely to produce a scoping study for the final
report?
Answer. The Department of Justice agrees that the Chemical Safety
Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Public Law
106-40) requires that the Department submit an interim report that
includes, at a minimum: (a) ``the preliminary findings'' of the 3 year
report required by section 3(a)(H)(xi)(I) of Public Law 106-40; (b)
``the methods used to develop the findings,'' and (c) ``an explanation
of the activities expected to occur that could cause the findings of
the report . . . to be different than the preliminary findings.'' The
Department intends to comply with the statute's requirements.
Question. Exactly how much has been accomplished towards completion
of the interim report? Has the Department identified funding, through
reprogramming or other means, necessary to complete the interim report
by August 5, 2000?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 President's budget did not request,
nor did the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act contain, any funding to
conduct the study upon which the final (3 year) and interim (1 year)
reports must be based. The Department submitted to the Congress a
request for reprogramming of $750,000 from the Counterterrorism Fund
for a contractor to conduct the study. The Senate has objected to this
proposal as an inappropriate use of the Fund. Accordingly, although the
Department stands ready and willing to undertake the study, we are not
able to begin it until a source of funding is identified. The
Department is continuing its efforts to identify a source of funding
for this study.
Question. Has the Department designated a single accountable
individual who will oversee completion of the interim report by August
5, 2000?
Answer. All three of the Department's leadership offices (i.e., the
Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General, and the Office of the Associate Attorney General) are involved
in oversight of this project. Day-to-day oversight of the contractor
who will perform the study and will draft the interim report will be
the responsibility of the National Institute of Justice in the Office
of Justice Programs.
Question. At what stage of development is the regulation?
Answer. The proposed regulation was published in the Federal
Register on April 27, 2000. A public hearing was held on May 9, 2000,
and the public comment period will extend until June 8, 2000.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. We will be hearing from the Secretary of
State, Madeleine Albright, on Thursday at 9:30. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., Tuesday, February 29, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
March 2.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, Hollings,
Lautenberg, and Mikulski.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary of State
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF
STATE
Senator Gregg. We can begin the hearing. We certainly
appreciate the fact that the Secretary has joined us today. We
look forward to hearing her testimony on the State Department
appropriations.
I will skip my opening statement.
Senator Hollings. I will skip mine.
Senator Gregg. So we will go right to the Secretary.
Secretary Albright. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Hollings.
Over the past 7 years I have testified before you many
times and it has always been a pleasure and I think we have
managed to get a lot of work done together. In prior years I
have summarized my written statement in order to allow plenty
of time for questions but this year, with your permission, I
will summarize my summary.
BUDGET REQUEST
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 is
essentially for current services, with significant increases
only for security and U.N. peacekeeping. For State program
accounts, we are seeking a little under $3.2 billion, primarily
for Diplomatic and Consular Programs. This reflects our
successful reorganization and our effort to make effective use
of limited personnel resources. It will also enable us to
further upgrade our communications and further improve the
customer services provided by our Consular Affairs Bureau.
The President's request for Embassy Security and
Construction is a little more than $1 billion for the next year
and $3.5 billion in advanced appropriations through 2005. These
requests are vital and I urge you to support them.
One of the most depressing charts I have seen shows our
foreign building appropriations from 1983 until the present.
There is a spike at one end to reflect the aftermath of the
embassy bombings in Beirut and there are spikes at the other
end reflecting the embassy bombings in Africa and our
subsequent joint efforts to increase resources, and in between
it is a virtual flat line.
Together, we must ensure that such a lull never happens
again. Fortunately, with the President's leadership and with
your help, we have substantially accelerated the replacement
and repair of higher-risk embassies and consulates. We have
hired new security personnel, enhanced perimeter security,
instituted an effective new surveillance detection program at
most of our posts, and taken many other measures. This is good
but not sufficient.
As the threats against U.S. interests change, we must
ensure our ability to meet them. And these challenges include
not only terrorism but also organized crime, drug cartels,
money-laundering, cybercrime, and espionage.
SECURITY
In this environment, security must always be a priority and
we must respond in a comprehensive manner to threats, both old
and new. To this end, I will explore creating the position of
Under Secretary of State for Security, Counterterrorism and Law
Enforcement. In preparation, I am directing our Assistant
Secretary for Diplomatic Security, David Carpenter, to lead a
review of the Department's structure for addressing these
issues and to make recommendations for a more effective
organization. In so doing, he will consult closely with
Ambassador Michael Sheehan, our counterterrorism coordinator,
and other senior officials.
Our goals, in keeping with the recommendations of the Crowe
and Kaden panels, are to clarify lines of authority, improve
coordination, and assure that a single high-ranking officer can
speak for the Department on security questions.
Senators, as you know, many of the international problems
and threats we face require the cooperation of others. One
means we use to secure such cooperation is through the United
Nations and other international organizations, and I ask your
support again this year for our CIO [Contributions to
International Organizations] account, which pays our share of
the costs of those organizations in which we participate.
U.N. PEACEKEEPING
And I ask your backing for our fiscal year 2001 and
emergency supplemental requests for U.N. peacekeeping. As the
subcommittee knows, U.N. peace operations provide America with
a vital third option between simply walking away from
destabilizing conflicts and intervening ourselves. And this
year we especially need your support for four relatively new
operations.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an observer
mission has been authorized to monitor and assist in
implementing parts of the Lusaka cease-fire agreement. In
Sierra Leone, the United Nations is helping to implement a
peace agreement ending a brutal civil war. In East Timor, the
United Nations is leading an international effort to maintain
order, enable refugees to return and prepare the region for
independence. And in Kosovo, the United Nations is a partner
with KFOR in laying the groundwork for democracy based on
increased tolerance and respect for the rule of law.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to
emphasize how important it is that you support the President's
supplemental and fiscal year 2001 requests for these and other
U.N. peace operations. The choice is stark. We can walk away
from conflicts and suffering in Africa, the Balkans, and East
Timor or we can do our part to address them. No one is asking
America to bear the lion's share of the burden in any of these
places.
With the subcommittee's help, we have worked hard to make
U.N. peace operations more efficient and effective and
Ambassador Holbrooke and I are doing all we can to persuade our
counterparts to reduce our official assessment for peacekeeping
missions. For years we have briefed you monthly on every
development related to these operations and the United States
has voted for each of them. I will speak plainly. Failure to
support this necessary funding request would reduce our
international standing at a critical time. It would diminish
prospects for peace and democracy in areas that have been
ravaged by conflict and where people look to us for help. It
would do grave damage to the instrument of U.N. peacekeeping
and thereby place even greater pressure on our own armed
forces. And it would undermine our diplomatic efforts to reduce
U.S. assessments.
So I urge you to support the President's request and help
us to help the United Nations preserve and build peace. That is
the right vote for our own interests and for the values our
citizens cherish.
Before concluding, I want the subcommittee to know that I
enthusiastically support the bipartisan initiative now under
way to name the State Department building in honor of former
Senator and President Harry Truman. This is appropriate because
the Truman name is synonymous with strong leadership and strong
leadership is what American foreign policy is all about.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Mr. Chairman, in the weeks ahead I am sure that we will
have differences over details, but I very much hope for your
support and that of every member of the subcommittee for the
fundamental objectives of our budget request. Thank you. Ready
for questions.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Madeleine K. Albright
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
pleased to be here to testify on behalf of President Clinton's fiscal
year 2001 budget request for the Department of State and related
programs.
Let me begin by thanking this Subcommittee for the strong
bipartisan support we have received from you in years past for our
operational and security requirements. Because of the terrorist threat,
ongoing international political ferment, and the demands of new
technology, meeting these needs is an ever-changing and growing
challenge.
I recognize that it may be harder back home to justify the costs of
a new office building in Tunis or a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo,
than a new courthouse or weather facility here in the United States.
But this Subcommittee understands that diplomacy is often our nation's
first line of defense, and that the personnel in our diplomatic posts
serve our citizens broadly and well.
Our Foreign Service, Civil Service, and Foreign Service National
personnel contribute every day to America--through the dangers they
help contain; the crimes they help prevent; the deals they help close;
the rights they help protect; and the travelers they just plain help.
They have earned our praise. They deserve our support.
Moreover, our overseas missions host representatives from more than
30 U.S. Government agencies, including from the Departments of Justice
and Commerce. These facilities are home to America's team, and should
be well-designed, modern and secure.
This year's budget request looks to the future based on lessons
from the past. It is primarily a current services budget, but includes
significant increases in security and United Nations peacekeeping which
I will discuss in detail. And it reflects recommendations contained in
two recent reports. The first (the Crowe Report) was issued last winter
by the Accountability Review Boards established after the 1998 Embassy
bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and chaired by Admiral William
Crowe. The second (the OPAP Report) was released in November by the
Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, chaired by Mr. Lewis Kaden.
Three years ago, when I first testified as Secretary of State, I
said that any framework for American leadership must include measures
to control the threats posed by nuclear weapons and terror; to seize
opportunities for settling regional conflicts; to maintain America as
the hub of an expanding global economy; and to defend cherished
principles of liberty and law.
I said further that our key alliances and relationships were at the
center of that framework. For these are the bonds that hold together
the entire international system. When we are able to act cooperatively
with other leading nations, we create a convergence of power and
purpose that can solve problems and spur progress around the globe.
This framework will continue to guide our foreign policy in the
year 2000. Our priorities include an even stronger NATO, with ever more
robust partnerships, still open to new members, developing new
capabilities and preparing for new missions.
We will promote a healthy, open, and growing world economy whose
benefits are shared more widely both among and within nations, and
where American genius and productivity receive their due.
We will work in consultation with Congress, our allies, and others
to respond effectively to the perils of proliferation and the promise
of arms control.
We will focus attention on our complex relationships with Russia
and China, adhering to core principles, while seeking to advance common
interests.
We will strive with our partners to build peace in Kosovo and
integrate all of Southeast Europe--including Serbia, when the time is
right--into the continent's democratic mainstream.
We will act resolutely to support peace in key regions such as the
Middle East, Central Africa, Northern Ireland and the Aegean.
We will continue our efforts to enhance stability on the Korean
Peninsula and to ease tensions in South Asia.
We will strive for even greater cooperation along our borders with
Canada and Mexico.
And we will work to strengthen democratic institutions worldwide,
including in the four key countries of Colombia, Indonesia, Nigeria and
Ukraine.
These and other tasks may seem disparate, but each relates to our
vision of a secure and prosperous America within an increasingly stable
and democratic world. And each is supported by accounts that fall
within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee.
Accordingly, I ask that you support the President's budget request
in its entirety. We need every penny. And I make this request knowing
that most of the funds I am asking for will be spent next year or
beyond, under a new Administration. So my urging has nothing to do with
parties or personalities; but it has everything to do with the success
of American foreign policy, and the safety and productivity of those
who serve America in our diplomatic posts at home and abroad.
STATE PROGRAMS
Diplomatic and Consular programs
Overall, the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for direct
appropriations for the State Programs accounts is $3.198 billion,
primarily for Diplomatic and Consular Programs.
These appropriations, together with various service-related fees,
support America's diplomatic presence at more than 250 embassies and
other posts in more than 160 countries. These posts provide the eyes,
ears and voice for American foreign policy in furthering a panoply of
U.S. interests. And they serve as our nation's early warning system
against potential crises and threats.
Our fiscal year 2001 budget request reflects the successful
integration of USIA and ACDA into the Department of State. I am
extremely grateful for the leadership shown and the example set by
Under Secretary for Management Bonnie Cohen, Senior Adviser for Arms
Control and International Security Affairs John Holum, and Under
Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Evelyn Lieberman
throughout the restructuring process. The result is a U.S. foreign
policy that is more effective, comprehensive and coordinated.
At the same time, I must be frank and say that reorganization does
not--at least in the short term--save money. On the contrary, it
involves significant administrative costs related to equipment,
training and the movement of offices and people. Its fundamental
purpose is to improve the overall quality of service we provide to the
American people.
We already see benefits from bringing U.S. foreign policy
professionals under one roof; integrating arms control,
nonproliferation and public diplomacy experts into State bureaus; and
eliminating duplication of effort. In the long run, I am sure we will
reduce expenditures from what they would have been without
reorganization.
Our fiscal year 2001 request for Diplomatic and Consular Programs
would enable us to continue operations at current levels, with small
increases for enhanced training and improved compliance monitoring of
labor and environmental standards. The request for Worldwide Security
upgrades in this account is $410 million. Of this, $328 million
reflects recurring costs associated with the security improvements
initiated after the Africa embassy bombings. The remainder includes $66
million for perimeter security initiatives and $16 million to hire an
additional 162 security professionals.
On personnel, Mr. Chairman, we are holding our own. During the past
two years, we have been able to hire enough people to replace those who
left, but not to recover fully from prior reductions. We appreciate the
new positions related to security that were funded, but still find our
personnel resources stretched very thin. And we face the challenge of
recruiting and retaining outstanding talent in an extremely competitive
job market. This is a serious problem, which is related to our overall
need to provide adequate levels of compensation, benefits and working
conditions for our people.
Training is another area where we are trying to make up for lost
time. I was dismayed to learn last year that a substantial number of
our personnel taking assignments abroad were doing so without the
requisite training. Moreover, crisis management training had been
reduced to zero in order to save money. Under Secretary Cohen and her
team are working hard to reverse these trends. In April, a new school
of Management and Executive Leadership will open. Training is back up.
And crisis management has resumed.
Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, our Consular Affairs Bureau
performs critical services for our mutual constituency, the American
people. And with your help, we are continuing to improve those
services.
In the coming year, we will strive to further upgrade our equipment
replacement programs, strengthen document integrity, expand public
outreach, streamline immigrant visa processing, increase interagency
data sharing as we move towards a more seamless border security
program, and do even more to ensure the prompt and secure delivery of
more than seven million U.S. passports.
As I have pointed out before, the retention of user fees is
absolutely critical to the success of our efforts. So I thank you again
for legislation allowing the Department to retain Machine Readable Visa
fees through fiscal year 2001 and to charge and retain an affidavit of
support fee.
I would also like to take this opportunity to urge the Congress to
extend and even make permanent the nonimmigrant visa waiver program.
This program has provided all the benefits I believe Congress intended,
including increased travel, tourism and business. Last year, seventeen
million foreign nationals from visa waiver countries contributed an
estimated $91 billion to the U.S. economy.
Capital Investment Fund
Our request for the Capital Investment Fund for fiscal year 2001 is
$97 million. This amount, when combined with an estimated $63 million
in Expedited Passport fees, will support our efforts to continue
upgrading our information technology and communication systems. I note
here, Mr. Chairman, that since 1997, the percentage of State Department
employees with Internet Access has risen sharply, which means that the
world's premier foreign policy institution is finally getting on the
right side of the ``digital divide.'' We have also retired the last of
our outmoded Wang classified systems and generally improved our
information technology infrastructure.
Our budget includes $17 million from the Capital Investment Fund to
develop and deploy inter-agency information platforms at about 45
overseas posts. This reflects a recommendation from OPAP and will
create a single unclassified global communications system to serve all
U.S. agencies with an overseas presence. The Department will set the
standards for this platform in cooperation with other agencies, but
each agency will be responsible for funding its own costs associated
with the platform's use.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate a bit on the OPAP report
and our response to it.
As you know, last year, I appointed a panel, chaired by Lewis
Kaden, to review our overseas operations and build on the excellent
work of Admiral Crowe and the Accountability Review Boards. The OPAP
included distinguished representatives from the government and private
sector. Its mission was to recommend criteria for the location, size
and composition of overseas posts, taking into account factors such as
our foreign policy goals, and our security and resource needs.
I am indebted to Chairman Kaden and the members of his Panel for
their hard work and for their recommendations, of which I know the
Subcommittee is aware. I particularly welcomed the Panel's stress on
the urgency of improving our capital plant; the importance of investing
in human resources; and the indispensable nature of universal
representation, which is our on-the-ground diplomatic presence around
the world.
I also agreed strongly with the Panel's focus on the need to assure
stronger interagency teamwork under our Chiefs of Mission abroad and
the President and Department of State here at home.
At the President's request, I am directing an interagency effort to
respond to the Panel's recommendations by assessing whether we have the
right mix of staff at our overseas missions. We are beginning with a
series of pilot reviews in selected posts to help us develop criteria
for a comprehensive review. I have been in touch with my Cabinet
colleagues on this matter, Mr. Chairman, and have urged them to engage
actively. This project is a major part of our effort to manage
effectively, further improve security, and produce a better team effort
in meeting the needs of our citizens in the 21st Century.
Before moving on, Mr. Chairman, I want to recall my testimony
before you last year in which I said that the Department of State was
working hard to prepare for Y2K. That turned out to be an
understatement. We made a herculean effort. Although unique in one
sense, Y2K was a dramatic example of the kind of technologically-
related challenge we may face repeatedly in the years ahead. And I
think it is fair to say that the Department passed with flying colors.
We had the job of coordinating the activities of all U.S. agencies
overseas. We established a ``weather vane'' system to detect and try to
prevent problems in other countries. We ran a successful worldwide test
using the Internet prior to the event. And we were on full alert to
respond to crises as the new Millennium dawned.
Although some may now question whether all the preparations were
needed, I would much rather respond to those questions than the ones I
would be facing if we had failed to act and the worst predictions had
come true. I believe we acted wisely and well, and I appreciate the
resolute backing we received from this Subcommittee.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that I enthusiastically
support the bipartisan initiative now underway to name the main State
Department building in honor of former President Harry Truman. I hope
you will agree this honor is richly-deserved. President Truman blazed a
trail that Administrations of both parties have since followed in
exercising strong international leadership in defense of freedom, on
behalf of prosperity, and in service to values of democracy and human
rights that Americans cherish. His name is synonymous with strong
leadership. And strong leadership is what American foreign policy is
all about.
Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM)
Our fiscal year 2001 request is $1.079 billion. This reflects our
ongoing need to correct deficiencies and improve security in our
overseas infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I know you agree that we have a responsibility to do
all we can to enable personnel in U.S. diplomatic missions to do their
jobs both professionally and safely. This cannot occur on the cheap.
One of the most depressing charts I have ever seen shows our
foreign building appropriations from 1983 until the present. There is a
spike at one end to reflect the embassy bombings in Beirut and the
Inman Panel recommendations that followed. There are spikes at the
other end reflecting the embassy bombings in Africa and the Crowe
report and our joint efforts to increase resources. In between is a
virtual flat line.
Together, we must ensure that such a lull in necessary and prudent
construction never happens again. Security is an around-the-clock,
around-the-calendar proposition. It requires more than a short-term
sense of urgency, but rather long-term habits of vigilance and
preparation. We need a steady stream of resources and a good,
comprehensive plan for investing them in the protection of our people.
Since becoming Secretary of State, I have been constantly concerned
with the need to protect the security of both the people who work at
our diplomatic missions, and the classified information we handle in
America and abroad.
These have been among our highest priorities, and I believe we have
made good progress. The 1998 bombings gave added urgency to our
efforts. And the appointment of David Carpenter, a career law
enforcement professional, as Assistant Secretary of State for
Diplomatic Security, has helped us to intensify our security programs
on every front.
For example, with the help of this Subcommittee, we have
substantially accelerated the replacement and repair of higher-risk
embassies and consulates.
We have hired new security personnel, whose ranks had been allowed
to decline in earlier years for budgetary reasons.
We have developed a global risk management plan, enhanced perimeter
security, hired more local guards, adopted a rigorous escort policy,
strengthened computer safeguards, provided thousands of security
briefings, and instituted an effective new surveillance detection
program at most of our posts. In addition, I recently asked Assistant
Secretary Carpenter to perform a top-to-bottom review of the
Department's security practices.
Overall, we have made a strong start on implementing the
recommendations of the Crowe and OPAP Reports, which focus on
protecting those who work in our diplomatic posts.
All this is good, but not sufficient. As the threats against U.S.
interests change, we must ensure that the Department of State has the
best practices and structures to meet them.
These challenges include, but are broader, than the risk of a
terrorist bomb. They include the full range of perils posed by
international lawlessness, including organized crime, drug cartels,
state and non-state sponsored terrorism, money laundering, cyber-crime,
and espionage. Often such threats are linked, as international criminal
gangs seek to exploit weaknesses by profiting from a combination of
illicit activities.
These challenges pose a substantial and increasing foreign policy
threat. They are part of our bilateral diplomatic agenda with virtually
every country. They are a major focus of our efforts in regional and
global institutions. They affect the kind of work we do, the kind of
equipment we must procure, the kind of procedures we must follow, and
the kind of facilities we must build. They are a day-to-day
preoccupation of mine. And they all fall under the general heading of
security against unconventional threats.
In this environment, it is not only prudent but essential to make
security considerations a part of everything we do, and to deal with
old and new threats in a more comprehensive way.
Accordingly, I will explore creating the position of Under
Secretary of State for Security, Counterterrorism and Law Enforcement.
In preparation, I am directing Assistant Secretary Carpenter to lead a
review of the Department's structure for addressing these issues and to
make recommendations for a more effective organization. In so doing, he
will consult closely with Mike Sheehan, our Counterterrorism
Coordinator, and other senior officials.
Our goal is to find the most effective way to meet the
recommendations of the Crowe and Kaden panels that the Department
clarify responsibilities, encourage better coordination and assure that
a single high-ranking officer is accountable and can speak for the
Department on security questions.
In addition, the President is requesting $647.6 million to support
the third year of our multi-year effort to construct secure diplomatic
facilities. This request includes $500 million to continue our program
of relocating posts, where necessary. These funds provide for the
design or construction of facilities in Capetown, Damascus, Rio de
Janeiro, Sofia and Yerevan. It will also support construction of new
on-compound facilities for USAID in Kampala and Nairobi. Further, the
request includes $134 million to upgrade perimeter security at other
highly vulnerable posts.
I will be frank, Mr. Chairman, and say that the cost of some of our
larger projects can produce a bit of ``sticker shock.'' However, I am
assured that the costs are justified given security demands related
both to the kind and locations of buildings we need; the required use
of American contractors; and our desire to build facilities that can
support full inter-agency teams. This Subcommittee has been very
supportive of building requests in the past. And we would, of course,
be happy to brief you in detail on the specifics of the projects
included in our budget for next year.
The President is also requesting $3.35 billion in advanced
appropriations for the years 2002-2005 to ensure a sustained multi-year
construction program for secure new embassies and consulates. I ask
your support for these essential requests.
Members of the Subcommittee, given our concerns about security, it
would be easy to overlook the non-security related infrastructure needs
that are addressed in the fiscal year 2001 request. For example, we
still require resources for ongoing maintenance of our facilities and
decent housing for our colleagues overseas.
Some of these needs can be met by the sale of existing property.
But most cannot. This year's request reflects sound planning to match
our most immediate needs with available resources.
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs
Mr. Chairman, public diplomacy advances U.S. interests by helping
others to understand our society, culture and values.
It can also be a very practical tool for influencing events. During
the conflict in Kosovo, for example, our Internet Assistance Initiative
helped us to manage data generated by the massive humanitarian effort,
while also aiding refugees in locating loved ones who had become
separated. More recently, we used public diplomacy to warn against a
breakdown of the constitutional order in Ecuador.
Since USIA merged with the Department last October, we have
benefitted greatly from the unique skills and perspective its employees
have brought to our foreign policy.
In fiscal year 2001, the President is requesting $225 million for a
key component of our public diplomacy, which is our international
exchange activities, including the world-renowned J. William Fulbright
Educational Exchange Program.
This request also includes funding for the State Department's
International Visitors Program, which has been remarkably successful at
identifying world leaders early in their careers.
For example, Korean President Kim Dae-jung visited in 1965 as an
opposition parliamentarian, and has often commented on the strong,
positive impression he formed of our country during that time. And in
1986, a young British Parliamentarian named Anthony Blair viewed a job
training program in West Virginia, visited a family farm in Kansas and
studied state politics in Colorado and California.
Other past participants in the program include Chancellor Schroeder
of Germany, Prime Minister Jospin of France, President Kuchma of
Ukraine, President Demirel of Turkey, President Narayanan of India,
President Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia, President de la Rua of
Argentina, Prime Minister Mocumbi of Mozambique, and both President
Sampaio and Prime Minister Guterras of Portugal. All told, more than
three dozen current heads of state or government are former
participants in the International Visitors Program.
LEADING THROUGH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)
Mr. Chairman, one of the realities of the modern era is that many
of the international problems and threats we face as a nation simply
cannot be dealt with effectively through our actions and policies
alone. Quite often, we will need the help and cooperation of others.
This reality was recognized more than half a century ago when our
predecessors led in creating the United Nations and a variety of other
international organizations in which our country now participates. Not
all of these organizations have been as well-managed or effective as we
would like. In a few cases, we have even withdrawn from active
membership. But in most cases, our participation has served our
national interests and those of our citizens.
The CIO account provides the funds we need to meet our assessments
to these international organizations, consistent with U.S. statutory
restrictions. The President's request for the coming fiscal year is
$946 million.
In 2001, for the first time in years, we are not requesting U.N.
arrearage payments for either the CIO or peacekeeping accounts. This
reflects the prior appropriation of funds sufficient to fulfill the
terms of legislation authorizing arrearage payments tied to certain
additional U.N. reforms and changes.
With the Department's strong support, Ambassador Holbrooke and
Assistant Secretary Welch are working to gain support within the U.N.
and among its members for the reforms required. It is encouraging that
one of the conditions for releasing funds was met during the recent
General Assembly session, when the U.S. candidate for the U.N.'s budget
oversight panel was elected.
As I have said in previous years, I appreciate the Subcommittee's
support for an effective and well-managed United Nations, in which the
United States is both leading the way and meeting its obligations. We
have not yet fully put that combination together, but we continue to
move in the right direction.
The CIO account funds U.S. participation in forty-seven
international organizations, including the U.N. These organizations
contribute in a multitude of ways to our safety and quality of life.
For example, in the U.N. itself, we have a security stake in the
multilateral sanctions that help to contain and restrict Iraq's
military options. We have a political interest in U.N. efforts to
encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes in strategic areas such
as the Aegean. We have a legal and moral interest in seeing that those
who committed crimes against humanity in Rwanda and the Balkans are
brought before the U.N. war crimes tribunal. We have a humanitarian
interest in U.N. programs that save children, fight disease, promote
human rights and care for refugees.
The U.N.'s many sister organizations perform vital functions, as
well. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) helps protect
Americans from the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
The World Health Organization (WHO) helps study, contain and
prevent disease and health problems, keeping our own and other
societies more secure. For example, WHO works with USAID to slow the
spread of HIV/AIDS, which is causing incalculable human suffering and
creating new obstacles to development in many countries, especially in
Africa and South Asia.
The Food and Agriculture Organization makes trade in agricultural
products safer and more predictable, while its disease control programs
protect American agriculture from massive potential losses.
The International Labor Organization promotes respect for human
rights and core labor standards all over the world. It is a crucial
partner in America's effort to ensure that global trade is fair as well
as free.
In addition, this account funds our assessments to numerous other
institutions, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the
Organization of American States, which contribute to America's
leadership and interests in key regions of the world.
International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA)
I also ask your support for the President's request for $738.7
million for the CIPA Account. This is a substantial, but not
unanticipated, increase over the current year. I can think of no other
area of foreign policy in which our consultations are as regular and
detailed.
We have also learned by experience, Mr. Chairman that, by its very
nature, fluctuations in this account will occur as peace operations
begin, expand, build down and complete their work. This lack of
predictability can be frustrating to budget planners, but there is
simply no way to freeze demand for international peacekeeping, no
responsible way to set an artificial ceiling on our financial
contributions, and no appropriate alternative to judging our interest
in such operations on a case by case basis.
The funding level we are requesting for fiscal year 2001, coupled
with our supplemental and reprogramming requests for 2000, reflect a
level of U.N. peacekeeping activity higher than that of the most recent
years, but far below the numbers we saw earlier in the last decade. The
current level of just over 14,000 U.N. peacekeepers (excluding civilian
police) compares to more than 78,000 in 1993. Next year's requested
appropriation for CIPA compares to more than $1 billion in each of
fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
The record of U.N. peacekeeping is mixed. Successes in countries
such as Namibia, El Salvador and Mozambique must be weighed against
failures in Somalia and Rwanda. But both the United Nations and the
United States have learned a lot during the past decade about how to
plan, organize and manage such operations. At our insistence, the
Security Council now exercises far greater care in authorizing
missions, defining mandates, selecting commanders and recruiting
troops.
Of course, the United States does not look to U.N. peacekeeping to
defend its vital interests, nor can we expect the U.N. to be effective
where the decisive application of military force is required. But the
rationale for supporting well-conceived and designed U.N. peace
missions is compelling.
Under the right circumstances, U.N. peacekeeping can separate
adversaries, maintain ceasefires, enable refugees to return home, and
create conditions under which political reconciliation may occur.
This provides America with a vital third option between simply
walking away from destructive and destabilizing conflicts, and
intervening ourselves. U.N. peacekeeping enables us to influence events
without assuming the full burden of costs and risks. It lends the
weight of law and world opinion to causes and principles we support.
And the more able the U.N. is to end or contain conflict, the less
likely it is that we will have to deploy our armed forces. Currently,
only one out of every forty U.N. military observers is an American, and
none of the U.N. troops.
Our CIPA request includes funds to pay our assessments for 14 U.N.
peace operations. The majority of these are not new and are either
level or declining in size. I would like to focus my testimony on four
recently-initiated operations.
The first is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Last
week, the Security Council voted to approve a mission consisting of 500
military observers and a protection and support force of about 5,000
troops. These observers will monitor implementation of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement, assist with the disengagement of troops at certain
locations, and help the newly-created Joint Military Commission develop
mechanisms for further implementing the Agreement.
The Security Council continues to insist, with our support, that
the deployment of this force depends on the willingness of the parties
to cooperate with it, respect its security and grant it access. It is
encouraging that the leaders of all the nations involved in the
conflict have welcomed the Security Council decision, and pledged their
cooperation.
I have described the conflict in the DRC as Africa's first world
war. It now involves six countries and Congolese and Rwandan armed
rebel groups. To date, compliance with the Lusaka Agreement has been
inconsistent. And success of the U.N. peace operation is uncertain. But
the purpose of the mission is the right one, which is to create a
reliable monitoring mechanism so the parties can begin to overcome
their mistrust of one another. Deployment of additional observers would
also remove any excuse for the regime in Kinshasa not to cooperate with
a National Dialogue aimed at resolving the DRC's internal conflicts.
The DRC is a large country, with vast natural resources, and a
strategic location within the heart of Africa. Without U.N. help, it
faces the prospect of a prolonged and many-sided war that could spur a
humanitarian disaster and possibly renewed campaigns of genocide.
No one is asking America to solve the conflict or intervene to end
it. The expanded U.N. mission will not even include U.S. troops. But we
are being asked to do our part in supporting the framework for peace
embodied in the Lusaka agreement. The cost is significant. But it is
far less costly--in blood, treasure and to our interests--than allowing
this war to drag on and on.
The second operation I would like to discuss is in Sierra Leone.
Here, the U.N. is assisting in the implementation of last July's Lome'
Agreement to end a brutal civil war. Stability in Sierra Leone would
contribute greatly to West Africa's social and economic prospects. But
stability will not be possible without security, which continues to be
threatened by rebels who have not yet fully demobilized or disarmed.
Recent problems encountered by U.N. peacekeepers in Sierra Leone
should not obscure the progress that has been made. The overall
ceasefire between the Revolutionary United Front and the government has
held. More than 11,000 combatants--a quarter of the estimated total--
have begun the disarmament process. Humanitarian groups are providing
assistance in some areas, and we are pressing the rebels to allow these
groups greater access to the interior. In Sierra Leone, as in the DRC,
the U.N. recognizes it cannot impose peace. The parties must meet their
obligations.
Last October, I went to Sierra Leone where I met at the Murray Town
Amputee Camp with some of the victims of the war. I was surrounded by
women, men and mostly children, who had lost hands, arms, feet or legs
to machetes. These are not scars that heal. And the people in the camp
are the lucky ones, for they have survived and are receiving at least
rudimentary care. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I know if
you had been there you would not even have to ask whether America has
an interest in preventing more vicious fighting in Sierra Leone.
A third U.N. mission I ask you to support is in East Timor. This is
a region where peacekeeping lessons from the past have been applied and
responsibilities appropriately shared. Last August, a multinational
force led by Australia and Thailand restored order after pro-
integrationist forces reacted with violence to the passage of a
referendum for independence. The U.N. Transition Administration was
then assigned responsibility for overseeing recovery and working with
the East Timorese to prepare for their new status.
The United States has a strong political and diplomatic interest in
seeing East Timor evolve into a viable and democratic nation. We also
have a humanitarian interest in seeing that refugees are able to return
safely, the missing are accounted for, and security is maintained.
Last but not least, I urge your continued support for the U.N.
mission in Kosovo, a mission performing an extraordinarily difficult
but essential task. Here again, lessons from the past are being
applied. The military heavy lifting is being handled not by the U.N.,
but rather by the NATO-led KFOR troops. The job of the U.N. mission is
to oversee civilian administration until the people of Kosovo are able
to assume that responsibility themselves.
From the outset of the conflict in Kosovo last March, our goal has
been to enable the people of this region to live peacefully,
democratically, and without ethnic strife. A beginning has been made,
but the legacy of authoritarianism and repression cannot be erased
overnight.
Further progress in Kosovo is an essential part of our overall
strategy, in partnership with our allies, to encourage the integration
of Southeast Europe into the continent's democratic mainstream. Nothing
would do more than success in this effort to enhance the future
stability of Europe, and to reduce the likelihood that American forces
may one day again be required to face combat in this region.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I ask your support for our full fiscal
year 2001 request for CIPA. I know it is tempting to try to attach more
and more conditions to this account. But I must tell you that
withholdings, delays, and refusals to pay for particular operations
have a significant cumulative impact on our ability in New York to
influence the shape and scope of these operations. Moreover, it is
certainly not helpful to Ambassador Holbrooke in his efforts to
persuade other countries to reduce our share of U.N. peacekeeping
assessments to 25 percent if we are not even paying the 25 percent we
acknowledge as our share.
I believe this Subcommittee deserves a great deal of credit for the
improvements in the way U.N. peacekeeping decisions are made, and
operations planned. So I hope you can now support the important and
improved U.N. peacekeeping program you helped to shape.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS
In addition to our fiscal year 2001 request, the President is
seeking $624.5 million in supplemental appropriations this year to
promote peace and stability primarily in Kosovo and Southeast Europe.
Of this, $373.6 million is from this Subcommittee's accounts.
The request includes $239 million from the ESCM account to fund
secure facility and other construction in Pristina, Sarajevo and
Tirana, and to meet other security-related construction needs.
It includes $24 million for enhanced diplomatic, public diplomacy
and security activity related to Kosovo and the surrounding region.
It includes $107 million to pay additional assessments for U.N.
peacekeeping operations, particularly in Kosovo and East Timor.
And it includes $3.6 million to establish a Fulbright program in
Kosovo and to expand exchanges in regional and frontline states.
The substantive justification for most of these funds has been
discussed above with reference to the fiscal year 2001 budget, and I
will not repeat it here. I will stress, however, how important it is
that these supplemental funds be approved.
We have made it clear to our allies and partners in Europe that
they must bear the lion's share of assistance to Kosovo and efforts to
integrate Southeast Europe. They have agreed and have pledged far more
than the United States has towards these goals. But stability in the
Balkans is one of the key objectives of U.S. foreign policy at this
point in history. We believe it is critical to realizing our vision of
a democratic and stable Europe, where wars simply do not happen.
Our presence in the region, in facilities that are adequate,
accessible and secure, is indispensable if our goals are to be
achieved. At the same time, we must meet our obligations to the U.N.
peace missions both in Kosovo and East Timor.
I hope we will have your support for these necessary supplemental
funding requests.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, the annual budget debate in Washington typically
revolves around issues that relate to the appropriate role of the
federal--as opposed to state and local--governments in such areas as
education and health care. But since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the
conduct of diplomacy and the protection of our national security have
been among the Federal Government's most basic tasks.
These are Constitutional responsibilities that simply cannot be
delegated or privatized. It is our job, here in our nation's capital,
to formulate plans for protecting American interests, and to come up
with the resources to make those plans work.
There is no question that it costs money to counter modern
terrorists; calm regional disputes; promote America's economic
interests; protect U.S. citizens; and spread the gospel of freedom. But
these costs do not begin to compare to the ones we would incur if we
stood aside while conflicts raged, terrorists struck, financial
turbulence reigned, democracies unraveled and weapons of mass
destruction spread unhindered around the globe.
In the weeks and months ahead, I am sure that we will have
differences over details. But I very much hope that we will have the
support of every member of the Subcommittee for the fundamental
objectives of this budget request.
I know that you will act with America's best interests in mind. I
feel confident that when you do, you will bear in mind both the many
challenges in our future and the best bipartisan traditions of our
past. And I look forward to working with you to carry the best of those
traditions into the century ahead.
Thank you.
------
Prepared Statement of Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers, Inspector
General, Office of the Inspector General
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
providing me with this opportunity to submit a statement for the record
on the fiscal year 2001 budget request of $29,502,000, for the Office
of Inspector General (OIG). This request funds the activities of the
OIG to include audits, investigations, and inspections of worldwide
operations and programs of the Department of State (Department) and
international broadcasting under the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG). I am pleased to discuss the work of my office in the context of
OIG's strategic plan.
I have also included with this statement a consolidated list of our
reports and memoranda for work in fiscal year 1999. These products are
listed under each of our four strategic goals and located in an
appendix to this document.
OIG BUDGET
The Office of the Inspector General's fiscal year 2001 budget
request is $29,502,000, an increase of 7.7 percent over our fiscal year
2000 enacted level of $27,382,000. This is a modest request that seeks
funding for inflationary increases and for 10 security positions
authorized and funded in the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation, but for which funding was not included in our fiscal
year 2000 appropriation. Our fiscal year 2001 request is only 3.5
percent above our fiscal year 1999 enacted level, which included the
funding for these 10 security positions.
The major challenge facing OIG is the erosion of our funding base
and the elimination of our fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation funding. The lack of adequate budgetary resources
jeopardizes our ability to oversee and monitor the Department's use of
over $2 billion in security funds appropriated over the past two years.
My office has been virtually straightlined since fiscal year 1996.
With the exception of the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation funding, OIG has not received an increase to its annual
appropriation since that time. Over the last 5 years we have absorbed
the cost of all inflationary increases, as well as the cost of
mandatory requirements such as Law Enforcement Assistance Pay and Chief
Financial Officer Act audits. This has resulted in a delay or
suspension of planned work.
The effective erosion of our budget base could have costly
consequences. During fiscal year 1999 OIG received $1 million in
supplemental funding for oversight of the Department's nearly $1.5
billion security supplemental. The Department also received an
additional $742 million in fiscal year 2000 for more construction and
security enhancements. While some of the Department's security
supplemental funding will be spent over the next 5 to 8 years as new
embassies are designed and built, less than $170,000 of OIG's
supplemental funding remains and this will be fully expended by the end
of fiscal year 2000. The Department is moving ahead with planning, and
being encouraged by the Congress, to increase new embassy construction
from two to three new chanceries at any given time to more than 30.
Such a significant investment of the Department's resources should be
monitored and overseen by OIG. The loss of our security supplemental
funds, however, will make it extremely difficult for us to oversee
adequately the expenditure of the Department's security funds.
The $1 million we received in the fiscal year 1999 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriation, although insignificant compared to the
amounts appropriated for the Department, allowed OIG to expand
substantially its program of security oversight inspections and audits.
With these funds we were able to recruit and hire 10 senior security
specialists and establish a new Security Enhancements Oversight
Division to evaluate security in interim facilities and the
construction of new embassies overseas. With other personnel funded by
the security supplemental, we established an inspection team to conduct
limited-scope security inspections in conjunction with our regular post
management inspection. These inspections have identified numerous
security vulnerabilities that would not have been identified without
the addition of security specialists to the inspection teams.
In addition to security inspections, we refocused OIG assets to
conduct five audits involving the Department's tracking and use of
security supplemental funds. Audits are in progress on two of the
Department's highest priority security enhancement programs--the
overseas wireless program and the surveillance detection program--which
consume approximately $220 million of the security supplemental.
However, fiscal year 2000 funding constraints have forced us to curtail
and postpone some needed work.
While the increased emphasis on physical security oversight
commanded considerable OIG resources during fiscal year 1999, OIG also
continued oversight work in other threat areas. We conducted broad
fieldwork on counterintelligence awareness to identify continuing
vulnerabilities with Foreign Service national (FSN) employee access to
unclassified information and telecommunications systems. OIG also
completed a comprehensive review of the Department's handling of
classified information, an audit that raised alarms about the potential
threats from unescorted foreign visitors to the Department well before
the discovery of a Russian monitoring device in a seventh-floor
conference room.
I strongly believe that the United States Government has received
considerable benefits resulting from the initiatives we began with the
$1 million in security funds appropriated to OIG in fiscal year 1999.
We will continue those initiatives in fiscal year 2000, but the lack of
continued funding for at least the new positions funded initially with
emergency supplemental funds has forced hard choices and has impacted
our ability to sustain the expanded security oversight established in
fiscal year 1999.
We have already made hard choices in fiscal year 2000. We have
instituted a hiring freeze and have cut back significantly on training
and travel for our staff. We have reduced the size and number of our
post management inspection teams, and five posts have been eliminated
from our upcoming inspection schedule. Travel for our compliance staff
has been curtailed, and our inspectors cut short their inspections
during the fall inspection cycle.
We have reduced our security audit staff, which increases the
amount of time required to complete and limits the scope of our
security audits. We have reduced our intelligence oversight staff,
which limits the number of post inspections that we can support and
limits the scope and increases the amount of time needed to conduct
sensitive intelligence audits.
We have deferred or cut back on the scope of some audits with high
potential cost savings for the Department. For example, we have
deferred reviews of the Department's overseas financial management
system, contracting for local guard services, and the overseas purchase
card program. We have scaled back our plans to review the FSN payroll
system. We will be forced to cut back on our oversight program for
Federal assistance to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); an area
with a long history of large amounts of questioned costs. During fiscal
year 1999, OIG issued seven reports with questioned costs of
approximately $9 million. We believe that, with adequate funding we
could save the government as much as $30 million. Unfortunately, we
cannot devote the necessary resources to this area.
As the Department's Inspector General, I recognize the need for
prudent government spending. Five years of what is effectively a
straightlined budget base, however, makes it difficult for OIG to
effectively carry out our mandated requirements. I ask that you provide
us the modest increases included in our fiscal year 2001 budget
request.
IMPROVED CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS
Taken as a whole, OIG activities provide a broad overview of the
Department's effectiveness in implementation of foreign policy and use
of the full range of diplomatic and public diplomacy tools including
international broadcasting. Through the inspections of overseas
missions and domestic bureaus and in-depth audits of selected issues,
we assessed the conduct of foreign relations, particularly the skills
and capabilities of senior management and the availability and use of
appropriate structures, authorities, and processes. Examples of OIG
work in this area include inspections of Embassy London and Embassy
Dublin and reviews of Radio Marti broadcast content, the Border
Biometrics program, and intelligence oversight.
In the coming year, OIG will inspect and audit the effectiveness of
policy and program formulation and implementation; intelligence
reporting and oversight; results monitoring and assessment; and,
mission leadership and management.
Post Management Inspections
OIG assesses the implementation of U.S. foreign policy and the
diplomatic readiness of Department elements through management
inspections of all overseas posts and domestic bureaus and offices.
Such inspections address all aspects of post operations including
bilateral relations, executive direction and management, the conduct of
public diplomacy, consular operations, diplomatic readiness,
administrative support, and management controls. Additionally, our
embassies are in a unique position as a global platform to address
emerging public diplomacy issues. The inspections of Embassy London and
Embassy Dublin are two such examples.
Embassy London.--Embassy London represents a unique platform for
projecting U.S. views to European and other regional and global
audiences. Much is already being made of these possibilities,
particularly in the economic and commercial sectors. More can be done,
however, to address the emerging global agenda including environmental,
science and technology concerns. To be effective in this role, however,
the Department must devote greater attention to the qualifications of
those assigned to key positions at the Embassy. Multifunctional and
public diplomacy skill, familiarity with global issues, and experience
in multilateral diplomacy, including NATO and the European Union, must
be given greater weight in the assignment process.
Embassy Dublin.--Support for the peace process in Northern Ireland
remains the predominant U.S. concern in Ireland. The U.S. presence in
Ireland should both reflect the importance the United States attaches
to the relationship and be tailored to the tasks that need to be
performed to promote the relationship the United States seeks with the
Republic beyond the peace process. Embassy Dublin is not now prepared--
nor are preparations being made--to assume the much broader
responsibilities associated with the future bilateral agenda. To this
end, Embassy Dublin should conduct a missionwide review of the
resources needed to advance U.S. interests in Ireland in the post-peace
process era. USIS Ireland does not, however, have the resources to
carry out its public diplomacy role effectively. Core public diplomacy
functions are not being performed; outreach tends to be ad hoc, is not
guided by a functioning distribution and records system, and is not
coordinated missionwide. Without additional resources, opportunities
will continue to be lost.
Radio Marti Broadcast Content
Last year we reported on our examination of internal review
practices and external oversight procedures to ensure that Radio Marti
adheres to the Voice of America (VOA) charter, the U.S. International
Broadcasting Act of 1994, and journalistic standards. As part of this
review, the BBG, in consultation with OIG, contracted for a panel of
independent journalists to evaluate a sample of 1998 Radio Marti
broadcasts, to assess whether they adhered to VOA broadcast standards.
The independent panelists identified problems with balance, fairness,
objectivity, and adequate sourcing that impacted the credibility of the
programs they reviewed particularly the live broadcasts. The panelists
also identified problems affecting the professionalism of the
broadcasts including packaging (e.g., intermingling news and opinion),
presenting news stories in a confusing manner, and using poor judgment
in the selection of stories. The independent panelists largely confined
their comments to journalistic values and did not address the question
of whether Radio Marti broadcasts are ``consistent with the broad
foreign policy objectives of the United States.'' OIG recommended that
the BBG establish policies and procedures so that future evaluations
can assess whether the foreign policy requirements of U.S.
international broadcasting are being met.
This year, we can report that, in response to our recommendations,
the BBG and the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) required the
Director of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, to set forth a specific
plan of action to ensure that Radio Marti broadcasts meet commonly
accepted standards of journalism and the specific requirements set
forth in the VOA charter. For example, IBB proposed to establish a
training program, fund focus groups to determine public response to
programming, and plans to conduct semi-annual program reviews of Radio
Marti. In addition, BBG's fiscal year 2000 appropriation requires it to
submit to Congress a report on how it will respond to OIG's
recommendations on Radio Marti by March 31, 2000. OIG is currently
reviewing BBG's draft report and will continue to monitor compliance
with our recommendations.
Border Biometrics Program
Border security continues to be a key national interest goal and
strategic foreign policy objective for the Department. As we reported
last year, the border crossing card (BCC) is designed to be used in
lieu of a passport and visa by Mexican nationals who travel frequently
across the Mexican border into the United States. Over the years, the
BCC became susceptible to counterfeiting and alteration. The Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 required
that a biometric identifier (such as a fingerprint or handprint) be
incorporated into any border crossing identification card. The
Department of State and the Department of Justice, Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), are working to implement the Border
Biometrics Program, also known as the Laser Visa Program, by September
2001.
Our inspection of the BCC program (ISP/I-99-12) revealed many
problems that jeopardize the timely implementation of the program and
compromise its intent to enhance border security. While the Department
has complied with the majority of the 13 recommendations resulting from
that report, there are two that require assistance from Congress before
they can be implemented. The first involves the need for supplemental
laser visa card production by the Department. Currently, all cards are
produced by INS facilities, which are not able to produce sufficient
quantities required by statute. It is my understanding that the
Department is seeking approval to fund a pilot project to produce the
cards in Mexico City.
The second unresolved recommendation from this inspection relates
to the urgent need to expand and upgrade the criminal record databases
used to adjudicate laser visas. We determined, in conjunction with our
inspection of the BCC program, that the INS Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IDENT) database being used to process laser visa
applications is of minimal value. We understand that the Department of
Justice subsequently came to the same conclusion and now plans to phase
out the IDENT system by merging it into the much larger Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) fingerprint database. Creating an electronic
abstract, i.e., foreign nationals only, from this huge database for
transfer to computer systems compatible with those being used by INS
and the Department will be a massive undertaking. Current estimates, we
understand, are that it will take 3 to 5 years and cost the Department
of Justice as much as $400 million. This new, expanded biometric
database would make it possible to begin implementing plans for issuing
a new generation of biometric-based, smart card type nonimmigrant visas
at all consulates abroad.
Intelligence and Law Enforcement Oversight
Strengthening chief of mission authority over expanding embassy
programs has been a key objective under the OIG's strategic goal. The
importance of this OIG objective is also reflected in the number of
recommendations to enhance ambassadorial authority made by the Overseas
Advisory Presence Panel in November 1999. OIG's Intelligence Oversight
Division has concentrated its efforts on improving chief of mission
oversight and coordination of intelligence and law enforcement
activities. In Washington, the OIG has worked closely with both State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) and members of
the intelligence community to ensure that new ambassadors as well as
deputy chiefs of mission are well trained in their oversight and
coordination responsibilities. In response to OIG recommendations made
in an earlier review of the bureau's coordination functions, INR
significantly improved its new ambassadors' orientation program. In
addition, INR, with strong OIG endorsement, published a handbook for
ambassadors detailing their full responsibilities for intelligence and
law enforcement oversight along with well-considered guidance on how to
exercise these responsibilities.
Our oversight reviews conducted over the past year showed that
chiefs of mission are well versed in their responsibilities and that
overall coordination of activities was working well. OIG made
recommendations on how to strengthen oversight and at two missions we
recommended that the Department clarify responsibilities where
jurisdictions apparently overlapped. At two embassies, our
recommendations established unambiguous chief of mission
responsibilities for organizations that had questioned chief of mission
oversight authority. OIG has also commended missions where the chief of
mission's personal engagement has contributed to such coordination and
we have promoted their activities as ``best practices.'' OIG has also
continued its close working relationships with other Inspectors General
working jointly on such issues.
With the significant expansion abroad of Federal law enforcement
activities, OIG has broadened its review of chief of mission oversight
of law enforcement and incorporated a detailed study of these
responsibilities in each post management inspections. While chiefs of
mission are generally discharging their responsibilities well, some
were less well prepared for law enforcement oversight than they were
for intelligence oversight. OIG reviews have also revealed the need for
law enforcement officials assigned abroad to be better trained in their
responsibilities to the chief of mission as established in the November
1996 memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the
Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury. We have been especially
concerned with improving coordination of law enforcement activities at
missions where the law enforcement official is not a resident. Two
recent oversight reports found uncoordinated law enforcement visits had
complicated bilateral relations and jeopardized other liaison contacts.
The ongoing implementation of our recommendations has shown that law
enforcement objectives can be met without jeopardizing other national
interests.
Details of our 19 fiscal year 1999 reviews in this area are
summarized in OIG classified semiannual reports.
BETTER ALIGNMENT OF FISCAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES WITH U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
PRIORITIES
OIG activities supporting this strategic goal focus on the
Department's budget and human resource allocation processes, the
mission and bureau performance plan process, and verification and
validation of Department performance measures. These activities draw on
reviews of performance plans conducted in the course of inspections of
overseas missions and domestic bureaus of the Department. In addition,
OIG auditors include verification and validation of relevant
performance measures in the scope of selected audits.
In 1999, OIG work in this area has included assessments of issues
resulting from the consolidation of the Department of State, length of
overseas tours of duty, training and career development, staffing for
overseas security initiatives, and continued oversight of the
Departments' implementation of the Results Act.
Department of State Consolidation
OIG has yet to observe any significant cost reductions or
avoidances as a result of consolidation. Such savings may lie in the
future, as employee attrition permits a more rational distribution of
resources, and as economies of scale (such as may result from
consolidated information management systems) become realities.
OIG inspections conducted during the first quarter of fiscal year
2000 found that it is too soon to reach definitive conclusions about
the impact of the consolidation of the United States Information Agency
(USIA) with the Department of State. We have observed no significant
negative impact upon the public affairs activities at our missions
abroad. In most cases, public diplomacy already was well integrated
with other elements of foreign policy implementation.
From an administrative perspective, the planning for consolidation
was a good investment, and resulted in a smoother transition than would
have been possible otherwise. Nevertheless, many posts were not well
informed on matters affecting former public affairs officers (PAO). For
example, there have been instances of confusion regarding whether
former PAO's should retain some of the support provided previously as
heads of agency, such as dedicated vehicles, etc. At some posts, there
have been morale problems among FSN employees who have been moved to
different, sometimes lower graded, positions despite ``save pay''
provisions. In some cases these employees believe they were not fully
and accurately informed as to the changes in their positions resulting
from consolidation.
Also, we have observed exceptional instances where USIS employees
with administrative skills, who could have been reassigned to general
administrative duties, instead have remained in public affairs
sections, but with fewer responsibilities. In contrast, however, some
embassies have made very creative use of former USIS employees, e.g.
assigning them to consular section positions where their information
and communication skills will be used to good advantage.
Tours of Duty
Several studies conducted by the Department and other groups have
recommended increasing the amount of time employees spend in overseas
assignments. As you know, OIG also reviewed and reported on the
Department's tour-of-duty policies and practices in 1999. OIG
recommended that the Department increase the number of 3-year tours and
establish 4-year tours. This would enable the officers at a given post
to maximize the experience gained in-country in their current position
and reduce costs associated with shorter tours. The Appropriations
Committees agreed with the OIG report and directed that the Department
implement all of the report recommendations no later than January 1,
2000 and report on this issue no later than January 15, 2000.
In its March 8, 1999 comments on our draft report, the Bureau of
Personnel stated that ``The OIG and a number of others have properly
noted that longer tours of duty are more productive and less costly for
the Government.'' The comments went on to note, however, that longer
tours would increase difficulties in staffing hardship posts. In its
February 7, 2000 response to our final report, the Bureau of Personnel
now states that there is little if anything to be gained, either
financially or in productivity, from longer tours. We are currently
analyzing the Department's responses and await its final report to
Congress on this issue. In accordance with various studies done over
the past decade, we continue to believe that longer tours represent a
best practice among the foreign affairs agencies and that they would
have positive financial and productivity impacts for the Department. We
look forward to discussing this issue with you and with the Department
in the coming months.
Diplomatic Readiness
Department of State leadership professes to believe in training for
its officers and staff, but continues to ignore this important
function. Consequently, the institution has not demonstrated a serious
and sustained commitment to training and career development. For
example, only recently has the Department taken tentative steps to put
in place a strategic program that integrates work force planning with
development requirements. Consequently, many, if not most Foreign
Service employees perceive no relationship between training and career
advancement (other than foreign language training) and, hence, many
seek to avoid training and other developmental experiences as
detrimental to their careers. Tying training firmly to promotion,
tenure, and assignment would improve the situation dramatically. Until
training is seen as a valued commodity, much of the State Department's
infrastructure for training, such as its National Foreign Affairs
Training Center (NFATC), formerly known as the Foreign Service
Institute, will remain a valuable but underutilized resource.
The NAFTC does an impressive job of providing training
opportunities for those employees of the Department of State and other
agencies who wish to take advantage of them. It is handicapped,
however, by the lack of commitment by the Department's top management
to training and by an employment culture that consequently does not
value training. The inspection of NAFTC found that the training center
had developed measurable objectives for training and had done a good
job developing performance indicators to track progress. However, OIG
recommended that NAFTC develop and implement a plan to obtain feedback
from graduates and their supervisors to allow for a more complete
baseline of customer satisfaction data. OIG noted that the training
center was doing a commendable job in response to the consolidation,
but that information management resources should be expanded and some
course materials and teacher training should be updated and improved.
Staffing for Overseas Security
The Department is making considerable progress in hiring,
assigning, and training new security personnel. The fiscal year 1999
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations authorized and funded 391 new
positions to help address staffing shortages in support overseas
security, of which 337 were in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS).
DS used innovative recruiting methods to successfully hire candidates
from liberal arts colleges and universities to fill security officer
and security engineer positions and to increase opportunities for
minorities. DS has also established a new position, security
technician, to maintain and repair technical security systems overseas.
All DS positions have been filled, and 105 of the security positions
have been deployed overseas. Others are in training or have domestic
assignments supporting the overseas positions. Training for regional
security officers has been lengthened to include training in bomb
detection, the use of the new equipment purchased with the emergency
supplemental funds, and new security programs such as surveillance
detection.
Oversight of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act)
requires that agencies set goals for program performance and measure
results against those goals to help improve Federal programs and to
increase accountability. As noted in OIG congressional testimonies and
statements in early 1999, the Department's fiscal year 1999-2000
Performance Plan represents an improvement over the previous version.
However, as OIG and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have noted, the
plan ``does not provide a complete performance picture for all
strategic goals.'' The Department is currently working with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a plan that provides more
complete performance information. In addition, the Department notified
GAO in July 1999 that it does not formally prioritize its national
interests or strategic goals, since U.S. interests and progress in any
one part of the world at any one time may reflect a different order
from other parts of the world.
In the past few years, while recognizing shortcomings in its
overall strategic planning documents, the Department has emphasized its
development and use of post-level planning documents, known as mission
performance plans (MPP's) as a communication and management tool. Our
ongoing work has found that MPP's can be an important tool for improved
communication and coordinated planning among the many agencies present
at our embassies. However, the MPP process has lost momentum because
headquarters is generally not using the MPP's to set priorities,
allocate resources, or measure posts' performance. We plan to work with
the Department's strategic planning team over the next few months to
streamline the MPP process while keeping the positive aspects of the
planning process and the plans themselves.
OIG audits and inspections have also addressed the need for better
performance information in the Department in selected areas. An audit
on the Department's support of U.S. business abroad (99-CI-021) found
performance measures lacking and identified areas on which performance
goals could be based including resource statistics, output statistics,
professional qualifications, experience and training of commercial
officers and foreign national employees, accomplishments, and customer
satisfaction. An OIG inspection of the Department's training center
(ISP/I-99-16) reported that the center could obtain a more complete
baseline of customer satisfaction data by developing and implementing a
plan to obtain feedback from the graduates and their supervisors. An
ongoing OIG audit of the Department's efforts to reduce trade barriers
in the telecommunications industry has found that the strategic and
performance plans are not effective in assessing the Department's
progress in this area.
The Department agreed to explore more useful telecommunications
performance indicators relative to the strategic goal of opening
foreign markets and to improvements in the coordination and consistency
among the various performance planning and measurement activities.
However, the Department also noted the difficulties of establishing
measurements and setting universal priorities for this and other
program areas.
MORE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND SECURE OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURES
Much of our work under this strategic goal relates to the
Department's challenge of ensuring that our personnel and facilities
overseas are protected from harm. In addition to our regular
operations, OIG will continue this year to provide oversight of the
nearly $1.5 billion emergency supplemental appropriations received by
the Department for security enhancements overseas. Examples of our work
in this area included an interdisciplinary review of the Department's
management of the emergency appropriations for worldwide security
upgrades, information security worldwide, access to our diplomatic
facilities overseas, protection of classified documents at the
Department, the Department's program to protect foreign dignitaries and
missions, oversight of the Moscow chancery construction, reviews of
programs carried out by the Department through various assistance
instruments, and real property management and maintenance.
Worldwide Security
Ensuring the safety and security of U.S. personnel and facilities
overseas continues to be a paramount concern for the Department. My
office has devoted significant time and resources to overseeing the
Department's use of emergency supplemental and other funding to enhance
security and continues to provide recommendations to the Department to
improve security in the immediate and long term.
In 1999 my office established an interdisciplinary team of
auditors, inspectors and investigators to provide more effective
oversight of the Departments' management of the fiscal year 1999
emergency supplemental appropriations. The objectives of our work are
to assess the Department's management controls and systems that account
for and manage the emergency funds, recruit and train security and
administrative personnel, procure goods and services to enhance
security, and evaluate the Department's efforts to strengthen physical
security overseas including the rebuilding of Embassies Dar es Salaam
and Nairobi.
In the year following the bombing in East Africa, my office
evaluated the Department's efforts to protect official Americans at 42
embassies. As can be seen in the following chart, the lack of a 30-
meter setback is the most prevalent deficiency we found. However,
combined with the lack of anti-ram perimeter walls and windows that
have been sufficiently protected, a major, long-term construction
effort is required. For those items, such as improving the local guard
force or improving the lighting at a chancery, which the Department can
do without constructing new chancery, actions are generally underway to
correct the deficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adequate Percent Inadequate Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setback..................................................... 9 21 33 79
Perimeter Walls............................................. 13 31 28 67
Windows..................................................... 14 33 27 64
Chancery Walls.............................................. 16 38 23 55
CCTV/Lighting............................................... 21 50 19 45
Compound Access Control..................................... 20 48 17 40
Vehicle Inspections......................................... 24 57 17 40
Safe Haven.................................................. 24 57 16 38
Public Access Control....................................... 31 74 10 24
Local Guard Force........................................... 34 81 6 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department initially questioned the OIG's September 1998
recommendation for a new imminent danger alarm system providing warning
for embassy employees to ``duck and cover'' in the event of a vehicle
bomb attack threat. The Department subsequently accepted the
recommendation.\1\ OIG's embassy inspections contributed to more
effective and rapid implementation of the alarms while also stressing
the need for timely, frequent duck and cover drills, especially at
missions lacking setback. The Department also implemented dozens of
other OIG recommendations to minimize security vulnerabilities, details
of which are summarized in the OIG classified Semi-Annual Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The OIG ``duck and cover'' recommendation was included in
Admiral William J. Crowe's ``Report of the Accountability Review Boards
on the Embassy Bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam,'' issued January
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a program of sustained capital investment is essential to
ensure the security of the diplomatic infrastructure in the future,
such a program will not immediately alter the circumstances of
personnel overseas. Even a major construction program will leave the
majority of missions vulnerable to some threats for several years. My
office has attempted to focus on measures that can be taken in the near
term to reduce those vulnerabilities.
Our work has found that while the current facilities for Embassies
Dar es Salaam and Nairobi are more secure than at the time of the
August 7, 1998 bombings, both embassies still faced problems at the
time of our May 1999 security evaluation. Embassy Dar es Salaam lacked
sufficient emergency electrical power for security systems such as
exterior security lights, alarms, and vehicle barriers. My office
identified the need at Embassy Nairobi to reduce the risk of exposure
presented by the placement of large glass windows in the front of the
interim chancery building and provide a secondary exit point from the
compound. Subsequent to our inspections, the Department corrected the
emergency power problem at Embassy Dar es Salaam and the large glass
windows have been replaced at Embassy Nairobi. While these interim
facilities are significantly more secure than the previous facilities,
they are at best a temporary solution because they are too small to
house all official Americans at post. New chanceries are planned for
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Money has been appropriated and contracts
have been signed. The main objective is to build new chanceries that
meet security standards and are of adequate size to house all official
Americans.
We also found that the Department has established systems that are
capable of appropriately accounting for and managing the emergency
appropriations that are obligated and liquidated domestically. However,
we identified several issues relating to reporting and accounting for
the funds that we have recommended that the Department address. Our
review of the systems in place to account for the emergency
appropriations obligated overseas is ongoing.
Thus far, our findings reveal that, overall, the Department has
done many things well. The direct involvement of the Under Secretary
for Management and the Security Oversight Board has been instrumental
in the Department's effective use of emergency supplemental funds. This
senior level attention has provided focus for the overseas security
enhancements and fostered coordination among the different bureaus. Our
first report of our findings was published in January 2000.\2\
Additional reports will be published as we continue our review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Office of Inspector General Status Report, ``Review of Fiscal
Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations,'' (00-OIG-001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Resources and Security
Some of the most difficult security issues to correct deal with
information security. In many ways, improving information security may
be a bigger challenge than improving physical security because many of
the fixes involve the behavior of personnel. To correct identified
vulnerabilities requires senior management leadership, technically
qualified staff, money, and a desire to do things differently. For
example, in our November 1999 audit report on overseas telephone system
security, we found that the Department was spending $61 million to
upgrade its overseas telephone systems, but was not focusing on
improving the security aspect of the systems. Furthermore, the
Department needs to establish plans to modernize telephone security
overseas and request the resources needed to act on the report
recommendations to improve telephone security and protect sensitive
information.
OIG has realigned its resources to focus on emerging information
technology issues. My office has consolidated its information
technology and security efforts and created a single Information
Resources and Security Management Division (IRSM) in the Office of
Audits. This division will address emerging issues of congressional
interest in five areas: information management, telecommunications,
information security, information technology human resources, and
information warfare.
Access to Diplomatic Facilities Overseas
As part of our review of DS's overall management of card access
control systems at overseas posts, our office completed a review of the
system in Germany and Luxembourg this last year. The system in these
countries was intended to control access to diplomatic facilities, to
reduce the cost to DS for the local guard program, and to provide a
model for possible worldwide use. Recommendations were made with regard
to vulnerabilities identified by our office.
In November 1999, we also issued our report on the bureau's overall
management of card access control systems at overseas posts. Several
organizational elements of the bureau are involved in managing card
access control systems used at U.S. posts abroad. However, no single
office or element has been designated with lead responsibility for
managing those systems. As a result, important policy requirements were
not applied, or were not adequately applied, in the management of those
systems. The bureau could significantly improve the management of card
access control systems by: designating a single office to be primarily
responsible for managing distinct card access system activities,
including system planning, installation, administration, and
maintenance; assessing the risks, costs, and benefits of using card
access control systems before acquiring such systems; acquiring and
using only those systems approved by the bureau; and, focusing greater
attention on computer security aspects of those systems.
Protection of Classified Documents at State
OIG evaluated the effectiveness of Department policies and
procedures for protecting classified documents at the Main Department
of State headquarters facility in Washington, D.C. Although the
Department has programs in place to evaluate individuals'
trustworthiness and need to handle classified information, improvements
to enhance the level of security awareness and controls to prevent
unauthorized disclosures are needed. The report highlighted the
following specific problems:
--very highly classified documents relating to intelligence reporting
are not safeguarded in accordance with government regulations;
--significant numbers of foreign nationals are permitted unescorted
access to the Department--uncleared individuals are not always
escorted in areas where classified information is handled,
processed, stored, and discussed;
--administrative actions taken to discipline employees are
ineffective in correcting poor security practices; and
--unit security officers are not well informed about security
requirements and do not have the authority to enforce security
requirements.
OIG recommended that the DS be designated as the organization
responsible for protecting sensitive compartmented information (SCI)
and that the bureau enhance physical and procedural measures required
to safeguard such information. DS officials agreed with OIG's findings
and recommendations. INR agreed that security policies are not being
sufficiently enforced, but did not agree to designate DS as the
cognizant security office for the protection of SCI. Additionally, the
Department has since issued a notice regarding a visitor escort policy.
The Protective Services Program
OIG evaluated the effectiveness of DS's protective services
program. The principal focus of the audit was protection provided to
visiting foreign dignitaries and foreign missions in the United States.
DS has successfully defended dignitaries and missions from attack,
and client organizations provide positive feedback on DS's performance.
However, improvements are needed to enhance the protective services
program to correct the following vulnerabilities:
--DS shares its protection responsibilities with the Secret Service
and other law enforcement agencies, causing some operational
deficiencies and inconsistencies;
--the Department has not systematically determined which foreign
dignitaries should receive DS protection in the United States;
--improvements are needed in the process by which DS develops and
disseminates threat information to protective details;
--the lack of defined policies and procedures caused inconsistencies
in the operation of some details, particularly with respect to
preparatory briefings and midnight shifts; and
--effective protection was hindered by low DS staff levels excessive
overtime, and inadequate procedures to ensure that agents
assigned to protective details were capable of fulfilling all
responsibilities.
OIG made recommendations to effect the needed improvements in the
protective services program. DS and other Department officials
generally concurred with the OIG's findings and recommendations, except
for the recommendation to initiate legislative action to centralize all
protection activities for foreign missions into DS.
Moscow Chancery
The Moscow Oversight Team (MOT) provides the Inspector General,
senior Department officials, and congressional oversight committees
with current information on the construction of the secure chancery
facilities in Moscow and makes timely recommendations to improve the
security aspects and contract administration of the project. Since
1995, MOT has made semiannual onsite evaluations of the project,
flagging problems on which the Department could take immediate action,
rather than letting the problems escalate. The last onsite evaluation
took place in October 1999 and resulted in 21 recommendations
addressing master planning for the transition to the secure chancery,
counterintelligence, technical security programs, accreditation
reporting, and secure warehouse operations. The Department is taking
action to correct the deficiencies identified in the report.
During April 2000, MOT will conduct its final evaluation of the
secure chancery. This visit is intended to confirm that previously
identified security deficiencies have been corrected and to ensure that
security is not compromised during the move from the existing office
building into the new facility. The move is currently scheduled for May
2000. In addition, MOT will ensure that the procedures and personnel
are in place to maintain the extensive security systems in the new
chancery.
Broadcasting Facilities
OIG also extended its security oversight to the BBG's engineering
components and broadcasting networks which has resulted in
recommendations for substantial improvements in security preparedness
at overseas as well as domestic facilities. These recommendations have
been endorsed by the BBG and corrective actions are under way.
Grants Management and Transfers
The Department annually expends more than a billion dollars for a
variety of programs carried out through assistance instruments such as
grants, cooperative agreements, and transfers; however, it does not use
standardized grant systems, policies, or procedures to manage these
programs. Previous OIG audits identified insufficient monitoring and
oversight of grantees; unauthorized, unallowable, and unsupported
costs; internal control weaknesses; or noncompliance with applicable
regulations associated with these awards. For example, OIG found that
the handling of a building sale and immediate rental of that same
building by a grantee, the Institute for International Education, did
not comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements,
resulting in about $4 million in questioned rental costs over the life
of the lease. In other cases, we questioned about $3 million when
grantees did not properly document or use Federal funds for authorized
purposes. In these cases, the grantees involved were the American
Council for Learned Societies ($1.1 million), the Washington Workshops
Foundation ($.9 million), and the Institute for International Education
($1 million for indirect cost rates).
The managing and monitoring of the recipients of these funds has
become more critical because of OMB guidelines revised in 1996. As a
result, the majority of Department's grantees are no longer required to
have annual financial audits. Furthermore, ongoing legislative and
other governmental initiatives will affect how the Department manages
grants and monitors non-governmental organizations in the future. On
November 20, 1999, for example, the President signed Public Law 106-
107, the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act, which
requires the Department to streamline and simplify the application,
administrative, and reporting procedures for Federal financial
assistance programs. OIG is working with the Department to establish a
common system, including electronic processes, wherein a non-Federal
entity can apply for, manage, and report on the use of funding from
multiple Federal financial assistance programs.
Improving Real Property Management and Maintenance
A significant open OIG audit recommendation in the area of property
resulted from our 1993 audit ``Maintenance and Repair of Buildings
Overseas'' (3-PP-014). The audit recommends the Department develop a
system to identify and monitor the worldwide backlog of maintenance and
repair deficiencies, including determining an acceptable level for the
backlog and periodically updating the backlog for corrective action
taken, additional deficiencies identified, and improved cost estimates.
Since 1988 the Department has reported rehabilitation and
maintenance of real property overseas as a material weakness in the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act Report. Over OIG's stated
objections, the Department's Management Control Steering Committee
recently closed this weakness on the basis that all conditions had been
met with the exception of the backlog which cannot be brought down to
zero due to funding issues. Although significant improvements have been
made in correcting this weakness, we believe that more needs to be
done. The Department needs to better define what is an ``acceptable''
level for the backlog to rehabilitate and maintain facilities and also
provide a baseline that will address the costs to reduce the backlog to
an acceptable level. We believe that armed with this information the
Department can best identify those properties that may be more prudent
for disposal in lieu of the high costs to rehabilitate and provide
long-term maintenance. We plan to closely monitor Department efforts in
this area.
As I reported in my statement to the Subcommittee last year, my
office has continued to advise the Department of excess, underutilized,
or obsolete real properties identified in our inspections and audits at
overseas posts. The Department evaluated 172 properties that OIG
categorized as excess, underutilized, or obsolete at the time of the
inspection or audit. Of these, the Department plans to dispose of 65,
an additional 17 warrant further study, and the remaining 90 will be
the subject of dialogue between the Bureau of Administration's Office
of Foreign Buildings Operations (A/FBO) and the regional bureaus. These
reviews will be used by the Department to better manage its real
property assets.
GREATER ADHERENCE TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PROFESSIONAL AND
ETHICAL CONDUCT
OIG is mandated to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and
mismanagement. Specific allegations or other information indicating
possible violations of law or regulation are investigated by OIG
special agents supported by experts from other OIG offices as
appropriate. During fiscal year 2001, OIG continues to focus on
promoting increased awareness of standards of conduct and
accountability among agency and OIG employees, contractors, and other
appropriate audiences, including representatives of foreign governments
who have requested OIG assistance on this issue. As part of these
efforts, results from audits, inspections, and investigations will be
highlighted and recommendations made to reduce areas of vulnerability
and opportunities for misconduct.
OIG also will work proactively, in consultation with targeted
audiences, to improve adherence to standards of accountability by
ensuring that employees are informed of and understand the standards
specific to their professional and ethical conduct. Accordingly, OIG
will work with the foreign affairs agencies to improve their programs
for educating employees on standards of accountability and fundamental
principles governing programmatic accountability and ethical conduct.
Investigative Process
My office makes every effort to review complaints as quickly and
efficiently as possible. Upon receipt of a complaint or allegation
regarding fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, one of the following
actions takes place: a criminal investigation or preliminary inquiry is
initiated; the matter is referred to management officials who have the
authority and jurisdiction to investigate or resolve the issues; or the
matter is filed without action because none is warranted. A preliminary
inquiry is initiated when vague, non-specific information is received
and a few inquiries are needed to develop more facts to justify a
criminal investigation or resolve it. If a preliminary inquiry is
opened, special agents have 45 days to develop that additional
information or resolve and close the preliminary inquiry.
If a criminal investigation is opened, special agents must present
the facts of the case to the appropriate United States Attorney's
Office, or other prosecuting authority, within 90 days of the case
opening. In the event the prosecution of the case is declined, special
agents have 45 days from the date of the declination to close the case,
initiate civil proceedings, or commence work on administrative
remedies. These policies and procedures were implemented in order to
reduce the amount of time it takes to complete investigations,
particularly those involving Department employees.
In addition to our efforts to reduce the amount of time to complete
employee investigations, OIG has also instituted a policy of issuing
Case Notification Letters (CNL) to employees at the conclusion of
investigations. Our established policy and procedure requires that at
the conclusion of an investigation when no action is anticipated being
brought against a subject a CNL will be forwarded directly to the
Subject. In rare cases, when the evidence is inconclusive, a CNL may
not be provided to the employee. At the discretion of OIG management,
it may also be deemed appropriate to forward a CNL to Department
officials.
Proactive Outreach Development
The Office of Investigations is developing training for outreach
and fraud awareness and prevention. The training will be based on
actual cases and tailored to the particular employee group being
addressed. Initially, two programs will be developed: one oriented to
the needs of contracting officers with A/FBO and the other towards the
Bureau of Financial Services (FMP) financial officials. The A/FBO
training will cover indicators of contract fraud and will discuss
completed criminal cases involving schemes perpetrated against the
Department.
Visa Fraud
Each year, millions of individuals apply for passports and visas at
the more than 230 U.S. embassies and consulates throughout the world.
Attempts to falsify, alter, or counterfeit U.S. visas or passports, or
to obtain genuine documents by fraudulent means are a constant problem
both within the United States and overseas. In 1999 a majority of work
performed by the Office of Investigations was in visa fraud and
passport investigations. Statistics representing all investigative
cases opened in my office for fiscal year 1999 are indicated in the
following table.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 STATISTICS FOR CASES OPENED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Allegation Type No. of Cases Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Fraud/Passport Fraud............... 29 39
Employee Misconduct..................... 11 15
Contract/Procurement Fraud.............. 4 5
False Statements/Claims................. 8 11
Theft................................... 14 19
All Other............................... 9 12
-------------------------------
Total............................. .............. 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, the Office of Investigations, working with other U.S. law
enforcement agencies, conducted a number of investigations that
resulted in criminal charges against individuals and companies who were
operating large-scale schemes to provide fraudulent U.S. visas to
paying customers. Several of these cases have involved fraudulent H1-B
visas, which are issued legitimately only to individuals with
particular skills needed by a particular company in the U.S.
One investigation determined that a foreign national living in New
Jersey had operated a company for several years that sold fraudulent
H1-B visas, which were then used to obtain social security cards. Most
of the customers were foreign nationals living illegally in the U.S.
After a jury trial, the seller was convicted of multiple felony counts
of visa fraud and was sentenced to 55 months in prison. The seller is
also subject to deportation after completion of the sentence.
Another investigation developed evidence that an immigration
consultant in California had operated companies through which she
arranged for numerous foreign nationals to enter the United States on
H1-B visas, based upon false certifications that they had entered into
contracts for high-skill employment with companies in the U.S. The
immigration consultant was indicted on felony charges of visa fraud and
alien smuggling and was arrested. An attorney associated with the
consultant was also charged. Disposition of these charges is pending.
It is anticipated that there will be additional charges against other
individuals.
In another investigation, it was determined that individuals in
Virginia, Florida, and Kentucky, cooperating with citizens of a Central
European country, had conspired to obtain fraudulent visas and to
smuggle numerous people into the United States to work on cleaning
crews for retail stores. These workers would usually enter the country
on tourist visas, obtained based upon false statements. Upon arrival,
the workers were frequently provided with fraudulent H1-B visas and
then used the visas to obtain social security cards. Several
individuals involved in the operation of this scheme have entered
guilty pleas to criminal charges in this case, and charges against
others are pending. One of the higher level individuals in the
operation, a foreign national who resided in Florida, has pleaded
guilty to money laundering and has agreed to cooperate in providing
evidence against others.
Another investigation in Virginia developed evidence that foreign
nationals residing illegally in the United States were being provided
with fraudulent H-1B visas. The individuals were then being transported
from the New York/New Jersey area to Social Security offices in
Virginia in order to obtain social security cards based on the
fraudulent visas. Five persons entered guilty pleas to criminal
charges. Three of these individuals agreed to voluntary departure from
the United States, while the other two agreed to provide information
regarding the higher level organizers of this scheme.
In addition to conducting cases involving fraudulent H-1B visas,
the Office of Investigations also continued to pursue evidence of other
types of visa fraud. An investigation conducted jointly with the INS
determined that a naturalized United States citizen living in Hartford,
Connecticut had operated a scheme to arrange marriages of convenience
for aliens living illegally in the United States, and for others who
wanted to come to this country. Immigrant visas were obtained based on
documentation of these fraudulent marriages. The principal subject and
10 other individuals were indicted on visa fraud and other charges. The
principal subject, after entering a guilty plea, was sentenced to 5
months in prison and a fine. Several other individuals also pleaded
guilty and received lesser sentences.
And, finally, in a case that developed recently, an FSN
investigator employed by INS at an embassy in Asia was arrested on
charges of extortion, based upon evidence that he had solicited
payments in return for approving an asylum petition. Approval of this
petition would lead to issuance of a visa. The subject was indicted
subsequent to being arrested and remains in custody pending resolution
of the charges.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to working with your
subcommittee in the coming months.
APPENDIX
OIG REPORTS AND MEMRANDA ISSUED FOR WORK IN FISCAL YEAR 1999
MISSION: IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREIGN POLICY
Improved Conduct of Foreign Relations
Taken as a whole, OIG activities provide a broad overview of the
Department's effectiveness in the implementation of foreign policy and
in the use of the full range of diplomatic and public diplomacy tools
including international broadcasting. Through the inspections of
overseas missions and domestic bureaus, and on in-depth audits of
selected issues, we assessed the conduct of foreign relations,
particularly the skills and capabilities of senior management and the
availability and use of appropriate structures, authorities, and
processes. In the coming year, OIG will inspect and audit the
effectiveness of policy and program formulation and implementation;
intelligence reporting; results monitoring and assessment; and, mission
leadership and management.
Audits:
Activities Supporting the International Law Enforcement Academy,
Budapest, Hungary (99-CI-005)
Department of State Support for U.S. Business Abroad (99-CI-021)
International Law Enforcement Coordination and Oversight (99-CI-
027)
Policies and Procedures for Ensuring that Radio Marti Broadcasts
Adhere to Applicable Requirements (99-IB-010)
Border Biometrics (Laser Visa) Program (ISP/I-99-12)
American Council of Learned Societies Supporting the Vietnam
Fulbright Economic Teaching Program (99-CG-026)
Cyprus Fulbright Commission (USIA-99-CG-017)
Post Management Inspections:
Management Inspections of Embassies and U.S. Information Service:
--Embassy Singapore and USIS Singapore (ISP/I-98-44)
--Embassy Kuala Lumpur and USIS Malaysia (ISP/I-98-01)
--Embassy Tokyo and USIS Japan (ISP/I-99-04)
--Embassy Bujumbura and USIS Burundi (ISP/I-99-07)
--Embassy Lilongwe and USIS Malawi (ISP/I-99-10)
--Embassy Cairo and USIS Egypt (ISP/I-99-11)
--Embassy Jakarta and USIS Indonesia (ISP/I-99-15 and ISP/I-99-02)
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The inspection of Embassy Jakarta, Indonesia was bifurcated due
to political instability in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Embassy Tel Aviv and USIS Israel (ISP/I-99-18)
--Consulate General Jerusalem and USIS Jerusalem (ISP/I-99-19)
--Embassy Kathmandu and USIS Nepal (ISP/I-99-21)
--Embassy Colombo and USIS Sri Lanka (ISP/I-99-22)
--Embassy New Delhi and USIS India (ISP/I-99-23)
--Embassy Santo Domingo and USIS Dominican Republic (ISP/I-99-24)
--Embassy London and USIS United Kingdom (ISP/I-99-27)
--Embassy Dublin and USIS Ireland (ISP/I-99-28)
--Embassy Bucharest and USIS Romania (ISP/I-99-29)
Inspections of Embassies only:
--Embassy Kampala, Uganda (ISP/I-99-05)
--Embassy Kigali, Rwanda (ISP/I-99-06)
--Embassy Harare, Zimbabwe (ISP/I-99-08)
--Embassy Lusaka, Zambia (ISP/I-99-09)
--Consulate Lyon, France (ISP/I-99-25)
Compliance Follow-Up Reviews:
--U.S. Mission to NATO, Brussels, Belgium (ISP/C-99-03)
--Embassy Hanoi, Vietnam (ISP/C-99-13)
--Embassy Rangoon and USIS Burma (ISP/C-99-14)
--Embassy Mexico City and Constituent Posts and USIS Mexico (ISP/C-
99-17)
--Embassy Moscow and Constituent Posts and USIS Russia (ISP/C-99-20)
Other Office of Inspection Reviews:
--Management Controls for Small Embassies (ISP/I-99-26)
--Border Biometrics Program (ISP/I-99-12)
Inspector General Testimony and Statements for the Record:
Testimony, Major Management Challenges for the Department, House
Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security,
Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, February 25, 1999.
Testimony, Major Management Challenges for the Department, Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on International
Operations, March 4, 1999.
Statement for the Record, OIG Budget Request, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, March 10, 1999.
BETTER ALIGNMENT OF FISCAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES WITH U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
OIG has built a Results Act component into selected audits,
inspections, and security reviews to assess the performance goals and
measures. Areas of OIG coverage included overseas security
vulnerabilities, financial management, Y2K remediation efforts,
telecommunications, and property management. OIG established a plan to
review and report on the efforts of the Department and Broadcasting
Board of Governors to develop and use performance measures and will
verify and validate selected data sources for such measures.
OIG work includes:
--Review of Tours of Duty (99-SP-013)
--Inspection of FSI (ISP/I-99-16)
--Inspection of Consulate Lyon (ISP/I-99-25)
--Consular Fraud Prevention Programs (99-CI-028)
Inspector General Testimony:
--Nonimmigrant Visa Fraud, House Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, May 5, 1999.
--Best Practices and Standards of Performance in an OIG, Council of
the District of Columbia, Committee on Government Operations,
May 19, 1999.
More Effective, Efficient, and Secure Operations and Infrastructures
OIG security oversight inspections were expanded to include low and
medium threat posts, in addition to those with high and critical threat
ratings. The new division of Security Enhancements Oversight is
reviewing the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations.
In addition to embassy security and Y2K preparedness, OIG post
inspections reviewed executive direction, policy implementation, public
diplomacy, consular operations, diplomatic readiness, and
administrative operations. Audit reviews included export licensing
process, law enforcement coordination, consular antifraud programs, and
the protection of classified information at the Department.
International broadcasting reviews included Radio Marti's adherence to
the applicable broadcast standards.
Security Reviews:
Review of Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
(00-OIG-001) \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The OIG review of the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations was conducted through August 31, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security at Embassies Dar es Salaam and Nairobi (SIO/E-99-50)
Protective Services (SIO/A-99-29)
Moscow Oversight Status Reports (SIO/M-99-31, SIO/M-99-31)
Special Documents Program (SIO/Z-99-40)
Card Access Control System in Germany and Luxembourg (SIO/A-99-01)
Protection of Classified Documents at State Department Headquarters
(SIO/A-99-46)
Security Audit of Overseas Telephone Security Management (SIO/A-00-
01) \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A major portion of the work that resulted in the ``Audit of
Overseas Telephone Security Management'' was accomplished in fiscal
year 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security Inspections:
--Embassy Nassau, The Bahamas (SIO/I-99-01)
--Embassy Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (SIO/I-99-17)
--U.S. Diplomatic Posts in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
(SIO/I-99-18)
--Embassy Madrid, Spain (SIO/I-99-21)
--Embassy London, United Kingdom (SIO/I-99-24)
--Embassy Lisbon, Portugal (SIO/I-99-25)
--Embassy Dublin, Ireland (SIO/I-99-26)
--Embassy Reykjavik, Iceland (SIO/I-99-27)
--Embassy Copenhagen, Denmark (SIO/I-99-28)
--Embassy Zagreb, Croatia (SIO/I-99-34)
--Embassy Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (SIO/I-99-35)
--Embassy Brussels, Belgium, USMEU, and NATO (SIO/I-99-36)
--Embassy Luxembourg (SIO/I-99-37)
--Embassy Prague, Czech Republic (SIO/I-99-41)
--Embassy Valletta, Malta (SIO/I-99-42)
--Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Prague, Czech Republic (SIO/I-99-
43)
--Embassy Oslo, Norway (SIO/I-99-44)
--Embassy Stockholm, Sweden (SIO/I-99-45)
Security Follow-Up Reviews:
--Embassy Islamabad, Pakistan (SIO/C-99-09)
--Embassy New Delhi, India (SIO/C-99-10)
--Consulate General Hong Kong (SIO/C-99-19)
--Embassy Ankara, Turkey (SIO/C-99-23)
--Embassy Beijing, China (SIO/C-99-30)
--Embassy Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (SIO/C-99-51)
Year 2000 Information Management Review: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OIG's Y2K activities extended from fiscal year 1998 through
fiscal year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y2K Interim Memorandum 1 (6/17/98)
Year 2000 Interim Memorandum 2, Analysis of Key Y2K Issues (8/20/
98)
Year 2000 Interim Memorandum 3, Analysis of Telecommunications
Issues (10/16/98)
Y2K Certification of USIA Systems (2/8/99)
Y2K Readiness of Affiliates Used by International Broadcasters
(management letter)
Inspector General Testimony and Statements for the Record concerning
Y2K:
Testimony, The Year 2000 Computer Problem: Global Readiness, Senate
Special Committee on the Y2K Technology Problem, March 5, 1999.
Testimony, The Year 2000 Computer Problem: Global Readiness and
International Trade, Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000
Technology Problem, July 22, 1999.
Testimony, The Year 2000 Computer Problem: Global Readiness, House
Committee on International Relations, October 21, 1999.
Statement for the Record, Year 2000 Computer Problem, House
Committee on Ways and Means, February 24, 1999.
Statement for the Record, The Year 2000 Computer Problem: Global
Readiness, Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology
Problem, October 13, 1999.
Office of Audits:
Consular and International Programs Division:
--Interagency Review of Export Licensing Process (99-CI-018)
--Consular Fraud Prevention Programs (99-CI-028)
Financial Management Division:
--Florida Regional Center (99-FM-002)
--U.S. Department of State's Consolidated Financial Statements (99-
FM-003)
--ICASS Financial Statements Fiscal Year 1997 (99-FM-004)
--Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund Financial Statements
for Fiscal Year 1998 (99-FM-014)
--Department of State 1997 and 1998 Principal Financial Statements
(99-FM-031)
--ICASS Program's 97-98 Financial Statements (99-FM-032)
Property Management and Procurement Division:
--Real Property Advisory Board (99-PP-006)
--Acceptability Review Process Within the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (99-PP-030)
Contracts and Grants Division:
--United States Educational Foundation, Pakistan (99-CG-001)
--National Endowment for Democracy (99-CG-007)
--Indirect Cost Rates Proposed by the Institute of International
Education (USIA-99-CG-015)
--Sale and Leaseback Arrangement Proposed by the Institute of
International Education (USIA-99-CG-016)
--Review of Planning and Management of Lisbon Expo 98 (USIA-99-CG-
019)
--Fiscal Year 1999 Indirect Cost Rate AIT (99-CG-022)
--Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange (USIA-CG-99-
024)
--Claimed Costs Under USIA Awards to the Washington Workshops
Foundation (99-CG-025)
--Accounting for Increased Visa Fees of the AIT (99-CG-029)
--Nonfederal Audits of Nonprofit Institutions (various desk reviews)
International Broadcasting Division:
--RFE/RL Administrative Practices (99-IB-012)
--Office of Cuba Broadcasting's Administrative Practices (99-IB-023)
Inspector General Testimony:
--Oversight of Security at U.S. Missions Overseas, House Committee on
International Relations, Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights, March 12, 1999.
--Export Licensing Process for Munitions and Dual-Use Commodities,
Senate Governmental Affairs, June 23, 1999.
GREATER ADHERENCE TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PROFESSIONAL AND
ETHICAL CONDUCT
OIG is mandated to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and
mismanagement. Specific allegations or other information indicating
possible violations of law or regulation are investigated by OIG
special agents supported by experts from other OIG offices as
appropriate.
Audits:
Report on Inquiry into Former Contractor Allegations (99-PP-008)
Unreasonable Contractor Profit on an Asbestos Abatement Project
(99-PP-009)
Report on Inquiry into Contractor Allegations (99-PP-011)
Review of Planning and Management of Lisbon Expo 98 (USIA-99-CG-
019)
Inspector General Testimony:
Allegations of Visa Fraud and Other Irregularities at the U.S.
Embassy in Beijing, House Committee on Government Reform, July 22,
1999.
EMBASSY CONSTRUCTION
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Let me begin
where you began, which is the issue of construction of
embassies and facilities around the world where we are trying
to respond to the various reports we have had. This committee
has aggressively pursued a plan of trying to refurbish and
rebuild the embassies so that we would have adequate security
for our personnel.
I am looking at a chart, and I suspect you do not have it.
It is a fairly discouraging chart. It is a chart of
construction projects which are going on in approximately 25
different embassies around the world and the funds that have
been provided and the funds that are still to be provided. It
is a $1.5 billion price-tag and the average price, as I figure
it, on these embassy construction projects is somewhere in the
vicinity of $90 million. They range from a low of $7 million in
Kingston, which is extremely low compared to the average, to
the typical construction site cost. Sarajevo is at $100
million, Sofia at $82 million, Abidjan at $86 million, Abu
Dhabi at $54 million, Rio de Janeiro at $90 million, Sao Paulo
at $103 million, Berlin at $150 million, Beijing at $275
million, Seoul, South Korea at $184 million.
These are stunning numbers, and I do not know what to do
about them. I do not suspect that you have much that you can
give me that will be constructive to the issues, but how can we
be spending what amounts to about $90 million on the average
for a physical facility in many countries where you can almost
buy the country for that amount? In Sarajevo, $104 million; you
must be able to buy most of downtown Sarajevo today for $104
million.
The numbers for the construction costs of these facilities
are staggering. I recognize that a lot of this is driven by
American law, which is our law, which says that you have to use
American contractors. The security needs in Beijing, for
example, are unique and we have had serious problems on all
sorts of levels in Beijing in trying to build the building.
Then the Berlin problem is that our ambassador there seems to
have fallen down on his job rather dramatically in his ability
to get approvals.
Obviously, this committee is totally committed to trying to
make sure that we address the facility needs of the State
Department. This has been a priority of ours. But at these
prices, we are not going to be able to address a whole lot of
facilities.
I have two levels of questions. Can you give us any thought
on how we can get some control over these construction costs,
number one? And number two, can you give us any thought as to
whether or not we can start moving to a hub approach with some
of these embassies so that if we are going to build a $100
million embassy in Nairobi, that that can be used as a center
and then we build much smaller facilities in the surrounding
countries, which do not have as many people or as large an
economic impact potentially on our relationship with them?
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. When I
looked at these costs it was sticker shock. I mean they are
remarkable amounts for embassies. And I have gone back to our
folks on this to try to explain better why this happens, and
there are a number of reasons.
One is that we obviously have to acquire larger pieces of
land in order to have the proper setbacks and this can be
costly where they are in particular cities.
Also, the security standards now on these buildings, the
cost is phenomenal in terms of the kinds of glass you have to
use and various things--a lot of it has to do with having
secure buildings.
The other, as you pointed out, are things that have to do
with our law, that we have to use American contractors and
U.S.-origin materials and getting them to places in sealed
carriers so that there is no tampering with them. Every part of
this is an expensive process.
You and I and other members of the subcommittee, we have
talked about the fact that we have a prime responsibility to
make sure that our people are safe in these places, and this is
what it amounts to. I have asked them to scrub and rescrub
these numbers because I had the same feeling you did about it,
and all I can tell you is that I am told that this is what it
costs.
I think the question we have to answer is how do we make
sure that the buildings are the kind that Admiral Crowe says we
have to have and that Lou Kaden and his committee say we have
to have and be able to afford them?
Now, on the German question, I defend Ambassador Kornblum
on this. Part of the problem here is that we have wanted our
embassy to be in a prime historic location near the Brandenburg
Gate, where it is a little hard to get the proper setbacks when
that is their main thoroughfare. So that has been one of the
problems.
In each of these cities there is a specific problem that
has to be dealt with and we are very happy--happy is the wrong
word--we will go through with you what the various costs are
and where they are.
On the question of hubs, the Nairobi embassy is, in fact,
being rebuilt to serve as a regional hub so that a lot of the
technology and things that are necessary for the support of an
embassy in the whole region will be done out of there.
We are also trying something different in some places which
are American presence posts, the way Ambassador Rohatyn has
thought up in France, where you send one or two people into a
city where the structure for them is not that complicated, and
yet there is an American presence primarily for business
purposes and consular.
I do happen to believe strongly in the concept of
universality because while some country may not seem as
important as another for one reason or another, ultimately it
is important for Americans to be there. And, as you know, the
embassy serves as a platform also for a lot of other agencies
to serve with us.
What I am doing now is to systematically go through the
recommendations out of the Kaden and Crowe reports, to right-
size those embassies so that the agencies are all working
together and we have the right mix of people in them.
But I agree with you that the cost of the embassies is very
high, and I think we have to keep asking ourselves why. My
answers are the land, the security, and the fact that we must
use American contractors and materials.
Senator Gregg. Well, I appreciate that, and your answer was
pretty much the answer I expected to get. I guess what I would
like to think about is how we could put some system in place
that would give us an independent review of the construction
costs by people who are in the construction business. I am
thinking of maybe setting up, or I would be interested in your
thoughts--setting up a blue ribbon panel that would be a
volunteer group who would be specialists in construction--
leading architects and leading construction individuals from
across the country who do not do international construction, so
there would not be conflicts, and have them be a platform where
we could get an analysis of whether or not these costs are in
the correct ballpark. I mean, we can send GAO in, I suppose,
and ask them to look at each one of these embassies, but I am
not sure that that is the system.
What I am trying to think of is some systematic way--if we
could put in some sort of system in place so that we could get
a feel that if there is something that we do not have to do or
some way to do this more effectively, we can do it. The big
problem here is we have 192 embassies that we have to address
or something like that, and at this rate of price, we are
simply never going to get them all done. We are going to end up
with maybe the high-priority ones being done but unfortunately,
the targets end up being places like Abu Dhabi or someplace
that we did not expect.
Secretary Albright. I think it would be very useful to have
a variety of people advising. I think the Secretary of State
ultimately needs to have control over decision-making on this.
Senator Gregg. Oh, absolutely.
Secretary Albright. But I do think it would be useful. We
have American architects designing these buildings, trying to
make them fit into their country.
I agree with you that we should develop some system of
getting better advice on it.
Senator Gregg. Well, we have this review board that looks
at intelligence activities. It is an independent group of
private citizens. It is done as volunteers.
Secretary Albright. FIPIAC [President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board], yes.
Senator Gregg. I am thinking maybe you set up a group like
that that looks at embassy security and construction so that
you have both the expertise on the security side and the
expertise on the construction side. I do not want another level
of bureaucracy that makes things take longer and increases
costs, but I do want to have somebody we can go to and have an
analysis done that is fair and objective as to whether these
prices are reasonable and whether we can afford them.
Secretary Albright. I think we should look at some
mechanism. And if I might at this point explain why we are
actually asking for advance appropriations on this, which I
know is not one of your favorite activities, because I think
that this would help us in terms of letting contracts for a
number of buildings at the same time and to try to figure out a
longer-range plan for them.
So those two things together, I would be very pleased to
work with you on.
Senator Gregg. I am becoming more sympathetic to advance
appropriations in this area, actually, which is something I was
not.
I want to talk about other issues but I want to turn to my
colleagues and give them a chance.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize
to you and our distinguished Secretary because we have the
hearing upstairs on the mergers of these communications folks
and I am going to have to leave.
But getting right to the point, the Secretary has far more
important things to turn her attention to. What you and I ought
to do is just start a hearing on this request and tell them to
bring up a carpenter and whoever else it is and go down chapter
and verse. We know about construction and we know about costs
and we are going to have to vote for it.
You get one of these super-duper panels, it is just like
the super-duper panel of Inman and now we have the one of
Crowe, and I have seen more waste as a result of it. You go
down to Costa Rica, which should not have been a problem at
all, but they have the Crowe protection. They have a $1 million
wall around the facility down there and an anti-tank trap, and
they do not have a tank in Costa Rica.
I have seen us sell off good properties, namely Rio. I
fought that for 20 years. We have sold off the finest facility
in the world because, well, the capital is going up to Brasilia
and so we sell it off. Now we are trying to build a $94 million
one. And 200 miles further, in Sao Paulo, we are trying to
build a $103 million one. That is not going to happen.
So what we really need to do is you and I can set up a
hearing and get our staff to work on it and we can clear up
this thing because it is going way beyond these multi-million-
dollar facilities and all the things about the setbacks and
land. We just sold off Bermuda. We had enough land there to
take all the facilities that we needed and the residences and
put them on that fine tract. That Bermuda installation was
given to us practically, so we sell it and we put the
representative there now, the consul, in a facility that we pay
$25,000 a year rent.
There is no continuity or grasp for policy that anybody
could support, so I will go along with your commission, but
that is just passing the buck. We can get at it, because we are
going to have to vote for it right now.
PEACEKEEPING
Otherwise, let us get to the peacekeeping. Madam Secretary,
we have nine of them and we are going to add four more; is that
right? We have peacekeeping at Golan Heights, Lebanon, Iraq,
Kuwait, Western Sahara, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cyprus, Haiti,
Georgia, and Pakistan. We are going to now add Kosovo, Sierra
Leone, East Timor, and the Congo.
Two questions. One, there is no peace and otherwise, the
policy. When I say there is no peace, it is obvious in certain
places where they talk about peace that there is not any.
Otherwise, when you get a policy in Kosovo itself, you have a
request for a permanent facility there, like we are going to
have partitioned, separate Kosovo. I understand the State
Department minions heard that Senator Gregg and I were not
going to approve it, so you have it over in foreign operations.
A permanent facility, yet you talk of a multi-ethnic society
under Belgrade.
So we have a mixed policy and we are sending a signal that
no, it is not going to be mixed; we are going to have a
separate Kosovo.
I could go down the list. Sierra Leone, where we have war
criminal tribunals up in Bosnia and places of that kind and yet
we take those who help bring about the revolt and we are trying
to set them up down there. And when I say no peacekeeping, I
just got the release here whereby the rebels took nearly 500
rifles and four armored personnel from the peacekeeping Guinean
battalion that was on its way to keep the peace.
I mean this thing is going to get into a national debate
and we are going to have to have a national policy. It is all
over the lot, $100 million facilities on Inman or Crowe now.
And otherwise coming along in Kosovo, I cannot tell what the
policy is. Could you respond, please?
Secretary Albright. Yes. First of all, let me just describe
our Kosovo policy, which is that we won the war, and I think it
is now important to win the peace, a peace in which the
Kosovars would have self-government with a great deal of
autonomy, leaving for later what its final status would be, and
where there are institutions in which minority rights are
respected.
And what is happening through the UNMIK [ed. United Nations
Mission in Kosovo], the U.N. peacekeeping process, is setting
up that civilian administration, getting local police trained,
getting schools set up, election registration, working on joint
administrative bodies where the Serbs and the Kosovars work
together.
No one has worked on this will ever tell you that it is
easy, but it is necessary. I believe that having stability in
the Balkans is important for stability in Europe and,
therefore, for the United States.
The facility in Pristina is actually in your bill, but it
is important because we are going to be moving Americans into
that region to do difficult work for a long period of time.
I would just like to make the following statement about
security in the embassies. I know it is a lot of money but I
had to go to Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and look at buildings
that were completely destroyed and go and visit families of
those who had died and go and visit the Kenyans in hospitals as
a result of that. I think we have a responsibility, if we are
going to have our people abroad, which I think is a sine qua
non, that they are in safe and secure buildings.
Nobody wants to make them gold-plated, and I would welcome
you going through this, but I think we do need to understand
that life is different and unfortunately, the beautiful
embassies that I love that are in the middle of cities are no
longer safe. That is the problem.
On the other peacekeeping operations, we are living in a
world that no longer is in tight blocks the way it was during
the Cold War. There are conflicts everywhere. Some of them are
of great importance to the United States because of where they
are located geographically and some of them are because of the
horrors that can happen in humanitarian ways. I do not know any
American who can sit and watch people being macheted to death
or starving or in a position where they are killing each other.
And the peacekeeping operations are a great deal for the
United States. They are in areas where we do not want to do it
all by ourselves and for 25 percent of the cost, with forces
primarily from other countries--most of these peacekeeping
operations do not have Americans in them--I think we get a very
good bargain.
I believe the United States cannot turn its back on what is
happening in Congo or in Sierra Leone or East Timor or Kosovo,
for that matter.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, I am going to welcome you to this
hearing and just say a few--I will submit an opening statement
for the record but first of all, I am so proud of you, and I am
so proud of the job that you have done, and I certainly hope
that the next President retains you as Secretary of State so we
can continue the foreign policy leadership we have had.
I will not turn this into a New Hampshire primary but I
am----
Senator Gregg. I have been through one. That was more than
I needed.
Senator Mikulski. I believe you have brought extraordinary
competency and experience to your post. You understand the
elements that transform the world. Most of all, you have put
American values into action. You have used your communication
skills here and abroad and you have worked tirelessly to bring
security and peace to an ever-changing world. So I think we are
very grateful for what you have done.
I will not add to the embassy building discussion. I think
cost is a factor, but so is security. You talk about Nairobi
and your visits there and where there were the terrible attacks
on our embassy.
Many of the Foreign Service officers live in the State of
Maryland and I am very conscious of their safety. We often say
a grateful nation will never forget when we hand out our flags
at those funerals but I feel the way we do not forget is to
make sure it does not happen again. Make prudent use of
taxpayer funds but know that the real security needs to be
maintained.
Let me go to a couple of questions in my time. First of
all, I like this pamphlet: ``You Probably Never Think of Us.''
This is great. It should go everywhere, and we want to thank
you for that.
WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
I would like to ask a question about the issues related
to--Senator Hollings raised the peacekeeping issues but I
wonder if you could share with me something on the war crimes
tribunal because one of the most important aspects is being
able to follow up in terms of the U.S. plan to continue to give
funds to war crimes tribunals.
Would you share with us your thoughts on that? This is
something that the women of the Senate have worked with Senator
Specter and Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings on.
Secretary Albright. Yes. First of all, I am very proud of
the fact that when I was Ambassador to the United Nations, we
were able to set up the war crimes tribunal. Originally it was
set up for Yugoslavia and then widened to Rwanda. The purpose
of it really is that in order for there to be reconciliation
ultimately in any of these countries, it is important that
individual guilt needs to be assigned so that the collective
guilt can be erased.
The tribunals themselves, I think, are operating well in
terms of the numbers of indictees and people who have stood
trial.
I know that the women in the Senate have been very
interested in this. I had formed this very strong caucus when I
was ambassador in New York with six other women--we were known
as the G-7--in New York and we managed to get women judges on
the war crimes tribunal, one of whom was an American, Gabrielle
McDonald, because so many of the crimes had been committed
against women. When rape was finally seen as a crime of war,
that was a very important step forward.
So the war crimes tribunals are now working actively.
Trials are going on. They operate in The Hague and they
continue to need our funding. I believe they are a very new and
important part of how the international system works. I will
get you the exact numbers of indictees.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much. I know this is
something again that Senator Specter convened some
conversations with the chief judge of the war crimes tribunal.
We have really enjoyed the support of the men of the Senate as
we have really looked at war crimes in a way that really
reflects the brutality that is done to civilians.
CYPRUS
I want to ask another question related to policy. This is
an issue that has been going on for many Presidents, which is
the Cyprus question. I know when Ambassador Holbrooke took it
on as a special envoy, we thought his significant muscular
approach to diplomacy would help resolve this issue. And I
wonder now--yet there is one more meeting; there is one more
process, and yet Cyprus remains divided. I wonder what you
think are, number one, the prospects for a settlement, and
number two, if there is anything we should be doing to
encourage and facilitate that.
Secretary Albright. Well, the Cyprus issue has been with us
for a long time and one of the peacekeeping operations is the
one that is there, UNFICYP [United Nations force in Cyprus]. I
think many of you have been to Cyprus and you have seen the
island divided by the green line and on one side it looks like
technicolor and on the other, black and white.
At the current stage, we have gone back and forth in the
kinds of talks that are most useful and it turns out sometimes
muscular diplomacy is not the kind that works; sometimes it
does. And I think that we are now involved in different kinds
of talks, which are proximity talks, under the auspices of the
United Nations--they just finished a set in Geneva. There is
going to be another set of talks in May in New York. We
continue to be facilitators in trying to get a comprehensive
settlement.
The United Nations and the parties have agreed not to
engage in any public discussion about the talks and I think
frankly that is helpful because they are moving forward. We
support that approach and we are going to keep working with
both parties in this.
Senator Mikulski. Do you think we can get this done before
the end of the Clinton Administration?
Secretary Albright. I wish, but I cannot make a prediction
on it because it is one that we all care about a great deal but
it depends on how these talks go. We wanted to have 1997 be the
year of Cyprus and this is one of those long-running
unfortunate conflicts--but we are working hard on this,
Senator.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, I
could ask lots of questions. We have a vote. I am going to
yield back any time I have in the interest of maybe
accommodating Senator Lautenberg.
Secretary Albright. Thank you for your kind words, Senator
Mikulski.
Senator Gregg. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. I, too, want to issue kind words, Madam
Secretary. I join with Senator Mikulski in expressing my
admiration for a job extremely well done under very difficult
circumstances. And it is not your fault, but it seems that the
portfolio continues to expand, both in magnitude and in
dispersion. It does not get easier.
One of the things that I think we are obliged to do is to
make sure that we take care of the people that we send abroad
to represent us, and the CJS Subcommittee funds some of the
most important, and often overlooked, elements of the
international affairs budget.
The one thing we have to look at, and I really do respect
the inquiry of the chairman, in terms of the costs for doing
these things because I think it ought to be aired. I do not
know that we can come to a conclusion before we really do an
in-depth analysis, but I know one thing, that the human values,
costs for life, the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters that we
send to represent us I think is not terribly different than
those that we send to represent us on the battlefield.
The one thing we do, and I take great pride in it, is we
rarely, rarely send our troops anywhere without the
infrastructure necessary to protect them, even down to the
nutrition, you name it. And we make mistakes. These are huge,
complicated exercises. But the intent is always to provide the
best in terms of security that we can.
And frankly, I have to tell you something. I do not see it
much different with diplomatic personnel abroad. When we ask
people--this is a great personal sacrifice in almost every
case. People do it. They do it, I think, zealously, fully
committed to their responsibilities, proud to represent their
country, but it is a significant personal inconvenience--
separation from families, et cetera.
And I think the least that we ought to do is make sure that
we do whatever we can to protect their lives and their well-
being.
Now, I was recently in Australia and I went through Embassy
Row there. By the way, if anyone wants to be an ambassador,
that is one incredible place to have to live. It is a very nice
embassy facility. But the fact of the matter is that if you
look at that Embassy Row and you see the countries represented
there, a lot of these structures are what I would call
magnificent. And if we want a bare bones American presence in
places, I think we have to think of the consequences. We are a
great, powerful Nation in the world but it does not mean that
we have to throw our money away. And maybe we have to review
our policies about what kind of companies we bring in to
construct these facilities.
Are there still prohibitions, Madam Secretary, against
native personnel for nonsensitive jobs in our embassies?
Secretary Albright. Well, we have Foreign Service nationals
that work in our embassies who are doing a lot of different
work. In terms of the contracting, I think we have to be
exceptionally careful, depending upon where we are.
Senator Lautenberg. But there are no limitations on the
number of----
Secretary Albright. Of Foreign Service Nationals----
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Secretary Albright. No. I mean they are some of our best
workers.
Senator Lautenberg. I thought that for some time we were
really trying to shy away from employing local folk because of
concerns about security.
Secretary Albright. It depends on the job and the country.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, in any event, I hope that we will
be able, Mr. Chairman, to support these programs. All the
questions are legitimate about cost but I remember the Moscow
embassy and the not-so-funny joke that happened there when we
rebuilt and we rebuilt with the same weaknesses that the
original facility had and spent a ton of money.
One cannot deny the threats that come from terrorist
activity, be it against our embassies in Dar es Salaam or
Nairobi or against important facilities and structures within
this country, like in Oklahoma City or the Trade Center. These
are very real threats and I do not think we dare take them
lightly.
So I encourage you, Madam Secretary, to continue to make
the case as you so skillfully do, and the value of these that
goes beyond simply and not excluding the dollars and cents side
of the thing. So I think the case has to be made for the value
of that impression, that marketing facility, that home, that
structure that stands as sovereign American territory. I think
we have to be exceptionally careful there.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my full
statement be included in the record and I would ask simply
this.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to aid our
consideration of the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the
State Department.
The CJS subcommittee funds some of the most important and
often overlooked elements of the international affairs budget:
The costs of personnel and operations for the State
Department and our embassies and consulates abroad, embassy
security and construction, contributions to international
organizations and peacekeeping, exchange programs,
international broadcasting, and other important organizations
such as the National Endowment for Democracy.
The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, in its excellent
report, has made a number of important recommendations to
improve State Department operations. I hope you will be able to
assure us, Madam Secretary, that you are taking these
recommendations seriously and will put many into practice.
America's diplomats are truly our first line of defense,
helping to shape the global environment, foster positive
changes, and avert conflicts where possible. We need to ensure
that our Foreign Service Officers are selected and trained
well, at every stage of their careers, and have the tools and
resources they need to function effectively.
While I may raise questions focused on areas where I
believe we could do better--like training, personnel
management, and the effective use of embassy construction
funds--I want to assure you at the outset that I believe you
have managed the State Department well and I am inclined to
support your budget request.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the Secretary
and engaging in a thorough consideration of the State
Department budget request.
Thank you.
KOSOVO AND BOSNIA
Senator Lautenberg. In Kosovo, as in Bosnia, we just cannot
seem to establish a multi-ethnic society. The violence between
the groups is so obvious. I am concerned about escalation or
resumption of military conflict there.
Is there anything more you think we can do to help bring
these people together besides simply providing security
services?
Secretary Albright. I will answer but can I just say one
more thing about the diplomats? I think people have a sense
that our diplomats are out there in striped pants at
receptions. Basically, as I travel around, these are very hard-
working people who often live in substandard conditions. When I
was in Moldova, our ambassador there was washing dishes in the
bathtub.
There are some big, fancy places that are great but there
are an awful lot of places that are not. Our diplomats are the
first line of defense and I really appreciate your comparing
them to the military because I think that they deserve that
kind of comparison and that kind of treatment. I invite people
to come down and look at our memorial wall in the State
Department of the number of diplomats that have died in the
service of our country.
On the question of Kosovo, first of all, let me talk about
Bosnia because I think that there, there is movement toward
increasing multi-ethnic cooperation. The various central
institutions are working.
And then as you know, in Croatia, they have just had
democratic elections and chose a democratic prime minister. The
fact that they are elected there is going to have an effect on
Bosnia because President Tudjman supported the Bosnian Croats
in a separatist way so that they would not be part of the
federation. What has happened is that President Ejup Ganic and
Prime Minister Rachanhar are talking about not supporting them
and encouraging them to be a part of the federation, as well as
saying that the Serbs that fled out of Croatia would be
welcomed back. So that itself sends a very important signal.
In Kosovo, what the civilian administrator is trying to do
there is to create more and more of the joint kinds of
administrative councils and start registration for elections so
that the minorities will be respected in various areas. I think
the word multi-ethnic is harder to talk about for Kosovo
because the Serbs are really a minority there, so it is a
matter of respect for minority rights.
But I think we have to push on projects where they work
together or schools where they learn together, and that is the
purpose of the civilian implementation and for which we are
asking money in the Kosovo supplemental.
Senator Lautenberg. I will close with just a reminder.
Whenever I hear people ask the question, ``Are we to be the
policemen of the world?'' and ``How long will we have to be
there?'' it is an obvious but sometimes necessary reminder that
we are in Japan 50 years later, in Germany 50 years later,
South Korea, 50 years later, and we are there for a reason. We
are not there because it is fun to serve in these places that
far away from home. It is a tough task. But we have an
interest, a national interest, in making sure that these areas
remain stable.
And so it is going to be. If you are a leader, you are a
leader. And when you have a leadership responsibility, you have
to fill it in ways that are not always so obvious. And ours, I
think, is to make sure that the American presence is there to
say we are going to follow through on our commitments.
Once again, my commendation, Madam Secretary. You and I are
in the twilight of our careers here but I just heard Senator
Mikulski ask you to continue. She may need the permission of
the next President, but other than that.
Secretary Albright. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Domenici. Madam Secretary, it is nice to be with
you.
Secretary Albright. And with you, Senator.
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY
Senator Domenici. I am going to start with a couple of
parochial issues and then move to a couple of others. First, I
want to say to you that there is a personal frustration of
significant magnitude between your Department, the Justice
Department and this Senator regarding the International Law
Enforcement Academy, called ILEA. I just want to say, you know,
we instructed the State Department that that facility should be
placed at the facility in Roswell, New Mexico.
I met with Eric Holder for an hour 5 or 6 months ago and
with people from your shop and they were going to work
something out. I imagine they were worried about this hearing,
so within the last couple of days they have sent me a letter.
The letter, as I see it, did not accomplish much. It certainly
is not acceptable. But it took 5 months for that letter and
they are hounding my office for an answer within hours.
Well, there is no answer other than that is not what we
intended and that will not work. I do not expect you to tell me
how it is going to work but I just want to remind you that we
did struggle up here and we did suggest that it be located
there in a complex that is surplus for all intents and
purposes, and rather decent. I believe something has to be
worked out, and I would just ask you one more time whether you
and the Justice Department and Eric Holder as their negotiator
could go back to the table and try to get us something that is
more acceptable. I hope you would do that and I await your
answer.
Secretary Albright. I will try, Senator. They have really
worked on this and I think that the proposal that they made is
one that we thought would go toward meeting what you wanted,
that we intend to train U.S. police for U.N. civilian police
missions there and anticipate 500 to 700 trainees a year at a
cost of $3 to $5 million at that place.
But if this does not meet your----
Senator Domenici. It does not.
Secretary Albright. Okay.
Senator Domenici. I would like very much to consider that
today you are saying you will try.
Secretary Albright. I will, sir.
Senator Domenici. Let me just ask about one more item that
is parochial with reference to my State and Louisiana and then
I will move away from that.
ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
I would like to raise an issue with you that is not
directly under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, but I
will not be able to ask you the question elsewhere. It has to
do with the anti-terrorism assistance program. It has been
extremely successful in training over 7,000 law enforcement
security officials from over 40 countries in techniques and
theories of combatting terrorism.
Now, to provide the necessary logistical support and
extensive training and the ranges that go with it, Louisiana
State University has partnered with their Academy for Law
Enforcement and with the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology and their expertise in terrorism. I would like to
note that the State Department's anti-terrorism assistance
program has benefited, from what I can tell, substantially from
the infrastructure investments made by these institutions.
Now, will the Department of State continue, if this program
is needed, to take advantage of these sites for training under
the ATAP program?
Secretary Albright. I know that we have benefited, sir, but
I cannot answer the question. I will get back to you on it.
Senator Domenici. All right. And while we are at it, I will
pose two others. What is the current training schedule? And
another one: the subcommittee has not yet received the full
budget request in the form of budget justification as to what
is proposed for ATAP in the 2001 budget. I wonder if we could
have that.
Secretary Albright. We will get that to you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AND CHINA
I wanted to ask a question because I have not heard your
views yet and it is obvious around here that it is the basic
discussion regarding the WTO [World Trade Organization] and
China. With the white paper and the rather startling statements
about the right to use force if necessary to bring about
reunification in Taiwan, how do you and the President expect
Congress to delink trade from this threatening behavior?
Will the administration push a vote on permanent
normalizing of the relations with China--this is the second
question--if Europeans have not come to an agreement with
China? Would you answer the first one first, however?
Secretary Albright. Sure. First of all, let me--I think we
have to separate out what it is we are trying to do with China.
We believe that it is important to engage with them. Even
though we disagree on a whole host of issues, they are a major
power not only in the region but increasingly globally, and it
is essential that we carry on a, as I have called it, a multi-
faceted relationship with them. So for national interest
reasons, I think it is essential to deal with them.
For economic reasons, we believe that permanent [Permanent
Normal Trade Relations] PNTR is important. They have access to
our market. We want to have access to theirs and we think that
the WTO deal that was negotiated very painstakingly is good for
U.S. exports and for our workers and for farm interests. It
just seems fair that if they can be in our market, we should be
in theirs.
We believe that the timing is important to get this done
early. And the truth is that there will at some stage be a
European deal and I think that whoever--the way the WTO works,
you get the best deal if you are a part of it. And we think
that we have a good deal that the Europeans probably will not
be able to get beyond, but we should work this on our timing,
is the sense that I have.
I know that a lot of people have concerns about the human
rights issues in China. We have sponsored a resolution in the
U.N. Human Rights Commission to condemn China and I think that
that makes our point very clear. I also think that for those
who care about human rights, the opening to China through trade
and business is another way to make our points known.
On the issue of the white paper, I think that we have made
quite clear that the issues between Taiwan and China have to be
resolved peacefully. Our concern over what they have said is we
reject the use of force as far as dealing with that issue and
we think that the Chinese statement is counterproductive to
creating the kind of atmosphere which is necessary for cross-
strait dialogue to go forward. We have made that point quite
clear to the Chinese.
Senator Domenici. Let me ask, do you think the white paper
states a position regarding Taiwan and the use of force that is
different from China's position heretofore?
Secretary Albright. They have basically said before that
they want to resolve it, that they do not have a lot of time
and they have, at various times, made clear that they have not
given up the use of force.
I think part of the issue here is the timing of this--it
was difficult to determine why they did this at this time. We
see their statement as counterproductive, but we have pressed
them on the idea that the resolution of this has to be
peaceful.
Senator Domenici. I assume you have evaluated the situation
on the Hill as being more affected by the statements in the
last white paper regarding Taiwan than any other single issue.
I think, from what I feel around the Senate, the Senate might
have a stronger position toward approving PNTR. There are a few
who would be natural to approving it under their normal trade
positions that are not doing it, and it is because of the
Taiwan situation.
I assume you know that and you know that about the House.
Secretary Albright. Yes. I think, Senator, the very
important point here, and I know that it is hard to do, is to
keep these issues separated. The WTO accession is, we believe,
something that works in our favor and is worth doing for the
national and economic interests that I have stated. And it
brings China into the WTO rule system, allows us to bring trade
disputes to that mechanism, and it is an advantage to us.
It does not mean that we are not concerned about Taiwan
and, as you know, the Taiwan Relations Act does, in fact--we
have obligations in that, which we will continue. But I think
for those who are trying to link these subjects, they should be
looked at separately.
Senator Domenici. I have a series of questions regarding
the proposed Counterterrorism and Security Training Center. I
will just submit those and if you would answer them, I would
appreciate it.
Secretary Albright. We shall do that, yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. And then regarding the year 2000 across-
the-board reduction, albeit small, I have a series of questions
for you to answer for the record as to what you actually did in
effecting that across-the-board reduction on projects and
accounts and I will detail what I would like. I hope you would
expedite your answers.
Secretary Albright. We shall do that.
Senator Domenici. I note the presence of the chairman of
the full committee and whatever other questions I have, I will
submit for the record.
Secretary Albright. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Madam Secretary, thank you very much for
your courtesy meeting with me on other matters. I just dropped
by to thank you for that courtesy. I have no questions right
now.
USIA AND ACDA MERGER
I do think we have some problems because of the merger of
USIA [United States Information Agency] and ACDA [Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency] in terms of your Department. I hope we
can talk about that sometime. It does appear that--let me put
it this way--it is something I do not want to get into too
deeply right now but your Department has 18,000 employees, a
secretary, a deputy secretary, six under secretaries, a
counselor, 37 assistant secretaries or assistant secretary-
equivalents and 94 deputy assistant secretaries.
Justice, that has four times the budget and seven times the
employees, has considerably fewer people on the executive
supervisory level than you do. I am not saying that we should
mandate any more than a review of it, but I do think that it
calls for review to see whether or not that structure that is
in State now of such a top-heavy senior policy-maker group is
warranted in view of the consolidation of those agencies with
yours.
It is something we should look at and not get into any kind
of political wrangling about it, I am sure. If you add the
additional ambassadors-at-large and special representatives,
coordinators and special advisors to that list, it is a
considerable number of senior executives in the system, and
that has a lot to do with the funding problems of your
Department, we think.
Secretary Albright. Well, if I might say first of all, on
USIA and ACDA coming in, it has been remarkably important and
good because having public diplomacy as a part of our daily
policy activities has been essential in this world of
information exchange.
And in terms of having ACDA inside, I think that as we talk
about the threats that face this country, proliferation is the
number one threat to us and I think that having ACDA central to
the workings of the Department is essential.
In terms of the numbers, we currently have a review process
in place for various bureau requests for assistant secretaries
and deputy assistant secretaries and we have an internal
process of justification for the reasons that you have
mentioned.
But in terms of comparing us to the Justice Department,
there are now, I think at this moment, 187 countries in the
United Nations. This is a large world with many countries and
many subdivisions and we need to have officers that are capable
of dealing with specific countries.
I would also state that whereas for 50 years we handled the
world in terms of the red versus the red, white, and blue, we
now have many countries that we must deal with individually and
understand them better and I have a problem, frankly, that we
often do not have enough Foreign Service officers to do the
job.
Then there is another whole thing that is happening. I
think there are certain countries or certain functions where we
have been legislated to have a special advisor or we need to
have a special negotiator.
So I would agree with you that in looking at charts, it
looks like a proliferation of top people, but I would be happy
to justify them with you because I think that we need them
while going through our own process of review, which we are
doing.
Senator Stevens. I am not indicating at all that we are
going to take any action through this committee, as far as I am
concerned, but I do think that the management structure of the
Department is very top-heavy in terms of the division of the
money that you have available. I know, and we have spoken about
this, that your Department has not had the increases it should
have but with that management structure--the money that you do
have available is going to the top side too much.
I think you ought to create a process whereby the structure
is reviewed and some of those positions are eliminated and put
more people into the process of being Foreign Service officers
rather than assistant secretaries. Each of those assistant
secretaries has a separate staff and it becomes a management
problem, I think, in terms of the money that is available.
Again, I just raise it from the point of view of an
examination of the departments covered by this bill. The
division of money in your Department, the management is
significantly different than the other two.
But I wish you bon voyage and success in your trip.
Secretary Albright. Thank you.
EMBASSY SECURITY AND CONSTRUCTION
Senator Domenici. I have one last question.
The President's request for embassy security and
construction is spread out over fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year
2005 and it totals $4.7 billion. The Crowe Report has a list of
recommendations and it states that ``The Department should look
specifically at reducing the number of diplomatic missions by
establishing regional embassies.'' That is a quote from the
report.
While no one, including this Senator certainly, is asking
you to dramatically cut corners with reference to security for
our diplomats overseas. I am on your side in terms of that. If
we are going to err, we ought to err on spending more, rather
than less. But this report recommends that we reevaluate all
the embassies that we have worldwide and decide which ones we
really do need, in light of the suggestions made in the report.
I would just ask, are there ways to reorganize some of the
diplomatic efforts? Is that effort moving forward, since the
receipt of the report?
Secretary Albright. Yes and no. Let me just say this. We
have an additional report done by Louis Kaden on overseas
presence. That report recommends universality of representation
and the importance of right-sizing missions in every part of
the world.
As you know, the embassies serve as platforms for other
agencies abroad. The right-sizing effort is to try to make sure
that we have the right mix of people in various embassies. And
I am working with my Cabinet colleagues to make that happen.
We also are looking at regional hubs that would be able to
do a lot of the support work, technology being what it is. As
Nairobi has been rebuilt, it is rebuilt to be a hub for East
Africa and we are looking at cost savings in that regard.
The other innovation that I think is most useful, that
Ambassador Rohatyn in Paris has come up with, is to have these
presence posts where there are one or two people; for instance,
Lyon was the first one he came up with, so that we have some
representation there for business purposes.
So we are doing a review of what is the appropriate way to
represent America in the 21st century.
SERVICE DELIVERY
Senator Domenici. I would just add by way of observation,
to the extent that your Department is service-oriented and
there are many things beyond service that you do--service to
people, service to institutions--the revolution that is
occurring in the United States and the world in terms of how
productivity has increased in the delivery of services is
clearly known by everyone. That is one of the reasons America
is succeeding with such sustained growth--we have high
productivity increases in service businesses in America.
I would just suggest that such an evaluation of the service
delivery in the State Department might be appropriate, also. It
may be that we are not moving ahead fast enough with new
technology, as fast as a major international institution in
business that has 43 offices and has to serve 26 countries I
just suggest that we do not want the State Department to lag
behind in terms of increasing the productivity of your workers
through innovation.
Secretary Albright. I thank you for that, though I have had
some of the most fascinating discussions with people who are in
the lead in technology, and given the way that our
appropriations process works and getting new computers and all
that, there is no way that we can keep up with the private
sector. It is quite stunning. You know, we just killed our last
Wang computer a couple of years ago.
So this is a serious issue and one of the questions that I
spoke with one of the CEOs of one of these amazing companies is
whether we should not be leasing things or doing something so
that we can stay ahead of the curve. But we are trying to use
it. Our visa systems are automated. We have websites. We do all
the kinds of things we can.
Senator Mikulski pointed this out. I hope you will look at
your book in terms of things that we are doing as a service
department. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Let me just close by saying some of us
are trying to get 2-year appropriation bills. That would help
some. For some of the equipment we probably ought to have 5-
year budgets, but we are not going to get there. We will have a
major argument this year and we might get 2-year appropriation
bills and 2-year budgets, which I think add a little bit to the
capacity to be flexible.
Secretary Albright. Well, we are asking for some advance
appropriations in the building part because it makes it easier
for us to have multiple contracts and to try to buy land ahead
of time and try to take advantage of some of this. That is the
reason for asking for that. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Good luck in your trip.
Secretary Albright. Thanks a lot.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Domenici.
Actually Senator Domenici and Senator Stevens asked two of
the questions I was concerned about. So following up on this
technology issue, we have in this committee tried to improve
the technology capability of the agency. Maybe you can give us
an update as to where you think you stand.
Secretary Albright. Well, I think that we have made major
progress on this in terms of moving things forward. We are
working off of the recommendations of the Kaden Report, the
OPAP [Overseas Presence Advisory Panel] Report, and trying to
apply knowledge management at overseas posts, use of Internet
and Internet-like technology, the development of common
information technology platforms. We continue to work on this.
We have made progress but we have to make more.
I can get you--I will get Under Secretary Cohen to provide
you with some more detailed information.
E-MAIL
Senator Gregg. What is the status of e-mail in the agency?
Do you yet have the capacity to communicate with people out in
the field?
Secretary Albright. We do, but part of our problems always
are how do you do this with classified information and how you
keep classified and unclassified separate.
Senator Gregg. I understand. Well, we are still very
interested in making sure you are on the cutting edge of
technology to the extent you can be. So if you have concerns,
we need to know about them because I think you will find the
committee sympathetic.
Secretary Albright. Thank you.
STAFFING
Senator Gregg. I also want to echo what Senator Stevens
said about staffing. We looked at this huge chiefs-versus-
Indians situation and it does seem like there is an awful lot
of chiefs and maybe not enough Indians. You probably need a lot
more Indians, a lot more folks out there in the field than what
you have, and a fair amount of the costs are being absorbed by
the large overhead of the central office.
Obviously you have responded to that but it remains a
concern for not only the chairman of the full committee but for
myself. Do you have anything else you want to say on that?
Secretary Albright. I know that you have been interested
particularly in what is purportedly my office, which it really
is not. The Office of the Secretary, for instance, currently
has 380 positions but only 17 of them are the ones that are
affiliated with me specifically. The Office of the Secretary
has increased by three since 1990.
So part of what the numbers are that surround the Office of
the Secretary generally is the Operations Center and the
Secretariat. Our Operations Center is up 24 hours a day, deals
with every single problem that the world has to deal with. We
are getting a letter to you that goes into even greater detail
on all of this.
Senator Gregg. You do not see that there would be some
advantage maybe in reducing senior staff, which as Chairman
Stevens mentioned, is very high compared to other agencies, in
exchange for getting more junior staff on board, people out in
the field?
Secretary Albright. I think frankly we need both. All I can
tell you is that the under secretaries--I do not know which one
you would eliminate and I am asking for a new one or exploring
the possibility of an under secretary for security, for all the
obvious reasons.
And I think if you look at the list in terms of what needs
to be done, these are people that, given the complexity of the
issues that now are foreign policy, are highly important. I
mean we have to deal with the proliferation and technology
issues. We have to deal with the variety of human rights and
global issues, such as climate control. We have to deal with
economics on a daily basis and with political issues. We have
to manage the department.
So that is what the top layer is and I think the assistant
secretaries are then assigned according to functional or
regional bureaus.
It is a big world with a lot of problems, and I think we
have to make sure we have the right mix. And I do go through
this review. We have a corporate board, so to speak, of the top
people who are reviewing the issue of the assistant secretaries
and the deputy assistant secretaries.
But it is very much on our minds. I mean we are not into
proliferation of people, but there clearly is a proliferation
of activities and the number of things that now are part of a
foreign policy agenda.
Senator Gregg. That is sort of Parkinson's rule, though,
right?
Secretary Albright. But I think that you would not want us,
for instance, not to be involved in negotiations on open skies
or on hush kits or biotech food or human rights reports. I mean
these are all issues that now are foreign policy issues in one
form or another. We did not ask to have export licenses come
back to the State Department but now review that on a case by
case basis. There is a whole host of technical issues that are
now part of foreign policy, and that takes people.
Senator Gregg. It is possible, as Senator Mikulski
suggested, that you may continue to be Secretary of State
throughout this millennium but assuming you are not and
assuming you are heading into your last year, I would be
interested--not now but as you reflect on how the Department
could be changed, improved, adjusted. I would be interested in
that, structurally and operationally. It would be very useful
to us to have that sort of reflection.
Secretary Albright. I would like to work on that with you.
I used to say, and I guess it was kind of presumptuous at the
beginning of my term, to say that I was going to be the last
Secretary of State of the 20th century. I made that and I
actually am the first of the 21st.
I think that what I have been working on very hard with the
State Department is to create a department that is ready for
the 21st century. We have gone through a lot of changes. I
think the reorganization that we did with all of your help has
been useful and important and we have to keep the process
going. I mean it is not ever a done deal. So I can assure you
that we are reviewing it and I will continue to do so.
Senator Gregg. It was Secretary Daley who said he was the
longest serving secretary of the 21st century.
TAIWAN AND CHINA
Just one last question for my own personal thoughts and
background. What do you see happening--and this is nothing to
do with the operational side--what do you see happening with
this Taiwan and China situation?
Secretary Albright. Well, I think that it is obviously one
that we are watching very carefully, but we have made quite
clear to the Chinese that we expect the Taiwan situation to be
resolved peacefully. That has been something that they had
signed onto and that should not change.
We have obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act. We will
obviously continue to carry those out, and in our various
dealings with the Chinese, which are quite extensive, make very
clear to them that anything but a peaceful resolution of this
issue is not acceptable.
Senator Gregg. Well, recent comments by members of the
Chinese government appear to be very belligerent toward Taiwan
and even toward the United States. Do you view them that way?
Secretary Albright. Well, I think that we have to assess
the context in which they are being given. We obviously are
concerned, but some of it has to do with elections in Taiwan,
some with internal issues in China. China is a country that is
examining its role in the world. They have had as an agenda to
get pieces, by getting Hong Kong and Macau.
Taiwan has been a huge issue to them. It has come up in
every single discussion I have had with them over the years.
They are clearly much more aggressive about saying that Taiwan
is a part of China than they were like 4 years ago. But they
know that the only acceptable course here is a peaceful
reunification and it has to be through a peaceful dialogue. We
have made that point clear.
Senator Gregg. You do not think they would ever use force?
Secretary Albright. They know that it would be of the
gravest consequence to the United States.
Senator Gregg. Did we miss an opportunity in not agreeing
to WTO status for them a year and a half ago when the premier
was here?
Secretary Albright. I think that there was not an agreement
at that stage, but there is now, and I think that we would miss
a huge opportunity if we did not give them permanent trading
status now because that is the way to make sure that we have
access to their markets, that they become a part of the
international rulemaking system.
And while there was not a deal, we felt, last year, there
is a very good, painstakingly negotiated deal now, and I hope
very much that we can get permanent trading status done as soon
as possible.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Gregg. Well, we appreciate your time, Madam
Secretary. It is generous of you to come, and we will continue
to work with you on these issues and enjoy that opportunity.
[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
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY (ILEA)
Question. Are you aware that Congress mandated in last year's
Foreign Operations bill that the Western Hemisphere ILEA ``shall'' be
located at Roswell? Are you aware that this is the third year in a row
that language was included in the Foreign Operations bill?
Answer. I am aware of the language in the fiscal year 2000 Foreign
Operations bill directing that the Western Hemisphere ILEA be
established at Roswell. I am also aware that in the previous years, as
Congress focused on the future of the deBremmond Training Center and
location of the Western Hemisphere ILEA, non-binding language on this
issue was included in the respective Foreign Operations bills and
reports.
Question. Does your Department intend to comply with the law? If
so, when? If not, why not?
Answer. The Department of State intends to comply fully with the
law and has taken concrete steps toward that end. INL funded a Treasury
assessment of remodeling deBremmond, conducted by the Office of Artesia
Operations (OAO) on January 11, 2000. A comprehensive, although
preliminary, report of this assessment has been forwarded to Senator
Domenici's office. The Department currently is engaged in productive
discussions with members of Congress and their staff regarding Senator
Domenici's and Congressman Skeen's detailed proposal to establish an
ILEA for the Western Hemisphere in Roswell which would rely on a
consortium of academic institutions for technical and administrative
support. Once an agreement is reached, the Department is prepared to
begin work on the project immediately.
Question. Will you examine this alternative proposal, share it with
your staff and ask them to work with us this year in a timely manner to
get this problem resolved?
Answer. Department staff and principals have reviewed your proposal
and are fully prepared to work hard to get this problem resolved. We
believe we are in a position to establish the type of academy in
Roswell you describe in your recent proposal. We look forward to
hearing from you regarding our proposal to broaden the focus of the
academy to include worldwide candidates from all ILEAs around the
globe.
Question. In concert with the Department of State, Louisiana State
University (LSU) and the Louisiana State Police Academy (LSPA) have
used discretionary funds to accomplish estate acquisition and
construction activities designed to maintain existing facilities, and
to meet the needs of an expanding ATA program. For example, the State
of Louisiana has recently purchased 1,400 acres of land at a cost of
$3.5 million for installation of ranges for the ATA program. It has
provided land and site preparation funds for the construction of a
specialized firing range.
NMT has also invested its discretionary funds in the ATA program.
It is in the process of a $5 million construction program to provide
expanded billeting space for ATA participants. It has spent over
$100,000 to upgrade explosives ranges, and to convert explosive ranges
to small arms firing ranges. NMT has set aside over 5,000 acres of land
to be available for ATA as maneuver space for ATA field training.
Lastly, NMT has made available the extensive explosives ranges operated
by its Energetic Materials Research and Test Center for use by the ATA
program.
The Department of State has also fully supported this cost sharing
approach, and used its funds to invest heavily in the training
infrastructure for the ATA program. At the LSPA facilities in the
vicinity of Baton Rouge, the DOS has invested over $400,000 for the
construction of a close combat firing facility (``shoot house''), with
the land and site preparation costs paid for by the State of Louisiana.
In short, the benefits by use of the Cooperative Agreement between
the Department of State and the state organizations of Louisiana and
New Mexico have indeed materialized. The total of the individual
investments by each party to the ATA training infrastructure has been
funded in a first rate training complex and training program that could
not have been funded by a lone participant.
The State Department Antiterrorism Assistance Program has benefited
from substantial infrastructure investment made by these host
institutions. Will the Department of State continue to take advantage
of these sites for training under the ATAP program?
Answer. ATA has financed much of the infrastructure improvements
that have been implemented at these host institutions over more than
ten years of program training activity. For those not directly
financed, ATA has indirectly subsidized their construction through
indirect cost rates and by utilizing improvements made by host
institutions. The training site of the New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology (NMT) at Socorro, NM will continue to be the exclusive
site for ATA's presentation of the Rural Border Operations course,
because it offers a unique rural training environment that cannot be
replicated in the Washington, D.C. area.
It should be noted, however, that NMT was already planning to build
new billeting to support other training programs supported by DOD and
the international scientific community. ATA will not be the exclusive
beneficiary of this new construction.
The purchase of a 1,400 acre site in Louisiana was not meant solely
for ATA purposes. The existing training facility near Baton Rouge was
forced to close due to encroachment of residential areas, and a new
site had to be purchased to replace it.
Question. What is the current training schedule?
Answer. The detailed schedule for the balance of calendar 2000 is
attached.
[Clerk's Note.--The attachment was not suitable for production in
the record.]
Question. The Subcommittee has not yet received the State
Department's full budget request in the form of the budget
justification documents. What is proposed for ATAP in the fiscal year
2001 budget?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, the State Department has requested a
total of $68 million for the Anti-terrorism Assistance (ATA) program:
$38 million for the training program and $30 million for the Center for
Anti-terrorism and Security Training.
Question. What is the ``Counterterrorism and Security Training
Center?'' Is it an existing, operating facility or a proposed new
center for the State Department?
Answer. The Center for Anti-terrorism and Security Training, or
CAST, is a center to be established in the Washington, D.C. area that
will bring under one roof the majority of the State Department's Anti-
terrorism Training Assistance (ATA) programs, which train foreign
officials at 7 different locations throughout the United States.
Additionally, it could provide facilities at additional expense for the
Diplomatic Security Services' (DSS) in-service training program, which
is currently conducted at 5 locations.
Bringing ATA and DSS training together will improve the interaction
between DS agents and their foreign counterparts, and it will enhance
the ability of both groups to protect more effectively U.S. personnel
and facilities overseas. CAST is not an existing facility. The total
cost of the CAST, depending on the site selected, will be between $30
million to $50 million.
Question. Where is the State Department currently conducting most
of its training?
Answer. The State Department provides training for foreign security
officials in anti-terrorism methods under the Anti-terrorism Training
Assistance program (ATA) at 7 different locations throughout the United
States, including Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, Virginia, Washington,
D.C., and Oklahoma. The Diplomatic Security Service trains U.S.
Diplomatic Security Agents at five different locations in the
Washington, D.C. area.
Question. What has changed to drive the relocation of training?
Answer. Several factors are driving the State Department's effort
to consolidate its Anti-terrorism Training Assistance program (ATA)
under one roof at the proposed Center for Antiterrorism and Security
Training (CAST).
The proliferation of terrorist groups and their increasing
operational sophistication means the United States must increase its
preparedness and capability to combat terrorism abroad. The core
mission of the ATA program is to train foreign security services in
securing U.S. personnel and embassies in host countries and in
protecting Americans living and traveling abroad. This is our first
line of defense against terrorism overseas.
To meet these challenges, the State Department needs to increase
its ATA training program from approximately 2,000 students per year to
about 3,000 students per year. This increase will require the State
Department to manage ATA more efficiently and effectively.
ATA training is conducted at 7 locations throughout the United
States. The State Department does not have first right use at any of
the facilities where it conducts ATA training. As a result, some
countries must wait up to two years to receive training at existing
locations because training space and facilities are very limited.
Training space is at or near full capacity at the 7 sites currently
being used by ATA. DSS cannot accommodate the requirement for adding
approximately 1,000 ATA students per year with existing facilities.
Moreover, course costs at many of the current ATA training sites
include overhead charges and/or tenant fees of up to 20 percent. These
costs reduce substantially the number of students the Department can
train each year under the ATA program.
The Diplomatic Security Service is also stretched to capacity at
its own in-service training facilities in the Washington D.C. area. The
State Department therefore proposes to establish CAST in the
Washington, D.C. area to train most ATA students and to provide DSS
with facilities for in-service training. Training ATA students and DS
agents at a centralized facility in the Washington area will result in
management efficiencies and cost savings.
CAST also will foster senior-level interaction between foreign
security officials and U.S. counter-terrorism and law enforcement
officials located in Washington, D.C. This interaction cannot be
accomplished while ATA training is dispersed at seven locations
throughout the United States outside Washington. This interaction
builds political will and strong working relationships between U.S. and
foreign security officials, which are crucial to deterring and
preventing terrorist attacks, and effectively managing terrorist
incidents.
ATA students will also benefit from interaction with U.S. law
enforcement agencies and military units which share responsibilities
for securing U.S. personnel and embassies overseas. Training ATA
students at the CAST in the Washington, D.C. area will allow foreign
security officials to interact with Washington agencies, such as DS
agents who are responsible for security at U.S. embassies, with Marine
Corps Security Detachment units which guard U.S. embassies, and with
other agencies responsible for dealing with terrorist threats abroad.
Under ATA's current training facility locations ATA students do not
have the opportunity to interact with U.S. law enforcement agencies,
who are responsible, like their host-country counterparts, for securing
U.S. personnel and embassies overseas.
Question. Can the current providers support more training?
Answer. Through current arrangements, additional instructors can be
provided. However current facilities have little remaining capacity.
The Department of Energy's Nonproliferation and National Security
Institute (NNSI).--The temporary arrangement with DOE was made to
alleviate a facility shortfall until a centralized training facility
can be established.
NMT, Socorro, NM.--The facilities at this location are adequate for
current and future requirements.
Question. Are you absolutely sure the current training provider(s)
cannot provide more training capacity?
Answer. Yes. As previously stated, our primary need is to access
dedicated training facilities to meet our increasing training needs.
Contractors can provide additional instructors, but existing facilities
constrain additional training capacity.
Question. Can you show the proposal will be cost effective by some
cost comparison/analysis?
Answer. Because of the combined redundancy of administrative and
logistical support resources at the existing training facilities, it
will be more cost effective to provide these functions at a centralized
facility. Additionally, the maintenance and operation of a single
facility (such as utilities, custodial, and overhead), will be more
efficient with a consolidated facility.
Question. Do the current site(s) have the capability to conduct
training January-December?
Answer. Yes, the current sites have the capability to conduct
training year round, weather permitting.
Question. Can the proposed site conduct training January-December?
Answer. Yes, the proposed site will be able to conduct year-round
training.
Question. Have your existing training providers failed to provide
training because of inclement weather or some other reason?
Answer. Weather can be a problem for all locations. In our
experience, there have been rare occasions where training has had to be
suspended or delayed.
Question. What is the current community infrastructure support for
the training program i.e. community welcome, social activities, local
community organization support, police agencies support, shopping and
entertainment activities? Compare this with your proposed site. Can you
assure us that community support will be enhanced by the relocation?
Answer. ATA has experienced outstanding community support at all
training locations. Initial contacts with the state and local community
at the consolidated sites under consideration indicate that they are
prepared to provide a quality support environment.
Question. Who currently provides instruction for your courses? Who
will provide instruction at the proposed consolidated training center?
Are you adding Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for the consolidation
proposal? What will you do if the program receives funding cuts in
three or four years?
Answer. With the exception of the official government agencies, all
training is conducted by contractors. No change is contemplated for the
consolidated training center.
Question. Can you compare salaries of support personnel for Baton
Rouge and Socorro as compared to your proposed location?
Answer. The majority of ATA costs for support personnel at Baton
Rouge, LA and at Socorro, NM are based on existing contractor
arrangements. The proposed Washington location will be supported by a
combination of existing direct-hire Department of State employees and
contractors. By centralizing the ATA program in the Washington area,
the State Department will gain cost savings by eliminating the need for
some contractor personnel and by consolidating the duties of other
personnel. Centralization will also allow ATA to gain cost savings by
eliminating redundant administrative costs that are the result of
operating 7 centers nation-wide.
Question. We understand that the Department of Justice has a
program at Fort McClellan. Using that as a model, have you done any
cost comparisons for your proposed site versus the existing sites? I
would think that the bottom line for this subcommittee is to get the
training, not just new infrastructure to maintain.
Answer. Cost comparisons have been prepared for the Fort McClellan
Justice Training Center ($17.9 million) and Indian Head ($23.2
million). This comparison was conducted for training start-up costs
only and excluded infrastructure repair costs. The Fort McClellan
Justice Training Center (JTC) will require additional investment in
infrastructure, which includes repair of water, plumbing, and
electricity systems, as well as asbestos abatement and renovation of
classrooms and dormitories. Additional capital construction costs are
required for specialized training facilities.
Fort McClellan's distance from Washington would prohibit
utilization by the Diplomatic Security Service and other agencies, who
intend to co-locate their training programs with ATA. ATA could conduct
training at the JTC, but ATA capacity and effectiveness would be
diminished.
Question. In last year's Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (Public Law 106-113), the President and the Congress agreed
to an across-the-board reduction of 0.38 percent in discretionary
programs as part of an effort to ensure that spending in fiscal year
2000 did not dip into the Social Security surplus. We were successful
in that effort, but in the process the Department of State had to
reduce program spending by $25.4 million in fiscal year 2000.
It appears from the Administration's report on the implementation
of the across-the-board reduction that most offices and programs within
the Department took a part of the reduction with 60 percent coming from
two accounts--Diplomatic and Consular programs (-$10.6 million) and the
Contributions to International Organizations (-$4.7 million). Another
$2.8 million was taken out of Embassy Security, Construction, and
Maintenance.
Madame Secretary, would you please provide the Subcommittee with
the program, project, and activity details underlying the across-the-
board reductions in each program?
Answer. The International Affairs budget absorbed a total
rescission of $86 million, approximately $72 million of which was cut
from accounts under my direct purview, including both foreign
assistance and State Department operations. Because all of the programs
in the International Affairs budget urgently need funding, the 0.38
percent rescission was applied equitably to most accounts. There are a
few exceptions where accounts/programs had been a critical part of the
final negotiations between the White House and Congress on
appropriations bills. These programs were exempted or protected, with
cuts made elsewhere within an account to permit this. Those exemptions
include: Funding for Wye implementation; U.N. arrears; Funding for
embassy security within the buildings and State operations accounts;
and Population funding.
The following table reflects the distribution of the across-the-
board rescission:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Year
ACCOUNT 2000 Rescission
Enacted
Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Organizations & Programs (IO&P).... $183.00 0.70
Development Assistance/Child Survival/DFA........ 1,943.0 8.29
0
AID Credit Programs.............................. 8.50 0.01
AID Operating Expenses........................... 520.00 1.04
Inspector General (USAID)........................ 25.00 0.05
Freedom Support Act (FSANIS)..................... 839.00 3.19
International Disaster Assistance................ 202.88 0.87
Support for Eastern European Democracy (SEED).... 535.00 2.03
Voluntary Peacekeeping Operations (PKO).......... 153.00 0.58
Economic Support Fund (ESF)...................... 2,815.1 22.91
0
International Military Education & Training 50.00 0.19
(IMET)..........................................
Foreign Military Financing (FMF)................. 4,795.0 6.01
0
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining & 216.60 0.82
Related Programs (NADR).........................
Inter-American/African Foundations (appropriated [19.40] [.07]
in DA)..........................................
Migration and Refugee Assistance & ERMA.......... 637.50 2.42
International Narcotics and Crime................ 305.00 1.16
State Programs................................... 2,903.8 10.92
3
Educational & Cultural Exchanges................. 205.00 0.85
Other State Programs............................. 63.52 0.26
Security & Maintenance of U.S. Missions.......... 742.18 2.82
Contributions for International Peacekeeping 500.00 1.90
Activities......................................
Contributions to International Organizations..... 885.20 4.70
U.N. Arrearage Payments.......................... 351.00 ............
Related Appropriations (e.g., Asia Foundation, 54.38 0.23
NED)............................................
----------------------
Total, Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations..... 18,934 ............
Total Rescission........................... 71.95 71.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What was the maximum reduction taken from any program,
project or activity?
Answer. Generally, the 0.38 percent cut was applied equitably to
most accounts. In order to accommodate the few exempted accounts/
programs, such as Wye implementation and U.N. arrears, cuts were made
to other programs within an account to permit this, with no account
sustaining more than a 0.81 percent cut.
Question. Did the Department follow the provisions of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act that no program, project, or activity
could be reduced by more than 15 percent?
Answer. Yes. The rescission was applied to the overall account
level, with no account absorbing more than a 0.81 percent cut. There
were a few exceptions where accounts/programs were exempted or
protected, with cuts made to other programs within an account to permit
this. Those exemptions include: Funding for Wye Implementation; U.N.
arrears; Funding for embassy security within the buildings and State
operations accounts; and Population funding.
Question. Did the Department follow the guidance of OMB that:
reductions should be taken from the least critical funding available to
the agency; reductions should be considered from funding above the
President's request; no reductions should be taken that would require
reductions-in-force (RIFs); and agencies should make targeted
recommendations rather than across-the-board funding cuts?
Answer. I took OMB's guidance under consideration when I decided
how to distribute the rescission. But I did not follow every aspect of
the guidance.
First, I do not know of any budget accounts I would call ``least
critical.'' All of our funding is urgently needed for pursuing a host
of American interests, from fighting narcotraffickers to immunizing
children, to negotiating trade agreements to benefit U.S. business.
Second, the overall appropriation for Function 150 was less than
the President's request. Moreover, only a very few accounts were
increased over the President's request, and these were in areas such as
assistance to Southeast Europe, or counternarcotics assistance, where
funding was needed.
For this reason, the 0.38 percent rescission was applied equitably
to most accounts under my direct purview, including both foreign
assistance and State Department operations. In accordance with OMB's
guidance, we took steps to ensure that reductions in operating accounts
would not result in RIFs of Department personnel.
There are a few exceptions where accounts/programs were exempted or
protected, with cuts made elsewhere within an account to permit this.
Those exemptions include funding for Wye implementation; U.N. arrears;
funding for embassy security within the buildings and State operations
accounts; and population funding.
CHINA AND WTO MEMBERSHIP
Question. How do you and President Clinton expect the Congress to
delink trade from China's threatening behavior in the world?
Answer. We cannot predict China's future behavior, but deciding in
advance that China will inevitably be a foe is a prescription for a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Alternatively, China's integration into
rules-based institutions of the international community, such as the
WTO, make it more likely that China will become a responsible member of
the international community and play a constructive international role
in the future.
We appreciate the concern that many members of Congress have with
regard to China's intentions toward Taiwan. Senior Administration
officials, in Washington and Beijing, have reinforced our abiding
interest in the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences. We
have said that we reject the use of force or the threat of the use of
force to resolve the Taiwan question. We have stated again our policy
in the Taiwan Relations Act that we ``consider any effort to determine
the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means . . . A threat to the
peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to
the United States.'' We have urged China and Taiwan to take steps that
foster dialogue, reduce tensions and promote mutual understanding. It
is obvious that any aggressive military move by China would have a
devastating impact on U.S.-China trade and economic relations, in
addition to any other consequences.
We have also restored direct dialogue between our two militaries to
promote better understanding of our intentions. In December, the Deputy
Chief of China's People's Liberation Army General Staff was in
Washington for defense consultative talks. In early March, CINCPAC
Commander Admiral Blair visited China. We want to use the military-to-
military dialogue to ensure that there are no misperceptions of our
intentions or our capabilities.
We believe that we must engage with China on important issues of
both economic security and national security. In that regard, China's
accession to the WTO--one-way concessions opening China's markets to
America's farmers, businesspeople and service providers--will be a
positive development reinforcing our economic prosperity.
Specifically, with regard to PNTR, the President submitted a bill
to Congress on March 8 to extend normal trade relations to China on a
permanent basis. The President will certify that when China becomes a
WTO contracting party, ``the terms and conditions of China's accession
to the WTO are at least equivalent to those agreed between the United
States and China on November 15, 1999.'' We are confident that when the
bill is considered on its merits, Congress and the American people will
realize that it is in the interest of the United States to pass PNTR.
Only in this way will we be able to enjoy the full benefits of China's
accession to the WTO.
Our broad agenda in China is designed to pursue American interests
and to effect change there. Trade and the WTO--along with our resolute
across-the-board engagement to ensure American security--will help
reinforce trends toward a more open society in China.
Question. Will the Administration push a vote on permanent normal
trading status for China if the Europeans have not come to an agreement
with China over its WTO membership.
Answer. The President has stated his intention to work with the
Congress to extend permanent normal trading status to China as soon as
possible. The President submitted a bill to Congress on March 8 to
extend PNTR and said he would certify that when China becomes a WTO
contracting party, ``the terms and conditions of China's accession to
the WTO are at least equivalent to those agreed to between the United
States and China on November 15, 1999.'' Whatever final report is sent
by the China Working Party Group to the WTO Council in Geneva later
this year will therefore only improve our excellent bilateral
agreement, which was made public on March 14. Thus, we believe when the
bill is considered on its merits, the Congress and the American people
will realize that it is in the interest of the United States to pass
PNTR. Only in this way will we be able to enjoy the full benefits of
China's accession to the WTO.
EMBASSY SECURITY
Question. The President's request for Embassy Security and
Construction is spread out over the 2000 to 2005 period and totals $4.7
billion.
The Crowe Report, in its list of recommendations, states ``The
Department should look specifically at reducing the number of
diplomatic missions by establishing regional embassies.''
While no one is asking you to cut corners on providing security to
our diplomatic overseas, this report clearly recommends reevaluating
all embassies and facilities we have world wide and decide which ones
we need.
Are there ways to regionalize some of our diplomatic efforts?
Answer. As a follow-on to the Accountability Review Boards chaired
by Admiral Crowe, the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP)--of which
Admiral Crowe was also a member--looked at the possibility of a greater
use of regional embassies. OPAP, however, did not itself make a
specific recommendation on regional embassies. Instead, the panel
concluded that ``a universal, on-the-ground overseas presence is more
critical than ever to the nation's well-being.''
The Department of State strongly concurs with that conclusion. As
OPAP confirmed, policy functions are best carried out through face-to-
face interaction. We believe it is critical to retain the general
principle of universality, except in limited circumstances.
The Department continues to pursue the regionalization of support
functions either overseas (e.g., the Frankfurt Regional Support Center)
or in the United States (e.g., the Fort Lauderdale Regional Center, the
Portsmouth National Visa Center, the Williamsburg Diversity Lottery
Center, and the Charleston Financial Service Center).
Question. I have been a proponent of changing our budget process in
Washington so that we move to a two-year budget cycle. My hopes would
be that we could concentrate more in the off-year on oversight
activities, something that seems to be lacking as we devote more and
more time to the appropriations process.
How do you think biennial budgeting would affect the State
Department and the spending and operations of the foreign affairs
apparatus?
Answer. I am open to exploring the adoption of biennial budgeting
practices, and it may yield some benefits for the Department. On the
plus side, we would gain a better sense of how much money would be
available over a longer period of time (24 months) for managing the
Department and our posts abroad. This would likely benefit our planning
and management efforts.
However, biennial budgeting would not remove the need for mid-year
supplementals in order to respond to unanticipated contingencies.
Supplemental requests and budget amendments have become a fact of life
in the international affairs area, where we have very little
contingency funding to respond to emergency opportunities and threats.
I am more concerned about the level of resources we are
appropriated rather than changes in the timing of when funds are
appropriated. The biennial concept will not work unless we seek and are
appropriated adequate and realistic funding levels for the work we know
we must do.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposed only $3.1 million
for overseas advising. The fiscal year 1999 appropriated amount was
$3.2 million, and the fiscal year 2000 estimate was only $3.07 million.
Overseas educational advising is a network of USIA-supported offices
where prospective foreign students interested in American higher
education can secure information about pursuing educational
opportunities in the United States. These centers are important
elements of public diplomacy as they serve as gateways for ensuring a
continued flow of students to the United States.
As you know, other countries are competing aggressively to attract
international students to their universities, and last year, Prime
Minister Tony Blair made an official statement highlighting the U.K.'s
plan to capture a larger share of the foreign student market.
Given our nation's interest in maintaining its leading role in
attracting foreign students to our universities and institutions, can
you tell us why State Department-supported overseas advising centers,
which serve as gateways for ensuring the flow of foreign students to
the United States, are provided with only level funding?
Answer. We share the view that overseas advising centers make a
critical contribution by encouraging students from other countries--
often destined to become the future leaders of their countries--to
undertake university studies in the United States. These students
represent a major source of income to the United States; according to
the most recent U.S. Department of Commerce figures, education is the
fifth largest U.S. service export amounting to more than $8 billion and
resulting in over 100,000 U.S. jobs. Even more importantly, the
experiences of these students while they are in the United States
inform their understanding of our country, our society, our culture,
and our policies for the rest of their lives.
The Administration has attached high priority to educational
advising, and to international exchange programs in general, as a tool
in support of the Department's conduct of international relations.
However, with very limited resources for all international relations
activities, we have had to set priorities. The Administration's fiscal
year 2001 request for overseas educational advising activities will
enable us to sustain these programs at their current levels. We hope in
the future to have adequate resources for all of these important
programs.
MIAS AND ISRAEL
Question. Can you please provide me an update of how these efforts
to assist Israel are proceeding?
Answer. The United States continues to pursue every serious lead to
ascertain the fate of IDF MIAs Zachary Baumel, Yehuda Katz and Zvi
Feldman.
We deeply sympathize with the pain of all the families of the
missing soldiers and with their determination to continue the search
for their sons. We will continue our efforts to help them.
We are in close contact with the Israeli Government and the
families of the MIAs to help resolve this important issue. The
President and I have raised this issue repeatedly with officials at the
highest levels in Syria and with senior Palestinian officials.
DEVELOPMENTS IN BELARUS
Question. I remain concerned over violations of the principles of
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Belarus under the
authoritarian leadership of Aleksandr Lukashenka. The opposition in
Belarus deserves our support as they seek to overcome the legacy of
Communism and authoritarianism and build a democratic society. In a
particularly disturbing development, several prominent opposition
leaders have simply disappeared.
Lukashenka has undertaken a series of measures designed to suppress
Belarus's opposition. Peaceful public protests and demonstrations have
been broken up by the authorities and independent opposition newspapers
are under constant pressure from the government.
Of the resources available for the NIS countries, why has the
Department allocated so little to support those programs aimed at
strengthening independent media, human rights, civil society,
independent trade unions and the democratic opposition in Belarus?
Are there funds from regional programs that the Department could
make available this year for these purposes?
Answer. The Administration places a high priority on democracy-
building assistance to Belarus. In fiscal year 1999, over two-thirds of
the U.S. Government's $12.36 million Belarus assistance budget was
devoted to such programs--over $8 million. A substantial portion of
this assistance was provided in the form of small grants directly to
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), independent media outlets and
other democratically oriented organizations. The remainder supported
capacity-building training and exchange programs in areas such as NGO
development, political party-building and independent media.
For fiscal year 2000, the U.S. Government's democratic and economic
reform programs for the NIS have had to take an overall cut of $120
million due to the under-funding of the Administration's NIS assistance
request by 19 percent, increased earmarks, and substantial funding
being provided for the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative (ETRI). As
a result, the U.S. Government's Belarus assistance budget is expected
to decrease by approximately $4.7 million. However, we are working
closely with U.S. NGOs and other donors to ensure that independent
media and other advocates for democratic change in Belarus continue to
receive the support that they so urgently need. In addition, the State
Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor is in the
process of identifying a limited amount of its own funding from its
Human Rights and Democracy Fund for use in Belarus.
ANTI-CORRUPTION INITIATIVE
Question. Has the Department developed a strategy for advancing an
anti-corruption initiative within the OSCE? Is the Department working
with representatives of the business community and other interested
NGOs to gain support for such an initiative?
Answer. Yes, the Department has developed a strategy to advance an
anticorruption initiative in the OSCE. The Istanbul Summit, at U.S.
initiative, directed the Permanent Council to consider how the OSCE can
contribute to this issue. On March 3, a strong U.S. interagency team
gave a comprehensive presentation on the results of Vice President
Gore's February 1999 Global Forum on Fighting Corruption to a working
group established by the Permanent Council for this purpose. We are
working with the present and prospective Chairmen-in-Office to assure
that corruption issues are fully and appropriately examined in OSCE
seminars, meetings and its Economic Forum. The Department of Commerce
is participating actively in this initiative, and we are consulting
with interested NGOs. A member of the board of the U.S. national
section of Transparency International was a public member of our
delegation to the 1999 OSCE Review Conference. Corruption is
increasingly recognized as a significant challenge to the core purposes
of the OSCE, and helping members to control and combat corruption is
becoming an important continuing element of OSCE activities.
Question. Is the U.S. working closely with the Romanian Government
to advance an anti-corruption initiative within the OSCE framework?
Answer. Yes. On March 28-29, Romania will host a regional forum on
fighting corruption to be attended by 15 governments from Central, East
and Southeast Europe. All are OSCE members, and we expect their
regional meeting will help advance attention to corruption in the OSCE.
The U.S. provided some funds to help Romania meet costs of this
conference. A strong interagency working-level U.S. team will travel to
Bucharest to observe this meeting, and Vice President Gore is sending a
message of support. This meeting follows the February 1999 Washington
Global Forum on Fighting Corruption, and will help prepare for the
Second Global Forum in the Netherlands in May 2001, which the U.S. will
cosponsor. Romania also participates in the Anti-Corruption Initiative
of the Stability Pact, to whose development the U.S. contributed. Our
bilateral assistance programs include significant anticorruption
activities. As the prospective OSCE Chairman-in-Office for 2001,
Romania has indicated that it will actively promote OSCE attention to
problems of corruption. We will continue to consult closely with and
support these OSCE activities on this subject.
Question. The FBI has played an important role in promoting
cooperation among the countries of southeastern Europe in combating
organized crime. This is a matter that has direct implications for law
enforcement here in the United States given the extensive network of
organized criminal elements, including those located in that region and
elsewhere in the OSCE region. How is the Department supporting the
Bureau's international operations, including those in southwestern
Europe as well as the International Law Enforcement Academy in
Budapest?
Answer. The FBI, at State Department request, has participated in
U.S. interagency and international assessments of organized criminal
activity in Bosnia and Kosovo. Such assessments add to available
information needed to address organized crime and its effect on the
United States. The FBI has been very supportive of our foreign policy
goals in the region and has provided expertise in crime scenes,
forensics, and organized crime to assist special investigations in
Bosnia and Kosovo.
The FBI serves as the lead U.S. agency at the International Law
Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in Budapest and provides a special agent as
the resident director. Since opening its doors in 1995, ILEA Budapest
has trained over 4,500 criminal justice professionals and law
enforcement officers from 26 countries. In addition to providing
funding, the Department coordinate support to ILEA Budapest through an
interagency steering group, composed of representatives from the
Departments of State, Justice, and Treasury, to provide policy guidance
and set program priorities. ILEA is funded by the State Department.
OSCE MISSIONS
Question. Has the Department developed a strategy for closing down
OSCE missions or are these activities turning into permanent outposts
of the OSCE?
Answer. The Department has introduced a proposal at the OSCE to
establish a procedure for the orderly transformation and termination of
missions. The OSCE Mission mandates are reviewed for extension by the
Permanent Council every six months on average. Our goal is to focus
attention on the review process, formalize the discussion, and ensure
that participating States carefully evaluate whether conditions in the
host country have improved sufficiently to warrant a change in Mission
size or its mandate.
In June 1999 the OSCE Mission to Ukraine was closed and replaced
with a smaller project coordination center. More recently, the OSCE's
Skrunda Radar project, which had successfully overseen closure of a
highly sensitive former Soviet military installation in Latvia, was
shut down in December 1999. The OSCE also reached consensus in March
2000 on reducing the staffing level for the Croatia Mission from 250 to
225, with additional reductions anticipated when further improvements
are noted. This action was in direct response to positive declarations
and tangible actions taken by the new Croatian government in improving
refugee returns and expediting citizenship claims. The U.S. is now
exploring how the OSCE can acknowledge progress made by the Baltic
States in meeting their OSCE commitments.
Question. Nearly a decade after the OSCE Mission to Estonia opened,
what, if any aspects for the Mission's mandate have not been fulfilled?
Answer. The mandate of the OSCE Mission in Estonia calls for the
promotion of integration and better understanding between the
communities in Estonia. The primary focus of the Mission is to evaluate
the inclusion of the sizeable Russian-speaking minority in terms of
citizenship, language usage, social services and employment.
The Government of Estonia has made considerable progress in
promoting the social integration of the Russian-speaking minority. It
has fulfilled the thirty recommendations made by the OSCE High
Commissioner for National Minorities, although implementing legislation
remains outstanding in several areas, including language. A national
social integration program has been developed but not yet promulgated.
We believe a continued OSCE presence is required, in a modified form
and for a limited time, to monitor implementation of these remaining
issues, and to ensure an accurate, objective assessment of the process
of social integration, which affects regional stability.
INTERNATIONAL POLICE FORCE IN KOSOVO
Question. Are our European allies providing their share of
resources and personnel to accomplish these and similar tasks in
Kosovo?
Answer. Our European partners are providing substantial
contributions to the U.N. International Police forces.
According to the U.N., as of March 23, European members of OSCE had
pledged 1,645 officers (38.7 percent of the total number pledged) of
which 1,145 had already been deployed (42.5 percent of the forces
deployed).
To address the lack of judges, UNMIK promulgated a regulation 2000/
6, which authorizes the appointment of international judges and
prosecutors. UNMIK is now in the process of appointing a small number
of international judges and prosecutors. Foreign contributions in this
area will remain limited, as the legal experts sought need to have a
basic knowledge of FRY law and FRY legal procedures.
As of March 22, only two international judicial personnel were
acting in Kosovo (one American and one Swede).
We have urged our European partners to deploy their force more
quickly and to consider additional support for police and judicial
system.
Question. Can you provide the Committee with a breakdown of
commitments of personnel and resources for Kosovo operations by each
NATO country and those actually provided?
Answer. Attached is a chart describing pledges and commitments of
NATO countries as of March 23.
This chart is based on data provided by the U.N., which change
quite often.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIP/KOSOVO \1\ FOR NATO MEMBER STATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pledge of
Countries Pledge Current Special
Strength Police \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belgium.......................... 5 5 ...........
Canada........................... 100 92 ...........
Czech Rep........................ 6 6 ...........
Denmark.......................... 20 26 ...........
France........................... 78 78 ...........
Germany.......................... 420 268 ...........
Greece........................... 15 ........... ...........
Hungary.......................... 10 10 ...........
Iceland.......................... 2 2 ...........
Italy............................ 82 45 ...........
Luxembourg....................... ........... ........... ...........
Netherlands...................... 50 1 ...........
Norway........................... 25 15 ...........
Poland........................... 25 9 115
Portugal......................... 70 25 ...........
Spain............................ 41 35 115
Turkey........................... 29 49 ...........
UK............................... 60 60 ...........
US............................... 550 489 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total authorized UNIP forces is 4,718 of which 3,593 CIVP0L and
1,225 Special Police.
UNITED STATES-EUROPEAN UNION HUSHKIT DISPUTE
Question. In April 1999, the European Union passed legislation that
would introduce a number of restrictions on the use of aircraft
equipped with ``hushkit'' noise reduction devices within the EU. This
regulation raises several major areas of concern for the U.S.--
primarily that this initiative will undermine the International Civil
Aviation Organizations's (ICAO) role as the premier standard-setting
body for aviation technical and environmental matters, and that the
proposed regulation is based on a design standard, which discriminates
against U.S. manufacturers while it protects European aircraft.
For over two years the U.S. has taken every possible step to
express our concerns over this new rule, to no avail. Although they
have agreed to delay implementation, the EU has refused to withdraw the
regulation. Negotiations have reached an impasse.
Are you considering an Article 84 relief petition at ICAO to
counter unfair EU restrictions on the use of ``hushkits'' for U.S.
civil aviation? Have you informed the EU? Where does this stand?
Answer. Negotiations with the EU have reached an impasse.
Therefore, the USG decided to initiate a proceeding against European
Union member states under Article 84 of the 1944 Convention on
International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) to establish that
the hushkit regulation violates the Convention, and to force its
withdrawal. We filed our case with ICAO on March 14.
We have stated to the EU and to ICAO that we are prepared to agree
to a suspension of the Article 84 proceedings if the EU suspends
implementation of the hushkit regulation. We are awaiting the EU's
response.
Our goal in filing the Article 84 case was to bring this issue back
under the purview of ICAO, where it belongs. Noise standards should be
negotiated multilaterally, and ICAO is the internationally recognized
standard setting body for aviation technical and environmental matters.
We are committed to the development of new noise standards within
the ICAO framework and are prepared to work with the EU and other ICAO
member states to ensure their implementation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
LIBYA/PAN AM 103
Question. Recent press reports suggest the Administration is
considering easing U.S. sanctions against Libya. Would you agree that
U.S. sanctions should not be eased until and unless Libya has met all
the conditions set out in the U.N. resolution for lifting of sanctions,
including payment?
Answer. Consistent with U.N. Security Council resolution 1192, U.N.
sanctions against Libya were suspended immediately upon notification by
the U.N. Secretary General to the Security Council that the Lockerbie
bombing suspects had arrived in the Netherlands for the purpose of
trial before a Scottish Court in the Netherlands. Pursuant to UNSC
Resolutions 731, 748, 883 and 1192, there are other issues that must be
addressed before U.N. sanctions can be permanently lifted. They are:
payment of appropriate compensation; Libyan acceptance of
responsibility for the actions of its officials; renunciation of
support for terrorism; and cooperation with the investigation and the
trial.
Along with other UNSC members, we will address the question of
lifting U.N. sanctions in accordance with the relevant Security Council
resolutions. Permanent lifting of the sanctions would require action by
the Council. We believe the Libyan government can and must meet the
requirements provided for in the relevant UNSC resolutions. If it does
so, we would support lifting U.N. sanctions.
U.S. unilateral sanctions are distinct from U.N. sanctions and, in
fact, pre-date the Lockerbie bombing. They were imposed in 1986 by
executive order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
in response to an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the policies
and actions of the Libyan Government.
We are not currently considering lifting U.S. unilateral sanctions.
In order to do so, we would insist, first, that Libya comply with U.N.
Security Council requirements, including the compensation requirement.
In addition, we would expect Libya to cease opposition to the Middle
East Peace Process, which would be concrete evidence that it has ended
its support for Palestinian rejectionist groups, and stop aggravating
African regional conflicts.
Given Libya's history of support for terrorist activities and
intervention outside its borders, we will proceed with caution.
U.N. DUES
Question. Last year, we adopted the Helms-Biden legislation
authorizing payment of part of our U.N. arrears. I, for one, believe
the United Nations is critical to advancing U.S. interests and values,
so we shouldn't continue to jeopardize our leadership there by making
unrealistic demands. How are the conditions in the Helms-Biden
legislation being received in New York? What progress have we made in
meeting these requirements?
Answer. Our most pressing Helms-Biden issue is revision of the U.N.
assessment rate scales. We are working to mobilize the entire U.N.
membership in an agenda for comprehensive scale reform aimed at
creating a flatter, more objective system. Many Member States share our
concern about the anomalies and inequities embedded in the current
assessment methodology. Our efforts are focused on getting major
players at the U.N. to recognize that financial responsibilities are
part and parcel of playing a leadership role at the U.N. While certain
of the least developed countries are not in a position to shoulder an
additional dues burden, there are many other U.N. Members that can and
should pay more. Our proposals address this problem in a transparent
and fair way, and are aimed to ensure that all countries with the
capacity to pay are contributing their fair share. Along with other
senior Department staff, I have been raising this issue with senior
foreign officials at every opportunity, and Ambassador Holbrooke and
his team have been meeting with 5-6 delegations per day to explain our
proposals and urge their support. This is complemented by a similar
mobilization for scale reform in capitals through our embassies. Our
message seems to be getting across, and while it is too early to
predict the ultimate outcome, we are cautiously optimistic about
effecting significant change to the assessment system.
We are also making good progress on other Helms-Biden provisions.
Last year, the U.S. regained a seat on the U.N.'s Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions, allowing us to participate
first-hand in review and recommendations on budgetary and other
administrative proposals. There has been progress at the U.N. on
program evaluation, one of our major goals. We have also achieved
critical successes in three major U.N. specialized agencies--the Food
and Agriculture Organization, International Labor Organization, World
Health Organization--where zero nominal growth budgets have been
adopted, and where we are working with Member States and the
organizations' Secretariats to move forward in the areas of internal
oversight and program evaluation. There is more work to be done, but we
continue to work toward implementation of these reforms which will make
these organizations more effective and allow us to pay our arrears, and
to do so in a way which enhances rather than erodes our relationships
with the organizations and Member States.
OVERSEAS PRESENCE ADVISORY PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
Question. The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel made a number of
excellent recommendations. I understand the Department will soon submit
a written report to Congress on how it is following through on those
recommendations. I would be grateful if you could give us a preview of
what the Department is doing, or plans to do, on the basis of the Kaden
panel's report. In particular, what are you doing to strengthen
training for Foreign Service Officers at every level, including
training in personnel and resource management? What are you doing to
ensure that we have the right number of people with the right skills
and responsibilities--from State and other agencies--at our overseas
posts? How are you planning to strengthen the role of Ambassadors in
overseeing U.S. relations with host countries?
Answer. The Department of State's March 14 report to the Congress
describes our overall response to the OPAP report's recommendations
(copy attached). In answer to your specific questions, we offer the
following.
In response to the OPAP report and other management reports written
in recent years, State's Foreign Service Institute (FSI) has undertaken
a number of new initiatives to ensure that employees have access to
comprehensive leadership and management training programs throughout
their careers. A major keystone was the creation of a new Leadership
and Management School on October 1, 1999. This new school serves as the
agency locus for programs covering the gamut of leadership and
management skills for the first-time supervisor, for managing crises,
leading teams, and managing change, to leading embassies and consulates
overseas as Consuls General, Deputy Chiefs of Mission and Ambassadors.
FSI also has published the Leadership and Management Training
Continuum, which provides a blueprint for developing leadership and
management skills, identifying which courses are appropriate for each
career level and the Civil Service competencies and Foreign Service
precepts they address. The Continuum has been distributed widely, both
domestically and overseas. Management training modules also are
incorporated in courses throughout the FSI curriculum, beginning with
the junior officer orientation program and extending through various
tradecraft training programs. In addition, leadership skills are
emphasized in the DCM/Principal Officer Seminar, Ambassadorial Seminar,
and Senior Seminar. A significant portion of our training initiatives
are focused on mid-career personnel, preparing them for the senior
level responsibilities they must be prepared to assume.
State and other agencies have formed an interagency committee that
is looking at how to implement OPAP's right-sizing recommendations. The
committee has begun to conduct pilot programs at our missions in the
following countries: India, France, Georgia, Jordan, Mexico, Nigeria,
and Thailand. The purpose of the pilots is both to make recommendations
for right-sizing these missions and to develop decision criteria that
can be applied universally. The target date for completion of the pilot
program exercise is June 2000. We plan to request additional funding in
fiscal year 2002 and beyond to conduct right-sizing reviews and then
proceed, on an interagency basis, with recommendations for right-sizing
all agencies' staffing at all posts on the schedule proposed by OPAP:
half within two years, and the balance in the subsequent three years.
OPAP's recommendations on Chief of Mission authority are
commendable objectives which the Department of State will pursue. Given
the time required to complete interagency review, coordination, and
clearance, however, we will defer new documentation outlining COM
responsibility and authority until next year, when it can be carried
out as part of the normal transition to the new administration.
report pursuant to section 607 of the admiral james w. nance and meg
donovan foreign relations authorization act, fiscal years 2000 and
2001, as enacted in the consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year
2000, public law 106-113
REPORT ON OVERSEAS PRESENCE-- MARCH 2000
Introduction
Pursuant to section 607 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg
Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and
2001, as enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-113), the Department of State is providing this
report on the results of the Department of State's review of the report
of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP).
The issues that OPAP addresses are familiar. Well before the
report's release, the Department of State was working to adapt our
foreign policy institutions to a new era in which the international
political landscape has changed, security threats are unpredictable,
many federal agencies are represented overseas, and the use of modern
technology is essential. We have responded by undertaking an historic
reorganization of the foreign affairs agencies, placing increased
stress on the protection of our employees and their families, improving
training, upgrading communications, emphasizing public diplomacy, and
reaching out to groups--such as OPAP--for independent advice.
The Department welcomes OPAP's emphasis on the urgency of improving
our overseas mission infrastructure and capital plant, the importance
of investing in human resources, and the indispensable nature of
universal representation. We strongly agree with the Panel's focus on
the need to ensure stronger interagency teamwork under chiefs of
mission (COMs) abroad and the President and the Secretary of State at
home.
OPAP makes recommendations in eight areas: Security; Right-sizing
America's overseas presence; Capital needs; Human resources and
training; Information technology; Consular services; Administrative
services; and Ambassadorial authority.
This report outlines the Department's response in each area. It
also provides supplemental information to address the specific elements
required in section 607(b)(2) of the Act.
Although this report reflects only the Department of State's views
and actions, OPAP's recommendations affect all USG agencies operating
overseas. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of our overseas
operations must be an interagency effort, and will require as well the
support of the White House and the Congress.
Security
OPAP fully endorses the recommendations of the Accountability
Review Boards (ARBs) that looked at the August 1998 bombings of the
U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. This includes the need
worldwide for approximately $1.4 billion annually over 10 years for
sustaining capital improvements, security upgrades, and maintenance.
The Department of State accepted the ARB recommendations after
their 1999 release and welcomes OPAP's endorsement of them. We continue
to make solid progress toward full accomplishment of the ARB
recommendations. We support OPAP's call for a ``pro-security culture,''
including the recognition that security is the responsibility of all
employees from every agency and expanded security training for
employees and their families.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department
of State seeks over one billion dollars for post security initiatives,
including $500 million for new diplomatic facility construction (of
which $50 million is for USAID), $200 million for additional steps to
protect existing buildings from terrorist attack, and $344 million for
maintaining and enhancing operational security.
Right-Sizing America's Overseas Presence
OPAP recommends creating a process ``to right-size our overseas
presence, reduce the size of some posts, close others, reallocate staff
and resources, and establish new posts where needed.'' Right-sizing
would be carried out by a new, permanent Interagency Overseas Presence
Committee chaired by the Department of State.
The right-sizing recommendations are a critical element in
implementing an overarching framework to guide the allocation of
interagency staff and resources in U.S. diplomatic and consular posts.
The President supported these recommendations in a February 10
statement on OPAP:
I have asked the Secretary of State to lead a cabinet
committee to implement the Panel's recommendations regarding
rightsizing. This process will look at the full range of agency
staff who serve in U.S. missions abroad, and make
recommendations about the appropriate levels and skills with
which we should staff our embassies in the new century.
In line with that, State and other agencies have formed an
interagency committee that is looking at how to implement right-sizing.
As of early March, the committee has begun to conduct pilot programs at
the following posts: Amman, Jordan; Bangkok, Thailand; Lagos and Abuja,
Nigeria; Mexico City, Mexico; New Delhi, India; Paris, France; and
Tbilisi, Georgia.
The purpose of the pilots is both to make recommendations for
right-sizing these posts and to develop decision criteria that can be
applied universally. The target date for completion of the pilot
program exercise is June 2000. We plan to request additional funding in
fiscal year 2002 and beyond to conduct right-sizing reviews and then
proceed, on an interagency basis, with recommendations for right-sizing
all agencies' staffing at all posts on the schedule proposed by OPAP:
half within two years, and the balance in the subsequent three years.
Capital Needs
OPAP recommends major changes in the way the U.S. Government
builds, renovates, maintains, finances, and manages our overseas
diplomatic facilities.
To address the issues raised in the OPAP report, we have
established an interagency Overseas Facilities Working Group, chaired
by the Department of State. It will identify and implement secure
facility solutions for our representatives overseas. The working
group's functions are to translate right-sizing decisions into
facilities requirements and to examine the resources needed to support
the facilities requirements of every agency present at a mission. The
working group will serve as a permanent body to address overseas
facilities support needs. It will promote improved coordination and
cooperation in planning, designing, and constructing or reconstructing
new and rehabilitated facilities. It will also explore alternative
financing mechanisms, including direct appropriations, capital rent,
and the use of working capital funds.
Human Resources and Training
OPAP's recommendations on human resources echo the results of the
1999 ``War for Talent'' report prepared for the Department of State by
McKinsey and Company. The Department continues to pursue a variety of
initiatives focused on recruitment, promotion, quality of life issues,
and training. For example, to broaden and diversify the pool of Foreign
Service Officer candidates, we have implemented a pilot Alternate
Examination Program; and we have revised assignment policies for new
tandem (i.e., married couple) hires. We have adopted revised time-in-
class and time-in-service rules and new language regulations. We are
also piloting a 360 degree performance review system to be used in the
assignment process. To address Foreign Service spousal employment
needs, we have negotiated 126 bilateral work agreements with other
countries and have issued new regulations governing home-based
businesses overseas.
We have expanded the range of training programs. For example, we
have established a School of Leadership and Management Training at the
Foreign Service Institute (FSI); we have expanded ``distance learning''
that permits employees to receive training in the field as well as at
FSI; we are providing foreign national employees with more professional
training; and we are mounting an outreach program to make other
agencies aware of the training we can offer their employees and
families as they prepare for their overseas assignments. Further, we
agree with OPAP that all employees and their family members--regardless
of employing agency--must receive required security training before
reporting to post for an overseas assignment.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget includes $3 million to
support OPAP-related training initiatives. Increased training in line
with OPAP's recommendations will require additional funding in fiscal
year 2002 and beyond.
Information Technology
The thrust of OPAP's information technology (IT) recommendations is
to put all overseas USG employees from all agencies on common
unclassified and classified computer and telecommunications platforms.
As part of the right-sizing effort, we have established an
Interagency Technology Subcommittee, chaired by the Department of
State's Chief Information Officer, with membership drawn from those
Cabinet Departments that have a significant foreign affairs presence
overseas. The subcommittee will propose ways to apply Knowledge
Management to facilitate the sharing of vital information at overseas
posts, to develop a common IT platform for all agencies at overseas
posts, and to apply Internet and Internet-like technology to support
interagency collaboration and communication with the public. The
subcommittee will define operations requirements, select specific
enabling strategies, and identify the funding required to implement
those strategies.
In cooperation with the subcommittee, State will conduct an IT
pilot at two posts to demonstrate how a common platform would work. We
intend to select those two posts from among those which actively
participate in the right-sizing effort. The President's fiscal year
2001 budget includes $17 million in support of the recommendation for a
common information technology platform. While the Department will
establish the appropriate backbone for a common platform, each agency
at post will be responsible for purchasing its own equipment.
Consular Services
OPAP recommends increased staffing flexibility covering consular
positions to meet surges in service demand; permanent retention by the
Department of State of all fee-generated consular revenue, uncoupled
from the Department's overall obligation authority; continued
improvements in customer satisfaction; and an expanded best-practices
program.
We welcome OPAP's proposal that State retain all fee-generated
consular revenue. We will discuss the OPAP fee retention recommendation
with appropriate congressional members and committees, with a view
toward proposing legislation in fiscal year 2002 if practicable.
State is also studying OPAP's recommendation to transfer the
control of consular positions overseas from the regional bureaus to the
Bureau for Consular Affairs. This is an issue that we have previously
considered. There are good arguments both for retaining the current
organizational structure and for moving the positions to the control of
Consular Affairs. We have not yet made a decision on the final
disposition of this recommendation.
The Bureau of Consular Affairs continues to pursue the customer
service initiatives and the best-practices program already underway at
the time the OPAP report was prepared. We take enormous pride in noting
that Consular Affairs is ranked in the top quintile of customer
satisfaction by the American public, as tracked by the National
Partnership for Reinventing Government Review Initiative. We welcome
OPAP's support for these efforts.
Administrative Services
The OPAP report's recommendations on administrative services call
for the aggressive use of technology, the regionalization of support
functions, and a larger role for foreign national employees.
The Department of State agrees with the thinking underlying these
recommendations. The implementation committees looking at right-sizing,
technology, and human resources and training will consider each of
these recommendations as it affects their portion of the whole in the
course of their work.
Ambassadorial Authority
OPAP makes several recommendations related to chief of mission
(COM) authority, including reform of the mission performance planning
(MPP) process, an enhanced interagency role for deputy chiefs of
mission (DCMs), and greater flexibility in the organizational structure
of diplomatic posts.
These are commendable objectives which the Department of State will
pursue. Given the time required to complete interagency review,
coordination, and clearance, we will defer new documentation outlining
COM responsibility and authority until next year, when it can be
carried out as part of the normal transition to the new administration.
Supplemental Information
This section responds to section 607(b)(2) of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, fiscal years 2000 and 2001, as enacted in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
113), which requested specific information not otherwise covered in the
report.
Closing diplomatic facilities for security reasons
``(A) Specify whether any United States diplomatic facility
should be closed because--(i) the facility is highly vulnerable
and subject to threat of terrorist attack; and (ii) adequate
security enhancements cannot be provided to the facility; (B)
in the event that closure of a diplomatic facility is required,
identify plans to provide secure premises for permanent use by
the United States diplomatic mission, whether in country or in
a regional United States diplomatic facility, or for temporary
occupancy by the mission in a facility pending acquisition of
new buildings.''
The Department reviews the security situation in individual
countries on an ongoing basis and temporarily closes posts as
circumstances warrant. Currently operations are suspended at two U.S.
embassies for security reasons: Mogadishu, Somalia; and Khartoum,
Sudan. The Somalia Liaison Office and Khartoum Embassy Office operate
out of Nairobi, Kenya.
Immediately after the 1998 bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam,
the Secretary of State commenced a review of the security situation of
overseas posts, requesting revised threat assessments and inviting
recommendations on security improvements from all chiefs of mission
worldwide. Soon thereafter, the Department formed and led interagency
security assessment teams. Equipped with technical experts and the most
up-to-date information, these teams were dispatched to a carefully
selected group of our most vulnerable posts around the world to conduct
in-depth security reviews and make specific recommendations. As a
result, security at posts worldwide was upgraded immediately and
operations at the embassy in Dushanbe were suspended for more than a
year. Physical security recommendations were provided on site to
officials at all posts visited.
The Department used the 1998-1999 reviews, together with
information from State regional bureaus and other sources, in its plans
for upgrading or replacing facilities overseas. Funding was included in
the fiscal year 1999 emergency security appropriation and the fiscal
year 2000 budget to begin this process. As mentioned earlier, the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department of State
seeks over one billion dollars for post security initiatives, including
$500 million for new diplomatic facility construction ($50 million for
USAID), $200 million for additional steps to protect existing buildings
from terrorist attack, and $344 million for maintaining and enhancing
operational security.
Exploiting technology for staffing efficiencies
``Outline the potential for reduction or transfer of
personnel or closure of missions if technology is adequately
exploited for maximum efficiencies.''
The Department has established a CIO level Interagency Technology
Subcommittee to examine how best to exploit technology for maximum
efficiencies, including potentially permitting the reduction or
transfer of personnel. This subcommittee will work closely with the
interagency right-sizing committee as it conducts its reviews of
overseas staffing.
Regional missions
``Examine the possibility of creating regional missions in
certain parts of the world.''
The Department strongly concurs with the OPAP conclusion that ``a
universal, on-the-ground overseas presence is more critical than ever
to the nation's well-being.'' We continue to pursue the regionalization
of support functions either overseas (e.g., the Frankfurt Regional
Support Center) or in the United States (e.g., the Fort Lauderdale
Regional Center, the Portsmouth National Visa Center, the Williamsburg
Diversity Lottery Center, and the Charleston Financial Service Center).
As OPAP confirms, however, policy functions are best carried out
through face-to-face interaction. We believe it is critical to retain
the general principle of universality, except in limited circumstances.
Special Embassy Program
``In the case of diplomatic facilities that are part of the
Special Embassy Program, report on the foreign policy
objectives served by retaining such missions, balancing the
importance of these objectives against the well-being of United
States personnel.''
The Special Embassy Program (SEP) is designed to permit the United
States to maintain a limited presence in locations where policy
priorities and resource limitations preclude the need or justification
for a larger embassy. This is not to say our presence in these places
is unimportant. SEP posts advance important foreign policy priorities,
consistent with the strategic goals outlined in the International
Affairs Strategic Plan and reflected in each post's Mission Performance
Plan (MPP) and available resources.
There are currently 56 SEP posts. After the demise of the USSR, it
was the policy of the Administration to open new posts in the region
immediately. Fourteen of the SEP posts fall into this category--places
where we may have only three or four policy objectives (compared to the
10 or more at most larger posts) but which are in some ways more
critical than those at larger posts. These are not the only SEP posts
with limited but important objectives. The SEP list includes
Wellington, New Zealand; Reykjavik, Iceland; Luxembourg; Vientiane,
Laos; and Doha, Qatar, for example.
American staffing levels at SEP posts range from one position
(Grenada) to 31 (Yerevan), with a limit of 35 U.S. Direct-Hire
positions, including both State and other agencies. While some of the
SEP posts are small because of the hardship and danger, many are small
because of limited objectives. Where danger and hardship are an issue,
tours may be unaccompanied, to minimize exposing larger numbers to
security risks.
American Presence Posts
``Examine the feasibility of opening new regional outreach
centers, modeled on the system used by the United States
Embassy in Paris, France, with each center designed to
operate--(i) at no additional cost to the United States
Government; (ii) with staff consisting of one or two Foreign
Service officers currently assigned to the United States
diplomatic mission in the country in which the center is
located, and (iii) in a region of the country with high gross
domestic product (GDP), a high density population, and a media
market that not only includes but extends beyond the region.''
Since the release of the OPAP report, the Department has opened
three more American Presence Posts (APPs) in France in addition to
Lyon: Bordeaux, Lille, and Rennes. We also have completed the
congressional approval process to open an APP in Toulouse. We have
opened these posts through shifting personnel and funding from the
Embassy in Paris, and providing for the requisite additional funding.
Our experience to date is that the practical requirements of opening an
APP preclude the possibility of doing so at no additional cost to the
US Government.
The U.S. mission in France is one of the pilot posts the
interagency right-sizing group will look at this spring. Over time, we
anticipate that this effort will examine candidates for APP status in
other countries as well.
Conclusion
The OPAP report addresses a number of serious, long-standing issues
with how the USG operates at American embassies and consulates abroad.
Some can be addressed in the short term. Indeed, in many cases the
Department already had initiatives underway prior to the report's
release. A long-term commitment of resources, however, is essential if
we are to improve the way the U.S. Government operates overseas. The
Department of State's commitment by itself will be insufficient.
Achieving the changes and improvements the OPAP report proposes will
require the active involvement of the White House, the Congress, and
all other departments and agencies. We are confident that we have put
in place the initial framework that will permit us, as part of the
larger interagency and USG-wide effort, to address the full range of
OPAP initiatives over the next several years.
Question. It seems like every year we face a challenge for funding
for the NED [National Endowment for Democracy]. In my view, in the
post-cold war world, with so many nations in flux, and so many
opportunities to foster democracy, human rights and the rule of law, we
have more need than ever for the NED. Would you agree?
Answer. Absolutely. The NED plays a critical role in supporting
grass roots democracy groups around the world.
I have been close to NED for a number of years--in the past as a
Board member of both NED itself and of NDI. I am very familiar with the
important work it does in carrying out its principal mandate of
democracy-building.
Through its four core grantees, NED is able to build upon and
expand the linkages between these organizations and their counterparts
overseas. Without the funding these core grantees receive from NED,
they would be unable to carry out many of their activities overseas.
The focus of these programs is on the democracy-building national
interest of the United States.
Let me also note that the core grantees contribute approximately $7
million to the NED-funded programs they carry out.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. What progress has been made in securing Israel's position
in the Western European and Others Group [WEOG] and in becoming
eligible to serve on the U.N. Security Council?
Answer. Israel's exclusion from the U.N.'s regional group structure
is unfair and inconsistent with the principle of sovereign equality of
member states enshrined in the U.N. Charter. Correcting this injustice
remains a priority for the Administration. Participation in the
regional group structure is a critical element in any member's
effective participation in United Nations activities. Consequently,
Administration officials, including the President and Vice President,
have repeatedly engaged the other members of WEOG to bring this issue
to closure.
Enormous progress has been made and was reported in detail recently
to the Congress in the annual report on this issue. We have secured EU
agreement on Israeli participation in the WEOG at the expert and
political director levels. We now plan to coordinate in New York and
capitals with the other WEOG members to finalize the implementing
details that will allow Israel to assume its rightful place as a
participant in the regional group structure. Throughout these efforts,
we have coordinated closely with appropriate Israeli authorities and
will continue to do so.
We hope to bring this matter to a successful conclusion within the
next several months and will keep the Congress informed of our
progress.
Question. I understand that member countries of the Western
European and Others Group need to agree unanimously on Israel's ability
to join the group. What is the Administration doing to address Malta's
objection?
Answer. Decisions within the WEOG are made by consensus. The
Administration has made numerous interventions with all WEOG members to
bring the issue of offering Israel temporary membership in the Group.
The Administration was successful in its efforts with the EU and is now
working to bring this issue to closure with the remaining WEOG members.
Like some other WEOG members, Malta raised concerns regarding the
need to agree on the modalities for Israel's participation as a
temporary WEOG member. Working closely with the appropriate Israeli
authorities, we are fully confident that mutually acceptable conditions
will be agreed upon shortly to address those concerns.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. The next subcommittee hearing will be on
March 7 at 10 a.m. We will have the FBI, DEA, and the INS.
Secretary Albright. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., Thursday, March 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
March 7.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, Hutchison,
Campbell, Hollings, Inouye, and Lautenberg.
Also present: Senator Kyl.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER
Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing. We appreciate
everyone's attendance. We thank Commissioner Meissner.
I will not be doing an opening statement. Did you have an
opening statement?
Senator Hollings. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Then we will go directly to your statement,
Commissioner.
INS COMMISSONER MEISSNER'S OPENING REMARKS
Ms. Meissner. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Hollings, members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.
Over the past 7 years we have forged a very productive
partnership that has allowed us to build a more effective, more
efficient INS. At times, we have had our differences but we
have never lost focus on our shared goal: strengthening the
enforcement of immigration laws at our borders and in the
Nation's interior while improving the delivery of services to
legal immigrants.
It has been an honor to serve as the Commissioner of the
Immigration Service during this time of remarkable growth and
rapid change and to work with this committee and the Congress
to address the challenges that have been created by this growth
and by these changes. Together we have achieved unprecedented
success in both enforcement and services, making today's INS
vastly different from the agency of 7 years ago and not merely
a bigger agency but also a better one, much, much better. That
is because this Administration and Congress have worked
diligently since 1993 to reverse decades of neglect that left
the Nation's immigration system in disrepair and INS unable to
fulfill its responsibilities to the American people.
Our shared commitment to improving INS has been backed with
an unparalleled influx of resources and investments that we
have maximized by supporting the new resources with
comprehensive, coherent strategies.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of border
management, especially along the Southwest border. The fiscal
year 2001 budget will enable INS to solidify and continue to
build on this foundation. Our $4.8 billion budget request is
more than triple our 1993 funding level. It will add 1,305 new
positions, allowing INS to grow to more than 33,100 positions
by the end of fiscal year 2001, or almost double our size in
1993.
BORDER PATROL
Of the $532.2 billion that is requested for new initiatives
in fiscal year 2001, more than $160 million would go to
strengthen the Border Patrol. Nearly a third of the new
personnel would be Border Patrol agents, whose ranks we are
seeking to expand by 430 at a cost of $52 million. Another
$50.3 million will support new Border Patrol construction
requirements, while $20 million will be spent to continue
deploying the remote video surveillance systems.
Additionally, we are seeking $40.9 million to implement a
comprehensive pay reform package for Border Patrol agents that
would address salaries, overtime, and other critical
compensation issues. We are committed to moving this package
forward because it will both compensate current agents in a
manner consistent with their expanded duties and enhance INS's
ability to retain and recruit the Nation's best and brightest
for the Border Patrol. It has the added benefit of being a
better value than the existing pay structure, which is
important to this committee, as well as to taxpayers.
Under Chief Gus de la Vena's leadership, this $160 plus
million investment in the Border Patrol will be as sound as it
is substantial. His experience and vision have been pivotal in
transforming the Border Patrol into not just the biggest
uniformed Federal law enforcement agency, but also one of the
best. This is illustrated most clearly by our record in
restoring the rule of law to some of the most chaotic areas
along the Southwest border.
In 1993, there was no comprehensive plan for controlling
our 2,000-mile frontier with Mexico. As a result, illegal
immigrants and illicit drugs crossed the border relatively
undeterred while legal traffic entering the country encountered
interminable delays at ports-of-entry. We have responded by
developing a multi-year Southwest border strategy to establish
and maintain a border that works, one that thwarts the illegal
entry of people and contraband while facilitating the flow of
legal immigration and commerce.
To support our strategy, we have been deploying record
numbers of new personnel. By the end of the current fiscal
year, for example, we expect to have about 9,000 Border Patrol
agents on-board or almost 135 percent more than in 1993. We
have backed these new agents with substantial state-of-the-art
equipment and technology.
Our aim was to gain control of traditional illegal
immigration corridors along the border with Mexico, beginning
in El Paso and San Diego. More recently, we are seeing the
impressive results of Operation Rio Grande in South Texas and
New Mexico, and Operation Safeguard in Arizona. During the
first 2 years of Operation Rio Grande, apprehensions in
Brownsville fell by more than 160 percent and the number
continues to decline, falling another 45 percent so far this
fiscal year.
Operation Safeguard has produced similar results, with
apprehensions in Nogales, once the busiest illegal crossing
corridor in the State, falling 32 percent last year and another
44 percent in the first quarter of this year. We are now
focussing on the Douglas Nocho corridor, where the number of
agents increased by nearly 25 percent in 1999.
Effective border enforcement also includes ports-of-entry,
where we are requesting $22.4 million to hire 269 additional
immigration inspectors, as well as $28.9 million to institute
pay upgrades from GS-9 to 11 for all inspectors, as well. This
will, among other things, allow us to more fully integrate
enforcement activities at ports-of-entry with our efforts
between those ports. This link has been vital to the success of
our Border Patrol strategy and it will be strengthened with the
opening of three new ports-of-entry in Texas this year, which
these new positions will support.
The enforcement strategy we have been fielding extends to
the Nation's interior, where last year we began implementing
enforcement priorities that concentrate on removing criminal
aliens and investigating alien-smuggling and other criminal
violations. I look forward to working with you to refine the
strategy further and to build a northern border strategy based
on a foundation of interagency cooperation and bi-national
coordination.
We also need to further strengthen our capacity to detain
and remove aliens who have committed serious criminal offenses.
Since 1994, the number of criminal aliens in INS detention has
quadrupled to more than 12,000, while the number of criminal
aliens we have removed from the country reached 63,000 last
year, more than double the number removed in 1994. We are
requesting additional personnel and facilities to build on
these successes in fiscal year 2001, as well.
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
With regard to immigration services, we have demonstrated
that given the resources, we can develop effective strategies
here too, and produce impressive results. These improvements
have strengthened the balance that is needed between our
service and our enforcement functions. Our top priority has
been revitalizing the Nation's citizenship program and with
your considerable support, we began by restoring integrity to
the naturalization procedures.
Then, last year, we began reducing a historically high
application backlog. Having completed more than 1.2 million
naturalization applications, double the number in 1998, we have
fulfilled our commitment to cut the average processing time in
half, reducing it from an average of 28 months to an average of
12 months. This year we expect to cut that wait time in half
again, returning to the standard of 6 months, where we are
committed to stay.
To sustain this success in naturalization and to replicate
it in other service areas in fiscal year 2001, the budget
proposes a new Immigration Services Capital Investment account.
This account, separate from our Examinations Fee account, would
mark the first time that INS would have a fund earmarked
strictly for infrastructure improvements and reducing
application backlogs.
For fiscal year 2001, the $127 million provided by the
Capital Investment account and the $807 million from our
examinations fee account would allow us to maintain the 6-month
processing time for naturalization applications that we expect
to achieve this year. We would also be able to process 600,000
adjustment of status applications, double the number we
completed last year.
Some of the funding for the new account would come from a
direct appropriation and some from a proportion of the
requested reauthorization of a permanent 245(i) adjustment of
status program. However, the largest contribution, $55 million,
would be generated by a newly proposed Premium Service Fee for
business-related applications. This voluntary $1,000 fee would
guarantee business processing within 15 days, except for
certain complex cases, such as the EB-5s. We are confident that
this new fee would create a win-win-win situation for all
concerned; that is, businesses, legal immigrants and American
taxpayers.
Since 1993, we have witnessed the highest numerical level
of immigration in our Nation's history and INS has faced
extraordinary demands to modernize and grow. These demands show
no sign of abating. Our task now is to consolidate the gains of
the past 7 years, complete the work yet unfinished, and leave
the Nation's immigration structure in a sound condition. I look
forward to working with you and the Congress to achieve this.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I am happy to answer
your and the subcommittee's questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doris Meissner
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). It's important to view this last INS
budget request made by the Administration as building upon the
accomplishments achieved during the last seven years. With this budget,
the Administration will have increased INS funding by 219 percent since
fiscal year 1993. Congress' support and their investment of resources
have enabled INS to strengthen the Nation's immigration system--from
how we enforce the immigration laws to how we deliver services to our
customers.
I would like to convey to the Subcommittee my thanks. It has been
an honor and privilege to serve as the Commissioner of INS, and to work
with this committee at a time of real growth and change. Our joint
efforts have played a major part in changing the way that Americans
think about immigration. Major corridors along our Southwest border are
quiet as a result of our determination to stem the flow of illegal
migration. Equally as important, the United States is welcoming
unprecedented numbers of new, eligible immigrants to our shores to join
us in building this great nation.
It is critical that we continue to build on this success. The
President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for INS continues a multi-
year border enforcement and service improvement strategy. In total, the
fiscal year 2001 request is $4.8 billion, composed of $3.266 billion in
appropriated accounts and $1.544 billion from fees. This budget
represents an 11-percent ($523.2 million) increase over fiscal year
2000 and adds 1,305 new positions, allowing INS to grow to more than
33,100 positions by the end of fiscal year 2001. With this budget, we
continue our commitment to improving customer service, facilitating
legal immigration, deterring illegal immigration, and removing criminal
and other illegal aliens from the United States.
ENFORCEMENT
The Administration appreciates the support and resources Congress
has provided during the past seven years which have enabled INS to
expand its immigration enforcement programs.
Border Enforcement
In the past seven years INS has achieved more in the area of border
enforcement than had been achieved in decades. These achievements are a
testament to the strategic approach to address the enforcement problems
on the Southwest border. Prior to 1993, no comprehensive plan existed
to control the 2,000-mile Southwest border. Ill-equipped Border Patrol
agents and Inspectors were at times overwhelmed by aliens who stormed
the border and ports-of-entry. Illegal immigrants often came freely
into the country, undeterred by the federal officers who were charged
with controlling their access to the United States. Additionally, legal
traffic entering the country was subjected to interminable delays at
ports-of-entry due to the low level of staffing at these ports.
To bring integrity and safety to the Southwest border, we developed
a comprehensive, multi-year strategy, based on the concept of a border
that works; one that deters illegal migration, drug trafficking, and
alien smuggling, while facilitating legal migration and commerce. To
achieve the goals of this strategy, the Administration requested and
received high levels of personnel and resources.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget continues to build on what
we have achieved. It includes $164.2 million and 699 new positions to
enhance INS' border management strategy. It strengthens enforcement
efforts by funding 430 additional Border Patrol agents--more than
double the fiscal year 1993 level. These additional Border Patrol
agents will be critical to our efforts to expand integrity and safety
to the borders, thereby improving the quality of life in border
communities. In an environment of budget constraints and clear
limitations, this budget reflects an increase in new agents that is
achievable, while focusing on pay reform to enable INS to recruit and
retain agents. The increase of 430 agents will bring the number of
agents up to approximately 9,000, which represents a 127 percent
increase over the fiscal year 1993 level of 3,965 agents.
INS has worked extremely hard over the last few years to meet the
challenges of hiring and retaining Border Patrol agents. A strong
economy, offering opportunities in the private sector, has enticed many
who may have considered a career in the Border Patrol. Retention is
affected when experienced veteran Border Patrol agents leave, attracted
by the private sector or by other opportunities in law enforcement
offering more lucrative financial rewards. After impressive hiring
successes in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, averaging 1,020 net
new agents per year, in fiscal year 1999, INS was able to hire 1,126
new Border Patrol agents--a net increase of 369 new agents after
attrition.
We have taken action to address recruitment and retention problems.
In January 2000, INS implemented a signing bonus program where new
recruits are paid two thousand dollars upon the successful completion
of the Border Patrol Academy training program. Through our National
Recruitment Program (NRP) we are advertising extensively via the
Internet, through the use of ``banner ads,'' and the placement of job
postings on various Internet sites such as monsterboard.com,
Jobs4Police.com, JobDirect.com and JobTrak.com. In addition, there are
200 Border Patrol recruiters who conduct local and targeted recruitment
in every state. These teams are responsible for attending local college
and military recruitment fairs, conducting open houses, and placing
local ads and public service announcements. Through the NRP, the Border
Patrol will attend over 500 recruiting events this year.
To recruit new agents, improve retention, and reduce attrition, the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget proposes upgrading the journeyman
level Border Patrol agent position from a GS-9 to a GS-11. This upgrade
recognizes that the nature of Border Patrol work has evolved to the
point that agents routinely use advanced technology in the performance
of their duties, just as investigators and intelligence agents do. The
President's fiscal year 2001 budget seeks $40.9 million to fund this
element of pay reform for Border Patrol agents, as well as change
overtime compensation so it is more consistent with other Federal law
enforcement agencies.
Border Patrol agents are assisted and made more effective by
investments in state-of-the-art technology. Technological improvements
have played a key role in the success of INS' enforcement and
facilitation functions.
The fiscal year 2001 budget requests $20 million to expand the
deployment of Remote Video Surveillance Systems, the camera portion of
the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS). The ISIS system
extends the efficiency and effectiveness of the line-watch Border
Patrol Agents on both the Northern and Southwestern borders. Where
deployed, the system detects illegal aliens and drug smugglers, thus
permitting agents to respond to incursions knowing in advance what
awaits them. The ISIS system with night and day surveillance cameras,
used in conjunction with ground sensors, is linked to central
controller centers so that Border Patrol agents can be dispatched with
more strategic information about targets. False alarms are reduced, and
officer safety and law enforcement effectiveness are increased
immensely. In locations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, this
technology has had a dramatic effect on border control and management
and increases the safety of officers who must respond to incursions.
The proposed combination of new Border Patrol agents and surveillance
technology will permit INS to gain control over larger portions of the
border.
In fiscal year 2001, INS is also requesting $50.3 million to
support new Border Patrol construction. This request will provide $41.7
million for the construction of ten Border Patrol facilities. An
additional $4.5 million is being requested for the planning, site
development, and design work required for construction of seven new
facilities in future fiscal years. The record increases in Border
Patrol staff have far outpaced INS' ability to provide adequate
housing. These resources will allow us to continue to address space
requirements and accommodate the growth in Border Patrol while
providing our staff with safe and humane facilities.
The fiscal year 2001 budget also maintains INS' focus on
facilitating legal immigration by funding an additional 269 Immigration
Inspectors, a 62 percent increase over the 1993 level. As a result of
the dual focus on enforcement and facilitation, INS has been able to
enhance its enforcement capabilities while reducing wait times for
those seeking to cross the border legally at ports-of-entry. The
positions included in the President's budget will enable us to staff,
and meet established inspection times at new international airport
terminals that are scheduled to be fully operational during fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001. The positions will also support new port-of-
entry openings in fiscal year 2000 in Eagle Pass, Los Tomates, and
Laredo in Texas, and ensure that INS will be sufficiently staffed for
peak travel times in the primary inspection lanes at these new ports.
Additionally, 28 of these positions will handle increased workload at
land border ports related, in part, to the expedited removal process.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget also seeks $28.9 million
for an upgrade for Immigration Inspectors of the journey level from GS-
9 to GS-11. This reform recognizes the increased knowledge requirements
and enhanced authorities and responsibilities of each inspector's
position imposed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996. These responsibilities include the ability
to remove aliens attempting illegal or fraudulent entry in to the
United States. Pay reform for Immigration Inspectors will put INS in
the strongest position to recruit new inspectors and retain experienced
ones.
The border management strategy has proven that deterrence really
works. We have implemented the strategy, corridor by corridor along the
Southwest border--including Operation Hold the Line in El Paso,
Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation Safeguard in Tucson, and
Operation Rio Grande in McAllen and Laredo. Initially, these operations
produce a higher level of apprehensions. This phenomenon is a direct
result of the increase in agents and technology deployed. However, as
the operation becomes fully implemented and the Border Patrol gains
control, the deterrent in that area leads to a sharp decline in
apprehensions. The benefits from these operations are clear: Operation
Gatekeeper in the San Diego Sector realized a decrease in apprehensions
from 44 percent of total apprehensions along the Southwest border in
fiscal year 1993, to 12 percent in fiscal year 1999, a twenty-five year
low; Operation Hold the Line in El Paso produced a decline in
apprehensions as a percentage of the total along the Southwest border
from 24 percent to 7 percent during this same time period. Moreover,
our border operations have also contributed to enhancing the quality of
life for those who live along the Southwest border, as evidenced by
falling crime rates in Laredo, Brownsville, San Diego, and elsewhere.
Our strategy to control the border has been extended to the McAllen
Border Patrol Sector, the home of Operation Rio Grande. Apprehensions
in the sector declined by 14 percent in January 2000 from those in
January 1999, and are on target to reduce total apprehensions for
fiscal year 2000 in the sector by 22 percent from fiscal year 1999's
level. Projected declines in apprehensions for fiscal year 2000 from
fiscal year 1999, at specific stations in the McAllen Sector are as
follows: Brownsville Station, the heart of Operation Rio Grande, was
down 46 percent for the month of January 2000, and is down 47 percent
for the fiscal year; Port Isabel Station was down 40 percent for the
month and 35 percent for the fiscal year; Harlingen Station achieved a
36 percent decrease for the month and is experiencing a 35 percent
decrease for the fiscal year; and Kingsville Station, which covers the
Sarita Checkpoint, and which was once the busiest corridor for alien
traffic in the McAllen Sector, was down 20 percent for the month and is
down 31 percent for the fiscal year. At the same time, Mercedes,
McAllen, and Rio Grande City, which are upriver from the main targeted
area, are all showing increases in apprehensions indicating that there
is a very noticeable shift of alien traffic due to Operation Rio
Grande.
Furthermore, in the McAllen Sector, apprehensions of Other Than
Mexicans (OTMs) seem to also be decreasing. McAllen encountered 813
OTMs in December, but only 569 in January. This number is significant
because December has historically been a slower month than January.
One area of concern in the McAllen Sector is in narcotics
trafficking and interdiction. We have been making record seizures and
are 36 percent above the value of narcotics seized in fiscal year 2000
for the same period in fiscal year 1999, even though the number of
cases remains almost the same. In fiscal year 1999 we realized an all
time record year for narcotics seizures in the McAllen Sector, and it
appears 2000 will be even higher. We remain optimistic that we can have
an impact on the narcotic traffickers by forcing them to move out of
the area or, preferably, change occupations.
In June 1998, INS launched a Southwest border-wide public safety
initiative designed to educate migrants about the severe dangers
associated with illegal crossings and to assist those who are in
danger. The initiative was developed in cooperation with the Mexican
government and state and local officials in border communities. In
fiscal year 1999, Border Patrol rescue efforts saved 1,042 persons in
200 rescue incidents. This initiative realized a 21 percent decrease in
drowning deaths and a 41 percent decrease in heat-related deaths when
comparing fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 1998.
Under Operation Safeguard, Tucson Sector has been concentrating its
efforts in certain targeted zones in the Douglas and Nogales areas. In
the first quarter of fiscal year 2000, compared to the last quarter of
fiscal year 1999, targeted zones in Nogales experienced an overall 44
percent decrease in apprehensions. Attempted entries have also declined
during the period in these targeted zones.
In developing and implementing our border management strategy, we
have always sought to integrate the activities between the ports-of-
entry with those at the ports. We recognize that facilitation of legal
cross-border traffic of people and goods is vital to the nation's
economy. However, these ports are also the potential entry points for
criminals and contraband. Thus, INS seeks to work cooperatively with
other Federal agencies, and in so doing has achieved impressive
results.
In fiscal year 1999, Immigration Inspectors encountered more than
525 million applicants for entry into the United States (115 million at
the northern land border, 319 million at the southern land border, and
91 million at air and sea ports-of-entry). Currently, there are more
than 4,900 Immigration Inspectors staffing America's ports-of-entry.
More than 500 of these inspectors are located on the Northern border,
1,485 are located at ports along the Southwest border, and 3,044 are
located at air/sea ports throughout the United States.
Over the last five fiscal years, the total number of people
applying to enter the United States at its ports-of-entry has risen
approximately 9 percent. In the course of inspecting these applicants,
we have identified a 20 percent increase in the amount of document
fraud. We have also increased enforcement actions, such as vehicle
seizures 100 percent while increasing alien smuggling apprehensions at
the ports 117.5 percent.
In August 1998, the Attorney General and the Secretary of the
Treasury launched the Border Coordination Initiative (BCI). The BCI is
a comprehensive effort by Federal agencies to create seamless
immigration and narcotics enforcement through facilitation processes at
and between border ports of entry, from Brownsville to San Diego, over
the next five years. Currently, the BCI involves INS and the U.S.
Customs Service. However, during fiscal year 2000, we intend to involve
other Federal agencies including the Coast Guard, the Department of
Agriculture, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug
Enforcement Administration. In fact, the U.S. Coast Guard now has a
full-time BCI Coordinator who is working with INS and U.S. Customs
Service counterparts.
None of these accomplishments would have been possible without the
continued support of the Subcommittee.
Interior Enforcement
Interior enforcement is an essential complement to the
Administration's overarching immigration enforcement strategy. INS'
formal Interior Enforcement Strategy was presented to staff of the
Appropriations Subcommittee in January 1999. The Strategy established
the following priorities: identify and remove criminal aliens and
minimize recidivism; deter, dismantle and diminish smuggling or
trafficking of aliens; respond to community reports and complaints
about illegal immigration and build partnerships to solve local
problems; minimize immigration benefit fraud and other document abuse;
and block and remove employers' access to undocumented workers. And, as
you requested, we are rewriting and resubmitting the interior
enforcement strategy to focus on alien removals as the end outcome
measure. We have drafted an Addendum which clarifies the Subcommittee's
requested changes to the strategy.
Detention and Removal of Illegal Aliens
We have enhanced our ability to identify and disrupt criminal
enterprises that engage in egregious violations of human rights and
immigration law and strengthened our capacity to detain and remove
aliens who have committed serious criminal offenses. The number of
criminal aliens in detention has quadrupled from about 3,300 in 1994 to
more than 12,000 today, while the number of criminal aliens removed
doubled from 30,000 in 1994 to 62,800 last year.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $78.9 million to
increase detention space in fiscal year 2001 by 1,000 average daily
state and local detention bed spaces. These resources are required to
continue to comply with the mandatory detention requirements of IIRIRA.
The request includes 25 Deportation Officers, 67 Detention Enforcement
Officers, and 17 support positions to sustain the 1,000 average daily
bed spaces.
In fiscal year 1999, INS utilized 442 high cost average daily
juvenile bed spaces. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests
$8.5 million to fund 120 critically needed juvenile detention bed
spaces nationwide, bringing our average daily juvenile bed level to 562
bed spaces in fiscal year 2001. These resources will also fund
detention vehicles and other support equipment, as well as seven
Deportation Officers, three Detention Enforcement Officers, and one
Procurement Analyst to manage the cases, transport the detainees, and
implement removals of these alien juveniles.
In fiscal year 1999, INS increased its use of the Justice Prisoner
and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) to move aliens to available
detention space and to remove them from the United States. JPATS,
created in 1995 by the U.S. Marshals Service and INS, is an air
transportation system to transfer or repatriate federal prisoners and
detainees. The President's budget for fiscal year 2001 includes $10
million to fund an increase of more than 16,000 air movements. In
fiscal year 1999, INS utilized 60,000 air movements to relocate,
remove, and repatriate aliens. INS plans to increase to 72,000
movements in fiscal year 2000 so that INS can progress toward its
projected need of 85,000 total air movements in fiscal year 2001.
INS has begun to implement a set of detention standards in some of
the largest state and local facilities from which it rents detention
beds. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $8.6 million, 40
Deportation Officers, 37 Detention Enforcement Officers, and three
Procurement Officers to continue to implement this program into 100
more of these state and local facilities, and maintain a minimum level
of standards for INS detainees. Through this initiative, we will be
able to provide the same standards to our detainees who are housed in
State and local facilities that we provide to our detainees who are
housed in INS facilities. Our initiative to establish and maintain a
set of minimum services for detainees originates with a fundamental
belief held by INS, the Department of Justice, and public interest
groups that INS should provide a minimum of proper and humane treatment
for its detainees.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $8 million for 18
Deportation Officers and 32 program specialists to improve INS' use of
the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system, an FBI-operated
database used to track criminals. INS is required by the NCIC covenants
to enter the qualifying records related to wanted criminal aliens and
deported felons into the NCIC database and maintain the active records
on a regular basis. With the tremendous growth in the number of records
that qualify for entry, INS has been hard pressed to enter all of those
records qualifying for entry within the mandated 24-hour period.
Included in this initiative are resources for alien detention, the
installation of NCIC terminals and connections at INS District offices,
detention vehicles, travel costs, and alien removals. The additional
staff that is part of the request will allow INS to better coordinate
the daily use of NCIC, validate the quality of records, confirm the
accuracy of the data, respond to ``hits'' on INS records in NCIC, and
take custody, transport, detain and remove aliens apprehended by other
law enforcement agencies.
The request for detention facilities construction is $26.8 million.
Of this, $10.4 million will enable INS to expand the Port Isabel SPC in
the Rio Grande Valley with completion estimated in fiscal year 2002. An
additional request for $9.5 million will expand the administration and
court facilities at the Krome SPC in Miami; $.8 million is requested to
upgrade the San Pedro SPC in Los Angeles. The request includes $4.1
million for the planning, site development, and design work required to
support three detention projects scheduled for future construction.
Finally, we are requesting an additional $2 million to provide for
repair and alterations at other existing INS detention facilities.
The removal of criminal and other deportable aliens is the first
priority of INS' comprehensive Interior Enforcement Strategy, and
serves as a key performance measurement of the strategy. In fiscal year
1999, we continued to emphasize removing deportable aliens from the
United States, achieving 178,168 final order removals (62,838 criminal
removals and 115,330 non-criminal removals of which 89,267 were
expedited removals).
INS removed a total of 19,798 criminal aliens through the
Institutional Removal Program (IRP) in fiscal year 1999, an increase of
approximately 46 percent over fiscal year 1998. As you know, the IRP
involves identifying, processing, and obtaining a decision on
deportable inmates prior to their release from Federal, state and local
institutions. The IRP's facilitation of the prompt removal of
deportable inmates once their criminal sentences are complete saves
resources that would otherwise have to be used by INS to keep the
criminal aliens in its custody through the entire legal process. INS
also obtains orders on, and removes, an additional 4,326 criminal
aliens within one day of release from institutions. These ``fast-
track'' and traditional IRP removals totaled 24,124 in fiscal year
1999. Our IRP removal goal for fiscal year 2000 is 25,700 criminal
aliens; we are well on our way to achieving this goal--during the first
quarter of fiscal year 2000, the IRP reported 5,763 removals.
In fiscal year 1999, we removed 10,055 criminal aliens from the
Federal IRP (9,179 obtained their orders in pre-release hearings, 876
received their orders within one day following release). We are now
working with the Bureau of Prisons to increase the efficiency of the
Federal program in order to improve the number of aliens who receive a
final order before, or on the day after, release from Federal prison.
Additionally, by December 31, 1999, INS had completed installation of
15 of the 20 video teleconferencing sites approved by Congress. These
sites are expected to play a significant role in speeding up removals.
Additional tools used to maximize the efficiency of the IRP program
include full use of administrative removal and reinstatement of prior
orders of removal. These types of proceedings can be completed without
a hearing before an Immigration Judge, reducing the time needed to
process an alien for removal. As a result of these tools, there is an
expectation that the average length of stay in detention will decrease
giving INS the capacity to detain more criminal aliens.
Investigations
I am pleased to report to the Subcommittee that INS accomplished
higher than planned numbers of large-scale criminal cases in fiscal
year 1999. We presented seven major inter-regional smuggling cases and
1,967 principals for prosecution, 378 large-scale fraud cases and 636
principles for prosecution, and 182 criminal cases against employers of
unauthorized aliens.
As you directed, INS established Quick Response Teams (QRT), in
fiscal year 1999, to work with law enforcement officers at the State
and local level in areas specifically identified as having a growing
illegal immigration problem. QRTs are made up of special agents and
detention enforcement officers deployed to INS District Offices and
selected cities to coordinate detention and removal operations. The
teams are not independent organizations within INS, but are part of the
present organizational enforcement structure. We expect to see the
dividends from the investment in QRTs during fiscal year 2000. Indeed,
with the opening of the first QRT office on September 1, 1999, there
has been a progressive increase in the number of requests for
assistance from State and local law enforcement agencies. Additionally,
the number of apprehensions made by QRTs has increased each month since
September. In Savannah, Georgia, and in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina,
QRTs have already responded to local law enforcement calls, in separate
incidents, leading to the arrests of two illegal aliens from Mexico who
were each wanted there for murder; one was removed and transferred to
Mexican custody, the other is pending removal. Additionally, at least
three criminal cases have been accepted for prosecution including
individuals being prosecuted for fraudulent document vending, alien
smuggling, and re-entry after deportation of an individual with a prior
narcotics conviction.
As of January 31, 188 of the 200 QRT officers have been selected
with 161 having entered on duty at their QRT locations. Four of the new
QRT facilities have been opened with the remaining 26 in the
construction process. All of the QRT locations are staffed by a
sufficient number of officers, and many are responding from temporary
office space to requests for assistance by local law enforcement
agencies.
The QRT training program is underway with the fifth training class
currently in session at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in
Glynco, Georgia. It is anticipated that the majority of QRT training
classes will be completed by April with a final class for the
outstanding selections to take place in July. There will be nine, two
week sessions. All QRT officers will attend. Additionally, several
officers who supervise QRTs from District offices will also attend the
training sessions. The two-week training session contains training on
professionalism, enforcement authorities, QRT mission and objectives,
self-defense techniques, updated computer training, media training, and
constitutional law.
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
To sustain the efforts and successes of Immigration Services in
fiscal year 2001, INS' budget estimates $807 million for the
Examinations Fee Account, funded solely through the collection of fees
from applicants. It also projects $127.3 million in a new account, the
Immigration Services Capital Investment Account (ISCIA). With these
resources, INS projects tentative goals of completing 1.05 million
naturalization applications and 600,000 adjustment of status
applications in fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a voluntary Premium Service
Fee of $1,000 for business cases, which will guarantee a decision to
approve, deny, or notify the petitioner that additional documentation
or information is required within 15 days. This fee will not apply to
complex cases such as EB-5s. This voluntary fee will provide businesses
with an option to expedite the regular processing of business cases
which currently take from 60 days to more than one year, depending upon
the form type and the service office. INS is unable to meet the demand
for expeditious service to the business community without adversely
impacting work on relative petitions and document applications. The
Premium Service Fee will ease this situation and enable INS to address
both the business and immigrant communities' needs for INS service. We
see this voluntary fee as a ``Win-Win'' solution for all concerned,
that is, businesses, immigrants, and the American taxpayer.
INS estimates that for fiscal year 2001, the proposed Premium
Service Fee could generate approximately $80 million in additional
revenue. Of the $80 million generated, about $25 million would be
dedicated to providing both the expedited service for businesses, and
benefit fraud deterrence. The remaining $55 million would be applied to
backlog reduction and capital investment items, such as infrastructure
improvements, that will benefit all of INS' customers and help reduce
the applications backlog.
The primary purpose for establishing the ISCIA account is to
address ongoing infrastructure needs that are not currently covered by
application fees. This marks the first time INS would have a dedicated
fund, separate from the Examinations Fee Account (which is funded
solely through application fees) that draws on other funding sources to
pay for key service related initiatives. The ISCIA will be funded a
total of $127.3 million from three sources. The first source would be
$55 million from the voluntary Premium Service Fee (just discussed);
the second source would be $34.8 million in direct appropriations; and
the third source would be $37.5 million from the re-authorization of a
permanent 245(i) adjustment of status program. The Administration
estimates that the re-authorization of the 245(i) adjustment of status
program, which provides relief for some immigrants already in the U.S.,
to be $75 million. The budget proposes that half of the 245(i) receipts
would support immigration services with the remaining used for
detention purposes.
The funding in the ISCIA would be used solely for funding
infrastructure improvements and addressing immigration benefit
backlogs. Initiatives would include supporting systems upgrades,
enhancing fingerprint storage and retrieval, and supplying more status
information to customers through mechanisms such as INS' new nationwide
toll-free information phone service.
The resources requested for Immigration Services in the President's
fiscal year 2001 budget will enable INS to continue to build upon its
success in the area of services.
Naturalization
In fiscal year 1999, INS achieved its goal of naturalizing more
than 1.2 million new American citizens. This was a 105 percent increase
over the number of applications completed in the previous fiscal year.
The agency is on track to meet its fiscal year 2000 goal of completing
1.3 million naturalization applications. If naturalization applications
are received as projected in fiscal year 2000, INS will meet its
commitment to cut the nationwide average application processing time
down to six to nine months by the end of the year.
In fiscal year 1994, INS had less than 300,000 pending
naturalization applications and receipts totaled less than 600,000
during the fiscal year. Over the next four years, INS received almost
five million applications, and approached two million pending
applications by the end of fiscal year 1998. Last year, INS reduced the
number of pending cases by 500,000 and halved the national average
projected processing time for naturalization cases from 28 months to 12
months.
During this period of tremendous growth, INS has faced the
challenges of unprecedented increases in workload while adding staff
and improving the integrity of the naturalization process. To meet
these challenges, INS began to re-engineer the way it was doing
business--one that focused on three areas: integrity and
standardization, backlog reduction, and communication.
Since 1997, INS has ensured the integrity of the naturalization
process by establishing Naturalization Quality Procedures (NQP). INS
established Quality Assurance positions in the field to institute
quality in every District office. INS authorized 121 quality assurance
analyst positions in fiscal year 1998, putting at least one quality
assurance professional, who reported to both Field Operations and the
Office of Internal Audit, in each District office.
In fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, INS focused on improving
the fingerprint program. INS standardized methods of making
fingerprints thereby reducing rejection rates and turnaround times.
INS, through the introduction of Application Support Centers (ASCs),
collocated fingerprint offices and mobile routes and established
fingerprint locations that are convenient to customers and provide high
quality prints. Before ASCs, the FBI rejected up to 40 percent of the
fingerprints submitted by INS for background checks and response times
sometimes exceeded 60 days. In fiscal year 2000, the reject rate has
plummeted to 5 percent and turnaround time is less than 21 days.
INS has improved the process further by shifting preliminary review
and processing of files to the Service Centers in order to allow
officers more time to adjudicate cases. In this direct mail approach,
all naturalization cases are sent first to a Service Center where
Immigration Information Officers conduct a complete file review prior
to shipping cases to the District offices for interviews.
INS has also worked hard to develop an automated case tracking
system for nationwide distribution. INS' CLAIMS-4 system, which began
operation in some INS offices in fiscal year 1999, now allows for
standardized case tracking of naturalization cases and is being
installed across the Service.
INS has been looking for new ways to achieve significant backlog
reduction throughout fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. To achieve
this, INS field offices and Service Centers have developed individual
goals, plans, and accountability standards required to reduce the
backlog of naturalization cases and now adjustment of status cases. INS
staff increased from 1,401 adjudication and naturalization field
positions in fiscal year 1994 to 2,517 positions in fiscal year 2000.
Expanded contacts with its customers and the community will ensure
INS can provide better service. INS has implemented a nationwide
National Customer Service Center (NCSC), in Corbin, Kentucky, that
provides 24-hour automated service and access to Customer Service
Representatives and Immigration Information Officers Monday through
Friday (naturalization applicants may now use the NCSC to notify INS of
a change of address). INS has expanded its relationships with
immigration advocates, local officials, and community-based
organizations.
Timely delivery of accurate information is critical to INS and was
sorely missing in the past. In order for INS to perform its missions
effectively, personnel must have complete and up-to-date information
whenever an individual becomes the focus of a benefit or enforcement
activity. INS officially dedicated a National Records Center (NRC) on
February 25, 2000, as a part of the Immigration and Naturalization
Services Records and Processes Improvement Design Project (RAPID). The
NRC will help move INS' records and information delivery service and
management into the 21st century. The NRC will benefit both INS'
internal and external customers by improving data integrity and
electronic database quality, consolidating and accounting for all paper
holdings, giving customers a single place to go for files, centralizing
records support operations, and controlling records processes and the
maintenance of electronic data. The Center became operational and
started receiving files from the more than 80 File Control Offices on
November 15, 1999, and expects to take delivery of the last of the over
20 million files, truly becoming INS' central records repository, by
the end of fiscal year 2001.
Finally, INS has utilized the Internet and published a guide in
order to assist applicants with questions on the naturalization
process. INS' naturalization website and pamphlet, ``A Guide to
Naturalization,'' have provided accessible but comprehensive
information on eligibility for naturalization and the application
procedures to the public. INS now provides readily available
information on how to apply for naturalization, an eligibility
worksheet, and access to automated tests for history and civics.
Customers are better served by increasing the information available and
by eliminating the need for many applicants to stand in line at a field
office.
Adjudications
INS has also positioned itself to take on other immigration benefit
caseloads, particularly adjustment-of-status (I-485) applications and
reduce unacceptable backlogs. In fiscal year 2000, the agency plans to
complete 500,000 adjustment of status applications--a 67 percent
increase from the number of applications completed during the previous
fiscal year. INS is also addressing the need to replace the several
hundred thousand Alien Registration Receipt Cards (``green cards'')
that will expire this year by developing new procedures to reduce INS
field office workload and applicant wait time for replacement cards.
INS has made great strides in achieving solid results with the
resources provided by Congress in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000.
Our goal and emphasis has been to provide maximum value. We intend
to capitalize on our successes and intensify our focus on service.
Although many re-engineering efforts are still ``in progress,'' they
have already brought about many qualitative improvements in the
delivery of services. This trend will continue as re-engineering
efforts mature.
Re-engineering, innovation, and use of smart technology solutions
are essential management concepts that INS has embraced to continue its
pursuit to provide the best level of customer service. During fiscal
year 1999, INS introduced a new Internet site to the public. The new
site allows users to: (1) receive answers to the most frequently asked
questions, (2) currently download most INS forms, with all of them on
line within the next few months, (3) receive sample naturalization test
questions, and (4) provide the latest news via immigration press
releases. In fiscal year 1999, INS recorded 4.5 million Internet user
interactions. In fiscal year 2000, INS is averaging 500,000 downloaded
forms per month, and 550,000-650,000 user sessions per month at an
average on-site time of 19 minutes per session.
PROFESSIONALISM AND INFRASTRUCTURE
For fiscal year 2001, INS requests $10.1 million to continue
improving the institutional development and infrastructure needed to
sustain the enormous growth in the workforce over the last seven years.
In 1993, 30 percent of our positions were ``support positions'' and 70
percent were ``mission positions.'' Now, our ``support positions'' are
only 24 percent of the total. We must increase support positions and
infrastructure if we are to adequately support core missions.
Included in this initiative is a request for 50 positions (34
attorneys and 16 support personnel) to address understaffing in the
Legal Proceedings Program. The program provides the full range of legal
support for the Service, including representing INS before the
Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. In addition,
our attorneys (1) represent the Service in labor-related cases,
including Equal Employment Opportunity, Merit Systems Protection Board,
and Federal Labor Relations Act matters, (2) represent the Service in
tort claims filed against the agency, (3) represent the Service in
contested naturalization and denaturalization hearings, (4) provide
legal assistance in the formulation and implementation of regulations,
(5) advise and represent the Service in special interest and other
sensitive cases, (6) issue legal opinions in novel and complex matters,
(7) provide legal advice to the Commissioner and other INS officials,
(8) provide training on immigration law to agency officers, and (9)
represent the Service in employer sanctions and conveyance seizure
litigation. The success of the Service is intrinsically tied to the
effectiveness of its legal representation.
The lack of a sufficient number of INS attorneys has coincided with
a dramatic increase in both the number and the percentage of aliens
granted relief from removal by Immigration Judges. According to
statistics provided by EOIR, the number of aliens granted relief from
removal increased by 414 percent between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal
year 1999.
INS is also requesting 60 positions to support Financial and Debt
Management Services. Plainly put, these are positions for the people
who pay our bills, administer bond receipts, and ensure deposits are
promptly made and accounted for. They are essential to the
administration of this agency and will help us improve our overall
financial management performance, including ensuring we receive an
unqualified audit opinion on our financial statements.
In 1996, the Department of Justice's Management Division issued a
report which in part stated that ``the overall decline in INS' staffing
in almost every major administrative activity suggests a disturbingly
weak administrative infrastructure which has been hard pressed to
support the agency's mission effectively.'' With your help and support,
we can begin to address this serious shortcoming.
RESTRUCTURING
Over the past few years, the Administration worked in a close and
bipartisan manner with Congress to improve INS' operations. In the same
vein, the Administration today remains committed to addressing systemic
problems, particularly those related to INS' dual and inter-related
missions of service and enforcement. These systemic problems include
competing priorities, insufficient accountability between field offices
and headquarters, overlapping organizational relationships, and lack of
consistent operations and policies.
The Administration's principles for a successful restructuring are
that immigration enforcement and service missions must have separate
and clear lines of authority at all levels, from the field to
headquarters, and that the immigration agency must be led by a single
executive with the authority and resources to integrate immigration
policy, standards, and management operations.
This single executive, appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate, is essential to maintain an appropriate balance between
enforcement and services, while ensuring a coherent and coordinated
national immigration policy. To be effective, this official must have
the statutory authority and appropriate staff to direct operations and
supervise key integration and oversight functions, such as legal
counsel, financial management, policy, and communications.
CONCLUSION
The fiscal year 2001 request will ensure INS has the personnel and
tools needed to carry out an effective immigration strategy. I look
forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee. With your support,
we can carry forward the improvements made and continue to address
problem areas and ensure the agency's integrity. I want to work with
you as we continue our mutual efforts to make this nation's immigration
system the best that it can be.
This concludes my formal statement on the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for INS. I would be happy to answer any questions which you,
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee may have.
NATURALIZATION BACKLOG
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate your
testimony.
You went through a little bit on the illegal alien issue
and the citizenship issue, Citizenship USA, which was a
disaster, as we all know, and which you have attempted to
correct.
I guess my question is where do we stand on the backlog?
You did mention that briefly but give us a full explanation of
where we stand on the backlog. And can we expect, as we go into
this next election cycle, that we are going to see another huge
explosion of citizens being registered without having been
adequately vetted?
Ms. Meissner. Well, you made reference to the procedures in
the naturalization program. That was and continues to be our
most important objective; that is, the integrity of the
naturalization process, the quality assurance procedures that
we have put into place and the continuing validation that those
quality procedures are working.
We have established quality assurance and integrity in
naturalization that has been validated by outside audits three
times, and continues to be validated by ongoing audits.
Our efforts to reduce the backlog began last year. It is a
2-year backlog reduction effort in naturalization. We completed
1.2 million naturalization applications last year and reduced
the waiting time from more than 2 years to what is now an
average of 1 year. The second year of that backlog reduction,
which has been supported with funding by the Congress last year
and this year, is under way. We are on track with this year's
naturalization production goals. Every office has a production
plan. It is carefully monitored in connection with the proper
procedures being used, and we expect that we will eliminate the
backlog this year.
Senator Gregg. My question was, are we going to see a huge
bubble, as happened before the last presidential election,
coming out of your office in new citizens being registered who
have not been adequately vetted?
Ms. Meissner. We have no expectation that there will be any
change in the numbers from what I have presently given you. We
have no reason to believe that there will be a bubble of
applications. In fact, the numbers of applications being filed
are declining. We set our production goals 2 years ago and are
holding to those goals and have no intention to change them.
Senator Gregg. So we can anticipate that at least in this
presidential election we are not going to have an effort by the
immigration agency to deliver us a large new group of citizens
who end up being felons?
Ms. Meissner. There will be no alteration from the plans
that we are presently explaining to you and there will be no
diminution in attention paid to the integrity of the
naturalization process.
Senator Gregg. Well, that wasn't the case during the last
presidential election, Commissioner, and we certainly hope that
it will not be repeated. We will take you at your word at this
time, but we are going to monitor that very closely because we
do not have a whole lot of confidence, quite honestly, in your
agency on this issue.
CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS
Now, I also understand, and we have experienced this a fair
amount, that a number of people have been released from prison
or from detention that have gone on to commit crimes--illegal
aliens. What is the status of the illegal aliens that have been
released from detention who have been convicted or are
presently expected to be charged with committing crimes?
Ms. Meissner. We are operating under mandatory detention
requirements that were passed in the 1996 immigration law. When
we have criminals, aliens who have committed crimes, we are
mandated to detain them and we do detain them. Somewhere
between 60 and 80 percent of our bed space is devoted to
criminal aliens, in conformance with those requirements.
We hold them until we can return them to their country.
Those who we cannot return, and there are some from countries
such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, where their countries
will not take them back, we work aggressively with those
countries to get them to accept return. In fact, we have a
delegation right now in Southeast Asia negotiating with the
Vietnamese to begin to accept their nationals in return.
When we release people from detention, if they commit other
crimes or if they are returned to their country and somehow
manage to get back to the United States, we again would
apprehend them, detain them. Recidivism is a problem. There is
no question that recidivism for criminals is a problem not only
in the immigration system; it is a problem across the board in
law enforcement. But our first priority in enforcement away
from the border is criminal aliens--arresting and returning
criminal aliens. Those numbers continue at a very steep level
of increase.
Senator Gregg. How many criminal aliens then, just so I can
get a sense of the numbers that we are dealing with here, have
you released?
Ms. Meissner. I would not be able to give you a number of
criminal aliens that we have released. We release people only
when they have completed their sentences, when we are returning
them, or when they have shown that they are not a danger to the
community or a danger of flight.
Senator Gregg. Well, of the criminal aliens released, how
many have been arrested again in the United States?
Ms. Meissner. That is a number that we are analyzing right
now. When that number is complete and that analysis is
complete, I will be happy to provide it to you. I do not have
it with me.
Senator Gregg. Well, can you give us a ballpark?
Ms. Meissner. The question is how many have committed
crimes after we have released them?
Senator Gregg. That is correct.
Ms. Meissner. We have looked at a sampling in order to
determine what the incidence of criminality of recidivism,
repeat recidivism is, and I can get that number for you. As I
say, I do not have it.
What I can tell you is that we have----
Senator Gregg. Well, are we talking 100? Are we talking
1,000? Are we talking 5,000, 10,000, 50,000?
Ms. Meissner. Overall in the criminal justice system, close
to two-thirds of the people who are released from prison commit
subsequent crimes.
Senator Gregg. Well, not if they are illegal aliens, they
do not. If they are illegal aliens, they are not theoretically
released back into our culture.
Ms. Meissner. No, they are returned to their country and we
have, as I said, doubled the number of people, criminal aliens,
that we have returned to their country. Our primary objective
with criminal aliens is to return them. But it is also the case
that some do re-enter and some commit subsequent crimes.
Senator Gregg. And my question is what is that number? A
small number? A large number? What are we dealing with here?
Ms. Meissner. I think that it is a substantial number and
it is consistent with the behavior of criminals released in
other circumstances. In other words, the fact that one is an
illegal alien does not substantially reduce or increase the
possibility for subsequent criminality.
Senator Gregg. I do not really think that is a very good
excuse though, for the management of the individual, to be very
honest with you. That does not seem to me to be a way to excuse
the activity, but I will be interested in hearing what the
number is.
[The information follows:]
Report on Criminal Aliens Who Commit Crimes After Release
On February 28, 2000, the attached summary on criminal aliens
released from detention was provided to the House Judiciary Committee
in response to its subpoena on criminal aliens released from INS
detention. The attached report was also provided to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations on March 8, following the Commissioner's
testimony before the Committee.
Following the initial release of this summary, INS initiated a
limited review of the physical alien files (A-files) pertaining to some
of the aliens included in the reported population. Based on a
preliminary review of these A-files, discrepancies between the data
contained in the INS database and information contained in the physical
A-files became apparent. Upon further review, it was determined that
the methodology used to identify responsive cases from INS' databases
may have inadvertently included non-criminal alien data in the document
responses and analysis submitted to the committee.
The Department has contracted with KPMG for a review of the
methodology used in retrieving the data. On April 19, 2000, INS and
Justice Management Division held an introductory meeting with the KPMG
contractors assigned to the project to initiate the review. The
project's Statement of Work provides that KPMG will: review the
methodology that INS previously implemented in its initial data
collection; make recommendations for improving the methodology if
appropriate, and validate the results of any subsequent data analysis
by the INS following the accepted methodology. Following this meeting,
the KPMG contractors initiated their assessment of the initial
methodology used by the INS. This review is ongoing. At this time,
given the ongoing review of possible recommendations to improve the
methodology, the INS cannot determine when any subsequent data run will
be completed and when the results of the analysis will be available.
The Department is aggressively approaching this review and hopes to
obtain the results within 3 months. This time line, again, will be
determined by the requirements of the methodology for the subsequent
data analysis, which have not been recommended by KPMG at this time.
The INS will provide monthly status reports to the Appropriations
Committees of the House and the Senate on the KPMG review.
February 28, 2000.
Immigration and Naturalization Service Results of House Judiciary
Committee Subpoena on Criminal Aliens Released from Detention
The Department of Justice has gathered and analyzed the immigration
and criminal records of certain groups of aliens in connection to a
subpoena from the Committee on the Judiciary. The first group of these
records relates to criminal aliens that were released from Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) detention and either returned to the
community or given an order of voluntary departure. The second group of
records relates to aliens that were admitted to the United States
through primary inspection at an airport.
Recidivism is one of the most serious problems in enforcement. This
exercise resulted in a 37 percent rate of recidivism for criminal
aliens released from INS custody. While the rate varies greatly for
specific populations, the findings from this project are in keeping
with general recidivism rates. The INS release criteria attempt to
minimize this risk whenever possible. The INS has increased detention
capacity greatly over the last five years and focused efforts on
removing criminal aliens and border enforcement. To this end, the INS
removed approximately 245,000 criminal aliens between October 1994 and
May 1999. In addition, we are attempting to maximize the amount and
quality of information that an officer on the ground has to make a
determination with regard to release, including through IDENT/IAFIS
interconnectivity.
The Department's response to this subpoena relied heavily on the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). The INS worked with the Bureau of the Census to
develop methodologies for answering questions raised by the subpoena;
the methodologies were reviewed and approved by the General Accounting
Office. The U.S. Customs Service assisted with data for the airport
admissions.
Aliens released from detention
Between October 1, 1994 and May 31, 1999 the INS had over 300,000
criminal aliens in detention. During this period the INS released
35,318 criminal aliens from custody. The Department and INS place the
highest value on protecting public safety. Criminal aliens may be
released under several conditions; including after an immigration judge
sets bond for an alien or orders release on recognizance or
supervision, after review of the case by INS indicates that the alien
is not a flight risk or danger to the community and the detention space
is needed for more serious criminals, on an order of voluntary
departure, or because an immigration judge granted some form of relief
to the alien or terminated the proceedings against the alien.
A search of INS databases indicated that the INS had FBI numbers,
indicating an arrest history, on 23,295 of the released aliens. The INS
did not have FBI numbers on the remaining 12,023 aliens. The FBI
produced criminal histories (rap sheets) on the aliens with FBI numbers
who had an update on their rap sheet after the date of release from INS
detention. Those 18,454 histories were reviewed by INS investigative
officers who determined that 8,658 aliens were arrested for a crime
after release from INS detention. The officers checked the histories
for the disposition of the most serious subsequent crime. As agreed
with the Committee, those crimes and dispositions have been classified
into the discrete categories of violent crimes, drug-related crimes,
and non-violent crimes. Violent crimes include homicide, assault,
sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery. The criminal histories often
do not distinguish between levels of a crime, e.g., between homicide
and attempted homicide. Assault includes crimes ranging from simple
assault to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
The following table summarizes the type of crime and the
disposition of the case if known. Only the most serious crime is
included in this table; some aliens had multiple charges or arrests on
multiple dates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nonviolent Drug violent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total arrests................................................... 8,658 4,412 2,870 1,376
-----------------------------------------------
Convicted....................................................... 4,264 2,270 1,489 505
No disposition.................................................. 4,394 2,142 1,381 871
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since a large proportion of the rap sheets provided by the FBI did
not include information on the disposition of the case, INS agreed to
draw a random sample of 116 of the cases without a known disposition.
The purpose of the sample was to develop an estimate of the number of
convictions. The INS officers traced the records of the sampled cases
to determine disposition. The results indicated 72 cases with
convictions, 24 cases still pending and 20 cases with dismissals, nolle
pros, or acquittal. Therefore an estimate of the number of convictions
among the cases without disposition is 2,709 plus/minus 379. The
estimate of cases still pending is 903 plus/minus 318.
The arrest rate among the 23,295 aliens for whom the Department had
FBI criminal histories is 37.2 percent. The number of convictions
(including the estimate from the sample) is 6,973 plus/minus 379. The
rate of arrest and conviction among the 23,295 aliens is 30 percent
plus/minus 1.6 percent.
There is considerably less information about the 12,023 aliens for
whom the INS did not have FBI numbers. The INS drew a random sample of
400 cases from the records of these aliens. That sample was
investigated by the INS' Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). Using
name and date of birth checks, the LESC found 67 possibly responsive
records; an arrest rate of 16.8 percent plus/minus 3.6 percent.
However, the Department believes that this lower arrest rate is
attributable to the uncertainty and difficulty in using only name and
date of birth checks with this population. Therefore, the Department
believes that the arrest and conviction rates among these aliens is the
same as the rates among those aliens that had FBI numbers.
The INS compiled the records of subsequent actions taken by the INS
after the initial release from detention. Of the 8,658 aliens who were
arrested after release, 3,396 were removed from the United States at
least once and there were a total of 4,646 removals among these aliens
indicating multiple removals of some aliens (2,767 aliens were first
removed after the arrest and 629 aliens were removed before the arrest
and had illegally reentered the United States).
Aliens admitted through primary inspection at airports
The INS worked with the Customs Service to develop a list of the
approximately 19 million aliens admitted through airports in fiscal
year 1998. The list contained information on name, date of birth, and
date of entry. Because the list was too large to investigate every
admission, the Department and the Committee agreed that an exploratory
sample of the admissions would be investigated. The INS drew a simple
random sample of 10,000 aliens. The names and dates of birth of these
aliens were processed by the FBI using a ``sounds-alike'' system for
determining name matches. After eliminating records that did not match
the name and date of birth exactly, the INS determined that 4 aliens
among the 10,000 had a criminal history with convictions before and
after entry.
The small number of ineligible admissions uncovered by this sample
indicates that a more complex sampling strategy would be needed to
obtain an estimate for the entire population of admissions with a
reasonable level of precision. The samples would need to be larger and
they will need to be executed over long periods of time.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNT
Senator Gregg. You mentioned that you have a new fee system
you are going to put in place to capitalize this capital
investment account. A capital investment account you plan to
use for the purposes, as I understand it, of capital activity
but also for the purposes of actual operating activity in the
area of approving various items, such as citizenship papers and
visas? Is that what you were going to use this for?
Ms. Meissner. This is a proposal, in the budget, to
recognize that processing fees, the fees that we get from
applicants, along with capital investment are extremely
important if we are to provide the service that is necessary.
The capital fund would be intended primarily for capital
investment in automation, new phone capabilities, case
tracking, and additional service center capabilities. It would
also be used for backlog reduction in the adjustment of status.
Senator Gregg. You are going to fund this with a fee that
people will have the option of paying if they want to get their
approvals done in a more prompt way?
Ms. Meissner. Yes, our proposal is that we would have a
voluntary fee for business applications that, according to our
estimates, would generate about $80 million, of which $25
million would be put into additional staff to be able to handle
business applications within 15 days. The remaining $55 million
would be devoted to infrastructure so that we can accelerate
the level of technology, automation and backlog reduction from
what we are able to do with the current fee structure.
Senator Gregg. So essentially you are going to tell an
applicant that if they are willing to pay $1,000, they can get
their application processed in 15 days but if they are not
willing to pay $1,000, it may never reappear?
Ms. Meissner. No, that is not correct. The premium fee
would be along the lines of expedited service that one gets
from Federal Express or from the Passport Office. The idea is
to provide 2-week turnaround service for business applicants
who are willing to pay the $1,000 and add the staff that would
be required to do that. It would not take away from the
attention given to the non-$1,000 payers. What it would do is
make money available that would allow for upgrading the entire
infrastructure of the services area of the INS's work so that
all applicants would be able to get better service over the
longer term.
At the present time, we are simply unable to make the
infrastructure improvements as quickly as we need them, from
the fees that are paid with our applications.
Senator Gregg. But the actual cost of doing this 15-day
event would be about a third of what the fee is going to be.
Ms. Meissner. That is correct. The fee would pay for the
15-day turnaround, but would also provide a revenue source that
would improve the processing for everybody over a 2-to 3-year
period.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
NATURALIZATION BACKLOG
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Meissner, the record, having a 2-year backlog in
naturalization is not a success. We have had a 232 percent
increase in your budget and we were supposed, by the
millennium--everybody kept talking about the millennium and now
that we are here, they do not even mention it--by the
millennium we were supposed to be rid of the backlog and we are
still talking about a 2-year backlog.
BORDER PATROL
But let me ask specifically about the Border Patrol. Now,
we authorized 1,000 agents and I have looked at your budget
here and you really only provide for 430. You talk the talk but
do not walk the walk. You talk about 1,800, but 600 of the
agents that we were supposed to have hired last year; now you
are talking really of 1,800 but only employing 430 for this
year, so we are substantially behind on this Border Patrol.
And we all know up here with respect to the economy and the
high employment, it is not as easy, but the military goes to
the high schools. You could go to the high schools in New
Mexico and you can get some good Spanish-speaking high school
graduates and put them on overnight, send them to Charleston to
the school or the school there in New Mexico. But I find that
in the schools, the classes are cut back from 29 to 20. You are
cutting back on the classes.
You are talking about the great successes and how they are
all coming on but we did that talk last year and we ended up
600 shy. Now you are talking about 1,800 this year and really
asking for only 430.
What gives? Cannot we get some people employed?
Ms. Meissner. Well, we, as you know, have had a very
aggressive hiring program for 5 or 6 years. We met our hiring
goals for 4 years in a row. It has been a very aggressive
effort.
Last year, fiscal year 1999, we faltered. We ran into a
labor market that was very unyielding for us. As a result, we
have made a wide series of changes that have increased our
applicant pool substantially. We are continuing to increase the
applicant pool. But we did fall behind last year and we need to
make that up.
The applicant pool is now 30 percent more than it was last
year at this time. We have attracted between 11,000 and 12,000
more people as qualified applicants as we have put these
changes into place. We began in January to offer a hiring
bonus, as well as to make some alterations in the scoring of
our tests so that we have widened the number of eligible people
that we can attract. We have a pay reform package proposal in
this budget that we hope to be able to move forward with, which
will create additional ability to retain people in the Patrol,
as well as recruit. So this has been a major effort of very
high priority to the Service.
The class schedules have been filled so far but we have a
very, very ambitious trajectory coming in the next 6 months
that we need to be able to meet. We will do everything that we
can.
Senator Hollings. How can you call that an ambitious
trajectory when you are cutting back from 29 to 20? You are
going in the other direction. You talk about the
aggressiveness, how you are going to bring them in at a GS-11
rather than a GS-9, but then you cut down the overtime pay. So
the amounts that they would get initially paid, then they cut
back on overtime, so they are not getting any more, so that is
not aggressive.
Ms. Meissner. No, actually the overtime proposal that we
are making increases the salary for the Border Patrol and it
creates a greater amount of overtime that counts toward
retirement than the current system. So it is a much more
advantageous system for the GS-9s that are currently in the
Border Patrol that are the working level.
CHARLESTON CASE
Senator Hollings. Ms. Meissner, I have a question on a case
that we had down there in Charleston. This young student at the
College of Charleston, her mother won the immigration lottery.
I understand your staff was informing you about it. I have been
almost to the top, the next person under you on this particular
case, and what happens is they win the lottery and they then
have to apply within a year and she applied and her application
was misplaced, lost for 3 months. The agent admitting to the 3-
month loss then asked for the expedited treatment by the INS to
get her in under the terminal date of October 18 and that was
totally ignored. So the agent, knowing it was lost and asking
for expedition, which would have easily had her processed and
admitted, instead, she got it in 18 days later and, as a
result, now her entire family is here from the Ukraine but she
is going to be shipped back to the Ukraine.
In contrast, for example, her sister was in the Ukraine.
The State Department handled it there and her sister got in.
And through no fault of her own, she is appearing before the
judge here and trying to explain this but she is getting no
cooperation.
Can you help us in this particular case?
Ms. Meissner. I have just become aware of this case and I
will take a look at it and I will do everything that I possibly
can. If I could get back to you on that, I would appreciate it
so that I can become familiar with it.
Senator Hollings. Please get back to us. Do everything you
can. Just correct your mistake, the department's mistake, not
hers.
Ms. Meissner. I do understand. I do understand the issue.
[The information follows:]
STATUS OF THE CHARLESTON CASE
There have been discussions with Senator Hollings' staff on
this matter. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
is currently in the process of researching this case. Once the
case is completely researched, INS will provide the Senator's
office with the full details of the agency's findings.
Ms. Meissner. Senator, if I could just say though on the
naturalization point that you made earlier, the backlog
reduction program that we presented to the Congress was always
a 2-year backlog reduction program for naturalization. Last
year was the first year. We met the goals. This year is the
second year. We intend to meet the goals this year and that
will complete the backlog reduction. But that is what was
always foreseen and that was what was shared with the Congress
and the way in which the funding was provided.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. The tradition of this committee is that we
recognize people in order of arrival, except whenever the
chairman of the full committee is nice enough to join us and we
recognize him upon his arrival. So I recognize the chairman.
MISSING PERSON
Senator Stevens. You are very kind. I do have another
meeting going on, and I came over specifically for one question
and I would like to put one question, in the record.
Ms. Meissner, I learned only yesterday about a young Upik
person, a young man from Chukotka in Russia who was arrested in
Nome, Alaska, while visiting relatives in Gambell. He was
placed in an INS facility in Seattle. His name is Vladimir
Skhaug'e. He was listed as Vladimir Schaulir. He had family in
Gambell and corresponded with them until 1999. At that time he
told his family he was asking for asylum. In the spring of 1999
the family lost contact with him and was told through a lawyer
who they contacted that he had been sent back to Russia. Since
then, neither his family in Alaska nor his family in Russia has
heard from him. They do not know if he was released to Russia,
to whom he was released or if he was released at all.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to ask for this
family what is the status of his person? I have his number from
the INS service. If he was sent back to Russia, when was he
sent? To whom he was released? What authorities, that is--and
is there is any other relevant data that may help find this
young man? He, admittedly, came to our country illegally but it
was because he had family in our State, and they are very
worried about him. I would appreciate it very much if you could
get us a reply.
[The information follows:]
On September 5, 1997, Mr. Skhaug'e was arrested by local
law enforcement authorities in Nome, Alaska for public
drunkenness. He was subsequently interviewed by INS officers.
During that interview, it was determined that Mr. Skhaug'e had
overstayed his visitors visa. He was subsequently charged for
violation of Sec. 237a(1)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act. He was transferred to INS in Seattle, Washington, where he
was presented for deportation proceedings.
On December 9, 1997, Mr. Skhaug'e was ordered deported by
an Immigration Judge. He appealed this decision to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). On October 6, 1998, the BIA
dismissed Mr. Skhaug'e's appeal and ordered him deported.
On January 28, 1999, Mr. Skhaug'e was deported to Russia
through the port of Anchorage, Alaska, on Aeroflot Airlines to
Moscow (Aeroflot Flight No. 854). Since he was in possession of
a valid passport and his medical or criminal problems were not
sufficient to warrant counselor notification or any special
arrangements with Russian officials, Mr. Skhaug'e was escorted
only as far as the port-of-entry in Anchorage where he was
placed on the flight to Russia.
Senator Stevens. I will submit some questions for the
record if I may.
Senator Gregg. Certainly.
Ms. Meissner. I will be happy to follow up on that. Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION VIA COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Commissioner, it was noted with interest the
statistics you gave, the drop in statistics in the illegal
immigrants in Bisbee, Nogales and several other places, but my
view is that that does not mean they are still not coming.
The problem I think we face is when you add agents and you
add pressure in Texas and California and Florida, they just go
the path of least resistance, and our State is becoming one of
the paths of least resistance.
On January 24th a load of 17 illegal immigrants were packed
into a van, that crashed on a lonely road in a valley in
Colorado, killing three. Just a day after that another van
loaded with, I believe, 22 illegal immigrants, crashed in
Southern New Mexico, killing one. So clearly some of these
lightly traveled roads are becoming major conduits for illegal
immigrants.
I know you are aware of that and you have assigned more
agents to Colorado, but in doing so, a strange kind of
phenomenon has started. Maybe you are already aware of it but
your agency is going to expand in Durango, Grand Junction, and
Glenwood Springs, Colorado. I note with interest in those
town's newspapers that groups are forming to oppose this
increased INS presence. I never thought I would see the day
when people form in some kind of concerted effort, saying that
we should not allow the INS to expand in their communities. I
thought we were all on the same side of this and would like to
see a reduction in illegal immigration.
The people that are opposing the INS coming into Grand
Junction, Durango, and Glenwood Springs seem to be in two
factions. One is the people that need workers--the ranchers and
the farms and small businesses and so on that cannot get
workers at a time when there are so many jobs out there. And
the other group, has some racial overtones. They are saying
that we should not expand the INS because they are going to add
more pressure just to people of Hispanic origin.
I would like to know your thoughts on those two things that
I had never seen before the last couple of years and also your
intentions. Are you intent to expand the offices in those
communities?
Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. Those resources are very
important and they have been needed in these areas for exactly
the reasons that you are describing. They are seeing some
changing patterns and we are seeing smugglers resorting to far
more dangerous tactics, putting people at risk in rickety,
unsafe vehicles in large numbers, and there have been too many
of the kinds of highway disasters that you are describing. We
need to confront that and we need to----
Senator Campbell. Well, I am on your side on this. I think
you ought to expand it and I appreciate you doing that, but I
would like to know how the INS is going to react to some of
those concerns that seem to be coming up in the communities.
Ms. Meissner. These community concerns do arise and I think
that it is very important that we be able to address them and
open the kind of dialogue with communities that we have been
very engaged in in many parts of the country. I think the
border communities in particular understand how aggressively we
try to keep lines of communication open.
In this particular case with these new resources that you
are getting in Colorado, as well as similar ones in other parts
of the country, I think we need to clarify with local law
enforcement and with the communities what the respective roles
of local law enforcement and INS enforcement are, how we will
be able to reduce criminality and abusive practices in their
communities, what kind of cooperation we are able to give. I
think a lot of it is dialogue and public education.
Senator Campbell. Do you have some kind of an outreach
program?
Ms. Meissner. Absolutely.
Senator Campbell. You have been through this before in
other towns?
Ms. Meissner. Yes, but I am glad that you raised it with
me. I am sure that our people, locally, are aware of this but I
will make certain that they are pursuing the outreach in the
way that we expect.
INDIAN RESERVATIONS
Senator Campbell. I would appreciate that.
Just one other related question, too, and that is in
Arizona and New Mexico, particularly Arizona, we have some
Indian reservations that are right on the border, as you know.
I have had people tell me that they pretty much go back and
forth any time they want through holes in the fence from Mexico
onto some of the reservation ground.
How does your agency interact with tribal officials? In
fact, some of them tell me that it is their relatives who go
back and forth.
Ms. Meissner. Well, Indian reservations are a very special
area, as you know. I mean they are sovereign and they span the
border, both on the United States-Mexico border and, in some
cases, on the United States-Canadian border. We work with
tribal officials as closely as we can. I would have to tell
you, though, that Indian reservations tend to be a source of
enforcement difficulty.
Senator Campbell. Has there been an increase in the number
of illegal aliens coming through reservation border ground?
Ms. Meissner. Yes. And obviously Native Americans have
specific documents that they are able to use in order to move
back and forth. We increasingly will find ourselves having to
work in much closer coordination with these areas as other
parts of the border become more carefully controlled, to
prevent this from being a weak spot.
Senator Campbell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici?
MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, recently there has been a number of articles
about where the immigrants from Mexico who are coming across
our border are going, in spite of your efforts, in spite of our
money, by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands, and it is
most interesting.
For those who thought they would stay over in Arizona or
New Mexico or even Texas, what a surprise. They are found all
over the South now. We have some communities in the Carolinas,
in Georgia where the addition of Mexican immigrants is
skyrocketing. The immigrants are not there by the hundreds; in
some medium-sized communities in the South there are thousands.
Frankly, I am not here to tell you that we know how to stop
that, that we have some magic that we want to impose on you
through our appropriation process. It is my guess that if the
census were accurate, and I do not believe it will be, that we
would find that over the last 5 or 6 years--I do not want to
say a sieve--but I really believe there has been little impact
on Mexican immigrants coming to the United States and finding a
place to stay and go to work. Frankly, the employers in America
are using them, working them, paying them, and they are sending
huge amounts of money back to Mexico.
I do not know when it will reach a point where it is just
too many and too much, but it is getting close. I mean America
has almost lost control of its borders.
Senator Campbell. If my friend would yield just a moment,
the accident, the wreck with the 17 illegal aliens that I
talked about that was in Colorado, they were on their way to
Florida. The authorities questioned them and they had come up
through New Mexico. There was little resistance, but they were
all heading for Florida and had jobs waiting for them on farms.
Senator Domenici. I just want to make the point. I have
three specific questions but, frankly, it would appear to me
that some very, very high-level discussions between Mexico,
even though they are sovereign and everybody acknowledges that,
and the United States about this issue would be in order. With
a border the size we have, there is no way the Border Patrol is
going to keep this from happening.
I tell you, when it comes to enforcing our laws that we
have put on the books, all of the border agencies are having
difficulty managing the process. I do not know why that is.
Maybe it is just too massive a job. But you have been trying
for a number of years to get your agency under control and
maybe it is a little better today, maybe a lot better than it
was 4 years ago, but any outside observation is that it has a
long way to go in terms of just accomplishing what we want it
to accomplish. None of us--I am not convinced that if we were
doing it perfectly--know how to prevent massive immigration
from Mexico, so long as they are so poor and there are so many
opportunities in this country. It is just one of the most
attractive human instincts that is taking place that it is hard
for us to consider because none of us have been in that
position.
DETENTION ISSUES
Now if you want to comment on that you are welcome to, but
I want to talk about what is happening on the border. It
appears to me that everything on the border, from the Federal
district courts to where the U.S. Marshals have facilities to
incarcerate people waiting for trial are all so overloaded that
it is almost to a situation of emergencies. I want to just talk
about one and that has to do with how are we incarcerating the
illegals that we arrest that are either awaiting trial or
awaiting deportation. I would ask you if you would supply the
committee for the record with an entire analysis of the border
and how much capacity we have and where we are putting these
people in jail.
I want you to know that in my State we are not very rich
and we do not have a lot of jobs. Still some of our rural
counties have high unemployment and the immigrants understand
that. They are not staying in those areas, other than for
agriculture. They are going to your State. They are going over
to the other States near you. They are going to Georgia. They
are going to Colorado.
I think we have to know who we are putting the burden on,
what local governments we are putting the burden on for
incarceration and jail. I am going to stay right on that, and I
want to tell you one county in New Mexico with a community
called Deming, the county of Luna, which is very poor. They
spent $350,000 last year housing people for the Federal
Government in the areas of which I am speaking.
Now, we need some relief. We either need the government to
build some detention facilities, or they have to reimburse
these poor counties along the border that are housing them. You
have $78 million in your budget for that kind of activity, to
either reimburse and/or build some interim facilities.
Now I think with the crisis being what it is that we need
to know from you, and I ask the chairman if we could ask--about
the game plan for using that $78 million. Where are you going
to put it? Who is going to benefit? How are we going to help
counties like Luna? I am sure there are counties and cities in
Arizona. If we are going to appropriate that money, we need to
know what you are going to do with it, and I would ask that you
tell us in detail how you are going to use that on the border
to alleviate the situation. Is that a fair question, Mr.
Chairman?
Senator Gregg. Absolutely.
Senator Domenici. It may take a little time but I really
think we ought to know, and maybe we do not have enough money
at $78 million to do the job.
[The information follows:]
Detaining Illegals Awaiting Trial or Deportation
The total Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Detention
and Deportation (D&D) enacted budget for fiscal year 2000 is $878.6
million, which is used to detain, remove, and deport aliens. Funding is
also used to support the 18,535 average daily detention beds within the
D&D program. The D&D program uses Service Processing Centers, contract
facilities, joint INS/Bureau of Prisons federal facilities, and state/
local facilities to detain those aliens subject to deportation,
exclusion or removal proceedings who are likely to abscond, or whose
freedom at-large would clearly present a danger to public safety and
security until they are ready for removal.
INS is requesting $119.5 million in additional program funding for
the D&D program in fiscal year 2001, which includes $82 million in
appropriated funds. These resources will be used as follows:
--$16 million to enhance the National Transportation System.--This
funding, including $5.6 million in the Breached Bond Detention
account, will fund 16,000 additional domestic and repatriation
Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System Fund (JPATS)
movements, thus enabling the INS to fund a total of 85,000
JPATS movements in fiscal year 2001.
--$8 million to Enhance Juvenile Bed Space.--Funding of $3 million
will provide 11 additional full-time Juvenile Coordinators in
11 districts. This initiative, when fully implemented in fiscal
year 2002, will result in the removal of 190 additional
juvenile aliens supported by 38 average daily beds funded with
Salaries and Expenses resources. In addition, $5 million from
the Breached Detention account will increase the number of
juvenile detention beds by 82 beds in fiscal year 2001.
--$52 million to Increase Funding for State and Local Bed Space.--
This initiative will facilitate the removal of an additional
10,000 illegal aliens. It will also add 1,000 new detention
beds enabling INS to reach an average annual funded bed level
in fiscal year 2001 of 19,702.
--$9 million for Detention Standards for Intergovernmental Service
Agreements (IGSAs).--Because INS is compelled to rapidly expand
IGSA utilization in a vast and varied number of non-Federal
facilities, INS cannot rely on obtaining IGSA bed space that is
always completely compliant with INS' detention standards. This
funding is requested to continue the implementation plan funded
in fiscal year 2000 in which the INS will administer, implement
and maintain detention standards with a dedicated staff and
funding for upgrading IGSA facilities.
--$8 million to Improve Utilization of the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC).--This funding will be used to expand NCIC data
entry to address a serious backlog of inputting INS's Criminal
Alien Records into the Nationwide database. These resources
will also be used to improve and expedite INS capability to
locate aliens on the Wanted Persons File and the Deported Felon
File, track stolen property, and obtain criminal history
records.
--$27 million to Maintain the fiscal year 2000 Detention-Bed Level.--
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation provided a considerable
enhancement for the Detention program, $26 million of which was
funded by one-time recoveries from the Violent Crime Reduction
Fund. The budget request proposes the use of $27 million from
245(i) receipts to replace the $26 million available in fiscal
year 2000. Without these resources, INS would have to reduce
its number of detention beds by almost 1,000.
Additionally, in the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget, the
Office of Justice Programs is requesting $600 million for the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). SCAAP is a payment program
designed to provide federal assistance to states and localities for the
costs of incarcerating certain criminal aliens who are being held as a
result of state and/or local charges or convictions. States and
localities with correctional facilities that incarcerate, for 72 hours
or longer, persons accused or convicted of either a felony or 2
misdemeanors that occurred prior to or resulted in the current custody,
are eligible to apply for SCAAP funding.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNT
Senator Domenici. Secondly, I do want to criticize your
national budget a little bit. You know, the President of the
United States had the latitude to put an awful lot of new
programs in his budget. I do not think he is going to get very
many of them, and I am not talking about whether we will
increase education spending; that is a different issue. The
President has scores of brand new programs in his budget.
Now why in the world do we have to charge businesses a
bonus to get expedited treatment at the border, this new
thousand dollar club? I am not for that. Frankly, I think it is
an admission that we are not doing our job right, unless you
can convince me that it is not. I think we ought to improve the
entire process, not just that for a businessman who desperately
needs it, and we ought to cut that huge waiting time down some
way.
Secondly, any user fees that the President puts on on the
border and then uses in this budget seems to me you have to
make a great case for user fees or they should not be put on. I
mean if you have brand new programs you are starting, why do
you not pay for the border activities of this Nation before you
start new programs? I think it is a very simple and fundamental
question. I know where I come down and I frankly believe I
could convince 75 Senators that before we start new programs we
have to beef up your programs. We have to make sure you have
the money you need.
BORDER PATROL RECRUITMENT
Now on the recruitment, could I ask a question? Are you now
recruiting, working hard to recruit people who are bilingual,
Hispanics, Mexican-Americans who speak two languages? It would
appear to me that if that is not a big part of it, it is a
shame and I would be surprised if you are not doing that but I
would like to know. Is it successful? How do you measure it?
Would you answer that one, please?
Ms. Meissner. Shall I go back to the first one on
detention?
Senator Domenici. Just answer that last one.
Ms. Meissner. Okay. Absolutely, bilingual recruitment is
very fruitful for us. We talked last year about doing
recruitment closer to the border and that is among the changes
that we have made. We are doing substantial testing now in
border communities all along the border--Harlingen, Laredo, El
Paso, Las Cruces, Tucson--and we are finding very substantial
numbers of bilingual people that are applying.
In fact, more than a third of the Border Patrol is
Hispanic. We are the largest Hispanic employer in the Federal
Government. Recruiting in border communities, where our work is
well known and where there are high numbers of Hispanic
residents, is a very productive recruitment source for us.
Senator Hutchison. Could I interrupt for one second on that
point?
Senator Domenici. Certainly.
Senator Hutchison. Are you giving bonuses for people who
are already proficient in Spanish?
Ms. Meissner. We do not give bonuses for people who are
already proficient in Spanish. What we have done is changed the
point scoring on the testing that we do for qualified
applicants. Among the changes that we have made is that those
who speak Spanish and have language facility now get extra
points toward qualification for the Border Patrol, which widens
the pool of applicants of bilingual people that is available to
us. That is working very well.
DETENTION
Senator Domenici. Thank you for that.
Now would you go back and respond if you care to----
Ms. Meissner. May I respond on the detention point in
particular?
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Ms. Meissner. Detention has been of extreme importance to
the INS. We began this buildup with about 6,000 detention
spaces. We are now up to 18,000. It has been a very substantial
growth in bed space. This budget has in it money for another
1,000 bed spaces. And we actually house close to 300,000 people
in those bed spaces every year because of the turn-over that
takes place.
Now the vast share of that growth has been in
reimbursements to State and local facilities because we use
State and local facilities widely throughout the Southwest.
When we run out of space in a place like Deming and our space
that is available to us to reimburse in New Mexico is quite
small, we house people in El Paso and in other places in Texas
where we have a considerable amount of space that we reimburse.
Our needs for detention do exceed what is available, but we
also have made very, very substantial growth. In fact, it is
greater growth than in most of the other occupational areas of
the Service. I will look at the Deming situation to see whether
the proper reimbursement is taking place because we do
reimburse regularly.
PREMIUM PROCESSING FEE
Ms. Meissner. Now on the business fee, all of our
adjudications processing is based on fees that applicants pay.
All we are suggesting here is that we have a voluntary higher
fee in order to make capital available for infrastructure that
will create a better base and more automated mechanism for all
of our application processing.
We also are asking for some appropriated funding. We are
asking for a mix of a premium fee and appropriated funding and
another penalty fee in order to put together the bundle of
money that is needed to really move this agency to a modern
processing regime. We have had such a struggle to try to put
into place because the only source of revenue that we have had
has been the fee money until the last 2 years when the Congress
did appropriate money for naturalization backlog reduction. We
can show you the results from that appropriation. We have made
our targets and we will make them this year.
REIMBURSING COUNTIES FOR INCARCERATIONS
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, might I make the point and
ask both you and Senator Hollings to consider it, as we prepare
to mark up? I really believe we ought not let the Federal
Government impose on any county, not only on the border but
anywhere in the country, county or city jails--we should not be
burdening them with our incarceration needs without reimbursing
them. When it gets to be as big a burden as it is for some of
these counties--I mean they are giving up hope on us.
The United States Marshals, let me tell you, they are
having difficulty because they are the ones in charge of these
prisoners and they are having an awful hard time because they
do not even know where to take them sometimes. I will tell you
there are marshals that have to drive 100 or 150 miles with
these prisoners because we do not have facilities. I think we
ought to pay some real attention to that because that is an
absolutely unrealistic burden on local facilities.
Senator Gregg. We will be happy to look at that. I would
note to the Senator that we put a large amount of money into
the SCAAP program. Last year I think we put $650 million in the
SCAAP. It goes back to the States, and they can use it,
basically, as an unfettered block grant. A lot of the States,
unfortunately, do not use it to reimburse the local communities
for illegal alien incarceration but rather, use it for local
law enforcement or anything else they want to use it for.
So maybe we should put some restrictions on the SCAAP
money, that the first call on the SCAAP money must be to
reimburse local communities who bear incarceration burdens as a
result of taking illegal aliens. So we might want to put some
restriction on the SCAAP money.
Senator Domenici. I am willing to look at it.
Senator Gregg. I do not know what New Mexico does, but I do
know that California uses this essentially as a block grant and
as a result, I am not even sure that the money ends up in the
illegal alien account in California. I think it ends up in the
general law enforcement account.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hutchison.
BORDER PATROL AGENTS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, first and foremost I want to thank you and
Senator Hollings for being so supportive of the efforts that we
have made on this committee to stick to our commitment and our
priority to increase the number of Border Patrol agents.
The head of the drug czar's office, Barry McCaffry, has
urged us to go toward a goal of 20,000 Border Patrol agents in
our country. Congress has responded to that by trying to have
1,000 new agents each year and yet we only have 7,700 Border
Patrol agents on the Southwest border and the administration
has requested funding for 1,000 only once since we have passed
the law in 1997.
Now I think that is appalling, and I know that Commissioner
Meissner has tried to go with the 1,000, but the administration
has come back each year with less than 1,000 and unfortunately,
this year is one of those, where there are 430 in the Border
Patrol agent hiring category.
I am very concerned that in a conversation I had with the
Attorney General last week before this committee she indicated
that it was an option to increase the pay, the level from GS-9
to GS-11 if we did not hire the number of Border Patrol agents,
the 1,000, by June 1.
I do not consider that an option. I consider it a mandate.
The language in last year's appropriations bill was very clear.
It was not a choice; it was a mandate. And the reason that it
was a mandate is because this committee has had to get narrower
and narrower in directing the administration on the issue of
Border Patrol agents because we have tried to give general
guidelines; we have given them money; we have done everything
we know how to do. And finally last year we said if the money
is not spent for more Border Patrol agents, it has to be spent
upgrading the pay for the people who are there, because we know
we have a retention problem. So I thank the committee for the
support but I have to say I am very disappointed in this year's
budget.
I want to ask you, Commissioner Meissner, if there is any
question that you are going to give the increases on June 1
that are provided for in this committee's bill from last year,
if there is any question that you are going to give those
raises on June 1, as mandated by Congress.
Ms. Meissner. We understand the language to be a mandate
and we understand the language to require those upgrades if the
hiring has not been completed to the level that the budget
calls for.
In this budget that the Administration has put forward, we
have asked for the funding to cover those upgrades, so it is in
the funding proposal for 2001. We consider it very important
for, as you said, both retention and recruitment and in
recognition of the complexity of the work that the Border
Patrol carries out.
We believe it is also extremely important that that upgrade
be done in the context of an overall overtime reform. We
appreciated your time in talking about this yesterday. I hope
that we can work with you and with the committee to do both the
upgrade and the overtime reform because that is better for the
agents and better for the taxpayer, ultimately, if we can put
together the entire package.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me say that the Attorney
General did call me yesterday and she said it is their
intention to comply with that language, as well. And I do not
think we can count on some kind of supplemental that will
change the law. Perhaps there will be one, but I do not think
we can count on it.
So I am going to just ask you to start looking for the best
way to assure that those raises go into effect on June 1, as we
have directed and as both you and the Attorney General have
said you believe is the law that you are required to implement.
I want to work with you on the pay reform that you
described to me yesterday. As I understand it, it looks quite
reasonable and I do hope that we can enact that October 1, but
not in lieu of the June 1 relief that would give our agents the
absolute understanding that we appreciate the hard job they are
doing and we want them to be compensated as other law
enforcement agents are that have similar responsibilities.
So we will work on October 1 but not in lieu of June 1. So
we just have to work through that in the best way that we can
to make sure that that retention is the goal, June 1, as we put
in the law last year.
Secondly, I want to say I am pleased that you are now
testing on the border, which is a suggestion that we made to
try to increase the pool of applicants, and I am glad that that
is working.
I would also just ask you to look at something that we have
talked about before and that is bonuses for Spanish language
proficiency. I would like for you to look at whether you could
save money for hiring Spanish teachers and put that into
recruitment bonuses for people who are proficient in Spanish
and might be better able to hit the ground running on the
Border Patrol.
And last but not least, I just want to say that Senator Kyl
had to leave. He was here because, of course, he is very
concerned about the increase in activity on the Arizona border.
Half of the drugs and illegal immigrants coming into the United
States from Mexico flow through Texas, chiefly from McAllen,
Laredo, and Del Rio sectors. Two of Mexico's four biggest drug
cartels--the Gulf and the Juarez cartels--operate directly
across from communities in Texas.
So we cannot let up. Four hundred thirty new agents is not
enough. It is not sufficient, and I do not want to micromanage
your agency and neither does Senator Gregg and neither does
Senator Hollings, nor does Senator Campbell and nor does
Senator Domenici or Senator Kyl, but we are frustrated because
we have been very clear in the mandates. And I think the agency
has been hampered by an administration that is putting its
priorities elsewhere and by a lack of creativity in recruiting
and retaining.
So I hope that we can continue to work together because we
are not succeeding. And as long as we have a continued influx
of illegal immigrants, and we have just heard stories that are
unacceptable, I would associate myself with Senator Domenici's
remarks regarding incarceration of illegal immigrants and the
cost to my State, just as Senator Domenici's State. It is
unacceptable. We have got to step up to the plate with the
Federal responsibility to have the integrity of our borders.
That is one of the very few purely Federal responsibilities
that we have and we are not meeting the test because we have an
administration that is looking at other things that are not a
Federal priority, that are State priorities.
So I would just ask you to relay to the President and to
the Attorney General that we want to do the Federal job that we
are responsible to do and that is have integrity on our borders
so that illegal drugs do not go through these cartels into all
parts of our country and so that we get control of illegal
immigration on our borders. We are giving you the resources to
do it, and we just ask you to please adhere to the mandates
that we have given this agency and go forward with 1,000 new
Border Patrol agents and start making up for lost time in not
putting enough front-line Border Patrol agents on our borders
all the way across, to stop this flow of illegal activity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
We do have Director Freeh and Acting Administrator Marshall
still to testify this morning. Are there other folks who have
further questions?
EQUIPMENT FOR BORDER PATROL
I did have one point I wanted to make, Commissioner,
following up on what Senator Hutchison just said. This
committee last year was very specific about wanting money spent
on new equipment for the Border Patrol. The committee has been
informed by the chief of the Border Patrol that they do not
intend to spend the money on the equipment that the committee
directed them to.
If that occurs, this committee is going to take that very
seriously and there may be no chief of the Border Patrol
anymore, or at least funded by this committee. But I can assure
you that the directives of this committee in the area of
equipment, in the area of hiring Border Patrol, in the area of
enforcing our borders, are going to be complied with. We do
have the final say in this exercise and the fact that this
administration has flaunted the desire of Congress to beef up
the Border Patrol, beef up its capability to take action on the
border and has ignored the efforts of this Congress to try to
increase Border Patrol activity is something that we take very
seriously.
So we are less than impressed with the response of the
Border Patrol to our request.
Ms. Meissner. Senator, could I please respond to that?
Senator Gregg. Yes.
Ms. Meissner. The question of technology for the Border
Patrol is essential. Technology is absolutely essential. We
have said from the outset that our efforts with the Border
Patrol have to be a combination of people, equipment, and
technology. We have asked for technology in every budget; the
committee has been very generous in funding technology. We
stand by that and we want to put as much money into technology
as we possibly can.
The earmark that the committee made last year of $22
million for technology is an earmark that we will comply with.
I think that the conversations that took place at the staff
level, we were talking past each other. We need the technology,
and we will identify the technology. We gave you a report last
year, and we would like to update it based on more information
that we have at the present time. I think that what we want to
be able to do is work with you on the best kinds of technology
and technologies that we know work and are effective. It is
particularly important as we go into the more remote areas,
which is the case now on the southern border and will be the
case as we accelerate on the northern border.
So I would hope that I could provide you with the
understanding and the clarification, here, that our commitment
to technology is unfailing. I have strong confidence in the
chief's judgment on the overall direction of the Border Patrol,
as well as the kind of technology that is helpful and that our
agents use effectively. If we could please work together on
this, I think that we can come up with a technology package
that meets everybody's needs and the Congress's wishes.
Senator Gregg. That would be good. This committee has been
committed to funding an expansion of the Border Patrol not only
in personnel but in detention capability and in facilities and
in equipment, and we are totally committed to continuing to
fund that. We intend to aggressively fund that but when we fund
it, we do expect the money to be spent on those efforts and not
to be put into other functions.
So we would be happy to work with you on that and hope that
we can reach a common purpose.
Ms. Meissner. I hope so and I believe we will be able to. I
appreciate that.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, could I submit two
questions in writing?
Senator Gregg. Certainly.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Commissioner.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR
Drug Enforcement Administration
STATEMENT OF DONNIE R. MARSHALL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
REMARKS OF SENATOR GREGG
Senator Gregg. We are going to turn now to and hear both
Acting Administrator Marshall of the DEA and Director Freeh. We
will ask them both to appear before the committee at the same
time to expedite their time so that we do not unnecessarily
hold them up.
First let me welcome Administrator Marshall. This is his
first appearance before the committee, and we appreciate his
stepping into the shoes of Administrator Constantine. We know
that he will continue the excellent job that has been done at
DEA.
Of course it is always a pleasure to have Director Freeh
before the committee.
Again, I have no opening statement. Do you have an opening
statement?
Senator Hollings. No, thank you.
Senator Gregg. And to expedite your time, gentlemen, if you
want to submit your statements and go to questions, that would
be great. Or if you want to make your statements, that is fine,
also. We will begin with you, Director Freeh.
OPENING STATEMENT OF FBI DIRECTOR FREEH
Mr. Freeh. Senator, I will just make a very brief statement
with your kind invitation.
Senator Hollings, good morning.
My statement is well prepared. I do not want to take any of
the committee's time to repeat it. Let me just make several
points.
SUPPORT OF THE FBI'S MISSION
First of all, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Hollings and this committee, for what has really been
historical and extraordinary support for the FBI's mission. I
know that, first-hand since September of 1993, in all the areas
where we protect our country and the people who live here, as
well as around the world, whether those be counterterrorism
issues, organized crime issues, drug trafficking issues,
pedophiles on the Internet, terrorists, or espionage, this
committee particularly has given the FBI and the country the
tools, the technology to make those assets force-multipliers,
as the spies and terrorists have done with technology. And your
particular support and attention to infrastructure issues, to
tools and skills, to analytical capabilities has been
absolutely outstanding and I want to just thank all the members
of the committee for that.
We face a lot of challenges ahead of us. After 6 1/2 years
leading the FBI, I guess my greatest concern is not the quality
of the people who serve our country. We have, as you know, over
99,000 young men and women who have applied to be FBI agents
and we are honored and delighted with that. Most of them are
qualified to perform the job. I am glad that I was an FBI agent
in 1975. I do not think I could get into the FBI right now. I
would not hire me if I were applying in the competitive pool
that we have, that we are really blessed with.
So we are always going to have the people. We have the
individuals dedicated to the things that are critical to
protect our democracy and our values. I am not worried about
that. I am worried about the technology. I continue to be
concerned about our competency to work in the venues where we
now work, which are computer venues, and high-tech venues.
There are analytical worlds where we find ourselves, with
people able to do the job but not in every case the tools and
technology. And, as I said, I am extremely thankful to this
committee for the support that you have given us.
I guess my message, finishing up my sixth year is that we
cannot fall down on the technology job, that those tools and
skills that you have given us have a short shelf-life.
Technology and software in some cases, as you know, gets
rewritten every 18 months. So we cannot stop or fall down on
the job of technology support, or tools and skills and the
analytical and technical ability to do our job. I am very
concerned for that and I just would make that my theme and that
is certainly reflected in our initiatives.
Of the eight initiatives that we asked for consideration
for the 2001 budget, really only three of them are operational:
counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and a violent crime
initiative. The other five go to infrastructure, investigative
support, technology, analytical ability, and Law Enforcement
Services. I think that is the margin that we have to maintain
if we are going to stay active and competent in the 21st
century.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So thank you very much and I would be pleased to answer any
of your questions.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Director.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Louis J. Freeh
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Once
again, I am pleased to discuss the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It is a privilege to be
joined by Donnie Marshall, the Acting Administrator for the Drug
Enforcement Administration, and Doris Meissner, the Commissioner for
the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The work of the FBI, whether it is catching criminals, drug
traffickers, terrorists, and spies; providing training, investigative
assistance, and forensic and identification services to our law
enforcement partners; or developing new crime-fighting technologies and
techniques, is made possible by the strong support of this
Subcommittee. On behalf of the men and women of the FBI, I thank you.
OVERVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI is requesting a total of
$3,280,749,000 and 25,635 permanent positions (10,752 agents) for its
Salaries and Expenses and Construction appropriations. This request
includes direct program increases totaling 360 new positions, including
65 new agents, and $165,692,000 for eight budget initiatives:
Counterintelligence; Information Collection, Management, and Analysis;
Training; Investigative Support; Counterterrorism; Violent Crimes;
Technology/Cyber Crimes; and Law Enforcement Services.
In addition to direct funded resources, the fiscal year 2001 budget
request assumes a total of 3,586 reimbursable positions (1,076 agents)
and 3,453 workyears. For fiscal year 2001, the Administration is
proposing to implement a user fee to pay for the costs of operating the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The FBI
estimates that the NICS program will require a total of 642 positions
and workyears to operate, at a cost of $71,552,000, which would be
provided by fees. This amount includes funding to implement a program
of notifying appropriate State or local law enforcement when an
ineligible person attempts to purchase a firearm. Under the auspices of
the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement (ICDE) program, the FBI
would be reimbursed for a total of 981 positions (592 agents) and
$112,468,000 for FBI drug and gang-related task force investigations
and operations. Pursuant to the Health Care Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, the FBI will receive $88,000,000 in fiscal
year 2001 to fund 776 positions (445 agents) for health care fraud
enforcement.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
Despite the fall of the Iron Curtain and the emergence of democracy
in many of the countries formerly under the rule of communism, the
threat posed to U.S. national, military, and economic security from
foreign countries remains significant. Investigations in this area have
become more complex as the focus of foreign intelligence services have
expanded from traditional Cold War traditional military-related targets
to new areas, including technology, intellectual property, and economic
activity. The FBI continues to work closely with the intelligence
community to identify and reduce the presence of hostile intelligence
services in the U.S. To keep pace with the changing counterintelligence
threat to the U.S., the FBI is proposing a counterintelligence
initiative that would provide an additional $19,115,000 and 138
positions (63 agents) for this mission-critical area.
INFORMATION COLLECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND ANALYSIS
To be successful, the FBI must have the capacity for collecting,
storing, managing, analyzing, and disseminating case and intelligence
information on a timely basis to its own investigative personnel, as
well as other federal, State, and local law enforcement and the
intelligence community. Existing systems and capacities must be
upgraded to meet increased investigative demands. New technologies also
present opportunities for making for effective and timely use of case
information and intelligence currently being collected. For fiscal year
2001, the FBI is requesting a total of $74,227,000 and 74 positions to
enhance its information collection, management, and analysis
capacities.
Digital Collection Systems.--Since 1968, the Congress has provided
the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies with authorities
that can be used under certain conditions during investigations of
criminal activities to conduct electronic surveillance, including the
interception of voice and data communications. Authorities governing
the conduct of electronic surveillance in national security
investigations were passed by the Congress in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. These authorities carefully balance each citizen's
Fourth Amendment rights under the Constitution with law enforcement's
mission to protect national security and maintain public safety.
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI is requesting an increase of
$25,300,000 and four positions to begin a multi-year project for
replacing existing analog-based collection systems in each of its 56
field offices with new digital collection systems. The new digital
systems will use both off-the-shelf commercial and specially-developed
technology. Digital technology presents the means for obtaining higher
quality and clearer recordings, which, in turn, will allow the FBI to
improve the processing, translation, dissemination, and analysis of
materials. New digital systems would also be compliant with digital-
based solutions being implemented by the telecommunications industry
under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of
1994. Within a few years, analog access to conduct court-authorized
intercepts of communications will disappear.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an allocation of
$10,000,000 from the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund Super
Surplus, if available, for a multi-year initiative for storing,
archiving, and managing lawfully collected electronic surveillance
intelligence and evidentiary materials. This database would facilitate
integration of electronic surveillance data with the FBI's Information
Sharing Initiative.
Information Sharing Initiative.--The underlying information
technology infrastructure of the FBI is not adequate to meet either the
present-day or near-term information technology needs and capacities of
the FBI's criminal investigative and national security programs. To
establish the requisite information technology infrastructure and
develop the data processing, analysis, and dissemination capacities
considered essential to satisfy criminal investigative and national
security requirements, the Information Sharing Initiative strategy was
developed.
To date, Congress has supported the FBI by making $80,000,000
available for investment in the Information Sharing Initiative
strategy, including $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $60,000,000 in
fiscal year 1999. Consistent with Congressional instructions, none of
these funds have not been obligated. The FBI continues to consult with
the Congress to obtain the necessary concurrence for the Information
Sharing Initiative strategy. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an
investment of $60,000,000 for the Information Sharing Initiative,
consisting of $20,000,000 in base funding and $40,000,000 in new
funding. Additionally, $838,000 is requested to hire 15 new computer
specialists to support equipment installation and operations.
Language Services.--FBI investigations are increasingly affected by
international criminal activities and emerging criminal enterprises and
alliances that transcend national boundaries. The FBI's success in
preventing international crime groups from establishing criminal
operations in the U.S., as well as investigating those criminal
activities that do occur, depends upon the capability to translate both
foreign language conversations recorded during court-authorized
electronic surveillance and records, documents, and other materials
obtained during the course of an investigation.
In addition to employing a cadre of translators, the FBI uses the
services of contract linguists for short-term, mission-critical
criminal and national security investigations. Contract services are
especially critical for supporting an increasing number of FBI cases
involving less commonly spoken languages. The FBI has not been able to
translate all of the recorded audio conversations and documents it has
obtained during investigations. To provide more timely translation
services for investigations, the fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an
increase of $5,000,000 for contract translation services.
Intelligence Analysts.--The FBI Strategic Plan recognizes the key
role and importance of intelligence in each of its criminal
investigative and national security programs. To maximize the use of
existing intelligence resources and to develop the necessary integrated
intelligence capacity needed for the future, the FBI recently
consolidated criminal and national security intelligence analysts under
the management of the Investigative Services Division at FBI
Headquarters. An aggressive initiative to enhance FBI analytical
capabilities, the Intelligence Capabilities for the Millennium (ICAP-
2000), is being undertaken to establish standardized core skills and
competencies and to develop a training curriculum for analysts. In
addition to enhancing the capabilities of existing analysts, there is a
need for additional analysts to support investigators at the field
level with case, or tactical, intelligence and national program
managers at FBI Headquarters with strategic intelligence.
To improve its analytical capabilities, the fiscal year 2001 budget
proposes an increase of $3,089,000 to hire 55 new Intelligence Research
Specialists (IRS) for national security investigations. Twenty eight
(28) IRSs would be allocated to FBI field offices to assist case agents
through the development of tactical analysis and 27 IRSs would be
assigned to FBI Headquarters to support national program managers
through the development of strategic analysis.
TRAINING
The FBI's ability to respond to the difficult and complex
challenges from crime, threats of terrorism, and hostile intelligence
services, requires a well-trained workforce that possesses the skill
sets needed to be effective in their jobs. The importance of training
in today's law enforcement environment is further heightened by the
rapid pace of technological change and the changing scope of the FBI's
investigative mission. In April 1999, the FBI adopted a comprehensive
policy for the continuing development and training of FBI employees
that emphasizes the importance of training and continuous learning.
Under this new policy, all FBI Agents and support employees are now
required to obtain the equivalent of no fewer than 10 hours of
developmental training annually, and over a 3-year period, not less
than 50 hours of developmental training. The FBI will use traditional
``classroom'' training at the FBI Academy, distance learning,
specialized training from vendors, and computer-based, interactive
technology to assist employees in satisfying this requirement. For
fiscal year 2001, the FBI proposes increases totaling $8,395,000 for
training programs, technology, and firearms range modernization.
FBI Academy Training.--The FBI's primary training venue is the FBI
Academy, located at Quantico, Virginia. With the recent opening of the
Justice Training Center, the FBI has regained approximately 20 percent
of the Academy's dormitory capacity that was previously allocated for
the Drug Enforcement Administration. This equates to being able to
provide one-week of training to an additional 7,000 FBI employees. To
make full use of the training and dormitory capacity of the FBI
Academy, an additional $2,800,000 is required to pay for the travel of
7,000 additional FBI students. Without this additional funding, the FBI
will not be able to use the FBI Academy at its full capacity level.
Interactive Multi-media Courses.--Not all FBI training requirements
can be satisfied with one approach to training. Rather, a combination
of classroom, distance-learning, and computer-based, multi-media
instruction packages are needed to meet the varying needs and schedules
of both training programs and individual students. Technology-based
training methods provide an opportunity to deliver training to
employees with a high degree of effectiveness, yet at a substantial
cost savings over traditional ``on-site'' training.
The FBI believes interactive, multi-media technology offers the
potential for meeting training needs in several areas, particularly
through self-paced courses on core topics such as informant
development, interviewing and interrogation, and case management. An
initial CD-ROM based multi-media course, ``Interview and
Interrogation,'' has proven very successful and has been incorporated
into the New Agent training curriculum. The course is also used by more
experienced field agents to refresh their knowledge and skills. The FBI
has made copies of the course available to all federal, state, and
local law enforcement. Funding totaling $1,500,000 is requested to
prepare four additional interactive, multi-media courses on the topics
of Informant Development, Basic Criminal Investigation, Leadership and
Management, and Ethics.
Development of Analytical Capabilities.--The FBI cannot achieve the
goals of its strategic plan without a substantial improvement in the
skills and expertise of its existing analytical cadre. All
investigative program managers have cited weaknesses in analytical
capability as a key shortfall in their ability to undertake proactive
investigations and identify emerging groups and crime trends. To
correct these shortfalls and assure quality analysis, all FBI analysts
must achieve a high standard of professional skill and expertise.
In recognition of this situation, the FBI has begun a multi-year
initiative, the Intelligence Capabilities for the Millennium (ICAP-
2000), to overhaul the existing analytical infrastructure. The
development and implementation of a comprehensive, standardized
training program is a central component of this effort. For fiscal year
2001, an increase of $1,000,000 is requested for analytical training
programs. This funding will allow the FBI to provide analysts with
basic training in FBI investigative programs and techniques, analytical
thinking, briefing techniques, report writing, and critical analytical
technologies, such as telephone analysis. Additionally, analysts would
be afforded advanced training in specialized areas and substantive
issues, such as money laundering, narcotics trafficking, denial and
deception techniques, and foreign area studies, that will enhance
individual areas of expertise and knowledge.
Specialized Training.--FBI criminal and national security
investigations often depend upon the use of sophisticated technical
equipment, systems, and techniques that gather evidence of illegal
activities and/or intelligence information on planned activities. Each
FBI field office requires specially trained personnel--Technically
Trained Agents and Electronic Technicians--who support the use of these
systems and techniques during investigations and surveillances.
The current complement of Technically Trained Agents is being
stretched thin by both increasing operational requirements and the loss
of experience due to recent retirements, reassignments, and promotions.
Additionally, due to the fast-pace of changes in technology, both
Technically Trained Agents and Electronic Technicians require an on-
going program of technical instruction. This specialized instruction is
provided at both the Engineering Research Facility located at the FBI
Academy and through commercial sources. An increase of four positions
and $1,195,000 is requested in fiscal year 2001 for FBI Technically
Trained Agents and Electronic Technicians training programs.
FBI Academy Firearms Range Modernization.--With the support of the
Congress, the FBI has undertaken a plan to modernize the FBI Academy
Firearms Ranges. The existing ranges need modernization to increase
capacity, minimize environmental impact, and improve the safety of FBI
and Drug Enforcement Administration firearms training. With funding
previously provided, the FBI has completed an environmental assessment,
developed a master plan for the project, and completed architectural
engineering and design. Remaining funding available will also allow us
to compete a contract for construction of three 25-yard all-weather
ranges, a stress obstacle course, and lead abatement.
For fiscal year 2001, an increase of $1,900,000 is requested to
continue the FBI Academy Firearms Range Modernization project. This
funding would allow the FBI to continue lead abatement and construct an
ammunition storage facility. This facility would replace two existing,
makeshift storage facilities that do not comply with existing
Department of Defense safety standards, which is a requirement due to
the location of the ranges at the U.S. Marine Corps Base, Quantico.
INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT
The Investigative Support budget initiative address increased
funding requirements for the daily basic operational requirements of
field investigators and FBI Headquarters. The fiscal year 2001 budget
proposes increases totaling $20,534,000 for four key items:
telecommunications services, criminal case operations funds, digital
body recorders, and program management support for implementation of
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994.
Telecommunications Services/ATM Circuits.--The FBI operates a
telecommunications infrastructure that was designed in 1991 to support
the Systems Network Architecture (SNA)/token ring network. This network
currently serves over 600 separate FBI locations and has been
maintained with few changes. This design is ill-suited to supporting
electronic case files that, under the proposed Information Sharing
Initiative (ISI), will include imaged documents, video/voice segments,
and intelligence analyses. To satisfy the requirement for increased
bandwidth for transmitting images, video, and voice, the FBI is
migrating to the Asynchronous Transmission Mode (ATM) adopted by the
Department's Justice Consolidated Network (J-CON).
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI is requesting an increase of
$14,334,000 to begin the acquisition of ATM circuits to support its
telecommunications network. For fiscal year 2001, the FBI intends to
provide ATM circuits for key network concentration sites, large field
offices, FBI Headquarters, the FBI Academy, the Clarksburg, West
Virginia, fingerprint card processing center, and larger resident
agencies. The migration to ATM circuits is being staged with the
implementation plan for the ISI project.
Criminal Case Funds.--The FBI Strategic Plan recognizes the
importance of gathering, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence and
of focusing investigative efforts against criminal activities with a
regional, national, or international nexus. Information supplied by
informants and cooperating witnesses often serves as the predicate for
these types of major, long-term investigations. Criminal organizations
of the type, scope, and complexity investigated by the FBI have both
the illicit wealth and intense loyalty (maintained by fear of violent
reprisal) that frustrate traditional law enforcement investigative
efforts. To counter this challenge, the FBI requires funding for a
range of case operational costs, such as the lease of telephone lines
to conduct court-authorized interceptions of communications, the rental
of off-site space, lease of covert vehicles, witness protection
expenses, and covert travel by undercover agents, informants, and
cooperating witnesses.
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI requests an increase of $2,100,000
for criminal case operating funds and the purchase of information.
Digital Body Recorders.--Audio recordings of conversations between
or among subjects of a criminal investigation and informants,
undercover agents, or cooperating witnesses often provide clear
evidence of an individual's involvement in illegal activities. These
recordings are made in strict compliance with existing guidelines and
statutes. The evidence obtained from consensual-monitoring is used
extensively in court to demonstrate the complicity of a person in a
criminal activity. The investigative environment in which this
investigative technique is used presents a high risk to the personal
safety of the person wearing a recording device. New digital technology
allows for much smaller and less conspicuous devices, as well as
improvements in recording clarity and capacity. Additionally, digital
devices are less susceptible to commercially-available countermeasures
technology used by criminals to detect the presence of these devices.
The FBI is requesting an increase of $2,000,000 to replace existing
analog body recorder devices with newer digital devices.
CALEA Implementation Support.--The Attorney General has delegated
to the FBI responsibility for managing the implementation of the CALEA.
The FBI has adopted a three-phase approach toward achieving CALEA
compliance. Phase One consists of working with telecommunications
manufacturers and carriers to describe law enforcement's technical
capability and capacity-related electronic surveillance needs. Phase
Two consists of resolving and finalizing the legal and regulatory
issues regarding implementation. Phase Three consists of ensuring CALEA
compliance by working with carriers as solutions are deployed,
assisting carriers as Systems Security and Integrity rules and
procedures are adopted, and seeking enforcement against carriers for
noncompliance. These phases remain consistent regardless of the
specific telecommunications technology being pursued. The FBI's current
focus is on achieving the deployment of CALEA solutions for wireline,
cellular and broadband Personal Communications Systems (PCS)
technology.
By fiscal year 2001, emerging technologies service providers of
Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio, two-way paging, and Mobile Satellite
Service will have grown and possibly exceed the number of cellular and
PCS carriers today. These technologies fall within the scope of the
CALEA and require adherence to law enforcement technical and capacity
requirements. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes an
enhancement totaling $2,100,000 for CALEA implementation support
activities, including support for the Law Enforcement Technical Forum,
facilities operations, and travel related to consultation, standards,
regulatory, and solution development activities.
COUNTERTERRORISM
The United States continues to face a serious, credible threat from
terrorists both abroad and at home. The number of groups and
individuals capable of carrying out a terrorist act has increased over
the past several years. Of particular concern to the FBI are groups and
individuals for which political or religious beliefs constitute
sufficient motivation for carrying out a devastating terrorist act.
To deal effectively with domestic and international terrorism, the
FBI must concentrate on both prevention and response. The FBI's
counterterrorism strategy is focused upon five inter-related elements
to build and maintain an operational capacity for identifying,
preventing, deterring, and investigating terrorist activities. First,
the FBI must have the capacity to respond to acts of terrorism
committed in the U.S. and abroad when those acts are directed against
the U.S. government or its interests. Second, the FBI must have the
capacity to receive, react to, and disseminate counterterrorism
information. Third, the FBI must develop its internal capacities to
support proactive counterterrorism programs and initiatives. Fourth,
the FBI must have the capacity to establish and maintain sound and
productive relationships with other domestic and foreign law
enforcement and intelligence counterparts. Fifth, the FBI must have the
capacity to use all of the necessary assets and capabilities of the FBI
and other U.S. government agencies to support and initiate complex
investigations and operations against domestic and international
terrorists and terrorist organizations. For fiscal year 2001, the FBI
is requesting increases totaling $13,100,000 to improve and enhance
existing counterterrorism initiatives.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness.--At the forefront of U.S.
government counterterrorism planning and preparation efforts is the
threat of chemical and biological terrorism. Internationally, there is
credible intelligence that terrorist organizations are attempting to
acquire a capability for weapons of mass destruction. Domestically, a
growing number of individuals acting alone and splinter elements within
extremist groups have obtained or attempted to develop and employ
chemical, biological, or radiological materials. Within the spectrum of
terrorist threats, the FBI continues to believe the actual threat of a
chemical or biological terrorist attack to be low; however, the
consequences of such an act could be devastating. To continue on going
efforts to prepare for a terrorist event using weapons of mass
destruction, the FBI is requesting an increase of $3,500,000.
The National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO) was established to
serve as the focal point for federal efforts in support of the State
and local emergency responder community. The NDPO, which is managed by
the FBI and is staffed by representatives from other federal agencies
and State and local detailees, is organized around six program areas:
planning, training, exercises, equipment/research and development,
information sharing and outreach, and public health and medical
services. For fiscal year 2001, an increase of $563,000 is requested by
the FBI for NDPO principal stakeholder and functional area conferences.
Funding is proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget for the
Department of Justice to assume responsibility for several activities
currently being performed by the Department of Defense under the
auspices of the Domestic Preparedness Program. The budget proposes that
the NDPO assume responsibility for the Chemical and Biological Helpline
which provides emergency responders and planners across the United
States with information on a non-emergency basis to plan, mitigate, and
prepare for the effects of a chemical or biological terrorist incident.
The cost of assuming helpline operations is $731,000. Additionally, the
Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations Unit within the Counterterrorism
Division at FBI Headquarters would assume responsibility for the
Chemical and Biological Hotline operated by the National Response
Center. The hotline receives incident information and provides
technical assistance during a suspected or actual chemical or
biological incident. The cost of assuming hotline operations is
$2,206,000.
2002 Winter Olympics Preparation.--The 2002 Winter Olympic Games
have been designated a National Special Security Event. Consistent with
responsibilities for intelligence collection and crisis management
contained in PDD-39 and PDD-62, the FBI is working with the United
State Secret Service and other federal, State, and local law
enforcement and consequence management agencies to plan for security
and public safety issues for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games that will be
hosted by Salt Lake City, Utah.
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI requests increases totaling
$1,100,000 for 2002 Winter Olympic Games preparation. This funding will
support planned interagency training exercises, the acquisition of
telecommunications and related equipment for a joint interagency
operations/intelligence center, and specialized cold weather equipment.
Hazardous Devices School.--The Hazardous Devices School is the only
formal domestic training school for State and local law enforcement to
learn render safe and bomb disposal operations. Located at Redstone
Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, the school is managed by the FBI
Laboratory. The Hazardous Devices School is the only location where
bomb technicians receive basic training and certification in accordance
with standards established by the National Bomb Squad Commanders'
Advisory Board. After receiving initial certification, technicians are
required to be recertified every three years.
For fiscal year 2001, there is a need to train 1,335 students at
the Hazardous Devices School. To provide that level of training, the
FBI requires an increase of $2,900,000.
Counterterrorism Research and Development.--In fiscal year 1998,
the Congress made available $10,500,000 to the FBI under the Attorney
General's Counterterrorism Fund to initiate several research and
development activities, including $5,000,000 for explosives detection
and counterterrorism projects, $2,500,000 for data exploitation
projects, $1,000,000 for cyber training curriculum development and
training at the FBI Academy, and $2,000,000 to establish a partnership
with the Southwest Surety Institute.
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI requests an increase of $5,000,000 to
continue and expand counterterrorism research and development projects
initiated with fiscal year 1998 funding.
VIOLENT CRIMES
The focus of the Violent Crimes budget initiative for fiscal year
2001 is on improving federal law enforcement services in Indian
Country. Native Americans and others living in Indian Country are not
sharing in the decline in violent crimes that is occurring in countless
other American communities. The homicide rate in Indian Country remains
three times greater than the national average. Crimes against children,
including sexual and physical assaults, continue to plague Indian
Country. Youth gangs present a threat to public safety. Drug
trafficking is becoming a major problem. Thirty-two FBI field offices
have some degree of investigative responsibility in Indian Country,
ranging from exclusive jurisdiction--19 field offices--to concurrent
federal and state jurisdiction. For fiscal year 2001, the FBI is
requesting an increase of $4,639,000 and 31 Victim/Witness Specialists
to improve its services to Indian Country.
Safe Trails Task Forces.--The FBI has adapted its successful Safe
Streets Task Force concept to maximize the use of limited FBI, local,
tribal, and Bureau of Indian Affairs staffing to address significant
violent crime problems in Indian Country. The first Safe Trails Task
Force was established in 1995 by the Phoenix Field Office to work on
the Navajo Nation in Arizona. Presently, the FBI sponsors 10 Safe
Trails Task Forces in Gallup, New Mexico; Carson City, Nevada; Green
Bay, Wisconsin; Flagstaff, Arizona; Monticello, Utah; Riverton,
Wyoming; Rapid City, South Dakota; Tucson, Arizona; Phoenix, Arizona;
and Glasgow, Utah. These task forces are staffed by 31 FBI Agents, 2
Bureau of Indian Affairs criminal investigators, 49 tribal police
officers, and 19 local police officers.
In some areas, an obstacle to full-time participation by a local or
tribal law enforcement agency is a lack of funding for overtime and
related costs. For fiscal year 2001, the FBI requests an increase of
$634,000 for the overtime costs of State and local law enforcement
participation on FBI-sponsored Safe Trails Task Forces.
Indian Country Forensic Examinations.--The investigation and
successful prosecution of crimes committed in Indian Country depends,
first, upon investigators identifying and collecting evidence at crime
scenes and, second, the timely examination and analysis of evidence. To
address a growing workload of forensic examinations resulting from
Indian Country investigations, and to improve the timeliness of results
of forensic examinations to investigators and prosecutors, the FBI
entered into a contract with the Arizona Department of Public Safety
Laboratory for the examination of evidence collected at Indian Country
crime scenes by agents assigned to our Phoenix Field Office. This
arrangement has proven highly effective and successful.
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI proposes to expand this program to
include three additional field offices--Salt Lake City, which covers
Utah, Idaho, and Montana; Minneapolis, which covers Minnesota, South
Dakota, and North Dakota; and Albuquerque, which covers New Mexico. The
estimated annual cost for these three additional contracts is
$1,405,000.
Indian Country Victim/Witness Services.--Among the most significant
obstacles for the FBI and other law enforcement investigating crimes in
Indian Country is overcoming the reluctance of Native American victims
and witnesses to cooperate in the criminal justice system. Cooperating
with the criminal justice process can often present a hardship to
Native American victims living in Indian Country. Victims and witnesses
of violent crimes in the Indian Country often live long distances from
the offices and courtrooms of government attorneys, magistrates, and
judges, where they must appear as participants in the judicial process.
For example, a resident of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation must
travel 600 miles round-trip to testify before a Federal Grand Jury in
Minot, North Dakota. A child sexually abused on the Fort Peck
Reservation in Montana must be transported 350 miles to Billings for a
medical examination and evaluation. Victim/witness services, such as
assistance with transportation, overnight lodging, and preparation of
impact statements for sentencing, which are readily available to many
citizens in urban, suburban, and rural communities are not accessible
to those living in Indian Country.
Through its Victim/Witness Assistance Program, the FBI is working
to build confidence and cooperation in Indian Country. Presently, the
FBI employs four Victim/Witness Specialists who are assigned to
resident agencies covering Indian Country. While few in number, these
individuals are contributing in a positive way. An FBI Victim/Witness
Specialist in Billings, Montana, has helped the U.S. Probation Office
implement an adult and juvenile sex offender treatment program on three
area Indian reservations. She is also assisting the Crow Sex Offender
Registration committee draft tribal legislation to register all sex
offenders on the reservation. Victim/witness specialists assist FBI
Agents by assisting in arranging for medical treatment, trial
preparation, transportation to/from trials and other proceedings, and
securing services to which they are entitled. For fiscal year 2001, the
FBI requests an increase of $2,600,000 to hire 31 additional Victim/
Witness Specialists for assignment to FBI Resident Agencies serving
Indian Country.
TECHNOLOGY/CYBER CRIMES
In recent years, technological advances have fundamentally changed
the way of life in this country. Computers and networks allow millions
of individuals to access on a daily basis a broad range of information
services, databases, commerce, and communications capabilities that
were previously unavailable. A combination of reduced cost for computer
technology and increased storage capacity allows the accumulation,
storage, and management of large amounts of information by individuals
on personal computers and peripheral devices. Most FBI investigations,
especially those in organized crime, drug trafficking, crimes against
children, white-collar crime, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism
are encountering the use of computer technology to facilitate illegal
activities. As a result, the FBI must develop the investigative and
forensic capacities and capabilities to deal with the use of computer
technology by criminals and others to commit crimes or undermine
national security.
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI's Technology/Cyber Crimes budget
initiative proposes increases totaling 108 positions (2 agents) and
$18,983,000 to enhance existing capabilities in three cybercrime
fighting areas: data forensics, counterencryption, and Intellectual
Property Rights investigations.
Data Forensics.--One of the fastest growing demands from
investigators and prosecutors is for assistance by the FBI Laboratory
Computer Analysis and Response Team (CART) program for forensic
examination of evidence obtained from computers and computer storage
media. The data forensic process has three distinct phases: (1)
acquisition, which involves recognizing and seizing electronic data of
an evidentiary value from a computer, computer storage media, or
computer network; (2) examination, which is the process of documenting
the evidence, then locating, identifying, and extracting the pertinent
data; and (3) presentation, which requires the formatting of relevant
and technical evidence for use by investigators and prosecutors.
The FBI's capacity for performing CART examinations is not keeping
pace with the demand for CART assistance. In fiscal year 1999, the FBI
was only able to satisfy 1,900, or 54 percent of the 3,500 requested
CART examinations, resulting in a backlog of 10.1 months. By fiscal
year 2001, the FBI projects the demand for assistance will increase to
6,000 requests. Compounding the growth in the number of requests for
assistance is a significant increase in the amount of data to be
examined. Recently, hard disk drives have nearly doubled in storage
capacity annually, from 4.3 gigabytes in 1997 to 8.4 gigabytes in 1998
to 17 gigabytes in 1999. It is expected that hard disk drives of
between 60 and 80 gigabytes will be available by the end of 2000. As
the capacity of storage media grows, the amount of time needed to
perform forensic examinations also increases. Without additional CART
examiners and data forensics examination tools, the FBI will be unable
to provide support to field investigators and prosecutors.
Building a CART program capacity that will be able to deal with the
demand for data forensics will require a commitment that includes
hiring, training, and equipping additional examiners. To initiate such
a commitment in fiscal year 2001, the FBI is requesting $8,571,000 to
hire, train, and equip 100 new CART examiners for assignment to field
offices (83 positions) and the FBI Laboratory (17 positions).
Additionally, the FBI is requesting an increase of $2,800,000 to
continue the development of the Automated Computer Examination System
(ACES). ACES is used by CART examiners to automatically scan and review
personal computer files for their format and type. Computer operating
systems and applications software are continually upgraded and modified
by industry. Similarly, the FBI must be able to upgrade ACES to keep
pace with these changes, otherwise, ACES will lose its value as a
forensic technique. The FBI intends to provide ACES to all FBI field
offices, as well as other federal, State, and local law enforcement as
part of an effort to build data forensics capacities at all levels of
law enforcement.
Counterencryption.--The widespread use of digitally-based
technologies and the expansion of computer networks incorporating
privacy features and capabilities through the use of cryptography
presents a significant challenge to the continued ability of law
enforcement to use existing electronic surveillance authorities. The
FBI is already encountering strong encryption in criminal and national
security investigations. In 1999, 53 new investigations encountered
encryption. The need for a law enforcement cryptanalytic capability is
well documented in several studies, including the National Research
Council's 1996 report entitled, ``Cryptography's Role in Securing the
Information Society.'' The report recommends high priority be given to
the development of technical capabilities, such as signal analysis and
decryption, to assist law enforcement in coping with technological
challenges.
The Administration supports the enhancement of a centralized law
enforcement capability within the FBI for engineering, processing, and
decrypting lawfully intercepted digital communications and
electronically stored information. For fiscal year 2001, the FBI
requests an increase of $7,000,000 to further develop an initial
operating capability that will allow law enforcement to obtain plain
text and meet the public safety challenges posed by the criminal use of
encryption. With this funding, the FBI intends to work with existing
national laboratories and other government agencies to ensure all
existing resources are used in executing processing functions. This
approach will prevent duplication of effort. Additionally, the FBI
plans to acquire necessary computer hardware, software tools, technical
expertise, and services to develop capacities in four counterencryption
program areas: (1) analytical engineering; (2) signal analysis
research; (3) counterencryption deployment; and (4) industry-assisted
technology transfer.
Intellectual Property Rights.--Currently, the U.S. is the world
leader in the development of creative, technical, and intellectual
property. The U.S. economy is increasingly dependent on the production
and distribution of intellectual property. Intellectual property right
infringement includes both violations of the Economic Espionage Act as
well as traditional copyright and trademark violations. A growing
percentage of intellectual property right violations now have an
Internet element. Web sites can be accessed that allow individuals to
distribute and download pirated materials, resulting in substantial
losses to U.S. companies that invest millions of dollars in product
development.
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI is requesting an increase of 8
positions (2 agents) and $612,000 to help staff an interagency
Intellectual Property Rights Center. The center, which is expected to
become operational in 2000, was conceived by the FBI, Department of
Justice, and United States Customs Service, to improve the coordination
of intellectual property rights investigations and to enhance the
exchange and analysis of intelligence on these types of activities. All
government agencies having responsibility for intellectual property
rights matters, including the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Copyright Office, will be
invited to participate.
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
For fiscal year 2001, the FBI is requesting an increase of 5
positions and $6,699,000 for its Law Enforcement Services budget
initiative.
Federal Convicted DNA Offender Database.--All 50 states have
enacted legislation that requires blood samples to be taken from felons
convicted of various qualifying offenses. DNA profiles from these blood
samples are entered into the Combined DNA Identification System
(CODIS). Presently, individuals convicted of comparable offenses in
federal courts, military courts, and the District of Columbia are not
required to submit blood samples. Consequently, these populations of
violent criminals who may be released back into our communities,
including those convicted of sexual assaults against children, are not
in the CODIS. As a result, when a law enforcement agency compares DNA
recovered at a crime scene against CODIS, the database will not contain
samples from persons who may be logical suspects because DNA profiles
from federal, military, and District of Columbia offenders are not
available.
Funding totaling $5,335,000 and 5 positions are requested to
implement the Federal Convicted Offenders DNA Database, which was
authorized by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996. Implementation of this database requires clarifying legislative
authority, which has been submitted to the Congress by the Department
of Justice. This funding would allow the collection and processing of
DNA samples from an estimated 20,000 individuals currently incarcerated
after being convicted in federal, military, and District of Columbia
courts of qualifying offenses.
National Integrated Ballistics Identification Network (NIBIN).--In
December 1999, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
(BATF) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for joint agency
implementation of the NIBIN, a single federal ballistics imaging
system. NIBIN will combine the best features of the BATF Integrated
Bullet Identification System and the FBI DRUGFIRE system. Under the
provisions of the agreement, the FBI is responsible for the nationwide
NIBIN communications network and connectivity between system sites and
the national network. BATF is responsible for NIBIN hardware and
software development and installation, training, security, maintenance,
user protocols and support, and quality control. This joint, integrated
approach to ballistic imaging will benefit all federal, state, and
local law enforcement agencies by ending the competition between
systems and providing law enforcement with enhanced crime-fighting
technology from the FBI and BATF.
Under the agreement, BATF will replace existing DRUGFIRE systems,
subject to the availability of funds. BATF plans to replace 10 DRUGFIRE
units in 2000, 73 in 2001, and 68 in 2002. During the transition
period, the FBI will continue to support DRUGFIRE systems not yet
replaced and NIBIN communications requirements. For fiscal year 2001,
the FBI requests an increase of $1,364,000 for NIBIN connectivity. The
FBI is using its existing nationwide Criminal Justice Information
Services--Wide Area Network (CJIS-WAN) as the communications backbone
for NIBIN.
RELATED DEPARTMENTAL FUNDING REQUESTS
Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight several requests for
funding included within other Department of Justice programs that are
considered important to FBI initiatives and programs.
Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund.--Within the General
Administration appropriation, a total of $120,000,000 is proposed for
the Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund (TCCF). These funds,
along with another $120,000,000 proposed by the Administration under
the Department of Defense, will support ongoing efforts to implement
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA).
In September 1999, the FBI, Department of Justice, Ameritech
Services, Inc., and Nortel Networks, Inc. entered into the first
software right-to-use license agreement covering one wireline switching
platform. Additionally, a license fee for three other switching
platforms was agreed to by Nortel Networks. Under the right-to-use
agreement, Nortel Networks will grant a CALEA software license to other
carriers at no charge for all switches of the same platform type
installed or deployed before January 1, 1995. The FBI and the
Department of Justice have reached an informal agreement, subject to
the availability of funds, with AG Communications, Lucent Technologies,
Motorola, and Siemens relative to nationwide right-to-use licenses.
When considered cumulatively, the switching platforms of these five
manufacturers account for approximately 90 percent of the historic
lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance activity conducted by
federal, state, and local law enforcement.
State and Local Bomb Technician Equipment.--Within the funding
proposed for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), $10,000,000 is
included to continue an FBI Laboratory-managed program of equipping
State and local bomb technicians. Congress provided a similar amount
for this program in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. In fiscal year
1999, the Department of Justice provided $25,000,000 from the Working
Capital Fund for the effort. Continuation of funding for this program
will ensure State and local bomb squads are properly equipped to deal
traditional improvised and explosive devices, as well as the initial
response to devices that may be used by terrorists or others to release
chemical or biological agents. This initiative compliments the State
and local bomb technician training and accreditation program that the
FBI Laboratory provides at the Hazardous Devices School, Redstone
Arsenal, Alabama.
Grants for NIBIN, DNA Backlog Reduction, and Regional Data Forensic
Laboratories.--Also, requested under Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) program is $10,000,000 for grants to reduce the backlog
of ballistic evidence in state and local agencies for entry into the
NIBIN system, $15,000,000 for grants to reduce the backlog of DNA
profiles for entry into the FBI's national CODIS database, and
$6,000,000 for grants to establish regional data forensic laboratories.
These proposals are related to several on-going FBI Laboratory
initiatives for improving State and local crime-fighting and forensic
capabilities.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2001 budget requests includes two
general provisions proposed by the FBI, including: danger pay authority
and foreign cooperative agreement authority.
Danger Pay.--Section 109 would extend to the FBI the same authority
that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) currently enjoys for
authorizing danger pay for personnel assigned to high risk overseas
locations. For the FBI, this is both a pay equity issue for FBI Agent
assigned to DEA Country Offices and a recognition of the increased
threat facing FBI personnel performing extraterritorial investigations
in foreign locations due to our counterterrorism responsibilities. At
times, FBI personnel are deployed to overseas locations where, due to
the nature of our work, they face a threat or hostile environment that
does not always extend to all members of the United States diplomatic
team in a particular country. This authority would allow me to address
those situations. This authority has been requested by the
Administration in each of the past three budgets.
Foreign Cooperative Agreements.--Section 110 would allow the FBI to
credit to its appropriation funding that is received from friendly
foreign governments for that country's share of joint, cooperative
projects with the FBI. This authority would facilitate projects with
friendly foreign governments, especially in support of our national
security mission. The authority was first proposed by the
Administration last year, was adopted by the House, but did not make
its way into the final Conference bill.
SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, the budget proposed for the FBI for fiscal year 2001
addresses several of the critical resource needs identified through our
Strategic Planning process. These important investments will allow the
FBI to meet the investigative and technological challenges we face as
the FBI enters the 21st Century. These investments will also enable us
to develop the core competencies that will allow us to be successful in
investigating crimes, protecting national security, developing and
sharing technical and forensic expertise, and working better with our
State, local, and international law enforcement partners.
Congress, and this Subcommittee in particular, has been extremely
generous of its financial support for the FBI over the past several
years. Our successes in the field, whether they be preventing
pedophiles from luring children over the Internet, to bringing
terrorists from foreign lands back to the U.S. to stand trial for their
actions, to protecting our nation's critical infrastructure from cyber
attacks, to fostering greater cooperation with foreign law enforcement
through new Legal Attache Offices, were made possible because of your
support for the FBI. As we look forward to fiscal year 2001, I am
hopeful that we can continue to depend upon your support.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF ACTING ADMINISTRATOR DONNIE R. MARSHALL
Senator Gregg. Administrator?
Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, committee
members, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
here. This is my first budget hearing before this committee. As
you know, I have been nominated for the position of
Administrator and I will be attending Senate confirmation
hearings, so I hope that it will not be my last appearance
before this committee.
I want to thank the committee, as Director Freeh did, for
your support. We have had some outstanding successes over the
years in DEA and I know that those successes would not have
been possible without the support of this committee and each
and every one of the members here.
DRUG TRAFFICKING PATTERNS
As I assume the leadership of DEA, I want to ensure that
DEA maintains and enhances our effectiveness as the only drug
law enforcement agency that focusses solely on the drug
problem. In so doing, I want to ensure that DEA is in a
position to undertake a greater degree of intelligence-driven
targeting, and that we maintain our ability to adapt to the
changing drug trafficking patterns in this country. One of the
trends that I would like to discuss very briefly is the
changing pattern of drug trafficking in this country.
We see that the organizations that control the drug
trafficking into our country are too often headquartered
outside the United States, beyond the reach, traditional reach,
at least, of U.S. law enforcement. They have to have operatives
in this country and they do send operatives into each and every
city, town, community in this country in order to import their
drugs and their violence.
One particular change that we have seen in a recent study--
actually DEA has noticed this trend for a couple of years now
and it is confirmed now by a recent study by the Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University--is the
invasion of drugs into smaller and medium-sized cities across
this country.
The CASA study showed that drugs are just as available in
small towns today in America as they are in larger towns and it
also showed that eighth-graders, in particular those in rural
America, are 79 percent more likely to use methamphetamine, 75
percent more likely to use crack cocaine, 52 percent more
likely to use cocaine, and 26 percent more likely to use
marijuana than their big-city eighth-grade peers.
Now what this means is that DEA has to also adapt to these
changing demographics in order to have the maximum impact on
the criminal organizations that are operating in this country.
And in order to ensure that adaptability, one of the first
things that I did upon assuming the position as Acting
Administrator was to begin to establish a 5-year strategic
plan, which would allow us to readily adapt to changing
situations, which would allow us to institute greater
intelligence-driven targeting, which would allow us to target
the leadership of all these organizations and which would allow
us to most effectively use our limited resources to
investigate, indict, arrest, and convict the leaders of these
organizations.
In my complete written statement for the record I have
outlined a number of successes that we have had in the last
couple of years. I hope that the committee members will have a
few minutes to review those successes. I will not go into them
in the interest of time.
BUDGET INITIATIVES
We have three budget initiatives in our request this year.
The first is the Intelligence Initiative and that is in keeping
with my goal and my desire to conduct greater intelligence-
based targeting of the major drug trafficking organizations.
The second initiative is our Domestic Enforcement Initiative
and I think that will go a long way toward allowing us to
better tactically attack the drug-trafficking organizations,
particularly with regard to the Southwest border and with
regard to financial investigations. And finally, the third
initiative that we have submitted is an Infrastructure
Initiative. A good portion of that goes to enhance our Firebird
system, which is basically the carrier for all of our
intelligence systems and our administrative information
systems.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I hope that we can get the support of the committee on
those initiatives and again I want to thank you for your past
support. In the interest of time I will conclude my formal
statement and we can move to questions and answers if it
pleases the committee.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donnie R. Marshall
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2001
budget request of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Before
providing the committee with an overview of our agency operations and
summary of our fiscal year 2001 budget request, I would like to take
this time to express my sincere gratitude for the ongoing support of
this Subcommittee and entire U.S. Senate. Without your support, DEA
could not continue to effectively meet the growing challenges posed by
increasingly sophisticated and dangerous international drug trafficking
organizations which operate with impunity throughout the global
community. Your ongoing efforts work to send a message to these
traffickers that their assault on the citizens of this nation will not
be taken lightly and that we will continue to fight to ensure that our
streets remain safe for generations to come.
MISSION AND APPROACH
The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is to
enforce the Controlled Substances laws and regulations of the United
States and to bring to the criminal and civil justice system those
organizations involved in the growing, manufacturing and/or
distribution of controlled substances destined for the United States.
The DEA also recommends and supports non-enforcement programs aimed at
reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on both
domestic and international markets. To accomplish this mission, DEA
works with international, federal, and state and local law enforcement
partners to target and immobilize the organizations of major drug
traffickers operating at all levels of the drug trade.
Because DEA is the only single-mission federal agency dedicated to
drug law enforcement, the agency has, over the years, developed the
ability to direct resources and manpower to identify, target and
dismantle drug organizations headquartered overseas and within the
United States. DEA's strategy to successfully accomplish these goals is
straightforward, requiring that the agency's resources and manpower be
focused on all three levels of the drug trade: the international,
national/regional and local levels. Each of these categories represents
a critical aspect of the drug continuum which affects communities
across the nation.
The 9,000 dedicated men and women of the DEA are committed to
improving the quality of life of the citizens of the United States. The
agency directs and supports investigations against the highest levels
of the international drug trade, their surrogates operating within the
United States, and those traffickers whose violence and criminal
activities destabilize towns and cities across the country. These
investigations are intelligence-driven and frequently involve the
cooperative efforts of numerous other law enforcement organizations.
DEA's strategy to successfully impact drug trafficking at all
levels of operation is flexible and reflects the constantly-changing
nature of the drug trade. In concert with the Department of Justice and
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), DEA has crafted an
innovative and effective program to keep pace with developments and
shifts in the drug trafficking spectrum and bring both national and
international drug traffickers to justice.
DRUG TRAFFICKING THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES
The heads of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations
impacting the United States today are based in Mexico and Colombia.
Believing they are safe from the U.S. justice system, they tightly
control their operations by directing a large number of surrogates who
carry out orders on U.S. soil. These operatives are responsible for the
vast majority of the cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana
trafficking taking place in U.S. communities. Surrogates answering to
drug lords based in Mexico also produce methamphetamine, both in that
nation and in the U.S., particularly in California. These producers and
traffickers are responsible for over 75 percent of the methamphetamine
that is available in U.S. communities today.
Traffickers based in Mexico pose a significant threat to the United
States because of their power, influence and dominant status in the
drug trade. Where at one time traffickers from Colombia controlled the
vast majority of cocaine trafficking, traffickers from Mexico today are
responsible for transporting cocaine into and throughout U.S. markets.
The heads of organizations based in Colombia rely almost entirely on
traffickers from Mexico to transport and distribute cocaine while they
direct operations from the safety of their headquarters in Cali or
Bogota. In one recent case entitled Operation Millennium, the director
of a powerful Colombian organization wrongly believed that by
distancing himself from his organization's U.S. operations, he would
make himself immune from indictment.
The major organizations based in Mexico--the Arellano-Felix
organization, the Amezcua Contreras brothers, the Amado Carillo Fuentes
group and the Caro Quintero organization--all have a demonstrable
negative impact on the United States. The leaders of these groups are
routinely indicted in U.S. judicial districts for drug trafficking
offenses committed on U.S. soil.
In recent years, these traffickers have become more prominent in
the drug trafficking trade within the U.S. They are responsible for
manufacturing methamphetamine in Mexico and California and trafficking
it to cities such as Des Moines, Boise, Atlanta and Salt Lake City.
Major organizations based in Colombia and Mexico also rely on
surrogates from Mexico to move multi-ton quantities of cocaine across
the United States, including locations on the East Coast.
While traffickers from Mexico have a direct impact on drug
trafficking trends in the United States, it is important to note that
many major traffickers are still operating from Colombia where the
cocaine and heroin trade are centered. The large-scale production of
Colombian heroin has created major U.S. markets for this high quality
product. In 1998, the latest year for which we have statistics, South
American heroin comprised 62 percent of the heroin seized by federal
authorities and analyzed by DEA's Special Testing and Research
Laboratory. Cocaine production has also increased dramatically since
1994, and it is possible that Colombian cocaine yield may be as much as
three times that of previous estimates.
None of the major drug traffickers headquartered overseas could
operate without the assistance of national and regional drug
trafficking organizations which are responsible for trafficking huge
quantities of drugs into U.S. communities. These organizations are
comprised of a network of operatives who transport, store and
distribute drugs throughout the United States and whose activities are
directed by drug lords based in foreign countries. In many cases,
national and regional drug trafficking organizations are comprised of
numerous cells whose directors are responsible for specific tasks such
as communications, financial matters and/or logistics. These cell heads
are sent to the United States for a period of time to carry out the
business mandates of the top drug lords and are given specific tasks to
accomplish. The national and regional drug syndicates have infiltrated
many states and communities, bringing with them the crime and violence
once limited to major urban areas. A survey of recent DEA
investigations revealed that over 400 investigations stemming from
Operations Reciprocity and Limelight involved drug traffickers from
foreign countries who had set up operations in various cities across
the United States.
Local violent drug trafficking organizations also operate across
the United States and are responsible for eroding the quality of life
in many American communities. Previously centered in major urban areas,
violent drug trafficking groups are now part of the landscape in
smaller cities and rural areas. Fueled in large part by methamphetamine
production and trafficking, violent drug trafficking organizations are
now affecting the crime rates in smaller cities such as Spokane,
Washington and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. While these local, violent groups
appear to be unrelated to the large international drug trafficking
organizations headquartered overseas, it is important to note that all
of the cocaine and heroin that is trafficked by these groups is
produced overseas and transported to the United States for eventual
distribution on the local level.
DRUG ABUSE IN AMERICA-- THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS
Although drug abuse among young people increased significantly over
the past decade, recent statistics indicate that this trend may be
stabilizing. Even with this positive trend, there continues to be
sobering news brought to our attention daily regarding the state of
drug use in smaller cities and rural areas, fueled by the proliferation
of methamphetamine production and trafficking, and the increased
availability of cheap, high-purity heroin from Colombia.
Although there has been a decrease in violent crime in major cities
due to vigorous law enforcement efforts, similar reductions in the
violent crime rates of smaller cities, suburban and rural areas have
not been realized. In fact, many smaller cities are now confronting the
same problems that larger urban areas faced a decade ago. While 1998
violent crime rates decreased (-9.5 percent) in cities having
populations between 250,000 and 999,999, significantly smaller
decreases took place in suburban counties (-5 percent) and rural areas
(-2 percent). Between 1997 and 1998, violent crime rates actually
increased in a number of mid-sized communities.
A recent reported released by the Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), indicates that eighth graders
living in rural America are 79 percent more likely than their urban
counterparts to use amphetamines, including methamphetamine. They are
also 75 percent more likely to use crack cocaine, 52 percent more
likely to use cocaine and 26 percent more likely to smoke marijuana
than young people in major urban locations.
The report also states that according to recent surveys, it is as
easy for young people in rural areas and small cities to obtain drugs
as it is for their urban counterparts. Additionally, from 1990 to 1998,
smaller cities experienced significantly more drug violations than
larger cities; for instance, cities with populations of 25,000 to
50,000 people had three times as many drug violations as larger cities.
In cities with fewer than 10,000 residents, the level of drug
violations was six times higher than that found in larger cities.
The media has reported the tragic results of increased drug use in
cities like Plano, Texas Orlando, Florida and Elkton, Maryland. Smaller
cities are generally unable to meet the demands for social services and
treatment placed on them when a methamphetamine or heroin epidemic
hits. Additionally, law enforcement agencies are often unprepared to
address the full range of issues associated with methamphetamine lab
cleanups and investigations.
In the end, all three facets of the drug trafficking trade--the
international, national/regional and local levels--are interrelated and
interdependent. As these different echelons of the drug trade in each
of these levels work together, it is essential that our nation's the
law enforcement response address all three of these levels
simultaneously.
DEA'S STRATEGY
In order to meet the enormous challenges posed by internationally-
based narcotics traffickers and their surrogates within the United
States, DEA has developed an effective five-year strategic plan which
makes use of the agency's unique skills and limited resources to
achieve the maximum impact against international, national/regional and
local drug traffickers through the use of intelligence-driven
investigations.
DEA's strategy takes into account the current drug trafficking
situation affecting the United States and identifies the
characteristics and vulnerabilities of all three levels of the drug
trade, responding to each of these levels simultaneously:
International Targets.--This category is comprised of trafficking
organizations based in foreign countries that are the primary source of
supply for their surrogates within the U.S. Through DEA's International
Operations program and the efforts of the agency's Special Operations
Division (SOD) and numerous field divisions throughout the country, DEA
effectively targets these organizations and their members.
National/Regional Targets.--These organizations operate
domestically throughout the United States and are responsible for
distributing drugs from international and domestic sources to U.S.
communities. In many cases, these groups report directly to major drug
lords overseas. They also operate on a national or regional basis,
supplying several markets. The vast majority of DEA's cases fall into
this category and investigations against members of these organizations
are generated and supported by every DEA office in the United States.
Local Initiatives.--Criminal organizations operating at the local
level generally deal in smaller quantities of drugs and are responsible
for providing these drugs to users within the United States. Through
local enforcement initiatives such as the Mobile Enforcement Team (MET)
program, DEA works with state and local counterparts to identify and
immobilize these organizations and to arrest the most violent members
of these groups.
Using this strategy, DEA has successfully targeted significant
traffickers and organizations in each of these categories. Over the
past several years, major cases tied to each of these categories have
resulted in the arrest of thousands of major violators.
International targets
Operation Millennium.--Less than one month after the successful
conclusion of Operation Impunity, an operation aimed at the highest
level of the drug trade operating within the U.S., an important
international law enforcement operation made headlines. Operation
Millennium, a one-year operation designed to dismantle a Colombian-
based transportation consortium believed to be responsible for
supplying between 20 and 30 tons of cocaine per month to the United
States and Europe, resulted in the arrest of more than 30 drug
traffickers and money launderers, including alleged high-profile
trafficker Alejandro Bernal Madrigal, and Fabio Ochoa. The operation
also resulted in the seizure of over 13,000 kilograms of cocaine.
Critical to the success of the operation was the unprecedented level of
cooperation between DEA, the Colombian National Police, the Fiscal
General of the Republic of Columbia, the U.S. Attorney's Office in
Miami and the Justice Department's Criminal Division.
Operation Juno.--Initiated after the seizure of approximately 386
kilograms of liquid cocaine concealed in a shipment of frozen fish
destined for the United States, Operation Juno, which began in
September 1996 and concluded in August 1999, was unique in that for the
first time in drug enforcement history, the U.S. government set up an
undercover brokerage firm to aid in intercepting drug dollars destined
for the Colombian black market. Operation Juno resulted in over 40
arrests, the seizure of $10.0 million and warrants against 59 bank
accounts at 34 U.S. banks and 282 accounts at 52 foreign banks. Monies
in these targeted accounts were believed to total another $16.0
million. The investigation also resulted in the seizure of 3,601
kilograms of cocaine and 106 grams of hashish oil.
Operation Columbus.--Concluding in October 1999, Operation Columbus
was a multi-national, regional enforcement effort involving Colombia,
Venezuela and Panama, and the island nations of the Caribbean. This
operation focused on air, land and maritime interdiction, eradication
and clandestine airstrip denial. The final arrest and seizure
statistics for Operation Columbus were unprecedented for this region,
resulting in more than 1,290 arrests, as well as the seizure of 900
kilograms of cocaine and nine kilograms of heroin. Over 38 weapons, 26
vehicles, 27 vessels, three laboratories and one aircraft were also
seized. In addition, 1,097 metric tons of marijuana were eradicated. In
the end, Operation Columbus struck a solid blow against the operations
of Caribbean-based drug trafficking groups.
National/regional targets
Operation Impunity.--This two-year international investigation
concluded in September, 1999, and resulted in the arrest of 109
individuals, including three major drug trafficking cell heads, linked
to the Mexican-based Amado Carillo Fuentes organization. The operation
was coordinated by DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD) which headed
a combined investigative center involving the DEA, U.S. Customs
Service, FBI and IRS. Besides substantially hindering the trafficking
organization's ability to move cocaine and other drugs into, and
around, the United States, Operation Impunity succeeded in seizing
$19.0 million in U.S. currency, another $7.0 million in assets and well
over 12,434 kilograms of cocaine and 4,800 pounds of marijuana.
Operation Heartland.--Beginning in October 1997, this investigation
targeted the Martin Chavez Organization, a multi-pound methamphetamine
and marijuana importation and distribution operation that was
responsible for transporting marijuana and methamphetamine from Mexico
into the United States via the Juarez/El Paso, Texas corridor to the
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma area. Over the next several years the scope of
this investigation spread to include DEA offices in Fresno
(California), El Paso (Texas), Dallas (Texas) and Des Moines (Iowa).
Information obtained as a result of the investigation resulted in the
seizure of 47 pounds of methamphetamine, 525 pounds of precursor
chemicals, 1,378 pounds of marijuana, $47,500 in U.S. currency and the
arrest of 22 individuals. Additional indictments were anticipated,
including one for Chavez--currently a fugitive.
Mario Ibarra Sanchez Investigation.--The Mario Ibarra Sanchez
Organization was in charge of transporting and distributing large
quantities of methamphetamine, amphetamine, heroin and cocaine for
trafficking organizations operating in both Mexico and the United
States. On November 11, 1998, DEA conducted an investigation, in
conjunction with several state and local law enforcement agencies, that
resulted in the issuance of nine federal search warrants and 10 federal
arrest warrants against members of the Sanchez organization. Those
arrested included the cell leader and a significant methamphetamine
laboratory operator based in Mexico. The investigation ultimately
resulted in the seizure of 65.5 pounds of methamphetamine, 30.4 pounds
of black tar heroin, 106.3 pounds of amphetamine, 154.0 pounds of
cocaine and $156,600 in U.S. currency.
Omaha, Nebraska RET Deployment.--In September 1999, the Des Moines
Regional Enforcement Team (RET) deployed to Omaha, Nebraska to assist
in a methamphetamine investigation. A court-authorized wire intercept
was initiated on two cellular telephones utilized by the targeted
organization. As a result of these efforts, the Omaha District Office,
along with the Des Moines RET, identified individuals in Juarez,
Mexico; El Paso, Texas; and Los Angeles, California, who were directly
linked with the transshipment of cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamine
to Omaha, Nebraska, for distribution purposes. On October 20, 1999, a
Federal Grand Jury in Omaha, Nebraska indicted 19 individuals, 17 of
whom were arrested. This indictment included the arrest of the primary
targets, along with others, effectively dismantling the targeted
organization in Omaha. Additionally, this investigation resulted in the
seizure of six kilograms of cocaine; one pound of methamphetamine; 200
pounds of marijuana; and, $22,000 in U.S. currency. Evidence gathered
during the intercept of telephones utilized by the targeted
organization continues to be exploited for use in investigations in
California, Texas, Nebraska, and Mexico.
Operation Trinity.--In October 1997, DEA, FBI, Customs and DOJ
initiated Special Enforcement Operation Trinity, a joint strategy
designed to target the primary domestic trafficking organizations that
are controlled by criminal leaders in Colombia, Mexico and the
Dominican Republic. The primary phase of Operation Trinity concluded on
September 25, 1998; no new investigations were accepted after July
1998. At this time 220 cases were still active. Preliminary figures for
all Operation Trinity investigations include over 1,260 arrests, with
drug seizures totaling 12.8 metric tons of cocaine, 63,370 lbs. of
marijuana, 3,178 lbs. of methamphetamine, 127 lbs. of heroin, 108 lbs.
amphetamine and over 137,600 pseudoephedrine tablets. Asset seizures
from the case total over $59.2 million in U.S. currency, $1.2 million
in assets and 132 vehicles.
Operation META.--Operation META, which concluded in December 1997,
targeted a major U.S. methamphetamine-trafficking organization that was
supplied by the Amezcua-Contrera group from Mexico. This investigation
combined the efforts of DEA, FBI, other federal agencies and state and
local agencies from 17 U.S. cities in nine different states. It
resulted in the arrest of 121 members of the trafficking ring and the
seizure of 133 pounds of methamphetamine, 1,765 pounds of marijuana and
1,100 kilograms of cocaine. During the META raids, agents discovered
and dismantled three methamphetamine labs that were each capable of
producing more than 300 pounds of methamphetamine at a time. Operation
META seizures were especially important because they alerted the law
enforcement community to the growing methamphetamine problem in the
United States.
Southern Frontier.--In recent years, DEA has undertaken several
successful operations in support of the agency's Southern Frontier
Initiative. Operation Zorro II, Operation Reciprocity and Operation
Limelight, each of which relied extensively on numerous court-ordered
wiretaps that were coordinated and monitored by area law enforcement,
collectively resulted in the arrest of 156 individuals and the seizure
of over 22,000 kilograms of illegal drugs and over $35.0 million.
Local initiatives
Mobile Enforcement Team Program.--As a response to the overwhelming
problem of drug related violent crime which has plagued communities and
neighborhoods across the United States, DEA's Mobile Enforcement Team
(MET) program was created in early 1995 as a means of dismantling drug
organizations by securing the conviction and incarceration of those
individuals dealing drugs and causing violence in these communities.
Recent examples of MET program successes include the following:
--Phoenix, Arizona.--From July 1998 until March 1999 the Phoenix
Field Division MET worked closely with the Northern Arizona
Street Crimes Task Force in targeting the Colimas and Costillo
drug-trafficking organizations. The Colimas organization was
responsible for supplying street-level dealers with multiple-
pound quantities of methamphetamine. The Costillo organization,
a polydrug trafficking group, had a reputation for extreme
violence; some of its members had criminal histories, which
included armed robberies, home invasions, assault, sex crimes,
and child abuse. Using confidential sources, the MET was able
to successfully infiltrate these two organizations and severely
disrupt their operations. The nine month deployment, resulted
in the seizure of seven operational and three dismantled
methamphetamine labs, 44 grams of heroin, 22 pounds of
marijuana, 500 dosage units of LSD, 40 weapons, 18 motor
vehicles, and $16,292 in U.S. currency. In addition, The MET
secured 86 arrests, including the arrests of two primary
targets: Jose Francisco Colimas and Ricardo ``Duke'' Castillo.
--Brownwood, Texas.--At the request of local police, DEA's Dallas
Division MET deployed to Brownwood, Texas from October 1998 to
March 1999 in an effort to combat narcotics-related violence
problems within this community. The five month deployment
resulted in 22 federal indictments and 19 state arrest
warrants. The initial sweep resulted in 38 arrests (20 federal
and 18 state). In response to the operation, the Brownwood
District Attorney stated, ``This DEA MET deployment was
significant in getting important drug dealers off the street
and making a major impact in the community. This is a perfect
example of what happens when all parties cooperate and
collaborate towards a common goal.''
--Warren, Ohio.--At the request of the local police chief, DEA's
Detroit Division MET deployed to Warren, Ohio from January to
May 1999 in an effort to target a significant increase of crack
cocaine trafficking and related violence within this community.
The primary deployment targets were members of a violent drug
distribution organization operating in Warren. This five month
deployment resulted in the arrest of 16 individuals (11
arrested on state charges that include mandatory sentences upon
conviction); the execution of six search warrants; and, the
seizure of 650 grams of crack cocaine. In addition, $8,100 in
U.S. currency was seized, along with nine weapons including two
semi-automated handguns with laser sights and seven rifles. In
addition, the primary targets of this deployment were also
arrested.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
In an effort to support DEA's evolving drug strategy through both
ongoing and developing agency operations, in fiscal year 2001 we are
requesting additional programmatic resources through three primary
budget initiatives: our Domestic Drug Enforcement Initiative,
Intelligence Initiative, and Infrastructure initiative.
Funding requested through DEA's Enforcement Initiative includes 18
positions (11 Special Agents) and $3.1 million for the agency's Special
Operations Division. SOD-coordinated investigations enable DEA and its
drug law enforcement counterparts to attack the command and control
infrastructures of major drug trafficking organizations at their most
vulnerable point--their lines of communication. In order for these
organizations to operate effectively within the global community,
extensive coordination and communication between all echelons of their
operations is required. DEA's main weapon in thwarting the
communications infrastructures of these organizations is the use of
Title III wiretap investigations. As DEA addresses emerging drug
threats, requests for Title IIIs and intelligence assistance are
expected to increase dramatically. In order to meet these requests, DEA
requires additional resources for SOD investigations along the
Southwest Border and for SOD's Financial Investigations program.
Enhancements requested for fiscal year 2001 include nine positions (six
Special Agents) and $1.671 million to coordinate additional multi-
division Title III investigations along the Southwest border and nine
positions (five Special Agents) and $1.429 million to establish a Money
Laundering and Financial Investigations Section within SOD, providing
DEA with national oversight and coordination on Title III money
laundering investigations.
DEA requests a total of $1.5 million through the agency's
Intelligence Initiative. Intelligence driven investigations represent
the best means of quickly and efficiently targeting, investigating and
dismantling major drug trafficking organizations. Our Intelligence
Initiative focuses exclusively on providing DEA's intelligence program
with the tools necessary to address all facets of the agency's
investigative requirements. Further development of DEA's drug
intelligence and information sharing capabilities is vital to efforts
to maximize federal, state, and local anti-drug assets. The resources
requested through this initiative will provide DEA with additional
support for drug intelligence operations through further development of
DEA's El Paso Intelligence Center Information System (EIS). This
system, which collects, distributes and analyzes reported data on
worldwide drug trafficking trends and drug organization operations, is
critical in the facilitation of information sharing with other federal,
state and local law enforcement agencies.
Finally, DEA requests a total of 26 positions and $59.957 million
through the agency's Infrastructure Initiative. DEA's dynamic
enforcement and intelligence missions continue to place great demands
on the agency's key operational support programs. As such, critical
investments in technology for projects such as the agency's FIREBIRD
office automation system and financial management system are essential
to the successful performance of drug law enforcement. In fiscal year
2001 DEA is requesting two positions and $55.908 million to fully
support the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Technology Renewal
requirements of the agency's FIREBIRD office automation system and 24
positions and $3.957 million to enhance the agency's financial and
resource management oversight capacity. Without these additional
resources, DEA will not be able to continue to effectively provide
necessary support for the growing number of Special Agents,
Intelligence Specialists and Task Force Officers working actively to
identify, target and dismantle drug trafficking organizations around
the globe.
This concludes my presentation of DEA's fiscal year 2001 budget
request. I would be happy at this time to take any questions the
Committee Members may have regarding DEA operations, programs or
requested budget enhancements.
METHAMPHETAMINE REQUEST
Senator Gregg. Yes, thank you, Administrator. I appreciate
that.
In looking over your budget specifically, I notice there
was not a request for methamphetamine initiatives, which has
been a fairly high priority of this committee and, I thought,
of the agency over the last few years.
When you submitted your request to OMB, was there a
methamphetamine request in there?
Mr. Marshall. Senator, we have enjoyed, with your support,
funding increases in methamphetamine issues over the last
several budget years, and this year we did submit a request for
an additional, I believe it was 187 positions and $43.7 million
to target methamphetamine issues in this country, to provide
clandestine laboratory clean-up, and training to other law
enforcement agencies. The Department of Justice supported this
request and submitted it to OMB.
Senator Gregg. How many was that?
Mr. Marshall. 187 positions, 108 special agent positions,
$43.7 million.
Senator Gregg. And that was eliminated by OMB, I presume?
Mr. Marshall. That is my assumption, sir.
FUNDING FOR OTHER DEA INITIATIVES
Senator Gregg. I have to tell you, I looked at your budget
and I said something is missing here. What other requests of
significance were eliminated?
Mr. Marshall. Well, DOJ approved a heroin initiative and
money-laundering initiative, a Special Operations Division
initiative, a bit larger initiative on our infrastructure and
our intelligence and I would be able to submit all of the
details of those for the record if you would like.
Senator Gregg. I would appreciate that. What would be the
appropriate amount that was involved in those accounts?
Mr. Marshall. It looks like one initiative was on the order
of $75 million, another initiative on the order of $32 million,
and another on the order of $76 million.
Senator Gregg. These were all for the purposes of fighting
the drug war?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, they were.
[The information follows:]
DEA FISCAL YEAR 2001 UNFUNDED BUDGET REQUEST
Total Enhancement Request
513 positions (248 special agents) and $185,257,661.
Includes items requested in DEA's fiscal year 2001 OMB budget
request as well as selected items from DEA's fiscal year 2001
Congressional request.
None of the individual items requested in this document should be
provided to DEA if it would require a reduction to the agency's
existing base program resources.
Initiative I: Strategic Domestic Enforcement
Total includes: 412 positions (242 special agents) and $75,839,464
to implement DEA's Strategic Domestic Enforcement Initiative, a
comprehensive, multi-faceted enforcement approach designed specifically
to combat the surrogates of major drug trafficking organizations
operating within the U.S. and their command and control centers based
throughout the world.
--187 positions (108 special agents) and $43,706,839 to
comprehensively target methamphetamine production and
trafficking organizations operating in the United States.
Resources will be used to increase DEA's investigative
capabilities, enhance training efforts and provide the funding
necessary to safeguard America's communities from the potential
health and environmental threats posed by clandestine
laboratories.
Total includes: 169 positions (104 special agents) and
$17,807,392 to enhance domestic methamphetamine enforcement
efforts; 10 positions and $21,845,000 for clandestine
laboratory cleanup; and 8 positions (4 special agents) and
$4,054,447 to enhance DEA's clandestine laboratory training
program.
--85 positions (50 special agents) and $8,852,274 to combat drug
trafficking organizations operating along the United States'
Southern Frontier, including the Southwest Border and the
Caribbean Corridor.
--85 positions (51 special agents) and $8,930,029 to target major
heroin trafficking organizations operating in the United States
and fund the completion of DEA's five year heroin enforcement
plan.
--32 positions (20 special agents) and $3,385,454 to strengthen DEA's
program management functions and field enforcement capabilities
in the field of drug related financial investigations and money
laundering. The request will fund the establishment of two
Regional Financial Investigations Groups (RFIG's) based in New
York and Los Angeles.
--23 positions (13 special agents) and $10,964,868 to support DEA's
Special Operations Division (SOD) operations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A total of 18 positions (11 special agents) and $3.1 million is
provided for SOD in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget submission.
The remaining SOD program requirement is 23 positions and $10.965
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total includes: 4 positions (3 special agents) and $926,336 for
SOD related methamphetamine enforcement efforts; 7 positions (4
special agents) and $1,094,509 for SOD related Latin America
and Caribbean enforcement efforts; 9 positions (6 special
agents) and $1,351,885 for SOD related Europe and Asia
enforcement efforts; and 3 positions and $7,592,138 to provide
critical linguist support of Title III investigations through
the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement (ICDE) program.
Initiative II: Intelligence
Total includes 76 positions (44 Intelligence Specialists) and
$32,778,627 to provide vital investigative support in identifying,
developing, and exploiting the information and intelligence necessary
to enhance the effectiveness of drug law enforcement.
--10 positions (3 special agents; 5 Intelligence Specialists) and
$4,937,000 to develop an Academy for Drug Intelligence (ADI)
that will provide criminal and drug intelligence analytical
training to federal law enforcement agencies and where
appropriate, state, local and foreign agencies.
--2 positions and $12,371,866 to accelerate the installation of DEA's
MERLIN intelligence system into the agency's remaining domestic
division, district and resident offices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ $2.0 million of this total is requested by DEA for MERLIN in
its revised Plan Colombia submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--5 positions (4 Intelligence Specialists) and $6,447,785 to enhance
DEA's Narcotics Enforcement Data Retrieval System (NEDRS)
project in support of the agency's Special Operations
Division.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ $2.5 million of this total is requested by DEA for NEDRS in its
revised Plan Colombia submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--54 positions (40 Intelligence Specialists) and $5,314,311 to
provide dedicated intelligence staff and support to High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA), which are playing a
major role in interagency drug law enforcement cooperation
throughout the United States.
--$600,000 to meet expanded federal, state and local participation in
DEA's National Drug Pointer Index (NDPIX) information
system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ If the requested $600,000 for NDPIX is provided, DEA asks that
this funding be recurred in the outyears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--$1,800,000 to operate, maintain and enhance DEA's El Paso
Intelligence Center's (EPIC) Information System (EIS).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A total of $1.5 million is provided for EPIC EIS in the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for DEA. The remaining EIS
program requirement is $1.8 million. DEA asks that if provided, this
funding recur in the outyears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--$750,000 to continue the conversion of DEA's investigative records
to an electronic format by the end of 2001, thereby allowing
direct, desktop access to the agency's complete investigative
records.
--5 positions and $557,665 to expand DEA's Computer Forensics
Program, working to heighten DEA's intelligence collection and
case support activities and allow the agency to better identify
and target major drug violators.
Initiative III: Infrastructure
Total includes 25 positions (14 Technical/Clerical) and $76,639,570
to provided critical support to DEA's enforcement operations.
--4 positions and $30,100,000 to achieve full deployment of DEA's
FIREBIRD office automation system by the end of CY 2001 and
establish sufficient infrastructure funding to support the
system at expanded levels.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A total of 2 positions and $56.0 million is requested for DEA's
FIREBIRD system in the fiscal year 2001 President's budget request.
DEA's remaining FIREBIRD program deployment requirement is 4 positions
and $30.1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--$16,000,000 to address DEA's Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
requirements.
--$10,500,000 for the purchase of a twin-engine plane for DEA's
Mexico City Country Office and a twin-engine helicopter to
support DEA operations in the Bahamas.
--15 positions (3 special agents) and $1,477,294 to enhance DEA
training programs and infrastructure at the newly completed
Justice Training Center at Quantico, Virginia.
--$3,878,000 to enhance DEA's laboratory equipment base and refresh
the agency's equipment inventory in line with accepted industry
standards.
--4 positions and $1,403,732 to fully implement an Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) in DEA's field drug
laboratories.
--2 positions and $13,380,544 to enhance DEA's Personnel Security
Section to ensure compliance with all of the agency's
background investigation requirements.
COLOMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL
Senator Gregg. In the proposal that came to us, the
Colombia supplemental, which was a $1.6 billion initiative, the
purpose of which was to send helicopters to Colombia and do
other things within Colombia to eradicate drug activity, I
noticed that the DEA role in that was about $3 million. Is that
right?
Mr. Marshall. By my count it is something on the order of
between $5 and 6 million.
Senator Gregg. Of the $1.6 billion?
Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir.
Senator Gregg. I guess the question arises, and you may not
want to answer this but I would be interested if you do and I
understand if you do not, but as the premier drug-fighting
agency, as the people primarily charged with the portfolio of
addressing fighting drugs, how can you have an initiative where
we are going to spend $1.6 billion and end up with your agency
representing less than one-half of 1 percent of the dollars
being spent?
Mr. Marshall. Well, there are some other funding items in
this plan for the Department of Justice and I understand that
about $40 million is going to the Department of Justice. Those
are for such things as multilateral investigations,
prosecutors, victim witness programs, and training for the
judiciary. We are currently discussing with the Department of
Justice how DEA can access some of that money.
We did get, I think, the couple of main things that we
wanted in this bill, and that was to support our intelligence
operations, targeting operations in the country of Colombia
with the Colombian National Police. I do support Plan Colombia.
I do recognize that the Colombian National Police in our
bilateral investigations with them have been a critical
component of our successes overseas. They have been wonderful
allies and we need to continue to support them and we have to
find ways to continue to work these multilateral
investigations.
So I would hope that in the future we could find ways to
enhance our relationship even more, beyond the $40 million that
is in Justice appropriation for Colombia.
Senator Gregg. I understand that but I am just thinking in
the order of priorities. It appears that about $200 million of
the requests which you prioritize for fighting drugs did not
come forward. And yet we received a $1.6 billion supplemental
for fighting drugs in Colombia and most of that is going to
flow to some defense contractor, who is going to sell them some
helicopters. From my standpoint I am not sure we get the return
that we get when we give your agency the support it needs; for
example, methamphetamines, which is something that is a really
high priority for States like Missouri and Colorado, and I
suspect New Mexico. The problem has not really gotten as severe
in the Northeast as it has in the West, and it is certainly
significant.
Senator Hollings?
Senator Hollings. Can I question both of them?
Senator Gregg. Yes.
DRUG TRAFFICKING IN MEXICO
Senator Hollings. Mr. Marshall, that is the main thing. Are
drugs on the increase or decrease in Mexico?
Mr. Marshall. Well, I think that right now the traffic
through Mexico accounts for the vast majority of drugs coming
into this country from foreign sources. I would have to say
that it is on the increase at this point.
Senator Hollings. Well, bless you. I backed Constantine and
now I would be delighted to back you because I think you speak
the truth. It just amazed me that the administration at the
first of this month certified Mexico on the decrease, that they
are fully cooperating with the United States, and Constantine
just told the New York Times we know who the leaders of the
cartel are and everything else, but we cannot get any
cooperation to bring them to justice. They shoot or kill the
chief of police at Tijuana. We are digging up bodies over there
at Juarez and Matamares and other places. It just gets worse
and worse and yet we keep certifying it as a wonderful thing.
This place here in Washington is Alice in Wonderland. We
call a deficit a surplus. Thirty years we have said that Taiwan
was not sovereign but a part of China. Now we threaten to
defend it as sovereign. The freedom to buy an office is the
freedom of speech and a deficit is a surplus and an increase is
a decrease, according to the White House.
FBI-CIA COORDINATION
Mr. Freeh, let me ask you about the coordination that you
have with George Tenet and the CIA because I have investigated
on the Hoover Commission both the FBI and the Central
Intelligence Agency and they were extreme competitors, jealous,
arresting each other, spending a lot of time, money and agents
spying on each other to get the case first and everything else
like that.
That is why I sort of hesitate going over to Prague, Seoul,
Santo Domingo, Nairobi, Amman, and Bucharest. Do you have a
good working relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency?
Mr. Freeh. Senator, we have an excellent relationship not
just on the director-to-director level but on the institutional
and operational levels. You are absolutely right. That is not a
historical phenomenon. In fact, it is a recent development, I
would say within the last 5 or 6 years. I cannot think of
better cooperation.
If I could go into some details, perhaps not at this
session, but talk about some of the operations which have been
directed against subjects like Usama Bin Laden and Kasi--who
was brought back to the United States for the murder of CIA
employees. During the recent events over the millennial period,
the FBI and the CIA operated in lock-step around the world, to
the benefit of our country and our friends. We are very, very
pleased with that and I do not think you will find a better
relationship institutionally or individually.
We have a lot of FBI officials who are over at the CIA in
key decision-making positions. George Tenet has some of his
senior officers at the FBI with line authority in
counterterrorism programs. We have a regular series of liaisons
and coordinations between our chiefs of station overseas and
our legal attaches. The chiefs of station will tell you that
they need the legal attaches presence to supplement their
mission, which is one mission, the mission of protecting the
country. I do not think you will find that coordination working
better in terms of fugitive cases, preventing cases in terms of
terrorism, finding people, bringing them back here, and sharing
information. I am very pleased with the relationship.
Senator Hollings. It is a practical problem because those
who are willing to give us information in that world are not
necessarily Sunday school teachers. If you have a terrorist who
has given us information, who rules? Do you arrest him, get
him, or do we keep getting the information from the terrorist?
Mr. Freeh. With respect to terrorism, the first objective
is to prevent an act of terrorism, and second, to apprehend and
bring the individual back. We have brought back people like
Shirosaki, who committed crimes against the United States
nearly 15 years ago. We have brought back 12 major terrorism
fugitives into the United States in the last 4 years so they
can be prosecuted here. It is our primary objective to find
them, bring them back here and have them taken to a court of
justice.
CRIME PROBLEM IN SOUTH KOREA
Senator Hollings. Do you have terrorists or Mafia activity
out of Seoul, Korea? I see some of the places there that I
understand, but I am rather surprised that you have that kind
of activity coming out of Seoul, Korea that would require a
legate.
Mr. Freeh. We have several cases, cases around the United
States where Korean-Americans and Korean nationals are involved
in organized criminal enterprises. That is not a new
phenomenon. We have a huge amount of economic crime and fraud,
which has connections between Korea and the United States.
There is a very strong overlap of jurisdictional interest in
not only organized crime areas but white collar crime areas--
fraud areas, and smuggling, including the smuggling of drugs
and narcotics, which Mr. Marshall could talk about. So there
are a lot of things that occupy us together.
Just to go back to your earlier question about the
necessity for agents overseas, there are only 113 FBI agents
overseas. That is to cover literally the world. And the return
the United States gets on that investment is immense. In fact,
just in today's papers you will see two stories. One is the
successful result of an FBI investigation in Thailand which
located a fugitive, a man who had been convicted over 10 years
ago for two rapes in the State of Minnesota, arrested because
of the FBI's presence and activities overseas, and who will be
brought back to serve the rest of his sentence.
Also, in the People's Republic of China, arrests were made
as a direct result of the FBI activity of people who are
charged with the murder of five people in Boston several years
ago.
So this is the kind of reach and capacity that the FBI's
very small presence gives us overseas.
[Subsequent to the hearing, the following clarification was
provided:]
CLARIFICATION ON AGENTS OVERSEAS
The FBI currently has 35 active Legal Attache offices
overseas on every continent except Antarctica. These offices
are within our U.S. embassies. As of March 16, 2000, the 35
offices were staffed by 154 FBI employees, of which 90 are
agents.
In a March 29, 2000, letter to the Hill, the FBI proposed a
reprogramming/reallocation of resources to increase the Legal
Attache presence overseas to 186 FBI employees, of which 112
would be agents.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FBI LABORATORY MODERNIZATION
Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Freeh, I want to commend you on a couple of things
that have been accomplished in the last few years; one, the
modernization of your crime laboratory with the new director
that, incidentally, you personally chose. For those who wonder
what kind of a person the FBI chose to be the director of their
crime laboratory and turn it around and put it back where it is
world renown, he chose a former director of Los Alamos National
Laboratory, a physicist.
Senator Hollings. Oh, I thought it was a Chinaman.
Senator Domenici. No, a physicist, and he has done a great
job and, frankly, it is just the right kind of work for him. I
never did look at him that way but they did in terms of his
great scientific prowess and organizational ability. I think he
has been a real asset, and I assume you think your laboratory
is doing much better, right?
Mr. Freeh. It is, Senator, thanks to him and the support we
have gotten here. The accreditation was very important but his
scientific leadership, which we have never had before in 90
years, is really well felt.
HEROIN PROBLEM IN NORTHERN NEW MEXICO
Senator Domenici. To both of you I want to thank you for
some work you did, your predecessor did and the FBI did, along
with other Justice Department people, in a very poor county in
my State named Rio Arriba County where we were leading the
United States by far in per capita overdose deaths from black
tar heroin. Up in this poor part of New Mexico black tar heroin
had almost taken over. There were families involved in it for
two or three generations and the overdose deaths in our
hospitals were the highest in America. A real effort was put
forth jointly and 50 people were arrested. They are all, many
of them, pleading guilty day by day, and we could not have done
that if you had not indicated an interest after we called it to
your attention.
I am sure things are still going on there because the
communities are getting a lot more interested in positive
things so I want to, on the record, thank the Federal
Government. That effort was a good one. Both of you told your
groups to get involved, they did and did a great job. Thank you
for that.
I want to submit some questions to you with reference to
counterterrorism and some other things. I do not want to ask
them now but I am sure that you and your people will answer
them and we will read them.
NATIONAL LABORATORY PROTECTION
I want to focus just a minute on Wen Ho Lee from a
different perspective. The Wen Ho Lee situation and the entire
evaluation of the laboratory system, the nuclear weapons
laboratory system that ended up with the indictment of Wen Ho
Lee clearly indicated that the FBI offices that are close to
the laboratories of Los Alamos and Sandia, two of the biggest,
that those FBI offices were very undermanned for a long period
of time. As a matter of fact, much of the resources were turned
to drugs instead of anti-terrorism and crime in the
laboratories.
Now you recognized that during the investigation and
without details, could you assure us that you have fixed that
situation? I mean if you are going to police an institution
that has great American secrets that, if stolen, could be
dangerous, you have to be in a position to do that at Los
Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, I
would assume. I assume you have come to that conclusion and are
doing something about it?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, Senator, we have come to that conclusion
and we are doing something about it. In addition to the 60
agents which this committee, directed to be allocated to the
major national laboratories, particularly the weapons
laboratories, that has been done. Those people are present.
They also have the analytical support necessary, both in the
field and headquarters, to support that effort.
The other response, which is perhaps more important in
terms of long-term significance is the counterintelligence
structures within the Department of Energy and the
laboratories, which I think by everybody's concession were
fairly well broken for some period of time, despite many
efforts, including your own, to build that up over many, many
years.
The counterintelligence structures now within the
Department of Energy, we are very, very pleased to not only
observe them but to participate with them. A lot of the
counterintelligence officers, including Mr. Curran, who is the
departmental director, are former FBI counterintelligence
specialists. The resources and the organization that have been
put into that structure, we think are very, very formidable.
The other changes that you and your colleagues have made
with respect to the organization of the department I think are
also part and parcel of strengthening not only
counterintelligence capabilities but preventing compromises.
We ask for in the 2001 budget an increase, one of the few
personnel increases we do ask for, is in the area of
counterintelligence--personnel, analytical ability, technology.
All of that will be applied and as long as we all pay attention
to that situation, it will not fall again into disrepair.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the other questions.
IMPROVING THE BORDER PATROL
Senator Gregg. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask both of you if you believe that the
Border Patrol and the DEA and the FBI are working together in
an optimal way in sharing information and in coordinating,
where necessary. Clearly, Border Patrol is supposed to be for
illegal immigration control but because that is so often the
same operation that includes illegal drugs, it has become a
dual function. But the question is have they been able to
undertake the dual function effectively in your opinion? And if
not, or even if so, how could that be improved?
Mr. Marshall. From the DEA standpoint, I think for the most
part they have been able to undertake the dual function
effectively. And the reason I believe that is, is because we
have had an onging dialogue with the Border Patrol in terms of
what our working relationship should be and who handles what
particular issues. When they make a seizure of drugs, we have
agreements worked out for when DEA pursues the investigation,
when the case should be referred to Customs or when, the Border
Patrol themselves actually handle the initial investigation.
In some cases we have actually exchanged personnel and co-
located our offices. I believe that what we have done is
provide a broad framework on how we generally interact between
the two agencies. We also have given our, Special Agents in
Charge for DEA the leeway to adapt those guidelines as
necessary. And I think for the most part we do have a very
productive, workable relationship.
Senator Hutchison. So you are saying that there are not
jurisdictional problems, but are there also ways that there
could be a more effective use of both agencies?
Mr. Marshall. Well, I think, when you are talking about two
large organizations like this, that there is always room for
improvement but from my perspective, I believe the relationship
is working very well.
CREATION OF BORDER PATROL ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just say this. Some of us
have talked--Certainly Senator Gregg has been very creative in
this area but we have talked about whether there should be a
Border Patrol enforcement organization where instead of having
two different agencies--the DEA and the Border Patrol--that
there would be one enforcement agency that would combine the
functions.
Do you have any opinion about whether that would be more
effective or if it would create problems that we are not
seeing?
Mr. Marshall. Well, it may fix some coordination problems.
My impression would be that it may fix coordination problems
particularly between the Border Patrol and Customs. It also may
create other problems.
Again I think on balance, we have an effective working
relationship with both of these agencies and we believe that we
are able to get through most of these problems fairly easily.
IDENT-IAFIS INTERGRATION
Senator Hutchison. Director Freeh, I know that FBI is less
front-line in this area but I know there is coordination with
information. Do you have any views on whether there could be a
more effective Border Patrol agency in some way coordinating
better or perhaps creating a different agency?
Mr. Freeh. You know, I think there are certainly some
significant things we can do under existing structures and
jurisdiction to improve the overall efficiency and capability
of the government. I mean one aspect is fingerprint
identification, which this committee has paid particular
attention to. INS has an IDENT system which is distinctly
different than the FBI's IAFIS system. Remarkably, these two
systems grew up at the same time.
We are now in the process, under this committee's
directive, to study the integration of those two systems so the
two-finger identification, which is done by a Border Patrol
agent, can have some relevance to the 34 million prints that we
have in our IFIS database. That connection is not currently
available within the Department of Justice. We are looking at
that now. There are four studies that are being done at a cost
of $5 million and we are confident that integration can be
made. That will be an extraordinary improvement in our ability
to protect the borders of the country and determine who should
come in and who should not come into the United States.
Also, there are a lot of things we can do under existing
structures, short of combining and reforming agencies, which,
in my experience, is very disruptive.
Senator Hutchison. Combining is very disruptive?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, combining two separate agencies would be, I
think, very disruptive.
Senator Hutchison. And you think trying to work within the
structures we have now and doing the things that you have just
said are being done is the better approach than to try to have
one single more enforcement-oriented agency?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, that would be my recommendation.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Lautenberg.
REDUCING THE CRIME AND VIOLENCE RATES
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
My apologies for not having been here to hear the testimony
of these widely respected witnesses. I commend you, including
Ms. Meissner, for the job that has been done in getting the
crime rate down to the lowest point since 1973. The violent
crime is at its lowest rate since 1993. The murder rate is down
25 percent since 1993.
Director Freeh, you and I have a soft spot for New Jersey,
this is not to suggest that you put more resources into New
Jersey, but I know the people at the agency there and they are
very cooperative, they work hard and diligently. There is a
project under way now, as I am sure you know with the BATF to
get a common file on ballistics information.
So I think that everybody deserves a measure of credit for
having reduced the crime and violence rate.
GUN SHOW CHECKS
There is one loophole, however, that you and I have
discussed and you know very well that I have been an advocate
of closing the gun show loophole, which permits unlicensed
dealers to sell guns without background checks. If Usama-Bin-
Laden got into the country, he could go up to one of those
dealers and buy a gun and would not get asked a question. No
one would be checking his background or anything like that.
That is how outrageous it is.
As a matter of fact, I was reminded by my staff this
morning of an incident that is going around right now that the
NRA has accused me of wanting to shut down gun shows. They took
it, they said, from a transcript of a press conference we had
on denying children access to guns in the household. We watched
the transcript today and it is very specific. It says ``Close
the gunshow loophole.'' In their memo, their bulletin is out
there saying Lautenberg wants to close gun shows. So they are
always ready to distort these things to make a point.
And I would ask you this. You are aware that we have
prevented some 470,000 people from getting guns under Brady.
And you know that I was the author of the law to prevent guns
from falling into the hands of domestic spousal abusers. That
domestic violence gun ban has prevented 33,000 abusers from
getting guns.
So Director Freeh, what might be the effect of having this
gun show loophole that permits people to buy guns, no questions
asked. Recently we heard the testimony of Robin Anderson, the
young woman who in Colorado appeared before the legislature
there and testified that she went around with Harris and
Klebold, the two fellows who committed the murders. She said
she helped them go around a gun show to find gun dealers that
would not ask any questions.
Can you tell us if you see an effect of having this loose
purchase of guns in terms of our trying to fight crime and cut
down on violence?
Mr. Freeh. Senator, my very strong view is that the more
information, the more authorized information we are allowed to
have in that database, the better job we are going to do
protecting people. You cite the instant check background system
which this committee has funded. Of the 11 million checks,
100,000 were disallowed. Not only are there over 3,000
violators of domestic violence orders; there are over 2,700
fugitives.
So obviously the more information in that database, the
better job we will have protecting people. It is like the
Federal DNA database, which is one of our requests for the next
year. We would like to include in there--we need authorization
from the Congress, in addition to some funding--we would like
to include in there 20,000 convicted felons in the Federal
system who relate, in some cases, directly to our crimes
against children program. We would like to have them in the
database. Not having them in the database is a huge deficit in
terms of our ability to protect people.
Senator Lautenberg. Is it not also true that the FBI, with
regard to background checks, has released some data that say
that some people escaped being prohibited from getting guns
because there was not sufficient time to check their
background?
Mr. Freeh. I think the figures show more than several cases
in that category.
Senator Lautenberg. Last year it was something like 1,100,
wasn't it?
Mr. Freeh. I can get you the numbers but it is a
significant number.
[The information follows:]
Firearm Retrievals
Transactions exceeding the three business day time limit were
caused by the lack of arrest dispositions being available in the
automated state criminal history records. During the period November
30, 1998, through February 23, 2000, there were 4,683 occasions where
information was received after the three business days demonstrating a
purchaser was prohibited, and it was determined that the firearm had
been transferred to the purchaser, thus necessitating local law
enforcement or BATF having to retrieve the firearm(s) from the
person(s) purchasing the firearms.
The FBI, through Point of Contact conferences, Advisory Policy
Board meetings, Clerk of Court conferences, and letters to state
representatives hold discussions to stress the importance of states
keeping complete and updated criminal records to provide to the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Based on the
first year of operation, it is clear that the ability of the NICS to
stop prohibited persons from acquiring firearms would be improved by:
More time to complete checks when records are not electronically
available; a means to help states with the cost of performing as a
Point of Contact state; a means to assist state courts with the costs
of seeking disposition information; and additional funds for National
Criminal History Improvement Program to improve NICS ability to obtain
final disposition information.
When the FBI determines that Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) has
already transferred the firearm to an individual determined by the NICS
to be a prohibited person, the FBI notifies both the BATF and local law
enforcement where the firearm was sold (or where the purchaser lives,
if different), that a prohibited person received a firearm.
USER FEE FOR GUN CHECKS
Senator Lautenberg. Another thing that has come up; that is
the question of whether or not people who go through the
national instant checking system should not have to pay a fee
for that process. I very much favor it. There are 11 million
requests. Is that 11 million requests a year or that have gone
on since----
Mr. Freeh. Since it was inaugurated.
Senator Lautenberg. Since the system was established. And I
know that if you want to apply for a license, fishing license,
et cetera, you pay a fee.
Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to be recovering some of the
costs that these users put upon us. I do not know whether you
discussed that in your testimony but if you have, then we will
not hold the rest of the committee, but if you have not, would
you give me a comment on that, please?
Mr. Freeh. Certainly. The system requires funding next year
of approximately $72 million, which includes the 642 employees
who work exclusively on these background checks. The
administration's proposal, of course, again asks for a user
fee. I really do not have a strong position on that. What we
need in the FBI is the funding and the funding source is a
matter, certainly, within the decision-making of the Congress
and the Administration. I pay license fees for licenses in
several States, including New Jersey, and that is a commonly
accepted method to raise appropriate revenues for enforcement
purposes. But I really do not have a view on it. We just
certainly would hate to see this program not get funded, given
the remarkable success that it has had.
GUN RETRIEVAL NOTICES
Senator Lautenberg. I did not place enough reliance on my
staff because as I look down here I see that between November
30, 1998 and June 15, 1999, the FBI failed to block about 1,700
gun sales to prohibited purchasers--criminals--because it did
not have enough time to conduct the background checks. So the
FBI then had to issue gun retrieval notices and law enforcement
people had to try to track down the weapons that these people
had bought through an insufficient system.
WAR CRIMES ASSISTANCE
Director Freeh, the FBI has contributed considerable
expertise in forensic medicine to support investigations from
U.N. War Crimes Tribunals in former Yugoslavia and people
travel to Bosnia and Kosovo to help identify and preserve
evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Now, that is an important role for the FBI in helping to
achieve justice. How can we assure that the agency is ready to
support the existing war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia,
Rwanda, and similar investigations in other parts of the world?
Is that a responsibility that we can take and complete?
Mr. Freeh. It is a very grave responsibility and I think,
of the many decisions I have made in almost 7 years, that was
probably one of the ones that I am most proud of. We sent, as
you very graciously described, two enforcement teams to Kosovo,
approximately 60 personnel per team, to work under absolutely
horrific conditions. In fact, we were the largest team
representing all of the countries that did contribute some
resources. Our team went there and on two separate occasions
did, in the words of the chief prosecutor, Carla del Timbel, an
absolutely extraordinary job identifying dozens of victims,
excavating sites. In one particular case, the agents excavated
a well where 18 members of a family ranging from 2 years of age
to 90 years of age were murdered and thrown in. We received
reimbursement for all of those activities from the State
Department, except for our personnel costs.
I think the United States needs to have that capability. I
think we should be available and anxious to supply that type of
very unique forensic experience whenever required. We do not
need and have not asked for a particular funding source for
that but I would ask for leave of the committee, as we did
before we made these deployments, to allow us to undertake
those missions where requested. I cannot think of anything more
important for the FBI to do.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put my full
opening statement in the record.
Senator Gregg. Certainly.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
I want to thank Director Freeh, Commissioner Meissner, and
Acting Administrator Marshall for appearing before the
Subcommittee today.
Each of our witnesses has important crime-fighting
responsibilities, and I want to commend them for their
respective roles in helping to make our streets safer. The
overall crime rate is the lowest it has been since 1973.
Violent crime is down 27 percent since 1993.
The murder rate is down more than 25 percent since 1993. In
my home state of New Jersey, crime is at its lowest level since
1972. The hard work of our FBI, DEA, and Border Patrol agents
has made a significant difference, and we appreciate your
leadership on that front.
Of course, there is still much work to be done. I am
particularly concerned about the gun violence that continues to
take a terrible toll on our nation. Every year, more than
30,000 people are killed. Each day, the lives of 13 children
are cut short by gun fire.
The situation would be much worse without the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which helps to
keep guns out of the wrong hands. Since it went into effect in
1994, the Brady law has stopped more than 470,000 criminals and
other prohibited purchasers from getting guns.
That number includes 33,000 domestic violence abusers who
were prevented from getting guns as a result of the Domestic
Violence Gun Ban I authored. Director Freeh and all of the FBI
agents who work so hard on that system deserve our thanks.
We should support the NICS system by allowing the FBI to
charge a user fee. There is no reason why American taxpayers
should subsidize gun ownership. If you want to buy a gun, you
should bear the cost of showing that you are legally permitted
to own it.
Drug-trafficking also continues to be a major problem.
Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine flow too easily
into our country, particularly across the Mexican border.
Coordinated efforts between your agencies and state and local
law enforcement, such as the Southwest Border Initiative, are a
good step forward in trying to stop drug-trafficking.
And there are other challenges we must grapple with in the
21st century. We must continue to be vigilant against terrorism
both domestic and international.
Additionally, advances in computer technology have made all
of our lives easier, but have also provided new opportunities
for criminals. We need to provide appropriate resources so that
law enforcement can keep pace with cyber-criminals.
On the issue of immigration, I am proud of our country's
legacy as a land of opportunity and sanctuary for people around
the world. Certainly, we need to have immigration policies that
provide an orderly system for people coming to the United
States, but our policies should always be guided by compassion
so that we do not cause additional hardship for families who
are already in desperate circumstances.
Again, I thank Director Freeh, Commissioner Meissner, and
Acting Administrator Marshall for appearing before us today. I
look forward to hearing about their budget requests for fiscal
year 2001, and discussing those requests during the question
and answer period.
Senator Gregg. Did you have further questions?
Senator Lautenberg. No.
NATIONAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS OFFICE
Senator Gregg. When can we expect to get the reprogramming
for the NDPO?
Mr. Freeh. We should have it at the Department of Justice,
I am told, within a week, Senator, and up here immediately
after that, as soon as it clears through OMB [the Office of
Management and Budget].
[The information follows:]
The National Domestic Preparedness Office reprogramming was
submitted to Congress on March 31, 2000.
Senator Gregg. What is the status of the State and local
advisory groups?
Mr. Freeh. The State and Local Group Advisory has not been
fully constituted or assembled. It is being done now as we
speak, now that the NDPO has the authorization to proceed, and
I hope to have that up as quickly as possible. It is a critical
element obviously to that function being credible.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Gregg. Well, as you know, it is very important and,
hopefully, it can be done as soon as possible.
Mr. Freeh. I pledge to do it as quickly as I can.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
USER FEE INCREASE
Question. Once again the Administration is requesting a $2.00 fee
increase in the Immigration User Fee. Congress rejected the same
request last year because the INS failed to provide the justification.
Can you provide the justification that would warrant an increase?
Answer. In March 1997, the INS Office of Budget conducted a
comprehensive review of the Immigration User Fee Account (IUFA) to
develop and utilize a more consistent and reliable cost accounting
methodology for determining the adequacy of the current fee. The study
found that the current user fee of $6.00 was adequate to cover costs
through fiscal year 1998, but because of increasing costs, from the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
mandates among them (such as expedited removals and automated entry/
exit control system), the revenues collected (new receipts) in fiscal
year 1999 were not sufficient to cover all of its operating costs.
Carry forward funding from fiscal year 1998 was used to make up for the
shortfall in funding.
To recover a portion of the increasing IUFA costs, the
Administration proposed to lift the User Fee exemption from cruise ship
passengers. In fact, the Administration first proposed lifting the
exemption in fiscal year 1995. Fiscal year 2000 Congressional action
did not remove the exemption for cruise ship passengers, which
translated into costs of approximately $20 million without any
offsetting cruise ship receipts for every year the exemption remains in
effect.
Fiscal year 1999 Conference action permanently transferred $29.5
million in requirements from base Salaries and Expenses funding to the
IUFA. The combined impact of not lifting the cruise fee exemption and
transfer of the $29.5 million over two years has adversely affected
INS' ability to cover its base operations. As a result, INS has been
forced to cover its IUFA operating costs by relying on carry forward
revenue. Relying on carry forward revenue in fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999 creates a very cautious spending environment for the
IUFA in fiscal year 2000 and establishes deficits in the outyears.
Question. What are the costs associated with the Inspection process
that warrant a $2.00 increase?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 financial plan for the User Fee
Account is predicated upon a reprogramming notification that is
currently pending. The reprogramming requests an increase from the
fiscal year 2000 IUFA authorized level of $446,151,000 to $487,000,000,
representing an increase of $40,849,000 or 1.1 percent over the fiscal
year 1999 budget. With the reprogramming of these funds, INS will
temporarily preempt a potentially severe reduction in airport-related
services in fiscal year 2000. Even with the approval of the fiscal year
2000 Immigration User Fee Reprogramming, Immigration User Fee program
costs will continue to far exceed new revenues. During fiscal year
2000, prior year carry forward funds will be almost depleted, leaving
an estimated $4,889,000 to carry forward into fiscal year 2001. This is
insufficient to cover services that the INS must provide for fees
already collected. Hence, in fiscal year 2001 and beyond, the solvency
of the account will be in jeopardy.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes language that would
increase the current Immigration User Fee for air passengers (and
transoceanic cruise passengers) by $2.00, to $8.00, and would lift the
cruise ship exemption (affecting nearly 99 percent of cruise fee
passengers) and institute a $8.00 cruise ship fee. The cruise fee would
be collected from passengers whose journey originates in Mexico,
Canada, the United States, a territory or possession of the United
States, or any adjacent island to the United States. The proposed
cruise ship fee would not apply to immigration inspection at designated
ports-of-entry of passengers arriving by Great Lakes international
ferries or Great Lakes vessels on the Great Lakes and connecting
waterways, when operating on a regular schedule. Revenue from both of
these fee increases is assumed in the fiscal year 2001 President's
budget request.
In fiscal year 2001, a total budget of $529,103,000 is requested
for the Immigration User Fee Account (IUFA). This spending level
includes two enhancements: (1) upgrading of the journey grade of
Immigration Inspector positions from GS-9 to GS-11 and (2) hiring of
154 new Immigration Inspectors to staff the opening of new
international airport terminals including a new terminal at San
Francisco.
Without an increase in the fee and elimination of the cruise ship
exemption, INS may be forced to reduce services in fiscal year 2001.
The likely result of this service reduction would be longer waiting
times at airports and an inability to carry out certain airport-related
initiatives in the Inspections, Detention and Deportation, Intelligence
and Data and Communication Programs.
Question. INS has virtually the same process for air passengers
that it had in 1987 when the fee was first established.
Rather than ask for a fee increase, what actions has INS taken to
redesign its work process or to reduce the costs of your operation?
Answer. The inspection process has been updated and modernized
through the use of technology that allows for facilitation of bona fide
travelers and identification of malafide travelers. Advance Passenger
Information is being used by Passenger Analysis Units to screen
passengers in advance of their arrival thus allowing for the increased
identification and apprehension of immigration violators and recidivist
travelers and the facilitation of bona fide travelers. This initiative
has been undertaken with the cooperation of the airline industry.
Regrettably, neither the quantity nor quality of the data currently
provided is sufficient to allow radical redesign of the present process
without introducing unacceptable risks to national security.
The cost of developing, refining and implementing new technology
for facilitation of travel has exceeded the monies generated from the
current user fee. Expansion of international airports has necessitated
an increase in staff and use of technology to maintain the current
level of services.
Question. INS has suggested that the increase in passenger volumes
will increase the need for additional program funding. Why? If
passenger volumes are increasing, then, as a matter of course,
shouldn't the amount of money paid in the form of user fees increase in
direct correlation?
Answer. Despite a projected increase in passenger volumes, the
additional revenue will not be sufficient for the INS to recover the
cost of statutorily-mandated User Fee activities. Two factors are
responsible for this situation.
Increasing passenger volumes affect both sides of the revenue and
expenses equation. Rising passenger volumes also contribute to higher
cost requirements. More passengers will mean that a greater number of
inspectors will be needed as well as higher overtime requirements to
maintain existing processing standards. Higher passengers volumes may
also mean a greater number of passengers who might have to be detained,
and these detention costs are very costly to the account.
In addition, the account is required to fund services for which no
revenue is generated. The current user fee of $6.00 continues to offset
the costs required to inspect millions of cruise and air passengers
that are presently exempt from paying the user fee. Resources are
expended to conduct these inspections which would otherwise generate
additional revenue to help offset the costs attributed to the workload.
In addition, costs have been transferred from the Salaries and Expenses
account--$29.5 million was shifted to the User Fee Account in fiscal
year 1999 alone.
The IUFA has relied on carry forward amounts for the past three
fiscal years to cover its base operations, it is expected that severe
program reductions are imminent. For these reasons, INS requests an
IUFA fee increase for air passengers of $2.00, to $8.00, and requests
that the cruise ship exemption be lifted and replaced with legislative
language that would institute a $8.00 cruise ship fee.
Question. INS has proposed to reduce services at ports of entry if
their User Fee increase request is not granted. Air carriers collect,
collate and transmit data required by the INS on an increasing
percentage of passengers arriving in the United States on behalf of the
INS. Airports provide facilities at no costs to the inspecting
agencies. The airlines and the airports supplement INS staff at ports
of entry with personnel to direct and control passenger traffic,
provide translation services and law enforcement security for the
federal inspection facilities. These are costs directly borne by the
airline industry.
Why does the INS seek to penalize the airline industry, when it
should be seeking to work in partnership to develop better, faster and
safer ways of inspecting individuals entering the United States?
Answer. The INS seeks to work with the airline industry, not to
penalize it, both to facilitate legitimate travel and to address fraud
and other abuses. We have established a Carrier Affairs Office to
provide training to the industry, we have entered into Memoranda of
Understanding to mitigate fines, and we work in partnership with the
industry in many joint working groups.
The INS has no immediate plans to reduce inspection services,
however the current fee will soon be unable to keep pace with the costs
incurred in performing inspections services at the nation's air and sea
facilities. Congress has noted in recent comments on the INS account
that it faces a crisis due to costs exceeding receipts, the recurring
use of carryover to meet annual requirements, and the inability to
satisfy long-term resource requirements. Lacking an adjustment in the
existing fee level, the unfavorable balance between revenues and
operational demands will eventually result in degradation of airport
services. Impact on INS operations may include: reduction in the
ability to meet the Congressionally-mandated 45-minute wait time;
inability to staff newly-constructed airport facilities; reduced INS
participation in anti-smuggling operations; and reduced INS/United
States Customs Service enforcement work on Passenger Analysis Units and
the scripted Advance Passenger Information project to intercept
criminal aliens.
Question. Many suggestions have been made by the airline industry
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of current INS procedures
to avoid the need to increase the User Fee. These include (1) reviewing
the current pre-clearance and pre-inspection programs to analyze their
impact on staffing efficiencies; (2) allowing domestic blocking of
certain low-risk international flights which would relieve the impact
of traffic at ``peak'' times; (3) reviewing existing program and
regulations requiring the collection and transmission of passenger data
to explore opportunities to further automate existing programs such as
the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) and INSPASS; and (4)
combining border management initiatives to reduce the number of
personnel required to maintain an effective border management program,
including cross training, shared data opportunities and the exploration
of risk based inspection procedures.
Has INS considered any of these suggestions in reviewing their
budget for this year? If not, why not?
Answer. (1) The use of pre-clearance and pre-inspection processes
has limited utility. Internal INS reviews have indicated that these
procedures are not cost effective in all instances. Additionally,
establishment of new locations to conduct such operations is subject to
agreement on the part of host countries to allow U.S. law enforcement
activity in their territory and agreement with affected airports to
make adequate facilities available. Both of these conditions have
created barriers to the expansion of this program.
(2) The systematic bypassing of Federal Inspection Service (FIS)
agencies by airlines by allowing domestic blocking of certain flights
would be an open invitation to fraud and smuggling. The INS experience
has indicated that organized smuggling groups are very adept at
adapting their operations to perceived weaknesses in the INS and other
FIS agency screening processes. A clear example of this was seen in the
1990's when large numbers of passengers with no documents arrived at
certain U.S. airports where inadequate detention facilities were
available.
(3) The INS realizes that the airline industry supports the APIS
and INSPASS systems. We are conducting a thorough review of the current
procedures in place. Once this review is complete, we will be in a
better position to consider other procedures and the future of the
program.
(4) The INS is working closely with other FIS agencies and with the
Federal Aviation Authority, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other groups to
ensure that there is a seamless and efficient process for travelers as
they enter the United States while maintaining the security of our
borders. Data is already shared among FIS agencies and additional
opportunities to coordinate our operations more closely are constantly
being explored through initiatives such as Port Quality Improvement
Committees and Passenger Analysis Units.
INSPASS
Question. INSPASS was first implemented in 1993--seven years ago.
Five years later, according to the INS Internet site, INS processed
222,000 people through it, or less than one-third of 1 percent of
arriving passengers.
Is this true?
Answer. Yes. INSPASS is still a pilot program. Although popular
with the industry, the INS is still addressing a number of important
issues, some of which were identified by the Department of Justice's
Office of the Inspector General in its draft report of July 1999. More
importantly, the INS is conducting a full review of the role of
automated inspections in general and INSPASS in particular to determine
whether these processes offer cost effective alternatives to
traditional staffed inspections.
Question. In the February 16, 2000, Federal Register notice on the
status of the Immigration User Fee Account, INS suggested that INSPASS
was a measure that was being used to expedite the inspection process.
Where the program is in place, the expedited service is working well.
Yet INS is asking once again for over 150 more airport inspectors and
requesting to increase inspector pay by $29 million, but no where does
INS say that they are going to make things easier, faster, or better
for the traveling public, especially returning US citizens.
If this is true, why has INS under-funded the program for the last
several years?
Why are no expansions of this program included in this year's
budget request?
If INSPASS is not the right technology, is INS developing something
new? If not, why not?
Is there a reason why Congress shouldn't mandate the installation
of INSPASS units at all U.S. airports?
Answer. For the past 2 years, the INS has been considering an
INSPASS regulation that would charge a fee to cover funding if this
process becomes part of our standard operating procedure at airports.
This would fund the program in part. In addition, in 1999 the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG), as a
consequence of its recent audit, recommended the INS not expand the
INSPASS to additional locations until significant and expensive
revisions could be made in the enrollment and validation system
components. More recently, a complete analysis of system benefits and
costs has been undertaken so that a better-informed decision may be
made.
The INS recognizes that current INSPASS technology may no longer be
the right technology but the INS does not have the funding available to
leverage newer technology. A congressional mandate requiring
installation of INSPASS systems at all major airports would not be
helpful without the appropriation of funds to develop an alternative
technology for use in the INSPASS process and the appropriation of
funds for deployment of the systems after development has been
completed.
Question. Back in November 1998, the airline industry was told that
Honolulu, Seattle and Dulles were the next sites to be developed. To
date, only Dulles has come on line--even though the equipment has been
bought for Honolulu and Seattle.
It is now March 2000. What is the delay in having the program
installed at Honolulu and Seattle?
What about future sites that were originally promised, such as
Dallas/Ft. Worth, Newark and Houston?
Answer. For fiscal year 2000, INS does not have the necessary
funding to support and maintain the systems at Honolulu and Seattle and
to concurrently address the OIG's recommendations on improvement and
enhancement of the system before expansion. Currently, there are no
plans to expand to additional sites; until the INS has completed its
assessment of the INSPASS concept and current technology; until
adequate funding has been identified; and until the INS has fully
complied with the OIG's recommendations.
SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS
Question. Most airlines today provide INS with Advance Passenger
Information data.
How does INS use this information to aid the processing of
passengers?
Why is INS the only Federal Inspection Agency still requiring a
primary inspection or examination for every passenger entering the
United States?--despite the Advance Passenger Information provided by
the airline?
Answer. The provision of data to the INS and other Federal
Inspection Agencies itself does not address fraud, counterfeiting,
misrepresentation, false claims or the use of documents by look-alikes.
Examining every arriving passenger at primary inspection points to
ensure proper documentation and review of travel documents for
imposters and possible fraud is necessary to maintain the security of
the United States and prevent the entry of terrorists and others who
are inadmissible by statute.
The information is used to expedite the processing of bona fide air
travelers substantially by eliminating the need for an inspector to
perform a full primary computer query and as an enforcement tool by
providing ports-of-entry with advance notification of arriving
passengers who are the subjects of lookouts.
The INS, by agreement with the other FIS agencies, conducts the
initial primary inspection for all agencies. This allows both the U.S.
Customs service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to
employ alternative inspection processes to achieve their missions.
Question. The INS intercepts only about one maleficent claim to
U.S. citizenship for about every 10,000 passengers examined.
What is INS doing to accelerate U.S. citizen clearance?
Does INS measure clearance times for U.S. citizens only--and, if
not, why not?
Answer. The INS has experimented with Accelerated Citizen
Examination (ACE), an oral declaration of citizenship by U.S. citizens
on selected arriving flights. This has been useful but lacks an
adequate mechanism to address risks fully. Also, passport readers have
been installed at the major airports and returning U.S. citizens with
passports and lawful permanent residents with resident cards are
processed quickly. Additionally, the INS has experimented with fully
automated inspections using the INSPASS process that is used mostly by
U.S. citizens.
Clearance times are collected at each site and are used to
determine staffing levels at each location. INS is mandated to clear
all flights within 45 minutes, and those flights that are participants
in the API program are being cleared within 30 minutes. During the
first two quarters of fiscal year 1999, 97.1 percent of all flights
were cleared within the required 45 minutes.
Question. Many airlines today use electronic tickets and self-
service devices (SSD's) to enable passengers to complete the check-in
process without having to see an agent.
Is INS looking at similar technology for processing frequent
flyers?
Answer. The INS Passenger Accelerated Service System (INSPASS) is
an automated system that can significantly reduce immigration
inspection processing time for authorized travelers. INSPASS combines
automation with a hand geometry biometric image to validate the claimed
identity of an individual. Eligible frequent travelers may enroll in
the program at any INSPASS enrollment office.
Arriving at a port-of-entry, the traveler proceeds to an INSPASS
inspection queue. There, the person inserts a card issued to them at
enrollment to an INSPASS kiosk, similar to automated bank teller
devices. Responding to messages on the kiosk's touch-screen display,
travelers are prompted to enter their flight number (certain persons
only) and to place their hand on a hand geometry reader. Screen prompts
are used to achieve correct alignment of the hand with the hand reader.
The kiosk software automatically compares the live scan of the
traveler's hand geometry biometric to the image captured at enrollment.
If the traveler's identity is validated by this comparison, an I-94/
receipt of his inspection is printed by the kiosk that directs the
traveler to proceed to U.S. Customs inspection. If this check is not
successful, a screen message refers the traveler to an immigration
inspector in a nearby inspection booth. Processing time of 15 to 20
seconds are typical, and times as low as 11 seconds have been observed
at existing INSPASS kiosks.
Automated inspection kiosks are not staffed. There are presently
over 45,000 active participants. More than 300,000 admissions have been
made at INSPASS kiosks since 1995. Immigration inspectors have
conducted more than 10,000 compliance checks of INSPASS admitted
persons with no fraud found.
INSPASS is operational at nine international airports: Detroit, Los
Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City (JFK), San Francisco, Washington,
D.C. (Dulles), Toronto, and Vancouver.
STAFFING
Question. INS uses a Work Analysis Model (WAM) to allocate
inspector staffing.
Are all airports staffed at the same percentage of the WAM?
Answer. INS attempts to maintain all airports at roughly the same
percentage of the WAM. However, yearly traffic growth or decreases at
some airports can significantly alter the percentages from one year to
the next. Another factor, which impacts on our ability to maintain
equitable percentages, is the availability of new staff. If we do not
receive airport staffing increases, we are not able to maintain an
equitable staffing percentage at airports that are experiencing
substantial growth. Therefore, airports may be roughly be staffed at
the same percentage in one year and not in the next, due to the above
mentioned factors.
Question. How does INS ensure that all airports have their fair
share of inspector staff?
Answer. We use the Workforce Analysis Model (WAM) to assist us in
the deployment of new resources. The model attempts to move all ports
as close to the service-wide percentage as possible.
Question. What percentage of all airports inspectors are part-time
during the summer peak?
Answer. The use of part-time inspectors, that is, the use of other
than permanent fully-trained professional officers as inspectors, is
problematic for the INS. This practice developed before the
introduction of user fees as an expedient to meet the need for staffing
when air traffic growth was outstripping the ability of the INS to
address this growth through the normal budgetary process. This practice
has continued at a small number of airports and seaports to address
unique circumstances, including minor increases in traffic during
certain high travel periods. Currently the INS has approximately 300
part-time inspectors available to work out of a total user fee funded
workforce of 3,084.
Question. What is INS doing to maximize the use of part-time
inspectors to cover high volume periods?
Answer. The INS is considering whether it truly serves the best
interests of the traveling public, the airline industry, and the nation
to continue relying on less than fully-trained professional officers to
deliver critical inspection services. Though an analysis of use
patterns we have determined that the greatest use of part-time
inspectors occurs at locations where traffic volume doesn't fully
warrant the use of full time inspectors, for example, at locations
where flights are not scheduled on a daily basis. We are trying to
identify how to meet the staffing needs of these locations in an
efficient manner without the undue reliance on part-time officers.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
ANCHORAGE DISTRICT OFFICE EXPANSION PROJECT
Question. I am told that the Immigration and Naturalization Service
has experienced an explosion in growth over the past few years and that
many of INS' physical locations are inadequate for the needs of the
districts. In my state, the owner of the building the INS uses in
Anchorage has been holding space vacant for an INS expansion for 2
years. The INS currently occupies the 1st and 3rd floors while the 2nd
floor remains vacant. The owner of the property has been loyal to the
INS and appreciates their commitment to Alaska, however, she cannot be
expected to hold an entire floor of her building vacant while INS
headquarters sits on the district's request for additional space. It
hinders the INS' ability to do their jobs effectively in Alaska and it
is causing a financial hardship on a local property owner who is
committed to working with INS.
What is the INS doing to address the problem of inadequate spacing
and physical resources for those Districts that have had significant
growth recently and when can we expect INS to approve the space request
for the Anchorage Office so that we can put this property owner's
uncertainties aside?
Answer. Since fiscal year 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service has experienced a dramatic increase in hiring. This increase
has generated a significant increase in office space requirements.
Currently, there are over 120 space actions in the Lease Acquisition
Program, requiring over $136 million to complete. The INS has developed
a priority list for all space requirements, based on various criteria.
The Anchorage District Office expansion project is included on this
unfunded priority list. Based on current funding levels, it is expected
that the Anchorage District Office expansion project will be initiated
in fiscal year 2003.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CENTER FOR INS ISIS SYSTEM
Question. Director Meissner, the Administration has proposed $38
million in the President's budget for continued procurement and
deployment of the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS).
This force multiplying technology has been helpful in deterring
illegal border crossings and has increased the safety of Border Patrol
officers who respond to these crossing incidents.
I understand that this $38 million request will fund the deployment
of approximately 100 new ISIS sites along the border.
What is the current state of the ISIS system along the southwest
border?
Answer. The Remote Video System (RVS) component of the Integrated
Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) began initial deployment in
May, 1998. To date, 91 RVS sites have been deployed operationally, 8 of
which are located in New Mexico, 38 in Arizona, 44 in Texas, and 1 in
California.
Question. Does the INS have the resources it needs to continue
deployment of this system?
Answer. There are sufficient resources to proceed with
approximately 60 more ISIS RVS installations during fiscal year 2000.
We have a multi-year deployment plan, however the number of deployments
in fiscal year 2001 and beyond is contingent upon future funding
levels. As the ISIS system grows, a greater amount of its funding must
be devoted to operations and maintenance, therefore, the requested
funding is critical for the continued growth of the system.
Question. When do you expect that the ISIS system will be completed
along the southwest border?
Answer. Based on site locations defined during the initial 1996 RVS
Requirements Survey, a preliminary estimate of 353 RVS were identified
for the southwest border. Of these, 91 RVS installations have been
completed to date. Dependent upon the level of funding received, it is
anticipated that the remaining 262 sites will be installed by the end
of fiscal year 2003. It is noteworthy that wherever RVS systems have
been deployed and become operational, sector requirements for RVS sites
have changed significantly. As the word of the success of the RVS
systems spreads, more requirements for systems are identified. For
example, one southwest sector indicated an increase from an initial
number of 75 sites to 330 sites. In order to update and formalize these
requests, a new RVS survey will be implemented in third quarter of
fiscal year 2000 to establish a new requirements baseline.
Question. Would the INS benefit from a centralized Operations and
Maintenance Center for this system in the southwest?
Answer. Due to increased funding since 1996, U.S. Border Patrol
inventories of infrared camera, night vision, sensor, and other types
of equipment have grown substantially. This equipment is utilized to
effectively monitor the integrity of U.S./Mexican and U.S./Canadian
national boundaries for purposes of border control. The increase in
magnitude of new equipment and the influx of new technology mandates
the establishment of an optimal operational maintenance schedule for
these systems. Presently, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) for ISIS RVS
systems is being accomplished primarily through the use of contract
personnel. U.S. Border Patrol technical personnel at facilities in the
San Diego and El Paso sectors perform infrared camera maintenance.
Analysis indicates that a better, more cost effective maintenance
posture can be attained with the establishment of a single consolidated
center to respond to and service the entire southwest border rapidly
and efficiently.
The establishment of an O&M Center would mean an immediate release
of presently assigned facility personnel back into the U.S. Border
Patrol technician pool. In addition, there will be an improvement in
maintenance operations and control, and establishment of a single
repair depot for infrared and thermal cameras, low light Color Cameras,
Night Vision devices, Sensors, and Microwave communications equipment.
Also, a Calibration and Standards Center, which is not presently
available, could be established.
The O&M Center will reduce repair turnaround time for IR cameras
from 3 months to only days, will allow Mobile Technical Units to be
deployed to augment the support personnel and assist the sectors as
designated and for emergency situations. (These Mobile Technical Units
are fully equipped assistance vehicles manned by engineering and
technical personnel.) This O&M Center will also serve as: 24 hour ISIS
Help Desk Center; Training and Testing Center for INS and U.S. Border
Patrol agents and technical personnel; Replacement Facility for
equipment storage and staging that would negate the need for each
sector to order from many different vendors; Data Collection and
Reporting Facility enabling centralized collation of equipment repair
histories and maintenance information; and, Consolidated Inventory
Tracking and Records Keeping Center for the U.S. Border Patrol.
With establishment of the O&M Center centralized O&M funding will
occur. This mechanism will allow streamlining of maintenance funding
processes and provide clear audit trails for U.S. Border Patrol
technical programs. It will allow economies of scale cost savings and
benefits for U.S. Border Patrol maintenance programs and will serve as
a Center of Excellence facility for the Department of Justice.
Question. How is the system maintained currently?
Answer. The ISIS system is currently being maintained primarily by
contract personnel employed by International Microwave Corporation, the
primary vendor and installer, and with the use of extended warranties.
U.S. Border Patrol technical personnel have received training to
provide lower echelon maintenance on the system, as well.
Question. How much would a centralized O&M facility cost?
Answer. Initial costs for startup of a centralized maintenance
facility are estimated to be in the $1.5 to $2.5 million range. Follow
up costs, once the Center is fully equipped and operational, and is
performing the functions and activities outlined and delineated above,
are estimated to be approximately $7 million per year.
At present, O&M for ISIS RVS systems is accomplished primarily
through the use of contract personnel. Although a training program to
ensure in-house maintenance competency for U.S. Border Patrol technical
personnel has been established, the increase in magnitude of new
electronics equipment to assist the U.S. Border Patrol in its border
control mission, coupled with the overall shortage of available
technical support personnel, clearly indicates a need to augment the
technical work force through the use of contract personnel.
Additionally, two separate maintenance facilities, both manned by
scarce U.S. Border Patrol technical support personnel, are being
utilized to maintain the Border Patrol's Infrared camera inventory.
Consolidation of these three functions into a single O&M Center,
centrally located to best service the southwest border, would benefit
INS by the immediate release of the technical personnel back to U.S.
Border Patrol, cessation of duplicate activities, release of the
existing facilities, an increase in the types and classes of technical
services and maintenance activities able to be provided to the U.S.
Border Patrol, and cost savings enabled by avoiding duplication of
efforts.
Question. How does the Border Patrol monitor ISIS sites to
determine when repairs are needed?
Answer. A 24-Hour ISIS Help Desk has been established to respond to
calls for repairs and other types of assistance required by the U.S.
Border Patrol to maintain operational status. U.S. Border Patrol
personnel familiar with ISIS equipment are trained to operate it, log
any equipment malfunction or failure, and notify the ISIS Help Desk
directly or through their appropriate chain of command. Once noted, an
analysis and appropriate response is made. This response could range
from simple telephonic assistance to assignment of technical or
engineering personnel to effect repairs.
DETERMINING RESOURCE NEEDS FOR DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS
Background: In its January 2000 options review, GAO recommended
that INS consider developing a workload analysis model to help the INS
determine resource needs for completing IHPs on all eligible aliens,
and giving priority to completing the IHPs for aliens serving
aggravated felonies.
GAO estimates that hundreds of those releasees were serious felons,
who should have been placed in removal proceedings while in prison and
taken into INS custody upon release. Some of these releasees were
subsequently rearrested for new crimes, including felonies.
GAO concluded that even when INS determined that an alien was
potentially deportable and should be placed into removal proceedings,
INS did not complete the IHP for at least half of such cases in each
year. As a result this failure to complete the IHP before prison
release, INS incurred substantial avoidable detention costs estimated
at $40 million annually.
Question. The INS' Institutional Hearing Program (IHP), now called
Institutional Removal Program, is the main vehicle used by the
Department of Justice for placing aliens who are incarcerated in state
and federal prisons into deportation proceedings so that they can be
deported expeditiously upon release from prison. GAO has determined
that, during 6-month periods in 1995 and 1997, INS failed to identify
nearly 2,000 potentially deportable aliens before they completed their
prison sentences, resulting in their release into communities across
the United States before their risk to public safety was determined.
This also has resulted in substantial detention costs that could have
been avoided.
What strategies has INS put in place to resolve the IHP failure?
Answer. As noted in the question, the first data collection period
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) used to evaluate the
Institutional Removal Program (IRP) was January through June 1995. This
was five years ago, before INS had even implemented most of the
enhanced IRPs. The more recent data collection period was three years
ago, January through June 1997. Although most of the enhanced IRPs were
in place at that time, we were not seeing the full benefits because
inmates processed up front were, for the most part, still serving their
sentences. Since that time, INS has made significant improvements in
the IRP.
One major strategy employed by INS to improve the IRP focused on
elimination of an interview backlog. The backlog consisted primarily of
inmates who were already in prison serving sentences when enhanced IRPs
were implemented, and who were not, therefore, interviewed by INS at
intake. Backlogs in the major state IRPs were eliminated last year.
We have also improved our work measures to reflect the work done in
the IRP more accurately. In addition to the traditional IRP removals
(aliens who received an order of removal while incarcerated), we now
count criminals whose removal was ordered on the day of, or the day
after release from incarceration. The IRP removal statistics shown
below are indicative of the improvements we have made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order w/in
Order Prior 1 Day of
to Release Release
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
1998 IRP Removals......................... 13,545 1,345
1999 IRP Removals......................... 19,842 4,335
2000 IRP Removals (4 months).............. 6,814 1,559
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW ENFORCEMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY
Question. How much of the proposed $82 million increase in Indian
law enforcement funding will go to the FBI?
Answer. The FBI is requesting $4.639 million for Safe Trails Task
Force overtime, contracts for forensic exams and 31 victim witness
specialists.
Question. Two of the FBI initiatives--the Safe Trails Task Forces
and the Victim Witness services have been key to your efforts in Indian
Country. What have the 10 Safe Trails Task Forces accomplished in the 2
years they have been operating in Indian Country (one is in Gallup, New
Mexico)?
Answer. The first Safe Trails Task Force (STTF) was implemented in
the Flagstaff Resident Agency of the Phoenix Field Office to work on
the Navajo Nation in Arizona in 1994. Currently there are 11 STTFs
based in Gallup, NM; Carson City, NV; Green Bay, WI; Rapid City, SD;
Phoenix, AZ; Flagstaff, AZ; Tucson, AZ; Monticello, UT; Glasgow, MT;
Lander, WY; and Bend, OR.
These STTFs have successfully obtained numerous indictments and
convictions in Indian Country (IC). The following chart details the
1999 accomplishments of the eight STTFs that were operating during the
entire year. Not included are task forces started during 1999, which do
not have full-year statistics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999
Information 1999 Arrest 1999
Location of Task Force and and Locates Convictions
Indictments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallup, NM...................................................... 57 58 49
Carson City, NV................................................. 12 10 4
Green Bay, WI................................................... 9 10 4
Rapid City, SD.................................................. 2 2 1
Flagstaff, AZ................................................... 71 87 28
Tucson, AZ...................................................... 7 20 12
Monticello, UT.................................................. 6 155 9
Glasgow, MT..................................................... 7 2 7
-----------------------------------------------
TOTALS.................................................... 171 344 145
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The STTFs have allowed law enforcement agencies in IC to avoid
duplication and thereby maximize the use of limited FBI, tribal and
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) personnel resources to investigate
significant IC violent crime problems of mutual concern and
responsibility. The STTFs ensure that violent crime cases in IC are
approached in a shared and cooperative effort in spite of complex
jurisdictional issues inherent in IC. The STTFs also enable tribal
criminal investigators to learn FBI investigative practices that can be
applied in non-STTF matters.
Question. What will the FBI accomplish with the $4.6 million and 31
Victim Witness Specialists that you have requested in the fiscal year
2001 budget? Is this a key part of the federal effort to enhance law
enforcement in Indian Country? Why?
Answer. The $4,639,000 will be used by the FBI to contract forensic
examinations for Indian Country (IC) in 3 more states ($1,405,000),
hire and train 31 Victim Witness Specialists (VWS) who will be assigned
to IC Resident Agencies (RAs) ($2,600,000) and provide overtime for
state, local and tribal police officers assigned to Safe Trails Task
Forces (STTFs) ($634,000). These are all key parts of the federal
effort to enhance law enforcement in IC.
The FBI has criminal jurisdiction in IC for major crimes under the
IC Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 1152), the IC Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C.
1153) and the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 13). Thirty-two FBI
field offices have some degree of investigative responsibility in IC,
ranging from exclusive federal jurisdiction--19 field offices--to
concurrent federal and state jurisdiction. The Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 expanded federal criminal jurisdiction
in IC in such areas as guns, violent juveniles, drugs and domestic
violence. Because of the FBI's unique responsibility in IC,
enhancements are key to improving federal law enforcement's efforts in
IC.
Contract Forensic Exams.--Violent crime cases for which the FBI has
jurisdiction in IC (e.g., murder, aggravated assault and sexual assault
of adults and children) involve biological evidence requiring forensic
examinations, the results of which are often needed before arrests are
made and indictments obtained. The FBI Laboratory cannot currently
provide timely turnaround for forensic examinations of evidence from IC
violent crime cases. At times this results in IC cases being dismissed
because of the Speedy Trial Act. Although the Laboratory's cadre of
qualified examiners is expanding, it will likely remain insufficient to
provide acceptable turnaround time for all IC cases until at least
2002.
As a result, many FBI IC field offices send evidence to either
commercial or state laboratories for examination. The FBI entered into
a contract with the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZ DPS) in
April 1998 for examinations of IC cases for the Phoenix field office.
This contract was necessary because the state legislature had ordered
the laboratory to stop performing examinations in federal cases without
payment for services.
The additional funding will allow the FBI to enter into contracts
with state labs to examine IC forensic evidence for Minneapolis,
Albuquerque and Salt Lake City field offices. Phoenix and these 3 field
offices cover 77 percent of the FBI's work in IC. With these contracts,
the FBI will be able to ensure a uniform level of forensic service that
meets Speedy Trial Act requirements for its major IC offices.
Victim Witness Specialists.--FBI special agents currently provide
victim witness services in IC. However, because their primary
responsibility is to conduct investigations, they rarely can provide
more than minimal assistance. Because of this, the FBI requests 31 VWS
for its Victim Witness Assistance (VWA) Program to work in 26 RAs to
better address the needs of the victims of violent crime in IC. For
most of IC, federal law enforcement is the only protection that victims
have from violent crime. Violent crime rates in IC are significantly
higher than in the rest of society. Since sexual/physical abuse of
children is one of the largest crime problems in IC, a high percentage
of the victims in IC are children. Many children in IC are either
victims of, or witnesses to, the most horrible violent crimes
imaginable--homicides, rapes and aggravated assaults. Due to severe
alcoholism in IC, many victims suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or
other serious mental health needs. They also live in the most
impoverished conditions in the United States. As a group, residents in
IC also have one of the lowest education levels in the United States.
As a result, these victims and witnesses need help to understand the
judicial process and to be available for court proceedings.
Many families in IC reside away from population centers and do not
have reliable means of transportation to travel the lengthy distances
to the offices and courtrooms of government attorneys, magistrates and
judges in which they must appear as participants in the judicial
process. Currently, the agents provide the transportation. The VWSs
will be able to provide this service, allowing the agent to spend more
time on investigations.
Other duties of a VWS in IC include, but are not limited to, social
service referrals, providing transportation to medical facilities, and
emotional support follow-up. In most cases, the VWS assists the link
between the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office.
A VWS can also enhance the FBI's ability to communicate and develop
rapport with the Native American community. With a trained VWS, the FBI
has the ability to bridge the gap between the social, legal and
investigative issues relevant to Native Americans. With 31 VWSs
assigned to IC RAs, a Native American victim will have more information
about the investigation and the overall legal process.
Safe Trails Task Force.--STTFs are key to federal efforts to ensure
that violent crimes in IC are approached in a shared and cooperative
effort, in spite of complex jurisdictional issues inherent in IC. When
tribal or BIA officers work together with FBI agents in STTFs, all
parties benefit tremendously. The FBI agents receive credibility and
legitimacy on the reservation, because they are in an STTF with Native
American officers. The FBI agents are more effective and safer in IC
when they work with tribal/BIA officers on STTFs because they can
benefit from the Native American officer's knowledge of the local
community and culture. The tribal and BIA officers benefit because they
learn FBI investigative techniques and procedures. Because tribal, BIA,
and FBI investigators all grow professionally from the STTFs and STTFs
maximize the use of limited resources, the STTFs serve to enhance law
enforcement services in IC.
However, in some areas of IC, an obstacle to the full-time
participation of tribal law enforcement officers on STTFs is the lack
of tribal financial resources to pay overtime to its investigators. For
some tribal law enforcement agencies, diverting limited financial
resources to pay overtime to a full-time STTF participant decreases the
resources available to the agency to provide other necessary policing
services to the tribal community it serves. In order for the FBI and
tribal law enforcement agencies to take advantage of pooling limited
personnel resources, funding to pay overtime for tribal criminal
investigators to participate full-time on the STTFs is critical.
Question. A third component of the FBI program in Indian Country is
support of forensic examinations. The request of $1.4 million would add
three additional field offices, including one in Albuquerque. What have
these offices contributed to improving law enforcement in Indian
Country?
Answer. The $1,405,000 request would allow the FBI to contract with
accredited state and local laboratories to conduct forensic
examinations for Indian Country (IC) cases from the FBI's Minneapolis,
Salt Lake City and Albuquerque field offices. The FBI already has a
contract with the Arizona Department of Public Safety Laboratory to
conduct forensic examinations for IC cases from the FBI's Phoenix field
office, which is the FBI's second largest IC field office.
The Minneapolis, Salt Lake City and Albuquerque field offices are,
respectively, the FBI's first, third and fourth largest IC field
offices. Together, they accounted for 61 percent of the FBI's IC cases
opened between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1999. Out of a total of
8,620 FBI IC cases opened between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year
1999, Minneapolis opened 3,032 cases (35 percent); Salt Lake City
opened 1,285 cases (15 percent) and Albuquerque opened 952 cases (11
percent). If the Phoenix field office is included, these 4 field
offices opened 77 percent of the FBI's IC cases during this time
period. Because these 4 field offices do the majority of the FBI's
investigations in IC, they are in the greatest need of contracts for
forensic services in order to comply with Speedy Trial Act requirements
and provide adequate service for IC.
With respect to improving law enforcement in Indian Country, the
Minneapolis, Salt Lake City and Albuquerque field offices operate Safe
Trails Task Forces (STTFs). These STTFs have been successful in
maximizing the use of limited FBI, tribal, Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) and local personnel and resources to target violent felonies in
IC.
Additionally, the Minneapolis, Salt Lake City and Albuquerque field
offices sponsor training for tribal, BIA and local officers working in
IC. These classes include Law Enforcement Safety and Survival, Crime
Scene Processing, Crimes Against Children, Basic Death Investigations,
and Advanced Death Investigations.
All three field offices have increased personnel resources
dedicated to IC investigations. Between 1997 and 1999, the FBI's
Minneapolis field office added 12 agents while the Salt Lake City and
Albuquerque field offices each added 9 agents to IC work.
The Salt Lake City Division hired two victim witness specialist
with funding from the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of
Crime. These specialists provide victim witness assistance on Indian
reservations in southern Utah and south-central Montana.
Question. Finally, would the Department please provide the
Subcommittee with a summary of the funding proposed to be allocated
under the Indian Law Enforcement Initiative in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Homicide and violent crime rates on Indian lands are
rising, even as crime rates in the rest of the country fall. The fiscal
year 2001 budget proposes an additional $82 million to fund public
safety programs on Indian land. The money is to be used to increase the
number of fully trained and equipped police officers in Indian country;
improve the quality of the criminal justice system, including courts
and detention facilities; enhance substance abuse programs; and combat
tribal youth crime. Budget highlights include:
Office of Justice Programs
$10,000,000 for OJP's Indian Tribal Courts Program, bringing total
funding to $15 million. This increase will fund many new grants to
plan, maintain, and enhance tribal courts.
$10,000,000 for the tribal portion of OJP's Zero Tolerance Drug
Supervision Program. This initiative will provide discretionary grants
to tribes for comprehensive drug testing and treatment programs and to
implement graduated sanctions for individuals within the criminal
justice system.
$8,000,000 for an Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Diversion
Program. Of this amount, $6.5 million will be used for grants to
support tribal detention or probation-based projects to divert
offenders who abuse alcohol and drugs to detoxification and halfway
houses. Currently, many tribal criminal justice systems have minimal
referral services available for court-mandated activities. The
remaining funding will be used for training, technical assistance,
research, evaluation, and data collection efforts.
$8,000,000 to provide 57 Indian tribes with resources to develop or
enhance programs to address tribal youth with mental health,
behavioral, or alcohol and substance abuse problems. Additional funds
will pay for a variety of training, technical assistance, research,
evaluation, and data collection efforts.
$6,000,000 for Tribal Criminal and Civil Legal Assistance. Of this
total, $4.5 million will be used to provide Indian tribes, tribal
consortia, and private/non-profit legal service organizations serving a
reservation-based constituency with the resources to develop or enhance
their capacity to provide criminal and civil legal assistance. Another
$1 million will be used to provide discretionary grants to the 31
existing Tribal Colleges to create, develop and enhance a two-year
curriculum on paralegal studies, law advocate studies, indigenous
justice systems or other areas directly related to criminal and civil
legal assistance. The remaining funding will be used for training,
technical assistance, research, evaluation, and data collection
efforts.
$5,000,000 to fund sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) units in
Indian Country, which will gather the evidence necessary for
prosecuting sexual offenders. This funding will be used for a pilot
project that would establish SANE units at 10 tribal sites.
$2,000,000 to conduct a national census of tribal criminal justice
agencies and related statistical activities. These efforts will offer a
systematic understanding of how criminal matters are adjudicated and
disposed of on Native American lands.
$12,500,000 for Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency
Prevention (an increase of $7.5 million) and the Police Corps Program
(an additional $5 million). These funds will support tribal juvenile
justice systems and will provide additional training for tribal police
officers.
Community Oriented Policing Services
$5,000,000 for funding, training, and equipping additional Tribal
uniformed officers (for a total of $45 million).
$5,000,000 for grants to tribal authorities to improve their
general forensic capabilities. This is part of the COPS request for
crime fighting through technology.
United States Attorneys
$4,699,000 and 60 positions (33 attorneys) to support innovative,
community-based strategies aimed at reducing overall violent crime,
violent gangs, and juvenile crime on Indian reservations.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
$2,600,000 to hire and equip 31 Victim Witness Specialists (VWS)
who would be assigned to resident agencies on or near Indian Country.
The specialists will identify and assist all victims and witnesses of
federal crimes in which the FBI is the primary investigative agency.
$1,405,000 for contracts with 3 accredited, full-service state
crime laboratories to conduct forensic exams on Indian Country evidence
gathered in the Minneapolis, Albuquerque and Salt Lake City field
offices, which have accounted for 61 percent of Indian Country cases in
the past 5 years.
634,000 for overtime for tribal, state and local full time non-
federal law enforcement officers on 10 to 12 Safe Trails Task Forces
(STTFs). In many areas, a significant obstacle to participating on
STTFs is the limited budgetary resources of tribal agencies to
compensate officers for overtime.
General Administration
$932,000 and 8 positions within the Office of the Associate
Attorney General (OASG) to institutionalize the Office of Tribal
Justice (OTJ) as an integral, ongoing component of the Department. The
Justice Department has significant responsibilities towards Indian
Country, supporting the development of strong tribal law enforcement,
tribal courts, and institutions of self-government.
Criminal Division
$70,000 and 1 position to assist the Criminal Division in
continuing its role in developing the Presidential Initiative to
Improve Law Enforcement in Indian Country and to ensure that the
Justice Department will have an effective voice in law enforcement and
policy matters in Indian Country.
COUNTERTERRORISM TECHNOLOGY R&D--FBI
Question. Director Freeh, in your testimony on page 12 you
highlight the $10.5 million Congress appropriated in the fiscal year
1998 Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations bill to
initiate several counterterrorism research and development programs,
including a partnership with the Southwest Surety Institute. The fiscal
year 2001 budget includes a requested increase of $5 million to
continue and expand these projects.
Director Freeh, can you provide the Subcommittee with a status
report on what the FBI has accomplished through its counterterrorism
R&D program which the Congress funded at $10.5 million in fiscal year
1998?
Answer. The 1998 Justice Appropriations Act provided the FBI with
$10.5 million from the Attorney General's Counterterrorism (CT) Fund
for counterterrorism research and development (R&D). The funding was
applied to the following programs:
--$2 million was designated for a cooperative agreement with the
Southwest Surety Institute (SSI) for the development and
delivery of training courses to degree students and for
counterterrorism-related operational and support services at
consortium institutions. Under this agreement, 12 task-orders
were agreed to between the FBI and SSI. SSI either has
completed or is scheduled to complete all of these projects by
September 2000.
--$5 million was allocated for explosives detection/forensic science.
The FBI initiated 17 CT R&D projects with the Department of
Energy (DOE) and 11 CT projects with industry and academia in a
variety of explosives detection and forensic science areas.
Please see the attached chart, Status of FBI Laboratory
Counterterrorism Research and Development Projects, for a
summary of the counterterrorism projects that were funded with
1998 CT Fund resources.
--$2.5 million was used for the development of data exploitation
tools. The FBI utilized $1.3 million to develop the Automated
Computer Examination System (ACES). ACES provides a
standardized computer evidence tool to scan thousands of files
for identification of known format and executable program
files. As of March 1999, ACES development was completed and FBI
examiners began training with the system. The remaining $1.2
million was utilized to develop systems and techniques for
conducting Title III and Title 50 interceptions on computer
networks.
--$1 million was designated for developing training programs to
provide investigators in the FBI and other federal, state, and
local law enforcement personnel, with the training and
expertise needed to detect and prevent computer intrusions.
Funding is being utilized to secure the assistance of industry
and academic experts to design and help deliver these programs,
and for expenses associated with the training sessions.
Question. What initiatives currently underway does the FBI plan to
continue if Congress approves the $5 million requested to continue and
expand these projects?
Answer. The FBI would like to begin Phase II efforts for the
following R&D projects that were initially funded in 1998: Explosives
Damage to Metal; Handheld Explosives Detector; Standoff Explosives
Detection by Microwaves; 3-D Imaging and Ranging; Serial Number
Restoration; Trace Botanical Analysis; Statistical Treatment of Class
Evidence; Institutional Knowledge Preservation; Fluorescent Superglue;
Mitochondrial DNA Sequencing; and Facial Reconstruction. Please see the
attached chart for additional information on these projects.
STATUS OF FBI LABORATORY COUNTERTERRORISM RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
[As of April 25, 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deliverable
Project Description of Deliverables Due Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANPADS Expert Forensic Sys- Integrated Resource Database and Investigator's Guide- 4/99 Delivered.
tem. lines.
Handheld Ion Mobility Handheld Ion Mobility Explosives Detector............ 4/99 Delivered.
Spectrometer.
Explosives Damage to Metals... Metallographic Examination Procedures for Explosives 9/99 Delivered.
De- bris.
Standoff Explosives Detection Proof of Principle Microwave-Based Explosives 1/00 Delivered.
by Microwaves. Detector.
3-D Imaging and Ranging....... Handheld Crime Scene 3-D Measurement and Imaging 1/01 On-Target.
System.
Serial Number Restoration..... Metallographic Non-Destructive S/N Recovery Methods.. 9/99 Delivered.
Elemental Profiling of Metals Laser Ablation ICP/MS Metal Fragment Analysis 9/00 On-Target.
as Evidence. Procedures.
Statistical Treatment of Class Enhanced ``Match'' Criteria Statistical Procedures... 6/00 On-Target.
Evidence.
Enhanced Trace Evidence Fiber Dye Identification Methods by Capillary Electro- 6/00 On-Target.
Discrimination. phoresis.
Small Robotic Vehicle Small Haz-Mat Crime Scene Robotic Vehicle............ 9/99 Delivered.
Evaluation.
Solid Phase Micro Extraction.. Solid Phase Micro Extraction Field Test Kit and 4/99 Delivered.
Procedures.
Trace Botanical Identification Grass Stain ID using Hypervariable Chloroplast DNA... 9/00 On-Target.
Degradation of Drugs in Identify Post-Mortem Drug/Formaldehyde Reactions..... 9/00 On-Target.
Embalmed Tissue.
Automation of MtDNA........... Laboratory Robotics for Automated MtDNA Analysis..... 3/00 Delivered.
Crime Scene Reconstruction.... 3-D Video Crime Scene Documentation Software......... 6/00 On-Target.
Active Thermography for S/N Thermal Imaging Equipment for Serial Number 5/00 On-Target.
Restoration. Restoration.
Veterinary Science Resources.. Compilation of National Veterinary Resources......... 9/99 Delivered.
Institutional Knowledge Subject Matter Expert-Tacit Knowledge Preservation... 6/00 On-Target.
Preservation.
Vulnerability Attacks Research Study of Vulnerability Attacks....................... 3/00 Delivered.
Rapid DNA Profile Raman Spectral Database of Hazardous Materials....... 6/00 On-Target.
Identification.
Sem X-Ray Spectral Database... SEM X-Ray Spectral/Digital Image Database Software... 12/99 Delivered.
Raman Spectral Database....... Raman Spectral Database of Hazardous Materials....... 12/99 Delivered.
Development of Distance Crime Scene Management Web-Based Training............ 2/00 Delivered.
Learning Modules.
Latent Fingerprints in Blood.. Chemical and Spectral Enhancement of Bloody Latents.. 12/99 Delivered.
Flourescent Cyanoacrylates.... Polymerization Studies and Colored Superglue......... 9/99 Delivered.
Database of 5,000 MtDNA Database of 5,000 MtDNA Samples...................... 9/00 On-Target.
Sequence.
Facial Reconstruction......... Computerized Facial Reconstruction Software.......... 6/00 On-Target.
First Responder Web-based Contaminated Individuals/Evidence Handling........... 1/00 Delivered.
Training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the new areas of R&D that will be addressed with
the $5 million in appropriations?
Answer. If the $5 million is appropriated in fiscal year 2001, the
FBI would initiate new projects in the following areas:
Polymer Sensors for Explosives.--A private industry R&D initiative
has discovered that the ability of polymers to fluoresce is inhibited
in the presence of an explosive molecule. To date, this effect occurs
on polymers when in the presence of as few as one explosive molecule
among a trillion other molecules (i.e., one part-per trillion
sensitivity). This R&D effort would pursue forensic and law enforcement
uses of the technology.
Explosives Yield Computer Modeling from Observed Physical Damage.--
During the development of explosives to be manufactured, current
engineering computer models predict explosive damage to materials
surrounding their detonation based upon a known explosive charge. When
investigating the terrorist or criminal use of explosives, computer
models that can predict the explosive charge based upon the damage to
materials surrounding the detonation are needed. This effort may
address this need and be suitable for inclusion in existing Technical
Support Working Group (TSWG) efforts.
Soil Profiling by Molecular Technology.--The forensic
identification of soil may be enhanced through the identification and
characterization of the molecular deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) present
from plant, insect, or animal life even if the soil has been exposed to
biological or chemical warfare agents. This project would further
examine this theory.
Field Instrument Evaluation.--The Department of Energy has
developed portable analytical instrument technology for use in the
analysis of hazardous materials at crime scenes. This project would
further identify, adapt and modify such instrument needs for the law
enforcement community. Examples of items to be evaluated include the
ability to conduct hand held molecular DNA analysis and portable gas
chromatography.
Robotic Vehicle Enhancements.--Phase I of this effort delivered a
small ``Rattler'' robotic vehicle. Phase II of this project would be a
related, but new effort to enhance the sensor, mobility and
manipulative capabilities of small robotic vehicle(s). This project
would focus on vehicles developed by the Sandia National Laboratory for
the survey, sensing and collection of physical evidence from hazardous
crime scenes.
Digital Image Evidence Authentication.--The FBI's Questioned
Documents Unit (QDU) currently incurs a $500 per day cost to develop
forensic images on 70 mm film. The QDU would prefer to replace its film
images with digital images, but the proper authentication of digital
images or recovered digital data requires precise protocols and
rigorous storage requirements in order to authenticate they have not
been tampered with. This effort would explore digital watermarking and
steganography as means to authenticate digital photographs.
Spectral Characterization of Toners and Ink.--This project would
develop a valid procedure for the spectral comparisons of colored
toners and inks used to produce forgeries of secure documents.
Taggant Development.--The tagging, tracing and marking of documents
and other valuable items is often a challenge in certain special
operations. This project would examine two private industry R&D
initiatives, which have developed new chemicals to deal with this
problem. The first initiative uses compounds know as upconverting
phosphors to mark inks, toners, papers, chemicals, and even explosives
for later identification. These compounds require simple, but specific
detection methods. The second initiative proposes to develop a series
of photoreactive dye-polymers, which can be incorporated into paper or
the toner of ink cartridges and can change spectroscopic properties if
exposed to the bright light of laser scanner or photocopy machines.
Automated Forgery Detection.--This effort would provide for
testing, evaluation, analysis, and a report on technologies available
for automated forgery detection of ransom and bank robbery notes.
Computer-Aided Hair Microscopy.--The microscopic comparisons of
hair samples require considerable experience and is time consuming. As
an analysis aid, this project would explore digital video capture and
microscopic video image comparison methods in order to reduce the
number of non-matched hair specimens.
Robotic Manipulator Arms.--This effort would develop robotic
tactile manipulator arms and 3-D visions systems. The FBI accepted
delivery of prototype robotic platforms designed by the U.S. Military
in 1998 and a small robot from Sandia National Laboratory in 1999 for
testing hazardous crime scene materials. Though the robots offer
maneuverability with precise control, light-weight tactile manipulator
arms (like those developed for tele-surgery) are needed for this task.
The development of 3-D vision systems would enable the robot operator
to work at a safe distance from the crime scene without experiencing
vision deficits.
Daubert/Frye Database.--This project would develop an automated
means of collecting, storing, and evaluating data related to
traditional class evidence (hairs, fibers, toolmarks, etc.) for court
cases. The forensic association (matching) of traditional class
evidence is increasingly being challenged due to recent judicial
rulings.
National Automotive Image Database.--This project would examine the
potential to connect a search engine to an auto image warehouse to
assist law enforcement in enhancing witness descriptions when
developing automobile identifications. The Wieck Corporation operates
an image warehouse in support of the automotive industry and provides
vehicle images to trade publications and the media.
DNA Chip Design Evaluation.--The Massachusetts Institute of
Technology proposes to evaluate the design criteria necessary for the
adaption of commercial micro-DNA technology for forensic applications
in decreasing the time required for sequencing mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) and analyzing molecular DNA samples.
3-D Facial Modeling from 2-D Photos.--The recognition of
individuals in 2-D photos, surveillance, or video tapes may be enhanced
through the use of 3-D facial reconstruction from the 2-D image. This
Phase I effort would explore and demonstrate a number of techniques for
this 3-D image.
Automation of DNA Processing.--This project would enhance, improve
and extend an unattended, automated, robotic method for the analysis of
mtDNA and molecular DNA. Automation of DNA analysis would assist in the
rapid, high priority efforts to identify victims of terrorist events.
Question. Do you anticipate utilizing the expertise of the
Southwest Surety Institute in the second round of funding for these R&D
Activities?
Answer. The cooperative agreement entered into between the FBI and
SSI is a task-order contract that is valid for a 5-year period, 1998-
2003. The FBI continues to work with SSI to identify additional task-
orders suited to the expertise of the consortium and, subject to the
availability of funding, will draw upon the resources and capabilities
of SSI.
The selection of initial R&D projects in 1998 was based upon
responses to a broad agency announcement issued by the FBI Laboratory.
None of these initial projects were tasked to the SSI. Many of the
projects proposed for funding under the $5 million request would
continue work started by national laboratories and other entities. New
projects proposed were selected from among those submitted in response
to the 1998 broad agency announcement and will be based upon specific
proposals from national laboratories and other entities.
FBI DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM DIVISION
Background: The development of terrorism as a major threat and the
need to meet it with increased funding and personnel has provided a
solid budgetary base for the Bureau that promises to continue
developing. While it is reasonable to consider such incidents as
Oklahoma City and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic games as domestic terrorism,
the Bureau has used this rationale to take over the investigations of
scores of crimes that are just that--crimes--with no hint of a greater
plot for domestic violence. Meanwhile, the Bureau's failure with
respect to the investigation of Chinese spying on the nation's nuclear
labs or its insistence--despite significant evidence to the contrary--
that TWA Flight 800 was a terrorist incident rather than a mechanical
failure, gives pause to the idea that we should continue to endorse the
Bureau's expansion of the Division, or even its reorganization into
``spy-catching and domestic terrorism'' functions. As Dan Thomasson
wrote (11/17/99-W. Times): ``The concern in law enforcement . . . is
that a large number of agents now will have nothing more to do than to
seek out potential terrorism and deal with it no matter under whose bed
they believe they have found it.'' The FBI must provide parameters to
define the problem and appropriate actions; otherwise, permitting the
Bureau to justify anything it does under the guise of preventing it is
too sweeping a concession of power.
Question. In November, the FBI announced that it would separate the
functions of counterintelligence and anti-terrorism, placing each under
an assistant director who would first report to the Bureau's deputy
director and then to you--the Director. Missing from the announcement
was a useful definition of what constitutes domestic terrorism. This
permits the Bureau to now enter into any case, no matter how small, and
in practical terms means that hundreds of agents can now enter into any
number of crime scenes that once belonged to a variety of agencies.
Worse, this could create circumstances in which the Bureau's agents, in
the name of counter-domestic terrorism, poke into the activities of any
organization deemed subversive, no matter how innocuous it really was.
What constitutes the Bureau's definition of domestic terrorism? Has
the Bureau established clear guidelines about the decision was made to
into a case it has deemed one of domestic terrorism?
Answer. The FBI defines terrorism as ``. . . the unlawful use of
force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives.'' The FBI further
categorizes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on
the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. In this
context, domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of
force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely
within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction and
whose acts are directed at elements of the U.S. Government or its
population, in the furtherance of political or social goals.
Effective March 1, 1973, jurisdictional guidelines were adopted by
the Attorney General and published in the United States Attorney's
Bulletin on April 13, 1973 governing investigations of violations of
the federal explosives control statute found in Title 18, Sections 841-
848. These guidelines clarified jurisdiction for the FBI, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
The guidelines state that the FBI will exercise primary jurisdiction
over all Section 844 violations perpetrated by terrorist/revolutionary
groups or individuals unless otherwise directed by the Department of
Justice.
In connection with the execution of investigative activities, the
FBI refers to these existing guidelines to govern decisions to initiate
investigations of domestic terrorists and to manage crisis incidents
involving terrorist attacks. These guidelines provide guidance for all
investigations by the FBI of crimes and crime-related activities. This
means that all white collar, drug, violent crime, organized crime and
domestic security/terrorism investigations must conform to these
guidelines, while investigations involving foreign counterintelligence
and international terrorism matters are subject to separate guidelines.
Specifically, the Attorney General's Guidelines on General Crimes,
Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations
serve as a means to ensure that FBI investigations are performed with
care to protect individual rights and confined to matters of legitimate
law enforcement interest.
FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING
Background: Director Freeh, I continue to believe that our federal
law enforcement agencies must push to train as many first responders as
we can. These are our local law enforcement, fire, and emergency
medical personnel who are likely to be first on the scene of a
terrorist attack.
As the lead agency for counter-terrorism efforts by the Federal
Government, you are critical to the coordination of our federal efforts
in this regard. I am most familiar with the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program
which is training state and local responders in 120 major cities, and
the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium headquartered at Fort
McClellan, Alabama, which is working with training partners to expand
this effort to other cities and towns.
Question. Could you provide the Subcommittee with your assessment
of federal efforts to prepare state and local law enforcement and
emergency personnel to respond to potential terrorist attacks?
Answer. Significant accomplishments have been made with respect to
preparing state and local law enforcement and emergency personnel to
respond to potential terrorist attacks. The FBI, in conjunction with
other federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the Justice Department's Office of Justice
Programs, and others, will continue to provide state and local
emergency personnel with the resources necessary to fully prepare and
respond to terrorist attacks.
The Hazardous Devices School (HDS), managed by the FBI's Bomb Data
Center, is the only formal domestic training school for state and local
law enforcement to learn safe and effective bomb disposal operations.
The purpose of the HDS is to prepare civilian public safety bomb
technicians to locate, identify, render safe, and dispose of improvised
hazardous devices, including those containing explosives, incendiary
materials and materials classified as weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). In 1998, 838 state and local bomb technicians were trained,
along with 1,467 in 1999. The HDS anticipates training over 1,450 state
and local bomb technicians in 2000.
In addition, the Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization
and Interoperability, which is co-chaired by the FBI and Department of
Defense, and staffed and supported by federal, state and local
emergency responders, has created, and annually updates, a standardized
equipment list to assist responders in determining what type of
equipment is needed to adequately prepare for and respond to WMD
incidents.
Question. How many local law enforcement and fire and medical
personnel have been trained?
Answer. Since 1997, the Office of State and Local Domestic
Preparedness Support (OSLDPS), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), which
is the lead federal agency for providing training to civilian emergency
responders, has trained approximately 45,000 students under its
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Medical Services basic awareness
training program. Additionally, since 1998, OSLDPS has trained nearly
5,000 emergency responders at the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium institutions. Of this total, approximately 2,125 have been
trained at the Center for Domestic Preparedness CDP, 1,720 at Texas
A&M, 520 at New Mexico Tech, 275 at Louisiana State University, and 270
at the Nevada Test Site. Further, OSLDPS is working with other training
providers, including but not limited to, Pine Bluff Arsenal for the
provision of equipment sustaining training, the National Sheriffs'
Association, and the National Guard Bureau.
Training the nation's public safety bomb technicians at the
Hazardous Devices School (HDS) is one of the FBI's priorities. In 1998,
we trained 838 state and local bomb technicians, 1,467 in 1999, and we
plan to train over 1,450 in 2000. The FBI has been able to increase the
output of HDS, hire more instructors, provide additional courses
(including the Weapons of Mass Destruction course), and provide
equipment to bomb technicians upon their certification through funding
provided by Congress since 1998. Our future training is dependent upon
continued support of the HDS. The FBI's $2.9 million request for the
HDS would provide permanent base funding to replace one-time
enhancements from the Attorney General's Working Capital and
Counterterrorism Funds.
Question. An important part of readiness is not only the training
but the equipping of these forces. What has the Federal Government
achieved with regard to equipping these teams with the tools they need
to respond to a variety of potential attacks?
Answer. Through the OSLDPS' Equipment Grant Program, state and
local jurisdictions have been provided with federal funds to equip
emergency response teams with the equipment necessary to respond to a
WMD incident. In addition, as touched upon above, the Interagency Board
for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability has created and
annually updates a standardized equipment list to assist responders in
determining what type of equipment is needed to prepare adequately for
and respond to WMD incidents. Such equipment will enable fire
departments, law enforcement agencies, emergency medical services, and
hazardous materials response units to enhance their response
capabilities in state and local jurisdictions to incidents of domestic
WMD terrorism. Numerous needs assessments have consistently highlighted
these jurisdictions' need for specialized equipment in order to meet
the requirements presented by WMD incidents. In fiscal year 1998,
OSLDPS provided $12 million in grants to 41 local jurisdictions for the
procurement of specialized equipment, including personal protective,
chemical/biological detection, decontamination, and communications
equipment. In fiscal year 1999, OSLDPS provided an additional $31
million to 157 local jurisdictions, as well as $33.8 million to the 50
states, for the procurement of equipment. A further $8 million will be
provided to the 50 states for the development of Three-Year Statewide
Strategic Domestic Preparedness Plans, which will guide the use of
future funding.
Last year, the FBI was provided a one time increase of $25 million
through the Working Capital Fund to equip state and local bomb
technicians. To date, $22,038,371 has been obligated to purchase SRS-5
Search Suits [$5,927,200], X-Ray equipment [$9,289,852], multi-gas and
lower limit detectors [$4,400,000], computers and printers
[$1,200,000], and CABO-LE databases and upgrades [$1,221,319] for each
certified bomb squad across the country.
The suits are utilized to provide balanced protection for personnel
performing improvised explosive device searches as well as chemical/
biological explosives hazards. The detectors are useful in identifying
low vapor pressure and highly volatile, toxic organic compounds such as
nerve agents and pesticide residues. Portable X-Rays provide real-time,
in-place diagnostic examinations of suspected explosive devices. The
computers and databases will allow all accredited bomb squads access to
Law Enforcement On-Line to discuss specific problems, receive law
enforcement updates, and access to the FBI's Bomb Data Center
publications and statistics on-line. The databases serve as a CD-ROM
format reference tool for chemical and biological warfare and terrorist
threats.
Question. What is the Department doing to fully utilize existing
facilities and expertise in First Responder Training for Weapons of
Mass Destruction?
Answer. The FBI continues to use the Hazardous Devices School,
which is located on Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL, to train state
and local bomb technicians. The facilities were originally used to
store supplies for the Army, however, when the FBI took over bomb-
related training for civilians in 1971, the Army allowed the FBI to use
those facilities for classroom training. The FBI uses the facilities
while reimbursing the Army for overhead and maintenance costs.
In addition, the Office of Justice Programs is utilizing existing
training institutions through the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium (NDPC) to provide a range of WMD training courses to state
and local emergency responders. NDPC members include Louisiana State
university, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Texas A&M
University, Nevada Test Site, and the Center for Domestic Preparedness.
Training courses include direct delivery awareness level training for
law enforcement and fire and Emergency Medical Services personnel, to
advanced-level specialized courses taught at the Consortium sites
involving the use of live chemical agents, explosive materials, and
other unique training assets.
Question. What more should the Federal Government be doing to
prepare for potential terrorist incidents? Does the Administration's
cybercrime initiative address this issue?
Answer. The recent terrorist interdictions in Washington State, and
Vermont, as well as events in Jordan, Pakistan, and other countries,
underscore the continued vulnerability of the United States to
terrorism, both at home and abroad. This continuing threat, as well as
the events surrounding the millennial period, has indicated areas in
which the FBI's counterterrorism capabilities must be improved.
Specifically, these needs include:
--Strengthening FBI international and domestic law enforcement
partnerships.
--Closing the technology gap that exists between terrorists and law
enforcement agencies by improving the FBI's capacity to provide
technical support to counterterrorism investigations requiring
court-approved interception of communications. The FBI must
also expand and accelerate its conduct of counterterrorism-
related research and development projects.
--Improving FBI intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination
capabilities by enhancing its translation capacities and the
FBI's ability to process applications for surveillance and
searches authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. Training for intelligence analysts is also needed to
enhance case-level tactical analysis for investigators.
Moreover, the FBI's corps of trained surveillance specialists
must be expanded so that more field offices have an organic
capacity to monitor the activities of terrorists.
--Strengthening the FBI's operational capabilities by ensuring that
agents are adequately equipped to address Olympic safety,
security, and critical incident response requirements. Finally,
as the FBI has been targeted by terrorist threats, several
field office locations require additional guard services to
ensure the existence of a safe work environment for all FBI
employees.
The FBI's 2001 cybercrime initiative as presented in the
President's 2001 budget submission addresses this issue. In the 2001
cybercrime initiative, the FBI requests 100 positions (83 field and 17
FBIHQ) and $11,371,000 for the Computer Analysis Response Team. In
addition, the FBI requests $7,000,000 for counter-encryption
technology. These enhancements are designed to help the FBI deal with
the current and future projected backlog of computer forensic
examinations, and to counter the use of encryption by criminals and
terrorists to conceal evidence of criminal communications and
information. Since timely computer investigations provide significant
information pertinent to critical national security investigations, and
since the Attorney General's Five-Year Counterterrorism and Technology
Crime Plan identified the development of decryption capability to
facilitate the use of evidence in court as a top requirement, it is
clear that the President's 2001 cybercrime initiative does take
significant steps to improve our nation's capability to respond to and
investigate terrorist incidents.
RIO ARRIBA COUNTY BLACK TAR HEROIN PROBLEM
Background: Judge Freeh, Mr. Marshall--I want to begin by thanking
you for all that you and your agencies have done in the last year to
help address the black tar heroin problem in northern New Mexico.
Judge Freeh, you and I discussed this issue privately last year,
and the record will reflect that your response to my request for help
was immediate, comprehensive and extremely helpful. On behalf of the
citizens of Rio Arriba Country, thank you.
Mr Marshall, your predecessor, Tom Constantine, was equally
responsive. I am sure that in your work as the Deputy Administrator,
you were aware of the problem in new Mexico as well.
Soon after the field hearing Senator Gregg held in Espanola, New
Mexico on this issue last year, federal FBI, DEA and ATF agents, along
with state law enforcement officials, rounded up more than 50
individuals involved in the drug trade in northern New Mexico.
Indictments were handed down, and there have been numerous guilty
pleas.
News reports out of Rio Arriba County indicate that the streets are
quieter, the drug trade has been suppressed, and the community is on
its way to healing itself after decades of drug abuse.
Of course, we haven't solved the drug problem in northern New
Mexico. I hope that you'll pledge to continue to work with me
throughout the remainder of your tenures to ensure that Rio Arriba
stays on the path toward reducing its drug problem.
Question. I am interested in your recommendations about a second
phase of help for the county, including any follow-up enforcement ideas
to make sure that our efforts of the past year do not go to waste.
Answer. The FBI and DEA remain committed to addressing the drug
problem in Northern New Mexico through joint sophisticated and
comprehensive investigations with state and local authorities. A
continued commitment to combine resources of federal, state and local
agencies is critical to achieving long-term success in addressing the
larger organized crime and drug problem in Northern New Mexico,
including Arriba County.
Currently, the FBI, DEA and state and local law enforcement are
involved in two projects. The first effort focuses on a metropolitan
area serving as a trans-shipment point for heroin being smuggled by the
Naryit Mexico trafficking organization. The second effort centers on
another Northern New Mexico locale, like Rio Arriba, where both heroin
and cocaine trafficking and consumption are an entrenched crime
problem.
Intelligence efforts will continue to monitor any resurgence of
drug activity in Rio Arriba and all counties in New Mexico. Through the
continued collection, analysis and dissemination of criminal
intelligence, all law enforcement agencies will be able to better
assess and monitor the drug trafficking patterns. The exploitation of
criminal intelligence among all agencies will allow investigators the
ability to devise and employ efforts to combat any detected upsurge of
heroin trafficking.
DEA is currently researching the feasibility of deploying the El
Paso Field Division Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) into Rio Arriba
County. The MET would put approximately 10 DEA agents, plus state and
local officers in the area for a concentrated 60-day period. During
that time, the MET would target, disrupt and/or dismantle a specific
drug organization responsible for the distribution of heroin in Rio
Arriba County. This response will send the message to traffickers and
citizens that DEA will remain vigilant in Rio Arriba County.
The El Paso Field Division also will send the Division Demand
Reduction Coordinator and Training Officer into Rio Arriba County to
determine how DEA can be most effective in reducing the demand for
narcotics and helping local citizens cope with the continuing effects
of drug abuse and addiction. DEA has scheduled a Basic Drug
Investigation School for state and local officers. This school will be
held in New Mexico during the third quarter of 2000, and approximately
10 state and local officers from the Northern New Mexico Region have
been invited to attend. In an effort to better serve the area of
Northern New Mexico, DEA is exploring the feasibility of stationing two
Special Agents in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
FBI TRACKING OF JEWELRY THEFT
Background: You received three letters from jewelers in Hawaii
expressing concern about this growing trend. A letter was sent to the
Director on February 3, to request information on the federal efforts
to protect this industry. A response has not yet been received. This is
an effort to bring this issue of concern to your constituents to the
Director's attention.
Question. This fall, a number of national publications published
articles about the growing trend of increased robberies and violence
committed against retail jewelers and traveling jewelry salespeople.
According to reports, there are criminal gangs who threaten this
industry. It is my understanding that the average loss in this type of
crime is $355,000. Is your agency tracking these crimes?
Answer. In 1992, the FBI developed the Jewelry and Gem (JAG)
initiative to combat the increasingly violent victimization of jewelry
retailers and traveling salespersons. As part of this initiative, the
FBI's Major Theft/Transportation Crimes Unit (MT/TCU) established a
computerized JAG database of jewelry thefts/robberies as reported to
the FBI by its field offices, law enforcement agencies and the jewelry
industry. Since jewelry theft gangs travel throughout the United States
to locate and victimize retail stores and traveling salespersons, the
database was developed to assist law enforcement in linking seemingly
disparate crimes involving similar modus operandi and suspect
descriptions. Through this database, located at FBI Headquarters, the
FBI collects and analyzes reports of jewelry thefts nationwide and
disseminates information to federal, state and local law enforcement
agencies to assist in their investigations. The JAG database is also
used to calculate yearly jewelry theft statistics produced by the FBI.
In analyzing jewelry theft data from the past few years, the FBI
has not observed a significant change in either the frequency or
character of crimes committed against ``on-premises'' jewelry
retailers. This is consistent with crime data compiled by jewelry
industry security representatives which show no significant change in
the number of jewelry retail robberies from 1998 to 1999, nor the
percentages of robberies involving physical contact or injury.
Moreover, according to industry statistics, there was a decrease in
dollar losses associated with on-premises retail thefts/robberies from
1997 to 1999 ($117.5 million to $57.6 million).
In contrast, over the past few years, there have been substantial
increases nationwide in both the frequency and levels of violence
associated with thefts/robberies of traveling salespersons,
particularly in metropolitan Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami. Jewelry
industry statistics show a 35 percent increase in the number of ``off-
premises'' thefts/robberies of traveling salespersons nationwide from
1998 to 1999 (240 reported cases to 323), with a dollar loss increase
during this period from $32.6 million to $61.5 million. In 1999, the
average loss sustained by traveling salesperson victims was $358,307.
Significantly, FBI data show that, for all incidents involving
traveling salespersons, there was a 30 percent increase in the level of
violence from 1998 to 1999.
Generally, the character of criminality against traveling
salespersons has changed over the past few years from a distraction/
larceny modus operandi to a violent, confrontational style that often
involves sophisticated surveillance, multiple armed subjects and
physical assault. These crimes are believed by the FBI to be almost
exclusively committed by organized South American Theft Groups, often
composed of illegal aliens using false identification.
FBI EFFORTS TO COMBAT THIS CRIMINALITY
Question. Can you describe for me your efforts to combat this
growing trend?
Answer. In addition to creation of the JAG database, which the FBI
recently demonstrated at the International Association of Chiefs of
Police Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, the FBI maintains
regular and close contact with the Jewelers' Security Alliance (JSA)
and other industry representatives. Together with the JSA, the FBI has
periodically sponsored regional conferences and training specifically
related to jewelry theft investigations, including strategy and
coordination conferences of law enforcement agencies investigating
particular jewelry theft groups. Further, the FBI conducts regular in-
service training for special agents and local investigators involved in
major theft matters, with particular blocks of instruction on jewelry
and fine art theft.
Consistent with its Major Theft National Investigative Strategy,
the FBI has established a multi-agency Safe Streets-style Task Force
concentrating on jewelry theft in Los Angeles, the metropolitan area
that has experienced the highest number of jewelry thefts/robberies and
incidence of violent confrontations. Ad hoc task forces are developing
in other FBI field offices to address this problem.
VICTIM WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Background: The FBI's Victim Witness Assistance Program was
established to ensure FBI conformity with the federal victims rights
law. The addition of 31 trained victim and witness specialists (VWSs)
will enable the FBI to increase the type and quality of services
provided and give the FBI the ability to bridge the gap between the
social, legal and investigative issues relevant to Native Americans who
are not accustomed to participation in the federal judicial system.
The Federal Government is primarily responsible for investigating
major crimes in Indian Country. Last year the Bureau of Justice
Statistics issued a disturbing report that the rate of violent
victimizations among American Indians aged 12 or older was more than
twice the rate for the entire nation.
With 31 VWSs assigned to Indian Country, more Native American
victims will have more information about the investigation and the
overall legal process. Liaison within reservations communities would be
strengthened, cases presented for prosecution would be much stronger
and the entire judicial system would perform more effectively as a
result of the involvement of trained VWSs.
In addition, the 31 VWSs would allow for agent time that is
currently being used to provide victim and witness assistance to be
returned to investigative work. For instance, many families in Indian
Country reside away from population centers and do not have reliable
means of transportation to travel lengthy distances to participate in
events that require victim or witness attendance. Currently, in most
instances, it is the FBI agents who provide the transportation. The VWS
is capable of providing these services, thus allowing the FBI agents to
focus their attention on conducting other investigations.
Question. You have requested funding for 31 victim witness
specialists (VWSs) for the FBI's Victim Witness Assistance Program
pursuant to the Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. Why is there
a special need in Indian Country?
Answer. Unlike urban centers, Indian Country (IC) presents a
situation where high levels of poverty, a lack of public transportation
and extreme rural isolation converge. The result is victims and
witnesses of violent crime in IC rarely have reliable transportation
and often live long distances from the offices and courtrooms of the
government attorneys, magistrates and judges in which they must appear
as participants in the judicial process. FBI special agents have
traditionally provided transportation. It is not unusual for an agent
working in the Minot, ND, Resident Agency (RA) to travel more than 700
miles round trip to transport a victim of a crime on the Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservation to Fargo, ND, to testify before the grand
jury. A child sexually abused on the Ft. Peck Reservation in Montana
must be transported 350 miles to Billings for a medical examination and
evaluation necessitating making arrangements for an overnight stay,
lodging and meals--logistics which seem insurmountable to a parent or
care giver who does not often leave the reservation. As a result, it is
the agents who have been providing the transportation and making the
lodging arrangements.
IC is a unique part of the United States. Cultural differences such
as IC residents being unfamiliar with the operations of a bank and thus
unable to cash a reimbursement check for witness expenses are not
unusual. The VWS provide a bridge between victims or/and witnesses and
the predominate cultures surrounding the reservations.
The intent of the recent Presidential Initiative for the
enhancement of law enforcement in IC was to increase the delivery of
law enforcement services in IC. As more investigative matters are
initiated with the addition of law enforcement resources, greater
numbers of victims and witnesses also become part of the process. It is
critical that the proper personnel, both investigative and victim
witness, are in place to accomplish the goals of the Presidential
Initiative. In addressing the need for additional investigative
resources, a greater need for victim witness resources has naturally
been created.
The FBI currently has 4 VWSs assigned to Indian Country, two of
whom are funded through DOJ's Office of Victims Crime. These VWSs have
helped the FBI in its commitment to overcome IC mistrust of the Federal
Government through the building of positive relationships. The VWS in
the Billings, MT, Resident Agency, represents the FBI at Crow and
Northern Cheyenne Child Protective Team meetings, and is an active
member of the Crow Sex Offender Registration committee. Because of her
work, the Native American community is beginning to view the FBI as
having not only an investigative function but expressing a genuine
concern for the victims.
HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM
Background: Hawaii was designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area (HIDTA) last June. Given the obvious problem of drug use in Hawaii
that lead to this designation, this question is designed to bring the
drug problem in Hawaii to the attention of your colleagues on the
Subcommittee. Your wish list will include a request for funds to fight
clandestine methamphetamine labs in Hawaii. Despite this HIDTA
designation, a grant request from Hawaii for Byrne Discretionary grants
to fight clandestine labs was rejected.
Question. The Office of National Drug Control Policy has designated
31 areas as HIDTAs where federal, state and local agencies are working
together to reduce the harmful impact of drug trafficking. Can you
share with the Subcommittee your thoughts on the effectiveness of this
program and DEA's role in this effort?
Answer. The mission of the HIDTA program is to reduce drug
trafficking activities in the most critical drug trafficking areas of
the country, thereby lessening the impact of these areas on other
regions of the country. The HIDTA program strengthens America's drug
control efforts by intensifying the impact of drug control agencies
through the development of partnerships between federal, state and
local drug control agencies in designated regions and by creating
effective systems for them to synchronize their efforts.
Since the original designation of 5 High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas in 1990, the HIDTA program has expanded to 31 areas of the
country, including 5 partnerships along the Southwest Border. The Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) has traditionally played a critical
role in the success of the HIDTA program and will continue to do so in
the future. To date, DEA has over 280 Special Agent positions dedicated
to the HIDTA program.
The 31 established HIDTAs act as a significant force multiplier for
drug law enforcement efforts across the United States. In recent
months, DEA and the FBI have been working with ONDCP to develop
policies and guidelines to standardize the mission, functions,
management, and infrastructure of the individual HIDTA intelligence
components.
DEA does not currently provide intelligence analytical support for
the HIDTA program. However, the agency has developed plans for the
addition of DEA intelligence personnel to HIDTA Intelligence Centers by
fiscal year 2002. The addition of these personnel will work to bring an
interconnected national intelligence network to the HIDTA's as well as
effective DEA intelligence programs to support HIDTA efforts. With an
infusion of DEA intelligence analytical resources, guidance, and
experience, the HIDTA intelligence program will become part of the
nationwide effort to develop effective mechanisms for the collection
and sharing of intelligence information, which can be applied in the
enforcement arena.
Question. Last June, Honolulu, Hawaii was designated a High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. Has there been a significant reduction
in drug related crime since this designation? What has been done since
the HIDTA designation to combat this problem? What can you recommend be
done to improve the effectiveness of this program?
Answer. On June 15, 1999, the Hawaii HIDTA was formally approved
and provided partial funding through the fiscal year 1999
appropriation. According to ONDCP, first year expenses for HIDTAs are
largely associated with programmatic administrative start-up costs,
with little emphasis placed on operational results. This being the
case, it is too early to comment upon the Hawaii HIDTA's effectiveness
and/or any reduction in area drug related crime. Statistics from
established HIDTAs throughout the United States have historically
indicated a reduction in drug related crimes following implementation
of HIDTA programs.
ONDCP reports that with the resources thus far provided for the
Hawaii HIDTA, a Hawaii HIDTA Director has been hired; Budget,
Intelligence and Facilities Subcommittees have been established;
liaison has been established with other HIDTAs on the West Coast by
visiting several existing HIDTAs in order to gain insight on proper and
successful management techniques; an updated drug threat assessment has
been conducted enabling the identification of current drug trafficking
trends and organizations; joint training on the latest drug
interdiction techniques, technology, and legal issues is being
conducted with all participating HIDTA law enforcement agencies; and
acquisition of a Hawaii Airport Task Force site at or near the Honolulu
International Airport, in conjunction with the Hawaii HIDTA, is in
process.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT
RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Question. In last Sunday's Washington Post, there was an article
about the enforcement of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act. I would like to submit the article for the record.
The article examines an unintended consequence of our immigration
reform efforts whereby children adopted from other countries by
American families are being deported to the countries of their births
because of criminal convictions that occurred when the adopted children
are adults. These individuals who are eligible for naturalization are
being deported to countries where they have no relatives and often have
no language skills.
I am concerned by this article and would like to better understand
the extent of this problem. How many children were admitted to the
United States for the purpose of adoption last year? How many legal
permanent residents were deported last year who had been admitted into
the United States for the purpose of adoption?
Answer. During fiscal years 1997 and 1998, 12,596 and 14,867
orphans were adopted abroad respectively. The INS does not track the
number of people deported for criminal convictions who were originally
admitted to the United States as adopted orphans.
Question. I would also like to know whether the INS tracks children
admitted to this country for adoption and to what extent the INS
encourages parents to naturalize their adopted children?
Answer. The INS does not track the activities of children admitted
to this country for adoption. The INS does publish information
regarding the naturalization process in a publication called ``A Guide
to Naturalization.'' The information is also available on the INS' web
site. INS is also very active in holding special naturalization
ceremonies for adopted children such as the ceremonies held by the
Buffalo District Office near the Fourth of July each year.
Question. I would also like to ask you about the proposed rule
1991-99 which would authorize the collection of fees by private
organizations for fees levied to fund the INS student-tracking system.
I know that a request has been made to delay implementation of this
regulation until the Congress can act to remove this requirement. If
you are not disposed to delay the implementation, what support services
do you intend to provide to the private groups charged with collecting
government fees?
Answer. The INS recognizes that proposed rule 1991-99 has raised
serious concerns in the academic and exchange program communities. As
you know, section 641(e) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 provides that ``an approved
institution of higher education and a designated exchange visitor
program'' collect and remit the proposed fee to the Attorney General.
The proposed rule follows the statutory language and recognizes these
two groups of institutions as designated fee collectors. The INS
believes that the most effective way to address the concerns raised by
some Members and the regulated community is through a legislative
amendment. In order to facilitate this effort, the INS and the
Department of State are working jointly to finalize suggested
amendments to the statutory language. The concerns of the Members, as
well as those of the educational institutions, will be taken into
consideration as INS drafts the amendment.
The INS seeks to provide a rule that best serves all those affected
in the most reasonable manner. Until the INS has achieved that goal,
and anticipating congressional action on this issue, the INS will
suspend the publication schedule for the final rule.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
EXTERNAL AUDIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Question. Has the INS had an external audit of administrative and
operational performance during your tenure? If so, please submit an
executive summary of the findings (by date) stating what you learned
and the actions you have taken. If not, why not and what have your
internal analysis demonstrated?
Answer. Both the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector
General (OIG) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have conducted
reviews and audits of administrative and operational performance of
INS. In total, they have issued over 100 final reports relating to the
INS. The OIG's reports included 691 recommendations, of which 111
remain open. The GAO reports contained 88 recommendations, of which 26
are open. The materials related to these reports are very voluminous.
Therefore, we have attached a list of the final reports and ongoing
reviews. We have also included a discussion of the highlights of the
reviews that are of high interest to the agency. Should there be
particular interest on any of the reports, we would be pleased to
supply further information on any of the materials.
Office of Inspector General Reviews
Since January 1991, the OIG has issued 101 final reports relating
to INS. These final reports contained over 694 recommendations of which
INS has taken the necessary action to close 559. The OIG's coverage has
been extensive, and has covered several administrative functions and
many INS programs. The OIG currently has 10 ongoing audits or
inspections within the Service.
The INS Collection of Fees at Land Border Ports of Entry: The OIG
initiated this audit because of two separate OIG investigations into
the theft of fee monies at land Ports of Entry had identified
significant discrepancies in the management controls over fee
collections. The February 2000 audit confirmed that controls and
procedures currently in place allow opportunities for loss or theft of
fee monies without detection at each step in the fee collection
process. Consequently, INS managers could not determine the total
amount of fees that should have been collected based on the
applications processed.
Voluntary Departure: Ineffective Enforcement and Lack of Sufficient
Controls Hamper the Process: The OIG conducted an assessment in July
1999, on how INS district officers and the Executive Office for
Immigration Review immigration judges implement voluntary departure.
The OIG report found weaknesses in conducting criminal history checks,
tracking alien departures, and overall enforcement of voluntary
departure orders.
Fingerprint and Biographical Check Services Provided by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service: The OIG reported in March 1999, that INS did not reconcile
payments against its requests for fingerprint and name checks conducted
by the FBI. This occurred because INS had no system to track and
account for all of the fingerprint and biographical check requests
submitted to, or the results received from, the FBI. As a result,
during fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, INS paid approximately $7
million for unclassifiable and duplicate fingerprint cards, processed
incomplete or inaccurate fingerprint checks for thousands of INS
applicants, and did not detect a potential FBI underbilling of
approximately $800,000. For name checks, the audit identified
approximately $220,000 that INS incurred unnecessarily for duplicate
requests. However, the audits also identified over $230,000 for
services rendered by the FBI but not charged to the INS. This latter
amount is offset by about $563,000 of charges not supported adequately
by the FBI.
Follow-up Review INS Management of Automation Programs: The OIG
reported in March 1998, that INS has not managed its automation program
adequately. As a result, the OIG initiated a follow-up review. The July
1999 report determined that INS still did not manage its automation
programs adequately during fiscal years 1995 to 1997. Specifically, (1)
estimated completion dates for some automation projects had been
delayed without explanations for the delays, (2) costs continued to
spiral upward with no justification for how the funds are spent, and
(3) projects were nearing completion with no assurance they will meet
performance and functional requirements.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of No.
Date Report Title Rept. No. Recs Open
------------------------------------------------------------------------
02/18/00 Border Patrol Efforts Along I-2000-04...... 2 1
the Northern Border
02/10/00 The Immigration and 00-05.......... 12 11
Naturalization Service
Collection of Fees at Land
Border Ports of Entry
10/14/99 Year 200 Efforts at the 00-01.......... 4 0
Immigration and
Naturalization Service
09/29/99 Inspection of Cruise Ship I-99-13........ 0 0
Exemption
09/23/99 INS Annual Financial 99-27.......... 25 18
Statement Fiscal Year 1998
08/30/99 INS and Executive Office of 99-23.......... 4 1
Immigration Review
Affirmative Action Program
08/08/99 Follow-up Review; INS 99-19.......... 17 14
Management of the
Automation Programs
05/14/99 Non-Tax Delinquent Debt in 99-16.......... 1 0
the DOJ Performed at the
Request of the PCIE
04/12/99 INS' Selection of Advanced 99-08.......... 2 2
Card Technology
03/31/99 Fingerprint and Biological 99-13.......... 5 5
Check Service Provided by
the FBI and the INS
03/31/99 Inspection Memorandum I-99-04........ 0 0
Report: Review Contract COW-
6-C-0038 of the Vera
Institute of Justice
03/31/99 The Potential Fraud and the I-99-10........ 3 0
INS' Efforts to Reduce the
Risks of the Visa Wavier
Pilot Program
03/31/99 Voluntary Departure: I-99-09........ 5 5
Ineffective Enforcement and
Lack of Sufficient Controls
Hamper the Process
03/31/99 INS' Timeliness in 99-10.......... 11 9
Inspecting Passengers
Arriving at U.S. Airports
03/01/99 Sale and Leaseback of 99-07.......... 2 1
Detention Facilities
02/12/99 Accuracy of Adjudications 99-03.......... 3 1
and Naturalization Data in
the Performance Analysis
System of the INS
09/30/98 Naturalization Fingerprint I-98-27........ 0 0
Process
09/22/98 Inspection of Border Patrol I-98-20........ 10 1
Drug Interdiction
Activities on the Southwest
Border
09/14/98 Asset Forfeiture Program 98-24.......... 0 0
Management Letter Report
Fiscal Year 1997
09/14/98 Asset Forfeiture Program 98-23.......... 0 0
Management Letter Report
Fiscal Year 1996
09/14/98 Immigration and 98-22.......... 29 6
Naturalization Service
Annual Financial Statement
Fiscal Year 1997
09/01/98 The Department of Justice's 98-28.......... 0 0
Joint Automated Booking
System Laboratory
08/11/98 Follow-up Inspection of the I-98-18........ 6 2
Management of Delivery
Bonds in the INS
07/31/98 The Immigration and I-98-19........ 1 1
Naturalization Service's
Customer Management
Information System (CMIS)
07/07/98 Controls Over Certificates I-98-14........ 8 3
of Naturalization (Phase
II)
05/29/98 Property Management and 98-14.......... 1 0
Financial Statements
03/31/98 Inspection of Immigration I-98-07........ 3 1
Officer Training
03/31/98 INS Refugees, Asylum and 98-11.......... 5 0
Parole System
03/25/98 INS Management of Automation 98-09.......... 12 0
Programs
03/24/98 Review of the INS' Automated I-98-10........ 8 1
Biometric Identification
System
02/19/98 Controls Over Certificates I-98-02........ 5 0
of Naturalization (Phase I)
01/26/98 Asset Forfeiture Program 98-03.......... 1 0
Management Letter Report
Fiscal Year 1995
12/12/97 Ammunition Storage at INS I-98-05........ 2 0
Facilities
08/01/97 INS Annual Financial 97-22A......... 23 5
Statement Fiscal Year 1996
05/09/97 Immigration User Fee 97-17.......... 3 0
Remittances
09/30/97 Violent Crime Reduction 97-15B......... 6 0
Trust Fund Management
Letter Report Fiscal Year
1995
03/31/97 Violent Crime Reduction 97-15A......... 13 0
Trust Fund Annual Financial
Statement Fiscal Year 1995
03/01/97 INS's Workforce Analysis 97-10.......... 7 5
Model
09/04/97 Monitoring of Nonimmigrant I-97-08........ 4 4
Overstays
01/28/97 Administratively 97-09.......... 4 2
Uncontrollable Overtime
(AUO) in DOJ
01/07/97 Contracting for Detention 97-05.......... 3 0
Space
01/07/97 INS Replacement of Resident 97-06.......... 6 0
Alien Identify Cards
01/03/97 Fuel Purchases by BOP, FBI, 97-03.......... 1 0
and INS
01/02/97 Selected Financial 97-04.......... 4 3
Transactions for Operation
Alliance INS Imprest Fund,
El Paso, Texas
9/96 Status of Immigration and 96-22.......... 0 0
Naturalization Service's
Financial Management
Corrective Action Plan as
of June, 30, 1996
09/30/96 INS Document Fraud Records I-96-09........ 1 0
Corrections
08/19/96 American Express Charge Card I-96-10........ 0 0
Use in DOJ
08/16/96 INS Border Patrol Management 96-20.......... 8 0
of Aviation Operations
05/31/96 Inspection of Efforts to I-96-08........ 4 0
Combat the Harboring and
Employment of Illegal
Aliens in Sweatshops
05/28/96 INS Forecasting for the Fee 96-13.......... 7 0
Accounts
03/29/96 Inspection of DOJ Drug Free I-96-07........ 4 0
Work Place
03/29/96 Inspection of INS' I-96-03........ 5 2
Deportation of Aliens After
Final Orders Have Been
Changed
2/96 Status of Immigration and 96-04.......... 0 0
naturalization Service's
Financial Management
Corrective Action Plan as
of September 30, 1995
10/17/95 Inspection of the Influx of I-96-01........ 0 0
New Personnel
09/27/95 Inspection of the INS I-95-09........ 3 0
Background Reinvestigation
Program
09/26/95 INS Select Enforcement 95-30.......... 7 1
Activities
08/18/95 Administration of I-94-01........ 0 0
Disciplinary Action in INS
09/15/95 Organized Crime Drug 95-31.......... 0 0
Enforcement Task Force
Operations in DOJ
07/27/95 INS Operations Jobs Pilot 95-25.......... 4 0
06/30/95 Inspection of the Systematic I-92-20........ 10 0
Alien Verification for
Entitlements Program (SAVE)
in INS
03/30/95 Procurement Activities for 95-12.......... 7 0
the US Border Patrol Air
Operations
03/30/95 Cash Collections at 95-10.......... 7 0
Districts and Ports in INS
03/30/95 INS Passenger Accelerated 95-08.......... 9 0
Service System Pilot
Program
11/28/94 Audit of INS Breached Bond 95-3A.......... 5 0
Detention Fund Annual
Financial Statement for
Fiscal Year 1993
11/28/94 INS Fee Accounts and 95-2B.......... 31 0
Breached Bond Detention
Fund Management Letter
Report for Fiscal Year 1993
11/28/94 Audit of INS Fee Accounts 95-2A.......... 13 0
Annual Financial Statement
Report for Fiscal Year 1993
10/25/94 Process for Imposing Visa I-93-15........ 4 0
Fines in INS
08/12/94 Accounts Receivable of the 94-30.......... 4 0
INS Fee Accounts
06/23/94 INS Employment Authorization I-94-07........ 10 0
Document Program
06/02/94 Fee Related Contract 94-24.......... 0 0
Activities in INS
05/27/94 Case Hearing Process in the I-93-03........ 0 0
Executive Office of
Immigration Review
04/26/94 INS Collection of Carrier 94-22.......... 5 0
Fees
04/15/94 Ammunition Purchases by DOJ I-93-04........ 2 0
Bureaus
04/11/94 INS Enroute Inspections 94-19.......... 8 1
03/31/94 INS' National Automated I-93-08........ 11 0
Immigration Lookout System
II
02/16/94 Alien Fingerprint I-93-13........ 2 0
Requirements in the INS
10/27/93 INS Fee Accounts Annual 93-01A......... 16 0
Financial Statement Report
Fiscal Year 1991
09/30/93 Inspection of the Management I-92-25........ 21 0
of Delivery Bonds in the
INS
09/30/93 INS Preinspection of US 93-16.......... 3 0
Bound Travelers Program
09/30/93 Land Border Inspection Fee I-93-02........ 0 0
Program
09/29/93 Injury and Disability I-92-23........ 0 0
Compensation Program within
the DOJ
09/23/93 Cash Collections at Service 93-20.......... 16 0
Centers in the INS
09/17/93 Fee Accounts Management 93-14B......... 11 0
Letter Report Fiscal Year
1992
09/01/93 Computer Risk Analysis and 93-17.......... 5 0
Contingency Planning
07/27/93 Immigration Services and 93-15.......... 4 0
Special Benefits for Which
Fees Have not Been
Established
06/29/93 INS Fee Accounts Annual 93-14A......... 14 0
Financial Statement Fiscal
Year 1992
04/22/93 Controls over Funds and I-92-26........ 12 0
Valuables of Aliens
03/31/93 Database Controls at INS 93-11.......... 6 0
03/31/93 Transit Without Visa Program I-92-27........ 6 0
in INS
03/26/93 Procurement Activities 93-08.......... 24 4
01/26/93 Inspection of Detention I-92-18........ 5 0
Facilities in INS
12/21/92 Controls Over established 93-03.......... 6 0
User Fee Accounts in the
INS
12/10/92 INS Fee Accounts Management 93-01B......... 11 0
Letter Report Fiscal Year
1991
07/31/92 Security of Controlled I-91-13........ 2 0
Documents and Stamps at INS
01/31/92 Overtime in the INS 92-1........... 5 0
Inspection Program
12/23/91 Employee Assistance Program I-92-02........ 2 1
within DOJ
03/29/91 Value Engineering Program in 91-08.......... 7 0
the DOJ
09/23/91 Immigration and 91-15.......... 27 0
Naturalization Firearms
Policy
09/17/91 Training for Inspectors in I-91-15........ 7 0
INS
07/17/91 Security of Controlled I-91-13........ 2 0
Documents and Stamps in INS
02/25/91 INS Phoenix District I-91-07........ 13 0
02/05/91 Fiscal Year 1989 INS 91-05.......... 13 0
Financial Closeout
01/07/91 INS Blaine Sector I-91-06........ 21 0
-----------------
Total Recommendations ............... 691 111
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG REVIEWS IN PROGRESS
OIG Draft Reports
Audit of I-94 Computer Security. Announcement Date: 4/08/99. Draft
Date: 5/11/00.
Inspection--Review of Automated Inspection Systems (SENTRI).
Announcement Date: 8/30/98. Draft Date: 4/14/00.
Ongoing OIG Reviews
Audit of Property Management II. Announcement Date: 3/05/99.
Audit of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Institutional
Removal Program. Announcement Date: 3/25/99.
Audit of Deferred Inspections at Airports. Announcement Date: 6/1/
99.
Audit of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Pre-clearance
Operations. Announcement Date: 6/1/99.
Audit of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Airport
Detention Facilities. Announcement Date: 6/1/99.
Audit of Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Financial Statement of the DOJ.
Announcement Date: 6/9/99.
Inspection of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's
Inspection Activities at Sea Ports-of-Entry. Announcement Date: 6/22/
99.
Inspection of the Carrier Affairs Program. Announcement Date: 6/22/
99.
Follow-up Inspection of Influx of New Personnel. Announcement Date:
11/16/99.
Inspection--INS' Document Fraud Records corrections (Follow-up).
Announcement Date: 3/08/00.
Inspection--INS' Anti-Smuggling Units. Announcement Date: 4/25/00.
Inspection--Retrofitting of Border Patrol Vehicles (Bastrop, TX).
Announcement Date: Supplemental to Follow-up Inspection of Influx of
New Personnel.
Fiscal year 2000 OIG Workplan
Audit of Cash Collections Within the DOJ.
Audit of INS/Department of State Data-share Project.
Fiscal Year 1999 Financial Statement Audits.
Audit of INS Management of Privatization.
Audit of INS Procurement Management.
Inspection of INS' Complaint Process.
Inspection of Transit Without Visa Program (Follow-up).
Inspection of Treatment of Children Held in INS Custody.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REVIEWS
In January 1991, the General Accounting Office issued its report,
Immigration Management: Strong Leadership and Management Reforms Needed
to Address Serious Problems. Since then, GAO has published 98
subsequent reports related to immigration policy, operational matters,
and management issues. Twenty-six of these reports contained
recommendations for corrective actions, most of which are being or have
been implemented.
Since January 1, 1995, the GAO has increased its coverage of INS
operations. Major GAO reports issued during the past year have focused
on the Attorney General's strategy to deter illegal entry into the
U.S., Southwest Border strategy enforcement activities, employee
corruption on the Southwest Border, and INS initiatives to increase the
number of new Border Patrol agents, as directed by the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996.
Fourteen GAO reviews of INS activities are in progress, including a
review of the processing of aliens' applications and petitions for
immigration benefits, information technology practices, the H1-B non-
immigrant visa program, alien smuggling, and the admissions of aliens
who may be eligible to be granted asylum.
INS Management: Follow-up on Selected Problems [GAO/GGD-97-132].
This report continues GAO's previous analyses on INS management issues.
In 1991, GAO reported that INS was experiencing severe management
problems in a variety of areas. The 1997 report concluded that,
although INS had made progress in addressing some management problems,
many management issues still required attention. Specifically, the GAO
pointed out that INS employees needed clear guidance on implementing
the immigration laws by issuing updated policies and procedures manuals
and by establishing clear channels of communication within the INS
organizational structure. The report also noted that INS had selected a
new financial management system without focusing first on conducting an
analysis of its business processes.
Since the issuance of that report, INS has made considerable
progress in addressing GAO's' concerns. An Office of Restructuring,
established in the Office of the Commissioner in response to both
Administration and Congressional initiatives, is addressing among other
issues, these GAO concerns. With regard to the new financial system,
the INS has continued to refine system implementation plans in a way
that mitigates risks and implements the system in an incremental
manner. In July 1999, the INS developed a revised implementation plan
that extends the planning horizon out to fiscal year 2001.
Southwest Border Strategy Enforcement Activities. The report states
that INS is continuing to implement the Southwest border strategy by
allocating additional personnel, increasing the time Border Patrol
agents spend on border enforcement activities, and attempting to
identify the appropriate quality and mix of technology and personnel
needed to control the border. The report also states that data on the
interim effects of the strategy continue to be limited. Finally, the
GAO reiterates the recommendation in its original review of the
Southwest border strategy \1\--that a comprehensive and systematic
evaluation of the strategy would help provide information about its
effectiveness. This follow-up report concludes that the studies funded
by INS are too limited at this time to make a comprehensive and
systematic evaluation of the strategy's effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Illegal Immigration: Southwest Border Strategy Results
Inconclusive; More Evaluation Needed, GGD 98-21, December 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized
Alien Employment Exist. This report is the second of six planned
reports on the Attorney General's strategy to deter illegal entry into
the U.S. and focuses on employment issues related to unauthorized
aliens. The report concludes that the INS faces significant obstacles
to reducing unauthorized alien employment because the process can be
circumvented or easily thwarted by fraud. The GAO made two
recommendations to the INS relating to outreach programs for employers
and clarifying the criteria for opening investigations suspected of
criminal activities.
Border Patrol Hiring: Despite Recent Initiatives, Fiscal Year 1999
Hiring Goal Was Not Met. This report points out that INS initiatives to
increase the number of new Border Patrol agents as legislatively
mandated did not meet the overall goal of increasing agents on board by
not less than 1,000 in each fiscal year from 1997 through 2001. The
report notes that although the recruitment program yielded increases in
fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the increase of only 369 agents in fiscal
year 1999 caused the Service to experience a net hiring shortfall for
the three-year period ending September 30, 1999. The report included
one recommendation for the Department suggesting that the INS survey
why applicants are withdrawing from the hiring process at key junctures
late in that process.
GAO REPORTS ON INS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of No.
Date Report Title Rept. No. Recs Open
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/17/99 Border Patrol Hiring: GGD-00-39......... 1 1
Despite Recent
Initiatives, Fiscal Year
1999 Hiring Goal Was Not
Met
10/19/99 Immigration Benefits: GGD-00-25R........ ...... ......
Second Report Required
by the Haitian Refugee
Immigration Fairness Act
of 1998
07/30/99 Aviation: Issues RCED-99-219....... 0 0
Associated with the
Theft of Stock Used to
Create Airline Tickets
06/23/99 Welfare Reform: Public HEHS-99-102....... 0 0
Assistance Benefits
Provided to Recently
Naturalized Citizens
06/07/99 Crime Technology: Federal GGD-99-101........ 0 0
Assistance to State and
Local law Enforcement
05/10/99 Illegal Immigration: GGD-99-44......... 0 0
Status of Southwest
Border Strategy
Implementation
04/21/99 Immigration Benefits: GGD-99-92R........ 0 0
Applications for
Adjustment of Status
Under the Haitian
Refugee Immigration
Fairness Act of 1998
04/14/99 Acquisition Reform: NSIAD-99-93-R..... 0 0
Review of Selected Best-
Value Contracts
04/02/99 Illegal Aliens: GGD-99-33......... 2 1
Significant Obstacles to
Reducing Unauthorized
Alien Employment Exist
03/30/99 Drug Control: INS and GGD-99-31......... 4 4
Customs Can Do More to
Prevent Drug-Related
Employee Corruption
03/26/99 Visa Issuance: Issues NSIAD-99-67....... 0 0
Concerning the Religious
Worker Visa Program
03/24/99 INS Budget: Overhiring AIMD-99-129....... 0 0
and Decline in Revenues
Have Created Fiscal
Stress
12/31/98 Child Support AIMD-99-43R....... 0 0
Enforcement: Issues in
Establishing an Instant
Check System for Child
Support Orders
10/16/98 Criminal Aliens: INS' GGD-99-3.......... 0 0
Efforts to Remove
Imprisoned Aliens
Continue to Need
Improvement
09/30/98 Firearm Safety Locks: GGD-98-201........ 0 0
Federal Agency
Implementation of the
Presidential Directive
09/10/98 H-2A Agricultural HEHS-98-236R...... 0 0
Guestworker Program:
Experiences of
Individual Vidalia Onion
Growers
09/28/98 INS User Fee Revisions: GGD-98-197........ 1 1
INS Complied with
Guidance but Could Make
Improvement
09/03/98 Drug Control: Information GGD-98-188........ 0 0
on High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas
Program
07/22/98 Immigration Statistics: GGD-98-155........ 0 0
Guidance on Producing
Information on the U.S.
Resident Foreign-Born
06/30/98 Federal User Fees: Some GGD-98-161........ 0 0
Agencies Do Not Comply
with Review Requirements
06/09/98 Immigration Statistics: GGD-98-164........ 5 5
Information Gaps,
Quality Issues Limit
Utility of Federal Data
to Policymakers
06/09/98 Immigration Statistics: GGD-98-119........ 0 0
Status of the
Implementation of
National Academy of
Sciences'
Recommendations
05/28/98 Assessment of GGD-98-131R....... 0 0
Contractor's Review of
INS' Analysis of a
Random Sample of
Recently Naturalized
Aliens
03/31/98 Financial Audit: 1997 .................. ...... ......
Consolidated Financial
Statements of the United
States Government
01/19/98 Budget Issues: Inventory OGC-98-23......... 0 0
of Accounts with
Spending Authority and
Permanent
Appropriations, 1996
12/11/97 Illegal Immigration: GGD-98-21......... 1 1
Southwest Border
Strategy Results
Inconclusive; More
Evaluation Needed
12/01/97 H-2A Agricultural Worker HEHS-98-20........ 1 1
Certification Program
11/19/97 Illegal Aliens: Extent of HEHS-98-30........ 0 0
Welfare Benefits
Received on Behalf of
U.S. Citizen Children
11/05/97 Customs and Border GGD-98-20......... 0 0
Patrol: Resources Needed
for Reopening Rail Line
from Mexico-U.S. Border
into the United States
09/30/97 Customs Service: GGD-97-173........ 0 0
Information on Southwest
Border Drug Enforcement
Operations
09/30/97 Departments of Justice GGD-97-19R........ 0 0
and Treasury's Pre-
Seizure Planning and
Seized Business
Management
09/30/97 Federal Labor Relations: GGD-97-182R....... 0 0
Survey of Official Time
Used for Union
Activities
07/22/97 INS Management: Follow-up GGD-97-132........ 7 4
on Selected Problems
07/17/97 INS Employment GGD-97-136R....... 0 0
Verification Pilot
Project
07/15/97 Criminal Aliens: INS' T-GGD-97-154...... 6 4
Efforts to Identify and
Remove Imprisoned Aliens
Need to be Improved
06/30/97 Relocation Travel: GGD-97-119........ 0 0
Numbers and Costs
Reported by Federal
Organizations for Fiscal
Year 1991-Fiscal Year
1995
06/27/97 Subscriptions and News GGD-97-99......... 0 0
Clippings: Expenditures
and Related Information
Reported by Federal
Organizations
06/16/97 Internet and Electronic GGD-97-86......... 0 0
Dial-up Bulletin Boards:
Information Reported by
Federal Organizations
06/04/97 INS Criminal Record GGD-97-118R....... 0 0
Verification:
Information on Process
for Citizenship
Applicants
05/22/97 Hong Kong's Reversion to NSIAD-97-149...... 0 0
China: Effective
Monitoring Critical to
Assess U.S.
Nonproliferation Risks
05/20/97 Alien Applications: GGD-97-47......... 6 6
Processing Differences
Exist Among INS Field
Units
05/01/97 Multilateral NSIAD-97-42....... 0 0
Organizations: U.S.
Contributions to
International
Organizations for Fiscal
Year 1993-Fiscal Year
1995
04/11/97 U.S. Currency: Treasury's NSIAD-97-04....... 0 0
Plans to Study Genuine
and Counterfeit U.S.
Currency Abroad
03/10/97 Hispanic Employment Best GGD-97-46R........ 0 0
Practices
01/06/97 Foreign Physicians: HEHS-97-26........ 0 0
Exchange Visitor Program
Becoming Major Route to
Practicing in U.S.
Underserved Areas
10/21/96 Vietnamese Asylum NSIAD-97-12....... 0 0
Seekers: Refugee
Screening Procedures
Under the Comprehensive
Plan of Action
03/14/96 Border Patrol: Staffing GGD-96-65......... 0 0
and Enforcement
Activities
02/26/96 Federal Fugitives: More GGD-96-64......... 3 0
Timely Entry on National
wanted Person File is
Needed
12/11/95 INS' Efforts to Develop AIMD-96-26R....... 6 0
and Implement an
Information Technology
Investment Strategy
11/29/95 INS Border Crossing Cards GGD-96-25R........ 0 0
09/26/95 Illegal Immigration: INS PEMD-95-20........ 1 1
Overstay Estimation
Methods Need Improvement
09/18/95 Cuba: US Response to the NSIAD-95-211...... 0 0
1994 Cuban Migration
Crisis
08/21/95 Law Enforcement Support AIMD-95-147....... 7 0
Center: Name Based
Systems Limit Ability to
Identify Arrested Aliens
07/25/95 Illegal Aliens: National HEHS-95-133....... 0 0
Net Cost Estimates Vary
Widely
06/08/95 INS: Information on GGD-95-162FS...... 0 0
Aliens Applying for
Permanent Resident
Status
05/02/95 Federal Fugitive GGD-95-75......... 0 0
Apprehension: Agencies
Taking Action to Improve
Coordination and
Cooperation
03/10/95 Border Control: Revised T-GGD-95-92....... 0 0
Strategy is Showing Some
Positive Results
03/07/95 Information Integrity: T-AIMD-95-99...... 0 0
Using Technology to
Determine Eligibility to
Work and Receive
Benefits
02/08/95 INS: Update of Management T-GGD-95-82....... 0 0
Problems and Program
Issues
02/02/95 Welfare Reform: HEHS-95-58........ 0 0
Implication of Proposals
on Legal Immigrant's
Bene- fits
10/05/94 INS: Management Problems T-GGD-95-11....... 0 0
and Program Issues
11/28/94 Illegal Aliens: Assessing HEHS-95-22........ 0 0
Estimates of Final
Burden on California
12/29/94 Border Control: Revised GGD-95-30......... 0 0
Strategy is Showing Some
Positive Results
12/22/94 INS Fingerprinting of GGD-95-40......... 2 0
Aliens: Efforts to
Ensure Authenticity of
Aliens' Fingerprints
11/27/94 Equal Employment T-GGD-95-41....... 0 0
Opportunity: INS' Equal
Employment Opportunity
Program
07/07/94 INS Drug Task Force GGD-94-143........ 0 0
Activity: Agencies
Supportive of INS
Efforts
05/11/94 Nonimmigrant Visas: Use NSAID-94-147...... 0 0
of Visas by Alien
Artists, Entertainers,
and Athletes
04/12/94 INS User Fees: INS GGD-94-101........ 2 1
Working to Improve
Management of User Fee
Accounts
12/10/93 Border Management: Dual T-GGD-94-34....... 0 0
Management Structure at
Entry Ports Should End
10/05/93 INS' EEO Progress in DC/ GGD-94-10R........ 0 0
LA
09/29/93 Benefits for Illegal T-HRD-93-33....... 0 0
Aliens: Some Program
Costs Increasing, but
Total Cost Unknown
08/05/93 Illegal Aliens: Despite PEMD-93-25........ 6 2
Data Limitations,
Current Methods Provide
Better Population
Estimates
07/15/93 Assessing EEO Progress at GGD-93-54R........ 0 0
INS
06/30/93 Immigration Enforcement: T-GGD-93-39....... 0 0
Problems in Controlling
the Flow of Illegal
Aliens
06/30/93 Customs Service and INS: GGD-93-111........ 1 0
Dual Management
Structure for Border
Inspections Should be
Ended
06/16/93 INS Corrective Action GGD-93-46R........ 0 0
Against Special Agents
05/17/93 Information on Black GGD-93-44R........ 0 0
Employment at INS
04/26/93 Intercountry Adoption: NSIAD-93-83....... 6 0
Procedures are
Reasonable, but
Sometimes Inefficiently
Administered
03/30/93 Immigration Issues: T-GGD-93-18....... 0 0
Making Needed Policy and
Management Decisions on
Immigration Issues
10/26/92 Nonimmigrant Visas: NSIAD-93-6........ 0 0
Requirement Affecting
Artists, Entertainers,
and Athletes
08/05/92 Border Patrol: Southwest T-GGD-92-66....... 0 0
Border Enforcement
Affected by Mission
Expansion and Budget
06/25/92 Immigration Control: GGD-92-85......... 1 0
Immigration Policies
Affect INS Detention
Efforts
04/28/92 Immigration and the Labor PEMD-92-17........ 0 0
Market: Nonimmigrant
Alien Workers in the
United States
04/09/92 Refugees: US Processing T-NSIAD-92-25..... 0 0
of Haitian Asylum
Seekers
04/08/92 US Customs Service: T-GGD-92-29....... 0 0
Concerns About
Coordination and
Inspection Staffing on
the Southwest Border
04/03/92 IRCA-Related T-GGD-92-21....... 0 0
Discrimination: Actions
Have Been Taken to
Address IRCA-Related
Discrimination, But More
is Needed
01/23/92 Immigration Control: The GGD-92-20......... 0 0
Central Address File
Needs to be More
Accurate
01/10/92 Immigrant in Indiana: GGD-92-32FS....... 0 0
Northwest Indiana
Compared to Other Parts
of the State
11/27/91 U.S.-Mexico Trade: Survey NSIAD-92-56....... 0 0
of U.S. Border
Infrastructure Needs
09/23/91 Refugee-Related Issues in T-NSIAD-91-35..... 0 0
Turkey and the Soviet
Union
07/11/91 Soviet Refugees: NSIAD-91-245...... 0 0
Processing and
Admittance to the United
States has Improved
07/10/91 Efforts to Improve T-NSIAD-91-42..... 0 0
Reception of Foreign
Visitors at U.S.
Airports
06/24/91 Immigration Management: T-GGD-91-48....... 0 0
Actions Being Taken, But
Problems Re- main
05/16/91 U.S.-Mexico Trade: NSIAD-91-228...... 0 0
Concerns About the
Adequacy of the Border
04/24/91 Immigration Management: T-GGD-91-23....... 0 0
Strong Leadership and
Management Reforms
Needed to Address
Serious Problems
03/28/91 Border Patrol: Southwest GGD-91-72BR....... 0 0
Border Enforcement
Affected by Mission
Expansion and Budget
03/21/91 Refugee Assistance: U.S. NSIAD-91-137...... 0 0
Contributors for the
1980s
03/08/91 International Trade: NSIAD-91-6........ 0 0
Easing Foreign Visitors'
Arrivals at U.S.
Airports
01/24/91 Financial Management: INS AFMD-91-20........ 0 0
Lacks Accountability and
Controls Over its
Resources
01/23/91 Immigration Management: GGD-91-28......... 15 0
Strong Leadership and
Management Reforms
Needed to Address
Serious Problems
12/11/90 Drug Interdiction: GGD-91-10......... 0 0
Funding Continues to
Increase but Program
Effectiveness is Unknown
09/27/90 Information Management: IMTEC-90-75....... 3 0
Immigration and
Naturalization Service
Lacks Ready Access to
Essential Data
08/06/90 Immigration Services: INS GGD-90-98......... 0 0
Resources and Services
in the Miami Dis- trict
07/18/90 Foreign Visitor T-NSIAD-90-56..... 0 0
Facilitation
06/27/90 IRCA Anti-Discrimination T-GGD-90-51....... 0 0
Amendments of 1990
06/27/90 Federal Appropriation for T-HRD-90-43....... 0 0
State Legalization
Impact Assistance Grants
05/25/90 Criminal Aliens: Prison GGD-90-79......... 0 0
Deportation Hearings
Include Opportunities to
Contest Deportation
05/09/90 Soviet Refugees: NSIAD-90-158...... 1 0
Processing and
Admittance to the United
States
04/11/90 Refugee Program: The NSIAD-90-137...... 0 0
Orderly Departure from
Vietnam
03/30/90 Immigration Reform: T-GGD-90-31....... 0 0
Employer Sanctions and
the Question of
Discrimination
03/29/90 Immigration Reform: GGD-90-62......... 0 0
Employer Sanctions and
the Question of
Discrimination
-----------------
Total .................. 88 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO REVIEWS IN PROGRESS
GAO Draft Reports
U.S. Mexico Border: Better Planning, Coordination Needed to Handle
Growing Commercial Traffic (711420). Announcement Date: 11/5/98.
Ongoing GAO Reviews.
Software Change Control Process (511685). Announcement Date: 2/4/00
(entrance not yet held).
Use of the MD 600N Helicopter as a Patrol Aircraft by the San Diego
Border Patrol (1836421). Announcement Date: 2/1/00.
Haitian Refugee and Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (3rd review)
(183637). Announcement Date: 1/21/00.
INS' Processing of Aliens' Applications & Petitions for Immigration
Benefits (183640). Announcement Date: 12/3/99.
Enforcement of Legal Provisions Relating to Tax-Motivated
Expatriation (268910). Announcement Date: 12/6/99.
Federal Agencies' Training Programs (410506). Announcement Date:
11/19/99.
INS' Information Technology Practices (511176). Announcement Date:
11/10/99.
Efforts of Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands to Improve
Immigration and Customs Procedures (182082). Announcement Date: 9/21/
99.
H1-B Nonimmigrant Visa Program (205503). Announcement Date: 8/31/
99.
INS Fee Deposit Practices(183636). Announcement Date: 8/30/99.
Alien Smuggling (183630). Announcement Date: 5/13/99.
Extent to which Federal Funds and Other Federal Resources Were Used
to Support the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, Atlanta, and are planned
for Salt Lake City (240348). Announcement Date: 3/16/99.
Admissions of Aliens Who May Be Eligible to Be Granted Asylum
(183628). Announcement Date: 2/25/99.
Admissions of Aliens Who May Be Eligible to Be Granted Asylum
(183627). Announcement Date: 2/25/99.
NATURALIZATION BACKLOGS
Question. What is the current backlog of cases at the Vermont
Service Center? Please specifically state the number with an analysis
of the backlog by center.
Answer. A table of data \2\ listing the total volume of cases
currently pending at all of the service centers is attached. This table
also breaks out by service center the volume of cases currently pending
for the major benefit programs, including Applications to Adjust Status
(Form I-485), Immigrant Petitions for Alien Workers (Form I-140),
Petitions for Alien Relatives (Form I-130), Petitions for Non-immigrant
Workers (Form I-129), and Applications for Naturalization (Form N-400).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Performance Analysis System data through the end of March, the
most recent data available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the current backlog of cases at other service
centers?
Answer. Information on pending case volumes for all service centers
is contained in the attached data table.
Question. What are the average processing times at the Vermont
Service Center?
Answer. For applications and petitions that are processed to
completion at the service centers, the filing date of the oldest
pending application or petition is listed in the attached data table.
Naturalization applications are filed with the service centers but
processed to completion at the district offices after interviews. The
projected processing time for naturalization applications is listed by
district office in a separate table.
Question. What has been the growth of petitions filed with the INS
Service Centers in the past 7 years? Provide the number of petitions,
by type, by center, in each year.
Answer. The attached data table lists the volume of applications
and petitions received at the service centers in total and for the
major benefit programs for fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2000 to
date.
SERVICE CENTER WIDE GROWTH IN RECEIPTS--MARCH 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending as Oldest Fiscal Year
of March Application -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 or Petition 2000TD 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Servicewide:
Total Applications....... 2,337,507 ............. 1,901,775 3,795,701 3,457,507 3,299,213 2,845,555 2,298,766 2,278,110 2,224,300
I-485 (All).............. 334,513 ............. 164,304 201,917 127,134 120,370 38,592 29,498 24,215 60,016
I-140.................... 57,738 ............. 42,842 78,786 67,319 68,580 60,621 50,947 46,156 49,898
I-130.................... 389,762 ............. 217,895 370,535 568,936 612,961 544,047 507,465 564,793 636,576
I-129.................... 110,083 ............. 369,737 494,210 375,082 301,731 260,266 263,062 292,318 252,235
N-400.................... 622,914 ............. 199,315 724,989 594,568 629,773 442,608 1,308 2,849 10,635
California SC:
Total Applications....... 828,576 ............. 437,133 1,084,950 960,550 977,225 802,787 593,710 579,770 564,911
I-485 (All).............. 30,957 Dec. 1998.... 13,315 13,882 19,298 20,327 1 23 918 10,601
I-140.................... 26,416 Apr. 1999.... 10,227 22,190 14,370 16,208 14,074 12,206 11,935 14,521
I-130.................... 178,846 Jan. 1998.... 70,864 124,352 203,394 207,868 171,516 172,043 187,709 228,449
I-129.................... 36,159 Feb. 2000.... 82,298 112,752 73,165 62,348 60,737 62,394 67,285 48,879
N-400.................... 193,135 ............. 63,229 274,568 210,924 226,021 140,982 0 0 0
Nebraska SC:
Total Applications....... 543,957 ............. 517,243 847,494 762,908 645,098 556,772 546,537 536,794 491,885
I-485 (All).............. 189,650 Aug. 1998.... 83,053 87,271 21,761 13,790 0 4 879 11,572
I-140.................... 10,449 July 1999.... 7,407 13,283 11,457 13,262 13,550 14,307 13,087 11,831
I-130.................... 57,186 Jan. 1999.... 43,036 59,966 90,209 84,525 69,540 69,077 75,412 77,706
I-129.................... 16,488 Feb. 2000.... 56,815 89,783 70,274 62,277 59,462 80,334 87,441 76,241
N-400.................... 107,752 ............. 36,267 111,702 83,449 67,553 37,014 1,308 2,849 10,635
Texas SC:
Total Applications....... 344,208 ............. 428,918 821,665 704,461 684,109 569,044 485,439 431,519 485,716
I-485 (All).............. 39,936 Dec. 1998.... 37,979 59,370 42,647 45,213 25,109 17,502 10,612 13,941
I-140.................... 552 Jan. 2000.... 8,616 13,194 13,683 12,540 7,576 2,732 127 471
I-130.................... 65,721 Dec. 1997.... 43,752 80,594 116,739 139,612 108,936 125,269 119,461 141,202
I-129.................... 15,228 Feb. 2000.... 100,204 94,820 66,940 43,652 25,833 7,541 67 1,516
N-400.................... 127,674 ............. 40,342 135,533 92,365 124,978 107,875 0 0 0
Vermont SC:
Total Applications....... 620,766 ............. 518,481 1,041,592 1,029,588 992,781 916,952 673,080 730,027 681,788
I-485 (All).............. 73,970 Sep. 1998.... 29,957 41,394 43,428 41,040 13,482 11,969 11,806 23,902
I-140.................... 20,321 Sep. 1999.... 16,592 30,119 27,809 26,570 25,421 21,702 21,007 23,075
I-130.................... 88,009 Jan. 1999.... 60,243 105,623 158,594 180,956 194,055 141,076 182,211 189,219
I-129.................... 42,208 Feb. 2000.... 130,420 196,855 164,703 133,454 114,234 112,793 137,525 125,599
N-400.................... 194,353 ............. 59,477 203,186 207,830 211,221 156,737 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECTED PROCESSING TIME--MARCH 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-485s
---------------------------------------------------
Total for Average of
District Last 3 Last 3 Projected
Months Months Pending Processing
Completions Completions Time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Region:
Chicago................................................. 5,114 1,705 47,317 28
Dallas.................................................. 3,151 1,050 26,931 26
Denver.................................................. 1,470 490 8,400 17
El Paso................................................. 1,501 500 15,132 30
Helena.................................................. 232 77 1,369 18
Harlingen............................................... 1,114 371 12,288 33
Houston................................................. 1,580 527 43,857 83
Kansas.................................................. 1,904 635 3,547 6
Omaha................................................... 348 116 4,797 41
San Antonio............................................. 1,306 435 10,447 24
St. Paul................................................ 737 246 2,568 10
Eastern Region:
Atlanta................................................. 3,240 1,080 21,851 20
Baltimore............................................... 1,919 640 2,999 5
Boston.................................................. 6,512 2,171 14,458 7
Buffalo................................................. 910 303 1,272 4
Cleveland............................................... 877 292 4,344 15
Detroit................................................. 1,681 560 5,520 10
Miami................................................... 11,193 3,731 48,698 13
Newark.................................................. 5,083 1,694 26,028 15
New Orleans............................................. 1,569 523 8,793 17
New York City........................................... 12,110 4,037 86,280 21
Philadelphia............................................ 2,193 731 5,568 8
Portland, ME............................................ 321 107 264 2
San Juan................................................ 596 199 4,244 21
Washington, DC.......................................... 1,148 383 12,661 33
Western Region:
Anchorage............................................... 169 56 229 4
Hawaii.................................................. 645 215 1,099 5
Los Angeles............................................. 20,578 6,859 110,560 16
Phoenix................................................. 2,966 989 30,502 31
Portland, OR............................................ 1,859 620 4,773 8
Seattle................................................. 1,991 664 5,002 8
San Francisco........................................... 10,687 3,562 70,736 20
San Diego............................................... 2,913 971 26,884 28
---------------------------------------------------
Servicewide Total \1\................................. 137,916 45,972 1,003,931 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Servicewide totals include Service Center data.
PROJECTED PROCESSING TIME--MARCH 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-485 Comps for the Last 3 Mos I-485
REGION DISTRICT -------------------------------------------- Pending 3/
1/1/2000 2/1/2000 3/1/2000 Sum 1/2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COR................................... CHI.............. 1,509 1,800 1,805 5,114 47,317
COR................................... DAL.............. 960 976 1,215 3,151 26,931
COR................................... DEN.............. 412 437 621 1,470 8,400
COR................................... ELP.............. 298 520 683 1,501 15,132
COR................................... HEL.............. 58 72 102 232 1,369
COR................................... HLG.............. 404 413 297 1,114 12,288
COR................................... HOU.............. 554 461 565 1,580 43,857
COR................................... KAN.............. 576 544 784 1,904 3,547
COR................................... OMA.............. 87 136 125 348 4,797
COR................................... SNA.............. 592 351 363 1,306 10,447
COR................................... SPM.............. 287 233 217 737 2,568
EOR................................... ATL.............. 847 1,132 1,261 3,240 21,851
EOR................................... BAL.............. 523 664 732 1,919 2,999
EOR................................... BOS.............. 2,362 2,333 1,817 6,512 14,458
EOR................................... BUF.............. 257 343 310 910 1,272
EOR................................... CLE.............. 449 265 163 877 4,344
EOR................................... DET.............. 508 357 816 1,681 5,520
EOR................................... MIA.............. 2,283 3,946 4,964 11,193 48,698
EOR................................... NEW.............. 1,556 1,699 1,828 5,083 26,028
EOR................................... NOL.............. 229 761 579 1,569 8,793
EOR................................... NYC.............. 2,352 4,511 5,247 12,110 86,280
EOR................................... PHI.............. 818 690 685 2,193 5,568
EOR................................... POM.............. 50 169 102 321 264
EOR................................... SAJ.............. 114 165 317 596 4,244
EOR................................... WAS.............. 456 274 418 1,148 12,661
WOR................................... ANC.............. 89 62 18 169 229
WOR................................... HHW.............. 242 218 185 645 1,099
WOR................................... LOS.............. 6,228 7,459 6,891 20,578 110,560
WOR................................... PHO.............. 899 889 1,178 2,966 30,502
WOR................................... POO.............. 594 647 618 1,859 4,773
WOR................................... SEA.............. 725 640 626 1,991 5,002
WOR................................... SFR.............. 3,401 3,214 4,072 10,687 70,736
WOR................................... SND.............. 975 934 1,004 2,913 26,884
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... ................. ......... ......... 40,608 ......... 669,418
=========================================================================
I-485 Comps at SC
---------------------------------------------------------------
COW................................... ESC.............. 407 1,029 1,817 3,253
COW................................... NSC.............. 683 1,713 3,135 5,531
COW................................... SSC.............. 5,652 6,039 6,896 18,587
COW................................... WSC.............. 185 299 444 928
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................ ................. ......... ......... 12,292 .........
=========================================================================
Total........................... ................. ......... ......... 52,900 .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-485 PENDING AT SC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RDATE REGION DISTRICT Expr1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01-Mar-00........................ COW......... ESC......... 73,970
01-Mar-00........................ COW......... NSC......... 189,650
01-Mar-00........................ COW......... SSC......... 39,936
01-Mar-00........................ COW......... WSC......... 30,957
--------------------------------------
Subtotal................... ............ ............ 334,513
======================================
Total...................... ............ ............ 1,003,931
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-400s Projected Processing Time--March 2000
[In months]
Projected
Processing
District Time
Central Region:
Chicago....................................................... 18
Dallas........................................................ 12
Denver........................................................ 11
El Paso....................................................... 11
Helena........................................................ 8
Harlingen..................................................... 11
Houston....................................................... 21
Kansas........................................................ 9
Omaha......................................................... 20
San Antonio................................................... 8
St. Paul...................................................... 10
Eastern Region:
Atlanta....................................................... 13
Baltimore..................................................... 6
Boston........................................................ 10
Buffalo....................................................... 7
Cleveland..................................................... 18
Detroit....................................................... 16
Miami......................................................... 18
Newark........................................................ 12
New Orleans................................................... 14
New York City................................................. 11
Philadelphia.................................................. 12
Portland, ME.................................................. 20
San Juan...................................................... 9
Washington, DC................................................ 11
Western Region:
Anchorage..................................................... 13
Hawaii........................................................ 8
Los Angeles................................................... 10
Phoenix....................................................... 14
Portland, OR.................................................. 11
Seattle....................................................... 7
San Francisco................................................. 15
San Diego..................................................... 11
______
Servicewide Total \1\....................................... 12
\1\ Servicewide totals include Service Center data.
Note: Projected Processing Time: Projected processing times are computed
based on the current level of pending applications and the average level
of completions during the last 3 months. This measure may not correlate
to future waiting times actually experienced by applicants since
projected processing times are computed based on past completion levels,
and do not consider the effect of planned improvements on completions.
Projected processing times may vary significantly from month to month
and from the average waiting time.
PROJECTED PROCESSING TIME--MARCH 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-400 Comps for the Last 3 mos N-400
REGION DISTRICT -------------------------------------------- Pending 3/
1/1/2000 2/1/2000 3/1/2000 Sum 1/2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COR................................... CHI.............. 3,645 4,291 5,690 13,626 79,600
COR................................... DAL.............. 3,760 1,720 1,734 7,214 28,460
COR................................... DEN.............. 1,026 883 850 2,759 10,006
COR................................... ELP.............. 1,494 1,168 1,511 4,173 14,892
COR................................... HEL.............. 205 99 124 428 1,176
COR................................... HLG.............. 773 783 1,994 3,550 13,148
COR................................... HOU.............. 2,642 2,580 2,297 7,519 53,330
COR................................... KAN.............. 451 914 602 1,967 5,924
COR................................... OMA.............. 50 233 348 631 4,156
COR................................... SNA.............. 1,434 742 1,759 3,935 10,937
COR................................... SPM.............. 299 686 765 1,750 5,584
EOR................................... ATL.............. 1,974 2,344 2,630 6,948 29,119
EOR................................... BAL.............. 1,270 1,488 1,980 4,738 9,297
EOR................................... BOS.............. 3,538 3,844 1,930 9,312 30,332
EOR................................... BUF.............. 459 663 775 1,897 4,199
EOR................................... CLE.............. 383 372 476 1,231 7,217
EOR................................... DET.............. 955 1,280 528 2,763 14,837
EOR................................... MIA.............. 6,927 3,446 5,071 15,444 93,042
EOR................................... NEW.............. 4,330 5,076 6,540 15,946 65,702
EOR................................... NOL.............. 645 740 688 2,073 10,014
EOR................................... NYC.............. 20,512 17,782 18,000 56,294 201,873
EOR................................... PHI.............. 1,006 990 1,601 3,597 14,152
EOR................................... POM.............. 27 42 27 96 644
EOR................................... SAJ.............. 126 440 233 799 2,376
EOR................................... WAS.............. 1,092 1,347 1,766 4,205 15,278
WOR................................... ANC.............. 60 99 72 231 986
WOR................................... HHW.............. 663 419 310 1,392 3,801
WOR................................... LOS.............. 5,991 24,706 33,144 63,841 204,717
WOR................................... PHO.............. 1,799 2,072 2,141 6,012 28,061
WOR................................... POO.............. 676 701 609 1,986 6,967
WOR................................... SEA.............. 1,501 1,505 1,535 4,541 11,172
WOR................................... SFR.............. 8,939 9,534 11,888 30,361 149,868
WOR................................... SND.............. 2,390 2,435 2,888 7,713 29,152
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... ................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,160,019
=========================================================================
N-400 Comps for Last 3 Mos at SC
----------------------------------------------------------------
COW................................... ESC.............. 0 0 0 0
COW................................... NSC.............. 1 40 1 42
COW................................... SSC.............. 0 0 0 0
COW................................... WSC.............. 0 0 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... ................. ......... ......... ......... 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-400 PENDING AT SC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION DISTRICT 3/1/2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COW..................................... ESC................ 41
COW..................................... NSC................ 10,173
COW..................................... SSC................ 0
COW..................................... WSC................ 0
-------------------------------
Total............................. ................... 10,214
===============================
Total............................. ................... 10,214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Have you (INS) performed a systems analysis to identify
what operating and administrative procedures and equipment each office
needs?
Answer. From an information technology (IT) standpoint, INS has
conducted systems analyses of office automation requirements at each
site worldwide. Between 1995 and 1998, INS accomplished the Technology
Infrastructure Project (TIP). During this project we established state-
of-the-art office automation capabilities and network connectivity for
INS employees at over 800 INS locations worldwide. IT infrastructure
covers the gamut of IT capability from the personal computer on the
employee's desk through the servers, routers, local area network (LAN),
and the wide area network (WAN).
The TIP process consisted of close coordination with the
appropriate personnel at each site and completion of the following
steps:
--Initial Information Gathering.--A questionnaire was sent to each
site that collected information including the number of people
at the site, the number of floors the site covered, and the IT
equipment currently in use. The questionnaire also identified
user needs, network upgrades and any mission-critical system in
use.
--Pre-Site Survey.--The information provided in the questionnaire was
then given to a pre-site survey team that visited the site and
did an onsite physical security assessment and a
telecommunications assessment. The team also identified any
physical building issues, and remodeling and furniture
requirements. From this information, a site-specific
Implementation Plan was developed that included LAN and cable
plant design, facilities requirements, application
requirements, office automation requirements, a training plan,
and a post-deployment support plan.
--Acquisition & Logistics.--With the information provided in the
Implementation Plan, an Acquisition Plan was developed and
resulted in procurement of the equipment, communications, and
support services required for installation.
--Site Preparation and Modification.--Furniture and space
modifications were accomplished to include installation of
additional electric outlets, completion of environmental
control modifications, completion of structural or building
modifications for cable plant, ordering and installation of
locally controlled communications lines, and resolution of
security issues.
--Cable Plant Installation.--The cabling components were installed.
--Hardware and Software Integration.--Servers and workstations were
configured to site-specific requirements to include user IDs,
work groups, print queues, communications capabilities, and
windows configuration. The equipment was tested to ensure
component interoperability, software interoperability, and LAN/
remote access communication capability. In addition, a guide
was drafted for the local system administrator that provides
complete information on the equipment and system installed.
Additionally, all equipment was recorded in the INS Asset
Management Information System.
--Hardware and Software Installation.--Upon arrival onsite, the
installation team reviewed and tested the cable plant
installation, received shipments from the Integration and Test
facility, completed setup of the training facility, installed
and tested computer room components, upgraded equipment,
installed and tested workstations and printers, migrated or
rehosted office automation applications and text and data
files, updated the Implementation Plan and the inventory,
completed acceptance testing, and determined disposition of
excess equipment. Post-installation documentation was also
completed during this phase.
Upon completion of the TIP initiative, INS instituted a very
similar process for deployment of mission and business-related
applications used service-wide. We work closely with application
developers to identify the effect that deployment of the application
will have on the infrastructure. We test each application to assess the
impact it will have on workstations and servers, and the impact of the
additional traffic on the LAN and WAN. We also identify system upgrades
that will be required to support the application. At that point, we
begin coordination with the sites to which the application will be
deployed and follow a process very closely aligned with the TIP process
to accomplish deployment of the application.
And finally, in order to keep INS in step with the extraordinarily
dynamic information technology industry, we have instituted a
``refresh'' initiative that, once again, mirrors the TIP process. This
initiative focuses on upgrading the sites with the oldest
infrastructure so they can be fully integrated with the newer
technology being deployed not only by the program offices to support
newer applications, but also as part of the Modular program that
provides workstations and infrastructure support for the increasing INS
employee population.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATE
Question. What is the agency's plan to update and integrate the
technology throughout the agency? What is the time line for this plan?
Answer. INS recognizes the need to upgrade immediately and
eventually replace CLAIMS 3, the main case management system in use at
the four service centers for all but naturalization applications. The
Immigration Services Division (ISD) is finalizing a 3-step process to
upgrade and integrate its technology. This initiative also includes
analysis of office equipment requirements.
In the first phase of this process, ISD installed new file servers
at the service centers to improve and standardize the operation of
CLAIMS 3 at all four centers in August 1999. ISD is currently in the
process of upgrading these servers to ensure peek performance and
upgrading the CLAIMS 3 software.
In the second phase of this process, ISD has conducted an
infrastructure study of technology at the service centers. The purpose
of this study was to identify standard system configurations for the
four service centers, including cabling, servers, software, hardware,
and printer needs. This study was completed in mid-April 2000, and
identified approximately $11.5 million in replacement costs.
In the final phase of this process, ISD has begun to plan
development of a replacement case management system for deployment to
all service centers and district offices. This project is expected to
take 3 to 5 years to implement.
In addition to the initiative to upgrade and replace CLAIMS 3, INS
is near the end of its effort to deploy CLAIMS 4, the replacement case
management system. CLAIMS 4 tracks only naturalization applications,
and currently does not integrate this function with any other case
management system. INS began converting all offices to CLAIMS 4 in
fiscal year 1998. CLAIMS 4 has already been deployed to all four
service centers, and will be deployed to all district offices but the
Los Angeles District by the end of fiscal year 2000. ISD expects to
complete deployment of CLAIMS 4 to the Los Angeles District Office by
December 2000.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your
time.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. We appreciate your efforts.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., Tuesday, March 7, 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 2001
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg and Stevens.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. KENNARD, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY ANDREW FISHEL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Senator Gregg. I think we are all set to get started here,
and we welcome the Chairman of the FCC. It is always a pleasure
to have him before the committee.
I am going to forego opening statements and, Chairman, you
are welcome to say whatever you wish.
Mr. Kennard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As always,
it is a pleasure to appear before you and before this
committee. I very much appreciate this opportunity to present
for you today the FCC's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal.
I wanted to outline a summary of our budget estimates and
give you an update on the activities of the Commission,
particularly with regard to the implementation of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. I will also present you with a
clear picture of our accomplishments during the past year and
what we anticipate our agenda to be for the next year.
The last time I appeared before this committee, as you may
recall, I presented you with a blueprint for the FCC for the
21st century, and I also want to present you today with a
report card, if you will, on my efforts to implement that
blueprint.
But before I discuss those items in detail, I wanted to
take a moment and thank you and this subcommittee for the
support that you have given the FCC during my tenure as
Chairman. You, in particular, Mr. Chairman, have been very,
very supportive of our mission. You have a great understanding
of the role of the FCC in this changing telecommunications
environment and, frankly, the importance of the sector to our
economic growth. And so I wanted to emphasize how much we
appreciate your support of our agency.
We are very much involved in a transitional period in
telecommunications today. We are transitioning the agency from
an era of monopoly regulation to an era of competition. It has
been a very exciting undertaking, and we are well on our way to
making that transition.
I would like to briefly outline our funding needs for the
next fiscal year. We are not requesting funds for any
additional staff at the FCC. Our staffing levels have remained
constant throughout my tenure. We are requesting a 2001 budget
of $237,188,000. That includes FTEs to be funded from both the
direct appropriations and our auctions resources. That amount,
$237 million, represents a $27 million increase over the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation. That is a 13 percent increase. Most of
that is attributable to uncontrollable cost increases, and when
you break it down, most of the increase is attributable to
rent, salary, and increases for our information technologies
program.
Most of those funds will come from regulatory fees. The
total amount to be collected from regulatory fees would
increase from approximately $185 million in fiscal year 2000 to
$200 million in fiscal year 2001.
As you are aware, the FCC also has requested authorization
to use $5.8 million in excess regulatory fees from previous
years to support our fiscal year 2000 information technology
needs.
Now I would like to give you a brief update on the FCC's
activities and what is happening in the marketplace generally.
We have worked very, very hard during my tenure to implement
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act has played an
important role in helping us transition to a more competitive
marketplace. Congress gave us some very important tools to make
that transition.
On the fourth anniversary of the Act, in February of this
year, I presented a report on the telecommunications sector,
which I would like you to have. Basically, it surveys what is
happening in each of the areas of the telecom sector, and as
you will see in that report, all of the economic indicators are
way up. We are seeing tremendous growth in every sector of this
business. We have seen just in the last year to 18 months the
``.com'' explosion as Americans wake up to the power of the
Internet in their lives. And it is very interesting when you
look back at the period of time when the 1996 Act was being
debated and written in 1995. Another seminal event happened
that year, and that was the decision by the National Science
Foundation to allow commercial use of the Internet. And those
two events taken together--the passage of the Act and the
privatization, if you will, of the Internet--really is
responsible for this explosion in competition and technology.
We are now entering what I believe to be a very, very
exciting period as we move into the broad band Internet age, as
people want more and more high-speed access to the Internet.
When I woke up this morning, I was listening to WTOP radio,
and I heard an advertisement for high-speed Internet access,
and it was sort of interesting to me to hear terms that were so
arcane and inside our little world here in the Beltway like DSL
and T1 lines being advertised and entering the public lexicon.
And I think that that really shows how much change we have seen
just in the last 5 years or so.
The next challenge, of course, is to get to a point when
people are not talking about bandwidth per se; that is, that
when Americans have so much bandwidth in their lives that it
becomes just as commonplace as the dial tone or a 110-volt
electric outlet. And that is really our goal, to keep this
investment pouring into our networks, both wireless and
wireline, so that Americans have as much bandwidth as they
need, and at the same time, of course, making sure that those
networks are built out ubiquitously so that people in rural
areas and in inner-city areas get access. We also must ensure
that there is a safety-net, universal service, so no one is
left behind.
I am pleased to report that this year many of the
uncertainties surrounding the implementation of our Act has
settled down. The courts have settled most of the
jurisdictional challenges to our implementation of the Act, and
we are really moving into a period now where a lot of
investment is flowing. This year is going to be an exciting
year for wireless. The Internet will move to a wireless
platform this year as more and more people access the Internet
over little networked wireless devices like Palm Pilots. That
in my view will democratize the Internet and make it accessible
to more and more people at higher speeds. So that is going to
be exciting, but it also creates a great responsibility on our
agency to manage the spectrum so that there is sufficient
bandwidth available for those wireless devices.
I also wanted to give you today a report card on the
implementation of our strategic plan which I presented to you 1
year ago. This basically gives a status report on our progress
in meeting the challenges that we set out for ourselves in that
strategic plan.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, again, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to appear before
you today and give you this status report, and, again, thank
you for your continuing support of the agency and its mission.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William E. Kennard
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the CJSJ Subcommittee,
I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) fiscal year 2001 Budget.
Today I will provide you with a summary of our fiscal year 2001 Budget
Estimates, discuss the ongoing changes initiated by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, and present you with a clear picture of
our accomplishments during the past year, our agenda for the current
year, and outline plans for the future. At this time, I would also like
to announce that I am releasing today my Report Card on Implementation
of the Draft Strategic Plan--``A New FCC for the 21st Century.''
PARTNERSHIP FOR THE FUTURE
Before I discuss our budget and goals with specificity, I would
like to take a moment to thank this Subcommittee for its support during
my tenure as Chairman of the FCC. Because of your efforts and the
outstanding work of your staff, the FCC has been able to forge ahead
with its efforts to upgrade its facilities and improve its ability to
serve the public. I recognize that in the past you have supported
funding for the FCC that exceeds even the Administration's requests.
Your determination to provide sufficient funding demonstrates a special
commitment to America's future. Let me emphasize that I share this
commitment.
We stand together on the front step of the third millennium--ready
to venture up and swing open the door to our future. If the past is
prologue, this next century will see accelerating and phenomenal
change. Just as our ancestors living at the turn of the last century
could never have imagined zooming along a vast array of super concrete
byways and computer highways, we have not yet begun to imagine the
achievements of our descendants.
We all play a critical role in determining what new goals will
benefit our children and our children's children. Communications
technology is the engine of their century. It is the basis for fueling
the economy, encouraging invention and bringing the world closer
together. We all want our legacy to be one of investment in this
future. We all want to be remembered for giving the next generation an
edge in the future.
The Federal Communications Commission is poised to assume its role
as market facilitator in building the infrastructure of the future. Our
primary mission is to promote competition in communications, protect
consumers, and support access for every American to existing and
advanced communications services.
In five years, we expect the U.S. telecommunications markets to be
characterized predominately by vigorous competition that will greatly
reduce the need for direct regulation. The advent of Internet-based and
other new technology driven communications services will continue to
erode the traditional regulatory distinctions between different sectors
of the telecommunications industry.
Congress gave us the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and in doing
so, cemented a partnership for establishing a new pro-competitive,
deregulatory model for communications policy. Now it is time to
reassess our core policy functions, structure and processes, and fund
the changes that will shape our future. New competitors and
technological innovation currently are transforming telecommunications
markets. History has shown that markets that have been highly
monopolistic often do not naturally become fully competitive. History
also has shown that domestic markets that have been protected from
foreign competition do not naturally become open to global competition.
As I said, the past is prologue. Nevertheless, we can always alter
the remainder of any story and create our own future. We must work
together to promote competition, open markets, and increase
technological innovation. We must continue to protect and empower
consumers as they navigate the new world of telecommunications.
Together we can achieve the twin goals of the 1996 Act: a fully
competitive marketplace and access for every American to current and
future advanced communications services.
Pursuing these strategic objectives will require the identification
of clear goals and the continued execution of my Draft Strategic Plan,
``A New FCC for the 21st Century.'' As we accomplish our transition
goals, we will set the stage for a competitive environment in which
communications markets look and function like other competitive
industries. We turn to you for your support again this year to help us
continue to transform our agency, adapt to new and emerging
technologies, and ensure that future generations will benefit equally
from these changes.
AN AFFORDABLE FUTURE: THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The FCC as we know it today will be very different both in
structure and mission as we evolve to meet the challenges of the
future. Increased automation and efficiency will enable the FCC to
streamline its licensing activities, accelerate the decision making
process, and allow the public faster and easier access to information.
The FCC will be a ``one-stop, digital shop'' where form filing and
document-location are easy and instantaneous. The FCC will continue
consolidation along functional lines so that its structure is more
consistent with convergence.
In order to follow through on this agenda, the FCC will require a
fiscal year 2001 budget of $237,188,000 and a staff ceiling of 1,975
full-time equivalent (FTEs). This includes FTEs to be funded from
appropriations and auctions resources. These numbers reflect a total
increase of $27,188,000 or approximately 13 percent over the fiscal
year 2000 Appropriation. Uncontrollable cost increases to fund proposed
government-wide pay raises, rent increases and other inflationary
increases constitute 47 percent of the total requested increase in
funds. Specifically, our request includes $6.8 million for mandatory
salary and benefit increases, $5.1 million for increases Rent and
Operating Fees, and $.9 million for Consumer Price Index adjustments in
contract services.
Programmatic increases to accomplish the Commission's comprehensive
information technology strategic plan initiatives comprise the
remaining portion of the requested funds for fiscal year 2001. This
amounts to $14.4 million for information technology (IT) enhancements.
Since the automation enhancements will directly benefit the industry
served by the Commission, this increase should be paid for by an
increase in regulatory fees. Approximately 80 percent of the requested
IT funding increase will be used for maintenance and life cycle
replacement of our existing systems. The remaining 20 percent or $3
million will be used to promote competition through better tracking of
consumer issues and complaints and better manage the use of the
nation's airwaves in the public interest. Without adequate automation
funding, the Commission will be unable to carry out its basic functions
of awarding licenses to applicants for communications services,
overseeing the implementation of new services for the public, and
reviewing and updating existing rules and regulations. In view of the
importance of these services to the economy of the United States, this
investment in technology is critical.
The total amount to be collected from regulatory fees would
increase from $185,754,000 in fiscal year 2000 to $200,146,000 in
fiscal year 2001. As you are aware, the FCC also has requested
authorization to use $5.8 million in excess regulatory fees from
previous years to support our fiscal year 2000 IT needs.
PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS BUILD A SUCCESSFUL FUTURE
The telecommunications industry in the United States is, to date, a
great success story. We have worked hard to implement the 1996 Act and
effectuate the changes necessitated by a continually evolving
marketplace. We have promoted competition across converging
technologies and throughout the telecommunications marketplace.
When I began my tenure as Chairman, we had to finish writing new
rules to comply with the 1996 Act and the Supreme Court still had to
pass on major sections of the law. Reports of the 1996 Act's premature
death were rampant. Persistence paid off. We worked together to
properly implement the 1996 Act, and with your support, we managed to
make the telecommunications marketplace more viable and better equipped
to face the future.
As a result, the world is not the same as it was in 1996. The
telecommunications industry has grown since then, creating 230,000 new
jobs and generating $57 billion more revenues. Revenues in
communications services, which include all telephone services, radio,
cable and broadcast television, and certain other services, have grown
by $7 billion from 1996-1998, a growth of 17 percent in real terms.
That figure does not include the rapid growth in sales of
communications equipment--telephone headsets, central office switching
equipment, etc.--where revenues have grown $26 billion, 24 percent,
between 1997 and 1999. With the growth in output, employment in the
communications equipment and services industries has grown by $.2
million during the past four years.
During the past year, the FCC's staff has strived to implement
common sense rules and programs to enhance the industry's growth, and
defend those rules already in place. From wireless auctions to
broadcasting and international, our staff has handled more applications
and more public participation in telecommunications issues than ever
before. Our aggressive implementation of the 1996 Act is generating new
classes of competitors, new industries and lower prices.
Making a More Competitive Environment
Our most important work has been in realizing the goals of the 1996
Act to achieve competition and universal access to new services. To
that end, we adopted rules and initiated rulemakings to eliminate
barriers to entry in domestic telecommunications markets. The FCC
implemented the local competition provisions of the 1996 Act,
including: (1) revised unbundling rules in response to the Supreme
Court remand in Iowa Utilities Board; (2) strengthened collocation
rules; and (3) pricing flexibility which also included a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on whether competitive local exchange carrier
access rates should be regulated. We also expect to complete action on
two Access Reform Proceedings during the second quarter of this year.
The FCC approved Bell Atlantic's application under section 271 of
the 1996 Act to provide long distance service in New York after
determining that New York's local service markets are open to
competition. During the past month, the FCC negotiated a consent decree
to address Bell Atlantic's problems processing its competitors' orders.
This enforcement action promotes local competition by ensuring that
consumers will have additional choices and lower rates through expanded
local competition.
We also initiated proceedings to gather information on (1) the
status of deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities; and
(2) the deployment of broadband facilities and the development of local
competition. The FCC's staff forged ahead with determined speed to
complete rulemakings on advanced services in the areas of loops, LATAs,
DSL resale, and line sharing.
Benefits to consumers in the long distance and local phone markets
are an important achievement and priority. Domestic long-distance rates
dropped nearly 56 percent in real terms since 1984, saving consumers
about $200 billion. Some companies are offering services for as low as
five cents per minute.
On the international front, we are less than two years into the
implementation of the WTO Agreement and the FCC's August 1997
Benchmarks Order and we have already started to see dramatic results.
These policies have increased liberalization, privatization, and
competition, which have led to significantly lower international
accounting rates. In turn, that has led to lower international calling
rates. In 1996, the year just prior to Benchmarks and the WTO, the
average price of an international long distance call originating from
the United States was 74 cents per minute. By 1998, it fell by 25
percent to 55 cents per minute, and finally to the current average of
less than 55 cents per minute. By the time that Benchmarks is fully
implemented in 2003, we expect to see much deeper reductions in
international calling rates. Moreover, prices on competitive routes
have fallen even more dramatically. For example, rates on the U.S.-U.K.
route are as low as 10 cents per minute.
Sometimes success is measured not so much by what we do, as what we
decide not to do. The FCC's ``hands-off'' policy toward the Internet
has helped fuel tremendous growth in this industry. Over 40 percent of
American households have Internet access. In 1998, the U.S. Internet
economy was a $633 billion market, accounting for nearly 8 percent of
the nation's economy and 4.8 million jobs. Electronic commerce, which
will be 90 percent business-to-business, is projected to be a trillion-
dollar activity in the next three to five years.
Accessible Services for All Americans
We want everyone to have a piece of the Internet's potential, which
is why we have established a framework and funding mechanism for
ensuring that all of our country's schools and libraries are connected
and that rural health care has access to information technology. We
also have worked to ensure that those individuals living on Native
American lands will likewise reap the benefits of this new technology.
When the FCC's staff was not busy passing and implementing rules
that would enhance the delivery of telecommunications services to the
public or upgrading our systems and eliminating backlogs, we were
working with Congress to study cutting edge issues like rural broadband
rollout. We participated with rural Senators in two special hearings,
here in Washington and in North Dakota, to study rural broadband
rollout technologies and encourage their implementation throughout the
United States.
We also convened the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced
Telecommunications Services (Joint Conference) on October 8, 1999, to
further the vision of section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. Patterned on a resolution by the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the Joint Conference joins
federal and state forces to encourage the deployment of advanced
telecommunications services to all Americans.
Safeguarding the Integrity of the Auctions Process
One of our most important accomplishments during the past year is
the judicial recognition of the integrity of the auctions process in
the NextWave case. The Second Circuit has demonstrated that the
application of common sense--the very same common sense displayed by
this Subcommittee and the Senate Budget Committee--ensures that the
auctions process will be a workable method for licensing the spectrum
in the future.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the Second Circuit's
holding in this case. Auctions will play an especially critical role in
ensuring that sufficient spectrum is available to meet the needs of the
growing digital economy. We have witnessed an explosion of
telecommunications services since auctions began. In 1993, there were
15 million wireless phones in America. Today, there are 80 million. We
have seen subscribership increase four-fold and the average wireless
bill drop by 40 percent during this period. Moreover, wireless is
taking over parts of the Internet. Already we are able to use portable
devices like laptops and Palm Pilots to accomplish tasks that once
required us to remain hooked to a hard line tether. Wireless represents
mobility and access for new groups of people.
Over the past six years we have completed 24 auctions with over
1,800 qualified bidders participating. Most of these bidders were
qualified and worked hard to bring service to the public.
Unfortunately, there are those who tried to obtain the spectrum and
then not pay a fair price for it. If we want to build upon our past
auctions successes; we have to ensure that the system is fair and
predictable. That is why I support using the legislative process to
prevent future abuses of the auctions system. I commend this
Subcommittee for its past efforts in this regard and I respectfully
request that you again consider language that would prevent bankrupt
licenses from using the bankruptcy court to shirk their obligations to
the American taxpayer.
Addressing the Influx of Transactions
The increasing number of licensees and changing market forces have
dramatically increased the number of transfer/assignment applications
processed at the Commission. Some bureaus have experienced extreme
growth in the number of applications processed during the past four
years and most of the bureaus saw a significant increase in the number
of applications processed. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
approved 23,889 license transfers in 1996. In 1999, this number jumped
to 40,879. The Mass Media Bureau's Audio Division processed 3,869
license transfer applications in 1996 and 4,951 in 1999. In the last
year prior to passage of the 1996 Act, Audio Services only processed
1,866 transfer and assignments.
Most of these transfers have been processed quickly and
efficiently, with little fanfare. Recently, the FCC has been faced with
the challenge of how to facilitate the review of major transactions
while ensuring that the public interest is met in an era of increasing
consolidation and convergence. Some have been more complex and
deserving of a hard look to protect the interests of the American
consumer--SBC/Ameritech, MCI/Worldcom, Airtouch/Vodafone, Direct TV/
Primestar--all of these mergers consumed Commission resources, but were
worth the careful study. In the end, our job is to protect the consumer
and under the 1996 Act that you passed, promote competition. We would
be remiss in our duty to you and the American public if we did not
expend the time and effort that it takes to ensure that these mergers
comply with our statutes and rules.
Responding to congressional calls for improving the system for
handling mergers, I directed FCC General Counsel Christopher Wright to
assess the Commission's merger review process, and hire appropriate
staff for addressing concerns raised by the crush of applications and
their growing complexity. The result is a Transactions Team, which has
already initiated the process for improving the way that we handle
mergers. The Transaction Team has moved fast to address the concerns of
the public, licensees and Members of the House and Senate. Already, the
Transactions Team has identified areas of concern and moved to find
workable policy solutions. They are working to ensure that our merger
review process is transparent, efficient and predictable. They have
established a web page and held a public forum on March 1, 2000.
Improving licensing processing--whether for transfers and
assignments or applications for service--has been a key ingredient of
our work during the past year. We are nearing completion on the
implementation of a Universal Licensing System that provides
streamlined electronic filing capabilities for most wireless services.
Now potential licensees can obtain their applications and a wide range
of other forms over the Internet, and file them back within minutes.
Electronic filing capabilities also are available in the other
bureaus as well: Common Carrier, International, and Mass Media. All
routine common carrier Local Access Transport Area modifications are
now immediately placed on public notice and are accessible
electronically through the Commission's Digital Index. We also
implemented an electronic tariff filing system that permits incumbent
ILECs to submit federal tariffs and associated documents via the
Internet.
Meeting Daily Challenges with Innovative Solutions
The need for a fast response to increased use of telecommunications
services means that the FCC must find new and innovative solutions to a
broad range of problems. For instance, just last week, the Commission
released new rules to confront the issue of the rapid telephone number
consumption by allocating telephone numbers in a more efficient,
predictable and orderly fashion. Competition in telecommunications
markets is partially dependent upon fair and impartial access by all
telecommunications carriers to telephone numbers. After careful study,
we adopted new policies to reduce the need for new area codes, avoiding
the inconvenience, costs and confusion associated with changes in area
codes for consumers and businesses.
While our work during the past year is too voluminous to print here
in detail, I would like to highlight a few special projects. In the
past year, the FCC has:
--Technology Advisory Council.--Established as a means by which a
diverse array of recognized technical experts selected from a
variety of interests such as industry, academia, government,
citizens groups, etc. can provide advice to the FCC on
innovation in the communications industry.
--Public Safety.--National Coordinating Committee, CALEA, and E911:
ensured that our public safety and law enforcement bodies had
the tools necessary to ensure our safety throughout the
country.
--Assistance to other Nations.--Set out in great detail the way our
country's telecommunications system is regulated and made this
available to other countries that are in the process of
establishing independent telecommunications systems.
--Helped Disabled Americans.--Adopted rules to ensure access for
persons with disabilities under Section 255, and increased
access to the communications network by the 54 million
Americans with disabilities.
--Restructuring of FCC.--Redesigned the Commission to establish two
new ``one-stop-shopping'' bureaus--Enforcement and Consumer
Information Bureaus--rather than having their responsibilities
spread throughout the Commission.
--Y2K.--With the determined coordination of Commissioner Michael K.
Powell, the FCC assisted the rest of the country in ringing in
the new millennium free of computer glitches and ready to
correct any that did occur.
BACK TO THE FUTURE
We have worked hard in the past year to bring the Commission into
the present, and our pace will not slacken during the current year. I
am releasing today a Report on the Implementation of the Draft
Strategic Plan that we submitted to Congress in August 1999. My goals
were to create a model agency for the digital age, promote competition
in all communications markets, promote opportunities for all Americans
to benefit from the communications revolution, and manage the
electromagnetic spectrum in the public interest. Since introducing the
plan, we have met with a wide range of interested parties to
effectively gauge the response to our goals. We spoke with experts from
academia, consumers, industry representatives, state and local
government representatives and many of your staffs to discuss the
future and our mutual goals. My first priority in the coming year is to
continue keeping the promises outlined in the Strategic Plan.
Be assured that we will continue to move toward a digital agency--a
user-friendly and electronic environment where consumers and licensees
alike feel comfortable communicating directly with the agency via
online services or old-fashioned phone calls. This goal is our first
one in our Implementation Report Card, and I know that success in this
area is a certain sign that we are using our funding wisely and
appropriately.
Our aspirations for the future do not end there, because we are,
after all, an agency dedicated to serving the public in a variety of
ways. We have a wide range of futuristic goals in our Report Card, and
I intend to work hard to follow through on the report's promises. Let
me plot out what I call the ABC's of our current goals for the year.
First, ``access.'' The E-Rate program is bringing its second
successful year to a close, and now provides connectivity for one
million public school classrooms. This program is a down payment on our
children's futures, and on the skills needed to keep our high-tech
economy going. One of my highest priorities is to funding E-rate
program to wire the nation's rural and urban schools and libraries to
the Internet. I want to continue promoting access to the digital tools
and services for the 54 million Americans with disabilities [video
description, TTY Access, TRS]. This year, the Commission adopted EO
rules to help shatter glass ceilings and pave the way for the
employment of more women and minorities at radio and television
stations. The Commission also has issued a Notice of Inquiry on the
public interest obligations of digital television licensees. We hope
that this Notice will initiate a national dialogue on how America's
broadcasters can best serve the public in the transition to digital
television.
Second, ``broadband rollout.'' The Commission will continue its
active role in speeding the delivery of high-speed Internet access to
every business and home in America. We will take all necessary steps to
keep the nation's broadband infrastructure open to competition. We will
track the deployment of broadband in the marketplace to maximize the
use of this new technology. We will auction new spectrum to bring
innovative services to the marketplace and the wireless web to
consumers.
As part of the broadband rollout, The 706 Joint Conference is
holding six field hearings in coming months to gather information on
the status of deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to
all Americans. These field hearings will focus on two goals in
particular. First, the Joint Conference will seek information on to
what extent data is available at the state level on the status of
deployment of advanced services. Second, the Joint Conference will seek
examples of ``best practices'' of successful deployment in communities.
Some communities have found creative ways to bring high speed Internet
access to areas that were previously underserved. For example, a
community may speed deployment by bringing many potential users of
advanced services together, thereby aggregating demand to increase
their buying power. A compilation of creative efforts, or best
practices, will provide guidance to communities in other states to
speed deployment of advanced services.
We have set up Federal-State Joint Conference field hearings in a
variety of locations: Anchorage Alaska on April 12, 2000; South Sioux
City, Nebraska on April 19, 2000; Lowell, Massachusetts on May 22,
2000; Miami, Florida on June 9, 2000; and Cheyenne, Wyoming on June 23,
2000. When I think about these locations, I cannot somehow think about
the convergence of the past, present and future of our country. It is
somehow fitting that Lowell, Massachusetts, which saw the advent of the
industrial revolution, will host a field hearing to discuss the future
of telecommunications technology.
Finally, let me address the ``C'' in my ABC's, ``competition.''
This Subcommittee has my commitment to continue working toward full and
open competition. I will encourage the protection of consumers by
giving them the information they need to navigate an increasingly
complex telecommunications marketplace. I personally will review the
findings of the Transaction Team to ensure that all mergers now pending
and filed in the future will receive fast, efficient and flexible
handling. We will make DTV compatible with the nation's cable networks.
We will reform access charges to make more equitable phone billing and
pricing practices. We will promote competition in local and long-
distance markets that will give consumers lower rates, better services,
and more choices.
CONCLUSION
Together, and with full funding of our request, we will work toward
implementing the Strategic Plan--``A New FCC for the 21st Century'' to
create a faster, flatter, more functional agency in an era of
convergence. I appreciate your support for making this plan a reality,
and also for supporting our request to use excess regulatory fees from
past years to meet this year's IT needs. It is time to transform the
FCC into a paperless, electronic agency. More importantly, it is time
to ensure that the future includes providing access to communications
services to all Americans. I believe that we share the same concerns
and goals about the future. Together, we can ensure that our third
millennium telecommunications infrastructure is a proud legacy.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
testimony and appreciate the work you have been doing and your
Commission has been doing in this really incredibly important
area for America's future. You represent the cutting edge of
the prosperity of our Nation, obviously, and our capacity to be
successful as a Nation is in large part going to be defined by
our success in technologies which you oversee. I strongly
support your efforts to minimize regulation of the Internet. I
think that has been a very appropriate approach.
There are, however, some issues that I just want to take up
with you. First is your resource situation. Do you have enough
resources to do the job at the FCC? Is your budget request that
you sent to us adequate? Did OMB [Office of Management and
Budget] reduce it in any way that you felt was inappropriate?
And if so, tell us.
EXCESS REGULATORY FEES
Mr. Kennard. Well, from where I sit, we can always use more
resources. Our major challenge right now--and this is something
that you have been quite supportive of--is our efforts to get
funds released from excess regulatory fees that we have
collected. As you are probably aware, in prior years we
collected about $5.8 million in excess regulatory fees, which
we were anticipating being able to use for this fiscal year.
And, of course, you were very supportive in allowing us to
reprogram those fees, but we have some discussions ongoing with
the House to see if we can get those funds released.
Looking forward to 2001, we believe that the amount of
money that we are requesting will be appropriate. It will be a
stretch, particularly given the anticipated filing of a number
of applications by the Bell companies to get into long distance
this coming year, and also with increased numbers of merger
applications. But I believe we can make do.
TECHNICAL STAFFING LEVELS
Senator Gregg. How about staffing? Are you finding it
difficult to maintain technical staff, as some of our other
agencies are? Or are you not finding that to be a problem as a
result of the pay levels?
Mr. Kennard. It is very difficult. It is particularly
difficult for the FCC because some years ago we were able to
attract lawyers and economists and engineers who could easily
double or triple their salaries by going into the private
sector. Now they are getting offers to go into the private
sector and not just double or triple their salaries. They are
being offered stock options to make them multimillionaires. And
it is very difficult to compete in that economy.
Senator Gregg. Is there anything this committee can do to
assist you in that area?
Mr. Kennard. Well, we have certainly watched with great
interest the efforts of Chairman Levitt of the SEC to try to
address this problem, and I would be very pleased to have a
discussion with you about how we might stem the outflow of
staff into the private sector by being able to pay them more.
Senator Gregg. Well, we are interested in pursuing those
avenues. I feel strongly that our Federal regulatory agencies,
which are technically oriented such as yours, need to have
staff that are technically capable. If you have staff that
don't understand the technologies that they are supposed to
regulate, you end up with a problem.
Mr. Kennard. We would be delighted to have some further
discussions with you on that.
Senator Gregg. We sure would be open to that.
C-BLOCK LICENSES
There are a number of issues which this committee has paid
some attention to, one of which is the spectrum auction issue
and the C-block specifically. Can you give us a brief summary
of where that stands?
Mr. Kennard. Certainly. We are still involved in attempting
to allow the FCC to re-auction the C-block licenses that are
currently in the bankruptcy court. We are awaiting a decision
by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which hopefully will
allow us to proceed with a re-auction of the C-block licenses
in the summer.
Again, I want to tell you how much we appreciate the
support that you have given us in this effort, the opportunity
to appear before you in the Senate Finance Committee a few
months ago, and also the work of your staff in supporting our
efforts to be able to reclaim these licenses that rightfully
belong to the American public and have them re-auctioned. It is
very, very important.
Senator Gregg. Just to put this in perspective, the company
that originally won this bid agreed to pay $4.3 billion. Is
that correct?
Mr. Kennard. Yes.
Senator Gregg. And that company then paid approximately
$500 million as a down payment?
Mr. Kennard. That is correct.
Senator Gregg. And then it filed bankruptcy.
Mr. Kennard. Yes.
Senator Gregg. And in the bankruptcy, its creditors and as
part of its reorganization plan, it alleged it should own the
spectrum which it had won with the bid without further funds
being paid.
Mr. Kennard. That is correct.
Senator Gregg. So instead of $4.3 billion, the attempt was
to buy the spectrum for $500 million.
Mr. Kennard. An additional $500 million, right. They were
seeking to have the bankruptcy court write down--in effect,
write down their debt to a total of about $1 billion.
Senator Gregg. Then the bankruptcy court, on appeal, it was
determined that the FCC and the American taxpayer owned the
spectrum, and that it was not an asset of the bankruptcy court
or of the bankruptcy estate, correct?
Mr. Kennard. That is right.
Senator Gregg. So now it is back in your hands under the
decision of--was it the Second Circuit?
Mr. Kennard. Yes. Actually, the bankruptcy court. The
determination of the bankruptcy court was appealed to the
Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit affirmed the FCC's
regulatory authority to reclaim the licenses after the default.
Senator Gregg. Which is reasonably logical since it is the
taxpayers' asset, and I don't believe any private citizen has
the right to take the assets of the Government.
Mr. Kennard. Exactly right.
Senator Gregg. I mean, that is almost black letter law, as
I recall. You can't have adverse possession against the
Government or bankruptcy possession against the Government.
So presently the taxpayers own it, and as I understand it,
there has been a request to stay the auction again by the
original bankrupt estate, correct?
Mr. Kennard. Yes, that is right. The company called
NextWave, which is what I call the bankrupt licensee, is still
fighting our efforts to reclaim the licenses in the Second
Circuit. They have gone back to the bankruptcy court where they
have been able to get favorable rulings, and the bankruptcy
judge stayed our July auction.
We went to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit allowed
us to go forward and prepare for the July auction pending the
outcome of a Writ of Mandamus, which is still pending before
the Second Circuit. We hope to get a ruling soon.
But it is really important that we go ahead with this July
auction, not just because of what is happening just in the C-
block and the ability to reclaim for the American taxpayer the
value of those licenses but, more importantly, for the auction
process. It is very important that when people come before the
FCC and promise to pay for a license that belongs to the
Federal Government that they pay. Otherwise, that license
should be reclaimed. It belongs to the American public.
Senator Gregg. Now, I understand that the bankrupt estate,
NextWave, has offered, at least publicly through advertising,
to pay the full $4.3 billion now. However, if it goes back to
auction, would you presume that $4.3 billion would be the price
that the American taxpayers would get for this?
Mr. Kennard. I expect that the American taxpayers would get
significantly more than that in a re-auction, and I base that
on a couple of things.
One, over the pending months of this bankruptcy proceeding,
another company known as NexTel, not to be confused with
NextWave, was prepared to make a hostile tender offer for
NextWave, to buy its principal asset, which is the licenses,
and was prepared to pay $8 billion for those licenses.
We have also seen some reports out of Wall Street from
analysts who follow the wireless industry that have estimated
that in a re-auction these licenses would be sold for anywhere
from $6 to $10 billion. So we think that the money, which would
be a windfall to NextWave if they were able to retain these
licenses, rightfully belongs to the American public.
Senator Gregg. So we are talking here about somewhere
between $2 and $5 billion that the taxpayer would lose if
NextWave was allowed to come in and pay its original price,
which it was unwilling to pay to begin with and went into
bankruptcy court to try to reduce to $1 billion.
Mr. Kennard. That is correct.
Senator Gregg. So we are not talking small change.
Mr. Kennard. No. This is real money.
Senator Gregg. This is real money and significant amounts
of dollars, obviously. So when we see an ad in the newspaper
that says that they are willing to pay $4.3 billion and that
that is great generosity on their part, what they are really
saying is they are willing to come in and pay $4.3 billion,
turn it around and make maybe a $4 billion profit.
Mr. Kennard. That is correct.
Senator Gregg. All at the expense of the taxpayer.
Mr. Kennard. Correct.
SPECTRUM CAP
Senator Gregg. Now, in the auctioning of spectrum, there is
this issue of designated entities and the spectrum cap. Do you
anticipate that the FCC will take any action to grant waivers
in the area of the cap or spectrum capacity?
Mr. Kennard. It is hard for me to say at this point. We
have a number of petitions before us seeking waivers of the
spectrum cap and also waiver of the designated entity rule, and
I really haven't decided yet. I want to study the record and
talk to a number of people both inside and outside the agency
before I make a determination.
Senator Gregg. Wouldn't it increase considerably the number
of bidders participating if neither of those limitations were
in place?
Mr. Kennard. That is probably true, but we would have to
balance that against the statutory mandate in Section 309(j) of
the Act which gives us auction authority to ensure that there
are opportunities for participation by small businesses. So it
is going to be a balancing act that we are going to have to
look at.
Senator Gregg. When we are talking these dollars, we are
really not talking small business, are we?
Mr. Kennard. No, and that is going to be one of the
considerations, clearly.
Senator Gregg. You were talking about----
Mr. Kennard. I think we are talking smaller versus larger.
I think that is where it breaks out.
Senator Gregg. You know, when you get over $1 billion, I am
not sure--small business is something in New Hampshire. When
you are over $1 billion, you are not dealing with many
companies in New Hampshire.
Mr. Kennard. Well, we hope to have some bidders from New
Hampshire as well, Mr. Chairman.
LOW-POWER FM RADIO SERVICE
Senator Gregg. If you do, it will be interesting.
The low-power license issue--National Public Radio, I see,
has put in a complaint about this question, which is
interesting. As you know, I personally have some concerns about
this. Maybe you could tell us your thoughts on this.
Mr. Kennard. Certainly. Well, Senator, first of all, the
goal of having a low-power FM radio service is to meet the
tremendous demand by nonprofit organizations to access the
airwaves and speak to their communities, and there has been a
huge outpouring of interest in this rulemaking from churches,
from schools, from universities, from governments.
We believe that a low-power FM radio service can be
accommodated without causing harmful interference, and we have
watched the debate closely here in the Congress and, of course,
before the FCC, and, frankly, there has been a lot of
misinformation that is swirling around this issue--
misinformation by incumbent broadcasters who are creating all
sorts of horror stories that low-power FM is going to create
lots of destructive interference.
We at the FCC are charged by you with policing the airwaves
against interference, and during my tenure as Chairman, I have
shut down more pirate radio stations operating illegally than
any Chairman in history. So I have a record of and a commitment
to making sure that there is not harmful interference on the
airwaves. We have an expert engineering staff. We have done the
studies. We have determined that we can have a low-power FM
service without causing destructive interference.
Now, it may cost some additional competition to incumbents,
but based on the Telecom Act, competition is a good thing. We
ought to have more voices over the airwaves. So I would invite
the opportunity to meet with you and your staff and present to
you our technical studies so that we can demonstrate that low-
power FM is not going to create the sort of interference
nightmare that some of the incumbents have been saying.
And having practiced before the FCC 12 years before I came
to the FCC almost 7 years ago, I have seen a history of
incumbents trying to frustrate the introduction of new voices
and new technologies. And if we buy into these arguments that
we should never have more voices on the airwaves, we will be
playing into the same scare tactics, the same fears that were
brought to the FCC to try to stop cable television in the 1970s
and even to stop the direct broadcast satellite industry in the
1980s and 1990s.
Nobody wants competition in their backyard, but these are
small, nonprofit groups. They are not even going to be
competing for advertising revenues. So this should not be seen
as a threat to the incumbent commercial broadcast industry.
This should be seen as a complement.
And I am aware of the concerns of National Public Radio. I
have met with their president, and NPR, of all organizations,
they understand the need for more nonprofit voices on the
airwaves. And we will try to assure them that this service is
not going to create destructive interference to their members.
And I am confident that we can do that, and I would like the
opportunity to try to convince you as well.
Senator Gregg. We are joined by the chairman of the
committee.
Senator Stevens. Good morning.
Mr. Kennard. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Does the chairman want to ask some
questions?
Senator Stevens. Go right ahead.
MERGERS
Senator Gregg. What is the status of monitoring mergers
that might affect the Internet? Are you doing anything in that
area such as MCI, Sprint?
Mr. Kennard. Yes, that particular merger is still pending
before us. That is not a merger per se that I would say affects
the Internet. It really has to do with the merger of two long-
distance companies and whether that merger is in the public
interest. And we are in the midst of developing a record on
that and will probably be deciding soon.
Senator Gregg. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Stevens. Thank you. I am sorry to be a little late
and to have missed your statement, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. That is quite all right.
Senator Stevens. I had to attend a little convention that
is meeting here.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE
You and I have had talks about universal service.
Senator Gregg. Yes.
Senator Stevens. And you know how I feel about those funds,
that they are ratepayer funds. That concept really was
developed following an initiative of Senator Inouye and myself
when we tried to find some way to average the costs of
telephone service to Alaska and Hawaii. But the interstate rate
pool came out, and it really was a system that was developed by
the carriers to provide ubiquitous service, and it worked.
I was surprised to find that there is a growing feeling
that these funds should be deposited in the Treasury. That
would be the same as calling them a tax. They have not been a
tax, and I think we have all opposed such a tax. As a matter of
fact, if that happens, we set such a precedent that we are
liable to have to start taxing the Internet and a lot of other
things and none of us wants that. I think we want to find some
way to work out an arrangement so that we can have support from
whoever provides telephony for the service to those areas which
cannot really afford it. I have talked to Steve Case [chairman
of AOL] and Mr. Levin [chairman of Time Warner] had a meeting
at the Commerce Committee. They agreed, and they are willing to
work on such a concept for all developing communications.
But what do you believe? Do you believe these should go in
the Treasury? Do you think they were tax monies?
Mr. Kennard. No, I don't. As you point out, universal
service has been very successful for our country, vital to our
telephone networks, and for decades it has been administered by
a non-Federal entity, the National Exchange Carriers
Association, through a system of inter-carrier transfers with
the funds being held outside the Treasury. And that system has
worked very well for our country for decades.
I think the confusion arose after the enactment of the 1996
Act when the Office of Management and Budget included the
universal service fund as part of the United States budget as
Federal funds. We are working closely with the Congressional
Budget Office and OMB and Treasury to try to get a
clarification on this because we feel that the system has
worked well for decades as classifying these as non-Federal
funds. We hope that Treasury and OMB will confirm to us,
notwithstanding this confusion in the 1996 Act, that the fund
can continue to be administered in the present manner as non-
Federal funds outside of the Treasury.
Senator Stevens. Well, I think all of us from rural areas
would applaud you on that stand. I hope that we get a decision
from them that makes sense. I want you to know I stand ready to
take whatever action is necessary to preserve the independence
of that fund because I think that is the only way it can work.
It is a business judgment of what is needed and not a tax that
could ever be increased and diverted off into other areas.
Now, we had some disagreement about what happened in terms
of the schools and libraries, but that has worked, and it
really hasn't expanded the demand. I think we have sort of
buried our hatchet on that one. We believe it was necessary,
and it is now something totally ingrained in the system. But to
have it become a tax and be treated as a tax, it will affect
the conduct of this committee in many ways if it continues.
Mr. Kennard. Well, you would be a very powerful ally in
this effort, Mr. Chairman, and I would appreciate your help on
this.
Senator Stevens. I would be pleased to help in any way that
you think we can help, and I know I speak for Senator Inouye,
too. Our States have benefited from this concept, and we are
now in the 21st century with everyone else. We want to go ahead
with everybody else. And I was really pleased to have the
commitment of AOL/Time Warner that they would work with us and
make certain that this concept would not be lost with whatever
develops in the future.
SECTION 271 PETITION
This is not really my bailiwick, necessarily, but you have
put fines now on Bell Atlantic for the failure to comply with
your decision regarding their 271 petition, as I understand it.
This was for failing to switch local customers to their
competitors in New York, as I understand it.
Mr. Kennard. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Were those actions that led to the fines
pending before the 271 petition was approved?
Mr. Kennard. No. This was an issue that arose shortly after
the filing--the grant of the 271 application. We had been
monitoring throughout the pendency of the application the way
that Bell Atlantic had established a system to cut over lines
and to provide lines for DSL. And the action that we took
recently was a recognition that the platform for provisioning
these lines to competitors was not as stable as we would like.
And so we imposed some fines for the inability of Bell Atlantic
to get into compliance on time, and we are monitoring them
closely to make sure that this platform stabilizes. If it
doesn't stabilize, then more action may be warranted.
Senator Stevens. Well, I understand the Department of
Justice has raised concerns about SBC in the Texas region, and
they have, I believe, an application pending. Don't you think
that should be a condition of the granting of the 271 petition
to comply with the 1996 Act before they get the 271 approved?
Mr. Kennard. Well, I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the FCC
is not going to grant a 271 application unless we can be
assured that the market is open and competitors have meaningful
access to compete. And, of course, that is what we are
grappling with right now with the SBC application to determine
whether that record demonstrates that SBC has sufficiently
opened its market to competitors. We haven't made a decision
yet.
Senator Stevens. I am pleased to hear you say that. I hear
people criticizing the 1996 Act all the time, but I think it is
working.
Mr. Kennard. So do I.
Senator Stevens. And I think that the way it works is
through effective enforcement, and so I congratulate you.
LOW-POWER READING SERVICES
I was visited the other day by members of the blind
community from my State, and they had some questions about the
low-power FM issue. Are you conducting tests to see that the
low-power reading services that are made available to the blind
and visually impaired are not interfered with by local signals?
Mr. Kennard. Well, before authorizing the low-power FM
service, our engineers conducted tests. There were also tests
submitted in the record, and the FCC was able to determine,
before voting on that new service, that it would not cause
harmful interference to any incumbent service, including the
radio reading service.
Senator Stevens. Well, it is my understanding they are
going to use low-power for their reading services and that they
feel that they are being interfered. But, in any event, I hope
that you are looking into that. I am hearing from public radio
they don't really like the low power. Is there a conflict
coming there that we don't understand?
Mr. Kennard. I believe that there is a lot of fear because
this is a new service, and I am confident, though, that once
these stations are licensed and people actually begin living
with them in their communities, a lot of this fear will
dissipate.
We have had low-power stations in this country in the past,
and we know that they can co-exist with full-power stations.
This is not a new experimental technology. We have been living
with the FM band for many, many years in this country. Now, we
know how those signals propagate. We know how low-power
stations operate. And I am confident that once these stations
get licensed and people start to listen to them and enjoy them,
they will realize that they can co-exist in harmony with other
stations.
Senator Stevens. How are they themselves going to be
monitored so that they don't interfere with existing signals?
Mr. Kennard. They will be monitored like any other
broadcaster. They will have a license, and they will have to
operate consistent with the parameters of their license; and if
they don't, they will have to----
Senator Stevens. But you have to have a listening post
within the parameter of their low power, and I understand that
is not going to be possible.
Mr. Kennard. To have--I am sorry, sir.
Senator Stevens. You have to have a listening post within
the parameters of the low power to know whether they are
interfering, don't you?
Mr. Kennard. No, they will be operated just like the full-
power FM stations. They will have a license. They will have to
operate within their licensed parameters, and if they don't,
then it is an enforcement issue. And the FCC has field offices
that periodically monitor different radio markets to make sure
that everyone is abiding by the rules, and they will be treated
just the same as full-power stations.
Senator Stevens. My last question. I know that Senator
Gregg has got a bill on that, as a matter of fact, dealing with
low power.
Senator Gregg. Yes. We have discussed it.
Senator Stevens. You have already. Sorry for coming in
late.
Senator Gregg. No. It is good to go over it again.
CROSS-OWNERSHIP RULES
Senator Stevens. This last one is sort of a strange one to
bring up with you in some ways, but I come from a State that
almost all of its local newspapers have now been acquired by
people who live outside of our State, and much of the over-the-
air media, cable media, is still owned by local people.
As the newspapers started to fail, I believe that the
cross-ownership ban led to their demise as a local influence
because they were sold off. I don't know if you saw this
enormous article in the Wall Street Journal about the cross-
ownership ban.
Mr. Kennard. Yes, I did see that.
Senator Stevens. I understand that you are proceeding with
rulemaking on this. Is that correct?
Mr. Kennard. Well, we have----
Senator Stevens. Cross-ownership.
Mr. Kennard. We have existing cross-ownership rules, and
under the Telecom Act, we are required to review those rules
every 2 years, and we are in the process now of reviewing all
of our ownership rules in that context.
Senator Stevens. Well, I urge you to go to rural America
and review it. I think it has always been reviewed in the
megapolis areas where there are enormous newspapers and
enormous chains. It is my feeling that local newspapers have
gone practically underground because they did not have the
ability to move out and have cross-ownership in their area.
There is still a deep feeling, as the article points out, by
some Members of Congress against it. But as we see what has
developed as we get into more and more competition within the
media, no one could have dreamed of what we have got now. The
people who have the local cable television or radio stations
have a great interest in having another outlet for their
capabilities, and there is a savings to be had in merging the
newsrooms of local TV and the local newspaper. I think this
cross-ownership ban has hurt rural America. I would urge you to
really get some people to study that so that we can see if you
can't modify it in the megapolis areas, or at least give some
leeway in rural America so that we can have the continued local
ownership of these things. You know, it is a strange thing when
you start losing the page in the papers that covers Boy Scouts
and Girl Scouts and other things. All everybody ever reads is
the bad news from the rest of the world instead of the good
news from home. We would very much like to see some leeway or
local ownership in rural America if it cannot be modified as a
whole.
Mr. Kennard. We will certainly look at that, Senator.
Senator Stevens. It is nice to see you, and I want to
extend to you and the chairman of the subcommittee another
invitation to come up and conduct a little marine research this
year.
Mr. Kennard. It would be delightful. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kennard. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Get us some ideas, if you have
some, on the staffing.
Mr. Kennard. We certainly will.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Commission for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
Question. More and more of my colleagues are talking about your
review of mergers or imposing a time limit on your ability to review
them. What are you doing to address these concerns? What pending
mergers do you have that have been reviewed for over six months and
when can we expect them to be resolved?
Answer. In the years since passage of the 1996 Amendments to the
Communications Act, there has been a substantial increase in the number
of mergers among companies holding licenses or authorizations issued by
the FCC. The FCC must approve the transfers of these licenses and
authorizations under the public interest standard set forth in the
statute. In response to the increased burden of more numerous
applications, the importance of the FCC's review to implementing the
purposes of the Communications Act, and concerns expressed by Congress,
applicants, and the public, the FCC has taken several steps to explain
and improve its process for reviewing applications and requests
relating to mergers.
--At the direction of the Chairman, a Transactions Team has been
established within the Office of General Counsel with the
responsibility to ensure that the agency's review process
relating to proposed mergers is efficient, consistent,
transparent, and predictable.
--The Team collected information within the agency, met with members
of the Communications and Antitrust Bar and with
representatives of public interest groups, and held a Public
Forum on March 1, 2000, during which it presented and asked for
comment on proposals to make the process more transparent and
speedy while maintaining fairness and ensuring sound results.
--Those steps include a proposed timeline for reviewing merger-
related applications that identifies the stages and mechanics
of the review process and is calculated to complete processing
in even the most complex cases within 180 days of public notice
of the application, as long as applicants provide the necessary
information and do not substantially revise the application at
a late stage.
--The Transaction Team also established a site on the world wide web
that contains more detailed information on its purpose,
activities, and proposals and through which the public can
obtain specific information on the status and progress of
applications related to specific major mergers. The Transaction
Team site may be reached easily from the FCC home page at
http://www.fcc.gov.
--Comments on the proposals were due March 28, 2000, and are
currently being reviewed.
--Web pages applying the proposed timeline to specific mergers have
been established for two major recent proposed mergers--
MCIWorldcomm/Sprint and AOL/TimeWarner as examples and
experiments.
--The Transactions Team is also taking steps to facilitate
coordination among the various Bureaus at the Commission that
have jurisdiction over different types of licenses and
authorities that may be involved in a single transaction, and
to increase coordination and minimize with other governmental
agencies (primarily the Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission) that have jurisdiction over the transactions
under the antitrust laws.
--As to implementation, many of these steps can be taken without the
need for or delay associated with formal rulemakings, and are
being implemented, at least on an experimental basis, as soon
as practical with respect to pending transactions, to the
extent that they appear to provide greater efficiency,
transparency, and predictability. The Transaction Team expects
to provide constant information on its progress on its web
page, and will periodically provide reports and public notices
of significant changes or revisions. After appropriate
experience has been gained, a rulemaking may be considered to
implement changes that have proved valuable and successful.
The mergers with related applications that have currently been
pending before the FCC for more than six months generally involve
special circumstances, and the Commission expects to address them
expeditiously. For example, applications related to the proposed merger
of Bell Atlantic and GTE, although originally filed in late 1998, were
put on hold at the request of the applicants until the end of January,
2000, so that the applicants could develop a proposal to bring the
transaction into compliance with Section 271 of the Communications Act.
The January proposal has since itself been revised and is currently
being discussed by the applicants, the Commission, and other parties in
an effort to resolve these issues. Applications relating to the
proposed merger of AT&T and Media One, which were originally filed in
July of 1999, were substantially revised in late November, 1999.
Applications relating to the proposed Sullivan Broadcasting Co. Inc./
Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc. merger pending before the Video
Services Division of the Mass Media Bureau were substantially modified
in November, 1999, upon the effective date of new agency rules, and are
heavily contested.
Applications relating to a significant number of proposed
transactions (approximately 25) involving holders of radio station
licenses have been pending for over six months. The proposed mergers to
which these applications relate generally would significantly increase
concentration in local radio markets and present special problems
arising from a combination of the relaxation of absolute numerical
limits on ownership in the 1996 Act and the Commission's definition of
the ``market'' in these situations. These levels of concentration raise
concern about competition and diversity, and several of these
transactions are under investigation by the Department of Justice. The
FCC has devoted substantial time to address the underlying issues and
anticipates taking action to address these issues within the next two
months. In the meantime, the Commission is undertaking to address and
resolve, to the extent it can, the circumstances of particular cases
that have been pending for an extended time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Question. The FCC recently determined that the local phone market
in New York is open to competition and granted Bell Atlantic authority
to enter the long distance market in New York. Since that time, Bell
Atlantic has entered a consent decree with the FCC agreeing to pay
fines because it has not been able to provide service to its
competitors as required under section 271. What actions can the FCC
take to ensure that Bell Companies do not provide substandard service
after obtaining section 271 authority? What processes does the FCC have
in place that will allow it to effectively enforce its section 271
orders? While the FCC has used fines as an enforcement tool, what other
enforcement tools are at the FCC's disposal to ensure quick compliance
with section 271?
Answer. The Commission has various options available to it to
ensure that Bell Operating Companies (``BOC'' or ``BOCs'') maintain the
openness of their local markets to competition following the
Commission's grant of authority to provide in-region interLATA service
under section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The
Commission is committed to aggressive, fair and rapid enforcement of
the post-entry requirements using all means at its disposal. As the
Commission previously stated in authorizing Bell Atlantic's section 271
application, ``[s]wift and effective post-approval enforcement of
section 271's requirements . . . is essential to achieve Congress's
goal of maintaining conditions conducive to achieving durable
competition in local markets.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Application by Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization Under
Section 271 of the Communications Act To Provide In-Region, InterLATA
Service in the State of New York, CC Docket No. 99-295, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, FCC 99-404, (December 22, 1999), at para. 446 (Bell
Atlantic New York 271 Order), appeal pending sub nom. AT&T Corp. v. FCC
(D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 27, 1999) (No. 99-1538).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 271 includes specific language allowing the Commission to
take enforcement action to ensure that a BOC continues to comply with
the requirements of section 271 following Commission approval. The
Commission is authorized to take such action if, at any time after
approval of the application, the Commission determines that a BOC ``has
ceased to meet any of the conditions required for such approval.'' \2\
After ``notice and an opportunity for hearing,'' the Commission may:
(i) issue an order to such company to correct the deficiency; (ii)
impose a penalty on such company pursuant to title V; or (iii) suspend
or revoke such approval. The Commission has determined that section
271's hearing requirement does not require formal, trial-type
evidentiary proceedings before an administrative law judge.\3\ Rather,
the Commission has stated that a paper proceeding is sufficient to
satisfy this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(d)(6)(A).
\3\ Bell Atlantic New York 271 Order at para. 450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The strongest enforcement mechanism available to the Commission is
found in section 271(d)(6)(A)(iii), which authorizes the Commission to
suspend or revoke section 271 approval. If the Commission determines
that a BOC has ceased to meet any of the market opening conditions
specified in section 271, the Commission could elect to issue a
``stand-still'' order prohibiting the BOC from enrolling additional
subscribers for its interLATA service and from all marketing and
promotion of interLATA service. Such a stand-still order would
effectively freeze the BOC's interLATA subscriber base as of the date
of the order and could remain in effect until such time as the record
is sufficiently clear that the BOC has fully corrected the problem. In
extreme cases, it also could revoke the BOC's authority to provide
interLATA service altogether.
Additionally, the Commission may assess forfeitures against non-
compliant BOCs in accordance with section 271(d)(6)(A)(ii). Such a
penalty would be assessed by the Commission pursuant to Title V of the
Communications Act. Section 503(b)(1)(B) allows the Commission to
assess a forfeiture penalty against any person who has willfully or
repeatedly failed to comply with any of the provisions of the
Communications Act or any rule, regulation or order issued by the
Commission. The Commission, upon determining that this type of
enforcement action is warranted, could elect to issue a notice of
apparent liability to the allegedly non-compliant BOC and allow the BOC
to respond in writing, in accordance with section 503(b)(4), or conduct
a formal forfeiture hearing before an administrative law judge in
accordance with section 503(b)(3). The amount of any such forfeiture
penalty is limited by section 503(b)(2)(B) which provides that a common
carrier may be liable for a forfeiture penalty not to exceed $100,000
for each violation or each day for a continuing violation, except that
the total forfeiture amount for a continuing violation shall not exceed
$1,000,000.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Due to inflation adjustments, the maximum for each violation or
each day for a continuing violation is now $110,000 and the maximum
total forfeiture amount for a continuing violation shall not exceed
$1.1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third section 271 enforcement avenue available to the Commission
allows the Commission to issue an order requiring a non-compliant BOC
to correct any deficiencies pursuant to section 271(d)(6)(A)(i).
In addition to its section 271(d)(6) enforcement powers, the
Commission continues to have its pre-existing enforcement powers,
including its authority under sections 206-209 of the Communications
Act. For example, the Commission maintains the ability to resolve
formal complaints filed by competitors affected by the allegedly non-
compliant BOC's actions and, among other things, to award damages if
warranted. Pursuant to section 271(d)(6)(B), the Commission is required
to review formal complaints properly alleging section 271 violations
within 90 days.
In order to evaluate the post-grant performance of BOCs that have
received section 271 authorization, as well as to initiate or recommend
enforcement action where appropriate, the Commission's Enforcement
Bureau has established a section 271 enforcement team. The primary
functions of the team are: (1) to review complaints and other
information from interested persons regarding post-grant
``backsliding'' by BOCs whose applications are approved; (2) to
undertake or recommend swift and effective enforcement action where
appropriate; and (3) to act as the point of contact within the
Commission for persons wishing to provide information regarding
possible ``backsliding'' by BOCs. The team is headed by the Deputy
Chief of the Enforcement Bureau and includes senior attorneys and
auditors from the Enforcement Bureau as well as the Common Carrier
Bureau.
One of the core objectives of section 271 as well as the entirety
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is to increase significantly the
competition in the local telephone markets. The Commission has various
mechanisms available to it to ensure that the BOCs, after gaining
section 271 approval, maintain the openness of their local service
markets. The Commission is committed to the vigorous and efficient
enforcement of the conditions of the BOC entry into the interLATA
market and will not hesitate to utilize the tools at its disposal to
accomplish this objective.
Question. In Congress, we have heard from a number of licensees who
are frustrated by the amount of time it takes the FCC to conclude its
review of mergers. What is the FCC doing to ensure greater transparency
and efficiency in its merger review process? When will the FCC
implement its proposed merger review guidelines? What if any mergers
have been pending before the FCC for more than 6 months?
Answer. In the years since passage of the 1996 Amendments to the
Communications Act, there has been a substantial increase in the number
of mergers among companies holding licenses or authorizations issued by
the FCC. The FCC must approve the transfers of these licenses and
authorizations under the public interest standard set forth in the
statute. In response to the increased burden of more numerous
applications, the importance of the FCC's review to implementing the
purposes of the Communications Act, and concerns expressed by Congress,
applicants, and the public, the FCC has taken several steps to explain
and improve its process for reviewing applications and requests
relating to mergers.
--At the direction of the Chairman, a Transactions Team has been
established within the Office of General Counsel with the
responsibility to ensure that the agency's review process
relating to proposed mergers is efficient, consistent,
transparent, and predictable.
--The Team collected information within the agency, met with members
of the Communications and Antitrust Bar and with
representatives of public interest groups, and held a Public
Forum on March 1, 2000, during which it presented and asked for
comment on proposals to make the process more transparent and
speedy while maintaining fairness and ensuring sound results.
--Those steps include a proposed timeline for reviewing merger-
related applications that identifies the stages and mechanics
of the review process and is calculated to complete processing
in even the most complex cases within 180 days of public notice
of the application, as long as applicants provide the necessary
information and do not substantially revise the application at
a late stage.
--The Transaction Team also established a site on the world wide web
that contains more detailed information on its purpose,
activities, and proposals and through which the public can
obtain specific information on the status and progress of
applications related to specific major mergers. The Transaction
Team site may be reached easily from the FCC home page at
http://www.fcc.gov.
--Comments on the proposals were due March 28, 2000, and are
currently being reviewed.
--Web pages applying the proposed timeline to specific mergers have
been established for two major recent proposed mergers--
MCIWorldcomm/Sprint and AOL/TimeWarner as examples and
experiments.
--The Transactions Team is also taking steps to facilitate
coordination among the various Bureaus at the Commission that
have jurisdiction over different types of licenses and
authorities that may be involved in a single transaction, and
to increase coordination and minimize with other governmental
agencies (primarily the Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission) that have jurisdiction over the transactions
under the antitrust laws.
--As to implementation, many of these steps can be taken without the
need for or delay associated with formal rulemakings, and are
being implemented, at least on an experimental basis, as soon
as practical with respect to pending transactions, to the
extent that they appear to provide greater efficiency,
transparency, and predictability. The Transaction Team expects
to provide constant information on its progress on its web
page, and will periodically provide reports and public notices
of significant changes or revisions. After appropriate
experience has been gained, a rulemaking may be considered to
implement changes that have proved valuable and successful.
The mergers with related applications that have currently been
pending before the FCC for more than six months generally involve
special circumstances, and the Commission expects to address them
expeditiously. For example, applications related to the proposed merger
of Bell Atlantic and GTE, although originally filed in late 1998, were
put on hold at the request of the applicants until the end of January,
2000, so that the applicants could develop a proposal to bring the
transaction into compliance with Section 271 of the Communications Act.
The January proposal has since itself been revised and is currently
being discussed by the applicants, the Commission, and other parties in
an effort to resolve these issues. Applications relating to the
proposed merger of AT&T and Media One, which were originally filed in
July of 1999, were substantially revised in late November, 1999.
Applications relating to the proposed Sullivan Broadcasting Co. Inc./
Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc. merger pending before the Video
Services Division of the Mass Media Bureau were substantially modified
in November, 1999, upon the effective date of new agency rules, and are
heavily contested.
Applications relating to a significant number of proposed
transactions (approximately 25) involving holders of radio station
licenses have been pending for over six months. The proposed mergers to
which these applications relate generally would significantly increase
concentration in local radio markets and present special problems
arising from a combination of the relaxation of absolute numerical
limits on ownership in the 1996 Act and the Commission's definition of
the ``market'' in these situations. These levels of concentration raise
concern about competition and diversity, and several of these
transactions are under investigation by the Department of Justice. The
FCC has devoted substantial time to address the underlying issues and
anticipates taking action to address these issues within the next two
months. In the meantime, the Commission is undertaking to address and
resolve, to the extent it can, the circumstances of particular cases
that have been pending for an extended time.
Question. In the merger review context, there have been legislative
proposals to curtail the FCC's public interest review authority. I am a
strong supporter of the FCC's public interest authority. In your
opinion, why is it important that the FCC maintain its public interest
authority?
Answer. The FCC's authority and responsibility to review
applications related to proposed mergers under the public interest
standard is particularly important in the context of today's
communications industry. Since the 1996 Act, the industries licensed by
the FCC have experienced a wave of consolidation that is unprecedented,
at least since AT&T constructed its monopoly position in the early
development of telephone service that led to decades of regulation. The
FCC provides the only forum in which applications related to these
mergers (which have generated a substantial amount of interest and
comment from the public) can be reviewed in the context of a public
proceeding, governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, with a
written decision explaining the results.
The public interest standard applied by the FCC in its review has a
long pedigree as a useful and flexible device for such review. Although
flexible, the standard is not without content. To the contrary, the
FCC's recent decisions in major merger cases have tied the standard to
the provisions of the Communications Act and the agency's regulations
implementing that Act. The standard is not limited to remedying
specific violations of the Commission's existing rules, however, and
this provides important flexibility. Innovation in these industries is
occurring at a frantic pace. Businesses and markets are changing
rapidly as new technologies replace old and brush aside old models.
This innovation is both the product and the source of healthy
competition, which allows the agency to reduce and avoid direct
government regulation. But the threat posed by innovation to existing
firms can create strong incentives to take defensive steps to block
competition or raise barriers to innovation or market entry. Mergers
can both promote efficiency and competition and make defensive actions
easier. The public interest standard allows the FCC in a public
proceeding to examine the impacts of proposed mergers, and determine
whether the merger will promote or endanger the goals of the
Communications Act. Those goals include not only enhancing (not merely
preserving) competition, but also maintaining diversity and encouraging
the rapid and broad deployment of new technologies to all Americans.
The advantages of a flexible public interest standard anchored in the
express policies of the Communications Act over fixed rules that often
require years to propose and adopt are readily apparent in the rapidly
changing environment of today's communications industries. It is
difficult enough to keep up with challenges of rapid change today even
with the public interest standard. Without this standard, efforts to
protect and preserve the goals of the 1996 Communications Act in an era
of rapid consolidation would be severely impaired.
Question. Many countries made WTO commitments to open their
telecommunications markets to foreign competition. But several
countries appear to be having difficulty fully implementing their WTO
commitment. For example, U.S. carriers recently highlighted
implementation problems with Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Peru, and
Japan. What steps have the FCC affirmatively taken to enforce open
markets abroad? Please provide specific examples of problems,
solutions, and resulting behavior.
Answer. The FCC has a unique role to play in the process of
ensuring that foreign markets are open to U.S. telecommunications
companies, as many countries look to the FCC as a model independent
regulator and to the FCC's regulations as models for the introduction
of competition into telecommunications markets. The FCC's activity in
promoting competition in other countries generally falls into two
categories: (1) engaging in discussions with and providing technical
assistance to foreign telecommunications regulatory bodies; and (2)
providing input for U.S. government comments in select critical
proceedings of foreign telecommunications regulatory bodies.
The FCC has extensive and regular contact with telecommunications
regulators and other government officials around the world. These
contacts take the form of formal bilateral meetings, informal talks and
side discussions at various international meetings. Through its
International Visitors Program, the FCC has hosted approximately 400
officials from 100 countries in 1999 alone. These contacts provide the
FCC an opportunity to offer technical assistance to countries seeking
to introduce competitive reforms as well as to urge the resolution of
specific problems. We highlight below FCC efforts to establish contacts
and address competitive concerns in the specific countries about which
you inquire.
Mexico
The FCC has a long-standing working relationship with the Mexican
telecommunications regular, Comision Federal de Telecomunicaciones
(Cofetel), characterized by ongoing discussions on a variety of issues
of concern to the United States, including: establishing cost-oriented
interconnection rates; issuing regulations to allow resale in Mexico;
preventing anti-competitive actions by the dominant carrier, Telmex;
issuing dominant carrier regulations that would apply to Telmex; and
creating a transparent, nondiscriminatory universal service program.
Chairman Kennard discussed these issues with his Mexican
counterpart, Mr. Jorge Nicolin, the Chairman of Cofetel, during a
recent visit to the United States by Mr. Nicolin. Chairman Kennard also
expressed concerns with Mexican policies to Mr. Nicolin's predecessor
and to the Chairman of Telmex, Mr. Carlos Slim Helu. Chairman Kennard
recently participated in a panel at the recent Latin American
Telecommunications Summit (LATS) on interconnection at which Mexican
regulators were present. FCC staff have had frequent contact with their
counterparts at Cofetel, including meetings in July 1999 that focused
on universal service issues. At that meeting, an FCC expert presented
U.S. concerns with Mexico's universal service program. Adoption of a
non-discriminatory, transparent universal service program is critical
to Mexico's plans to adopt cost-oriented interconnection rates. In
addition, FCC staff have frequent contact with Cofetel staff at various
meetings of the regional organization, Inter-American
Telecommunications Commission (CITEL).
Cofetel has taken some important steps towards addressing concerns
raised by the FCC, although much work remains to be done. On March 28,
2000, Cofetel announced that they would be issuing dominant carrier
regulations that will apply to Telmex, the former monopoly provider of
telecommunications services in Mexico. CITEL, under the direction of
FCC staff working as a rapporteur, has adopted ``best practice''
guidelines for interconnection. These CITEL best practice guidelines
provide valuable and influential guidance to countries throughout Latin
America, including Mexico, on an issue of critical importance to
promoting competition.
Germany
The FCC has frequently engaged the German telecommunications
regulator, Regulierungsbehoerde fur Telekommunikation und Post (RegTP),
in discussions on issues of concern to the United States regarding the
German telecommunications regulatory framework, including: excessive
licensing fees; the transparency of cost data; and controlling the
anti-competitive billing and collection practices of the dominant
carrier, Deutsche Telekom.
Chairman Kennard raised these issues in a meeting with Chairman
Scheurle of RegTP in September 1999. FCC experts also held two days of
tutorials for RegTP in April 1999 on a variety of topics of concern to
new entrants. In November 1999, an FCC economist worked with RegTP
staff on cost modeling issues and the use of protective orders to
safeguard proprietary data while still providing opportunity for public
scrutiny and comment. In March 2000, the U.S. government, with FCC
participation, held bilateral negotiations with RegTP and the German
Ministry of Economics. FCC staff have also met with officials from
Deutsche Telekom (DT), the former monopoly provider of
telecommunications services, to discuss issues of competition, resale,
interconnection and regulatory transparency. The FCC has also engaged
the European Commission on competition issues in Germany and elsewhere
in Europe. Finally, the FCC coordinated the submission of U.S.
government comments in the 1999 EU Communications Review as well as the
EU consultation on unbundled local access.
RegTP has issued a number of important pro-competitive decisions
addressing such issues as number portability (April 1998), pre-
selection (June 1998), interconnection pricing (May 1999) and leased
lines (September 1999). In February 1999, RegTP required a one-third
reduction in the rates charged by Deutsche Telekom for competitors to
use DT's unbundled local loop connections. In December 1999, RegTP
announced a nearly 25 percent decrease in interconnection rates and
expressed plans to lower further interconnection rates this year. In
March 2000, RegTP announced that they will be reviewing and, if
appropriate, adjusting their high licensing fees. Finally, the European
Commission is closely reviewing German telecommunications regulatory
policy and may recommend changes this year.
Canada
AT&T has recently raised concerns regarding the universal service
funding obligation on competitive long distance carriers in Canada. The
Canadian telecommunications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), denied a petition from AT&T
and others requesting that the methodology used to determine universal
service obligation be modified. This issue is presently pending on
appeal before the Canadian Cabinet. CRTC also has indicated that it
plans to review the methodology in the near future. The FCC assisted
the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in drafting
a letter to the CRTC raising potential concerns with the Canadian
universal service program. The FCC and USTR are closely monitoring the
ongoing CRTC and Cabinet review of the universal service program and
based on the results of this review, will determine whether additional
action is warranted.
In addition to cooperating with USTR to address concerns about
Canada's universal service program, the FCC has met with Canadian
officials on a number of occasions to discuss competition issues. The
most recent of these meetings was in September 1999, when Chairman
Kennard and senior staff met with senior officials of the CRTC to
discuss a broad range of telecommunications issues and to promote
cooperation between the two commissions.
South Africa
The FCC has long had a close working relationship with the South
African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (SATRA). To formalize
that relationship, Chairman Kennard signed a work plan with SATRA in
August 1999, in which the FCC agreed to provide SATRA technical
assistance in matters of telecommunications regulatory policy. On
several occasions since, FCC staff have met with key officials from
Telkom South Africa, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the
South African Department of Communications to discuss a wide range of
issues, including telecommunications regulation, broadcast regulation,
satellite issues, spectrum allocation, numbering and competition
policy.
AT&T has recently raised the concern that Telkom, the dominant
carrier in South Africa, refuses to provision circuits to AT&T, in
violation of a SATRA directive. FCC staff have participated in several
videoconferences with South African government officials in an effort
to resolve this situation. In addition, FCC staff will provide input
into the submission of U.S. Government comments in the current SATRA
regulatory proceeding that could contribute to a resolution of this
issue.
Peru
Bell South has recently raised a concern with the high level of
local interconnection rates charged by the dominant carrier, Telefonica
de Peru. The FCC has worked with the Peruvian telecommunications
regulator, Organismo Supervisor de Inversion Privada en
Telecomunicaciones (OSIPTEL) since its inception on a series of issues
relating to the introduction of competition. With the introduction of
full competition in Peruvian telecommunications late last year, OSIPTEL
must now ensure that interconnection rates are cost-based. OSIPTEL is
looking to the FCC for guidance in meeting this obligation. In
addition, Chairman Kennard recently signed a work plan with OSIPTEL in
March 2000, in which the FCC agreed to provide OSIPTEL technical
assistance in telecommunications regulatory policy matters.
At the recent meeting of the Latin American Telecommunications
Summit (LATS), Chairman Kennard met with Chairman Kunigami of OSIPTEL
as well as other top Peruvian officials to discuss the Bell South
complaint. Kennard also held an in-depth seminar with one quarter of
the staff of OSIPTEL on issues relating to interconnection and the
establishment of an independent, effective regulator. We are hopeful
that our ongoing dialogue with key individuals at OSIPTEL will result
in a reduction in interconnection costs in that market. FCC staff have
recently met with Peruvian officials to discuss tariff regulation,
market entry and competition issues, benchmark issues and international
simple resale (ISR).
Japan
The FCC has had numerous regulator-to-regulator discussions with
the Japanese Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) on a broad
range of regulatory issues of key concern to the United States,
including dominant carrier regulation, interconnection, universal
service and competition policy. The FCC has also met with
representatives from Keidanren, a major Japanese business organization
which advises MPT, to discuss issues such as regulatory independence
and safeguards against anti-competitive behavior. Recently, a major
focus of talks has been on the high interconnection rates in Japan of
the dominant carrier, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT). The FCC
participated in recent deregulatory talks with Japan, hosted by USTR.
Interconnection issues were a major topic of those talks.
Japan recently committed to reducing its interconnection fees to a
cost-oriented level by 2003. The FCC will continue to engage its
counterparts at MPT on interconnection issues and other competition
policy concerns.
Israel
Through a series of bilateral meetings, the FCC urged the Israeli
government to end a discriminatory policy that imposes a higher access
fee on international calls to and from the United States. Recently,
Israel committed in a letter to the United States to eliminate this
discriminatory practice by December 31, 2001.
Question. Tribune recently announced plans to purchase the Los
Angeles Times Mirror. This acquisition if approved, will result in
Tribune owning television stations and newspaper properties in the same
market in violation of the FCC's broadcast newspaper crossownership
rules. The integrity of the broadcast crossownership rules will be
undermined by this merger if the FCC does not act to ensure that the
merger complies with its broadcast-crossownership rules. The FCC
adopted its newspaper cross ownership rule in 1975 and the rule was
upheld by the Supreme Court in 1978. I have been a strong supporter of
this rule because it ensures that the public receives diverse
information by preventing major media outlets from being owned by the
same entity. I believe the FCC should implement its cross ownership
rule with respect to the Tribune-Times Mirror merger and correct the
procedural rule that suggests that the FCC wait until a renewal
application is filed prior to considering the issue.
Please advise me of what steps you intend to take to deal with this
problem so that the substance of the cross-ownership rule will not be
undermined by the FCC's oversight with respect to properly updating its
procedural rules. When will the FCC conclude a proceeding to bring the
Tribune-Times Mirror merger into compliance with its broadcast-
newspaper cross ownership rules and close the procedural loop hole in
its rules?
Answer. In the Second Report and Order in Docket 18110, 50 FCC 2d
1046 (1975), the Commission stated that the newspaper/broadcast cross-
ownership rule it was adopting in that proceeding would apply to new
ownership patterns however created, whether by initial application and
construction or by acquisition. In cases where a daily newspaper was
acquiring a local broadcast station, the Commission would be able to
act promptly with regard to the prohibited combination as part of its
consideration of the assignment application that would have to be filed
by the newspaper's owner and the seller of the broadcast property.
However, because the Commission does not regulate newspapers, it would
have no similar opportunity to assess the merits of the proposed merger
in cases where the broadcast licensee was purchasing a local daily
newspaper. Accordingly, in the Second Report and Order the Commission
determined that if a broadcast station licensee were to purchase one or
more daily newspapers in the same market, it would be required to
dispose of its stations there within 1 year or by the time of its next
renewal date, whichever is longer. If the newspaper is purchased less
than a year from the expiration of the license, the Commission
continued, the renewal application may be filed, but it will be
deferred pending the sale of the station, if necessary, until the year
has expired. At the time this provision was adopted the license period
for broadcast stations was three years. Accordingly, in cases where the
broadcast licensee acquired a local daily newspaper, it would have at
the least one year in which to divest or, at most, three years.
Subsequently, however, Section 307(c) of the Communications Act was
amended to extend the license term for broadcast stations to eight
years. The Commission, to date, has not changed its retention policy
with regard to broadcast stations' acquisitions of local newspapers to
take into account this expanded license term. The Tribune/Times Mirror
merger demonstrates that this policy is in need of review. Under the
existing policy, Tribune will be able to maintain at least three local
newspaper/broadcast combinations--combinations which our rules provide
are contrary to the public interest--until the relevant broadcast
station licenses come up for renewal in six or seven years. If the
newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership provision is to remain a vital part
of our ownership rules, it seems clear that the extended period of
common ownership now permitted as a result of unrelated changes to
broadcasters' license terms should be remedied. Accordingly, I intend
to discuss with my colleagues what action might be appropriate to
address this anomaly.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. I would like to commend the FCC for generally supporting
the important universal service mandates found in Section 254(g). The
Commission's continued adherence to these statutory mandates is vital
to ensure that all Americans--including those in noncontinguous or
remote areas--benefit from increased competition in the provision of
interexchange telecommunications services. What is the status of
proceedings dealing with the rate integration mandates of Section
254(g)?
Answer. The Commission's commitment to principles of geographic
rate averaging and rate integration is reflected in orders dating from
at least 1972. Congress codified these principles for the first time in
1996 by amending the Communications Act of 1934 to include section
254(g). The Commission promulgated rules to implement section 254(g) in
its August 1996 First Report and Order on geographic rate averaging and
rate integration. Under these rules, carriers generally are obligated
to use the same basic rate structures and to offer the same general
calling plans to all of their customers for interstate long-distance
services, regardless of the U.S. state, territory, or possession in
which the customers are located, or whether they are in rural or urban
areas. Thus, interstate long-distance calls of similar distance,
duration, and time of day should cost the same for all of a carrier's
customers. Carriers accomplish this by ``averaging'' their interstate
long-distance rates between low-cost (often urban) areas and high-cost
(often rural) areas, and by ``integrating'' off-shore points such as
Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands into their domestic
rate schedules.
Because the Commission had implemented a geographic rate averaging
and rate integration policy through its orders before the 1996 Act,
carriers already were obligated to provide averaged and integrated
rates in all states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands at the
time of the August 1996 order. In light of Congress' codification of
the policy, however, the Commission began with the August 1996 order to
ensure that all U.S. territories and possessions with more than de
minimis amounts of telecommunications traffic were rate integrated. The
Commission has determined that no further steps are required to ensure
implementation of rate integration for U.S. territories or possessions
other than Guam, the Northern Marianas, and American Samoa. Although
rate integration is not yet fully implemented in Guam and the Northern
Marianas, the Commission observed in a July 1997 order that subscribers
already were enjoying substantially lower rates than they experienced
prior to the 1996 order. The Commission's efforts to integrate American
Samoa require it to address a variety of issues, including: (1)
privatization of the government run telephone company and its division
into separate local and long-distance entities; (2) provision of equal
access arrangements to interstate long-distance providers; (3)
participation of American Samoa in the North American Numbering Plan;
and (4) inclusion of the local telephone company in the National
Exchange Carrier Association (NECA). American Samoa's rates were fully
integrated into the NECA tariffs as of July 1, 1999.
In construing section 254(g), the Commission has held that that a
carrier must integrate its rates for a particular service across all
its affiliates. The Commission also has held that rate integration now
applies to all interstate, interexchange services, including those
offered by satellite and Cellular Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
providers. In October 1997, the Commission stayed the affiliate rule as
applied to CMRS carriers, and in April 1999 the Commission sought
comment on how to implement the rate integration requirement for CMRS.
The Commission intends to issue an order addressing these issues in
August 2000. In the meantime, a challenge to the Commission's
conclusion that rate integration applies to CMRS providers is pending
before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with
argument scheduled for April 2000. Also at issue in the appeal is
application of the affiliate rule to wireline carriers.
Question. In the context of the FCC's efforts to reform the
interstate access charge system, the possible geographic deaveraging of
interexchange rates charged to end-users has been raised. What steps do
you contemplate to assure that any reform of the interstate access
charge system will not undermine Section 254(g)'s geographic averaging
requirements or lead to unreasonable disparities in the interexchange
rates charged to consumers in urban areas and those in remote or non-
contiguous areas?
Answer. The Commission is currently considering adoption of a
proposal made by a coalition of local and long-distance companies (the
``CALLS proposal'') that would permit local telephone companies to
deaverage the flat monthly subscriber line charge (SLC) paid by end
users on a limited basis. Nothing in the CALLS proposal permits
interexchange carriers to charge higher rates to customers in rural or
high cost areas, as prohibited by section 254(g). Further, the CALLS
proposal would place absolute caps on the SLC and expand universal
service giving all carriers, including competitive carriers, explicit
interstate universal service support for providing service in higher
cost areas. According to proponents of the CALLS proposal, the SLC caps
and the expanded explicit universal service support would help to
assure that consumers in rural, insular and high cost areas continue to
have access to telecommunications and information services that are
reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas, and at
reasonably comparable rates. The Commission will keep universal service
principles in the forefront in evaluating the CALLS proposal.
Question. I would like to commend the Commission for its attention
to the need for securing DBS and DTH service for Hawaii,
notwithstanding that the process has not gone as swiftly as was
expected. It is my understanding that the Commission's rules and
rulings require DBS operators such as EchoStar and DirecTV to provide
DBS service to the State of Hawaii. For example, the rules obligate
EchoStar and DirecTV to serve Hawaii from their newer orbital positions
and satellites that were authorized after January 1996. Would you
advise the Committee when the Commission expects its licensed DBS
operators to actually begin providing service to the State; what
actions the Commission [is] considering to ensure that this service is
initiated expeditiously; and what steps are contemplated to assure that
the State of Hawaii receives DBS and DTH (Direct-To-Home) services like
those received in the Continental United States, as these services
evolve?
Answer. The Commission recognizes the importance of establishing
DBS as a competitor to cable in the multi-channel video programming
distribution market in the state of Hawaii and has worked hard to
ensure that DBS service providers include Hawaii in their service
plans. By way of background, in the 1995 Revision of the Rules and
Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, Report & Order, 11
FCC Rcd 9712 (1995) (DBS Auction Order), the Commission adopted
geographic service obligations for the state of Hawaii which require
DBS licensees licensed after January 19, 1996 to provide service to
Hawaii as well as Alaska upon commencement of operations, where
technically feasible. In its DBS Auction Order, the Commission found
that service to the state of Hawaii is technically feasible from the
110 deg. W.L. and 119 deg. W.L. orbital locations (both of which can
provide full CONUS coverage) and that all four western DBS orbital
positions (148, 157, 166 and 175 degrees W.L.) offer appropriate
platforms for such service. In 1998, the Commission initiated a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking addressing the DBS rules and, among other
things, requested comment on its geographic service rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the Matter of Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast
Satellite Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 6907 para.
34 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, we asked if there are other steps the Commission
should take to ensure delivery of service to Hawaii and Alaska. This
proceeding is still pending. Additionally, the International Bureau has
had discussions with representatives from the states of Hawaii and
Alaska and other interested parties concerning this issue. The
International Bureau met EchoStar in late April 2000. Additionally, the
International Bureau will meet DIRECTV and representatives of Hawaii
and Alaska in June 2000 to discuss the issues involved and to determine
the actual extent of DBS service to these states.
Based on our current information, the following describes our
understanding of DBS service provided in Hawaii. EchoStar Satellite
Corporation, which operates the DISH Network, is authorized to provide
service from the 110 deg., 119 deg., and 148 deg. orbit locations and
currently has satellites at the first two locations. DIRECTV is
authorized to provide service from the 119 deg. W.L., 110 deg. W.L. and
101 deg. W.L. orbit locations. EchoStar filed a letter on December 17,
1999, informing the Commission of its plans to provide service to
Alaska and Hawaii from its satellites located at 110 deg. W.L. and
119 deg. W.L. The Commission put this filing on public notice and has
received comments. In its letter, EchoStar states that the EchoStar 5
satellite that was launched in September 1999, has recently commenced
partial operations after undergoing successful in-orbit testing and
that EchoStar is in the process of bringing its full capacity on line.
EchoStar states that Hawaii will have at least fifty video channels in
addition to targeted local channel offerings provided from this
satellite located at 110 deg. W.L. EchoStar was granted temporary
authority to move its EchoStar 4 satellite to 119 deg. W.L. where
EchoStar asserts that it will enable residents of Hawaii to receive
enhanced service from that location. EchoStar states that from the
119 deg. W.L. location it will be able to provide more than 60 channels
of core cable type programming to Hawaii and Alaska. EchoStar states
that it also intends to serve Hawaii from its 148 deg. W.L. orbit
position when it launches a new satellite to that location. EchoStar's
original plans to serve the State of Hawaii from 148 deg. were delayed
due to technical problems as described in its request for declaratory
ruling. According to DIRECTV, it expects to serve Hawaii in the near
future but has not announced a specific date.
The Commission is committed to ensuring that DBS providers serve
the states of Hawaii and Alaska. To that end Commission staff is
working on a number of projects to meet this objective. The staff will
carefully consider all comments filed in the EchoStar proceeding, the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and the outcome of the meetings with
representatives of Hawaii and Alaska and DBS operators to determine
whether DBS providers are meeting their geographic service obligation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. I believe that we must do all we can to address the
digital divide between those of us who enjoy the benefits of electronic
commerce, and those who remain outside of these opportunities.
Specifically, I would like to know how many schools the E-Rate program
has connected to the Internet over the past year and what impact the
Internet has had on students?
Answer. In Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms
1994-99, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) estimates
that, between October 1998 and October 1999, approximately 5,752 public
schools gained access to the Internet. According to NCES, 89 percent of
all public schools, or approximately 85,322 public schools, had at
least one connection to the Internet in 1998. By 1999, 95 percent of
all public schools, or approximately 91,074 schools, had gained access
to the Internet, a 6 percent net increase. The NCES report also notes
that some 300,000 classrooms were newly connected to the Internet
during this same time period. While not all of these gains are
attributable to the schools and libraries universal service support
mechanism (also known as the E-Rate), I must observe that over $2
billion has been disbursed to public schools for internal connections
purposes in the program's first two funding years (November 1998 to
June 2000).
For evidence of the effect Internet connections have had on
students, I draw your attention to a publication produced by the
Education and Library Networks Coalition (EdLiNC), entitled E-Rate:
Connecting Kids & Communities to the Future. This publication contains
numerous stories of communities that have benefited from the program.
In Aniak, Alaska, for example, the Kuspuk School District has been able
to wire all of its school buildings and install satellite-based
Internet connections at every school as a result of the $41,000 in
first year funding that it received through the E-Rate program. Thus,
the Yupik Eskimo children residing in the district's eight villages,
none of which are accessible by road, can now utilize the Internet's
resources. Another example comes from the Houston Independent School
District, which received $19.6 million in E-Rate funding in the
program's first year. Houston ISD used this funding to help develop a
network for its various campuses and create an exchange of information
between local schools in math and science. A final example comes from
New Jersey, where the Atlantic County Library System received $100,000
in E-Rate funding to connect half of the county's public and private
schools and 20 libraries with flat-rate access to the Internet.
Question. Chairman Kennard, you are aware that Congress continues
to debate the merits of Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. The
President has identified PNTR as key to creating opportunities for
American businesses and American workers. I would like for you to
comment on the potential impact PTNR will have on the American
telecommunications industry. For example, how will PNTR and the WTO
legal framework protect the intellectual property interests of the
American telecommunications industry?
Answer. You have asked for my comments on the potential impact that
granting ``permanent normal trade relations'' (PNTR) to China would
have on the U.S. telecom industry. As I'm not an expert on trade
matters, I rely on my colleagues William Daley and Charlene Barshefsky
to comment on the general issue of PNTR and China. I can tell you that
experts at the FCC have looked at the deal that USTR negotiated with
China and believe that it offers significant commitments in the areas
of value-added and basic services. With regard to the issue of IPR,
about which you have specifically asked, I must confess that it is not
an area in which the FCC has expertise. I believe it would be more
appropriate to address your question to the Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) or to USTR.
Question. Access to telecommunications opportunities are a
cornerstone of your tenure at the FCC. Low-power FM radio and broadcast
EEO rules attempt to increase the accessibility Americans have to the
airwaves or to the industry. Could you evaluate the FCC's progress thus
far on these two initiatives?
Answer. The Commission has made great progress in authorizing a new
LPFM service and implementing its new EEO rule. On January 20, 2000,
the Commission issued a Report and Order authorizing two new classes of
noncommercial LPFM service designed to serve very localized
communities. The new rules adopted by the Commission limit LPFM to LP
100, with power from 50-100 watts and a service radius of about 3.5
miles; and LP10, with power from 1-10 watts and a service radius of
about 1 to 2 miles. The rules impose station separation requirements
between new LPFM and existing radio stations on co-, first and second
adjacent and intermediate frequency (IF) channels. The Commission opted
not to impose third adjacent channel separation requirements because
the engineering data and tests in the proceeding demonstrated that 100
watt LPFM service will not cause unacceptable levels of interference to
existing radio stations separated by three channels. A 20-kilometer
buffer has been added to the separations for protecting co-channel and
first adjacent channel full-service stations. This buffer will provide
increased protection and flexibility for existing and subsequently
upgraded full-power FM radio facilities. Eligibility for new LPFM
facilities is limited to noncommercial entities. The Report and Order
stated that a noncommercial service will be the best way to bring
additional diversity to broadcasting and serve local community needs in
a focused manner with LPFM service.
--With respect to the licensing process for LPFM, on March 17, 2000,
the Mass Media Bureau announced that 100 watt LPFM applications
will be accepted in a five-stage national filing window. A copy
of the Public Notice is attached. Further information on LPFM
may be easily obtained from the FCC home page at http://
www.fcc.gov. The fifty states, the District of Columbia, and
the remaining jurisdictions have been divided into five groups,
and all LPFM applicants proposing to locate transmitters in a
particular state or jurisdiction must file in the five-day
filing window for that state or jurisdiction. The order in
which the five different groups will be opened for applications
was determined on March 27, 2000 by lottery. The first group
consists of Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, and Utah. A copy of that Public Notice listing
the states and jurisdictions comprising each group and the
order in which the groups were placed by the lottery is
attached. The Commission expects to issue a Public Notice
announcing the first five-day filing window for the first group
of states and jurisdictions at the end of April, thirty days
before the first day of the filing window, which will be at the
end of May. For additional information, please refer to http://
www.fcc.gov.
With respect to EEO, on January 20, 2000, the Commission adopted
new equal employment opportunity (EEO) rules that reaffirm the
Commission's long-standing anti-discrimination rule and require broad
outreach to all qualified job candidates for positions at radio,
television and cable companies. The Report and Order prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin
or gender. The effective date for the new EEO rules is expected to be
April 17, 2000, assuming that the Commission receives by that date OMB
approval for the information collection requirements contained in the
rules. The new rules respond to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
decision in 1998 in Lutheran Church Missouri Synod v. FCC (Lutheran
Church), which held that certain aspects of the Commission's previous
broadcast EEO outreach requirements were unconstitutional.
The new rules require broadcast licensees and cable entities to
widely disseminate information about job openings to all segments of
the community to ensure that all qualified applicants, including
minorities and women, have sufficient opportunities to compete for
jobs. The new rules do not require broadcasters to hire any particular
applicant. The Commission also amended its EEO rules applicable to
cable entities, including multichannel video programming distributors,
to conform them, as much as possible, to the broadcast EEO rule.
The Report and Order gives a broadcaster significant flexibility in
designing its EEO program. Broadcasters may implement two supplemental
recruitment measures: (1) sending job vacancy announcements to
recruitment organizations that request them; and (2) selecting from a
menu of non-vacancy specific outreach approaches, such as job fairs,
internship programs, and interaction with educational and community
groups. Alternatively, if a broadcaster or cable entity believes it can
accomplish broad outreach without these supplemental recruitment
measures, it may design its own outreach program and must maintain
records concerning the recruitment sources, race, ethnicity and gender
of applicants so it can monitor the effectiveness of its outreach
efforts. The Report and Order continues to allow religious broadcasters
to establish religious belief or affiliation as a job qualification for
all station employees.
As in the past, broadcast stations with fewer than five full-time
employees and cable entities with fewer than six full-time employees
will not be required to demonstrate compliance with the EEO program
requirements. However, all other broadcasters must place an annual EEO
report in their public file detailing their outreach efforts and must
file a Statement of Compliance every second, fourth and sixth year of
the license term certifying compliance with the EEO rule. In addition,
all television stations and radio stations with more than 10 full-time
employees must submit their annual EEO reports to the Commission midway
through the license term and at renewal. At these times, the Commission
will review the station's outreach efforts. Cable entities will be
required to submit their annual EEO public file reports as part of the
supplemental information required by statute to be filed every five
years.
The Commission also reinstated the requirement that broadcasters
file annual employment reports, which was suspended by the Commission
following the Lutheran Church decision and retained the requirement
that cable entities file annual employment reports. The Commission will
use the information in the annual employment reports only to monitor
industry employment trends and prepare reports to Congress.
______
Public Notice--DA 00-621, March 17, 2000
FCC ANNOUNCES FIVE-STAGE NATIONAL FILING WINDOW FOR LOW POWER FM
BROADCAST STATION APPLICATIONS
The Mass Media Bureau announces the establishment of a five-stage
national filing window for 100 watt low power FM (LPFM) applications.
The five-stage filing window approach is designed to ensure the
expeditious implementation of the LPFM service and to promote the
efficient use of Commission resources.
The FCC has divided the fifty states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico and the remaining jurisdictions into five groups, each
comprised of ten states and at least one other jurisdiction. All LPFM
applications proposing to locate transmitters in a particular state or
jurisdiction must file in the filing window for that state or
jurisdiction. Applicants in states and jurisdictions in each of the
five groups will be permitted to file LPFM applications during a
designated five-day filing window.
The five groups are as follows:
I: Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Wyoming.
II: American Samoa, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri,
New York, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin.
III: Alabama, Arkansas, Guam, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington.
IV: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon,
Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, West Virginia.
V: Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana,
Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
Utah.
On March 27, 2000, the FCC will select through a random process the
first application group. The selection will be held on March 27, 2000
at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, 445 12th St. S.W., Room
TW-C305.
The dates of the first filing window will be announced by Public
Notice at least 30 days prior to the first day of the window.
The order of the filing windows in which the four subsequent
groups' applications will be accepted will also be determined on March
27, 2000. Tentatively, filing windows will follow each other at three-
month intervals. However, the Bureau may reduce or increase the amount
of time between filing windows as we gain experience with this new
service and filing approach. The dates of the four subsequent filing
windows will be announced by Public Notice at least 30 days prior to
the first day of each window.
The composition of each group is designed to ensure the equitable
distribution of LPFM station licenses in three ways. First, every part
of the country is represented in each group. Every state or
jurisdiction will have a one in five chance of being selected for the
first filing window. Second, each group is balanced by market size in
that each group contains several of the top fifteen markets. Finally,
all of the states in each group are separated geographically, thus
eliminating the potential for conflicting proposals across state lines.
By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau.
______
NEWS
March 27, 2000.
FCC LOTTERY TODAY DETERMINES ORDER FOR ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR LOW
POWER FM RADIO STATION LICENSES
ACTUAL DATES OF FILING WINDOWS TO BE ANNOUNCED IN LATER PUBLIC NOTICE
Washington, DC--The FCC today held its low power FM lottery to
determine the order in which it will accept applications for this new
radio service.
The lottery determined that the applicants from the following group
of states will be the first to be accepted: Alaska, California,
District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana
Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah.
The Commission will take applications during a five-day filing
window that will be announced in a subsequent Public Notice to be
issued at the end of April, 30 days prior to the first day of the
filing window, which will be at the end of May.
As he kicked-off the lottery process, FCC Chairman William E.
Kennard, said, ``Today we begin a process that offers access to the
airwaves to many Americans--such as members of schools, churches,
minority groups, public safety agencies, volunteer fire departments and
other local community groups. I look forward to the FCC's soon
receiving applications from many groups that, through these short-
range, low power radio stations, will have a voice to serve their local
communities.''
Commissioner Gloria Tristani said, ``My grandfather, the late U.S.
Senator Dennis Chavez, taught me that one of the most important things
we can do as public servants is to give a voice to the voiceless.
That's why low power radio is so important.''
The Commission will be accepting applications in five groups.
Evenly divided within those five groups are the 50 states, as well as
U.S. possessions and territories.
The following is the order, also determined by lottery today, for
processing applications from applicants in the remaining state groups:
No. 2.--Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Wyoming.
(Public Notice July 2000; filing window: August 2000).
No. 3.--American Samoa, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho,
Missouri, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin
(Public Notice October 2000; filing window: November 2000).
No. 4.--Arizona, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon,
Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, West Virginia (Public
Notice January 2001; filing window: February 2001).
No. 5.--Alabama, Arkansas, Guam, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington (Public
Notice April 2001; filing window: May 2001).
The actual dates for the filing windows in each state grouping will
be announced in subsequent Public Notices.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR LEVITT, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES M. McCONNELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
INTRODUCTION
Senator Gregg. Mr. Chairman, we welcome you to the
committee. We will forego opening statements on our part, and
you tell us what you wish.
OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Levitt. Just briefly, we face today a confluence of
extraordinary forces, market growth, and the development of
online trading, market structural changes which provide
enormous challenges for the Commission. We believe that the
increased funding in the President's budget will give us the
kinds of resources we need in a number of areas, including
disclosure operations, examinations, and technical
infrastructure.
There are really two areas that dominate the Commission's
agenda: the impact of the Internet, which is evolving today,
and the extraordinary losses in terms of personnel that the
Commission is experiencing. It is bad enough to lose them to
the private sector, but we are losing them to other financial
regulatory agencies. And at this time, when we have merged
these functions, it becomes particularly difficult for our
people who must work closely with the Fed and the Comptroller's
Office and other financial regulators to see staff there
earning more money, and the consequence of that is we are
losing staff to them.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With respect to Internet fraud, we see new kinds of
fraudulent schemes emerging. We are asking for a minimal amount
more than this year; the $12.5 million we received in fiscal
year 2000 was a very important first step. We hope to use our
resources effectively. So aside from fixed costs in our IT
program, we are requesting a small increase in Internet
funding. In general, this is the thrust of what we are about,
and I would be glad to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur Levitt
Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Hollings, and Members of the
Subcommittee: I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC or Commission) fiscal
2001 budget. When I spoke before you last year, I described a market
environment that was characterized by unprecedented volume, tremendous
growth, increasing complexity, and globalization. I also indicated that
the SEC would need multi-year increases in budget and staffing to meet
these demands. These same forces and the increasing use of new
technologies continue to dominate our markets and needs today.
Recent advances now permit a variety and combination of services
that blur the distinction between markets, intermediaries, and service
providers. Electronic Communication Networks (ECNs) are challenging
traditional trading floors. The nation's stock exchanges are
considering shedding their long-held membership status. Online trading
is empowering retail investors. Institutional trading has increased the
demand for greater liquidity, anonymity, and even new trading venues.
Market participants are demanding more: twenty-four hour trading,
immediate execution of orders, and lower costs.
It is against this backdrop that the President's fiscal 2001 budget
request seeks an appropriation for the SEC of $422.8 million, 12
percent above the Commission's fiscal 2000 spending level of $377
million. This $422.8 million request will fund 3,037 staff years, an
increase of 77 staff years (2.6 percent) over our current staffing
levels. Our funding request covers $15.6 million in mandatory and
inflationary expenses, $15 million to reinstitute special pay
authority, $10 million for information systems, and $5.2 million for
new staff. Additional staffing for our law enforcement activities will
better enable us to detect and take action against fraudulent
securities activity on the Internet and other online information
services, as well as respond to continued growth and change in
electronic forms of communication.
Assuming we are able to retain the necessary staff in fiscal 2001,
this request will provide the Commission with the resources necessary
to responsibly fulfill our mission of protecting investors and
maintaining our markets' integrity. In particular, it will allow the
Commission to:
--continue combatting fraudulent conduct on the Internet;
--provide effective oversight of the increasingly complex activities
of regulated entities, including examining on-line and day
trading activities;
--further implement a formal inspection cycle program of the
increasing number of alternative trading systems;
--continue focusing on financial accounting frauds, earnings
management practices, and developments in domestic and
international accounting, independence, and auditing matters;
--meet the anticipated workload stemming from the increasing number
of mergers resulting from the convergence of the gas and
electric markets and the globalization of the utility industry;
--update and improve prospectus requirements for variable insurance
products;
--develop a tailored disclosure document for unit investment trusts;
and
--strengthen its technological infrastructure to support the agency
in its three most rapidly growing areas: electronic forms,
document and records management, and market data and analysis
tools.
In requesting the funding to support these activities, however, I
must focus on two specific areas that are dominating the Commission's
agenda: the Internet and our inability to retain qualified staff.
Without bringing these factors into our discussion of the SEC's budget
needs, I believe we would fail to give a clear picture of how we plan
to meet the challenges that lie ahead, including protecting investors
and maintaining the integrity of our markets.
THE CHALLENGES OF THE INTERNET
The Internet is having a profound effect on the way investors
participate in the capital markets and on the Commission. By the end of
this year, there will be nearly 5.5 million domestic online brokerage
accounts \1\, with 20 million expected by 2003.\2\ During the first
quarter of 1999, nearly one in six equity trades was placed through
online brokerage accounts. For retail investors, the percentage of
trades executed via the Internet is even higher. A November 1999 report
by SEC Commissioner Laura S. Unger notes that more than one in three
trades by retail investors are effected online.\3\ These numbers will
only increase as a greater percentage of investors avail themselves of
the economies of online trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Adam Zagorin, Taking Stock Scams Offline, Time Magazine,
March 13, 2000.
\2\ See Rebecca Bickman, What now? The growth in online investing
heralds all sorts of changes in the near future, Wall St. Journal, June
14, 1999.
\3\ See ONLINE BROKERAGE: KEEPING APACE OF CYBERSPACE, Report of
Laura S. Unger, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
November 1999. This Report is available online at http://www.sec.gov/
oursite/wotsacro.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Internet has changed the way investment research is
conducted. The Internet affords retail investors easy access to all
kinds of information, both fact (real-time stock quotes, SEC filings,
and corporate news releases) and opinion (newsgroup or message board
postings, Internet mailing lists, analysts' reports, website
discussions, and chat rooms). Entire Internet communities--some with
their own celebrity spokespersons--have grown up around particular
industries, technologies or issuers, providing an incubator for
investment ideas, and a forum for competing viewpoints. One of the most
popular Internet message board services, for example, has over 13.2
million investment-related messages available for its patrons'
viewing.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See http://www.siliconinvestor.com (viewed March 14, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET AND SECURITIES FRAUD
While the Internet has brought significant benefits to investors,
it also has created significant dangers for the unwary. The Internet,
coupled with the greatest bull market in history, has brought millions
of relative novices to the markets, while also providing simple,
effective, and anonymous ways for unscrupulous people to defraud them.
A single mass e-mail, or ``spam,'' sent through the click of a mouse,
can more easily and cheaply reach investors than hundreds of cold calls
from an old-fashioned boiler room. The use of digital media also can
lend fraudulent material an air of credibility. Someone with a home
computer and knowledge of computer graphics can create an attractive,
professional-looking website, rivaling that of a Fortune 500 company.
In the earliest days of the Commission's Internet fraud program,
the frauds that prevailed online were simply electronic versions of
scams that had long been conducted through paper newsletters, mass
organizational meetings, and orchestrated telephone solicitations.
Principal among these were: stock manipulations, offerings frauds, and
illegal touts. We continue to witness these scams, particularly
manipulation, with too great a frequency on the Internet. For example,
on March 2, 2000 the Commission brought a settled manipulation case
against several Washington, D.C. area law students. We allege that one
of the students created a website that he used to drive up the short-
term price of four stocks. According to the complaint, the student
inflated the short-term price for each stock by as much as 700 percent.
By trading in advance of his stock recommendations, the student
generated over $345,000 in total profits for himself, his mother, three
of his law school classmates, and two of his friends.
As the Internet has evolved, however, so too has Internet fraud.
New fraudulent schemes have begun to emerge, such as: momentum trading
websites, day trading recommendation websites, recommendation scalping,
imposter message board frauds, and messages that appear to be
misdirected. These scams often result in sizable investors losses. One
purported pyramid scheme offered through the Internet, for example,
raised more than $150 million from over 155,000 investors before the
Commission shut it down. In another action, a popular online stock
touter, whom the Commission recently charged with improperly trading
ahead of his stock recommendations to the detriment of his subscribers,
maintained a website with 3,800 paying members.
SEC APPROACH
The Commission's ongoing program to fight Internet securities law
violations is a team effort, in which every Division and Office plays a
significant part. Since it is charged with uncovering, investigating
and litigating Internet cases, however, the lead role in combatting
online fraud is played by the Division of Enforcement. The SEC brought
its first Internet enforcement action in 1995. While the amount of any
fraud is impossible to quantify with precision, based on our
surveillance and the number of complaints we receive, Internet
securities fraud is on the rise. To date, the Commission has filed
approximately 120 Internet actions--most in the last two years--
alleging securities law violations by hundreds of persons and entities.
In July 1998, as a result of the Internet's growing importance and
the rising incidence of Internet fraud, a formal Office of Internet
Enforcement (``OIE'') was created within the Enforcement Division. OIE
began serving primarily as a coordinator of the Commission's Internet
program and as a liaison with other regulatory and criminal law
enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.
Between the spring of 1999 and the present, OIE has grown from
three to 13 attorneys, with experience and expertise in a wide variety
of areas pertinent to Internet enforcement. OIE's current functions
include:
--identifying areas for surveillance and conducting surveillance,
--analyzing the complaints we receive from our online Enforcement
Complaint Center (``ECC''),
--formulating investigative procedures,
--coordinating Internet initiatives,
--conducting staff and outside law enforcement training,
--engaging in special projects,
--ensuring staff compliance with federal communications privacy
statutes and applicable laws, and
--working on Internet matters for the entire Commission.
Alongside OIE is the so-called ``Cyberforce''--approximately 240
Commission attorneys, accountants, and investigators nationwide--whose
purpose is to conduct regular Internet surveillance. Cyberforce members
dedicate a portion of their work week to surfing the Internet,
developing leads for potential enforcement cases. The Cyberforce also
participates in coordinated surveillance projects both within the SEC
and with other federal agencies, such as the law enforcement ``surf
days'' orchestrated over the past three years by the Federal Trade
Commission.
COMMITTEE RESPONSIVENESS
With the vital support of this Committee and Chairman Gregg, the
Commission has made immediate strides in its Internet initiatives. In
November 1999, the Commission received a fiscal 2000 appropriation that
provided an additional $7 million over our request which supplemented a
reprogramming of an additional $5.5 million specifically to combat
Internet fraud. These funds are being spent both to augment the staff
investigating online securities law violations and otherwise studying
aspects of the electronic marketplace, and to supplement and improve
the technological systems that support those staff members. Already the
Commission has turned these dollars into tangible additions to its
Internet program. We have created 92 positions for our Internet fraud
program with these funds. Seventy-five of these positions have been
assigned to our Division of Enforcement and 17 have been assigned to
aid other offices and divisions in their Internet-related efforts. In
addition, staff currently is evaluating contractor proposals to provide
technological assistance in our surveillance of the Internet, in
response to a request for proposals that we issued in January.
Most of the new Enforcement staff will spend all of their time
investigating and prosecuting Internet fraud. Among these 75 positions,
23 have been allocated to our headquarters in Washington, D.C. and the
remaining 52 positions to our regional offices throughout the country.
The 17 positions allocated to the other divisions and offices will be
used for a variety of purposes, including bolstering our inspections
and examinations of regulated entities operating online, developing
policies for the securities industry's use of the Internet, and
furthering investor education and assistance. These additional
resources no doubt better equip us to prosecute Internet-related
securities fraud and keep the Internet safe for investors.
As the Commission enters the new millennium, profound changes are
drastically reshaping the securities industry, and compelling the
agency to reassess traditional approaches to its mission of investor
protection. In order to fulfill that mission, the SEC must be forward-
looking, strive to anticipate issues and challenges, and welcome new
ideas and new strategies for meeting those challenges. The $12.5
million we received in fiscal 2000 for combatting Internet fraud was a
critical first step in this direction. We intend to build on our past
achievements, refine those practices that continue to serve us well,
and introduce new methods that will make us even more responsive to
changes in law and technology. Equally important, we intend to work
responsibly with the resources we have been given. For this reason,
aside from fixed costs and our information technology program, we have
requested only a minimal increase above our fiscal 2000 level to fund
our Internet activities in fiscal 2001. We also are requesting only a
small increase in Internet funding because we cannot do more without
being able to retain and recruit staff, which brings me to the second
issue we would like to discuss today.
STAFFING CRISIS
The SEC is in the midst of a serious staffing crisis. On February
24, I wrote a letter to you, Committee Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member
Byrd, and the Congressional leadership alerting you to our inability to
retain staff. This problem goes to the very heart of the agency's
ability to oversee the nation's growing securities markets and to
protect America's savers and investors. In the last two years, the
Commission has lost 25 percent of its attorneys, accountants, and
examiners. (In fiscal 1999, we lost 13.5 percent of our attorneys, 16.8
percent of our accountants, and 9.9 percent of our examiners.) Our
overall attrition rate was 13 percent--nearly twice the government-wide
average, and our largest regional office alone lost a devastating 20
percent of its attorney workforce.
The Commission is losing staff before they become fully productive
because we cannot pay them enough. In a world where first-year
associates are routinely making six-figure salaries in Washington, D.C.
law firms, the salaries the SEC can provide simply are not competitive
to attract and retain a sufficient number of talented professionals to
reduce high turnover, let alone to fill open positions. While we fully
recognize that the SEC cannot match the higher salaries offered by
brokerages, law firms, self-regulatory organizations, and other
securities-related businesses, something needs to be done to narrow the
pay gap and reduce the turnover problems we face.\5\ Practically every
day at least one of my senior managers comes to me expressing his or
her frustration in not being able to keep tomorrow's leaders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Commission recently contracted for a study comparing the
significant disparity between SEC salaries and what the private sector
offers for the same line of work. We would be happy to share the
results of that study if you think it would be helpful in highlighting
the magnitude of our problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECT ON THE COMMISSION
Our current level of turnover and inability to attract qualified
staff is threatening our ability to oversee the nation's securities
markets and to respond in a timely manner to the changing events and
innovations in our markets by:
--hampering our ability to bring cases to trial and disrupting the
continuity we need when pursuing cases;
--hindering us from responding to changing markets in a timely
fashion, including through targeted de-regulatory efforts;
--limiting our institutional memory, which is a crucial component of
our long-term effectiveness as a regulator; and
--lowering employee morale, which in turn reinforces the staffing
crisis.
We also become less productive. SEC staff work hard and well to
handle the Commission's increasing, and increasingly complex, workload.
The time that our managers and senior staff can devote to this workload
is, however, reduced by the time it takes to recruit and train new
staff. The SEC conservatively estimates that it takes approximately two
years for new staff to become fully productive. During this period, new
staff are actually a drag on the efficiency of the agency because they
are still moving up the learning curve. If these staff leave just as
they become fully productive to the agency, we do not recover our
substantial investment in training them. That is a loss not only for
us, but also for the investing public and our markets.
RETENTION EFFORTS
Over the past several years the Commission has explored virtually
every available approach to keeping staff longer. In 1992, we
petitioned and received from the Office of Personnel Management the
authority to pay the majority of our attorneys and accountants
approximately 10 percent above their base pay. While special pay was a
step in the right direction, it proved to be a short-term solution.
This is because staff that receive special pay do not receive the
government-wide locality increase each year, which means that their
special pay becomes less valuable over time (it is now almost entirely
superseded by locality pay) and hence becomes less effective as a
retention tool. In addition to our special pay authority, which the
President's fiscal 2001 budget requests the funds to reinstate, the
Commission has used retention allowances and economist special pay to
help alleviate our retention problem. While all of these tools have
proved somewhat effective when targeted to specific staff and
situations, we believe they are incapable of providing the broad relief
that we need to combat the Commission's losses and treat all staff
fairly.
RECRUITMENT
The SEC also is facing a problem recruiting attorneys and
accountants. We have used recruitment bonuses where possible, but have
not met with much success. A typical first-year associate in a top-tier
New York or Washington D.C. law firm makes at least double the salary
of a comparable staff attorney at the SEC. The costs of three years of
law school leave most graduates entering the job market with
significant amounts of student loan debt. It is not difficult to
understand why the private sector looks so appealing.
Our problem is even worse for accountants, who need to be
experienced when they walk in the door. This is of particular concern
in an era where financial fraud and earnings management has been on the
rise. Experienced accountants are difficult to find and expensive to
hire because their ability to analyze complex financial statements is
highly prized. We do not have the luxury, if you can call it that, of
being able to take someone directly out of school. The Commission has
attempted to ameliorate this problem by developing an ``in-service''
placement program that allows certain Securities Compliance Examiners
to be reassigned as accountants if they meet specific criteria, but
even this effort has fallen short. In fact, last year only 46 percent
of our available accountant positions were filled. The Commission needs
the ability not only to keep staff longer, but also to bring them to
the Commission in the first place.
PARITY WITH THE BANKING REGULATORS
Another real concern the Commission has about staff salaries is the
effect of the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (``GLBA''). By
allowing securities firms, banks, and insurance companies to affiliate
with one another, GLBA requires increased coordination of activities
among all the financial regulators. Even more so than in the past,
Commission staff will work side-by-side with their counterparts from
the banking regulatory agencies, like the Federal Reserve, the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (``FDIC''). However, we cannot match the salaries that
these regulators pay.
Since all of the federal banking regulators are exempted from the
standard government-wide pay schedule established under the civil
service laws, they are able to provide their staffs with appreciably
more in compensation and benefits than we can. While the maximum salary
for a second-year attorney at the SEC, for example, is $66,000, an FDIC
attorney with similar levels of experience, technical skills, and
responsibilities can be paid as much as $91,000. This is a significant
drain on morale. It is difficult to explain to SEC staff why they
should not be paid at similar levels, especially when they are
conducting similar oversight, regulatory, and examination activities.
It is one thing for staff to make salary comparisons with the private
sector, but quite another for them to see their government counterparts
making anywhere from 24 to 39 percent more than they are. Moreover, the
Commission has already seen several staff leave to take positions with
these agencies, primarily because of pay. Unless we are put on equal
footing, this trend will continue and most likely intensify.
Given the complexities of our markets and the new business
affiliations we are likely to see, the SEC believes it is most
beneficial to have all the financial regulators working together from
the same starting point. Towards that end, the Commission believes that
providing our staff with pay comparable to the banking regulatory
agencies would significantly help in extending the tenures of key
employees and help the Commission attract sufficient staff in the first
place.
THE AGENCY AND ITS STAFF
The SEC should be a place where highly motivated people come to
perform public service and hone their skills, both before entering the
private sector and after a stint in the private sector. Such career
paths speak highly of the Commission's professionalism and the
industry's regard for the agency and its staff. However, the Commission
should be able to keep staff for a minimum of three to five years
before they leave, and show existing staff how much their efforts are
valued. The SEC can ill afford to have its future walk out the door.
Moreover, we need to ensure that the Commission has the staffing
resources to meet the significant regulatory challenges that lie ahead
as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, continue to
re-shape our markets.
PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE RELIEF
The President's fiscal 2001 budget request includes $15 million to
reinstitute 10 percent special pay for certain attorneys and
accountants. As I stated before, we previously had this authority and
used it in conjunction with recruitment bonuses, retention allowances,
and other retention tools. However, we do not believe that bringing
back special pay will be sufficient to resolve our staffing problem. A
legislative solution that would provide the Commission with the same
pay authority as the banking agencies is vital. I have been discussing
our need for pay relief with the Banking Committee and the
Administration. I hope we can all work together to attract and keep the
best possible professionals at the SEC. I cannot emphasize too strongly
the importance of this issue as it relates to our mission of protecting
investors and ensuring market integrity.
CONCLUSION
The Commission applauds the support that this Committee has given
us to respond to the changing face and form of our nation's securities
markets. Our fiscal 2001 request for $422.8 million will go a long way
toward enabling the Commission to fulfill its mission of protecting
investors and maintaining the integrity of our markets as they continue
to dramatically change. In addition, we are dedicated to making the
Internet a safe medium for investors and are grateful for the support
that this Committee has given us in helping pursue this objective. At
this time, our most significant challenge is to ensure that the
Commission maintains the skills, abilities, and expertise necessary to
address the tremendous and competing demands presented by the industry
with which we work. For this reason, we look forward to working with
you to obtain the fiscal 2001 funding level we need and the pay
authority essential to keeping the people necessary to fulfill our
mission of keeping our nation's securities markets the safest, fairest,
and most liquid in the world.
internet fraud
Senator Stevens. I have got to get back.
Senator Gregg. Go ahead.
Senator Stevens. May I just ask one question? That is, how
much of this is allocated to Internet fraud? I think we are all
hearing more and more about that.
Mr. McConnell. We have a total in the year 2000 of $12.5
million, and new money was added. That is in our base for 2001.
But that is only sort of the tip of the iceberg. We have about
200 staff people or more that are working on Internet cases.
Mr. Levitt. And a special division within the Enforcement
Division that does nothing but Internet cases. That has grown
from just a handful to approximately 14 full-time employees.
Senator Stevens. Is it well known that you have some remedy
for people who may be injured, that you will investigate it and
bring some of those people to justice?
Mr. Levitt. I think we have brought 170 Internet-related
cases, so that I think word is getting out there. I can't say
that we can convince the public that we have total control of
this because we are experimenting with new kinds of
technologies to surveil the Internet. Our people are gaining
experience, but there is so much of it out there that the best
way to approach it, we believe, is to try to identify the kinds
of cases that represent the greatest amount of fraud and bring
them and publicize them aggressively.
Senator Stevens. Do you think this is the kind of thing
that compels a beef up of the Better Business Bureaus at the
local level? I don't know anyone out my way who is watching
fraud. I don't think our local district attorneys and only
fraud enforcement people have the capability to keep track of
Internet fraud.
Mr. Levitt. We see the greatest amount of interest and help
in this coming from the State securities regulators. They are
beginning to focus on this aggressively, and working with them
we feel is a very constructive way of helping the public.
Senator Stevens. I have to get out of here, but keep us
informed. We are on the Commerce Committee together. I think we
would like to get involved in that. Internet fraud is going to
get bigger and bigger because there are just too many people
who really don't know too much about computers trying to get
into the Internet business. We are very interested in that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
RESOURCES FOR INTERNET FRAUD ENFORCEMENT
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me reinforce the chairman's comments. As far as I am
concerned--and I am sure this whole committee is concerned--we
want to give you all the resources you need in order to
adequately address the Internet, or anything else you have to
address. In my opinion, resources should not be an issue with
your agency, not only because you generate a huge amount of
fees, which means you are running a fairly considerable surplus
with the Treasury, but second because, as we have discussed
before, the integrity of the capital markets is critical to the
prosperity of this Nation. So you tell us what you need, and we
will try to meet those requests.
PAY PARITY FOR SEC STAFF
Mr. Levitt. I really appreciate your continuing support of
this effort. Our greatest, our most compelling need at this
point is the ability to get pay parity for our employees, and
it has been so frustrating in terms of the way the process
works. We have to bring on board not just this committee but
also the House Commerce Committee, also the White House, and
meanwhile we have employees watching every bit of testimony,
every nuance of staff members in these different agencies that
impact this decision. And in the meantime, they are being
seduced by offers from other financial regulators as well as
from the private sector.
Senator Gregg. Well, it is my understanding that we are
going to have in our bill a package that your agency is
developing to address pay parity. We are just going to put it
in the bill and appropriate and authorize around that.
I don't think you are going to have any problems on the
Senate side on this issue. Maybe there are issues on the House
side. Maybe there are issues at the White House. As far as I am
concerned, this is critical. We may use your package as a
demonstration because there are other agencies similar to
yours, such as the FCC, that have the same problem.
We have tried to address a different approach with the FBI,
for example. They have very serious problems over there with
keeping technology personnel.
SEC'S FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST TO OMB
The chairman asked you about Internet fraud. You have
obviously got a division that is up and running. When you put
your request into OMB, was there any adjustment of the request
in this area, or are you getting what you think you need?
Mr. McConnell. They reduced it slightly to accommodate the
special pay rate increase. They reduced the staffing slightly
to accommodate that. But it was by and large as we requested.
Senator Gregg. Maybe you could get us the numbers that you
are actually requesting.
ELECTRONIC MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Do you expect the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ to
merge? If so, what does that mean?
Mr. Levitt. I don't see the likelihood of that occurring in
the short term. The NASDAQ appears intent with going ahead with
their private placement. If you asked me to look ahead over the
course of the next 5 years, I think it is a distinct
possibility that major U.S. markets, in an effort to combat
what I believe would be growing electronic markets all over the
world, will very seriously consider formal affiliations of one
kind or another, in my judgment.
Senator Gregg. Do we need any securities law restructuring
to address this electronic market development?
Mr. Levitt. I think the market itself will bring about
these changes. I am just hopeful that the kind of arcane
governance structure that our two major markets employ with
using--needing membership votes, with an ownership structure
that in many instances is not even in the industry, I hope that
they can be persuaded that they have to reinvent themselves to
compete against profit-making enterprises that can adjust to
change with greater flexibility and shorter time frames. If
they don't, I think there is a real chance that our major
markets could lose a substantial part of their order flow to
new electronic markets and new exchanges that are developing
all over the world.
Senator Gregg. Would you give me an example of an
electronic exchange that you see represents a potential out-
year threat?
Mr. Levitt. Well, I think some of the electronic markets
that are applying to us for exchange privileges--Archipelago is
one. There are three electronic markets that want to become
exchanges here in this country. There are some springing up in
Europe. We read today in the paper about three major European
markets that will be restructured as for-profit operations.
Frankly, I think the for-profit model is far better able to
compete than the membership model. They are focusing on the
right things. They are allowing market forces to operate in a
way which will stimulate competition and innovation. And I wish
our markets could think and operate in that fashion. It is very
difficult.
Senator Gregg. This won't affect registration, will it?
Mr. Levitt. I don't think so. I think that that is a
different issue. Registration will be impacted by accounting
rules, whether we are able to embrace and harmonize the
accounting rules which will enable more companies and foreign
domains that have different accounting structures to list on
U.S. exchanges. We are doing everything we can to force that to
happen.
THE INTERNET AND FILING REQUIREMENTS
Senator Gregg. To what extent is the Internet being used as
a disclosure vehicle in the area of filing requirements with
the SEC?
Mr. Levitt. I think the Internet on balance is an
enormously positive vehicle to inform investors, to provide
information of all kinds to enable companies to use it to raise
capital themselves. We are going to see more of that, used as a
trading device where customers can develop their own
strategies. Our own EDGAR system will enable companies to file
for offerings.
On the other side, of course, it provides a vehicle for
fraud, and, in my judgment, the best way to arm American
investors is not necessarily to think that regulation alone can
do that, but to try and educate investors to be wary of the
dangers of this, and, in a market as heated as our present
market is and where investors are becoming much more emotional
than intellectual about their decisions, that task is a huge
task.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF SECURITIES COMMISSIONS
Senator Gregg. Is there a formally structured international
relationship between the various securities and exchange
commissions around the world, the key ones, Hong Kong and
Europe?
Mr. Levitt. There is a formal organization called IOSCO,
the International Organization of Securities Commissions, which
over the years has become more and more like a United Nations.
Because of that, we have formed an organization or an informal
gathering of Tokyo, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France,
and Hong Kong that meets generally on a quarterly basis. What
is really important about that is that if there is a systemic
problem that develops anyplace in the world, I know that I can
trust my Hong Kong counterpart and my Tokyo counterpart knows
that he can trust me, and that exchange of information is about
the best thing we can do to protect against systemic problems.
That is going on, and I think it is a very effective protection
for not just our markets but for the globalized markets that
have developed.
DECIMALIZATION
Senator Gregg. How successful have the exchanges been in
getting ready for a cyber event of a terrorist type?
Mr. Levitt. Well, a major cyber event coming down the pike
is decimalization, and I think the industry, having come
through the year 2000 successfully, is probably going to be
ready for the July target date. The NASD [National Association
of Securities Dealers, Incorporated] has asked us to delay that
because of the unprecedented volume they are experiencing. The
New York Stock Exchange has told us that they probably will be
ready. I think it would be confusing to American markets to
allow one of them to convert to decimals and the other not, so
we are in the process now of surveying the markets to determine
when all of them will be ready to move to decimalization, which
I think is a critically important factor to be accomplished as
quickly as possible. It would save American investors money.
SEC PREPAREDNESS FOR CYBER ATTACKS
Senator Gregg. How about the potential for a cyber attack
which was meant to disrupt the exchanges, a terrorist type of
attack?
Mr. Levitt. All of the exchanges have security programs and
backups. Some use so-called tiger teams to test for
vulnerability. I believe that more work has to be done, but I
think that, having run one of those institutions myself, I know
that they are focusing resources on that and developing
backups, which I think is critically important.
Senator Gregg. Are they coordinating with the cyber
infrastructure efforts that are going forward on the Government
level, such as the FBI?
Mr. Levitt. Yes. Yes, they are.
Senator Gregg. So that is a coordinated effort?
Mr. Levitt. Yes.
SECTION 31
Senator Gregg. Is there anything you want to tell us about
Section 31, or should we just omit that?
Mr. Levitt. Well, the various recommendations on Section 31
have to run the gamut, as you know, of getting through this
committee and through administration approval and trying to
coordinate with the bill that Senator Gramm has introduced and
the bill that will emerge from the House Commerce Committee.
We are trying to be sensitive to all of the concerns that
various parties have as this bill plays out, so we are not
waving a flag at this point, not charging ahead. We are trying
to work with all elements and trying to preserve pay parity,
which appears to be an element of all proposals.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Senator Gregg. Anything else?
Mr. Levitt. Just to express my deepest and most sincere
appreciation for your sensitivity and your understanding and
your willingness to focus on the needs of American markets and
investors.
Senator Gregg. Well, you do a wonderful job for us, and we
appreciate it. And you have a superb agency, and we want to
make sure it stays that way. So whatever we can do to help, we
are willing to put our oar in the water.
Mr. Levitt. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Commission for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. Mr. Chairman, the Internet has revolutionized the way
Americans invest in our capital markets. Over the past year,
traditional brokerages have transformed their businesses from telephone
consultations between brokers and investors to online investing where
the mouse and the computer modem have become the method for trade. What
steps have you taken to reassure online investors that they will be
protected from dishonest brokerages and fraudulent trading operations?
Answer. The brokerage industry clearly has embraced digital
technology. A November 1999 report by Commissioner Laura S. Unger
estimated that over 160 brokerage firms offered their customers the
ability to trade securities online; \1\ Internet experts have predicted
that half of all retail trades will be executed online by the end of
next year.\2\ The Commission generally views the evolution of the
brokerage industry and its adoption of new technology as positive
developments, providing investors greater, more cost-effective access
to the capital markets. The Commission is mindful, however, that the
ease of access offered by online trading creates potential dangers for
novice investors. The Commission is working diligently to keep apace of
the ongoing changes in the industry, and to protect investors from
these pitfalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ONLINE BROKERAGE: KEEPING APACE OF CYBERSPACE, Report of
Commissioner Laura S. Unger of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
November 1999, at pp. 3-4 (citing research of CS First Boston and U.S.
Bancorp Piper Jaffray).
\2\ Ibid. n. 4 at p. 125 (citing research of Forrester Research,
Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a part of this effort, we have taken steps to gather information
about online brokerage firms and their practices. Between April and
June of 1999, the Commission's Office of Compliance Inspections and
Examinations (OCIE) conducted 38 special-purpose examinations of online
brokerage firms. At the time of this sweep, the 38 firms represented
about 25 percent of the online brokerage industry. The staff selected
for examination a cross-section of the industry, including major
brokerage houses and small boutique firms. These examinations gave the
staff a comprehensive picture of how online firms operate and the
problems they and the investors who use them face. The examinations
also enabled the Commission's staff to identify areas of potential
regulatory concern.
Similarly, from October 1998 through September 1999, OCIE conducted
an examination sweep of 47 registered broker-dealers providing day-
trading facilities to the public. Findings from this day-trading sweep
are published in the Commission's ``Report of Examinations of Day-
Trading Broker-Dealers,'' dated February 25, 2000, which was recently
presented to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations by
OCIE's Director Lori Richards. While the day-trading sweep did not
reveal widespread fraud,\3\ examiners found some indications of
significant regulatory violations that warranted referrals to the
Commission's Enforcement Division. These referrals related to potential
net capital, margin and lending disclosure violations, and have already
resulted in several enforcement actions, including actions against All-
Tech Direct and Investment Street Company. The cease-and-desist
proceedings against these two day-trading firms charged violations of
federal margin lending provisions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Report of Examinations of Day-Trading Broker-Dealers,''
Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, February 25, 2000 at p.2.
\4\ In the Matter of All-Tech Direct, Inc., et al., Admin. Proc.
File No. 3-10150 (February 22, 2000); In the Matter of Investment
Street Company, et al., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-10151 (February 22,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to identifying regulatory violations, we also have
detected fraud in the form of false advertising. Certain firms have
overstated the successes their clients have enjoyed, in an effort to
entice new clients to trade through them. Last month, the Commission
filed and settled civil fraud charges against David A. Rudnick and his
company, DynamicDaytrader.com, an Internet website that provided real-
time stock recommendations to day-traders on a subscription basis. The
Commission's complaint alleged that Rudnick and his company violated
the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by, among other
things, posting significantly inflated claims of investment returns on
stocks the site recommended. The Commission obtained an injunction
against further violations of the antifraud provisions by Rudnick and
his company, as well as disgorgement of $40,107 in subscriber
membership fees plus prejudgment interest and a $15,000 civil monetary
penalty against Rudnick's company. We think this case, and others like
it, sends a strong message that the Enforcement Division will take
quick and decisive action to halt activities intended to deceive online
investors.
The Commission's Enforcement Division continues to monitor,
investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute perpetrators of all types
of online investment fraud, including frauds perpetrated by individuals
and entities outside of established firm structures. For example, the
Commission recently sued a group of individuals who reaped illegal
profits by improperly trading in advance of online recommendations.\5\
Through statements published on the stock recommendation site Fast-
Trades.com, the defendants manipulated the price of several featured
securities, leaving investors with serious losses. The Commission in
settlement obtained a final judgment permanently enjoining the scheme's
principal architect from further manipulative conduct, and a cease and
desist order barring four other defendants from future violations of
the federal antifraud provisions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ SEC v. Douglas W. Colt, Civil Action No. 1:00CV00423 (D.D.C.
March 2, 2000).
\6\ In the Matter of Kenneth Terrell, et al., Admin. Proc. File No.
3-10154 (March 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have often said, the best defense against this kind of online
fraud is a well-educated investor. Consequently, we have enlisted our
Office of Investor Education and Assistance in an agency-wide effort to
spread the word on the risks presented by online investing. The SEC's
popular Internet website \7\ contains a wealth of information on this
topic.\8\ In addition, we have incorporated discussions of day-trading
and online trading into the numerous Investor Town Meetings at which
members of my staff and I discuss investment topics with the public.
One such meeting recently was held online, giving everyone with a
computer the opportunity to attend and hear the Commission's cautionary
discussion of the potential dangers of Internet investing. Ultimately,
the best way to protect online investors is by helping to educate them,
and we continue to work aggressively toward that goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.sec.gov.
\8\ The Commission's website contains a number of useful resources
for investors seeking to educate themselves about the benefits and
hazards of online trading. Among these are transcripts of talks by
Chairman Arthur Levitt, Jr. concerning ``Plain Talk About On-line
Investing'' (May 1999) and ``On-line Trading'' (January 1999) (both
available through the Enforcement Division's web page of Internet-
related announcements, http://www.sec.gov/enforce/intrela.htm), as well
as the Office of Investor Education and Assistance's informative web
page concerning ``The Internet and Online Trading,'' available at
http://www.sec.gov/consumer/jneton.htm (updated September 30, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the Commission intends to keep abreast of the latest
innovations in electronic brokerage, to monitor firms that conduct
online operations, to assess the risks presented to investors and,
where regulatory or enforcement action is warranted, to move decisively
to address wrongdoing.
Question. Over the past year, several organizations and Wall Street
have made an effort to increase access to capital for minority owned
businesses and financial services firms. What efforts do you think will
be most effective at increasing opportunities for minorities in the
securities industry?
Answer. The SEC believes that the primary key to increasing
opportunities for minorities in the securities industry is education;
in particular, promoting the benefits of investing and careers in the
securities industry. Towards this end, the Commission has pushed Wall
Street firms to mentor students, increase recruitment activity at
colleges and universities with large minority enrollments, increase
business activity with minority owned firms, and provide financial
services in under serviced areas. The Commission intends to keep this
issue in the forefront and develop new initiatives to attract
minorities to the securities industry.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., Tuesday, March 21, 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 2001
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted
materials relate to the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
THE JUDICIARY
Prepared Statement of John G. Heyburn, II, Chairman, Committee on the
Budget, Judicial Conference of the United States
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you
for giving me the opportunity to testify on the judiciary's fiscal year
2001 budget request. It is a pleasure to return for my fourth
appearance before you and the other members of the subcommittee.
With me today are Judge Robert C. Broomfield of the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, who is also a member of the
Budget Committee; Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts, and a member of the Judicial
Conference Executive Committee; and Judge Fern Smith, the Director of
the Federal Judicial Center, who is appearing before you for the first
time. Last year the Chief Justice and Board of the Federal Judicial
Center selected her to succeed Judge Zobel as Center Director. Judge
Smith has been a federal district judge since 1988.
Before addressing our fiscal year 2001 request, I would like to
first express my sincere appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, the Members
of the Subcommittee, and your dedicated staff, for the thoughtful
consideration you have given the judiciary's budget requests and other
needs throughout the year.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
The judiciary's fiscal year 2001 budget is a very modest request
considering rising caseloads. We request a $363 million increase in
obligations, or 8.5 percent over the fiscal year 2000 level. The
majority of the request ($258 million or 6.0 percent) funds base
adjustments to continue current operations. The remainder ($105 million
or 2.5 percent) would provide some additional resources to courts
experiencing workload increases, especially those on the southwest
border, which are in a crisis situation. A detailed explanation of our
fiscal year 2001 request is included as an Appendix.
The courts have experienced a dramatic increase in overall
workload, particularly in the criminal area over the last four years.
--Criminal filings increased 28 percent;
--Criminal defendants filed increased 23 percent;
--Criminal Justice Act representations increased 21 percent;
--Pretrial services reports to the courts increased 24 percent; and
--Offenders under supervised release increased by 12 percent.
However, as the following chart indicates, because of funding
constraints, funded court support staff required to handle this
tremendous growth in workload has actually declined during this period.
At a time when Congress continues to provide more resources to the
Department of Justice, overall funded court staff are declining by 3
percent from 20,732 work units in fiscal year 1998 to 20,092 in fiscal
year 2000. For fiscal year 2001, we are asking Congress to provide for
a funded court support staffing level of 21,681. This is only 5 percent
above fiscal year 1998 funded levels, a very modest increase when
compared to the 28 percent increase in criminal filings. The majority
of the staffing increase is for probation and pretrial services
officers to handle the growing criminal workload, especially on the
southwest border.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
SOUTHWEST BORDER CRISIS
We need additional funding for all courts experiencing growing
workloads. Those funds are most needed along the southwest border. The
districts of Arizona, California Southern, New Mexico, Texas Western,
and Texas Southern have experienced an explosion of criminal workload
over the past few years. These increases are attributed to increases in
law enforcement resources at the border. Over the last five years, the
number of border patrol agents increased by 99 percent; INS agents, 93
percent; and DEA agents, 155 percent.
Not surprisingly during that time period, the criminal caseload in
the five border districts, mostly drug and immigration cases, has
exploded, increasing by 122 percent. Criminal case filings in these
border courts, as a percentage of total criminal cases filed, have
steadily increased each year from 16 percent of the national total, to
the current level of 27 percent. As the following chart indicates,
total criminal case filings in the five border courts have more than
doubled, from 7,280 to 16,180.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
The workload on the southwest border is directly affected by
increases in the resources of the Department of Justice (DOJ). For
fiscal year 2001, DOJ has requested even more FBI, DEA, and INS
personnel, as well as a 3 percent increase in U.S. Attorney staff. Even
if Congress provides DOJ with no additional increases in personnel, the
workload will still remain at extraordinarily high levels in the courts
along the border.
Because of limited funding availability, overall funded staffing
levels declined in the last two years. Nevertheless the Judicial
Conference took unprecedented steps to recognize the dramatic and
disproportionate increase in workload along the southwest border. For
the past two years, we have made across-the-board cuts to nationwide
court allotments in order to provide some immediate, albeit partial,
relief to these five border districts and other courts with
extraordinary workload growth.
These staff increases for the border districts were not without
cost. During the period when funded staff for the southwest border
courts grew by 11 percent, the remaining courts throughout the country
had to operate with a 4 percent reduction in funded staff. I would note
that total workload outside the southwest border was not declining--
there was a 12 percent increase in criminal caseload during this time.
Some districts experienced much more dramatic increases. For example,
criminal filings in Utah increased 84 percent, Illinois Southern
increased 82 percent, Iowa increased 49 percent and Kentucky Eastern
increased 33 percent. Our judicial system cannot continue to operate
effectively by ``robbing Peter to pay Paul'', particularly where doing
so does not fully address Paul's needs.
Over the past several years the Congress has chosen to make
enforcement of our drug and immigration laws a high priority. The law
enforcement personnel you have funded are doing their jobs as evidenced
by the explosion in the criminal caseload. We now have an imbalance in
the system that only Congress can address.
The long-term solution is to fully fund the judiciary's modest
budget request for fiscal year 2001. Under our system of distributing
funds to the courts according to work measurement formulas, a fully
funded budget will direct available resources to the southwest border
courts, which are experiencing the greatest workload growth. This will
allow courts to staff up to a level that will:
--allow probation and pretrial services officers to adequately
supervise federal offenders and defendants, including
conducting substance abuse screening, and prepare thorough
reports that form the basis for federal sentencing. Along the
southwest border, probation officers have reduced their
supervision of criminal felons released from prison in order to
write the presentence reports required for criminal trials.
Presentence defendants are being supervised by telephone rather
than personal visits because of the crushing workload.
--decide civil and bankruptcy cases in a more timely manner. In civil
cases there has been a 12 percent increase in the median time
from filing to disposition over the last few years.
--avoid delays that result in increased costs for private citizens
and the government.
U.S. Marshals
Another serious problem along the southwest border is the shortage
of deputy U.S. marshals and detention space. While these resources are
not part of our budget request, we know that the Department of Justice
is requesting a modest eight percent increase for the Marshals Service
and a 13.8 percent increase for federal prisoner detention. I would ask
that you give that request every consideration.
We are concerned about the level of security on the southwest
border. In many instances you will find a group of 10 or 12 prisoners
being escorted into a courtroom by 1 or 2 deputy marshals. This is a
tragedy waiting to happen. The marshals in these districts must be
provided additional resources.
In addition, the lack of adequate space is creating considerable
problems for the marshals, our probation and pretrial services
officers, and federal defenders. The lack of space is resulting in the
release of some individuals awaiting trial who might otherwise be
detained. This jeopardizes public safety. Those who are detained are
often placed in facilities hundreds of miles away, creating access
problems for attorneys and security and transportation problems for the
marshals. Additional detention space, closer to the courts, is sorely
needed.
DEFENDER SERVICES
Resource needs in defender services are directly related to
criminal filings and dramatic workload increases, especially along the
southwest border, apply to this account as well. The defender services
appropriation fiscal year 2001 requested increase of 9 percent in
obligations is consistent with the 9 percent increase requested in the
salaries and expenses account.
In addition to the $16 million in inflationary increases for
salaries and expenses, a $10 million net increase is needed to handle a
workload increase of 3,700 representations. This increase is partially
offset by a projected reduction in the average annual cost-per-
representation due to a change in the overall case mix, which will
result from a higher number of less expensive immigration cases.
A critical component of the defender services request is $11
million to increase the hourly rates paid to private panel attorneys
from $70 per hour for in-court time and $50 per hour for out-of-court
time to $75 per hour for both in and out-of-court time. This $75 per
hour rate was authorized fourteen years ago. While we appreciate the $5
per hour rate increase that Congress approved for fiscal year 2000, it
is only the second such increase in fifteen years. Despite your good
efforts, I am compelled to point out that the current rates still do
not even cover average overhead costs for a lawyer.
The urgent need for this rate increase is evidenced by the
statement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who for the second
year in a row, is raising the issue in his Year-End Report on the
Federal Judiciary. In the 1999 Year-End Report, the Chief Justice
states, ``Inadequate compensation for panel attorneys is seriously
hampering the ability of courts to recruit and retain qualified panel
attorneys to provide effective representation.'' The Chief Justice ``*
* * respectfully ask(s) Congress to make adequate compensation for
panel attorneys a high priority, and to fund the Defender Services
appropriation at a level sufficient to pay the $75 rate.'' I am here to
emphasize that request.
COURT SECURITY
Providing adequate security for all citizens who enter courthouses
is of utmost concern to the judiciary. The fiscal year 2001 request
includes a seven percent increase for court security. In addition to
inflationary increases, $2.3 million is requested for 72 additional
court security officers, primarily for new or renovated facilities;
$2.3 million is requested to replace outdated security systems and
equipment; and $3.9 million is requested for the first year of a four-
year program to acquire narrowband capable digital radios, as mandated
by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act.
COST CONTAINMENT
As you know, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the
judiciary takes very seriously its responsibilities to use the
resources Congress provides in the most efficient manner possible. For
the last several years we have undertaken a judiciary-wide effort to
find ways of doing more with less. The Optimal Utilization of Judicial
Resources Report that we sent to your subcommittee in February is a
compilation of our initiatives. I would just like to summarize some of
the major efforts we have underway.
--The use of technology has contributed significantly to the
judiciary's ability to do more with less. The judiciary is
following a multi-year plan to equip courtrooms with a variety
of technologies, which can result in reduced trial time and
lower litigation costs. The distance learning program continues
to expand through the use of the Federal Judicial Television
Network and video conferencing technology.
--Containing rent costs of court facilities remains one of the
judiciary's highest administrative priorities. A comprehensive
management assessment of its space and facilities program
should be completed later this year. This independent review
will evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the
judiciary's facilities program and make recommendations for
future facilities planning, budgeting, and management.
--In September, the judiciary completed a year-long study of the use
of judicial officer resources. The study identified ways to
improve management of available resources that might mitigate
future requests for additional Article III judgeships. The
recommendations include sharing information among courts and
chief judges, more effective use of visiting judges, and
providing assistance to courts with particularly high
workloads.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
The work of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
is critical to the judiciary's functioning effectively. The Director of
the Administrative Office serves as the chief administrative officer
for the federal courts. The agency provides a broad range of
management, program, and administrative services to the courts. It
supports the Judicial Conference of the United States and its network
of committees in determining judiciary policies, and it implements
those policies on behalf of the Conference.
An important Administrative Office responsibility is supporting,
coordinating, and implementing the Judicial Conference's numerous
efforts to reduce costs and manage resources most efficiently. The
various cost containment efforts I just summarized, as well as all of
those listed in the Optimal Utilization Report, are only possible
because of the efforts of the Administrative Office. Without the
Administrative Office, the savings and cost avoidance initiatives of
the judiciary would not have materialized.
In the interest of continuous service improvement, the
Administrative Office is currently conducting or overseeing, in
connection with Judicial Conference committees, an unprecedented number
of strategic studies of judiciary programs and operations. In addition
to the space study mentioned previously, an expert consulting firm is
considering the future information technology needs of the courts, how
the judiciary can take advantage of new technologies to meet these
needs, and how the judiciary can best organize and manage resources to
carry out its information technology program.
An independent study of the court security program will consider
whether there are ways to provide adequate security to the judiciary
more efficiently or effectively, and outside experts will conduct a
strategic assessment of the probation and pretrial services system to
make recommendations to ensure the future quality and success of these
important programs. Work measurement studies have been completed
recently and the results are being used to develop new staffing
formulas for the appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, as well as
probation and pretrial services offices.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Administrative Office
is a seven percent increase in obligations over this year, less than
what is requested for the courts. In addition to inflationary
increases, $1.4 million is requested to bring the Administrative Office
back to the level of service funded in fiscal year 1999. In order to
devote as many resources as possible to continue staffing at the level
necessary to support the courts, last year the Administrative Office
took sizeable cuts in critical non-personnel programs. Funding is
needed for deferred contractual services in support of core
Administrative Office financial and information technology systems,
such as the Central Accounting System and Data Communications Network.
In addition, staffing will be restored to provide the courts with
technical assistance in the probation, pretrial services, and court
administration programs. These staff will assist the courts in
improving program operations.
I urge the Committee to fully fund the Administrative Office's
budget request. The Administrative Office is not a ``Washington
headquarters'' agency. It is integral to the judiciary's ability to do
its core work. The judiciary could not continue to function effectively
without the support provided by the Administrative Office. A very
modest increase in funding for the Administrative Office will ensure
that the Administrative Office can continue to provide program
leadership and administrative support to the courts, and lead efforts
for the courts to operate efficiently.
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER
In 1999, the Center provided education to over 37,000 in the
judicial system, and over 90 percent of them used no travel funds. I
want to recommend strongly that the Subcommittee approve full funding
of the Center request. It is only 7.8 percent over the 2000 level and,
if granted, would put the Center only slightly over its high-water mark
early in the 1990s. The request is limited to the normal adjustments to
the base budget except that the Center is not even requesting
inflationary adjustments for travel, and for eight positions to help
provide education through the Federal Judicial Television Network,
which the Center manages for the entire judicial branch, and through
the judicial branch's intranet, the J-Net.
The work that the Center does is absolutely essential to the
judicial system and to the public. The Center's expertise was key to
the success of the recent conference of federal judges along the
Mexican border to search for solutions to the crisis in their courts.
We count on the Center to keep us informed of statutory developments,
and how the appellate courts are interpreting statutes, such as those
governing prisoner litigation.
The Center, as Judge Smith can explain, is working closely with the
U.S. Sentencing Commission to avoid duplication of effort while keeping
judges and probation officers informed about guideline developments,
including through jointly sponsored satellite broadcasts. As we get
more cases with complicated scientific and technical evidence, we rely
on the Center to provide us the tools we need to help manage this
litigation.
Finally, the Center has long been a leader in helping courts adopt
less expensive alternatives to traditional litigation when appropriate,
and is using its alternative dispute resolution expertise to help
implement the 1998 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act.
SENTENCING COMMISSION
Because the U.S. Sentencing Commission is not testifying before the
subcommittee, I would like to say a few words in support of its
appropriation request. You may recall that throughout the
appropriations process for fiscal year 2000, there was substantial
uncertainty as to the financial requirements of the Commission because
there was a complete absence of voting commissioners. As a result, the
Commission's budget was reduced to $8,468,000 for fiscal year 2000, an
11 percent decrease from fiscal year 1999 and the lowest appropriation
for the agency since fiscal year 1994. As I am sure you know, a full
complement of seven voting commissioners was appointed in November
1999, and the agency is fully operational once again.
The new commissioners face an extraordinarily heavy workload due to
the extended absence of commissioners. During that period a significant
backlog of crime and sentencing related legislation accumulated that
must be addressed by the Commission. These items cover a wide range of
criminal conduct of great concern to Congress and others, including
intellectual property infringement, sexual offenses against children,
firearms offenses, crimes committed by electronic means, and
methamphetamine trafficking offenses. The newly minted Commission has
made addressing these items its first priority, however it is severely
hampered by staffing shortages that have gone unaddressed. A de facto
hiring freeze instituted during the absence of commissioners, coupled
with the agency's normal attrition rate, has reduced the current
staffing levels by 20 percent from that of fiscal year 1998.
With this background in mind, the Commission requests funding of
$10,600,000 for fiscal year 2001, the same as requested last year. The
Commission requests adequate funding merely to restore its staffing and
operations back to a level that approximates fiscal year 1998, the last
year in which it had a fully functioning Commission. Without these
additional resources, the Commission and its staff will be unable to
respond adequately to all of its statutory responsibilities.
JUDGES' COLA
I wanted to touch very briefly on the issue of cost of living
adjustments (COLA) because I know it is one that will be addressed by
the congressional leadership. We are grateful that Congress approved a
COLA for 2000 for Members of Congress, senior executive branch
officials, and judges. The Judicial Conference strongly endorsed a COLA
for 2000 and continues to support one for 2001. We are hopeful that
Congress will allow the mechanisms of the 1989 Ethics Reform Act to
work, and that all top government officials will be provided a COLA in
fiscal year 2001.
It is important that such a pay adjustment be allowed to occur. The
judiciary is deeply concerned about the growing disparity in pay
between the federal and private sectors. Recent media reports indicate
that on the east and west coasts, top law school graduates can almost
immediately earn salaries comparable to the pay of members of Congress
and district judges, and that many lawyers no more than several years
out of law school can find jobs with successful law firms at salaries
higher than the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice. The upward
trajectory of associates' salaries reflects increasing competition
among businesses for the best and the brightest. This past fall, the
Congressional Budget Office concluded that the pay and benefits of
members of Congress, judges, cabinet officers, and members of the
Senior Executive Service are less generous than those of executives at
large and medium sized private firms. If the pay gap between the
federal government and other employers continues to widen, the
judiciary and the political branches may find that they are unable to
compete for the most talented individuals.
CERTIFYING OFFICER
There is one final issue I would like to address before concluding
my remarks. It is not a funding issue, but rather a substantive issue
that affects the way the judiciary manages its resources. In our budget
request, we have included as a general provision, statutory language
that provides court personnel the authority to manage their fiduciary
responsibilities in the same way as the Executive Branch.
Under current law the clerk of the district court, as disbursing
officer, is personally liable for the propriety of payments made for
all the court units in the judiciary. However, since the district clerk
is the only person now liable for the propriety of payments, all
paperwork for all payments must be forwarded to the district clerk.
This is very inefficient. With the legislative change that we are
proposing, other key officials in the courts can become certifying
officers. This is necessary because with budget decentralization and
the new accounting system that is being implemented nationwide, each
court unit head (e.g., bankruptcy clerk, chief probation officer,
circuit librarian) will have the ability to make his or her own
payments. These officials would certify and be held liable for payments
being proper in their respective offices, just as the district clerk is
now. This authority will eliminate a substantial volume of paperwork
that otherwise has to be forwarded to the district clerk for each
payment.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Appendix
SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2001 appropriation request for the Courts of
Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services totals
$4,217,821,000, an increase of $452,075,000 over our fiscal year 2000
appropriation level. In addition to appropriated funds, the judiciary
utilizes other funding sources to supplement our appropriations.
Included in these sources of funding are fee collections, carry forward
of fee balances from prior years, and the use of no-year funds. When
all sources of funds are considered, the increase in obligations for
fiscal year 2001 is only $355,878,000 or 8.7 percent.
Of the $355,878,000 increase in obligations, 72 percent
($256,922,000) is adjustments to the fiscal year 2000 base primarily
associated with inflation, pay increases and GSA rental payment
increases. The remaining 28 percent ($98,956,000) is needed to respond
to increased to requirements for security, magistrate judges, federal
defender offices, and to fund additional court staff required to
process growing workload. The request for the principal programs are
summarized below.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The salaries and expenses of circuit, district, and bankruptcy
courts and probation and pretrial services offices account for most of
our request. A total of $3,712,374,000 is required for this activity,
$306,535,000 over fiscal year 2000 estimated obligations. Funding
totaling $211,078,000 is expected to be available from other sources
including fee collections and carry forward balances to offset the S&E
requirement. This leaves an appropriation need of $3,501,296,000, of
which $2,602,000 is to be derived from the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund.
Over 71 percent of the $306,535,000 increase ($216,644,000) is
needed to fund adjustments to the fiscal year 2000 base for pay
increases for courts support staff ($118,967,000); pay increases for
judicial officers ($22,414,000); GSA space rental costs ($63,216,000);
inflationary increases for operating costs ($10,718,000); information
technology increases ($13,062,000); and reductions in non-recurring
costs (-$11,733,000).
The remaining 29 percent ($89,891,000) will fund 9 additional
magistrate judges and their staff ($3,764,000); 1,255 FTEs to return
court staffing to fiscal year 1999 service levels ($82,670,000); and
space alterations required to install courtroom technologies
($3,457,000). The additional magistrate judges are needed to provide an
effective, yet less costly, way of providing help to Article III judges
to handle the growing volume of civil and criminal cases facing the
courts. The additional court staff will allow the courts, particularly
probation and pretrial offices, to process the courts' growing
workload. The alteration funds will allow courtroom technologies
equipment to be installed in existing courtrooms.
DEFENDER SERVICES
A total of $444,068,000 is required for the Defender Services
program to provide representation for indigent criminal defendants in
fiscal year 2001. Of this amount, $440,351,000 is requested in direct
appropriations, and $3,717,000 is expected to carry forward from fiscal
year 2000. The total requirements for fiscal year 2001 are $37,086,000
or nine percent over the fiscal year 2000 projected obligations of
$406,982,000.
Most of the increase ($36,486,000) is needed for adjustments to the
fiscal year 2000 base for inflationary and workload increases. Included
in these adjustments is an increase of the non-capital hourly panel
attorney rate to $75 for all districts beginning April 1, 2001. Also
included is a $9,700,000 net increase associated with a workload
increase of 3,700 additional representations in fiscal year 2001.
The remaining increase ($600,000) will fund the start up costs of
two new federal defender organizations. The Congress and the Judicial
Conference have urged the judiciary 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 $60,821,000 is required.
The total requirement for fiscal year 2001 is $2,179,000 lower than the
estimated fiscal year 2000 obligations. This reduction is the result of
a projected decrease in juror days.
COURT SECURITY
For the Court Security program, a total of $215,353,000 is
required. This is a $14,436,000 increase over estimated fiscal year
2000 obligations. Adjustments to base include increases of $5,971,000
for inflationary and contractual cost increases; funding to annualize
the costs for 120 new court security officers (CSOs) partially funded
in fiscal year 2000; increased hourly rate payable to CSOs; and a
reduction for non-recurring fiscal year 2000 equipment expenditures.
The remaining increase of $8,465,000 includes funding 72 additional
CSOs to provide a security presence in existing, new and renovated
facilities housing a full-time judicial officer ($2,267,000); providing
narrowband capable digital radios ($3,910,000); and upgrading security
systems and equipment at probation and pretrial offices ($2,288,000).
______
Prepared Statement of Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to
once again testify before you on the budget requirements for the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). Chairman Gregg, it has
been a privilege to work with you, Mr. Hollings and all of the members
of this subcommittee.
I would like to take a moment to recognize the excellent staff work
you receive on this subcommittee. While your staff does keep us on our
toes, their questions and suggestions are always well thought out,
appropriate and appreciated. I believe we have benefitted from their
scrutiny and hopefully the budget products we have developed in turn
have assisted you as well.
I would also like to thank you for your efforts to provide an
increase to the AO for fiscal year 2000. Although modest in size, given
the fiscal difficulties that you faced last year we fared much better
than many agencies and for that I am appreciative. I know
administrative functions are easy targets in times of fiscal
constraint. The fact that you saw fit to increase the budget of the AO
indicates that you recognize that our role is vital to the operations
of the entire judiciary.
60TH ANNIVERSARY
1999 marked the 60th anniversary of the AO and gave us an
opportunity to reflect on how the role of the AO has changed over this
relatively brief period of time in our history. From its beginnings
where it provided services to a population of approximately 2,500 to
one that now numbers more than 30,000, the AO stands beside the courts
to provide necessary resources and program support to fulfill its
critical mission. Sixty years after its origin, the AO has become a
model for foreign judicial systems wishing to establish their own
administrative support system.
The AO was created in 1939 to eliminate the separation of power
issues raised by the Department of Justice's handling the judiciary's
administrative needs. Sixty years later, judicial independence and
service continues to be the guiding principles that govern and
influence AO operations. Whether launching a new accounting system or
developing the latest spending plan, we remain focused on ensuring that
the judiciary is equipped to perform its proper and necessary role in
our system of government.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUDGET REQUEST
The AO's request for fiscal year 2001 totals $71,350,00 in direct
obligations. This represents an increase of $4,924,000 or approximately
7 percent over anticipated fiscal year 2000 direct obligations. The
AO's budget request for fiscal year 2001 essentially provides for
current services with modest increases to restore AO operations to its
fiscal year 1999 levels. This is consistent with the funding request
for the courts and will allow the AO to keep up with its ever
increasing workload. Eighty percent of the requested increase is
necessary to fund uncontrollable adjustments to base such as pay and
benefit increases and inflationary changes. Although we are grateful
that you were able to provide the AO a modest increase for fiscal year
2000, the increase was not sufficient to fully fund program operations
at their continuing service level.
Much of the increase requested will be devoted to improving the
services provided to the courts. We will provide more technical support
to probation and pretrial services programs, court administration
programs, and the development of automated systems which support court
administrative functions. We will focus on conducting program and
efficiency reviews that will assist the courts in areas such as
securing witness protection materials; electronic monitoring; creating
pretrial services offices in the courts; developing new case management
programs and systems; improving financial management; and developing
strengthened contracting procedures and regulations.
SOUTHWEST BORDER
The AO's role in the judiciary does not stop at administrative
support. We are affected by everything that impacts the courts. For
example, the tremendous workload increase in districts along the
southwest border that you have been hearing so much about, and will
continue to hear much about, has also had an impact on the AO's
workload. It falls on the AO to try to stay ahead of the curve and
assess and--to the extent we can--lessen the havoc created in the
courts. No office within the AO is immune from involvement. Our
Statistics Division must make a special effort to keep track of the new
U.S. attorneys that are added to the border districts so that they can
predict how many additional cases will be brought and when we should
expect to see them. The people in finance must carefully review the
judiciary's financial situation and develop a way to provide these
areas with financial resources to assist with the crisis while at the
same time balancing the needs of the other 89 judicial districts, most
of whom are also seeing workload increases. Our court services section
has had to come up with ways to help in the short term by developing
and managing a system that would allow judiciary staff from other
districts to take short-term assignments in these districts to ease
some of the workload burden while it tries to find long-term solutions.
And our judges program has come up with ways to assist the judges by
taking advantage of technology and having judges in other districts
handle some cases through videoconferencing or through visiting
arrangements.
This is just an example of how the AO must be responsive to
judiciary concerns. It is an agency-wide effort, but it drains
resources from what is already a staff that is stretched very thin from
years of increasing workload without commensurate increases in staff.
AO RESPONSIBILITIES
One of the primary responsibilities of the AO is to provide staff
support and counsel to the judicial conference and its committees. In
addition, the AO provides a broad range of legislative, legal,
management, administrative, and program support services for the
federal courts. We are responsible for collecting data and preparing
over 100 different statistical tables. In addition to developing the
judiciary's budget request and national financial plan we assist almost
400 court units with developing and executing their individual spending
plans. We process all personnel and payroll actions--almost 400,000 in
1999 alone--and manage the benefit program for over 30,000 judiciary
employees. We are engaged in several major studies designed to improve
court operations. We are responsible for all national automation
applications and manage the development of new ones, which may number
15 or more at any one time. We inform, educate and audit the courts on
judicial conference policies and other operating procedures.
I am fortunate to have a staff of hardworking people who are
dedicated to the role of the judiciary in our system of government.
However, we do all of the work I mention, and a tremendous amount more,
with a modest amount of people. The consequence is that a vast amount
of knowledge on specific judiciary topics is vested, in many cases, in
only one individual. This situation keeps us holding our breath and
hoping retirements or lucrative offers from outside the AO do not rob
the AO of its knowledge base. This point is made clear in the following
chart, which shows how the AO's resources, both funding and staffing,
have been declining for the past three years, with our 2001 request
reflecting a 10 year low.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
The AO continues to be a model of efficiency, when compared to
other administrative support organizations. AO staffing as a percentage
of judiciary staffing is less than 3 percent, while the staff in the
Department of Justice's Management and Administration accounts
represents more than 5 percent of DOJ total staff.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
For the past several years, the funding received by the judiciary
has not allowed the courts to grow to the level required to keep pace
with their increasing workload. Because of this, the AO has been
increasingly called upon to help in developing new systems and programs
for the courts that will allow them to continue to provide quality
services in spite of the fact that workload increases faster than
resources. The AO is continuing to work at improving services to the
courts and to the public.
The federal judiciary accomplishes its constitutional mission with
a small portion of the nation's budget and resources, less than two-
tenths of 1 percent. Increasingly tight funding demands have required
the AO to make more efficient use of existing resources. By taking
advantage of new technologies, improving communication, and placing
increased emphasis on long range planning and budgeting, the AO
continues to be innovative in providing support services to the
judiciary. I would like to take a few minutes to describe some of our
accomplishments as well as some ongoing activities and efficiency
efforts that the AO has coordinated. Additional examples of our economy
and efficiency efforts is contained in our annual report entitled
``Optimal Utilization of Judicial Resources.''
Resource Management
The constrained funding the judiciary has experienced over the past
several years has strengthened our resolve to take a longer-term view
of our resource needs and to consider the future impact of today's
financial and programmatic decisions. The AO is spearheading a number
of initiatives that focus on ensuring that our future programs achieve
the judiciary's goals in a cost-effective way.
Long-Range Planning and Budgeting.--The AO has been working with
Judicial Conference committees to strengthen the connections between
program planning and budgeting to identify strategic planning issues,
and to analyze their future impact on the Judiciary's mission,
operations, and resource needs. In February 1999, the Conference's
Executive Committee established a new long-range planning group, made
up of Conference committee chairs, to consider planning needs and
issues. The group meets semi-annually. Topics covered in the 1999
sessions included assessing past and future trends in the judiciary's
workload, budget, and personnel.
AO staff are assisting the Conference committees with identifying
strategic issues and identifying and analyzing possible courses of
action in order to recommend new approaches and policies. Strategic
issues will be addressed within the context of the judiciary's core
values and mission in addition to considering economy and efficiency.
Work Measurement Initiative.--For twenty years, funding needs for
court support staff have been determined based upon staffing formulas.
These formulas provide an objective means to consider workload factors,
such as the number of cases filed, and equitably determine the amount
of staff funding needed in each district. While the current formulas,
which were developed in the early 1990s, have worked very well in
determining the staffing resource increases or decreases needed from
year to year, they have become outdated and do not address the impact
changing times have had on staffing needs.
Under the overall leadership of the Judicial Conference Committee
on Judicial Resources, the AO is updating the formulas. New staffing
formulas for allotting funds to the courts are being developed that
will reflect new work requirements, the impact of technology, and
changes in work processes that have been implemented in recent years.
After the new formulas are completed, work changes and resource
requirements will continue to be studied so that formulas can be
revised regularly to reflect new work or operational changes.
Financial Management Improvement Program (FMIP).--In 1999, the AO
introduced the FMIP. This program is aimed at: elevating the overall
financial skills level of AO and court personnel; providing an ongoing
training program for the courts in appropriations law, budget
decentralization, and internal controls; designing financial process
improvements and assisting the courts in implementing them; modernized
automated financial systems such as our new accounting system and the
Criminal Justice Act payment system replacement; and, updating and
maintaining financial policies contained in the Guide to Judiciary
Policies and Procedures.
Major Studies
The AO is committed to developing, refining, and providing the best
possible support to court programs. Agency staff were engaged in
several major studies in 1999 aimed at improving court operations.
Although the studies themselves are being performed by outside
contractors, a lot of AO staff resources are required in the
development and awarding of the contract, as well as providing
information to and working as a liaison between the contractors and the
courts. I am confident that the results of these studies will be better
service to the courts and the taxpayers.
Space and Facilities.--In 1999, the AO contracted with Ernst &
Young to conduct a comprehensive program and management assessment of
the judiciary's space and facilities program. The main purpose of this
study is to evaluate and develop recommendations on the effectiveness
and efficiency of the space and facilities program. The study will
address: organizational relationships, roles and authorities; long-
range planning process; courtroom needs; U.S. court design guidelines;
facilities management policies; and, funding and budget mechanisms.
Ernst & Young will recommend strategies for achieving program
objectives, improving processes, and containing costs.
Probation and Pretrial Services.--The AO has received proposals
from a number of outside contractors in our efforts to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the probation and pretrial services system.
The assessment will address a number of important issues raised by a
confluence of increasing responsibilities, changing federal criminal
populations, and constrained budgets. The broadest issue is whether
there are ways to accomplish the system mission more effectively
through changes in functions, policies, management systems, processes,
organization, assignment of responsibilities, resources, operational
approaches, statutes, or regulations.
Information Technology Program.--The AO also is involved in a study
to assist the judiciary's rapidly expanding information technology
program. The assessment will focus on: the judiciary's short and long-
range information technology needs and objectives; projected changes
and enhancements in information technology in the marketplace and how
best to position the judiciary's information technology program to take
advantage of new technologies to meet current and future requirements;
and, alternatives for organizing and managing resources to carry out
the judiciary's information technology program effectively.
Court Security.--Meeting the security needs of the judiciary is a
vital but increasingly costly requirement. Although it comprises
slightly less than 5 percent of total judiciary expenditures, court
security has been the fastest growing component of the judiciary's
budget. The AO contracted for an independent assessment of how security
services are provided to the judiciary. The study will review: exterior
and interior physical security of federal courthouses and multi-tenant
facilities; the need for after-hours or 24-hour security coverage;
courtroom security during civil and criminal proceedings; the court
security officer program, including contract administration, staffing
formulas, and wage determination procedures; alternative approaches of
providing guard services; and the need for background checks on
judiciary employees.
The proposed study will determine if there are alternative ways to
provide adequate security to the judiciary more efficiently and more
effectively.
Training Needs.--In 1998, the AO, Federal Judicial Center and U.S.
Sentencing Commission jointly contracted with a private consulting firm
to assess training needs for the judiciary and AO employees. The
contractor is analyzing, documenting and prioritizing training needs,
and it is preparing a training plan that will serve as a road map for
the development of future training programs. The final training plan
and a comprehensive report will be presented to the Committee on
Judicial Resources for consideration in June 2000. This is the first
comprehensive study of training needs undertaken by the judiciary.
Communication Improvement--Use of Technology
As court responsibilities and caseload expand, the growth rate of
the AO has not kept pace with the judiciary as a whole. This has forced
us to identify creative and at times non-traditional approaches to work
and to strengthen existing lines of communication with the courts and
the public through a variety of media, as well as reaching out through
informational and training programs.
J-Net.--For internal communications, the judiciary uses an
``intranet''. The AO maintains a site on this intranet, called the ``J-
Net'', which is helping to achieve savings in paper and postage costs
as it disseminates greater amounts of information in place of paper
documents. The site is visited more than 5,000 times weekly by
judiciary employees looking for reports, statistics, manuals, and other
documents. More than 140 court units now have some type of information
published on the J-Net, which was redesigned in 1999 to provide easier
access to court information.
Internet.--The AO manages and coordinates policies and procedures
related to Internet access. Dissemination of court information to the
public via the Internet saves time and money. Many courts receive fewer
calls regarding office hours, directions to the court house, and
questions concerning local rules. The judiciary also uses the Internet
for research and acquisition activities. The AO also maintains an
Internet site which contains statistical information, proposed changes
to the federal rules, employment information and more.
FJTN--Training and Education.--The Federal Judicial Television
Network (FJTN) is the judiciary's nationwide broadcast network. The
FJTN currently broadcasts to approximately 270 court locations and will
eventually be available in 285 locations. The FJTN became an integral
part of the judiciary's training efforts in 1999 through its distance-
learning programs. One of the greatest benefits of the network is the
ability to reach a multitude of sites. Live broadcasts also are using
``push-to-talk'' capability, which allows viewers to ask questions
during the broadcast.
AO staff are converting training programs traditionally offered in
a classroom setting to a format using the television network. The FJTN
has allowed the AO to deliver high-quality training programs to a
larger audience at reduced costs compared to traditional classroom
instruction. The AO now broadcasts over 80 hours of live and taped
educational and information programming per month to sites throughout
the judiciary. Our partners, the Federal Judicial Center and the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, combine to broadcast an additional 50 hours per
month. Recent programs that have been broadcast include: Federal
Retirement Benefits for Court Personnel; Security for Judiciary
Computer Users; Introduction to Case Management and Electronic Case
Filing; and Pretrial Services Investigations and Reports Training.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I hope I have met my
goal of impressing on you the wide array of responsibilities vested in
the AO. Our role goes far beyond administrative support. Although we
are not a headquarters office, we must be knowledgeable of all of the
judiciary's operations. For every issue that affects the judiciary,
every new piece of legislation that expands federal jurisdiction, every
Administration initiative that impacts federal law enforcement, every
congressional request for information, there is some person at the AO
who must quickly master the subject and render expert advice. I am
proud of our record of accomplishment and service to the courts and the
American public. I plan on doing everything in my power to continue not
only to this by granting the modest increase I am seeking for fiscal
year 2001.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fern M. Smith, Director, Federal Judicial
Center
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Fern
Smith. I have been a U.S. district judge since 1988 and director of the
Federal Judicial Center since July 1999, following my selection by the
Center Board to succeed Judge Rya Zobel.
The Center is grateful for the 1.2 percent increase it received
this year, especially in light of the tight circumstances confronting
you.
This statement summarizes our 2001 request and then describes our
work in these areas:
1. Using distance learning technology to provide education to the
federal courts.
2. Helping the southwestern border courts and other courts develop
education to attack critical problems.
3. Helping judges implement statutes on prisoner litigation and
other matters.
4. Analyses of federal court structure and procedures.
5. Cooperation and coordination with the U.S. Sentencing
Commission.
6. Education and research to implement ADR programs.
7. Helping courts manage complex scientific and technical lawsuits
and other aspects of modern federal litigation.
2001 REQUEST: TO ENHANCE EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
We request an appropriation of $19,337,000, a 7.5 percent increase
in obligations for adjustments to base and for eight automation and
video positions in order to expand the reach of our training programs
through greater use of educational technology. Granting the full 7.5
percent increase would produce a 2001 appropriation just 2 percent over
the Center's 1992 appropriation, the highest granted to date. The eight
positions we request are the same positions that Judge Zobel sought
last year. I have reviewed the request closely to assure myself that
the request is responsible and well-grounded.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Center's 2001 request was unanimously approved by the
Center Board, which the Chief Justice chairs. I have also discussed our
request with the Judicial Conference's Committee on the Budget, the
Administrative Office, and with the Sentencing Commission. A joint
Judicial Center-Administrative Office committee was created several
years ago to coordinate plans and avoid duplication or even its
appearance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request no increase in travel funds--no programmatic increase
and not even the standard inflationary increase. We anticipate Center
travel spending in 2000 to be 40 percent, or $2.1 million, less than in
1995. Likewise, the number of participants in our travel-based programs
continues to decrease--by roughly a third since 1995.
Although our spending for travel-based education has declined
sharply, our training population is increasing. FTEs in the courts have
increased by 15 percent since 1995, and the courts are seeking funds in
2001 for 1,255 additional, much needed court staff. Personnel hired
pursuant to these requests, particularly the almost 700 probation and
pretrial services officers, will need FJC orientation training and then
continuing education throughout their careers. Furthermore, as
explained throughout my statement, the courts' training needs are
themselves becoming more complex because the work of the courts is
becoming more complex.
We are thoroughly committed to distance education for the great
bulk of our training: Over 90 percent of the participants in Center
training use little or no travel. But distance education still requires
resources, including personnel sufficient to do the job.
Four of the eight positions we request are to rebuild our video
staff, which operates the Federal Judicial Television Network (the
FJTN) and produces educational videos. The FJTN began broadcasting in
1998; last year it broadcast over 1,400 hours. The Center video staff
operates the FJTN teletraining studio, which we built, programs the
transmission to the satellite uplink, and produces and disseminates the
monthly broadcast schedule. We manage the network not just for Center
broadcasts (including those we produce with the Sentencing Commission)
but also for those of the Administrative Office, allowing operational
efficiencies and saving resources elsewhere in the judicial branch.
However, even with the major responsibility of running the network
for the third branch, our video staff must continue to design, film,
and edit the educational videos that increasingly make up parts of the
Center's FJTN broadcasts. It must also continue to produce videos
essential for our judicial orientation programs and for court use in
local educational seminars.
Operating the network and continuing to produce educational videos
have imposed a serious strain because we have been able to increase our
video staff only by one and a half positions, extracted from other
personnel sources. Four additional positions will allow us to update
our judicial orientation videos, some of which are almost ten years
old, meet demands for additional videos, and consider broadening the
FJTN broadcast day to accommodate the western time zones.
We also request four positions to expand other Center technology-
based educational services. Satellite broadcasts, while important, are
only one of the non-travel education technologies now used for
education in both government and business. The four automation
positions we request will let us expand the number of on-line computer
conferences we provide the courts, place more interactive training
tools on the J-Net (the federal judiciary's internal intranet), convert
to the web our training tutorials that are now on CD-ROM and computer
disc, and develop inventory, ordering, and distribution services for
Center educational publications and videocassettes.
CENTER SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES
To help put our request in perspective, the rest of my statement
describes the range of Center services and activities, all of which
promote a more efficient and effective federal court system. By way of
overview, in the 1999 calendar year, the Center
--provided 906 educational programs for more than 37,000 federal
judge and court staff participants, either directly or through
Center educational materials used in courses arranged by
individual courts and taught by court employees. These are
employees the Center has trained to lead the courses in
addition to their regular duties. The great majority of this
education and training involved little or no travel.
--completed, primarily for committees of the U.S. Judicial
Conference, 23 major research and evaluation projects,
continued work on 31 others, and responded to many other
requests for short-term research assistance.
--produced or updated 53 educational programs for live or videotaped
satellite broadcast or distribution on videocassette.
--broadcast more than 1,400 hours of educational and informational
programs from the Center and from the Administrative Office
over the FJTN.
--completed 8 curriculum packages and training guides.
--answered some 2,000 information requests from judges, court staff,
and others.
--hosted seminars or briefings for almost 430 judges and officials
from some 70 countries.
A more detailed discussion of our activities follows.
Using distance learning technology to provide education to the federal
courts
In 1999, over 90 percent of the participants in Center-sponsored
educational programs, and in locally sponsored training events that
employ Center materials and services, used distance education methods,
including satellite broadcasts. Distance education saves time and money
while meeting proliferating education and training needs throughout the
courts. Asynchronous distance education--that is, education available
on demand from the Web or videocassette--provides education when the
judge or court employee needs it to help resolve a new and special
problem. As these educational needs become more diverse, and as judges
and staff become ever busier, the importance and cost effectiveness of
web-based training, manuals, and various forms of video education
becomes all the more apparent. We use numerous needs assessment methods
to determine how distance education can increase federal court
productivity and efficiency.
Federal Judicial Television Network
The FJTN has been operating for almost two years from Center-
operated studios, in the Thurgood Marshall Building, that now broadcast
to over 270 federal court locations that the Administrative Office has
equipped with satellite antennas. The quality of FJTN operations
testifies to the skill of the Center video staff, especially given the
strain I described above. The Center's reputation has spread outside
the judicial branch. Representatives from the private and public sector
(most recently the Justice Department) have visited the Center's FJTN
operations to learn how to develop similar satellite networks.
This month we will broadcast nine new programs and eight programs
that were broadcast in earlier months. These programs will be
rebroadcast several times during the month so that judges and court
staff can use them at times that suit their schedules.
The Center's programming on the FJTN enhances the knowledge and
skills of court personnel on subjects that are difficult to accommodate
through traditional methods, at least in the large numbers broadcast
technology allows for. Center programs have helped many probation and
pretrial services officers learn basic occupational Spanish, learn how
to reduce the risk of recidivism by channeling defendants and offenders
to education and employment opportunities, and learn how to deal with
substance-abusing defendants and offenders by understanding the
scientific bases for dependency and their ramifications. One program,
for example, featured Dr. Alan Leschner of the National Institute on
Drug Abuse describing Advances in Drug Abuse and Addiction Research. An
annual FJTN orientation for new federal law clerks provides them
consistent, nation-wide instruction on their ethical responsibilities
and teaches them economy in drafting. Most of these programs are
interactive, allowing users to participate in the programs through the
``Push-to-Talk'' microphone technology, as well as through faxes and
call-ins.
Center FJTN broadcasts also help local court managers use training
effectively. Recent broadcasts have provided managers information on
how to use the concept of ``competencies'' in human resource management
and court training and how to use ``structured on-the-job training''
techniques.
The Center broadcasts its FJTN video magazine Court to Court
several times a year to inform court managers of economies devised by
colleagues around the country. Court to Court was a finalist in the
national ``Telly Awards'' competition for non-network video programs,
as was a Center program that explains judicial procedures to court
interpreters.
We are replacing anecdotal information with better estimates of the
viewership of FJTN programs--original broadcasts, rebroadcasts, and
those that court personnel tape for later viewing. Since July, we have
conducted a sophisticated viewership study designed by Center survey
research experts using randomly selected samples of FJTN downlink
sites. This project will yield data to help determine the FJTN's most
economical uses. Once the project has yielded sufficient data to merit
reporting, we will gladly make them available.
Videoconferencing
The Center also makes extensive use of two-way videoconferencing
for meetings and for training programs for small numbers of
participants. Since 1998, Center personnel have managed over 100
videoconferences for the Center and a like number for the
Administrative Office. The Sentencing Commission has also used this
service, as have some federal courts.
Web-based education
The Center is using its website extensively to provide education
and information to the courts and to promote access to our resources by
the general public. In September 1998, the Center, in collaboration
with the Administrative Office, produced the first web-based
interactive tutorial for the judicial branch. It helps court staff
prepare reimbursable work authorizations (RWAs) for facilities
renovation, repair, and building services. It is a multipart
application with an on-line self-testing tutorial on all aspects of
creating and managing an RWA as well as tools to create, file, and
archive them. We had earlier developed a tutorial to teach court
personnel the rules of civil procedure, and now also have a more
extensive tutorial on the bankruptcy rules. In addition, through its
website the Center sponsors moderated on-line computer conferences--a
form of asynchronous distance education--that participants join from
their desks. We have sponsored 52 such conferences since 1997.
FJTN broadcast schedules, program descriptions, and written
materials for some programs are available on-line, often weeks before
they are available in print. Many Center publications and other
educational products are on line.
We have recently redesigned our website to make it the most
complete and accessible research and educational resource available to
federal court personnel. Training specialists in courts throughout the
country can use this site to take advantage of the experiences of their
colleagues in other courts and circuits. The site identifies trainers
in other courts who have dealt with particular problems and allows
users to pose questions to them, view other courts' training events
databases, and obtain electronic copies of resource materials that
others have developed. An operations exchange group lets managers and
employees pose or answer questions or locate resources about court
operational issues.
For the public, the Center's Internet site includes 50 Center
publications. Last month we opened our Federal Judicial History
website, which the Center developed pursuant to its statutory mandate
to conduct and encourage programs on the history of the federal courts.
This electronic reference source about the development of the federal
judicial system is the most comprehensive such resource available in
any form, providing users ready answers to many of the most frequently
asked questions about the history of the federal courts. The
biographical database of federal judges is the first complete list of
life-tenured judges who have served since 1789; its query feature
yields answers to many questions about those who have served on the
federal bench and about the changes in the make up of the federal
judiciary over its 200 year history and in more recent times. The
Landmark Judicial Legislation section includes 21 of the most important
statutes determining the organization and administration of the
judiciary, with essays describing congressional deliberations. The site
also lists all chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees
since 1813.
Training products for in-court use
The Center makes available over 50 self-study guides, computer-
assisted instructional programs, and ``training packages'' that it has
designed for court managers to use in building training into their
human resource programs. In 1999, over 15,500 participants in locally
sponsored programs used these resources, in-district with no or minimal
travel. A few examples of the subjects available for local court
education are:
--a video-based program to help clerk's office personnel understand
how to assist lawyers and the public without giving advice of a
legal nature;
--programs to help court managers and staff increase productivity
through modern business practices of process improvement,
quality service, and team-based management;
--training packages with desk references to help probation and
pretrial services officers make financial sanction
recommendations and work with mentally-disturbed defendants and
offenders;
--a computer-assisted training program on a Center-developed
statistical model that helps probation officers determine the
likelihood of recidivism during an offender's term of
supervision.
Helping the southwestern border courts and other courts develop
education to attack critical problems
The Center provides judges and court managers the education and
training resources they need to develop their own knowledge and skills
in critical problem areas, as well as develop the knowledge and skills
of the court staff that report to them. The Center works regularly with
numerous advisory committees and ad hoc planning groups to determine
what judges and court personnel need and to provide training programs,
curriculum packages, video broadcasts and cassettes, and on-line
services that meet those needs in the most cost effective manner. Here
are some specific examples:
The Southwest Border Conference
Illegal immigration and drug importation have created a crisis in
federal courts along the Mexican border in the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth
Circuits. Last May, Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Carolyn King asked the
Center to help design a workshop where federal judges in her circuit
could learn from each other techniques to cope with the extraordinary
crush of litigation and to discuss candidly the costs and benefits of
various measures that judges have developed. The workshop was expanded
to include the border district judges in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits
and held last month in Albuquerque, with a keynote address by Senator
Domenici. As one judge put it, this meeting let ``the frontline
soldiers in our war on border crime'' share ideas on how to deal, and
how not to deal, with the changing contours of border court problems.
This workshop was a coordinated effort by the judicial branch. The
Administrative Office arranged funding, and Center education experts
worked with the planning committees of judges of the three circuits to
design a program of maximum benefit, based on our experience in
designing all manner of practical educational exchanges for judges that
save the courts both time and money.
Electronic case filing
As courts convert from paper to electronic filing, they must
prepare the bar for this change. At the request of one of the courts
that is preparing to receive filings electronically, the Center
developed on-line tutorial, in collaboration with that court, to show
attorneys how to file pleadings and other case-related materials
electronically. We are developing a similar tutorial in collaboration
with a bankruptcy court. Both tutorials will be available as templates
for other district and bankruptcy courts.
Helping bankruptcy courts' public information functions
Many people who seek to use the bankruptcy process are unfamiliar
with it, especially those not represented by counsel. Bankruptcy
clerical personnel face substantial burdens in answering the questions
posed by these potential users, many of whom do not speak English. To
help the bankruptcy courts' clerical personnel, the Center is creating
a combined video-print information package in English and other major
languages that each bankruptcy court may use to provide much of the
information that the court staff would otherwise have to provide on a
person-by-person basis.
Helping judges implement statutes on prisoner litigation and other
matters
Educational programs are needed to help judges and court staff stay
abreast of both the responsibilities that Congress gives them and the
evolution of case law interpreting that legislation.
Criminal cases and prisoner litigation
The 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act and Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act created new requirements for federal judges
in reviewing lawsuits filed by prisoners objecting to the conditions of
their confinement as well as habeas corpus petitions filed by prisoners
seeking review of their convictions. Also, Congress has authorized the
death penalty for a growing number of federal crimes, which has created
a complex set of procedural challenges to ensure a trial that is fair
both to the government and the defendant.
Starting with a pre-FJTN, 1996 satellite broadcast, the Center has
made a major effort to help judges and court staff with the effective
management of prisoner civil rights, habeas corpus and death penalty
litigation. For example:
--Nine Center programs last year for district and magistrate judges
included a total of over 30 hours of instruction and analysis
about the two 1996 statutes and related subjects. And at the
request of the Third Circuit, the Center conducted a two-day
program devoted entirely to capital habeas cases in the
circuit; in addition to federal judges, nearly 200 prosecutors,
defense counsel, and state judges attended at no cost to the
Center.
--The Center also broadcast an FJTN update on the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, with special emphasis on sections governing
exhaustion of remedies, filing fees and costs, termination and
stays of prospective relief, attorney's fees, physical injury
requirement, three strikes provisions and screening
requirements.
--Later this year, the Center will release, probably through its
website, the first part of a two-part resource guide for judges
on managing death penalty litigation. Part 1 deals with federal
prosecutions; part 2 provides guidance on federal habeas review
of state death penalty cases. Both will help judges manage the
costs of death penalty litigation.
Early this summer the Center will broadcast a two part program
for federal judges on managing federal death penalty cases,
tapes of which will serve as ready references for judges
assigned such cases.
These efforts build on the death penalty litigation clearinghouse
that the Center has maintained for several years, through which
federal judges assigned death penalty cases may obtain copies
of pretrial orders, jury charges, and other documents developed
by judges who have handled these cases, along with audio and
videotapes of Center educational programs.
--We have assisted the Administrative Office in evaluating the
Judicial Conference's Criminal Justice Act supervising attorney
pilot project to help courts manage CJA responsibilities. Next
year, the Center will present to the relevant committees of the
Judicial Conference our analysis of this project's impact.
The Center's Manual on Recurring Problems in Criminal Trials, now
in its fourth edition, is a standard reference work for judges on the
appellate case law governing criminal proceedings. It is heavily used
for training federal prosecutors as well. The Justice Department has
printed 7,000 copies of the 4th edition and distributes it in its
classes.
Other case law updates on the FJTN
The Center uses the FJTN and traditional judicial seminars to keep
judges informed about new appellate case law, knowledge that is
essential for an efficient judicial system. Each July, our FJTN review
of the U.S. Supreme Court term alerts judges and their clerks to the
decisions most likely to affect federal judges' daily works. Last month
we broadcast our first bankruptcy law update, which followed an earlier
FJTN program on agricultural bankruptcies and regional FJTN circuit
bankruptcy law reviews.
Analyses of federal court structure and procedure
Center research analyzes the impact of statutory and rules
provisions to help the courts, Judicial Conference committees, and in
some cases Congress, determine whether to consider alternative
approaches.
The Center works closely with the Judicial Conference Standing
Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure, and with the four
Advisory Committees, to analyze the operation of the rules and help the
committees determine where amendments may be needed to promote more
efficient and fair litigation. Recent analyses included studies of
document-production burdens, an analysis of district and appellate
practices that require disclosure of financial interests of parties in
federal cases, and a study of five states' court procedures for court-
ordered mental examinations of defendants in capital cases. We will
soon present information on the use of special masters in complex civil
litigation to the Judicial Conference's Advisory Civil Rules Committee.
The Center completed an evaluation of digital audio recording
technology for the Court Administration and Case Management Committee,
a technology now approved by the Conference as a method for taking the
official court record.
The Center will release this year a source book of case-management
procedures used in the thirteen federal appellate courts, in response
to the observation in the judicial branch's Long Range Plan that ``the
processes by which appeals are actually decided in each circuit are
generally not well known, and they have not been sufficiently
studied.'' A conference of chief circuit judges and circuit executives,
arranged by the Center and held last week in connection with the
meeting of the Judicial Conference, allowed exchange of information
about chief circuit judges' court and circuit management practices.
This conference was similar in purpose to the conferences that the
Center regularly presents for chief district judges and chief
bankruptcy judges.
Ninth Circuit structure
The Center provided research and analysis for the statutory
Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of
Appeals. The commission presented its legislative recommendations late
in 1998 for changes in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
in appellate structure generally. This year, the Center published the
Commission's working papers so that Congress and other interested
parties can readily review the underlying Judicial Center data, and
other materials, with which the Commission worked and that helped shape
its recommendations.
Cooperation and coordination with the U.S. Sentencing Commission
Congress, in creating the Sentencing Commission, directed it to
work with the Center to avoid duplication of effort in training and
research. Commission representatives have long been an integral part of
the faculty for our orientation programs for new federal judges and
probation officers. We have worked with the Commission, the Judicial
Conference Criminal Law Committee and its staff, and the U.S. Bureau of
Prisons, to arrange periodic sentencing policy institutes as one means
for the Commission to get the views and experiences of federal judges
about the guidelines, which they apply on a daily basis. To help the
Commission use the FJTN to broaden its educational reach, the Center
has included Commission components in its own broadcasts, including
Perspectives, the Center's periodic FJTN educational news magazine for
probation and pretrial services officers.
Shortly after the new commissioners were sworn in this year, the
commission chair, Judge Diana Murphy, Commissioner John Steer, and top
commission staff met with top management of the Center to ensure
continued close coordination. Earlier this month, the FJTN broadcast
the first of three joint Center-Commission programs on the Sentencing
Guidelines. Sentencing and Guidelines: Departure Analysis explained
statutes, decisions, and guidelines provisions concerning departures,
provided a ``departure roadmap'' of the Supreme Court's case law
departure analysis, and presented hypothetical fact patterns to
illustrate upward and downward departures within the Guidelines. The
Center and Commission will continue their FJTN partnership and explore
additional uses of the FJTN, as well as use of the videoconferencing
equipment for informal hearings.
Education and research to implement ADR programs
The 1998 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act directs each federal
district court to provide alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to every
civil litigant. Since the late 1970s the Center has played the leading
role in helping federal courts implement mediation, arbitration, and
other alternative methods to reduce the time and cost of litigation and
to improve the process. Recent examples include our sourcebooks on ADR
in district and appellate courts, which tell federal courts how other
courts are using ADR techniques, and analyses of several trial and
appellate level ADR methods. The Center also provides judicial
education in alternative dispute resolution techniques to federal trial
judges, and this year agreed to make future mediation training programs
we provide for U.S. magistrate judges available to the Court of Federal
Claims special masters who adjudicate claims under the statutory
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Given the 1998 ADR Act's call for the Center to help in
implementing the statute, shortly after passage we broadcast an FJTN
program to familiarize courts with the Act and its requirements. Last
December, we presented a conference for the statutorily required ADR
administrator in each district court. Because of the Center's
reputation in the ADR area, the highly regarded Hewlitt Foundation,
which has long promoted alternative means of resolving disputes,
provided the funds for this conference through a donation to the
statutory Federal Judicial Center Foundation.
To further help the courts in implementing the 1998 Alternative
Dispute Resolution Act, the Center will publish a guide for judges to
help them select and manage cases in ADR.
Helping courts manage complex scientific and technical lawsuits and
other aspects of modern federal litigation
Orienting new judges to their roles and responsibilities is a core
Center function. For a federal judge, however, learning is a continual
process. Rapid changes in science and technology, in particular, are
affecting the courts' work.
Judicial education about science and technology
The Supreme Court, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)
and its progeny, and Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996), has
greatly expanded federal judges' responsibility to assess the
reliability of scientific evidence offered in federal litigation,
including but not limited to patent cases. Judicial education in these
areas is often most effective when judges meet face to face with
faculty and colleagues, as they did at Center programs last year on
intellectual property and on developments in human genetics and other
scientific topics.
Distance education, however, is also important in this kind of
education. Thus, the Center is publishing this year the second edition
of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (with a Foreword by
Justice Stephen Breyer). The Manual, which will be available on our
Website (and to private publishers) to facilitate access by attorneys,
will help bench and bar deal with scientific and technical evidence
efficiently and effectively.
We are also working with the Board of Editors of the Center's
Manual on Complex Litigation to produce a fourth edition of this
standard reference work. The new edition will take account, among other
things, of the changes created by recent case law and other
developments in class actions and mass tort litigation. A basis for
this work is the three expansive analyses of the mass torts phenomenon
that the Center provided the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee
on Civil Rules and its Working Group on Mass Torts. These analyses
formed a large part of the materials in the Working Group's report to
the Chief Justice.
Private publishers, of course, may produce their own versions of
Center publications for sale to the public and the bar. The Center
encourages these sales, along with sales through the Government
Printing Office, because pretrial and trial proceedings are likely to
be more efficient when bench and bar have access to the same basic
reference material. One of the leading legal publishers recently
reported that the top ten titles that it sells to federal agencies
include its editions of the Center's Manual for Complex Litigation and
Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence.
Finally, later this year we will broadcast a six part series on
science in the courtroom. The first three parts will deal with the
scientific principles of DNA research and their application in patent
cases. The second three parts will be about toxicology and epidemiology
and their application in mass tort cases.
Court-appointed experts
At the request of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the Center is evaluating the Association's demonstration
project that provides the names of scientists and other professionals
to serve as court-appointed experts. To help the Judicial Conference
evaluate the results of funds it provided for a national panel of
court-appointed scientists in the national breast implant litigation,
the Center has recently completed a detailed analysis of the process
and suggestions for improving it.
Assessing the effect of technology on the litigation
process
Technology increasingly pervades the work of the federal courts.
Two Center projects are helping the courts adapt to these changes. One
project involves how the pretrial discovery process copes with
information stored in electronic records, many in archaic and
unreadable formats. The Center is documenting the extent of this
problem, so that the Rules Committees can consider whether rules
changes are in order.
A second project covers the increasing use by attorneys of computer
simulations, video depositions, and other technology for presenting
evidence. Recognizing the Center's reputation with federal judges, the
not-for-profit National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) offered in
January to work with the Center to prepare, for Center dissemination, a
manual for judges describing various courtroom technologies and
identifying how to permit their use in ways that are consistent with
fairness and efficient case management. (NITA, headquartered at Notre
Dame Law School, was founded almost thirty years ago by judges and
litigators to promote ethics, candor, civility, and judicial economy in
litigation.) This manual is part of a larger Center project to identify
how electronic evidence technologies are used and to examine whether
the current procedural and evidence rules are adequate to handle this
development. It will join some ten other Center manuals that provide
judges ready reference for problems that confront them.
Education about international and foreign law and
management of transnational litigation
The Center, pursuant to statute, has long provided briefings and
occasional seminars for judges of foreign countries on United States
law and practice. (Center appropriations are not used for the direct
costs of these programs.) Foreign interest in U.S. legal institutions
is a product of the globalization of law, commerce, and crime, as is
the specific interest of many foreign judges in creating an agency like
the Federal Judicial Center.
By the same token, and at a growing pace, events outside our
borders are influencing litigation in federal courts, and such
influence will grow. For example, treaties to which the United States
is a signatory are part of the body of law that federal judges apply.
As U.S. treaty obligations grow, judges will need to know about them.
Additionally, the globalization of both commerce and crime brings
foreign parties and agents into federal litigation. These entities will
have varying levels of familiarity with, and willingness to embrace,
federal judicial procedural rules and norms. Litigation over
intellectual property is only one example of this development. Judges
also report increasing difficulty in gaining access to evidence and
witnesses on foreign soil.
These challenges of transnational litigation, however, will not
affect federal courts uniformly. Judges will vary considerably in their
need for education to manage and decide cases involving foreign parties
and extra-territorial law. As with other new problems, however, when
they need help, they will need it quickly--not once a seminar is
scheduled. This is another area in which educational technology will
help us meet varying judicial education needs. The Center is exploring
how to adapt its growing familiarity with asynchronous judicial
education to provide individual judges education to deal effectively
with transnational litigation at the time the need arises.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you again for your
continued support of the Center and your encouragement for our
development of the full range of educational technologies. You have
played an important role in helping the personnel of the federal courts
stay current in a rapidly changing world. I would be pleased to try to
answer any questions you may have, either during the hearing or by
written submission.
______
Prepared Statement of Haldane Robert Mayer, Chief Judge, United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit my statement to the Committee
for this court's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Our 2001 budget request totals $19,533,000. This is an increase of
$2,688,000 over the 2000 approved appropriation of $16,845,000. Forty
one percent of the requested increase, $1,089,000, is for mandatory,
uncontrollable increases in costs. The remaining increase of $1,656,000
is for funding of additional positions and renovation of our
courtrooms.
Request for Program Increases
$1,656,000 of our fiscal year 2001 request would cover the costs of
five statutorily authorized positions for technical assistants for the
court's legal staff, four additional positions for the office of the
Clerk of Court, and funding to upgrade the Federal Circuit courtrooms.
Further justification for these increases follows.
Funding for Five Technical Assistants ($600,000).--The court is
requesting five technical assistants in addition to the three now
working in the Office of the Senior Technical Assistant and the
positions provided in our fiscal year 2000 budget. Under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 715(d) the court may appoint technical assistants
equal to the number of judges in regular active service. The five
technical assistants requested here, plus those currently on board,
will give the court one technical assistant for each active judge
position.
The technical assistants do research and assist the court and all
of its judges in addressing technical aspects of appeals, maintaining
consistency in precedential opinions, and otherwise fulfilling the
court's mission. Technical assistants must have not only a law degree
but also a background in science or engineering because of the
significant number of highly technical intellectual property appeals
handled by the court. This court has exclusive jurisdiction over patent
appeals from district courts and the Patent and Trademark Office. These
appeals often are most difficult and time consuming, and involve
complex issues at the forefront of biotechnology, computer engineering,
pharmacology, and other areas of science and engineering.
Funding for additional positions in the office of the Clerk of
Court ($156,000).--The court also is 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 and increasing
caseload. There is now only one secretary in the Clerk's Office.
Another secretary position is needed to assist the chief deputy clerks
and to insure that secretarial functions for the entire office, now
exclusively provided by the secretary to the Clerk, are available
whenever required. A systems manager position is needed because the
complexity of the Clerk's database management system has grown beyond
the competence of the nontechnical staff to maintain as extra duties.
Two deputy clerk positions are needed, one position for a calendar/
deputy clerk to alleviate the calendar functions now performed by the
chief deputy clerk as an extra duty, and one position for a records
manager to develop a records management system now required to keep
pace with the large increase in the permanent records which the court
has accumulated since its creation, and which must be maintained and
preserved.
Funding for Courtroom Renovations ($900,000).--The court is
requesting $900,000 for use to update the three Federal Circuit
courtrooms. This courthouse opened in 1967. With the exception of
replacement carpet, there have been no renovations or upgrades
performed in our courtrooms.
The funding will be used to update courtrooms, furniture, renovate
counsel rooms, and upgrade the security of the Judges' benches. Funds
also will be used to improve electronic capabilities in the three
courtrooms. The courtrooms' lighting fixtures require upgrading and
modernization, and the courtrooms need to be rewired for computer use,
modern recording equipment, and improved technology. This is a one-time
cost and would be reflected as a nonrecurring expense in our 2002
budget request.
I would be pleased, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions the
Committee may have or to meet with Committee members or staff about our
budget requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge, United States
Court of International Trade
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing me
this opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of the United
States Court of International Trade, which is a national trial-level
federal court established under Article III of the Constitution with
exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions pertaining to
matters arising out of the customs and international trade laws.
The Court's budget request for fiscal year 2001 is $12,506,000,
which is $535,000 or approximately 4.5 percent more than the
$11,971,000 provided for in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The
request will enable the Court to maintain current services and provide
funds for pay adjustments for judicial officers and court personnel,
and inflationary increases in travel costs, rent, postage, contract
rates, supplies, equipment, services, telephone usage and acquisition
of law books.
I would like to specifically point out that the Court is only
requesting, as it has for over five years, standard inflationary
adjustments to base. The Court has relied on vacancies and savings from
its conservative approach to spending to provide for implementation of
important new initiatives, including technological upgrades.
The Court's fiscal year 2001 request includes funds for finalizing
and supporting the reorganization plan of the Case Management Section
that was initially developed and implemented in fiscal year 2000. The
reorganization specifically addresses three goals of the Court's Long
Range Plan: ensuring that the judges, members of the bar and the public
are provided with quality assistance by the staff; increasing
efficiency and reducing opportunities for delay in case processing and
management; and implementing the Case Management and Electronic Case
Files System (CM/ECF) of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts. To this end, the fiscal year 2001 request includes funds for
filling vacant positions and for maintaining and supporting several
projects from fiscal year 2000, specifically: a networked record
management and tracking system for all case records; a new switched 10/
100/1000mbps LAN infrastructure network; video conferencing; and a new
laser system that allows for more reliable and faster access to the
DCN. The fiscal year 2001 request also includes funds for the support
and maintenance of the Court's security system upgrades, implemented in
fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
In fiscal year 1996, the Court made the decision to deposit funds
into the Judiciary Information Technology Fund (JITF) to address the
long-term technology needs of the Court and to establish a viable
network infrastructure. Funds were deposited into the JITF in fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.
In fiscal year 1999, the Court developed a five-year plan to
support the Court's future needs and to harness technology to enhance
its services to the Court family, the bar and the public. The plan
includes several new projects: the implementation of the Administrative
Office's Case Management and Electronic Case Files System (CM/ECF) that
will create a seamless electronic environment by combining an
integrated case management system with electronic filing, document
imaging and scanning; the replacement of the Court's present CD-ROM
tower, which is used for legal research, with a higher capacity model;
the replacement of older category 3 wire with enhanced category 5 wire
and the installation of additional data tap runs for public access
terminals; the design and acquisition of a new phone system that will
improve and expand the Court's telecommunications system; the
implementation of a Court Intranet Web server to facilitate sharing of
Court information and expand in-house training in the utilization of
automation and technology; and the acquisition of an automated
comprehensive management software package for library acquisitions,
cataloging and circulation. The Court anticipates that these systems
will be fully operational by the end of fiscal year 2004. The
continuation of fiscal year 2000 projects and the implementation of
these new initiatives will enable the Court to continue to build its
needed infrastructure and operate efficiently and effectively in the
21st Century.
I would like to reaffirm that the Court has always been
conservative in its appropriation requests and will continue, as it has
in the past, to conserve its financial resources through sound and
prudent personnel and fiscal management practices.
The Court's ``General Statement and Information'' and
``Justification of Changes,'' which provide more detailed descriptions
of each line item adjustment, were submitted previously.
If the Committee requires any additional information, we will be
pleased to submit it.
______
Prepared Statement of Diana E. Murphy, Chair, United States Sentencing
Commission
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of the United States
Sentencing Commission's fiscal year 2001 appropriation request. As you
know, on November 15, 1999, a full complement of seven voting
commissioners was appointed to the Commission, and I am proud to serve
as Chair of this important agency. We take our new responsibilities so
seriously that we met the day after our appointment in Washington,
D.C., for two days and adopted a very ambitious agenda we hope to
accomplish this amendment cycle.
As a group, we bring a great deal of experience and several
different perspectives to our new job. We look forward to strengthening
the good working relationship with Congress and others in the federal
criminal justice community. Among the seven voting and two non-voting
members of the Commission, five of us are federal judges, three of us
have prosecutorial experience, two of us have criminal defense
experience, two of us formerly were police officers, several of us have
had prior experience working as congressional staff, and one of us has
spent a number of years as general counsel for the Commission.
Our appointment ended an extended and unprecedented period of more
than a year, during which time the Commission was without any voting
commissioners. Unfortunately, these vacancies have had the effect of
significantly decreased appropriations for the Commission and have
created staffing shortages that have gone unaddressed. During the
appropriations process for fiscal year 2000, there was substantial
uncertainty as to the requirements for the Commission due to the
commissioner vacancies. As a result, the Commission's budget was
reduced to $8,468,000 for fiscal year 2000, an 11 percent decrease from
fiscal year 1999 and the lowest appropriation for the agency since
fiscal year 1994.
Regrettably, the cutback comes at a time when the agency bears an
extraordinarily heavy workload due to the extended absence of
commissioners and the many legislative directives that await Commission
implementation. During that period, of course, the Commission could not
fulfill its most important ongoing statutory responsibility under the
Sentencing Reform Act, that is, to update and promulgate amendments to
the sentencing guidelines for federal offenders. As a result, a
significant backlog of crime and sentencing related legislation has
accumulated that must be addressed by the new Commission.
In light of the circumstances we face, the Commission requests an
appropriation of $10,600,000 for fiscal year 2001, the same as
requested last year. This funding level is the bare minimum necessary
to enable the Commission to restore staff levels to that of fiscal year
1998, the last year the agency had a fully functional Commission in
place, and to fulfill all of our many statutory responsibilities.
Without an adequate budget, we cannot effectuate the will of Congress
as expressed in a number of important legislative items that await
Commission implementation. Since our November 15, 1999, appointment, we
have undertaken a very full agenda in this abbreviated amendment cycle,
addressing many legislative directives and circuit conflicts in
guideline interpretation. We are hard at work and hope that Congress
will reaffirm its belief in the mission of the Commission and its
confidence in us by restoring the Commission's funding to an adequate
level.
RESOURCES REQUESTED
The Commission's budget request is for $10,600,000. The Commission
now has 20 percent less staff than in fiscal year 1998, and nearly 70
percent of the requested increase ($1,487,000) is for restoration of
personnel. More than 30 percent of the requested increase ($595,000)
would fund adjustments needed to pay employees to continue current
operations; these are mandatory adjustments in salaries and benefits
and slight inflationary increases ($78,000) in some non-personnel
expense categories.
The amount needed to restore our ability to function effectively is
made up of ``Adjustments to Base.''
--$595,000 is requested for pay and benefit cost adjustments
--$78,000 is requested for inflationary increases for non-personnel
operating expenses
--$1,487,000 is requested for restoration of personnel
--($28,000) for one less compensable day.
The requested amount is an increase of $2,132,000 from the
Commission's fiscal year 2000 appropriation, but that appropriation was
an anomaly from previous years and came at a time when the Commission
had no voting commissioners. In terms of total obligations, the agency
has a funding level of $9,553,000 for fiscal year 2000 by combining the
appropriations with remaining carryover money earmarked for this fiscal
year. Compared to this figure, the fiscal year 2001 request represents
an increase of only $1,047,000 (approximately 11 percent) over
resources available in fiscal year 2000.
JUSTIFICATION
Sentencing Reform Act Requirements
The Commission was created under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
as a permanent, independent agency within the judicial branch. Congress
gave the Commission a dual mission. The most urgent at the time was to
establish federal sentencing policies and practices that (i) serve four
purposes of sentencing: just punishment, adequate deterrence,
protection of the public from further criminal conduct, and
rehabilitation of offenders; (ii) provide certainty and fairness in
sentencing; and (iii) avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among
similarly situated offenders.
The Commission was organized in October 1985, and in just 18
months, established the first comprehensive set of determinate
sentencing guidelines ever created for the federal judicial system. The
federal sentencing guidelines became effective on November 1, 1987, for
offenses occurring on or after that date, and since their
implementation have been used to sentence more than 400,000 defendants.
The Commission believes that the federal sentencing guidelines have
advanced the goals of Congress as expressed in the Act by providing
certain, fair, and markedly more uniform punishment for similar
offenders, which in turn has strengthened the ability of the criminal
justice system to combat crime.
The Sentencing Reform Act also assigned to the Commission another
mission critical to the federal criminal justice system: to serve as an
expert agency on federal sentencing matters. To fulfill this ongoing
mission, the Commission was given continuing responsibility and
authority in many areas, including--
(1) establishing sentencing policies and practices that assure that
the purposes of sentencing are met, that provide certainty and fairness
in meeting those purposes of sentencing, that avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities while maintaining enough flexibility for
individualized sentences when those are warranted, and that reflect
advancements in our knowledge of human behavior as it relates to the
criminal justice process;
(2) developing means to measure the effectiveness of sentencing,
penal, and correctional practices in meeting the purposes of
sentencing;
(3) promulgating and updating sentencing guidelines for federal
offenders;
(4) monitoring the performance of probation officers regarding
sentencing recommendations, including application of the guidelines;
(5) issuing instructions to probation officers concerning the
application of the guidelines;
(6) establishing a research and development program within the
Commission to serve as a clearinghouse and information center for
information on Federal sentencing practices;
(7) consulting with federal courts, departments, and agencies in
developing, maintaining, and coordinating sound sentencing practices;
(8) systematically collecting data from studies, research, and the
empirical experience of public and private agencies concerning the
sentencing process;
(9) publishing data concerning the sentencing process;
(10) systematically collecting and disseminating information
concerning sentences actually imposed on more than 55,000 cases
sentenced in the Federal district courts each year (and on about 1,000
appellate decisions on sentencing) and the relationship of those
sentences to the factors judges are required to consider under 18
U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a);
(11) systematically collecting and disseminating information
regarding the effectiveness of sentences imposed;
(12) conducting seminars and workshops around the country to
provide continuing studies for people engaged in the sentencing field;
(13) conducting periodic training programs for judicial and
probation personnel and other persons connected with the sentencing
process;
(14) studying the feasibility of developing guidelines for juvenile
offenders;
(15) making recommendations to Congress on changes that might be
made to statutes relating to sentencing, penal, and correctional
matters that would help to carry out effective, humane, and rational
sentencing policy;
(16) holding hearings and calling witnesses to assist the
Commission in the exercise of its powers and duties;
(17) recommending any changes in prison facilities that may be
necessary because of the sentencing guidelines; and
(18) performing any other functions necessary to permit federal
courts and others in the federal criminal justice system to meet their
responsibilities in the sentencing area.
Newly Appointed Commissioners Face Critical Backlog of Legislation
Although the Commission staff was able to carry out many of these
important statutory duties during the extended absence of voting
commissioners, the agency could not amend the sentencing guidelines to
implement recently enacted crime and sentencing-related legislation. As
a result, the newly appointed Commission faces a significant backlog of
legislation that waits review and implementation by the agency. The
newly minted Commission has made addressing these items its first
priority for the current guideline amendment cycle, which ends May 1,
2000.
The legislative matters that await Commission action cover a wide
range of criminal conduct that is of great concern to Congress and
other members of the federal criminal justice system:
--Intellectual Property Offenses.--In response to the No Electronic
Theft (``NET'') Act of 1997, the Commission released a staff
report on the NET Act and recently requested and received
public comment on three alternative proposals that would amend
the copyright and trademark infringement guideline to ensure
that the guideline is sufficiently stringent to deter such
offenses and that it provides for consideration of the retail
value of the infringed item. The Commission continues to
analyze and develop possible amendments to the guideline and,
pursuant to the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages
Improvement Act of 1999, must promulgate a temporary emergency
amendment in response to the NET Act by April 6, 2000.
--Telemarketing Fraud.--In response to the Telemarketing Fraud
Prevention Act of 1998, the Commission promulgated temporary
amendments to the guidelines that provide for three separate
sentencing enhancements for fraud offenses that involve mass
marketing, a large number of vulnerable victims, and the use of
sophisticated means to carry out the offense. The Commission
must review and repromulgate the emergency amendments as
permanent amendments by May 1, 2000, or they will expire by
November 2000.
--Telephone Cloning.--In response to the Wireless Telephone
Protection Act of 1998, the Commission recently released a
staff report on cell telephone cloning and requested public
comment on proposed options for amending the guidelines to
provide an appropriate penalty for these offenses.
--Identity Theft.--In response to the Identity Theft and Assumption
Deterrence Act of 1998, the Commission recently released a
staff report on identity theft and requested public comment on
amending the guidelines to provide an appropriate penalty for
each offense under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1028 (relating to fraud in
connection with identification documents).
--Protection of Children.--In response to the Protection of Children
from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 and certain provisions of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act of 1998, the Commission has recently released a staff
report on sexual offenses against children and requested public
comment on a number of options for amendments to the guidelines
pertaining to certain sexual abuse offenses and distribution of
child pornography. Possible amendments being considered include
an enhancement for use of a computer in connection with a
sexual abuse offense against a minor and misrepresentation of
an offender's identity in connection with such an offense.
--Methamphetamine Trafficking.--Although the Methamphetamine
Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act of 1998 contains no
directive to the Commission, the Commission recently released a
staff report on methamphetamine trafficking and requested
public comment on an amendment to the guidelines' drug quantity
table that would account for the increased penalties for
manufacturing, importing, or trafficking in methamphetamine
imposed by the Act. The Act reduced by one-half the quantity of
methamphetamine required to trigger various mandatory minimum
sentences in the drug statutes.
--Firearms Offenses.--In Public Law 105-386, Congress amended 18
U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) to create a tiered system of sentencing
enhancements, (each with a mandatory minimum and presumed
maximum) in cases in which a firearm is involved in a crime of
violence or drug trafficking offense. The pertinent minimum
sentence in that tiered system is dependent on whether the
firearm was possessed, brandished, or discharged. The Act also
changed the statutory definition of ``brandish.'' These
legislative changes will require a number of amendments to the
guidelines, including amendments that incorporate the tiered
statutory sentencing scheme into the guideline pertaining to
Section 924(c). In response to this new legislation, the
Commission recently released a staff report on firearms
offenses and requested public comment on a number of proposals
for amending the guidelines. The Commission also is undertaking
a longer term comprehensive examination of the firearms and
explosives guidelines to make them more internally consistent
with other similar guideline provisions and to generally
improve their operation.
Circuit Conflicts.--In addition to these legislative items, a large
number of conflicts among the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal
regarding interpretation of the guidelines accrued during the absence
of voting commissioners. In Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344
(1991), the United States Supreme Court unanimously acknowledged that
the Commission has the initial and primary task of eliminating
conflicts among the circuit courts with respect to statutory
interpretation of the guidelines. Accordingly, the Commission has set
addressing a limited number of the most significant conflicts as
another priority for the current guideline amendment cycle.
This amendment cycle the Commission is working on circuit conflicts
regarding (i) the circumstances for which a court may downward depart
from the sentencing guideline range for aberrant behavior; (ii) whether
the enhanced penalties in Sec. 2D1.2 (Drug Offenses Occurring Near
Protected Locations or Involving Underage or Pregnant Individuals)
apply only when the defendant is convicted of an offense referenced in
that guideline or, alternatively, whenever a defendant's relevant
conduct included drug sales in a protected location or involving a
protected individual; (iii) whether the enhancement in the fraud
guideline for violation of a judicial or administrative order,
injunction, decree, or process applies to falsely completing bankruptcy
schedules and forms; (iv) whether sentencing courts may consider post-
conviction rehabilitation while in prison or on probation as a basis
for downward departure at resentencing following an appeal; and (v)
whether a court can base an upward departure on conduct that was
dismissed or uncharged as part of a plea agreement.
Other Crime Legislation.--In fiscal year 2001, in addition to
completing any carryover items from the items listed above, the
Commission hopes to expand its policy development to include responding
to other crime legislation pertaining to nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons, specifically the Chemical Weapons Implementation
Act of 1998, and the sense of Congress expressed in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. The Commission is
planning to conduct a comprehensive review of the guidelines pertaining
to importing and exporting nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to
determine whether any amendments to the guidelines are warranted. The
Commission hopes to complete this work in 2001.
Economic Crime Guidelines.--Also in fiscal year 2001, the
Commission hopes to complete a comprehensive reassessment of the
economic crime guidelines that was begun by the last Commission.
Economic offenses account for more than a quarter of all the cases
sentenced in the United States federal district courts. The prior
Commission had received from the Federal Judiciary and the Department
of Justice testimony and survey results that indicated that the
sentences for these offenses were inadequate to punish appropriately
defendants in cases in which the monetary loss was substantial. After
approximately one year of data collection, analyses, public comment,
and public hearings, the Commission developed a comprehensive
``economic crime package'' designed to revise the loss tables for
fraud, theft, and tax offenses in order to impose higher sentences for
offenses involving moderate and large monetary losses. Related
amendments would consolidate the theft, fraud, and property destruction
guidelines and clarify the definition of loss for selected economic
crimes. Working in conjunction with the Criminal Law Committee of the
Judicial Conference, the Commission conducted a field test of the
proposed loss definition by surveying federal judges and probation
officers and applying the new definition to actual cases. Among the
findings from the field test, more than 80 percent of the judges stated
that the proposed loss definition produced results that were more
appropriate than the current definition.
The Commission expects that the groups interested in the economic
crime package (e.g., the Department of Justice, the Criminal Law
Committee of the Judicial Conference, and the American Bar Association)
will renew their recommendations that this package be a top priority
for 2001. Accordingly, the Commission has planned an Economic Crimes
Symposium in October 2000 to further advance sentencing policy
development and knowledge with respect to economic crimes.
Restoration of Personnel Needed to Meet Statutory Duties
Fulfilling all of the agency's responsibilities has been extremely
difficult recently because of the absence of voting commissioners for
more than one year, which has had the unfortunate effect of decreased
appropriations and have created staffing shortages that have gone
unaddressed. Beginning in the first month of fiscal year 1999, the
Commission was without any voting commissioners and this status
continued through the first quarter of fiscal year 2000. In
anticipation of a significant reduction in funding as a result of this
unfortunate status, and the uncertainty about when the vacancies would
be filled, the Acting Staff Director for the Commission determined it
prudent to institute a de facto hiring freeze. The hiring freeze,
coupled with the agency's normal attrition rate, has reduced the
current staffing levels from that of fiscal year 1998 by twenty
percent.
The Commission has coped with the austere budget and staffing
shortages in large part by extending deadlines for policy development
projects beyond the annual guideline amendment cycle ordinarily used by
the Commission to timely implement crime legislation. In so doing, the
Commission has been able to maintain its routine training, research,
monitoring, and publications schedule throughout the year. However,
this was a short-term measure that was made possible only by the
anomaly of not having any voting commissioners for more than one year.
Now that a full complement of commissioners is in place, policy
development deadlines can no longer be prolonged and, in fact, must be
shortened in order to address the backlog described above in a timely
manner.
While the commissioners work to reduce the backlog of unimplemented
crime legislation and to consider the policy development reports
prepared by staff, the human resource needs of the agency will increase
as the routine annual amendment cycle is reestablished, new policy
initiatives are identified by the reconstituted Commission, and new
crime legislation is enacted by Congress. Indeed, there is pending
legislation relating to juvenile justice, firearms offenses, and
certain drug offenses, which, if enacted, would require significant
Commission resources to implement. In order to become a fully
functional agency that performs all of its statutory functions in an
exemplary manner, a restoration of personnel is necessary, particularly
in the following areas:
Reestablishment of Statutorily Required Research and Monitoring
Functions
The Commission maintains a comprehensive, computerized data
collection system which forms the basis for its clearinghouse of
federal sentencing information. This comprehensive database is the
basis for the Commission's monitoring and evaluation of guidelines
application, for many of its research projects, and for responding to
the hundreds of data requests received from Congress and other criminal
justice entities each year.
In fiscal year 1999, the Commission received court documents for
more than 55,000 cases sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act
between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999. For each case, the
Commission extracts and enters into its comprehensive database more
than 260 pieces of information, including case identifiers, sentence
imposed, demographic information, statutory information, the complete
range of court guideline application decisions, and departure
information.
The Commission also tracks final opinions and orders, both
published and unpublished, in federal criminal appeals. The Commission
gathered information on more than 6,000 appellate court cases in fiscal
year 1998 and now has an appeals dataset containing information on more
than 38,000 appeals. Information captured in this database includes
district, circuit, dates of appeal and opinion, legal issues, and the
court's disposition. The appeals database informs the Commission
regarding the frequency with which specific guideline issues are
appealed, informs Congress and the criminal justice community about
court action related to the guidelines, and enables the Commission to
identify and, where appropriate, resolve circuit conflicts pertaining
to application of the guidelines.
The Commission continues to see a substantial increase in the
number of cases sent to the agency that must be entered into its
comprehensive database. The current data entry organizational structure
and physical facilities were designed to accommodate approximately
35,000 to 45,000 cases annually. However, for the past three years, the
agency has received more than 50,000 case files, with a projected
caseload of 56,000 for fiscal year 2001. Funding for three vacant data
entry positions is requested to process these cases. In addition, the
Commission requests funding to fill a key vacancy, the Chief Data
Quality Analyst position, and to provide for an additional junior Data
Quality Analyst position, in order to preserve the integrity of its
comprehensive database.
The Commission continues to advance its statutorily directed
research and information dissemination. Each year since the inception
of the guidelines, the Commission has published an updated Guidelines
Manual and an Annual Report and accompanying Sourcebook of Federal
Sentencing Statistics which serve to inform and advance knowledge of
sentencing in the criminal justice community. In recent years, the
Commission launched two new publications, Guide to Publications and
Resources and The Year in Review, and continued to add a variety of
publications and sentencing data to its popular Internet web site.
Working with the American Society of Criminology, the Commission
recently prepared and presented a number of research papers on
important topics of current interest such as federal and state
counterfeiting offenses in the computer age, federal sentencing
practices for immigration offenses, prison verus alternative
confinement, and the effects on federal sentencing of the changing mix
of policies, crimes, and criminals. Commission staff have identified a
number of future research projects that for consideration, including an
analysis of sentence proportionality under the guidelines, the violent
offense guidelines, the effectiveness of criminal history assessment
within the guidelines, classifying offender function in drug
trafficking offenses, patterns in offender recidivism under the
guidelines, and the effectiveness of offender incapacitation under the
guidelines.
The ability of the Commission to continue its important research,
however, is imperiled by a depletion of its research staff. During this
recent period of attrition, a significant portion of the intermediate
tier of researchers and all of the lower tier research associates left
the agency. Thus, the Commission requests funding to fill three
Research Associate and three Junior Research Associate positions, as
well as the critical position of Director of Research. Without the
funding necessary to fill these key positions, the agency's ability to
critically analyze sentencing patterns and practices, to respond to
inquiries about the effectiveness of sentencing policies, and to assess
the impact of proposed guideline amendments and new sentencing related
legislation will be severely limited.
Maintaining the Agency's Statutory Commitment to Sentencing Education
The Commission continues its commitment to providing high quality
training and assistance to judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and
defense attorneys as required by the Sentencing Reform Act. In 1999,
Commission staff provided training on the sentencing guidelines to more
than 2,500 individuals at 47 training programs across the country,
including ongoing programs sponsored by the Commission, the Federal
Judicial Center, the Department of Justice, the American Bar
Association, and other criminal justice agencies. The Commission also
maintains a telephone HelpLine service to answer case-specific
guideline application inquiries from federal judges, probation
officers, prosecuting and defense attorneys, and law clerks. The
Commission responds to approximately 250 such inquiries each month. If
the Commission is not provided sufficient funding to restore personnel
in other areas of the agency, its quality of training will suffer
because its training staff may have to be utilized for more pressing
projects as they arise.
To further expand the availability of training and information
sharing, the Commission has joined the Federal Judicial Center and the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in launching a satellite
television network to provide cutting-edge programming on sentencing-
related issues to an even broader audience. The Commission makes a
regular contribution to a news series for probation and pretrial
services designed to update officers on important information regarding
the Commission and its activities. In 2001, the Commission plans to
increase its involvement in the delivery of training via the television
network as a cost-effective means of supplementing its existing
training efforts.
As part of its efforts to reach out to organizations that are not
yet familiar with the organizational sentencing guidelines' emphasis on
compliance, self-policing, and crime reporting, the Commission and the
Ethics Officer Association (EOA) in 1999 jointly sponsored a series of
day-long regional forums about implementing these guidelines. The EOA
is a non-profit peer organization comprising ethics and compliance
officer representatives of for-profit and non-profit organizations. Its
primary objective is to share ``best practices'' for ethics and
compliance programs among members through peer-to-peer networking,
library services, and educational efforts. The Commission tentatively
has scheduled an Organizational/Corporate Guidelines Symposium in
October 2001 to advance further its efforts in this important area.
Informing Congress
Each year the Commission also informs Congress's legislative
deliberations by responding to hundreds of congressional requests for
assistance. These inquiries, both written and oral, include requests
for federal sentencing and criminal justice data, analyses of proposed
legislation, explanations of guideline operation, technical assistance
in drafting legislation, and Commission publications and resource
materials.
With a full complement of new commissioners in place, the agency
expects its overall activity will intensify, and requests from Congress
and the public will greatly increase. As a result, the Commission needs
to improve its congressional liaison activities and requests two
positions for this effort.
Rebuilding Administrative Support
Beginning in fiscal year 1996, the Commission began a long range
software upgrade to the automation system used to maintain its
sentencing database. This work is substantially complete. During the
recent period of attrition, however, the agency's lead programmer
retired, leaving a contractual relationship with Oracle Corporation as
the only guard against a systems failure. If a major failure should
occur, it would cause a work stoppage involving approximately 30 data
entry employees, possibly over an extended period of time. Therefore,
the agency requests funding to hire an automation technician/programmer
as well as a lower level database administrator to maintain the new
system.
Also as part of its statutory duty to serve as a clearinghouse of
sentencing related information, the Commission maintains a highly
specialized collection of sentencing related literature that has been
built up over the past ten years. That important collection has gone
unattended (other than by intermittent temporary services) since the
the agency's librarian and assistant librarian resigned during the
period with no commissioners. The agency requests funding to fill these
two positions in order to maintain the integrity of its collection.
Other administrative positions that require filling include a
support position shared by two offices, the Legislative and Public
Affairs Offices, and a personnel specialist in the Human Resources
Office.
Filling all of these requested positions would not require revising
the Commission's full time equivalency ceiling of 108 employees.
Rather, the Commission merely seeks the restoration of funds for
currently existing but vacant positions.
SUMMATION
In sum, the Commission is asking for sufficient funding so that we
can perform our many statutory obligations and fulfill our important
role in combating crime by maintaining an effective, certain, and fair
sentencing system.
______
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
THE ASIA FOUNDATION
Prepared Statement of William P. Fuller, President
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
supporting The Asia Foundation's fiscal year 2001 budget request. The
Foundation is grateful for the support that the Congress and this
Committee have provided over the years.
I appreciate the opportunity to outline The Asia Foundation's
programs and our future plans to meet the challenges and opportunities
facing Asia. We believe that our programs demonstrate how a small,
independent organization can advance American interests in the Asia-
Pacific region.
We are pleased that the Administration has endorsed the work of The
Asia Foundation by requesting an appropriation of $10 million for
fiscal year 2001. This modest increase would enable the Foundation to
resume program activities that were reduced as a result of the
substantial budget cuts which the Foundation sustained beginning in
fiscal year 1996. Most importantly, the increase would enable the
Foundation to expand its support to Asian organizations that are
positioned to play key roles in regional democratic and economic reform
efforts.
OVERVIEW
Let me put the work of the Foundation into context. Asia is the
most rapidly changing region in the world, and one in which the U.S.
has a diverse range of political, economic and security interests. As
the region recovers from the recent economic crisis, continued
governance reforms and the establishment of predictable legal systems
are essential for sustained growth and open trade and investment. At
the same time, the region faces increased security concerns, including
tension on the Korean Peninsula; the possibility of conflict between
India and Pakistan; strained relations between China and Taiwan; and
the potential for domestic instability in Pakistan and Indonesia. The
dramatic emergence of democracy in Indonesia, constitutional reform
efforts in Thailand, and the recent election in Taiwan underline the
opportunities and challenges facing those who support democracy.
We believe that The Asia Foundation, building on its 46 years of
on-the-ground experience, is well positioned to advance U.S. interests
in a complex and dynamically evolving region. In the recently enacted
State Department bill, The Asia Foundation was authorized to be funded
at a level of $15 million for fiscal year 2001. This action was a vote
of confidence in the Foundation's performance and underlines the
magnitude of needs and opportunities facing the region.
In the past the Committee has praised and encouraged the
Foundation's grantmaking role and we remain faithful to that mission.
We make strategic, sequential grants to steadily build the capacity of
key institutions, develop leaders, and move critical policies forward.
Foundation assistance supports training, consultancies, technical
assistance, and seed funding for new organizations--all aimed at
promoting reform, enhancing Asian capacity, and strengthening relations
with U.S. institutions.
No other American nonprofit organization working in Asia can match
the Foundation's years of on-the-ground experience and breadth of
contacts. The democratic development processes underway in several
countries in Asia--including Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, Taiwan,
and most recently Indonesia--is in part the fruit of the investments
that the Foundation has made over time in support of individuals and
institutions committed to reform. Democratic leaders who benefitted
from Asia Foundation grants in earlier years include the President of
Indonesia, the newly-elected Vice President of Taiwan, the Korean
Ambassador to the U.S. (also a former Prime Minister of Korea), and the
Speaker of the Mongolian Parliament.
the asia foundation's unique contribution: the indonesia example
An example of the value of The Asia Foundation's sustained
involvement in the region is Indonesia. The Foundation is acknowledged
by both the Administration and many members of Congress as the leading
American organization presently active in Indonesia. Over the years the
Foundation has supported hundreds of nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), formal government institutions, and future leaders. With the
fall of President Suharto, the Foundation was ready to immediately
undertake activities to address the needs of new reformers in
government. Program activities included support for the design and
implementation of a massive voter education campaign prior to the
parliamentary election; assistance to large Muslim organizations and
coalition groups for inter-ethnic and inter-faith programs that aim to
avert community conflict, and support for human rights and legal aid
organizations.
Many of the investments made in human resource development over the
years have proved particularly important. These include relationships
established with President Abdurrahman Wahid and Attorney General
Marzuki Darusman--both former Foundation grantees. The Foundation's
Representative, a specialist on Indonesia and Islam, served as a
resource to the U.S. government as plans were shaped to provide support
to Indonesia through USAID and other agencies.
But it was its appropriated funding that made it possible for the
Foundation to quickly initiate programs supporting democratic reforms
and to provide support for conflict resolution in troubled areas such
as Aceh and Irian Jaya; for human rights and legal aid in East Timor
prior to and following the referendum; and for important seed grant
funding for new NGOs in a rapidly changing political environment. The
following examples of Foundation program support for key Indonesian
organizations provide a sense of the scale of its election programs and
its capacity to deliver. The Foundation supported
--training and development of the largest contingent of domestic
election monitors--over 123,000 in 26 provinces;
--the creation of a national network of 200 NGOs, including Islamic
and other religious organizations, which helped provide voter
education information to the public; and
--the publication of 23 million voter education booklets and
leaflets; production of 2,000 radio and television broadcasts,
and the design and distribution of over 500,000 training
manuals for election monitors.
These programs reached an estimated 115 million voters and were
credited with contributing to a free and fair election.
Looking ahead, the Foundation's program plans for Indonesia include
an increased focus on law and legal reform as areas of critical
importance to national political and economic development. In addition,
the Foundation will continue to support efforts to reform policies
affecting small and medium-scale enterprise development, the sector of
the Indonesian economy that is so vital for employment. The Foundation
will also continue to support human rights and conflict resolution in
troubled areas of the country.
THE ASIA FOUNDATION'S CORE OBJECTIVES
As illustrated by the preceding examples of Asia Foundation
investment and program impact in Indonesia, the Foundation's overall
core objectives are central to U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific
region. The Foundation's priorities remain consistent:
--Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law.--Strengthening
democratic institutions and encouraging the development of an
active and informed non-governmental sector; advancing the rule
of law; and upholding fundamental rights, including protection
of women.
--Open Trade and Investment.--Supporting open trade, investment, and
economic policy reform at the regional and national levels;
--International Relations.--Promoting regional and international
dialogue on security, regional economic policy, and
environmental and human rights issues aimed toward more
cooperative relations in the region.
The following examples illustrate the ways in which Foundation
programming in key areas contributes to sustainable impact and the
advancement of U.S. interests in the region.
Democracy and Human Rights
The Asia Foundation has supported the development of democratic
institutions and civil society and efforts to advance public
understanding and enforcement of human rights. For example:
--The Foundation has contributed to the development of parliaments in
16 countries in Asia through technical assistance, training
members and staff, facilitating interaction with the
nongovernmental sector, and developing parliamentary capacity
to scrutinize budget proposals and other executive functions in
Thailand, Mongolia, and Indonesia.
--The Foundation is the single largest supporter of the
nongovernmental sector in all of the Asian countries in which
we operate. In the last five years, we have supported over
1,000 local NGOs to make essential contributions to a vibrant
civil society and to encourage public participation,
transparency, and accountability in the policymaking process.
Foundation support has contributed to the establishment of new
NGOs that have quickly made a mark, such as Thailand's Women
and the Constitution Network, which played a critical role in
ensuring that the new Thai Constitution included provisions for
increased public participation in rights enforcement and public
policy making. It has also contributed to the formation of an
NGO network in Pakistan, which includes over 50 community based
organizations that mobilize citizens to improve governance and
social service delivery.
--With the trend toward devolution of political and administrative
powers to the sub-national level, local governance and
decentralization programs are a priority for the Foundation.
Examples of Foundation support include training and public
education on village elections in China; improvements in the
capacity of local elected officials in Indonesia to conduct
budget analysis and draft legislation on taxation and revenue
generation; and strengthening the role and accountability of
locally elected bodies in Bangladesh in financial management,
public accounting, and community needs assessment.
--The Foundation has supported the development of human rights
organizations throughout the region. Examples include human
rights awareness, education, and monitoring programs in
Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka.
Foundation support for the regional Working Group for the
Establishment of an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism promotes
public dialogue on the importance of establishing regional
standards and institutional mechanisms to promote and protect
human rights.
With a $10 million appropriation, the Foundation would strengthen
and expand its programs in local governance and human rights. New local
governance initiatives would include training for village council
members in Cambodia; fiscal management training for provincial and
local assemblies in Indonesia; devolution programs and public hearings
on decentralization in Pakistan; and reform efforts which aim to
improve the transparency, accountability, and responsiveness of public
institutions in Korea. Additional funding would also allow the
Foundation to expand its human rights programming, including the
development of more effective human rights education methodologies and
increased collaboration among human rights organizations at the
regional level.
Law
In a recent speech at a conference on ``Democracy and the Rule of
Law in a Changing World Order'' at the Library of Congress, Senator
Orrin Hatch urged: ``As we support programs developing the legal
institutions necessary for the rule of law . . . [w]e must have the
foresight to commit the time and resources necessary to achieve these
ends.'' He praised The Asia Foundation for its contribution to this
effort and for the value of its sustained presence on the ground in
Asia: ``For example, The Asia Foundation is America's preeminent non-
governmental organization in this field. With support from Congress, it
has established on-the-ground programs necessary to nurture rule of law
institutions throughout Asia.''
The Asia Foundation is committed to the development of sound and
predictable legal systems. Foundation grants and technical assistance
support improved judicial administration, legal education and
professional development, community legal assistance programs,
alternative dispute resolution, and law reform. The following examples
illustrate the scope of Foundation legal programming:
--In China, where the government faces increased external and
internal pressure to reform the legal system and adopt
international compliance standards, the Foundation was one of
the earliest supporters of legal reform efforts. Since 1998,
the Foundation has supported Chinese efforts to improve the
performance of local government institutions and processes by
regularizing administrative procedures and creating greater
scope for citizen participation and redress. Other programs
target the grassroots and policy levels to work toward more
responsive administrative regulations, and support efforts to
develop laws and regulatory provisions for the delivery of
legal aid and popular legal education.
--In the Philippines the Foundation has supported a variety of legal
and judicial reform efforts. We presently support the efforts
of alternative law groups to monitor and report on judicial
performance, undertake legal advocacy on juvenile justice,
conduct family court reform studies and alternative dispute
resolution, and promote the continued development of public
interest law.
--With Foundation support, the Ministry of Justice in Sri Lanka has
established community-based Mediation Boards that operate in
most districts of the country. The Boards hear over 100,000
cases per year. Mediation has proven time and cost effective,
helping to reduce pressure on an overburdened formal court
system.
In the coming year the Foundation plans to promote law reform
efforts in Indonesia through support to the new National Law
Commission, the Consortium for National Legal Reform, and other public
and private institutions established under the new government. A $10
million appropriation will enable the Foundation to expand its legal
program initiatives in other parts of the region, including
implementation of constitutional reforms in Thailand; enterprise and
other commercial law reforms in Vietnam, and legal literacy in
Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, the
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Foundation also
plans to expand its regional counter-corruption activities.
Open Trade and Investment
The Asia Foundation's economic programs support the development of
policies and institutions needed for open trade and investment. In
particular, they help address the political and governance factors that
contributed to the regional economic crisis.
--In Indonesia, Foundation support enabled the Jakarta Stock Exchange
to launch a corporate governance program to toughen financial
disclosure requirements for listed companies.
--Foundation support for policy reforms affecting Indonesia's small
and medium enterprise (SME) sector in Indonesia includes
unprecedented participation by SME owners in discussion of
regulatory and other problems in fourteen provinces; studies of
the costs and distortions imposed by levies, licenses and fees;
and provision of information about credit.
--In the Philippines, the Foundation supported two milestone
activities in the field of information technology: a study on
the challenges facing partnerships between Philippine and
American high-tech firms; and a widely-distributed policy
publication ``Breaking Barriers: Liberalizing the Philippine
Information Technology Industry.''
--In Cambodia, a Foundation program helped women market vendors in
Phnom Penh to obtain small loans and more effectively engage
with local regulatory authorities in reducing intimidation and
collection of arbitrary fees and improving sanitary and other
working conditions in the crowded markets.
--The Foundation also supported regional organizations such as APEC
and the private sector Pacific Economic Cooperation Council
(PECC) that are committed to open trade. For example, in
cooperation with PECC the Foundation supported workshops on
regional economic monitoring; training in banking supervision
for central bank officials in cooperation with the San
Francisco Federal Reserve Bank and other institutions in the
region; and studies on the role of competition policy and
corporate governance.
Programs plans for fiscal year 2001 include a series of roundtable
discussions and studies in Vietnam on measures to speed up Vietnam's
economic development and economic integration; expansion of SME policy
reform initiatives in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Korea; and
cooperation with China's Development Research Council on law reforms
that will facilitate more rapid development of new enterprises. The
latter is expected to cover improvements in corporate governance,
accountability and transparency, and better legal protection of
property rights.
International Relations
The Asia Foundation's programs in international relations reflect
the unique capacity of the Foundation to promote increased
understanding of different cultural and foreign policy perspectives
through regional and international dialogue. Foundation programs
advance and complement more formal diplomatic efforts in the fields of
democratization, human rights, regional economic policy, and security
concerns, and help to strengthen human resources and institutional
capacity in the field of foreign policy. For example:
--In cooperation with the Asia Center at Harvard University, the
Foundation supports a series of trilateral meetings in Japan,
and China. The meetings promote greater mutual understanding of
regional security issues among participating nations.
--The Foundation supports fellowships for mid-level officials of
China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to study at the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy, the Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies (SAIS).
--The Foundation will continue its support for the Council for
Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) as a useful
vehicle for Track Two dialogue on evolving regional security
structure.
--As part of its support for regional human rights initiatives, the
Foundation will continue to host annual meetings of an informal
working group of human rights practitioners. The meetings
provide an opportunity for participants to explore common
issues such as impunity and to develop plans for the use of
information technology to facilitate exchange between human
rights organizations and promote regional advocacy initiatives.
--Through its ``America's Role in Asia Project,'' the Foundation is
bringing together a diverse group of distinguished American and
Asian foreign policy specialists to consider America's future
role in the Asia-Pacific region.
In the coming year, the Foundation hopes to undertake several
activities. These include a fresh program of support for U.S.-China
dialogue and exchange programs; cross-straits exchanges to promote
greater dialogue and mutual understanding between China and Taiwan; a
bilateral conference to discuss the future of the U.S.-Indonesia
relationship since the installation of the new government in Jakarta;
and meetings in Seoul between U.S. and South Korean officials on
policies concerning the Korean Peninsula. With a $10 million
appropriation, the Foundation will expand regional and sub-regional
activities focusing on security, economics, and human rights issues.
CONCLUSION
As the preceding examples of our work emphasize, the Foundation is
a field organization that supports local Asian groups and projects,
while at the same time maintaining close links with the U.S. foreign
policy community. Working through 13 offices in the Asia Pacific
region, including China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, the Foundation
strengthens the capacity of local institutions and supports reform
efforts. Through our offices, we identify and establish relationships
with creative, reform-minded individuals who seek to advance the same
goals and interests to which we are committed.
The Foundation is first and foremost a grant-making organization.
We are efficient, maintain a low overhead, and ensure that the majority
of our resources are dedicated to financial and technical support
projects in Asia. We are not a research organization or academic
institution, nor are we Washington based.
An appropriation of $10 million will allow the Foundation to
undertake programs to address key development challenges and
opportunities. Public funding is essential to our mission for many
reasons. While the Foundation remains committed to expanding private
funding, the flexibility and reliability that public funding lends to
the Foundation's efforts is critical. As an organization committed to
American interests in Asia, we can only be successful if potential
private donors understand that the U.S. government continues to support
our efforts in the region.
Furthermore, private funding is almost always tied to specific
projects (as are the USAID funds for which the Foundation competes) and
does not replace public funding, either in scale or flexibility. The
Foundation does not solicit or accept private funds that might
compromise our fundamental commitment to support U.S. interests in
Asia. Moreover, the flexibility afforded by U.S. government
appropriated funds enables the Foundation to quickly respond to fast-
breaking developments and program opportunities, as demonstrated by our
1999 support for electoral and other democratization initiatives in
Indonesia. It also enables the Foundation to work in countries such as
China and Pakistan that are of high priority to the U.S. but where
USAID and other official U.S. assistance agencies do not operate. The
Asia Foundation continues to be a model of public-private partnership
and a resource which complements official foreign policy efforts.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have cited a few examples of the many
Asia Foundation program activities that we consider central to U.S.
economic, security, and other interests in a region of vital importance
that will continue to experience change in the years ahead. We believe
that our programs merit a $10 million appropriation for fiscal year
2001, consistent with the President's request.
As you and your colleagues know, budget constraints have resulted
in significant reductions in the Foundation's annual appropriation
since fiscal year 1996 and the Foundation has received static funding
for the last three years. Even the requested level of $10 million is
below the $15 million the Foundation was appropriated for a decade
prior to fiscal year 1996. We have worked hard to manage our budget,
reduce staff and expenditures, and increase our efficiency, as well as
to diversify our funding sources. We have maintained our regional
presence through our 13 offices in Asia, and ensured that the maximum
possible amount of appropriated funds are dedicated to on-the-ground
program activities. Nevertheless, this constrained level of funding has
precluded the Foundation from meeting the needs faced in the region as
described. Additional funding is necessary. I assure you that if the
Congress appropriates the full $10 million request, the Asia Foundation
will use those funds efficiently and effectively in undertaking the
critical program activities that I have described.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Prepared Statement of the National, Coordinated Law-Related Education
Program
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am Lee Arbetman, the Coordinator of the
National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program. I am submitting
this testimony on behalf of Youth for Justice, the National,
Coordinated Law-Related Education Program (LRE). We respectfully
request the Subcommittee's appropriations support for fiscal year 2001
at a level of $1.9 million, the same level of funding that LRE received
for fiscal year 2000.
LRE/Youth for Justice is committed to involving young people in
each state directly in identifying and implementing solutions to this
nation's epidemic of violence. The program's approach is to teach young
people about the law so that they can lead their lives within the law.
In the last decade, the National Program has reached millions of at-
risk children and trained 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, $1.9 million
in fiscal year 2000, many times over in private sector and state and
local money and in in-kind support from the criminal justice and
juvenile justice communities.
The program has two components. The first component of the program
is Intervention. This part of the program operates primarily in various
kinds of juvenile justice facilities. In settings ranging from
detention centers to training schools and after-care, Law-Related
Education Programs help youth develop problem-solving, conflict
resolution, and communication skills in the context of engaging lessons
that focus on personal responsibility.
The second component, Prevention, operates primarily in elementary
and secondary schools. When you visit a school involved in this
program, you are very likely to see a teacher, a judge, a lawyer, the
town's police chief, a law student or a probation officer working with
a class of students. In some of the best Youth for Justice classrooms,
police officers co-teach with classroom teachers on a daily basis.
Your home state of New Hampshire continues to be a national leader
in adopting Law-Related Education for use as both a prevention and
intervention program. Approximately 12,000 students and 140 teachers
benefited from LRE's 1999 Fall Conference. In 1999, 250 attorneys and
judges visited 20,000 students in 208 schools throughout the state as
part of the Lawyer in Every School program. In addition, forty-one
teams of students competed in the expanded 1999 New Hampshire Mock
Trial Competition.
Through the State of Hawaii's association with the National
Program, the Hawaii State Judiciary and non-profit Hawaii Friends of
Civic and Law-Related Education have expanded Parents and the Law
(PAL), a program providing legal information to teen and at-risk
parents. Last year, PAL reached over 450 at-risk parents at twenty-
seven sites including schools, corrections settings, and social service
agencies. Assistance from the National, Coordinated LRE Program will
also benefit the state's efforts to curb youth violence in school
settings. Through program funding, the Hawaii State Judiciary staff
have received training and materials to implement a three-part
curriculum devised to stem violence and hate speech in Hawaii's public
and private schools.
The State of Kentucky is another national leader in the adoption of
LRE programs. During the last fiscal year, approximately 89,500
juveniles from the Kentucky juvenile justice system and the Kentucky
school system participated in LRE programs. Of the approximately 46,000
juveniles entering the Kentucky juvenile justice system during the last
fiscal year, half of those juveniles participated in Law-Related
Education programs. In addition, every judicial district in Kentucky
has a fully operational LRE court diversion program.
South Carolina continues to build upon its already extensive LRE
program. For example, South Carolina worked with the Governor's
Community Youth Councils to introduce the idea of using LRE programs in
non-traditional settings including after-school programs. South
Carolina also hosted a statewide safe schools conference and plans to
hold its next Youth Summit in April. High school students attending the
Youth Summit will focus on a variety of issues such as school violence,
hate crimes, and teen suicide. South Carolina also plans to expand its
regional middle school mock trial competitions and will host this
year's National High School Mock Trial Championships.
On December 3, 1999, Vermont held another successful Youth Summit
at the Vermont Law School in South Royalton, with more than 100
students and teachers participating. Presenters included many
professors and students from the Law School. The interactive topics
included Drafting Curfew Laws and the Fourth Amendment.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to the continued commitment of this
Subcommittee, Youth for Justice, the National, Coordinated Law-Related
Education Program has built a vital, cost effective program serving the
needs of youth throughout our nation. This program:
--Involves young people in every state in identifying and
implementing solutions to the nation's epidemic of violence;
--Promotes research-based educational programs that strive for safe,
disciplined and drug-free schools and communities;
--Teaches young people acceptable ways to resolve conflicts;
--Fosters constructive attitudes towards authority figures, such as
parents, teachers and police officers;
--Provides young people with meaningful opportunities to serve their
communities;
--Promotes understanding of and reasoned commitment to the rule of
law along with tolerance for varied points of view in a free
and diverse society; and
--Helps young people understand the democratic process and develop
the critical thinking, decision-making, and problem solving
skills to enable their full participation in that process.
LRE/Youth for Justice uses technology as a cost-effective way to
expand its reach by providing up-to-date information to the LRE field.
For example, LRE has posted a planning guide for its Youth Summits on
the World Wide Web as well as free competition mock trials. The
National LRE Program also provides technical assistance to state LRE
centers to demonstrate how they can use technology to link teachers and
community volunteers throughout the state.
Youth for Justice is committed to providing leadership in the
national effort to stop the outrage of violence committed by and
perpetrated against this nation's youth. We have the capacity to
involve young people directly in helping to identify and implement
solutions. With the support of Congress, Youth for Justice is
refocusing all programs to reflect the nation's growing concern about
violence committed by and against young people in our schools and
communities.
--Law-Related Education focuses on violence prevention. Last Spring,
thousands of young people from both the school and juvenile
justice settings again gathered with public officials to
participate in Youth Summits designed to help develop public
policy to help prevent violence by and against youth. During
this fifth season of summits, thousands of young people are
taking a close look at the problem of violence by and against
youth.
--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.
THE NATIONAL LAW-RELATED EDUCATION PROGRAM
The National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program is
comprised of five not-for-profit corporations, each of which is
recognized nationally and internationally as a leader in the field of
law and civic education: The American Bar Association's Special
Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship; the Center for Civic
Education; the Constitutional Rights Foundation; Street Law, Inc.; and
the Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center. By combining their expertise
and experience as teachers, school administrators, juvenile justice
professionals, attorneys and professors, these five organizations have
successfully administered a nationwide program in which they have:
--Established and maintained an effective network of delinquency
prevention law and citizenship projects in all fifty states,
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, so that accurate
information and effective materials can be efficiently
distributed and widely used without costly replication of
research and development efforts;
--Provided training and technical assistance to the state projects in
this network so that federal funding effectively leverages
public and private funding appropriate to each state;
--Established innovative law and citizenship programs for at-risk
youth in urban, rural and suburban communities;
--Developed and field-tested quality, research-based curricular
materials for children--kindergarten through grade twelve--in
public and private schools, juvenile detention centers, after-
school programs and court-related diversion programs;
--Organized special initiatives on violence prevention, drug
prevention, juvenile justice and urban education, publishing
materials and sponsoring training events nationwide; and
--Mobilized thousands of volunteers with expertise in law, public
policy, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, juvenile justice and
other areas.
We at the National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program
acknowledge with pride the participation of dozens of organizations and
thousands of individuals from the education, legal, law enforcement,
judicial and juvenile justice organizations. The Program has had
assistance from the executive branch and strong bipartisan support in
Congress for the outstanding delinquency prevention programs and
materials it has developed and implemented.
In addition, it is a particular source of satisfaction to note that
similar partnerships have been developed in most of the states
participating in this network. A small amount of federal support has
provided the impetus to attract funding from local organizations,
agencies and foundations as well as large numbers of volunteer hours.
One important goal of this Program is to continue to provide the
support and technical assistance necessary to enable all of the states
to build their own public/private partnership networks, effectively
leveraging a small amount of federal assistance to build strong, well-
funded local and state programs.
EVALUATIONS OF LAW-RELATED EDUCATION
For the past two decades, researchers have consistently reported
that law-related curricula and instruction make a positive impact on
youth, when compared with traditional approaches to teaching and
learning law, civics and government.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has noted
that evaluations of Law-Related Education Program have been
``encouraging . . . confirming the previous findings that such
education serves as a significant deterrent to delinquent behavior''.
Eighth Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP, p. 60 (1985). The Twelfth
Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency Programs
published in 1988 similarly states, ``[A] national study suggests that
Law-Related Education, when properly implemented, can reduce the
tendency to engage in delinquent behavior.''
A 1993 study of a Law-Related Education diversion alternative in
Kentucky's Designated Court Worker Program showed both improved
perceptions of the police and a low recidivism rate (10.5 percent after
one year).
A review of the research in Law-Related Education and related
fields (including scholarly papers, dissertations, journal articles and
book chapters) conducted by Dr. Jeffery W. Cornett and published on
April 1, 1997 in monograph form concludes that LRE programs have a
positive effect on student knowledge about law and legal processes, and
about individual rights and responsibilities. In addition, the report
concludes that there is evidence that LRE programs have a positive
influence on student attitudes and behavior. Research studies indicate
that effective LRE programs have improved juveniles' attitudes toward
the justice system and toward authorities. Research findings also
indicate a link between particular LRE programs and youth who, as a
result of Law-Related Education, exhibit more law-abiding behavior and
commit fewer delinquent acts.
In 1998, the National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program
released impact data from demonstration programs in Los Angeles,
Chicago and Washington, D.C. showing the positive effect that Law-
Related Education can have on the highest at-risk youth. This data was
the culmination of a three-year effort to test the impact of Law-
Related Education on at-risk youth in the most challenging
environments.
In Santa Clara, California, the Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY)
program, which incorporates Law-Related Education, Mentoring, and
Social Needs Assessment, has been found to have a significant impact on
the behaviors of at-risk youth. At-risk youth, ages 12-17, are referred
to the program by a probation officer, juvenile court, school
officials, or a neighborhood accountability board. The program strives
to improve knowledge, problem-solving skills, attitudes, and behaviors.
A recent evaluation of forty FLY participants found that the
participants' negative behaviors decreased by 75 percent while their
positive behaviors increased by 32 percent. Participants' skills
regarding problem solving, critical thinking, and managing conflict
also significantly improved.
The National Program has a unique and remarkable record of
achievement. Continued support for the National, Coordinated Law-
Related Education Program is crucial for the following reasons:
--First, without congressional support it is clear that Law-Related
Education will die.
--Second, 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.
--Third, only a national program will undertake national initiatives
that benefit the entire country, such as national training;
national technical assistance; state financial assistance; new
program and curriculum development such as Law-Related
Education's highly successful and acclaimed Youth Summits; and
the replication of successful state programs and the avoidance
of unsuccessful pilot programs.
--Fourth, federal money is seed money used to sustain a national
program which raises approximately seven times the federal
support through state legislative support, private donations
and in-kind support.
For all of these reasons, the National, Coordinated Law-Related
Education Program is seeking earmark support at the $1.9 million level.
We thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this Subcommittee,
for your support over all these many years and we ask for your
continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Consortium for Justice Information
and Statistics
Dear Chairman Gregg: The Membership Group of SEARCH submits this
testimony seeking appropriation support for our National Technical
Assistance and Training Program in the fiscal year 2001 Byrne
discretionary program appropriation for the Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The National
Technical Assistance and Training Program received an appropriations
earmark in fiscal year 2000 in the amount of $1.5 million. We
respectfully submit this testimony to request funding at the $2 million
level for fiscal year 2001.
SEARCH is a nonprofit criminal justice organization governed by a
Membership Group comprised of one gubernatorial appointee from each of
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. For over 30 years, we have dedicated our efforts to
assisting state and local justice agencies combat crime and administer
justice through the effective and responsible use of information and
identification technologies.
SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program
provides no-cost assistance to all components of the state and local
criminal justice system with respect to the development, operation,
improvement and/or integration of all types of justice information
systems. This significant program not only helps state and local
agencies work more efficiently and effectively through the use of
advanced information technology, but it also creates the foundation for
a national information infrastructure for justice systems.
SEARCH is experiencing an explosive growth in demand for the
program. In 1999, we provided a 30 percent increase in the number of
technical assistance efforts as compared to 1998. We expect to
experience at least an additional 30 percent increase in technical
assistance provided in 2000. There are a number of reasons for this
demand, including the success of grant programs such as the Edward
Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, which have provided
seed money for justice information systems automation and integration.
Also impacting the demand for SEARCH technical assistance and training
services is the critical need of the nation's criminal justice agencies
to share complete and accurate information quickly, which is manifested
in their efforts to integrate and connect justice information systems.
We want to commend BJA and its fine, professional staff. Working in
partnership with SEARCH, BJA has provided strong, national leadership
to create opportunities for information systems training and technical
assistance for state and local criminal justice officials.
Technical Assistance Program
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
technical assistance on-site or at our National Criminal Justice
Computer Laboratory and Training Center in Sacramento, California.
In-house Technical Assistance
Under fiscal year 2000 funding, SEARCH will respond to hundreds of
telephone calls and emails requesting assistance. 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 appropriate resource
providers; and answering questions on a wide range of justice
automation topics.
SEARCH has also taken advantage of the Internet to expand the reach
of its technical assistance program. SEARCH's Web sites are
specifically designed so that justice agencies can immediately access
information on a variety of technical issues related to justice
information management. The Web sites offer virtual libraries of
information to justice practitioners, including published articles,
documents and white papers; references to other justice agencies using
particular technologies; interactive discussion forums where
practitioners can share information with peers and experts; databases
of technology acquisition documents such as requests for proposals; 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, or that have special automation needs. Since
the program's inception, 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 site visit(s) by staff, and
concludes with the issuance of a formal report setting forth findings
and recommendations.
Selected Examples of Assistance
The following illustrates just a few examples of SEARCH technical
assistance in the past year and the broad range of agencies receiving
assistance.
New Hampshire.--SEARCH provided input on and review of software
applications under consideration by Cheshire County as part of its
plans to upgrade its jail information management system. The county had
called the system review meeting in part to explore the possibility of
participating in a joint jail management system procurement.
Representatives of Merrimack and Belknap counties also participated in
the meeting. In addition, SEARCH reviewed the request for proposals
(RFP) prepared by the Cheshire County House of Correction for a new
automated system. This activity was a follow-up to technical assistance
SEARCH provided earlier in 1999 to the New Hampshire Administrative
Office of the Courts and State Police on a project to integrate the
information systems of all criminal justice system participants in the
state.
Alaska.--SEARCH helped the State Department of Public Safety by
reviewing its summary needs assessment document--which addresses a
migration plan for the Department's law enforcement and repository
applications--and issuing a report of findings and recommendations.
SEARCH also helped the University of Alaska-Fairbanks with forensic
computer issues and the Anchorage Police Department with identifying
users on a multiuser, multichannel Internet chat network.
Colorado.--At the request of the Board of Executive Directors of
the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), SEARCH conducted several
site visits to assess the current information technology status of CBI.
Staff is helping the CBI design a series of management reports to
assess critical performance measures of key systems and resources.
Staff also conducted a preliminary assessment of the CBI fingerprint
identification capability in order to assist CBI in achieving greater
efficiency in this area. Staff also assisted the Denver District
Attorney's Office on cybercrime issues relating to on-line fraud and
tracking email and Internet addresses.
Hawaii.--SEARCH worked with the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center
in the Attorney General's Office to assist in organizing for statewide
integrated systems development. The long-term integration effort will
include the systems used by state and local courts, corrections, law
enforcement, prosecution, probation, parole and community supervision
agencies. SEARCH provided recommendations regarding general planning
issues and approaches.
Kentucky.--SEARCH is working with state agencies in Kentucky on
planning for statewide integrated justice information systems. At the
request of Kentucky's Chief Information Officer and state justice
officials, SEARCH met with the Uniform Criminal Justice Information
System Committee to develop the concept for statewide integrated
justice systems and is establishing project ``next steps.'' At the
local level, SEARCH provided information to the Jefferson County and
Louisville police departments regarding their efforts to plan for a new
records management information system that is integrated between the
departments and with other city and county agencies. Staff also
provided guidance to the State Police on Internet crime investigation
issues.
Maryland.--The Baltimore Criminal Justice Coordinating Council has
sought SEARCH's assistance in efforts to develop a strategic plan for
integrated information systems.
New Jersey.--SEARCH visited the Millville Police Department to
assist in its efforts to upgrade hardware and software, implement
mobile computing, upgrade radio systems, integrate a crime mapping
system, and tie into the state Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (AFIS). SEARCH made recommendations for improvement, and helped
the Department define the scope of and objectives for the project. As
part of a long-term assistance project, SEARCH is also working with the
New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety on a major systems
design, development and implementation plan. SEARCH has reviewed an
RFP, and will assist in developing a formal business plan, reviewing
technical documentation and automation solutions, and reviewing--and
making recommendations on--network security plans. In other assistance,
SEARCH helped the Rockland County Sheriff's Department with software
issues, and provided information on hard drives to the New Jersey State
Enforcement Board.
New Mexico.--SEARCH is a member of an Office of Justice Programs
(OJP) ``Technical Assistance Response Team'' for Rio Arriba County. OJP
is working to create an infrastructure to support a ``balanced and
comprehensive approach to reduce substance abuse and control associated
crime'' in this target area. SEARCH is scheduling site visits to the
justice agencies in the jurisdiction as part of an expected long-term
technical assistance effort. In addition, SEARCH is working with the
Bernalillo County Metropolitan Criminal Justice Coordinating Council on
its effort to integrate justice systems within the county and the City
of Albuquerque, as well as integrating those local systems with state
and federal justice agencies. SEARCH also assisted the New Mexico
Attorney General's Office with an Internet fraud case and provided
information on federal justice funding legislation to representatives
of the University of New Mexico Justice Information Sharing Project.
South Carolina.--The State Law Enforcement Division, which is
interested in establishing a computer crime analysis unit, contacted
SEARCH for assistance. SEARCH provided the agency with assistance
regarding task force and laboratory operations, software requirements
and other issues involved in setting up such a unit. SEARCH also helped
the agency by reviewing specifications for forensic computers and
providing advice on hard drive issues.
Texas.--SEARCH made several site visits to Tarrant County as part
of an effort to integrate justice information within the county,
regionally and with state justice systems. SEARCH also helped the El
Paso County Sheriff's Department with hard drive issues; the El Paso
County District Attorney's Office with hard drive and email trace
information for a child pornography case; the FBI's Houston Field
Office with tracing an Internet Provider address; and the state with
issues related to local-to-state AFIS connectivity. In an upcoming
assistance, SEARCH will assist with developing a strategic plan for
migrating the Harris County integrated justice information systems to a
Web-based system.
Vermont.--In an upcoming weeklong site visit, law enforcement
investigators in Vermont will attend SEARCH's ``The Investigation of
Computer Crime'' training course, which is designed to provide
participants with an understanding of computer technology, its
application to criminal endeavors, and the issues associated with
investigating computer crimes. In addition, representatives of Vermont
State law enforcement, corrections and court agencies, and an
organization representing local prosecutors and sheriffs, received
SEARCH training on strategies for successfully planning and
implementing integrated justice information systems.
Integration Technical Assistance
There is a pressing need to provide more extensive, long-term
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
criminal records improvements. In response, SEARCH provides a limited
number of agencies with technical support for extended periods of time,
including multiple on-site visits, research and, oftentimes,
complementary training sessions. During such a project, SEARCH often
works with a variety of justice agencies, including police departments,
courts, and prosecutor, probation, parole, corrections and other case
management agencies.
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 systems; or enhance,
expand or implement a computerized criminal history repository program.
SEARCH is providing such long-term technical assistance to agencies in
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin
and, as previously noted, in New Hampshire, Hawaii, Kentucky and Texas.
In fiscal year 2001, SEARCH expects to provide on-site technical
assistance to more than 40 justice agencies.
National Training Program
Since its inception, SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and
Training Program has trained more than 22,500 criminal justice
officials from every state in the use of computers and other
information technologies. In fiscal year 2000, SEARCH will train more
than 2,000 state and local criminal justice officials across the
nation, both on-site at agencies and at SEARCH's National Criminal
Justice Computer Laboratory and Training Center in Sacramento,
California. In Spring 2000, SEARCH will implement a mobile training
center that uses a variety of laptops and other mobile equipment to
provide our training at more sites nationally.
Training courses focus on the development, use and implementation
of information technology in justice agencies, including investigating
computer crime; techniques for seizing and examining microcomputers as
evidence; and conducting Internet crime investigations (both basic and
advanced courses). During fiscal year 2000, SEARCH also developed two
new courses: The Investigation of On-line Child Exploitation and Basic
Local Area Network Investigation.
Staff from justice agencies in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina and Texas were among those
who attended our training this fiscal year. SEARCH conducted our
``Investigation of Computer Crime'' course in a number of states,
including Colorado, and is scheduled to do so this Spring in Texas and
Vermont. In addition, in fiscal year 2000, SEARCH held a first-of-its-
kind combined technical assistance/training exercise for attendees of
our ``Advanced Internet Investigations'' course. During the exercise,
attendees undertook a full penetration attack to test the security of a
large state automated justice system.
National Cybercrime Training Partnership
During the past four years, the Computer Crime Unit of the DOJ, 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. 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
Partnership continues to identify needs; develop new, advanced training
courses; and set standards for national justice training courses in the
area of curbing computer crime.
Technical Assistance and Training Program Materials
SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program also
includes the preparation, publication and national dissemination of
materials and reports that assist criminal justice agencies in
acquiring and using computers and other information technology. For
example, SEARCH publishes quarterly Technical Bulletins that identify
and evaluate information systems and technologies that have existing or
potential application in criminal justice management.
Conclusion
Without question, federal support for the National Technical
Assistance and Training Program makes a vital contribution to the war
on crime. For a modest federal investment, leveraged many times over by
state and local funds, a critical contribution is made to the ability
of state and local criminal justice agencies to provide--and to share--
timely, accurate and compatible information for use in apprehending,
prosecuting and sentencing offenders.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee act to
ensure fiscal year 2001 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 the National Recreation and Park Association
Dear Mr. Chairman: We write to share the views of the National
Recreation and Park Association on selected fiscal year 2001
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Justice. We respectfully
request that this statement be included in the record.
The National Recreation and Park Association is a not-for-profit
organization of some 25,000 citizens, professionals and public and
private institutions involved primarily with public park and recreation
systems and services. These individuals and agencies provide an array
of prevention and intervention discretionary time activities for
children and youth from all backgrounds and circumstances, including
and especially those in high-risk environments. Many recreation
services also emphasize specialized programs that focus on gang and
substance abuse prevention, development of employment skills, and
tutoring and mentoring, in addition to traditional recreation programs.
Because of their multidisciplinary, community-based approach,
recreation services reach many individuals often alienated from other
settings or providers.
The Department of Justice, particularly the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), administers several
authorities that could potentially aid local park and recreation agency
efforts to deter youth from behaviors or circumstances that put them at
risk. Local park and recreation agencies, whose principal mission is
creative programming during non-school hours and vacation periods, are
generally eligible for OJJDP funds and use Title II B and Title V
grants to provide recreation-as-prevention programs. With the
reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
still undetermined, the continued availability of these funds through
the appropriations process is critical.
RECOMMENDATIONS
While local public park and recreation services are supported
principally by local general funds, many public recreation-as-
prevention programs are stronger today because of activities aided by
federal and state funds. We urge increased national investment in
public community-based crime prevention efforts that positively engage
children and youth.
Because the JJDPA has expired, ``authority'' for funds and setting
of priorities rests principally with the respective appropriating
committees. This process appears to encourage the practice of
earmarking funds for specific organizations or projects, at least some
of which have narrow impact and serve a limited number of youth.
Earmarked funding for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention escalated from $18 million in fiscal year 1999 to some $38
million in fiscal year 2000. This practice makes it increasingly
difficult to fund the most innovative programs, which would likely be
discovered in an open competitive process. The department and OJJDP
should be given discretion to support projects with the highest
probability of success. Assistance should be sufficiently flexible to
allow states and localities to address conditions specific to their
environments. We encourage the Subcommittee to give priority to
competitive funding for effective and innovative youth development and
prevention initiatives.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes $272
million for juvenile justice programs, including level funding for
Title II B formula grants to the states--$89 million--and for Title V
incentive grants for local delinquency prevention programs--$95
million. We urge the Subcommittee to consider additional funds for
prevention and formula grants to reflect the growing understanding that
prevention is a key element of a balanced approach to reduce crime.
Fiscal year 2001 appropriations for discretionary grants and formula
grants should be commensurate with documented needs. As with
reauthorization, funding for prevention programs should be given
priority and not diminished in favor of punitive programs and
initiatives. We recommend that the Congress invest at least $250
million in Title V programs.
Furthermore, programs funded by public fiscal resources should be
available principally through competitive public processes with local
recipients having the authority to pass through funds to private
providers when the scope and quality of services will be enhanced and
when service efficiencies will result. Increasingly, it seems, the
appropriations process provides direct appropriation of public
resources to certain private entities. We urge the Subcommittee to
reconsider this practice, emphasizing instead public services and
public-private partnerships. Public recreation agencies are among the
most aggressive of all local service providers in terms of outreach and
collaboration, and the enclosed publication, Promise and Progress:
Recreation and Police Partnerships for Youth, highlights several local
actions that illustrate this point.
WHY INVEST IN PUBLIC RECREATION?
Recreation-as-prevention programs should be considered central
components of crime prevention strategies. Public recreation
professionals and citizen volunteers are on the front lines, with over
85,000 public park and recreation sites in some 5,000 municipal and
county systems, and another 20,000 state and interstate sites.
Public recreation services typically focus on the age cohort most
prone to crime--youth ages 10 to 17--during the hours when crime
peaks--between 3 and 8 p.m. The services and sites counter the combined
impact of boredom and the too-frequent absence of positive, caring role
models. They are effective alternatives to more costly actions
typically associated with adjudication and incarceration, and often
lead to many positive secondary benefits (i.e. health promotion,
community building and social development). Notwithstanding this record
of achievement, many public programs cannot be expanded or go unfunded
because of financial constraints. In these situations, federal
assistance and support are critical.
The following examples illustrate how principally local and state
public funds have been invested in resources and services yielding
direct community benefits.
--In Bowling Green, Kentucky, the Parker Bennett Community Center has
partnered with the local housing authority to serve high-risk
youth ages 6-16. Students at Parker Bennett Elementary School
who have participated in the community center's supervised
programs have increased their state aptitude (KERA) scores 45
percent.
--In 1997, the recidivism rate for all of the diversion programs
offered through the Phoenix, Arizona, Parks, Recreation and
Library Department's At Risk Youth Division was 14.2 percent
(six months) and 22.4 percent (one year). Program
administrators anticipate further reductions with changes to
the city's recreation-based Curfew Diversion Program.
--In 1993, the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, Park and Recreation Department developed an array of
programs and activities for people who reside in various
shelters and others referred from Travelers Aid. Since July
1993, more than 9,000 people have participated in the programs
and activities, 30 percent of who have been children.
--In Cincinnati, Ohio, city and federal officials directly attribute
a 24 percent drop in the number of criminal incidents to the
Winton Hills late-evening recreation initiative.
--Project PRIDE in Santa Ana, California, supplements education and
human services with traditional recreation activities to
``teach young people the skills they need to remain gang free,
drug free and in school.'' City administrators estimate the
annual cost per person at $41.67, based on an average of 12,000
participants in five programs.
--Some 8-10 youth each month are diverted from the juvenile court
system through the Street Outreach Program in Olympia,
Washington. The success of the program relies heavily on the
public recreation agency's staff.
--The KIDCO Program in Tucson, Arizona, responds to the growing
number of ``latchkey'' kids. It serves over 3,000 children and
youth and has recently contributed to a 52 percent decrease in
reported crime.
We believe our recommendations are sound and well within the
nation's fiscal capacity to address. I have asked Barry Tindall,
director of Public Policy, and Heather Sidwell, policy associate, to be
available to you to provide additional information or to answer
questions. Both may be reached at 202/887-0290.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, Florida
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill to
assist with an innovative Joint Communications Technology Project the
City is undertaking to improve public safety.
Joint Communications Technology Project
The City of Gainesville is seeking $5.4 million for a joint
communications technology project to enhance public safety. The goal of
this effort is to facilitate communication between our urban area
public safety agencies through the use of system-wide communications
software and technology upgrades. The City and Alachua County have
initiated 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 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).
To continue the Joint Communications Technology Initiative to the
next step requires the purchase of enhanced software and new equipment.
The urban area public safety agencies will need the following:
--Mobile Lap Top Computers/Data Terminals for urban area public
safety agencies ($4.8 Million)
--Crash Reporting Software for urban area law enforcement agencies
($120,000)
--System-Wide Communications Software ($200,000)
--Geographical Information System (GIS) Software and WEB Software
($280,000).
In order to meet the needs of our urban area public safety
agencies, a three-phase project is proposed.
Phase I
During this phase the agencies would purchase sufficient lap top
computers for installation in each operational vehicle. Included with
the purchase of the lap tops will be a mount for installation,
installation cost, a wireless communication device, and network system
software. Additionally, the Gainesville Police Department will initiate
a new WEB page in preparation for mapping software for the Internet.
The goals of Phase I will be to (1) Equip all public safety vehicles
with lap tops that can communicate with the department's communication
software, (2) Establish an in-office GIS system, (3) Create a mapping
resource to be used by management to effectively deploy resources.
Phase II
During this phase the urban area law enforcement agencies would
purchase additional software and conduct extensive training to use the
mobile lap tops to write police incident and crash reports. The goals
of this phase will be to add the second use of report writing to the
utilization of the lap top computers and to incorporate additional
``data layers'' from partner agencies into the GIS system.
Phase III
During this phase the law enforcement agencies would purchase
additional GIS software to allow the mobile lap tops the capability to
enter and use the GIS information provided by the multiple user
agencies. Also during this phase, we would develop a method of
displaying the appropriate GIS information (Crime Maps) over the
Internet for use by other governmental agencies and the public.
The need for the addition of lap top computers to this system is
partially driven by the Federal Government's ``re-farming'' of radio
frequencies through the Federal Communications Commission. Due to this
``re-farming'' and the high cost of radios, law enforcement agencies
will no longer have radios mounted in department vehicles. Radios
``mounted'' in vehicles traditionally have a much higher wattage output
and therefore are more reliable and robust than portable radios.
Additionally, portable radios can be lost or damaged during emergency
incidents. This creates a critical need for an alternative means for
officers to be able to communicate with the dispatch center. Mobile lap
top computers with the additional communication and software components
can become the secondary means of communication utilizing the
infrastructure currently being developed for the Alachua County Joint
Communication Center.
The use of lap top computers can fulfill the critical need for a
second communication device, and at the same time help accomplish
several other public safety objectives, including in-car computer aided
dispatch, automated report writing and the use of a GIS (Crime Mapping,
etc.).
Result #1 Mobile Computer Aided Dispatch
Utilizing lap top computers as in-car computer aided dispatch
terminals significantly increases public safety officers'
communications ability. Computers used in this manner can perform many
important tasks.
First, the computers can send and receive information between the
officer and the dispatcher, including calls for service. Non-emergency
calls are forwarded from the dispatcher to the appropriate unit without
the need to transmit the information verbally over the radio, thus
saving ``air-time'' for use in emergency situations. This also improves
the reliability of the information communicated and virtually prevents
the need for the information to be repeated. This also decreases the
need for additional dispatchers even when the number of calls for
service increases.
Secondly, officers and supervisors can find the location of other
officers and check on their current status. This eliminates the need
for officers to request this information from a dispatcher and gives
all members of the agency a complete picture of the availability of
officers for calls for service. Officers can also refer to information
about calls that have not yet been dispatched in addition to
information regarding previous calls for service.
Third, officers can communicate vehicle-to-vehicle. The computers
can be used to send messages from one officer to another. This also
eliminates the need for officers to waste ``air-time'' for less
important transfer of information.
Fourth, law enforcement officers can conduct FCIC/NCIC checks on
wanted persons and stolen vehicles without having to tie up a
dispatcher. This allows officers to check a large number of persons and
vehicles, which will significantly increase the number of people who
are arrested for warrants and the number of recovered stolen vehicles.
A single dispatcher can only handle 1 request at a time, while the
computer system, can handle numerous request all at the same time.
Result #2 Mobile Automated Report Writing
Area law enforcement officers currently hand write law enforcement
reports that are manually filed. A small portion of that report is then
entered into a computer database at some later date. This method of
capturing the information for reports is antiquated and causes a number
of problems.
Problem #1.--The time lapse between when a report is started and
the time that is entered into the computer makes the information less
useful than it would be if it were immediately entered. This time lapse
prevents any practical analysis of the information to be used for
effective management of resources.
Problem #2.--The information in a report can only be retrieved by
removing the report from a file folder. Record's personnel spend an
enormous amount of time copying, retrieving and re-filing reports. In
fact, copies of each report that is generated by law enforcement
personnel must be made for other parts of the department, including
crime analysis, detectives, intake, etc. before the report can even be
filed. Reports must also be copied for other agencies including the
State Attorney's Office, the Public Defender and private attorneys.
Reports are also generated for private citizens and law enforcement
personnel who are going to court. Whenever a copy of a report is
requested, a records technician must hand search for the report, copy
it, and then return the report to the file. Normally the entire report
is copied and forwarded, even if the person only needed a specific
portion of the report. This time spent on requesting reports and
completing those requests is a wasted resource. Once filed, electronic
reports could be forwarded to anyone electronically and could be
printed by any department member anywhere in the department.
Problem #3.--The amount of storage space required to house all of
the completed law enforcement reports is immense. As a result, for
example, reports are only kept at the police department for 3 years.
The reports are then removed from the file one at time by a records
technician. The reports are then re-filed in a new folder and
transported to a storage warehouse. Any report over three years old,
must be retrieved from a storage company warehouse. This storage
company is located several miles from the police department and must be
accessed several times a month, further wasting valuable resources.
Electronically filed reports take up virtually no space at all and can
be electronically backed up for security purposes and stored on some
form of optical disk. This would eliminate the need for an entire room
to store reports.
Problem #4.--Handwritten reports that require duplicate information
must each be completed one at a time. Electronic reports can be created
that will take the captured data and fill in the data on subsequent or
additional report forms. Therefore when a person is arrested an officer
would only be required to enter the suspect's personal information 1
time. Today, an officer might be required to enter the information on
several report forms, including the original report, a sworn affidavit,
a vehicle tow sheet, a forfeiture request, an ATF firearms report, etc.
Thus filing the reports electronically would save the officers
significant time needed to complete a report.
Problem #5.--Many handwritten reports are nearly illegible and have
numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Some of the current report
forms are also 4 or 5-part NCR paper. Usually only the first one or two
copies of the NCR forms are legible. Filing reports electronically
would drastically reduce the number of spelling and grammatical errors,
it would allow officers to easily correct errors in reports, and it
would eliminate the need for NCR paper.
Result #3 Geographical Information System (GIS)
For years Law Enforcement Agencies have tracked crime using pin
maps to geographically show where crimes were occurring. This method of
tracking crime has become impractical and too time-consuming for all
but the smallest of law enforcement agencies. The advent of
computerized geographical information programs, like ``ArcView'' has
enabled law enforcement agencies to return to the pin map method of
displaying crime patterns, but in a much more effective manner.
Additionally, mapping programs can contain several hundred data layers
that can be utilized by numerous public and private agencies. The
following objectives are examples of how a GIS system will enable us to
use the information immediately entered on mobile lap top computers.
--Electronic Pin Maps.--Once a GIS system is established, all reports
that are generated will be mapped in several formats. Maps will
be generated for calls for service. This enables agencies to
properly decide where to deploy their limited resources.
Electronic pin maps also can be made time sensitive as well as
location sensitive. Officers working various shifts can
identify hot spots by time and location. A hot spot during the
day, may not be a hot spot at night, or visa versa. Additional
maps can be generated for UCR (Unified Crime Reports) crimes,
Crime Analysis identified crimes, and calls verified by Florida
State Statutes. Information that is not immediately available
is of little or no use when it is entered at a later date.
--Management of Resources Utilizing Computer Statistics.--Many law
enforcement agencies have begun to use a method of management
which utilizes crime data. Law Enforcement supervisors are
being held accountable for the level or increase in crime in
their assigned geographical area. The Gainesville Police
Department has begun the process of dividing the City into
districts. Each District Commander will be held responsible for
the criminal activity and the utilization of resources in that
geographical area. GIS information will be used to manage the
department's limited resources.
--WEB Mapping.--Sharing the information gathered in an effective
manner is another key component to this process. Many of the
Law Enforcement Agencies in Alachua County currently have a WEB
site on the Internet. In the future, crime maps developed by
the GIS system will be used to display maps over the Internet.
Maps will be made available to other law enforcement and
governmental agencies and the public at large.
--Integration with other Agencies.--In order for a geographical
information system to be truly effective, it requires the
cooperation of several agencies. GIS systems with hundreds of
layers of data can be a useful tool for all the cooperative
agencies. Law Enforcement personnel will be able to view maps
and aerial or satellite photographs of any given area of the
city. Crime data and analyses can be placed on top of those
maps and/or photographs at specified points that will be
available to all users. Law enforcement personnel will provide
numerous layers of data to the system and will in return be
able to access the layers from other agencies. Alachua County
already has begun the process of developing a GIS and the
Gainesville Police Department is currently working with the
University of Florida to develop a method of converting data to
a format used by ``ArcView''.
In closing, federal support is critical for this initiative. It is
our hope that the Subcommittee will give our request every
consideration throughout the fiscal year 2001 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alachua County Board of Commissioners,
Alachua County, Florida
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of
Commissioners to present written testimony before your Subcommittee
regarding the County's Comprehensive Management of Drug-Involved
Offenders Initiative. Alachua County is seeking $2.5 million to develop
a comprehensive, coordinated approach to the management of substance-
abusing and addicted offenders in the community.
The County's Public Safety Coordinating Council which convenes
regularly to address ways to manage the local jail population,
anticipates that in the next few years, Alachua County, like many other
communities, will be faced with the need for additional jail space.
Prior to building costly jail beds, Alachua County would like to fully
realize all possible alternatives.
A comprehensive plan to manage substance involved offenders is an
innovate approach that could prove to be an effective keystone to
alleviating jail overcrowding by reducing recidivism rates and the
incidence of drug-related crime. Current treatment sources are
inadequate to meet the needs of this population. This pilot project
includes a cost-benefit analysis to compare the long-term benefit of a
comprehensive treatment model versus an incarceration/incapacitation
model. The impact for the entire region is considerable since the
County serves as the regional center for much of north Florida's
medical care and criminal justice services.
Alachua County has many advantages which makes it an ideal site for
this pilot program. The County has long served as a model and a
resource for criminal justice alternative programs in the State of
Florida. Many Florida pretrial release and alternative sentencing
programs consulted with Alachua County's Court Services Department as
they developed similar services for their counties. The Alachua County
Drug Court was one of the first 25 Drug Courts in the nation and has
also served as a model for their Florida Drug Courts. Court Services
Department staff are active in state-wide organizations that provide a
network to exchange information and share innovations. Alachua County
was also recognized as a leader by the Florida State Legislature's
Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Affairs in its 1993 report,
Intergovernmental Relations in Local Jail Finance and Management in
Florida--A Comprehensive Report. Further, the community linkages in
Alachua County and the array of programs provided under one umbrella in
Alachua Court Community Services Department provide a unique
opportunity to demonstrate the impact of a comprehensive effort.
Alachua County has supported innovative alternative methods of
managing offenders for almost 25 years. The County currently funds a
Department of Court Services which includes a comprehensive array of
alternatives including: Pretrial Services; County Probation; Community
Service; Drug Court; Work Release Facility; and A Residential Treatment
Program for Drug Addicts.
In fiscal year 1999, these programs completed more than 7,700 pre-
trial release investigations, monitored more than 1,000 defendants on
pre-trial release, supervised 1,100 probationers and coordinated more
than 3,500 cases where community service work has been required by the
Court. In addition, the Drug Court will treat and monitor 100 addicted
offenders per day, the Work Release Program will house 50 sentenced
offenders and/or pretrial defendants per day. Metamorphosis, the
County's residential treatment program, will serve 17 volunteer and
court ordered addicts each day in a therapeutic community.
In addition to the Court Services programs, Alachua County had 280
individuals being supervised by the Florida Department of Corrections
on drug offender probation during fiscal year 1998. A ``snap shot'' of
individuals arrested in a one-month period between July 1998 and August
1998, shows that 36 percent of the 231 felony defendants who were not
released at first appearance were in custody in Alachua county on drug
related charges.
A coordinated continuum of services targeting substance abusing
offenders across the criminal justice spectrum would further reduce the
incidence of drug-related crime throughout the County. The program will
include continuing judicial supervision of nonviolent offenders with
substance abuse problems and administration of sanctions and services
including: (1) mandatory drug testing during any period of supervised
release or probation; (2) substance abuse treatment; (3) probation or
supervised release which could include prosecution, confinement, or
incarceration for noncompliance with the program's requirements; and
(4) offender management and aftercare services to prevent relapse, such
as vocational job training, job placement and housing placement.
The County has an existing array of programs which could serve as
the framework of a comprehensive system. There is strong support for
alternative programs within the judiciary and from other local criminal
justice officials. The County also has a long-standing history of
cooperation among agencies. In addition, the University of Florida is
located in the community and could serve as a partner in evaluating the
success of this program. The expected benefits are national, and could
hopefully be replicated at reasonable cost.
We hope that your Subcommittee will find Alachua County's
Comprehensive Management of Drug-Involved Offenders Initiative worthy
of your support. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for giving the City of Miami Beach the
opportunity to submit testimony before your subcommittee regarding a
critical law enforcement technology initiative. The Miami Beach Police
Department is seeking federal funding in order to acquire available
technology for the purpose of providing a significant enhancement in
the delivery of public safety services to the community. The unique
status of the City of Miami Beach as an international destination has
taxed the Miami Beach Police Department's ability to provide public
safety services to residents and visitors utilizing the typical funding
sources available to a medium sized municipality. Funding assistance
would be utilized to acquire the following technology:
--Equip every officer in the field with wireless enabled laptop
computers. Officers would have immediate access to both
strategic and tactical crime analysis enabling them to provide
directed community based policing services to residents.
Enhanced communications would also enable a coordinated
tactical deployment and response to disaster and other
emergency events. The efficiency of field officers would be
significantly improved providing residents and visitors with
increased public safety services.
--Develop and acquire the infrastructure necessary to provide real-
time, online public access to crime reports, crime statistics,
crime maps and other such information to residents in order to
develop a closer partnership and a coordinated community-police
response to crime at the neighborhood level.
--Develop the local infrastructure to provide enhanced two-way crime/
suspect analysis and information exchange with law enforcement
agencies throughout the State of Florida utilizing the existing
statewide Criminal Justice Network (CJNET). With the
acquisition of this capability, the ability of criminals to
successfully victimize residents and avoid detection by
crossing jurisdictional boundaries will be significantly
reduced.
The City is seeking $1 million in federal support through the
fiscal year 2001 Justice Appropriations Bill, under its COPS Technology
Assistance account, Office of Justice Assistance account, or any other
program account within the Department of Justice that might be
appropriate for funding this project.
We hope you will find this critically important project worthy of
your support.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey
NEWARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
us the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
jurisdiction that is critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey.
Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the problems
of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast
potential. We have begun to turn the corner--there is a renewed
vitality and sense of optimism in Newark.
A major economic development initiative that will create a
professional sports and entertainment complex in downtown Newark is
being planned by a consortium of private businesses, nonprofit
representatives and the City administration. As this new economic
development initiative is evolving from preliminary to concrete plans,
there is a unique opportunity for an important downtown facility linked
to a key transit hub. The synergy of a major occupant that is committed
to investment in community development and opportunities for upgrading
the center city retail and economic environment makes this an
attractive and singular proposal.
This project will use the attraction of a major league sports
franchise to locate a state-of-the-art arena as a key cornerstone for
development. The mission of this project is to harness the momentum
initiated by the successful 1997 opening of the acclaimed New Jersey
Performing Arts Center (NJPAC), and 1999 opening of Newark's minor
league baseball stadium, and create a vibrant, state of the art sports
and entertainment district in downtown Newark. It will be a catalyst to
the evolving creation of a vibrant downtown corridor--as development
continues with strong anchors, integrating several elements. These
include NJPAC, the Gateway complex of modern office buildings, the
refurbished Newark Penn Station, a waterfront development along the
Passaic River which is under construction by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and a minor league baseball stadium where the Newark Bears
began to play last summer. A new light rail system is in final design,
and will ultimately be the spine along which these projects are
arrayed.
The Newark Sports and Entertainment Center master plan includes
development of approximately 1.4 million square feet of office space.
The preliminary plan consists of a covered multi-purpose sports arena
with 19,000 seats, ancillary parking, a new television production and
broadcast complex, up to 2 million square feet of new commercial and
retail space, including hospitality facilities. The sports and
entertainment center will provide superior access to a broad customer
base, create sizable, measurable, bankable fiscal benefits for the
taxpayers of New Jersey, and will, consistent with the commitment of
the New Jersey State Plan, ``steer development from environmentally
sensitive zones and back into urban areas.'' As the project creates a
destination location--which will create new incremental spending--it
will help to revitalize New Jersey's oldest and largest city and
establish a new sports paradigm linking professional athletes to the
youth of the state.
The Newark Sports and Entertainment Center is expected to draw
nearly two million people to the city each year. The estimate includes
those attending sporting events, family entertainment shows like the
circus, concerts and other attractions. In addition, the development of
the Newark Sports and Entertainment Center will act as a catalyst to
the increased demand for and opening of restaurants, shops, hotels and
small service businesses that meet the needs of patrons. Local
corporations, small businesses, city residents, and local employees are
expected to benefit from the Newark Sports and Entertainment Center
through improved quality of life, better entertainment and retail
options for is current workforce, and improved job opportunities.
Although the direct and indirect employment to be gained from this
project is still the subject of further analysis, it can safely be
estimated that at least 5,000 jobs in construction, ancillary services
and direct employment will be created.
A unique aspect and public benefit of this project is the
establishment of a foundation to benefit inner-city youth in New
Jersey. Community Youth Organization (CYO) has been formed by the
largest investor in the ownership group of the NJ Nets. CYO will be a
partner in the profits of the team, and is committed to investing its
profits in children, people and businesses in Newark. This significant
contribution responds to a documented need for activities that help at
risk youth. The NJ Nets already sponsor a wide variety of community
programs, including the Sprite Junior Nets League, Kids Stuff,
basketball-court renovation programs, and a host of other charitable
and holiday events. The proposed sports and entertainment center will
likely include educational forums as well as television studios
available for youth tours and programs.
The total population of the region in a 25-mile radius of Newark--
excluding New York--is 5,088,656, and includes New Jersey's five most
populous cities. In an approximate 10 mile radius of Newark, the
population is 2.1 million with a median family income of $54,683. This
contrasts with Newark's population of 265,000 and median income of half
that of residents in the 10 mile radius.
Currently approximately 100,000 workers are located in Newark. A
recent survey of Newark's mid-day population found 266,000 local
residents, 52,000 non-resident workers and 24,000 non-resident
students. The six colleges and universities in the city have over
45,000 students and faculty. Newark is also home to major corporations,
including Prudential Insurance, Continental Airlines, Blue Cross/Blue
Shield of NJ and Public Service Electric and Gas. This concentration of
people with discretionary income for entertainment and dining will be
encouraged to use this significant purchasing power in the City of
Newark.
Fully one-quarter of the population of the country either lives
within, or is easily accessible to Newark. We are only 8 miles west of
New York City, within 100 miles of Philadelphia, and only a four hour
drive or 1 hour flight away from Boston and Washington. Our location is
enhanced by ready access to transportation connections, via rail, sea,
air and nine major interstate and state highways. Newark's Penn
Station, a stop on the Northeast Corridor for Amtrak as well as New
Jersey Transit trains and buses from throughout the State, is only a
short walk from the proposed sports and entertainment complex. There is
an additional rapid and inexpensive rail connection to New York City
via the train system known as the PATH. Newark International Airport,
the ninth largest airport in the U.S. and one of the fastest growing in
the country, serving 31 million passengers each year. It is now
extremely close to downtown via automobile or bus, and will soon be
directly accessible by a rail connection to the airport monorail
system.
Newark, however, also suffers from an unusually high number of tax
exempt properties as the host community for the aforementioned large
publicly operated facilities including six colleges, public hospitals,
a major airport, ocean cargo handling and major water and waste
management operations. The dearth of ratables has posed and hardship of
the residents and homeowners of Newark. The city will immediately
benefit by the presence of the Newark Sports and Entertainment Center,
as it will pay property taxes on land that is currently city-owned or
underutilized.
The ownership group for a major league sports franchise has
indicated the ability to contribute approximately $200 million of
private funds toward the anticipated $300 million project cost. The gap
in financing will be filled with a combination of tax-exempt revenue
bonds (subject to debt limits), user fees and grants related to the job
generating abilities and economic development potential of the project.
The City plans to use proceeds from parking and hotel taxes to
subsidize the project.
Public funds are expected to be utilized for site acquisition and
off-site infrastructure improvements. The project area includes a large
tract of vacant land and underutilized buildings which is under
consideration for declaration as an ``Area in need of Redevelopment''
under the Redevelopment statutes of the State of New Jersey. This
Committee's endorsement of an allocation of $15 million in funding
through the Economic Development Administration for site acquisition
and project construction is respectfully requested.
The consideration of this committee is deeply appreciated. Newark,
New Jersey is looking forward to your support of this exciting project
and its innovative partnership.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, Florida
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill to
assist with the following innovative projects the City is undertaking:
(1) an East Side Community Recreational Facility for recreational and
other programs and services to serve at-risk youth and their families
and a substantial population of low income citizens in the surrounding
area; and (2) the Depot Avenue Project to enable economic redevelopment
in a downtown setting, including also improving stormwater treatment,
developing park facilities, enhancing alternative transportation and
restoring an urban wetland.
East Side Community Recreation Center Project
The City of Gainesville is seeking a funding strategy for a multi-
purpose community-based recreational facility on the east side of our
city. The site for this project is in one of our highest poverty and
minority-populated areas. Once completed, the center will provide a
wide range of programs and opportunities to at-risk youth and their
families. It will also provide needed facilities and services for the
substantial population of low-income elderly in this area of our
community, as well as to all our community.
This is a public/private initiative estimated to cost $2.2 million.
Funding has been received or pledged in the amount of $1.5 million. The
initiative is being led by a grassroots partnership of business
leaders, community leaders, professionals and interested/concerned
citizens who have organized themselves as the East Gainesville Park
Development Group.
The public agencies involved in this effort include the City of
Gainesville, Alachua County, the School Board of Alachua County, and
the University of Florida. So far, the project has received
considerable financial support or pledges from the City, the County,
and private individuals. The University of Florida has pledged to
provide coaches and mentors. Additionally, the School Board of Alachua
County has expressed an interest in this facility to help meet its own
recreational facility shortfalls.
The plan for this project is based on the need to provide
recreational facilities for families and on the desire to provide our
youth with such advantages as leadership skills, team participation
skills, and computer skills as well as opportunities to participate in
physical and mental exercise, arts and crafts, and social activities,
and to receive mentoring and after school tutoring. The educational
component will include after school tutoring sessions, computer, anger
management, life skills, and teen parenting and pregnancy prevention
classes. Parental involvement will be encouraged for all activities.
The facility will be sited on a 36-acre parcel of land zoned for
park use. The site amenities will include a multipurpose building
(estimated at 6,500 square footage in area), serving as a learning
resource center and community center. The facility will house the
computer lab with computers promised by IBM, and rooms for after school
homework and tutoring. Accommodations for indoor recreational and
cultural programs will also be provided. The active outdoor amenities
will include an interactive water fountain play area, playground and
tot lot, picnic areas, two softball fields, two soccer/football fields,
three basketball courts, one-quarter mile track, three-quarter mile
jogging/fitness trail, one-quarter mile interpretive nature boardwalk
and a concession facility. The City of Gainesville will own and operate
the park and improvements.
Depot Avenue Project
The Depot Avenue Project is intended to enable economic
redevelopment in a downtown setting, to extend park facilities, to
support alternative transportation, to improve stormwater treatment,
and to restore a small urban wetland in Gainesville. Funding for this
project are being pursued on several fronts. Gainesville is working in
partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the
Brownfield Pilot Program and the Sustainable Communities Program; the
U.S. Housing and Urban Development Agency through the EDI Program; the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection through the Brownfield
Pilot Program; the Florida Communities Trust through the Preservation
2000 Program; the Florida Department of Transportation through the
Transportation Enhancement Program; the St. Johns River Water
Management District for technical support; the City of Gainesville's
Regional Utilities contamination cleanup program; and the City of
Gainesville's Stormwater Management Utility Program.
The project includes:
Depot Avenue.--The reconstruction of approximately two miles of
Depot Avenue from SR 331 to US 441. The project is intended to address
current safety and capacity issues and includes the construction of two
travel lanes, turn lanes, curbs, sidewalks and landscaped medians.
Depot Avenue is located adjacent to the existing Depot Avenue Rail-
Trail, which is an 8 foot wide asphalt trail. It alternately connects
residential areas, commercial areas, and industrial land uses along its
length. The redesign of the road will address these varying conditions
and will also provide for the involvement of the neighborhood residents
it serves.
Depot Avenue traverses Gainesville from west to east, approximately
one-half mile south of, and parallel to, SR 26 (University Avenue). Its
western terminus is at the eastern edge of the campus of the University
of Florida and its associated student housing development, and its
eastern terminus is at SR 331 in Southeast Gainesville. It skirts the
southern edge of downtown Gainesville at its mid-point, and its
intersection with SR 329 (Main Street) is considered to be the southern
``gateway'' to Downtown. (Estimated cost is $4 million.)
Transportation Center.--The City of Gainesville's RTS
Transportation Center is located on the north side of Depot Avenue
directly south of the core of Downtown Gainesville. The Transportation
Center is a multi-modal transportation hub for the Regional Transit
System, Greyhound, Amtrak and the Bicycle Commuter Facility. (Estimated
cost is $3 million. Partial funding, $1.2 million has been provided by
the Federal Transit Agency. Therefore, the City is seeking $1.8 million
to complete this project.)
Historic Depot.--On the south side of Depot Avenue across from the
Transportation Center is the Old Gainesville Depot, which has been
recently acquired by the City for restoration. The Old Gainesville
Depot was built in 1907, and was placed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 1996. The City of Gainesville was founded as a rail
hub linking Fernandina Beach on the east coast of Florida to Cedar Key
on the west coast in the mid-1800's and uses a train symbol as its
official seal. (Fully funded through state and local sources.)
Stormwater Park.--The City's proposed 22-acre Stormwater Park will
serve as the stormwater management facility for the Depot Avenue
Project as well as a large portion of the central downtown area. This
facility will remove existing contamination, provide for full treatment
of stormwater to the property owners in the service area and eliminate
the need for future redevelopment in the central area to provide on-
site stormwater treatment facilities. Additionally, the stormwater
basin is envisioned to provide treatment for some of the underground
petroleum plumes that exist in the area. (Total estimated cost is $10
million for construction. Land acquisition is being jointly funded by
the Florida Communities Trust and the City of Gainesville. Design
services are jointly funded by the U.S. EPA, Florida DEP and the City
of Gainesville. Partial funding is available from the City's stormwater
utility and the Florida Department of Transportation.)
In closing, federal support is critical for each of these
initiatives. It is our hope that the Subcommittee will give our
requests every consideration throughout the fiscal year 2001
appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States. Collectively, public power utilities deliver electric energy to
one of every seven U.S. electric consumers (about 45 million people),
serving some of the nation's largest cities. The majority of APPA's
member systems are located in small and medium-sized communities in
every state except Hawaii.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony in support
of fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission and
the Antitrust Division of Justice.
The electric power industry is in the midst of sweeping and
dramatic change, with a record number of proposed mergers, increasing
significantly in the last two to three years. The industry experienced
little competition in the past, except for franchise competition
between investor-owned utilities (IOUs) on the one hand and publicly
and cooperatively owned utilities on the other. During this
transitional period--as this important, closely regulated industry
moves towards increased competition--sufficient resources are necessary
so that the two federal antitrust agencies can adequately perform
merger assessments.
The Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade
Commission play a critical advisory role along with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) with respect to antitrust monitoring and
enforcement in the electric utility industry.
Important lessons have been learned through the deregulatory
experiences of the airlines, cable, and telecommunications industries.
As the electric power industry begins the transition from regulation to
competition, those lessons must inform the policies and process that
will guide, and ultimately determine, the structure of a deregulated
electric power industry. There is no need to start at the bottom of the
deregulation learning curve, or to repeat the mistakes made in other
industries.
Mergers among electric utilities are likely to have a profound
effect on the development of competition in the electric industry. In
fact, because utility mergers will determine the basic structure of the
electric power industry, they actually have the potential to define (or
preclude the development of) the competitive landscape. The recent wave
of electric utility mergers certainly will increase concentration in
the industry, as the number of firms that are legally and practically
capable of providing electric service declines through consolidation.
Largely for the same reasons, the structural impacts of such mergers
will likely be permanent. What is not known is whether mergers of
incumbent electric utilities and/or other wholesale power suppliers,
collectively or individually, are on balance procompetitive or
anticompetitive. Specifically, there are a number of unknowns about
electric utility mergers:
--Whether an increase in concentration will produce associated
efficiencies;
--Whether any efficiencies that do result will be passed on to
consumers in the form of lower electric rates, or instead be
passed on to shareholders, or used to build diversified
empires;
--Whether an increase in concentration will simply serve to fortify
existing market power to exclude new entrants, drive out new
entrants through price competition and mergers, purchase
existing competitors, or gouge consumers.
As the mixed deregulatory experiences of other industries
demonstrate, these are not questions that can be accurately answered in
the absence of actual market data. The pressure placed on DOJ's
Antitrust Division and the FTC will be enormous as we search for the
answers to these and many more questions.
We are at a critical juncture in the history of our antitrust laws.
After a full generation of decline, antitrust enforcement is making a
comeback. In response to the unprecedented wave of mergers that has
overtaken the U.S. economy in the last few years, the Administration
recently proposed substantial increases in the budget of the Justice
Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. The
restructuring of many industries, the concurrent revolution in
international trade and international competition policy, and the
emergence of serious competitive problems in the evolving high tech
industries have also made the task of antitrust enforcement more
challenging and requiring a larger commitment of resources. Robert
Pitofski, Federal Trade Commission Chairman, recently pointed out
during a speech to a group of antitrust lawyers, that with the business
community's request for a level of restructuring never asked for
before, his department has seen a tripling of FTC merger reviews.
Moreover, the wave of mergers has made antitrust enforcement a
great bargain for the public. Since funding for the Antitrust Division
and FTC comes out of a special fund consisting of fees paid by
companies applying for merger approval, antitrust enforcement pays for
itself. Under the Administration's budget proposal, no money comes from
the General Fund of the Treasury. In addition, criminal and civil
penalties attained by the agencies bring millions of dollars into the
Treasury, and consumers are saved untold millions by the agencies'
successes in promoting and maintaining competition.
APPA supports the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request
of $134 million for the Antitrust Division, an increase of $25 million
over the fiscal year 2000 funding level, and $166 million for the
Federal Trade Commission, an increase of $40 million or nearly 35
percent over fiscal year 2000 requested levels.
We urge you to approve the Administration request.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for giving
me the opportunity to submit testimony about a project under your
jurisdiction which is critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey.
Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the problems
of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast
potential. We have begun to turn the corner--there is a renewed
vitality and sense of optimism in Newark. But we are also still ravaged
by the problems associated with the illegal drug trade.
The Newark Police Department has developed an innovative program,
called Operation NITRO--Narcotics Interdiction To Reduce Open-air Drug
Markets--to address the complex issues associated with the sale of
drugs and their effect on the City of Newark. It is a narcotics
enforcement augmentation program designed to improve the quality of
life by reducing the incidence of illegal drug trafficking through
aggressive anti-crime operations. A supplemental federal allocation of
$2 million is respectfully requested to meet the specialized facility
and equipment needs for the ambitious and important project summarized
herein.
It is well established that drugs drive crime! The COMSTAT
process--Newark's computerized statistical tool--has revealed that an
estimated 80 percent of the crime in Newark is drug related. The
communities' primary issues are the open street sales, violence
associated with the drug trade, and the proliferation of weapons and
their use by drug enforcers during street robberies. Inherent in the
drug trade is the violent nature of the criminal element associated
with trafficking. A significant portion of the drug traffickers have
been identified as having violent criminal histories, and most have
previously failed to appear in court to answer for their crimes. The
single most significant impact law enforcement can have toward reducing
the illegal drug trade is through a sustained presence; dismantling
criminal enterprises by targeting the infrastructure and profit
associated with drugs.
Operation NITRO is a concentrated effort designed to address long-
term operations through collaborative strategies with identified
outcomes and interim measures. It is a Department element composed of
carefully selected and specially trained police officers and
supervisors using covert, non-traditional means to suppress drug-
related street crime. The synergy of enforcement and apprehension
operations will result in a valuable, encouraging and worthwhile
contribution to public safety.
Elements include proactive street-level narcotics enforcement;
search warrants for mid and upper-level drug trafficking networks;
asset seizure through civil enforcement; neighborhood problem solving
through community interaction; special drug courts to provide
differential treatment for offenders; enhanced involvement from the
corrections community to enforce probation and parole violations, and
high visibility fear reduction. These efforts will produce a
synergistic effect in dealing with persistent offenders by effecting
arrests, empowering residents, seizing assets, and controlling the
environment conducive to crime. The citizens of Newark will be
reassured that crime control and quality of life are paramount issues
for the Newark Police Department.
The enforcement segment consists of non-uniformed officers being
placed into areas where the incidence of narcotics trafficking is
greatest. Teams of officers will conduct stakeouts, surveillance, buy/
bust operations, search warrants, and street-level enforcement tactics.
The apprehension segment consists of teams of uniformed officers
stabilizing neighborhoods by conducting follow-up operations in
response to intelligence and leads garnered from outside sources,
arresting persons wanted on outstanding warrants, and community
empowerment via focus groups and neighborhood interaction.
Each of these tactics will be used in response to particular crime/
victim/location patterns. The primary source of information will come
from the community, bolstered by crime and quality of life data
supplied the Performance/Crime Analysis Unit to the COMSTAT process.
Secondary sources will be outside agencies (e.g., Essex County
Prosecutor's Office, FBI Fugitive Task Force, other law enforcement
agencies) and informants. Each will provide specific, detailed data on
the types of crimes and perpetrators sought. The primary goal will be
to reduce the incidence of drug-related street crime through the
effectuation of quality arrests.
The elements of Operation NITRO combine to formulate a cohesive
plan, which takes into account the range of Police staffing,
facilities, equipment, and outreach needs. Detailed plans have been
devised for:
--Organization and Administration.--The administrative structure and
organizational placement, including staffing levels.
--Deployment and Tactics.--Deployment strategies and street tactics,
also, the integral nature of Crime Analysis and the data
supplied via COMSTAT.
--Confrontation and Arrest.--Guidelines for confrontations between
NITRO personnel and uniformed members of the Department.
Emphasis will be placed on plainclothes recognition, quick
identification and the actions to be taken by both the
challenging officer and the challenged officer.
--Facilities and Equipment.--The physical location and equipment
needs of the program.
--Special Considerations.--The methods for maintaining integrity of
team members, and legal issues will be explored, including the
issue of entrapment. Also, program advertising and public
support.
--Implementation.--A project time line depicting implementation and
milestones.
NITRO will perform two primary functions: plainclothes street
surveillance of identified hot spots, and uniformed operations.
Officers can assume disguises to adapt to the landscape in order to
provide themselves with the anonymity and freedom of movement to pursue
identified or suspected drug dealers undetected, and maintain watch
unnoticed at probable crime locations. These tactics are designed to
result not only in quality arrests but also in the interruption of drug
transactions and the prevention of injury to citizens. Care must be
taken, however, to avoid the hazards inherent in this type of work.
Two or three modules will generally be assigned to high-incidence
neighborhoods within the four commands. Target Zones (TZ) will be
established based upon the crime analysis data. All operations will
take place within the TZ under the direction of the module supervisor.
Specific deployment tactics will further be determined by the scope of
the problem in an identified neighborhood. The success of each
operation depends, to a great deal, on the imagination and
resourcefulness of the module personnel. When a narcotics operation is
put in effect, each module will have a minimum of eight members. All
members will be encouraged to use their skills in their apprehension
efforts, but are reminded to use only those tactics which would be
considered constitutionally legal. Considerable classroom instruction
and role playing should be conducted on entrapment and other
constitutional issues. Careful planning, adequate communication, proper
role playing and an efficient back up team are also required. Though
potentially hazardous, these operations are a most rewarding means of
apprehending street criminals and reducing the incidence of crime.
An emerging concept that should be employed to produce lasting
solutions is a crime control feature known as crime prevention through
environmental design (CPTED). CPTED principles employ engineers and
urban planners to permanently alter the landscape in an effort to
redesign a neighborhood. Such measures include rerouting traffic,
establishing flow control (one-way streets), permanently curbing
streets and vacations. Preliminary discussions have taken place with
the Department of Engineering who have been very cooperative in
assisting the Police Department with this endeavor.
The element of plainclothes surveillance requires officers who are
highly skilled in the art of observing suspicious or out-of-the-
ordinary circumstances. Surveillance tactics are instituted once
observations of this sort are made, and may last anywhere from a few
minutes to several hours. Similarly, buy/bust operations, reverse
operations and long-term undercover operations necessitate patience and
the investment of time if the results are to be productive. Training in
surveillance will be conducted to provide officers with the proper
skills for conducting these delicate matters. This approach will
increase the likelihood of arrest, the probability of prosecution for a
felony, the chance of a felony conviction, and the length of the term
for those sentenced.
In an effort to fulfill their objective of effecting high quality
arrests while maintaining a low injury rate, NITRO will promulgate
guidelines for confrontation and arrest. The primary focus is to
prevent injuries arising from narcotics operations, and mistaken
identity issues. Because of the size, diversity, and youthful nature of
the Department, many experienced officers and inexperienced officers
are unfamiliar with each other. Since safety is paramount, the need to
quickly identify plainclothes personnel cannot be overstated. As part
of the required training, a series of safety precautions will be
discussed to alleviate most of the problems associated with
confrontations.
There are two special considerations of the utmost importance to
NITRO administrators: legal defensibility of operations and integrity.
The primary legal concern for the Police Department is the legal
defense of entrapment. If procedures excessively lure or seduce
suspects in their conduct as decoys, an apprehended criminal may have
the defense of entrapment. In brief, entrapment will be a valid defense
where criminal intent in the mind of the accused was implanted there by
the officer, and where active police conduct encouraged the crime. The
NITRO Task Force will provide extensive training, literature, and role
playing to avoid these mishaps. Detailed tactical guidelines will be
promulgated as part of the operating procedures governing the unit.
As with any plainclothes police operation, the susceptibility of
corruptive practices by officers and supervisors is possible. Operation
NITRO will pride itself on being corruption-free with a reputation for
bribery arrests. NITRO administrative personnel will set the
perspective for the team by personal example. A great deal of energy
will be channeled into integrity control, and ethics will be the major
thrust for the integrity campaign. NITRO will constantly be on guard to
prevent its members from participating in shakedowns, abusing their
authority, engaging in brutality, using racial/ethnic slurs while
effecting arrests, and other illegal or improper practices. Complaints
will be monitored and RAMS reports will be generated quarterly to audit
the team.
While the plans for a corruption-free environment are ambitious
they are not meant to unduly restrict the effectiveness of the team by
creating paranoia in personnel. Nor are they meant to curtail the
activities or initiative of creative officers. The element of
undercover integrity testing is an option that should be discussed at
length with the Police Director and the Division Commander of Internal
Affairs.
Advertising and public support for any Police Department initiative
are critical to the program's success. The Newark Police Department
will publicize Operation NITRO through radio and cable TV public
service announcements, handouts and posters placed throughout the city
in all police Districts, public and private schools, public libraries
and at community meetings. The Citizen's Police Academy will be
utilized to promote this initiative by focusing upon direct contact
with the community. The advertising campaign will augment the
establishment of Community Advisory Councils (CAC). CAC's are intended
to foster a cooperative and positive police/community partnership.
Working together, the police and the community will design strategies
specific to local neighborhoods and create a no-tolerance attitude
towards illegal drug activity.
The assistance of this committee in enabling the implementation of
this comprehensive project will be deeply appreciated by the citizens
of Newark, New Jersey. The improvement of the quality of life in our
neighborhoods which will be brought about by Project NITRO will aid in
the renaissance of our City. We thank you for your consideration.
______
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and Drug Enforcement Administration
Prepared Statement of the National Border Patrol Council of the
American Federation of Government Employees
The National Border Patrol Council, representing approximately
9,000 employees, appreciates the opportunity to present its views
concerning appropriations for the U.S. Border Patrol for the
forthcoming fiscal year.
NEW BORDER PATROL AGENTS
Illegal immigration remains out of control, and is a serious
concern for most Americans. Unfortunately, the Administration's budget
proposal for fiscal year 2001 fails to take this problem seriously,
requesting only 430 additional Border Patrol Agent positions, even
though the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 mandated the addition of 1,000 new agents for next fiscal year.
The National Border Patrol Council urges that the full complement of
new Border Patrol agent positions be funded.
PAY REFORM
The Administration's pay reform package consists of four major
parts: (1) Upgrading the Border Patrol journeyman agent grade from
General Schedule (GS) grade 9 to grade 11; (2) replacing the current
overtime system, Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime, with Law
Enforcement Availability overtime, and the elimination of Fair Labor
Standards Act overtime; (3) Paying Special Salary Rates to all Border
Patrol agents in General Schedule grades 5 through 11 to supposedly
offset the loss of FLSA overtime; and (4) paying a $2,000 hiring bonus
to new Border Patrol agents.
The National Border Patrol Council supports upgrading the
journeyman pay level for Border Patrol agents. Currently, only about
one-third of the workforce is at the GS-11 level. Although the average
agent currently achieves this level within three years after entering
on duty, this time frame would be longer if attrition were not as high
and if fewer new agents were being hired. The proposed accelerated and
automatic promotion process should enhance retention. Serious
consideration should also be given to upgrading other critical
occupations within the Border Patrol, such as Detention Enforcement
Officers and Law Enforcement Communications Assistants.
The payment of a hiring bonus is also supported by the National
Border Patrol Council, although it believes that the I&NS should
exercise the authority granted under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5754 to pay
retention allowances of up to 25 percent of base pay to existing
employees, who are leaving the Border Patrol at an alarming rate.
The National Border Patrol Council strongly opposes the overtime
provisions of the Administration's pay reform proposal, which would
increase the overtime hours and reduce the overtime earnings of all
Border Patrol law enforcement personnel, greatly exacerbating an
already unacceptably high attrition rate. Although labeled as ``pay
reform,'' certain provisions of the Administration's proposal represent
a giant step backward, removing deserving employees from the coverage
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and causing them to work more overtime
hours for less pay. Although the proposal is being promoted as a
benefit for such employees by placing their overtime pay on par with
that of criminal investigators, it fails to mention that the provisions
would not grant basic pay parity, leaving Border Patrol agents one to
two grades ($7,777 to $16,659 per year) behind criminal investigators,
and Detention Enforcement Officers even farther behind.
The current Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO) system
is designed to compensate Border Patrol employees for all unscheduled
overtime hours worked, and is paid at a rate of 25 percent of basic pay
(assuming an employee averages 9 or more hours of AUO per week). This
is augmented by Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime, which roughly
makes up the difference between the 25 percent and time and one-half.
Overtime payments under the FLSA help reduce incentives for agencies to
force employees to work large amounts of overtime by requiring them to
fairly compensate employees for all overtime hours worked. The proposed
Law Enforcement Availability (LEA) overtime is also 25 percent of basic
pay, and is designed to compensate employees for 2 hours of overtime
per day, but provides absolutely no compensation for hours in excess of
that amount. Under LEA, all overtime hours that are not scheduled in
advance of the administrative workweek are considered unscheduled
overtime. Unlike AUO, LEA allows agencies to schedule overtime that is
within their administrative control. Even those overtime hours that are
scheduled in advance of the administrative workweek under LEA are paid
at a rate far below time and one-half, as such overtime payments are
limited by statute at time and one-half the rate of a GS-10 step 1
(unless it would cause the employee to be compensated at less than
their hourly rate of pay, in which case they are compensated at their
hourly rate.) For employees receiving AUO, FLSA roughly makes up the
difference between this amount and true time and one-half.
The proposed Special Salary Rate of about 10 percent would only
result in parity with the current compensation of employees if they
work 10 or fewer hours of overtime per week. Employees who work more
than 10 hours of overtime per week would receive less money than they
currently receive for working such hours. Most Border Patrol law
enforcement personnel in fact currently work more than 10 hours of
overtime per week. It is also important to note that the Special Salary
Rates would not apply to GS-12 Border Patrol pilots or to Detention
Enforcement Officers at any pay grade. These employees would receive
thousands of dollars less each year, yet would be required to work more
overtime hours.
Furthermore, unless the Attorney General raises the Special Salary
Rates every year by an amount equal to the locality increases received
by other employees, Border Patrol employees receiving such pay would
lose money, as employees can only receive the greater of a Special
Salary Rate or locality pay increase, but not both. In light of the
fact that the I&NS and Attorney General have failed and refused to
provide a foreign language bonus of 5 percent to Border Patrol
employees since the passage of the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform
Act of 1990, it is highly unlikely that the Attorney General would
provide annual Special Salary Rate increases.
It can readily be seen that the proposed overtime compensation
system would provide a major incentive to managers to force employees
to work large amounts of overtime. In fact, since the passage of the
original LEA statute, Criminal Investigators assigned to the Border
Patrol have seen a marked increase in the number of overtime hours they
actually work, in addition to countless hours they are required to be
available for work.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE DIFFERENTIALS
Although the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 (Public
Law 101-105) authorized agencies to pay a foreign language differential
of up to five percent of basic pay to any law enforcement officer who
possesses and makes substantial use of one or more foreign languages in
the performance of official duties, the I&NS continues to refuse to pay
its employees for such skills. It should therefore be compelled to
include such payments in its budget. Foreign language award 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
purposes.
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
The provision authorizing and directing the Attorney General to
impose disciplinary action pursuant to policies and procedures
applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for
certain violations should not be applied to bargaining unit employees,
who are covered under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. In this
regard, it is noteworthy that the I&NS' proposed implementation of such
policy for the current fiscal year excludes members of the Senior
Executive Service, the very group whose actions gave rise to this
language. Moreover, the proposed implementation also defines
``department leadership'' to include all members of the Senior
Executive Service within the I&NS, which includes numerous field
managers.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS BETWEEN PROGRAMS
The proposal to allow the Attorney General to transfer funds
between the ``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' and ``Citizenship and
Benefits, Immigration Support and Program Direction'' programs is ill-
advised, and should be eliminated.
OVERTIME LIMITATIONS
The National Border Patrol Council supports the proposal to leave
the annual overtime cap at $30,000, but allow for exceptions in
circumstances where the Commissioner determines that enforcing the
overtime cap would harm enforcement or service activities.
VEHICLES
The National Border Patrol Council also supports the proposal to
allow the use of funds without limitation (within the limits of the
Enforcement and Border Affairs appropriation) for equipping,
maintaining, and making improvements to the infrastructure and the
purchase of vehicles for police-type use.
FACILITIES
The $51 million proposed for construction, repair, renovation and
maintenance of Border Patrol facilities is inadequate, as many of the
existing facilities were only designed to accommodate a fraction of the
employees currently assigned to such offices.
PERCENTAGE OF SUPERVISORS
The I&NS continues to ignore the recommendation of the National
Performance Review to reduce by half the percentage of its employees
who are supervisors, and intends to expend significant amounts of money
hiring large numbers of additional supervisors. This wasteful plan will
considerably decrease the number of personnel available to actually
enforce our nation's immigration laws. Accordingly, the I&NS should be
directed to comply with the aforementioned recommendation.
______
Prepared Statement of Local 511, Professional Employees of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service of the American Federation of
Government Employees
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Local 511, professional employees of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), American Federation of Government
Employees (AFGE), respectfully requests that Congress provide an
additional appropriation in the amount of $10 million to upgrade the
salaries of the INS attorneys and fund the INS attorney payroll
budgetary shortfall occasioned by insufficient funding of established
attorney positions.
NECESSITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL SALARY APPROPRIATION
It is imperative that the INS attorneys secure long overdue and
well-deserved salary increases because it has become very difficult for
the INS to attract and retain attorneys qualified with the requisite
specialized knowledge to effectuate Congressional mandates and to
handle the ever-increasing complexity of the immigration laws and
process. Each year, the INS loses out on qualified employee candidates
to the private sector, other Federal agencies and other legal divisions
within the Department of Justice, primarily because of the discrepancy
between INS salaries and the salaries paid to attorneys by such sector,
agency and/or division. On average, the INS is compelled to offer both
entry level and experienced attorney positions to about three
candidates before the position is filled. Clearly, this evidences the
fact that the candidates deemed to be the most qualified by the INS are
seeking positions elsewhere. Further, the INS continuously loses its
most experienced, well-trained personnel, the attorneys most able and
effective in handling the sophisticated litigation envisioned by much
of the recent legislation. The INS, Office of General Counsel, has
approximately 500 attorneys. In the last nine years, approximately 316
out of the 500 attorneys resigned from the INS. Statistically, this
represents almost 65 percent of the agency's legal team. The long-term
effect of such a high attrition rate on the agency's effectiveness in
fulfilling its mission is incalculable.
Over the last four years, there have been sweeping changes in
Immigration Law. A salary increase for INS attorneys is a necessary
corollary to the substantially increased knowledge requirements and
responsibilities required of INS attorneys in the enforcement of such
new legislation. The increase is essential as incentive to attract and
retain qualified, competent attorneys specializing in Immigration Law,
experienced in the more sophisticated Immigration Law enforcement, so
as to enable the Service to implement the comprehensive immigration
reforms set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, as well as the Congressional mandates
enunciated in other related immigration laws.
BACKGROUND
What we do
INS attorneys provide a full range of legal support, including core
responsibilities for representing INS before the Immigration Courts and
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). INS attorneys support expanded
enforcement activities, increased arrests, criminal alien removal
programs, Institutional Removal Programs, anti-smuggling efforts,
conveyance seizures, expedited removal proceedings and mandatory
detention and removal of illegal aliens. The attorneys also
administratively impose civil liabilities upon employers who employ
unauthorized, illegal aliens in the United States.
In addition to these core responsibilities, INS attorneys handle
sensitive ``special interest'' litigation. Special interest litigation
involves cases that are brought to the attention of INS Headquarters
through a request for the initiation of proceedings by the FBI or other
law enforcement agencies. There are several different types of cases
within the special interest immigration category including: (1)
``terrorist'' cases or other cases in which the law enforcement agency
desires to have the alien removed from the United States such as when
the alien is a fugitive from another country; (2) ``national security''
cases as defined under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); (3)
``terrorist-related'' cases, where the alien is not charged with being
a terrorist but is believed to be involved in terrorist activity; and
(4) ``high profile'' cases which are cases that are likely to generate
national media or congressional attention such as the Elian Gonzalez
case. INS attorneys handling these cases are specially trained and
often, require upgraded (Top Secret) security clearance because of
their use of classified information. Of significance, is the fact that
they coordinate their litigation with other law enforcement agencies
and branches of the Government so as to assist in the removal of aliens
that are believed to be involved in terrorist activity, national
security issues and/or crimes committed in other countries. This type
of litigation benefits not only the individual law enforcement agencies
but the United States on a national level as well.
Another major category of cases now handled by INS attorneys, are
Federal denaturalization cases. In appropriate instances, INS attorneys
prepare and institute proceedings in the United States District Courts
to seek the denaturalization of citizens who obtained their very
precious naturalized citizenship and corresponding benefits through
illegal procurement or procurement by willful concealment or
misrepresentation of a material fact. The INS attorneys handling these
cases work in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Offices and
the Office of Immigration Litigation, from whom they receive very
specialized training.
In recent years, Congress has changed the face of Immigration Law.
In 1996 alone, the Immigration Laws were changed twice in the form of
the Antiterrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and, again,
as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996. By the adoption of this legislation, Congress sought to protect
and secure our borders against the flow of illegal immigration and the
accompanying problems such as crime, drug trafficking, alien smuggling
and increased demand on social services and local law enforcement
agencies.
In addition to increased Border Patrol personnel, the law also
provided for stepped up enforcement by INS attorneys, more
specifically, new provisions were enacted regarding the removal of
illegal immigrants--especially the criminal aliens--already in the
country as well as to speed the removal of illegal immigrants who
arrive at our airports and streamline the process for deporting those
who are apprehended. Due to Congressional emphasis on lowering crime,
lowering the cost of imprisoning illegal immigrants and providing
greater public safety, INS attorneys involved in the prosecution and
enforcement of immigration laws, are now required to have specialized
knowledge in state and Federal criminal laws, as well.
Furthermore, Congress has recently enacted legislation such as the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997, which
together with the amended Federal Regulations to Article 3 of the
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and stepped up assertion
of the International Religious Freedom Act, have served to further
expand the role of INS attorneys in the removal of illegal immigrants
as well as the need for specialized, sophisticated knowledge of
Immigration and other related areas of the law.
Pay discrepancy
The U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency recently completed a
comprehensive review and documented the inadequate staffing needs in
part, of the INS attorneys, in a 600-page report. The resources
provided by Congress provide funding and positions for only a portion
of the total documented attorneys needed to accomplish the task.
In addition to the amounts contained in the INS budget to remedy
the serious understaffing of the Legal Proceedings Program, an
additional appropriation is sought to upgrade the salaries of the INS
attorneys. This appropriation is essential to provide competitive
salaries in order to attract and retain qualified, competent attorneys
specializing in Immigration Law, so as to enable the Service to
implement the comprehensive immigration reforms set forth in the new
and increasingly complex immigration laws.
In the Office of General Counsel, INS, there are only two SES
positions. The remainder of the approximately 500 attorneys positions
fall within the GS-905 category and are paid salaries within the GS-11
through GS-15 range. Shockingly, the average INS attorney salary is
Grade 14, Step 3, or $70,381. Even more shocking is the fact that the
General Counsel Budget only provides funding for attorneys at an
average of Grade 14, Step 1, or $65,983. This causes a significant
annual payroll budgetary shortfall in the amount of approximately $4
million (for which part of the requested additional appropriation is
sought).
The INS attorney salaries are not competitive with salaries in the
private sector, other Federal agencies and/or divisions within the
Justice Department, and/or with the United States Attorney's Offices.
That the INS attorney salaries are not comparable to the private
immigration bar, is evident from the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 2412. Private attorneys who handle immigration
proceedings, in appropriate cases, are awarded fees in the amount of
approximately $134.31 per hour or $279,000 per year based upon their
``specialized knowledge''. ($125.00 per hour statutory cap adjusted by
the current Consumer Price Index for urban consumers as of October
1999, to $134.31 per hour.) This rate may be adjusted upward for those
attorneys deemed to possess ``even more specialized knowledge''. Thus,
the INS attorney salaries that average about $70,381 are well below the
market rate of their counterparts in the private bar.
The salaries of INS attorneys, particularly, non-supervisory senior
attorneys are also not comparable to that of other Federal agency
attorneys such as experienced BIA Attorney-Advisors or the United
States Trustees, who are funded for and average salaries in the GS-15
range. The salary range for GS-15 for 2000, is $77,614 through
$100,897, this is well above the average INS attorney salary.
Similarly, the INS salaries are below the other senior litigation
positions within other divisions of the Justice Department as well. The
salary range for attorney positions in the following Department of
Justice Divisions are funded for and average within the GS-15 range:
Anti-trust; Criminal; Civil; Civil Rights; Environment and Natural
Resources and the Tax Division.
Finally, the United States Attorneys and Assistant United States
Attorneys, who are not paid on the GS Scale, also make substantially
more money than INS attorneys. The United States Attorneys are paid on
their own pay scale that ranged for 2000 to a maximum of $122,400. It
should be noted that INS attorneys assist the United States Attorney's
Offices by preparing litigation reports and, in some instances, by
sitting second chair in the United States District Court immigration
litigation cases. In addition, INS attorneys are now handling much of
the work traditionally handled by the Assistant United States Attorneys
in the area of judicial denaturalization. A few years ago, there was
some consideration given to shifting INS attorneys to the United States
Attorney's pay scale. However, to date, no initiatives have been made
in this regard.
CONCLUSION
On Monday, February 7, 2000, the Administration released the
proposed budget of the United States Government for fiscal year 2001.
The proposed budget included a request for pay reform to upgrade the
salaries of Border Patrol and Inspections, in acknowledgment of
increased knowledge requirements and enhanced responsibilities. This
same rationale would easily support pay reform for the INS attorneys,
who along with their other aforesaid duties, advise and assist the
Border Patrol and Inspections units.
Accordingly, for all these reasons, we respectfully request that
Congress provide an additional appropriation in the amount of at least
$10 million to upgrade the salary of INS attorneys and fund the INS
Attorney payroll budgetary shortfall. The details of any enabling
legislation could be addressed between us at a later, mutually
convenient date.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the other
members of the subcommittee on fiscal year 2001 CJS Appropriations
Bill. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Local
511, c/o Janice Montana, Chair, Salary Committee, by telephone at 973-
645-3091 or in writing at 76 B Troy Drive, Springfield, New Jersey
07081.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Immigration and Naturalization
Service Council, American Federation of Government Employees
On behalf of the members of the American Federation of Government
Employees, and its National Immigration & Naturalization Service
Council, and on behalf of my 16,000 colleagues in the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (I&NS) I would like to thank you for scheduling
this hearing. I am pleased to be able to provide testimony regarding
the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget for the Immigration &
Naturalization Service.
INS' law enforcement and service responsibilities continue to grow
more complex. The Service continues to process ever more quickly the
increasing numbers of applicants for admission to the United States. We
have reduced backlogs and adjudicated more applications for benefits
under the Immigration & Nationality Act, and we arrest and deport more
criminal aliens, and make more drug seizures every year. We perform all
these missions in an environment growing ever more dangerous and
contentious with a workforce that is not growing as fast as the
workload it faces. Despite these facts the men and women of the I&NS
care deeply for the country they serve and the mission they are charged
to perform.
We have a number of concerns regarding the Administration's budget
proposal for the I&NS. We believe that insufficient resources are
directed toward enforcement of the I&NA in the interior and at the
ports of entry, and that additional Inspectors need to be hired to
insure Inspector safety especially on the land borders where officers
are frequently forced to work alone.
We are also concerned because the Administration seeks no
additional funding for its interior enforcement programs. Interior
enforcement is the Service's red headed stepchild. INS is presently
filling only one of every two vacancies in its Investigations Program.
The Administration seems to see no need for additional Investigations
resources. The Administration also proposes no increases in resources
for its Deportation Program. The Administration is proposing steps to
address its inability to hire sufficient Border Patrol Agents. We
applaud those actions. But the need for increased staff does not end at
the border. We must remember Immigration enforcement does not end at
the Border, and effective enforcement and service programs demand that
sufficient support personnel also be hired. We also believe that
additional adjudicators needed to be hired to continue to eliminate
backlogs in the adjudications programs and insure the appropriate care
is taken in the exercise of the Service's adjudications functions.
I&NS faces great difficulty in filling certain positions,
particularly in the Border Patrol. Similarly, I&NS Inspections is not
properly graded and many Inspectors seek positions in other branches of
the Service. The Administration is now attempting to address pay
disparities and while we fully support the Administration's proposal to
provide funding to increase the full performance grade level for
Immigration Inspectors and Border Patrol Agents to GS-11 we have
concerns regarding certain aspects of the Service's other Pay Reform
Proposals. We have analyzed the agency's other pay reform proposals as
they will impact Border Patrol Agents, Pilots, Deportation Officers and
Detention and Deportation Officers and we find that they are flawed. We
oppose the Administration's overtime pay reform proposals. While the
grade related proposals improve pay for entry level Border Patrol
Agents and Inspectors the overtime related proposals will decrease pay
for more senior pilots, deportation officers and Border Patrol Agents.
Cutting the pay of senior officers will not make these occupations more
attractive.
The loss of income will average some $4,500 for Deportation
Officers and Detention and Deportation Officers, who I represent, for
example. The negative impact on other officers will be similar or
greater. Clearly, the Administration's ``pay reform'' proposals need to
be reworked lest they totally demoralize INS' law enforcement
workforce. It makes no sense to offer some employees a hiring bonus
while cutting compensation for overtime others are required to work as
a result of staffing shortages.
We know that the Congress is concerned about improving morale and
training for all of INS' officers and in improving INS overall
effectiveness. Nonetheless we believe it counterproductive to reduce
compensation provided employees because they are required to work
overtime. The administration's proposals to change the way employees
are compensated for overtime work amount to nothing more than asking
them to work more hours for less money.
One important aspect of pay reform not addressed in the
Administration's budget proposal is the law enforcement officer status
of Immigration Inspectors. In addition to the pay reform proposal for
Immigration Inspectors now proposed by the Administration, we urge the
Committee to support extension of law enforcement retirement coverage
to Immigration Inspectors, as part of Inspections Pay Reform.. A
proposal now pending before the Congress would accomplish this.
Briefly, H.R. 1228 would expand the provisions of Section 8336(c),
Title 5, U.S. Code to cover Immigration Inspectors. The hazardous duty
retirement provisions of that statute provide that officers working in
certain occupations may retire at age 50 with twenty years of service
under the Civil Service Retirement System, or at any age after 25 years
of service if they are covered under the Federal Employee Retirement
System. The early retirement provisions are intended to promote the
maintenance of a young and vigorous workforce in the covered
occupations. Employees covered under the statute contribute toward
their pensions at rates higher than do non law enforcement employees.
The law also provides for mandatory retirement at age 57 for employees
who have completed twenty years of covered law enforcement service.
Real pay reform for INS Inspectors must address both pay and retirement
issues, as the Administration itself now recognizes.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony for the
record.
______
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of this
nation's 32 American Indian Tribal Colleges, which comprise the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), we thank you for
the opportunity to share our fiscal year 2001 funding requests
regarding the United States Departments of Commerce, Justice and State.
Under the Department of Commerce programs, we will address five
specific areas:
--We request that the Subcommittee fully support the President's
Budget Request of $45 million for the Technology Opportunities
Program (TOP) to help in narrowing the Digital Divide in Indian
Country.
--We request that some funding for the New Markets initiative be
specifically directed to the Tribal Colleges to complete a
five-year technology infrastructure strategic plan with a
detailed cost assessment. This critical step in planning will
allow the Tribal Colleges to further address the much-needed
economic development issues of tribal communities.
--We strongly urge support of a new $28 million program designed to
build math, science and technology capacity at Tribal Colleges
and other Minority Serving Institutions.
--We urge Subcommittee to support the Economic Development
Administration's efforts to address the chronic unemployment
and poverty in our reservation communities and to include
report language that would foster partnerships between the EDA
and the Tribal Colleges.
--We request support and expansion of the Internal Trade
Administration (ITA) initiative to help Native Americans enter
new markets and increase cultural heritage tourism as part of
their communities' economic development plans. Tribal Colleges
often serve as the tribal archive and community centers and are
a logical catalyst for attaining the economic development goals
of both the ITA and tribal communities.
Under the Department of Justice programs, we request that the
Subcommittee fully support and build upon the President's budget
recommendation of $1 million for a Tribal College Law Enforcement
Training Initiative. This program would support training for law
enforcement curricula--especially important to the Tribal Colleges due
to the high rate of crime on American Indian reservations.
Specifically, we request that this project be increased to a level of
$5 million.
This statement will cover two areas: First, it will provide some
background on the Tribal Colleges and second, it will provide
justifications for the above funding requests.
BACKGROUND ON TRIBAL COLLEGES
In the 1960s, dismal statistics concerning the American Indian
experience in education brought tribal leaders to the realization that
only through local, culturally-based education could many American
Indians succeed in higher education and help bring desperately needed
economic development to their isolated and underserved communities. The
Tribal College movement began more than 30 years ago as a very sound
and well thought-out solution to this problem. In the late 1960s and
early 1970s, the first Tribal Colleges were chartered by their
respective tribal governments, to be governed by boards of local tribal
people. These first colleges were started, with little money and a lot
of determination, in abandoned and even condemned government buildings
and old trailers, using three-legged desks, wood crates for shelves and
typewriters with missing keys. In 1972, the first six fledgling
tribally-controlled institutions came together to form the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium. Today, AIHEC is a cooperatively
sponsored effort and integral support network for 32 member
institutions in the United States and one in Canada.
Tribal Colleges and Universities now serve more than 25,000
students from more than 250 federally recognized tribes and are located
in 12 states. Tribal Colleges offer primarily two-year degrees, with
some colleges offering four-year and graduate degrees. Together, the
colleges represent the most significant development in American Indian
education history, promoting achievement among students who would
otherwise never know educational success. All of the Tribal Colleges
are fully accredited, with the exception of four institutions that are
accreditation candidates.
Despite our successes, Tribal Colleges remain the most poorly
funded institutions of higher education in this country, and although
conditions at some have improved substantially, many of the colleges
still operate in trailers, cast-off buildings, and facilities with
crumbling foundations, substandard and exposed wiring and leaking
roofs. In spite of such a fragile existence, Tribal Colleges are
bringing advanced technology to Native communities and partnering with
high technology firms to build an American Indian information
technology workforce. For example, Dine College, serving the Navajo
Nation in Arizona and New Mexico, has joined Coconino Community College
and Grey Hills High School in a partnership with IBM to develop,
prepare, and retain an American Indian workforce in jobs related to the
high tech/computer industry. But programs such as this represent only a
first step. In response to a recent query from the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee, AIHEC surveyed the Tribal Colleges to determine the
status of technology infrastructure at the nation's Tribal Colleges.
The results revealed that the 21 responding colleges estimated a cost
of $4,650,000 to be brought up to speed with current technology.
Expanding this average indicates that the 32 colleges in the United
States would require a minimum of $8,000,000 to be brought safely into
the first phase of the new technology era.
Our core operations funding, which is authorized under the
Tribally-Controlled College or University Assistance Act and funded
through the Department of Interior appropriations bill, remains grossly
inadequate. Despite an increase in our appropriation of $4 million in
fiscal year 2000, the Tribal Colleges' appropriation of $3,433 per
Indian student (ISC) is dramatically less than the average per student
revenue of mainstream two-year institutions and falls far short of the
authorized level of funding currently $6,000 per Indian student. In
addition, due to the location of the majority of Tribal Colleges on
federal trust territory, states have no obligation and in most cases,
do not fund the Tribal Colleges. In fact, most states do not even fund
the institutions for the non-Indian students who attend our colleges.
The non-Indian enrollment at the Tribal Colleges is approximately 20
percent.
Tribal Colleges serve as a vehicle to accomplish what centuries of
paternalism and outside experimentation have failed to do: We are
enabling American Indians to succeed and regain self-sufficiency.
Paramount to achieving this goal are the innovative teaching
philosophies of the Tribal Colleges, and the fact that our graduates
live and work on the reservations and impact others by giving back to
their communities serving as role models and leaders. This ``ripple
effect'' can be seen in increased community pride, the increased
importance of succeeding in elementary and secondary school, and in
Tribal College graduates implementing creative and effective solutions
for their communities' problems. Today, approximately one in five
American Indians live on a reservation. Past federal policies of
relocation and neglect of these trust territories have left once proud
Indian communities in abject poverty. The logical alternative to this
lose-lose situation is demonstrated by the Tribal Colleges. Through the
Tribal Colleges and Universities American Indian communities are being
effectively developed, residents can move off the welfare rolls and
into gainful employment, lowering taxes for all Americans while
providing critical services to these historically under served areas.
It would be tragic not to expand the modest investment in, and
capitalize on, the human resources that will help open new avenues of
economic development specifically through enhancing Digital Opportunity
and thereby narrowing the Digital Divide.
JUSTIFICATIONS
Given the needs outlined above and the reality of an ever-expanding
Digital Divide, the Tribal Colleges request support for the following
programs and initiatives within the Department of Commerce.
Technology Opportunities Program (TOP).--We urge you to support the
proposed $45 million funding level for the Technology Opportunities
Program (TOP). This program is designed to promote access and the
necessary infrastructure to bring high tech opportunity to all
Americans. The TOP program is ideally suited to helping the Tribal
Colleges meet the needs of their isolated rural communities through
innovative technology. Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College
(LCOOCC) in Hayward, Wisconsin, plans to submit an exciting TOP
proposal this year on behalf of several Tribal Colleges. LCOOCC
proposes upgrading the existing satellite link system to a
supercomputing grid that would create a wide area network for as many
as 12 Tribal Colleges, initially. Students, faculty and staff at these
colleges would be able to access software and the Internet on a high
performance T1 line. The success of this promising proposal to bring
high tech capability to Indian Country depends in part on the Tribal
Colleges' ability to fully participate in programs such as TOP. A
substantial barrier to full participation is matching requirements. We
request report language in the appropriations bill that would waive the
program's matching requirement for the Tribal Colleges.
New Markets Initiative.--In 1999, the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) funded an initial assessment of the current
technology capacity at the Tribal Colleges and Universities. The
results of the study, released last September, were eye opening. Nearly
one-third of the Tribal Colleges were found not to be Y2K ready. The
results also clearly identified critical areas of technology
infrastructure enhancement as a top priority.
Funding for a Tribal College--New Markets Initiative would assist
the Tribal Colleges turning the Digital Divide into ``Digital
Opportunity'' for the isolated communities where most colleges are
located. To begin accomplishing this goal, our institutions would
engage in a two-step process. The first step would be the development
of a comprehensive 5-year technology infrastructure plan and cost
assessment of its implementation, which began last year with the DHHS
Y2K study. The second step would focus on convening a national, high-
level meeting of public and private sector organizations interested in
promoting Internet connectivity for Indian Country. Participants would
include private industry, foundations, federal agencies and other
partners who could assist Tribal Colleges in securing funds from a wide
array of sources to bring digital opportunity and economic development
to Indian Country. We urge the Subcommittee to direct the Department of
Commerce to work with the President's Board of Advisors on Tribal
Colleges and Universities to convene this important meeting.
This process of partnering with the private sector is already
underway at some Tribal Colleges. For example, Salish Kootenai College
(SKC) in Pablo, Montana has an ``Internet access partnership'' with
BigSky Net, a regional Internet provider. Under the agreement, SKC
permits BigSky Net to house Internet server equipment on its campus,
and in return, SKC students and faculty get unlimited Internet access
at no cost (except for a monthly T-1 data connection fee from Pablo to
Kalispell, Montana). Additional funding would enable more Tribal
Colleges to participate in such programs and partnerships, further
enhancing our efforts to meet the goals of our collective missions: to
bring higher education and economic development to tribal communities.
Building Math, Science and Technology Capacity at the Tribal
Colleges and other Minority Serving Institutions.--The Commerce
Department is proposing a program to spur the interest of minority
students in the field of science critical to the mission of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). We urge you to support
the full funding of this $28 million program designated for Minority
Serving Institutions.
Economic Development Administration (EDA).--The EDA is charged with
providing assistance to economically distressed areas and regions to
alleviate conditions of ongoing unemployment and underemployment.
Contributing to the economic development of American Indian
reservations is an essential goal of the Tribal Colleges. We strongly
support the commitment of the EDA to strengthen its efforts to assist
American Indian tribes by providing capacity building and developing
finance and infrastructure projects needed to enable our communities to
be more effective and competitive in economic development efforts, as
stated in the fiscal year 2001 budget recommendation sent to Congress.
We request report language that will expand this program to include
partnerships with Tribal Colleges to enable our institutions to further
address the chronic unemployment and poverty that plague reservation
communities.
International Trade Administration (ITA).--The ITA has targeted
Native American Economic Development as a priority in fiscal year 2001.
The ITA intends to assist Native Americans in their efforts to use
cultural heritage tourism as part of economic and community development
plans. The Tribal Colleges are currently pursuing partnerships with
USDA, US-AID, Interior and the private sector to bolster international
programs, tourism, trade, and outreach to other indigenous peoples. For
example, Haskell Indian National University, Lawrence Kansas, recently
received a partnership grant from US-AID to work in the Altai (Siberia)
region of Russia. The Native American economic development program of
ITA could partner with the Tribal Colleges to enhance the work that has
already been started by the Tribal Colleges.
Department of Justice--Office of Tribal Justice.--Tribal Colleges
play an intricate part in the education system that supports tribal
justice on Indian reservations. Nearly one-third of the Tribal Colleges
currently offer justice related programs. The President's budget
recommends $1 million to support tribal law enforcement and law related
education and training at the Tribal Colleges. We urge the Subcommittee
to build upon this recommended level and create a $5 million Tribal
College Law-Related Education Initiative.
Existing nationally certified law enforcement programs at Tribal
Colleges, such as United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, North
Dakota, offer specialized curriculum that provides a stronger
educational foundation and promotes a heightened sense of awareness.
These curricula require students to take courses in psychology and
sociology and classes in administration. One model program is at Fond
du Lac Tribal and Community College in Cloquet, Minnesota, that offers
both Associate of Applied Science and Associate of Science degrees in
Law Enforcement. The Fond du Lac programs can be completed in two years
and incorporate direct field experience and a multicultural environment
into its coursework better preparing graduates for working in the
field.
We believe that the additional funding to the Tribal Colleges for
tribal law enforcement and law-related education and training will
allow our institutions to continue and expand on-going programs of
training better law enforcers, legal personnel, court and judicial
staff, and tribal government officials in a manner that meets state and
national standards while, addressing important and unique cultural
needs.
CONCLUSION
In light of the justifications presented in this statement and the
overwhelming evidence that without an insurgence of educational and
technology centered opportunity the Digital Divide will widen in rural
America, we urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for Tribal
Colleges to help bring economic development to Indian Country.
Fulfillment of AIHEC's fiscal year 2001 request will strengthen the
mission of our colleges and the enormous, positive impact our
institutions have on our communities and will help ensure that we are
able to properly educate and prepare thousands of American Indians for
the workforce of the 21st century. Without Tribal Colleges to serve as
the means for moving from welfare to work, much of the reform
accomplished by the Congress will fail throughout Indian Country. As
demonstrated in these remarks, Tribal Colleges have been extremely
responsible with the federal support they have received in the last 19
years. It is important that the Federal Government now capitalize on
its investment. As the 1997 Carnegie Report on Tribal Colleges stated,
``Now, as strongly as ever, we repeat our conviction that Tribal
Colleges deserve continued support. Their value has been proven, but
their vision is not yet fulfilled'' (Native American Colleges: Progress
and Prospects, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
1997). Our institutions have proven themselves to be a sound federal
investment, and we ask for your continued support.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alachua County Board of Commissioners,
Alachua County, Florida
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of
Commissioners to present written testimony before your Subcommittee
regarding a major economic initiative for which the County seeks your
support under the Department of Commerce Economic Development
Administration.
Alachua County is seeking federal funds to assist with expanding
its collaborative neighborhood revitalization program. This
collaborative program includes the Alachua County Community Services
Department, Office of Code Enforcement, Alachua County Sheriff and
Alachua County School Board. The Alachua County Commission requests
$2.3 million in federal funding to expand this successful
revitalization model to other neighborhoods. The process would include
additional community needs assessments, increased educational, training
and job readiness opportunities, mobilization of community resources
and community empowerment for sustainability of neighborhoods
throughout Alachua County. The funding will also support additional
Sheriff's deputies at a level needed to provide adequate and intensive
law enforcement, and community policing activities to the expanded
Partner areas. Following is a background on this initiative.
In 1993, the Sheriff's Office made a request to the Board of County
Commissioners for assistance due to the spiraling crime rate in
southwest Alachua County. The Sheriff's Office reported that 57 percent
of its 911 calls came from an area that had only 3.2 percent of the
population. This area was identified as consisting of the five
following neighborhoods: Clayton Estates, Majestic Oaks, Tower Oaks,
Cedar Ridge and Sugarfoot. In addition to the disproportionately high
crime rate, it was determined that there were inadequate community
services, a high percentage of absentee landlords, a lack of concern by
most residents, in concert with the physical appearance of the
neighborhoods steadily deteriorating.
In fiscal year 1994, the Alachua County Commission provided funding
for a Program Manager to staff the Partner's for a Productive Community
(PPC) Program. The PPC was launched as a strategic planning effort
based on three goals: to establish neighborhood-based services, to
develop public/private partnerships and to focus on prevention. The
success of this project depended upon the coordinated efforts of the
Sheriff's Office, the Courts and the Department of Community Services.
The objectives of the Sheriff's Office were to reduce the number of
calls from the area and to develop trusting relationships with the
residents interested in improving their community. The objectives of
the Courts were to help with the swift prosecution of cases brought
forth and to increase personnel in key areas. The objectives of the
Department of Community Services through a Program Manager were to
develop and implement a needs assessment, to assess social services
needs in accordance with the results of the assessment, to develop a
community council comprised of owners, tenants and property managers.
This project would be a multi-agency strategy to stabilize, revitalize
and sustain these five neighborhoods.
Community Improvements
Since fiscal year 1995 accomplishments include: free community day
care for 75 children, 30 community day care slots, eight in-home day
care slots, establishment of a medical clinic provided by the Alachua
County Health Department, the creation of 30 new jobs by the Early
Progress Center, reduction in 911 calls from 57 percent to 14 percent
of total calls, the overall increase in property values for four of the
five neighborhoods. The provision of seasonal recreation programs for
children in the targeted communities by the Y.M.C.A. In 1996 the PPC
received the National Association of Counties' Achievement Award in
recognition for distinguished and innovative contributions to improving
and promoting county government. Additionally, an award was received
from the League of Women Voters for outstanding community service.
New activities include community forums on landlord and tenants
issues, welfare reform and subjects determined to be germane in the
effort to educate and revitalize this community. Steps have been taken
to establish 4-H Clubs in the communities to provide positive learning
and character building experiences for youth. It is also being proposed
to implement adult literacy classes, computer training, General
Education Diploma preparatory training and a One Stop Program to
provide employment opportunities. A community health fair was conducted
with numerous agencies involved in providing immunizations for area
children as well as the dissemination of information on health and
safety issues. Three major and three mini neighborhood cleanups were
completed. Through diligent efforts of the Office of Codes Enforcement,
Alachua County government has reduced the number of abandoned and
vandalized buildings from five to two.
The sustaining factor within this community is the formally
organized Partner's for a Productive Community Council. The Council is
the guiding force that deals with issues and determines unmet needs. It
has become incorporated and has received a donation of space (estimated
to be worth $5,000.00 per year) which will house the organization as
well as the Center for Community Services.
Finally, in December 1999, Alachua County received Official
Recognition (OR) from the Executive Office of Weed and Seed for two of
the neighborhoods being served by the Partners for Productive
Communities Program. There is no funding associated with this
recognition. This OR will further strengthen the long-term efforts to
improve the quality of life in these neighborhoods.
We hope that the Subcommittee will find this critically important
project worthy of your support. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Task Force of the Council
of Engineering, and the Council on Codes and Standards, of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International), is pleased to
have this opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year
2001 NIST budget request.
ASME is the premier organization for promoting the art, science and
practice of mechanical engineering in the world. It conducts one of the
world's largest technical publishing operations, holds some 30
technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each
year, and sets many industrial and manufacturing standards. This
testimony represents the considered judgment of the ASME NIST Task
Force and the Council on Codes and Standards, and is not necessarily a
position of ASME as a whole.
Mechanical engineers have a long-standing professional interest in
the engineering, technology, development, and innovation that influence
the economic well being of the nation. The ASME NIST Task Force and the
Council on Codes and Standards have worked with NIST and thus recognize
NIST as one of the key government agencies that contributes to the
development and application of technology.
ASME has long supported the mission of NIST, which is to promote
U.S. economic growth by working with industry to develop and apply
technologies across a broad spectrum of areas appropriate for the
civilian industrial sector, and to develop and maintain world class
capabilities in metrology and standards. NIST's technical programs are
unique because they foster government and industry cooperation through
cost-sharing partnerships that create long-term investments based on
engineering and technology. These programs are aimed at providing the
technical support necessary to our nation's future economic health.
Measurement and Standards
The fiscal year 2001 budget request would provide $332.3 million
for the Measurement and Standards Laboratories, a 17 percent increase
over the current fiscal year. The Task Force supports this increase.
The laboratories provide U.S. industry with critical technical
information through their work in developing new measurement methods,
testing techniques, data evaluation, and standards. NIST laboratories
also serve as the U.S. reference point for measurements with
counterpart organizations throughout the world. The fiscal year 2001
appropriation for the Measurement and Standards Laboratories will
support further development of critical measurement technologies,
methods, and services needed by the U.S. to promote technological
progress, improve products and services, and enhance international
competitiveness.
The Department of Commerce, working through NIST, continues to
provide essential support to the private sector's efforts to assist
federal agencies in meeting the provisions of The Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), which requires the
federal government to use private sector voluntary consensus standards.
In some cases, this has proven to be a challenging enterprise for both
the standards development organizations and the federal agencies.
Although the process of converting from government standards to
voluntary consensus standards is well underway, we continue to look to
NIST and the congressional oversight committees to encourage this
effort and to monitor the progress made to date.
The ASME continues to support NIST's efforts to elevate U.S.
participation in the international standards development process. Such
efforts must include continuing support for U.S. representation on the
international standards bodies (ISO and IEC). Without adequate
representation on these bodies, the nation's trade interests will be
severely compromised.
For the laboratories to continue developing and providing the
state-of-the-art measurements that underpin U.S. industrial
performance, NIST requires facilities that will enable it to deliver
the best possible measurement system. The Task Force supports the
request of $35.9 million for the critical repair, maintenance, and
safety upgrades at NIST's facilities in Maryland and Colorado.
Extramural Programs
The fiscal year 2001 budget request would provide $339 million for
NIST's Extramural programs. These programs are true public/private
partnerships that require cost sharing by the private sector and focus
on investments that are expected to provide broad-based benefits to the
economy. These on-going programs, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP)
and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), are merit-based, and
closely evaluated. The Task Force believes that the ATP and MEP are
good for the nation's economic well being and the health of the U.S.
science, engineering, and technology enterprise. The ATP provides cost-
shared funding to industry for high-risk research and development
projects with potentially broad-based economic benefits for the United
States. The Task Force supports the President's request for $175.5
million in fiscal year 2001 for ATP to promote industry's ability to
undertake technologically challenging initiatives that have broad
economic promise. When combined with anticipated carryover and prior
year recoveries, the request will permit approximately $65 million for
new awards in fiscal year 2001.
The ASME NIST Task Force also supports the $114.1 million request
for the MEP, which will permit NIST to continue providing the federal
share of funding needed to support an existing network of centers
serving smaller manufacturers in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. With its fiscal year 2001 base funding, MEP
will work to increase the capabilities and effectiveness of MEP
centers, collect and evaluate performance and impact data, and further
develop the electronic networking and information capabilities of the
MEP system to strengthen communications.
Cooperative technology programs such as the ATP and MEP have been
catalysts in bringing government, industry, and universities together
to enhance the economic competitiveness of the nation. These programs
are needed to improve the transfer of new discoveries in science and
engineering to innovative technologies, global quality practice, and
profitable manufacturing capabilities on the shop floor.
New Initiatives
The fiscal year 2001 NIST budget request also contains a number of
initiatives that recognize the nation's economy is being driven in
large part by recent advances in information technology (IT), which
today provides an essential foundation for the nation's economic growth
and national security. However, this critical IT infrastructure could
leave the nation vulnerable to disruptions caused by natural disasters,
human error, equipment failures, and purposeful attacks.
The fiscal year 2001 NIST budget request reflects NIST's
participation in the recently launched National Plan for Information
Systems Protection. The Task Force supports the budget request for $60
million in new funding to protect the nation's critical information
infrastructure. Of the total amount, $50 million would be allocated to
fund the launching of the Institute for Information Infrastructure
Protection (I\3\P), a public-private partnership program to support
research and technology development to protect critical information and
telecommunications infrastructures from attack or other failures. An
additional $5 million would allow NIST to develop new measurements,
standards, test methods and guidelines to better protect IT elements of
the nation's critical infrastructures (e.g., security engineering and
system architecture, advanced cryptography through a Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Research and Development effort). The
remaining $5 million would enable NIST to strengthen the security of
federal computer systems to resist attempted cyber-terrorism and to
recover from security breaches and to make that expertise available to
other federal agencies through the formation of a CIP Expert Review
Team.
Current forecasts indicate that business-to-business e-commerce
transactions will continue to grow rapidly. This trend will have broad
economic impact by lowering production costs and raising productivity
throughout the economy. Businesses are increasingly using e-commerce
for a wide range of critical processes throughout the supply chain. The
continued growth of these practices will require new infrastructural
tools and capabilities. The Task Force supports the request for $14
million in new funding to collaborate with the private sector to build
the new infrastructure for an e-commerce economy.
The Task Force also supports the request for $46.3 million to
expand the technology horizon through the development and measurements
and standards needed to promote active pursuit of long-range
opportunities to ensure that the U.S. economy will benefit from the
next major wave of technological advances. This budget proposal would
fund initiatives in nanotechnology and combinatorial science, two areas
with bright prospects for rapid progress and the potential to deliver
significant returns to the U.S. industrial and national economies.
The fiscal year 2001 NIST budget request also includes $15.5
million to fund a three-pronged approach to increase the number of
highly skilled scientists and engineers through increased partnerships
with minority-serving institutions and expansion of the NIST/National
Research Council Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program. The Task
Force supports this effort to provide a continuous supply of technical
expertise and well-trained people that are vital to the continued
success of a national economy driven by high-tech successes.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on the fiscal year
2001 NIST budget request.
______
Letter From Kevin Klose, President and CEO, National Public Radio
February 24, 2000.
The Honorable Judd Gregg,
Chairman, Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee, Senate Appropriations
Committee, 146A Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gregg: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on a
fiscal year 2001 appropriation for the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program (PTFP) at the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), part of the U.S. Commerce
Department. On behalf of National Public Radio (NPR) and the hundreds
of public radio stations it represents, I respectfully submit this
letter and attached statement for the hearing record.
Each week, nearly 20 million Americans listen to the programming
offered by public radio stations. Since its founding exactly 30 years
ago this week, NPR and its Member stations have become an indispensable
source of news, information, cultural and educational programming in
this country. Critical to the success of public radio is the PTFP
program.
With sufficient resources, public radio stations nationwide will be
able to enhance their technical infrastructure, thus enabling stations
to better serve the American public. Furthermore, as public
broadcasting expands into the digital universe, NPR and its Member
stations are eager to work with you to encourage the continued growth
and survival of public radio and television. But without active support
by Subcommittee Members, those resources may remain beyond the grasp of
our Member stations. The time for reinvestment in public broadcasting
is now.
Public broadcasters support the Administration's request for a $110
million federal appropriation for PTFP. This recommendation is further
outlined in the attached supporting statement.
Public broadcasters seek a fiscal year 2001 $110 million PTFP
funding level to maintain and expand existing service. PTFP support is
essential to the vital role public stations play in their communities.
PTFP is a matching grants program for public broadcasting stations,
radio reading services for the blind and other non-profit
telecommunications entities. All PTFP dollars go directly to local
stations, assisting them in the purchase of equipment to extend their
signals into un-served and under-served areas, replacement of outmoded
equipment and upgrade of facilities. It is an excellent public-private
partnership.
Public broadcasters urge the Subcommittee to appropriate $110
million to PTFP for the conversion to digital broadcasting. Public
broadcasting faces a daunting challenge in its conversion to digital
technology. The estimated cost to the entire public broadcasting
industry is $1.7 billion. Public radio stations are facing an estimated
$70 million in digital broadcast-related costs: an estimated $11
million to help stations defray tower dislocation costs and maintain
analog broadcasts and $60 million to assist in public radio's own
conversion to digital transmission standards.
With additional funding for PTFP, public broadcasters nationwide
will be supported in their efforts to sustain local programming,
encourage community discourse, and present ideas while adapting to the
rapidly evolving digital world. Public radio is one of the best sources
of local programming in light of the consolidation in the radio
marketplace.
Again, thank you for your long-standing commitment to our nation's
public broadcasters and the citizens and communities they serve.
Sincerely,
Kevin Klose,
President and CEO.
Prepared Statement of the National Public Radio
INTRODUCTION
NPR is a private, non-profit corporation that produces and
distributes award-winning programming such as Morning
Edition, All Things Considered, Performance
Today, Car Talk and Jazz Profiles. NPR is
also a membership organization comprised of noncommercial, educational
radio stations that are locally licensed and controlled. Moreover,
Member stations design their own formats--combining locally produced
programming with offerings from NPR and other programming sources. Each
station's format is crafted to provide the best service for its
respective community.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP). PTFP distributes federal
grants to public stations that must be matched by the local community.
Congress has invested in the construction and upgrade of local public
broadcast facilities through PTFP since 1962 and it is the only capital
grants program for public broadcasting stations. The fundamental
element underlying federal support is the importance Americans place on
public broadcasting programming and services.
PUBLIC BROADCASTING ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH PTFP
The Program Links Rural & Un-served Areas With the Greater
Community.--PTFP especially benefits rural areas and states like
Kentucky, Alaska, New Mexico and Colorado where topography or sheer
size makes it difficult for people to receive a public radio signal.
Translator/booster facilities, or auxiliary broadcast facilities,
typically serve sparsely populated areas that often lack a sufficient
economic base to support a full service station. These facilities are
usually established only as a result of the community's desire to
receive first or additional public radio service, and are funded
through federal and/or state grants or as a result of modest capital
campaigns funded by the future listeners. In rural and other under-
served areas, with relatively fewer radio and television signals
available, translators have a heightened meaning to public radio
listeners.
According to the Commerce Department, the 1998 and 1999 grants to
public radio stations included projects expanding American's access to
public radio to more than 628,000 people who presently do not receive
any such signal. Communities to receive a first public radio service
because of the 1999 grants include Cape May, New Jersey; Jackpot,
Nevada; and Mojave, California.
For instance, KNAU-FM in Flagstaff, Arizona and the Grand Canyon
Association (a private, nonprofit group dedicated to providing
information about the Grand Canyon) received a 1999 PTFP grant to bring
service to Grand Canyon, Arizona. A 3,000-watt station will be
established, capable of producing local programming. The new station
will cover an 8,000 square mile area, including part of a Native
American reservation, and bring public radio service to 4,300 permanent
residents and nearly five million visitors each year. The community
does not have the economic base to support a full station. The 3,000-
watt station will bring the outside world to Grand Canyon via KNAU-FM,
as well as provide an outlet for local programming.
PTFP Will Permit Replacement of Translators with Full Powered
Origination Service.--As expressed by the Subcommittee and the
Congress, there is a need to better serve rural and other under-served
areas as well as un-served communities. PTFP funding can assist
stations in converting their secondary translator/booster facilities to
primary full powered facilities capable of local producing programming.
As a result of these upgrades, rural and under-served communities will
be able both to receive and to produce locally responsive programming.
PTFP Assists in Maintaining and Upgrading the Existing
Infrastructure.--Sustaining the public broadcasting system is a key
PTFP goal, and the replacement of aging, obsolete equipment is a
critical concern for stations. Public radio is in need of continued
financial support because the infrastructure is aging and in many cases
obsolete. Much of the equipment is old and must be replaced.
Unfortunately, much of the equipment is so old that replacement parts
are no longer available. For instance, public radio station KCAW-FM in
Sitka, Alaska, received a 1999 grant for $29,700 to replace a failing
18-year old transmitter. The typical life-span of a transmitter is 12-
15 years.
Similarly, KRWG-FM in Las Cruces, New Mexico received a 1999 grant
for nearly $14,000 to replace an old, worn-out studio-to-transmitter
link (STL) and audio processor with a digital STL and compatible
digital processor. The grant will allow KRWG-FM to continue serving
approximately 263,000 people.
A $27,895 PTFP grant will enable New Hampshire Public Radio to
improve the broadcast quality of the state network by replacing the
obsolete and failing transmitter at repeater station WEVH-FM in
Hanover. The project will also replace recording and playback equipment
at WEVO-FM in Concord. New Hampshire Public Radio serves a population
of over 900,000 people.
The PTFP program also support radio reading services that help
combat the isolation of blind and elderly disabled people nationally.
The radio reading services predominantly rely on public radio's FM
subcarrier channels. In 1999, a grant was made to extend the service
area of the Iowa Radio Reading Information Service (IRRIS) in Des
Moines, Iowa. The project will acquire satellite up-link and down-link
equipment to enable IRRIS to provide its service to Iowa City, Cedar
Falls, and Sioux City, Iowa. The grant will also purchase a supply of
the special receivers needed by the visually handicapped in those
communities to utilize the service. About 1,000 visually handicapped
people will receive service in the added communities.
A significant increase in the PTFP appropriation is necessary to
enable public radio to meet the challenges posed by an aging
infrastructure and expanding service to un-served and under-served
areas.
DIGITAL CONVERSION
Today's new technology will soon become tomorrow's standard
operating equipment. Public radio and television can realize its future
through the assistance of a $110 million PTFP appropriation. In fact,
this increase in federal support through PTFP will greatly enhance the
success of local stations to attract state and private funders
necessary to convert radio and television stations to a digital
standard.
Public Radio's Digital Future.--Digital radio transmission
technology promises to deliver compact-disc-quality sound free of
interference to listeners. Digital production and transmission
conversion will enable public radio stations to produce and deliver
programming using a far more efficient process than exists today. It
may allow listeners and users to experience a variety of new services
such as the ability to search program formats, scan selective programs
as well as read music lyrics and song titles.
The FCC has initiated a rulemaking to permit public comment on the
various digital radio standards being proposed. The frontrunner
standard in the U.S. is In-Band, On-Channel (IBOC). This conversion is
expected to take place in the near future.
Public radio stations are already 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. For instance,
WKYU-FM in Bowling Green, Kentucky has four personal computer-based
digital workstations, digital editors and DAT machines. The digital
workstations allow for a more efficient and money-saving process to
edit programming.
Also, PTFP funding for digital production equipment mean that
stations will not have to rely as heavily on real-time evening, weekend
and overnight staff. Stations can eliminate the need to purchase and
store audio-tape. In sum, these efficiencies are realized through PTFP.
PTFP Will Ameliorate Impact Of DTV Transition On Public Radio.--
Public radio stations face significant challenges and opportunities
afforded by the digital revolution. A federal mandate directing
television stations to convert to digital will affect public radio
stations as well.
Nearly 40 percent of NPR member stations lease space on television-
owned towers. As television stations convert to digital, they are
adding new digital transmitting antennas to their existing towers that
enable them to launch digital broadcasts. Meanwhile, television is also
required to maintain their existing transmission equipment on towers so
as to continue an analog service. In many cases, the additional
television equipment will force public radio stations off shared
towers.
DTV-related costs to radio are estimated to exceed $11 million. In
large part, the actual costs will depend on the actions of other
commercial and public television and radio stations. Nevertheless, PTFP
grants act as critical catalysts, helping stations raise the matching
funds from their communities to pay for new towers and other capital
needs.
Public Television Must Meet A Year 2003 Digital Deadline.--Public
television is currently making the transition to digital television
(DTV). It is a daunting challenge to meet the congressionally mandated
conversion to DTV by 2003. The stakes are high for public television:
any station that does not make the conversion deadline will be forced
to surrender its license--essentially to go off the air. PTFP will
assist television in its digital conversion.
CONCLUSION
A $110 million PTFP appropriation is critical to public
broadcasting and its listeners. Public radio needs Subcommittee
Members' support for PTFP to address the myriad analog and digital
needs of both public radio and television. Again, your support will
ensure that PTFP is adequately prepared to meet present and future
challenges.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Miami
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
this opportunity to submit a statement for the Record on behalf of my
colleagues at the University of Miami and its Rosenstiel School of
Marine and Atmospheric Science.
Founded in 1925, the University of Miami is the largest private
research university in the Southeastern United States and the youngest
of 23 private research universities in the nation that operate both law
and medical schools. Through its 14 colleges and schools, 1,915 faculty
instruct 13,715 students in more than 110 areas of undergraduate study
and 162 disciplines for graduate study.
The Rosenstiel School is recognized as one of the premier academic
oceanographic research facilities in the world and ranked among the top
six nationally (by number of faculty, funded research volume, and
graduate program size). Located on a 16-acre tract on Virginia Key in
Miami's Biscayne Bay, the Rosenstiel School provides the only
subtropical marine research facility in the continental United States,
and is adjacent to and coordinates daily with the national NOAA lab and
research facility.
The Rosenstiel School because of its unique location--the Gulf
Stream is immediately offshore; just to the south lies a vast expanse
of the only living coral reef off the shores of the continental United
States; and just to the east the Florida-Bahamas Carbonate Platform--is
a unique resource for the nation, as well as for Florida and the
southeast region.
There are close to 100 recognized scientists, researchers, and
educators at the Rosenstiel School who collaborate closely with other
Florida institutions and whose distinct expertise is vital in
addressing critical national, regional, and Florida natural,
environmental, and climatic challenges.
First, Mr. Chairman, I salute you and the Committee for your
continuing leadership and commitment to programs especially helpful to
Florida. Everyone in Florida applauds your continuing interest and
support for the South Florida ecosystem project, for NOAA's investment
in ocean observation and coastal zone monitoring, and for NOAA's
improved forecast capability for severe storm and hurricane landfall.
Respectively, these projects seem to be leading to a new understanding
of the Everglades-Florida Bay relationship and health, improving the
health and safety of Florida's coastal communities, and improving
NOAA's general forecasting capability.
Also, Mr. Chairman, your and the Committee's interest in projects
seeking to improve our understanding of coral reef habitats as well as
the health of coral reef communities is having a dramatic impact on
South Florida's tropical reef system and is especially noteworthy.
The Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science has long
been recognized as a major national research institute focusing on the
living coral reef as a unique and critical national and international
resource, critical to the vitality and health of the marine life and
coastal marine environment of Florida and the southeast. Florida's
coral reefs are the only living coral reefs off the continental United
States. The environmental, climatic, and man-made challenges to and
stress on these precious resources are extensive. To preserve and
protect our reefs requires the organization and coordination of the
broadest range of talent and resources.
The Rosenstiel School has committed to a major investment of its
resources and seeks to enlist a broad range of Florida, regional, and
national expertise to coordinate the most advanced and productive
research that will ensure the protection of living coral reefs. The
Rosenstiel School is seeking to continue and expand its National Center
for Atlantic and Caribbean Coral Reef Research begun in fiscal year
1999, a parallel to the Hawaii-based and focused effort. Together,
these centers will provide a balanced, focused, critical scientific
mass brought to bear on these precious, unique, and vanishing natural
resources.
Coral reefs are the only ecosystems on Earth constructed entirely
by the secretions of a complex assembly of marine animals and plants.
They are economically important resources for humans as sources of
food, medicinals, building materials, and coastal protection. They are
especially invaluable, in our increasingly crowded world, for the
spiritual relief they provide the millions of people that journey to
visit them each year. Unfortunately, changes in water quality due to
coastal development, environmental changes potentially related to
global climate change, and over-exploitation of coral reef fisheries
resources, are contributing to world-wide coral reef deterioration at
an alarming pace, especially in the Caribbean region. U.S. coral reefs
in Florida are down-stream of the entire Caribbean coral reef system,
and are thus dependent on Caribbean reefs for larval recruits and
maintenance of fisheries stocks. Florida reefs could also be affected
by pollutants released into marine waters by other nations in the
region, and from our own rivers via discharges into the Gulf of Mexico.
The National Center seeks to coordinate U.S. coral reef policy and
research, and assemble major national and international initiatives
pertaining to coral reefs. The Center fosters organization and
collaboration within the U.S. scientific community, leads 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 for the public. The initial
focus is on problems faced by coral reefs in Florida and U.S.
possessions in the Caribbean region (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands), and also to coordinate these efforts with those of coral reef
researchers within the Caribbean region, in recognition of the
importance of larger scale relationships between coral reef systems
within the Inter-America Seas.
This Center invites nation-wide participation of scientists with
expertise in coral reef research, and involves scientists from related
disciplines. In addition, scientists from Federal and State agencies
with coral reef research interests, such as the NOAA Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, EPA, and USGS are anticipated to
participate. The specific functions of the National Center for Atlantic
and Caribbean Coral Reef Research are:
--To identify major gaps in our knowledge of coral reef function that
impair our ability to conserve and manage coral reefs, and to
provide leadership in organizing the scientific community to
develop research initiatives to close these gaps;
--To work with agency and legislative representatives, as well as
private sources, to develop the funding basis needed to execute
the research initiatives;
--To interact with managers at the local to national levels, in order
to facilitate the transfer of information from the scientific
to the managerial communities;
--To provide accurate, but non-technical, syntheses of information to
the public so that they can be better informed about important
management issues about coral reefs.
We seek to continue the effort to establish a targeted and broadly
constructed southeastern regional focus that can parallel and
complement the well-funded and structured approach the Congress has
established in the state of Hawaii. The long-term implementation
strategy would involve all of the core Florida institutions and
agencies already working, along with the Rosenstiel School, on one or
more components of the overall reef challenge.
For fiscal year 2001, we seek $3.5 million through NOAA for the
National Center for Atlantic and Caribbean Coral Reef Research housed
at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science. Joined by colleagues at Nova University in Fort Lauderdale on
the Atlantic coast, and at the University of South Florida in Tampa on
the Gulf coast, this public-private enterprise will bring together in
an unprecedented way multi-disciplinary research from across Florida to
study this important aspect of our state and region. The effort
represents an investment for the future health and well being of the
economically and esthetically beautiful tropical reef system.
Mr. Chairman, we understand fully what a difficult year this will
be for you and the Committee. However, we hope that you can and will
accede to our request to support the National Center for Atlantic and
Caribbean Coral Reef Research. The results of the Center's work will
make important contributions to the national effort to save our
endangered coral reef communities.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on
the fiscal year 2001 budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to conserving biological diversity. Our mission is to
preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. We have more than a million individual members, more
than 1,500 corporate members, and programs in every state and in 20
nations. We have protected more than 11 million acres within the United
States and Canada, and have helped local partner organizations preserve
millions more overseas. Additionally, we own the largest private system
of nature preserves in the world.
Since 1950, The Nature Conservancy has maintained a strong focus on
land-based habitats. However, in the past decade, we have recognized
the gap created in our mission by not focusing on critically important
and productive marine habitats, particularly shallow-water habitats
such as estuaries, coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds that are
heavily affected by human activities. We are aware that coastal areas
and oceans contain biodiversity rivaling tropical rain forests. Yet as
a nation we have focused little attention on their conservation.
As a result, The Nature Conservancy is escalating its focus on
near-shore marine sites using the sound science, strong public and
private partnerships, ecosystem approach, and site-based conservation
that has proven effective throughout our fifty-year history of working
on the land. We are cooperating with public and private partners to
develop a ``conservation blueprint'' that will identify the terrestrial
and marine sites, at several scales, that if conserved will protect the
nation's full array of plants, animals, and natural communities for the
long-term.
Several NOAA programs have proven especially successful at
combining effective management, good science, and community involvement
to achieve tangible and lasting conservation results. These programs
will also facilitate the process of conserving many sites identified by
the Conservancy's conservation blueprint. These programs include:
National Estuarine Research Reserve System, National Marine
Sanctuaries, Habitat Restoration, Coral Reef Conservation, and Salmon
Recovery.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System
National Estuarine Research Reserves exist in Alabama, Alaska,
California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and
Puerto Rico. These twenty-five ``living laboratories'' have achieved
success on a modest budget. However, National Estuarine Research
Reserve System (NERRS) funding levels have not kept up with needs
created by additional sites, acres, and responsibilities.
Appropriate funding for the NERRS ($12 million for operation; $8
million for procurement, acquisition, and construction) will ensure
that the system continues to receive national-level coordination and
vision. It will also permit reserves to implement baseline management,
research, education, and stewardship activities within surrounding
communities; acquire land and conservation easements to buffer impacts
of development; and expand the number of sites in the future. Finally,
the funding will enable each reserve to update ecological profiles,
establish graduate fellowships, and provide technical training to
coastal decision-makers.
As manager of more than 1,300 preserves across the nation, we
appreciate and support the request to increase NERRS funding to
strengthen management, improve research, and increase community
involvement. Estuaries serve as ``nature's water treatment system,''
providing flood control, storm damage protection, recreation, and
habitat for species to spawn, nurse and live. The Conservancy is
actively working in several reserves from Great Bay in New Hampshire to
Apalachicola Bay in Florida and Kachemak Bay in Alaska. We know first
hand that the NERRS has successfully implemented science programs to
inform communities about how coastal ecosystems function, how humans
affect them, and methods for improving their condition.
National Marine Sanctuaries
The Nature Conservancy supports NOAA's request for $35 million to
fund the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The $10 million increase in
funding would build upon baseline operational improvements made at
sanctuaries over the past several years--and would guarantee continuity
and enhancement of the program's successful educational, community
outreach, research and monitoring, cultural resource management, and
resource damage response efforts. Additional funding would also expand
enforcement and technical capacity. Management plans could be updated
and science programs would be improved at existing sanctuaries, and
``new frontiers'' in the deep ocean would be explored. Finally, part of
the increase would fund a nationwide study to better understand the
socioeconomic importance of marine sanctuaries.
National Marine Sanctuaries embody some of the world's most diverse
and extraordinary ecosystems. The twelve sanctuaries established since
1972 protect 18,000 square miles of ocean waters. They aid in the
recovery of endangered marine animals; increase knowledge of the ocean
through research; and enlarge a stewardship ethic among citizens. Where
appropriate, uses such as recreation, commercial fishing, and shipping
are also often encouraged.
The Conservancy's most extensive experience with this program has
been with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, established to
stem threats to the ecological health of the coral reef ecosystem. In
cooperation with the state of Florida and an Advisory Council
(representatives from commercial and recreational fishing; the dive and
boating industries; public interest organizations; scientific and
educational organizations; and the public) the Sanctuary developed and
is implementing a comprehensive management plan. The plan focuses on
solutions for problems related to stormwater runoff, inadequate sewage
treatment, marinas, live-aboards, landfills, hazardous spills, and
pesticides. In just two years, it is showing promising results.
Habitat Restoration
Coastal ecosystems are powerful drivers of the United States
economy, with more than 180 million people visiting the coasts
annually. Tourism, recreation, fishing, and other industries require
healthy coastal habitats and clean waters. Yet harmful algal blooms,
polluted beaches and waters, contaminated shellfish beds, and diseased
coral reefs are signs that human activities are degrading valuable
coastal resources.
The Nature Conservancy strongly supports NOAA's coastal habitat
restoration and conservation efforts. $4 million for Fishery Habitat
Restoration would ensure continued work with communities, in
partnership with public and private organizations, to restore vital
coastal habitats including wetlands, salt marshes, seagrass beds,
mangroves, anadromous fish spawning areas, and coastal rivers. Much of
the $2 million increase in funding would strengthen NOAA's Community-
Based Restoration Program that together with national partners, has
reached out and funded local habitat restoration projects that are
developed, implemented, monitored, and maintained by communities. This
program not only has leveraged funds through national-level
partnerships, but has also leveraged a conservation ethic across the
nation.
Additionally, $11.8 million for Habitat Conservation would ensure
the NOAA Restoration Center's continued effectiveness at restoring
estuaries, anadromous fish habitat, and other natural resources injured
by human activity and hazardous materials. The Center has also advanced
the science and technology of coastal habitat restoration and
transferred it to the public and private sectors. The additional
funding of $1.9 million would enable the Center to implement more
restoration; increase and improve technical assistance to stakeholders;
develop duplicable ``best practices''; improve monitoring; and meet a
growing demand for habitat restoration nationwide.
Coral Reef Conservation
Coral reef ecosystem health has declined severely all over the
world in recent decades. The combined effects of global climate changes
and human activities have put coral reefs at great risk. Now is a
critical time for taking action to protect the world's coral reefs
before the tragedy becomes irreversible. As a result, the Conservancy's
programs in the Florida Keys, the United States Virgin Islands, and
other Caribbean Basin and Pacific Islands have been working actively
with governmental and non-governmental partners to protect these
fragile systems.
The Nature Conservancy supports the critical and time sensitive
activities that a $10 million increase in funding for coral reefs would
enable. These activities are also supported by the United States Coral
Reef Task Force (22 federal agencies, Governors of 7 states,
territories, or commonwealths with coral reef responsibility, and many
non-governmental organizations) and include comprehensive mapping and
monitoring of coral reefs; research into ecological processes upon
which reefs depend; expansion and strengthening of federal, state, and
territorial coral reef Marine Protected areas and no-take ecological
reserves; regulation of coral reef species trade; enhanced
international activities; integration of human activities; and public
education.
The Nature Conservancy strongly supports implementation of the
National Action Plan for Coral Reef Conservation. If funded adequately,
this comprehensive scientifically-based program will protect and
restore coral reefs in the United States and its territories. It will
also serve as a model in coral reef protection as well as in
intergovernmental coordination, and will set an example for promoting
similar initiatives in the rest of the world.
Salmon Recovery
Because salmon travel from the sea to a stream's headwaters--
passing cities, developments, farms, and forests before they spawn and
die--focusing on what they need to survive forces us to take on a
landscape approach that benefits many other species dependent upon
cool, clear water. This approach also helps forests and free-flowing
rivers that prevent flooding, clean the air and water, stop erosion,
and provide places to hike, fish, and experience nature.
Habitat destruction, over-appropriation of water rights, pollution,
stream blockages from hydropower and other developments, and over-
harvesting have all played a role in the precipitous decline of many
salmon species from historic levels. Adequate funding to conserve and
recover salmon ($55.4 million for Endangered Species Act Recovery
Planning; $100 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program;
$60 million for the Pacific Salmon Agreement) would further critical
scientific research and monitoring, spur new partnerships and
cooperative efforts, enable more recovery plans, and enforce
protections under the Endangered Species Act. It would also create
significant opportunities for the states, local and tribal authorities,
and private landowners to accelerate protection efforts.
Finally, history has demonstrated that vast amounts of money can be
spent on restoration and recovery of habitat that could have been
protected at significantly less cost to the taxpayer, and with better
environmental results, before the systems were altered and degraded. It
is time to make tough choices about where fish can be successfully
recovered, but it is even more important to focus on functioning
systems with healthy habitats and salmon populations. These decisions
should be based on the existing watershed analyses and plans, and
connected to the priorities emerging from NOAA's essential fish habitat
work.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these remarks. Conservation
of coastal waters is challenging. Many marine habitats cannot be
purchased and set aside for conservation. Instead, we must conserve,
restore, and acquire critical coastal areas; research stresses to
systems; improve water quality; maintain freshwater inflows; and
sustainably manage marine resources and habitat. The Nature Conservancy
looks forward to working with NOAA, other federal agencies, state and
local governments, non-governmental organizations, and the private
sector to ensure the long-term protection and sustainable use of our
productive and diverse coastal waters.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2001 funding request of $250,000
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for
CCOS as part of a Federal match for the $8.6 million already
contributed by California State and local agencies and the private
sector. NOAA is currently under contract for approximately $700,000 to
use state-of-science instrumentation to measure surface and aloft winds
and temperatures. This request will partially replace funding already
spent for NOAA's participation in CCOS.
Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central
California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs
to for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is
expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay
Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain
Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be
necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable central
California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program will be conducted in
the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional PM10/
PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major study of the origin, nature,
and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in central California.
CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition study, data analysis,
modeling performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous
SIP modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of
northern California. The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the
nature of the ozone problem across the region, providing a strong
scientific foundation for preparing the next round of State and Federal
attainment plans. The study includes six main components:
--Developing the design of the field study (task already underway)
--Conducting an intensive field monitoring study, scheduled for June
1 to September 30, 2000
--Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
--Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
--Designing and conducting a deposition field study
--Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone
attainment plans.
CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well as
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
$8.6 million for the field study. In addition, CCOS sponsors will
provide $4 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
continuing to seek additional funding ($9.0 million) for a future
deposition study, data analysis, and modeling. California is an ideal
natural laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the
scale and diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region
(crops, woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
There is a national need to address national data gaps and
California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these
gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
will take place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate
Matter Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local
and private sector funds. Thus, CCOS is timed to enable leveraging of
the efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and
personnel can serve dual functions so that CCOS is very cost-effective.
From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently is
a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter
and ozone control efforts. CCOS will also be cost-effective since it
builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study. To effectively address these issues requires
federal assistance, and CCOS provides a mechanism by which California
pays half the cost of work that the federal government should pursue.
For fiscal year 2001, our Coalition is seeking funding of $250,000
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Extensive meteorological data collected as part of the field study can
be used by NOAA to improve its meteorological forecasting abilities.
CCOS will provide a new database to evaluate the U.S. western boundary
conditions of weather forecasting models. Meteorological data will be
collected in both an ozone field study and an atmospheric deposition
study. In addition, CCOS includes atmospheric airflow research. Data
will be collected on sea breeze circulation, nocturnal jets and eddies,
airflow bifurcation, convergence and divergence zones, up-slope and
down-slope flow, and up-valley and down-valley air flows. This research
will provide fundamental data needed to understand air flows over
complex terrain and has national applicability.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Mr. Chairman, and Honorable Senators of the Committee, I am Billy
Frank, Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
(NWIFC) and on behalf of our member tribes I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to offer written testimony concerning the
Department of Commerce fiscal year 2001 appropriations that pertain to
Pacific Salmon Recovery funding needs.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
In general, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission supports the
Administration's appropriation request presently before the
Subcommittee. We also support additional clarification language by the
Committee pertaining to several issues. Specifically, we support the
following:
--$100 Million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program in the
Lands Legacy Initiative, with a set-aside of 10 percent ($10
million) to affected tribes for their management
responsibilities. A specific allocation of the set aside for
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission of $8 million is
requested.
-- $60 Million for the Pacific Salmon Agreement consistent with the
recently signed treaty annexes.
--$3 Million for a Displaced Tribal Fishers Program.
--Support Additional ESA Program Funding to National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and Earmark $530,000 for National Marine
Fisheries Service and Tribal/NMFS ESA Task force.
INTRODUCTION
Twenty-six years ago, the U.S. v. Washington case was decided by
the federal court system. This decision, respecting the treaty rights
of our member tribes, propelled major changes in fisheries management
in the Pacific Northwest. These changes have not only fundamentally
altered the legal, political, social and economic institutions of the
State of Washington, but have also fostered a nationwide quest for
tribal self-determination and self-governance led in part by the
Northwest tribal leadership. These parameters affect both the way
tribes perform fisheries management, as well as how we approach the
federal system during the budget appropriations and legislative
processes.
TRIBAL PROGRAMS ARE ORGANIZED BUT UNDERFUNDED
We have made great strides in institutionalizing tribal management
consistent with tribal values, treaty rights and federal court
decisions. We have developed great professional capabilities and policy
respect as we proceed through the various processes. We are efficient
and effective, but we have significant unmet needs. While we have
efficiently organized our tasks and have assigned responsibilities
between the tribal community to extend our collective efforts, the
management obligations are many. New and highly difficult complexities
abound, many have been precipitated by the demands of the Endangered
Species Act.
RECENT ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SALMON LISTINGS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY
AFFECTED TRIBES AND NORTHWEST MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
In late February, 1999, a number of species of Pacific Salmon were
``listed'' by the National Marine Fisheries Service as ``threatened''
under the terms of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This ESA listing
process has triggered a cascading chain of events, which have or will
result in significant changes to harvest, hatchery, and habitat
practices for the region and its inhabitants.
Tribes will be affected by this federal process. As fishers, the
listing raises serious questions about the status of the stocks and
poses a threat to the opportunity for these individuals to continue to
harvest this salmon, a treaty secured resource. As governments, the ESA
process now places inordinate demands upon the tribes as co-managers of
the resource. Biological Reviews, Listing Decisions, Conferencing,
Assessments, Opinions, Consultation, and Recovery Planning are just a
few of the series of loops tribes will now be forced to participate in
just to ensure their treaty protected fisheries. The tribes harvest
opportunities and management certainty have been placed into severe
jeopardy by these actions. Continued and expanded tribal funding to
fulfill these federal mandates is essential.
Additional funding is also needed for the National Marine Fisheries
Service so that they can actively participate in the many ESA functions
that exist in the Pacific Northwest. NMFS is the key Federal agency
charged with implementing the Act and requires additional funding to
properly discharge their trust responsibilities to the tribes. We would
like the Subcommittee to earmark $530,000 for a Tribal/NMFS ESA Task
Force that brings tribal and NMFS technical and policy representatives
together to implement the Act and trust responsibilities.
It is partly for these reasons that the tribes have worked very
hard over the years to bring about positive and effective change in
resource management. Unfortunately, events have overtaken tribal
efforts, and new obligations are upon us.
$100 MILLION FOR THE PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY WITHIN THE LANDS
LEGACY PROGRAM WITH A 10 PERCENT ($10 MILLION) TRIBAL SET ASIDE
Tribes were greatly appreciative of the Committee's efforts to
include Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funding in last year's
appropriation. We have long advocated for such a concerted partnership
approach between federal, state, local and tribal governments to save
the Pacific Salmon.
This year we are happy to support the Administration's funding
request of $100 million to continue this effort through the Lands
Legacy Initiative.
For many years, the tribes have sounded alarms about the declining
status of the salmon resource caused in part by past state and federal
policies. Tribes have actively participated in the implementation of
the Northwest Forest Plan. Tribes have also worked diligently with the
federal and state governments in implementing the Pacific Salmon Treaty
and other conservation efforts. In local processes, tribes have begun
to link their work with county and city governments to develop
watershed recovery strategies. Connections between tribes and private
interests, including the timber industry, environmental community, and
volunteer organizations are in place, and expanding regularly. But for
all of these efforts, tribes are in need of additional financial
resources. Tribes need a consistent source of funding that allows them
to actively work salmon restoration efforts. That is why a continued
set aside for the tribes is essential. We support a 10 percent, or $10
million, set aside for the Pacific Coastal tribes for salmon
restoration work. We also seek a specific allocation of $8 million from
this amount for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for the work
described below.
As noted earlier, treaty tribes in western Washington have court-
affirmed fisheries co-management authority and responsibility for
salmon. This co-management relationship is well defined and
institutionalized and has been recognized in harvest and hatchery
management activities for many years. These same courts have recognized
that without healthy habitat for salmon, the treaty right would not be
fulfilled. This collection of rights places the tribes in a principal
management role with the State of Washington to ensure that the salmon
resource is managed wisely for the benefit of all.
This obligation for sound resource management weighs heavily on the
tribes as more than three-quarters of the state is affected by several
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings, with many of the remaining areas
experiencing declining levels of many salmon species. Salmon recovery
will affect every resident of the state.
For tribes to take on these additional efforts and
responsibilities, it is essential that we have adequate funding to fill
new technical and policy positions. What follows is a general summary
of tribal needs. Because the salmon recovery efforts vary greatly
between watersheds, tribal needs also vary from one another. However,
additional tribal funding needs for capacity enhancement and technical
analysis can generally fit into the following categories. These
include:
--Infrastructure and Capacity for Policy and Planning
--Technical Assistance, Regional Coordination, and Integration.
TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT IN SALMON RECOVERY IS ESSENTIAL, BUT REQUIRES
INCREASED MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
Each tribe has an existing fisheries management program, and will
utilize its program as a base for salmon recovery efforts. Fiscal year
2000 budget funding has increased each tribe's ability to engage in
salmon restoration activities and programs. This increased capacity has
enabled the tribes to dedicate necessary staff and policy attention to
work through various reviews, listings, consultations, rule
developments, and conservation planning processes that have already
begun as the National Marine Fisheries Service moves forward with legal
requirements under the Endangered Species Act. Moreover, this
infrastructure has also provided the tribes with additional
capabilities to work through the various salmon restoration projects
and activities that are under way within the region, which are detailed
more fully in the ``Regional Integration and Technical Assistance''
section that follows.
TRIBES WILL BRING TOGETHER REGIONAL INTERESTS THROUGH TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE, COORDINATION, AND INTEGRATION THAT SUPPORTS SALMON
RESTORATION
A coordinated tribal effort is necessary on a variety of
``statewide'' and ``regional'' issues facing the tribes and the State
of Washington. Using the expanded capacity described above, tribes and
their policy and technical staff will dedicate time and effort toward
developing salmon conservation and recovery planning processes that are
essential to salmon restoration.
Tribes, along with the State of Washington, will develop
comprehensive species management plans for coastal river systems, Puget
Sound chinook, Hood Canal summer chum, and Lake Ozette sockeye salmon.
They will also work on conservation concerns for coho salmon, which in
some areas are listed by NMFS as a ``candidate'' species for potential
listing in the future.
Tribes will develop new hatchery genetic guidelines, stock
productivity models, fishery guidelines and standards for local salmon
recovery. Tribes will update the Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory
(SASSI) and will complete the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory
and Assessment Project (SSHIAP). These two data systems integrate stock
status and habitat information, essential knowledge for effective
salmon restoration and protection activities. SSHIAP is also an
essential component for long-term habitat monitoring programs,
including that of the recently enhanced forest practices program.
To make these activities complete, however, requires coordination
and integration of the tasks at a number of levels. In some cases,
special studies and assessments must be done. In other cases, regional
and/or case-area-wide coordination must occur to ensure project
completion.
This broad array of activities will allow the maximum flexibility
for locally driven processes to determine which activities are most
important for each watershed. This is essential as the current status
of habitat inventories, wild stock assessments and hatchery impacts in
each watershed are highly variable.
The following is a partial list of salmon restoration projects and
activities that may be conducted:
--Watershed assessments, including habitat conditions, in-stream flow
studies, water quality and quantity analysis pertaining to
salmon productivity;
--Develop/design projects to address limiting factors;
--Compliance monitoring for regulatory components of salmon recovery;
--Habitat monitoring;
--Stock monitoring; and,
--Adaptive management monitoring, research, assessment and
application.
It must be recognized that tribes also anticipate accessing various
funds that are available to state governments for active watershed
restoration and protection projects. These funds would come from monies
provided by the subcommittee to state governments. In many cases,
tribes will be in the best position to protect and preserve habitat
through the purchase of riparian habitat. In other cases, tribes will
have the best expertise and infrastructure in place to effectively
complete restoration projects.
PACIFIC SALMON AGREEMENT REQUIRES FURTHER FUNDING
Many new demands have been placed on the United States and Canada
as a result of the new 1999 Pacific Salmon Agreement. The
Administration has proposed a funding package of $60 million for fiscal
year 2001 for two endowment funds and to support a License Buyback
Program. The two endowment funds, partially funded in fiscal year 2000,
will be administered by the Pacific Salmon Commission for habitat,
stock enhancement, science and salmon management initiatives in both
countries. The License Buyback Program will be used by the State of
Washington to reduce fishing licenses and gear targeting sockeye
salmon.
These funds are essential in order to implement the Agreement.
Clearly, there have been very significant harvest reductions taken by
the tribes as a result of this new Agreement. Unfortunately, harvest
reductions alone will not bring back the salmon. These new funds will
provide resources to the two countries to target a multitude of
recovery efforts that are complimentary to the harvest reductions.
TRIBAL FISHERS BEAR A HUGE BURDEN, AND FUNDS SHOULD BE FOUND TO SUPPORT
THEM WHILE SALMON RECOVERY OCCURS
Tribes are very concerned about our displaced fishers. Unemployment
rates on some reservations, which depend heavily on salmon fisheries
now seriously curtailed due to low stock abundance, are as high as 80
percent. We would like the Committee to consider an extension of the
successful federal ``Jobs In the Woods'' Initiative of the Northwest
Forest Plan which utilized unemployed loggers. This program could be
expanded for specific inclusion of tribal fishers. New funds for
``fishers support'' should also be found to ensure that tribal fishers
could continue to make boat payments and leases during these low
abundance periods. These funds could be earmarked from within the
existing Department of Commerce budget, so long as they become
available to the Tribal Fishers. It is expected that this program would
cost about $3.0 million per year for the next decade.
CONCLUSION
We strongly urge the Committee to provide $100 million in funding
for Pacific Salmon Recovery through the Lands Legacy Initiative. We ask
the Committee to support the use of $10 million of these funds for use
by the Pacific Coastal Tribes. Language directing $8 million of these
funds to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission will enable us to
actively engage in all phases of salmon recovery efforts in western
Washington. These monies would be carefully managed to ensure results
and accountability.
The new Pacific Salmon Agreement requires $60 million during fiscal
year 2001 to build up the endowment funds and to buyback gear and
vessel licenses. A new initiative to support displaced tribal fishers
and ameliorate their financial burden will cost $3 million.
We thank you for your consideration of our request. We are
available to answer any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State,
The Judiciary and Related Agencies.
This year UCAR, a university membership consortium composed of 63
North American institutions that grant the Ph.D. in atmospheric,
oceanic, and related sciences, celebrates its fortieth anniversary of
scientific discovery and university partnerships. The UCAR mission is
to support, enhance, and extend the capabilities of the university
community, nationally and internationally; to understand the behavior
of the atmosphere and related systems and the global environment; and
to foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for the betterment
of life on earth. UCAR is a non-profit, Colorado-based corporation that
manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) and the UCAR Office of Programs (UOP). It is supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies including
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of
Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department
of Defense (DOD), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In
addition to its member universities, UCAR has formal relationships with
approximately 100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools
including several historically black and minority-serving institutions
and 38 international universities and laboratories.
On behalf of this country's atmospheric sciences community, we urge
the Committee to support the overall proposed budget of $2.90 billion
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for
fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of $446 million over fiscal year
2000. The activities of NOAA provide a comprehensive approach to
understanding the atmospheric and oceanic systems of the earth and to
implementation of programs that save American lives, money and
property. The weather and climate data collected by NOAA satellites,
ships, ocean buoys, aircraft, and other instrumentation provide the
foundation on which atmospheric sciences research is based. Support of
this agency should be maintained at the highest possible levels during
this era of rapid scientific discovery and intense, global economic
competition. Within NOAA, we would like to comment on the following
specific programs:
National Weather Service (NWS)
We urge the Committee to support the overall proposed amount of
$710.2 million for NWS for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of
$53.2 million over fiscal year 2000. The work of the NWS protects life
and property, enhances the national economy, and provides a national
information database and infrastructure used extensively by the
university community for research purposes. The proposed fiscal year
2001 budget enables the NWS to continue to make available critical
weather and climate-related data, to improve weather prediction
accuracy and warning lead times and to work to decrease weather related
fatalities.
Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System (AHPS)
Within the NWS Operations and Research budget, we urge the
Committee to support the proposed fiscal year 2001 amount of $1.0
million for continued national implementation of AHPS. This is a slight
increase over fiscal year 2000. AHPS is a real time modeling and data
analysis system that will significantly improve flood forecasting and
water management in flood-prone areas such as the Mississippi and Ohio
River Basins. This system will save lives and property by providing
river stage forecasts one-to-two months in advance, a great improvement
on the several days advance notice now available.
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS)
Under NWS Systems Acquisition in the Operations, Research and
Facilities (ORF) account, we urge the Committee to support the proposed
fiscal year 2001 amount of $38.6 million for AWIPS Operations and
Maintenance. This is a $6.6 million increase over fiscal year 2000 that
will provide operations and maintenance for the fully deployed network
of 152 AWIPS systems. This interactive computer system, the cornerstone
of the recently completed NWS modernization and restructuring,
integrates for the first time all meteorological and hydrological data,
and all satellite and radar data. AWIPS is a critical source of data
for the research community and enables the NWS to issue far more
effective weather warnings and forecasts in a very efficient manner.
Under NWS Systems Acquisition in the Procurement, Acquisition and
Construction (PAC) account, we urge the Committee to support the
proposed fiscal year 2001 amount of $17.3 million for AWIPS. This is a
$1.36 million increase over fiscal year 2000 to continue development of
AWIPS software. When integrated with NEXRAD Product Improvement
technology, this new software will allow NWS forecasters to extend
tornado warning lead time from an average of 11 minutes to 16 minutes
and improve the accuracy of severe storm forecasts by over 20 percent.
Radiosonde Replacement Network
We urge the Committee to support the fiscal year 2001 request of $7
million for replacement and modernization of the upper air radiosonde
network. This represents a very slight increase over fiscal year 2000
funding to support a network that provides critical upper air
observations that are the principal data source for all weather
forecasts and for much research. Funding will allow the NWS to replace
antiquated computers, continue software development, and procure
critical surface instruments.
Co-Operative Observer Network
We urge the Committee to support the requested increase of $2.3
million in fiscal year 2001 to sustain and modernize the volunteer
operated Cooperative Observer Network. The network's 11,000 weather
observation sites are used to maintain the country's climate record and
to provide data to NWS local field offices and to university
laboratories. In a recent report, the National Research Council
recommended taking immediate steps to modernize this ailing, critical
network. We look forward to seeing progress on this task during the
next five years.
National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)
NCEP is comprised of nine centers within the NWS, all working
together toward the common goal of using data for weather predictions
and seasonal forecasts in order to save lives, protect property, and
create economic opportunity. Weather Service field offices, other
government agencies, research universities, and private meteorological
services rely on NCEP's products. Many of the forecasts that reach the
public via media outlets originate at NCEP. In recent years, the
centers have been supported inadequately. Funding comes primarily from
the NWS ORF account under Central Forecast Guidance, with a sizable
percentage from Atmospheric and Hydrological Research. Both of these
lines have recommended increases for fiscal year 2001. We urge the
Committee to support NCEP at the highest possible levels through
support for the Central Forecast Guidance request of $38 million and
the Atmospheric and Hydrological Research request of $3.07 million.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
We urge the Committee to support the OAR PAC account request of $11
million which is an increase of $6.0 million over fiscal year 2000.
This increase will provide additional infrastructure to advance climate
and weather forecast modeling, to improve access to space-based and
ground-based data holdings, and to create a system to efficiently
manage high volumes of global change data critical to the scientific
community.
However, we believe that the OAR activities supported by the ORF
account are inadequately funded and urge the Committee to increase
funding to $317.8 million from the current request of $307.8 million
for the ORF account. OAR supports a world-class network of scientists
and environmental research laboratories as well as partnerships with
academia and the private sector in order to provide the sound science
upon which decision makers can frame effective regulations to solve
environmental problems. It conducts the research and technology
development necessary to improve NOAA's weather and climate services,
solar-terrestrial forecasts, and marine services. During the past 10
years, the purchasing power of the OAR labs has decreased by
approximately 50 percent as costs associated with inflation and
technological advances have far outpaced funds allocated. The fiscal
year 2001 request level continues this trend with only a 2.1 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2000 Revised Enacted Amount of $301.4
million. Erosion of the research base has occurred at a time when
society's demand and economic need for the OAR labs' information
services have increased dramatically in such areas as predictions of El
Nino/La Nina events, tropical storm intensity, flooding and drought. To
realize the full OAR potential benefit to society, additional funding
of $10 million should be allocated in fiscal year 2001 to support OAR's
critical mission of conducting the scientific research, environmental
studies, and technology development needed to broaden our understanding
of Earth's environmental systems. Some of OAR's most important research
efforts conducted with universities include the following:
U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP)
The USWRP, an interagency program authorized by Congress in 1992,
was first mentioned in NOAA's budget in fiscal year 2000. Although the
request of $2 million for fiscal year 2001 represents an increase of
100 percent over fiscal year 2000, it falls far short of the $12.5
million recommended in the Congressionally mandated implementation
plan. The USWRP research community is poised to make significant gains
in prediction capabilities regarding heavy precipitation and hurricane
landfall location and intensity, the disaster relief savings of which
would be many times the initial research cost investment, not to
mention the value of lives saved. Last fall's hurricane season, with
hundreds of miles of coastline needlessly evacuated and lives lost to
poorly predicted inland flooding, demonstrates clearly the need for
additional research as does the very costly missed forecast for this
January's east coast snow storm. We urge the Committee to provide the
USWRP with at least $4.5 million for fiscal year 2001. This is $2.5
million above the requested amount of $2 million for fiscal year 2001.
Since the USWRP is an interagency program the goals of which
advance the NOAA mission, we would suggest that NOAA take the lead in
collaborating with the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of
Defense (DOD) to ensure appropriate support from these agencies.
Climate Observations and Services Initiative
This new line item will provide $28.0 million to meet the growing
demand for timely data and information about climate variability,
climate change and trends in severe weather events. Based on
recommendations from recent National Research Council reports, this
initiative will allow repair of deteriorating data and observational
systems as well as support new observations and infrastructure. We urge
the Committee to support the fiscal year 2001 recommended funding of
$28.0 million, $24.0 million of which is within the OAR ORF account,
for the new Climate Observations and Services Initiative.
Climate and Global Change Program
We urge the Committee to support the $67.1 million proposed budget
for Climate and Global Change, a small increase over the fiscal year
2000 budget. This program is an integral part of the interagency U.S.
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and addresses an important
aspect of global change--understanding the global climate system. The
increase of $493,000 will be used to improve the regional specificity
and detail of climate forecasts, essential progress to advancing our
understanding of the Earth's climate.
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
For several years we have been concerned about the proposed level
of funding in the NESDIS ORF budget. This ORF account is divided into
support for the Satellite Observing Systems and the Environmental Data
Management Systems. The Satellite Observing Systems provide services in
designing, developing, and operating civilian satellite systems for the
purpose of observing ocean, and atmospheric conditions and the sun.
These are observational tools critical to improving our knowledge of
the complex environmental systems in which we live. The rich data
collected by these systems is then acquired, processed, analyzed,
archived and disseminated through the Environmental Data Management
Systems to commerce, industry, agriculture, science and engineering,
the general public, and government at all levels. While the Satellite
Systems function collects data, the Data Management Systems function
makes those data useful and available. Both sides of the equation are
of equal importance, but we feel that funding for the data management
side is continuing to erode.
Funding for the Environmental Data Management Systems line is
proposed to decrease from $52.3 million in fiscal year 2000 to the
requested $44.7 million. Within the NESDIS ORF account, we urge the
Committee to support Satellite Observing Systems at the requested $63.4
million (up from $52.3 million in fiscal year 2000) and we urge the
Committee to increase Environmental Data Management Systems funding
from the requested $44.7 million (down $7.5 million from fiscal year
2000) to an amount that accounts for inflation and shores up
insufficient base funding in order to allow adequate care of a very
important national database.
Minority Serving Institutions
We urge the Committee to support the requested $17.0 million to
fund NOAA-wide educational training relationships through partnerships
with a consortium of Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). This program
is budgeted within NOAA's Program Support ORF account. In order to have
a productive scientific workforce now and in future years, the pool of
qualified applicants must be as diverse as the population at large.
Under-representation of minorities in earth science disciplines is a
serious issue that must be addressed by multiple programs across
multiple agencies and institutions. We believe that NOAA's Minority
Serving Institutions initiative should be fully funded for the current
and future benefit of the entire scientific community and the country.
On behalf of UCAR, I want to thank the Committee for the important
work you do for U.S. scientific research, education, and training. We
appreciate your attention to the recommendations of our community
concerning the fiscal year 2001 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association
ABSTRACT
The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA) requests a
reauthorization of a $500,000 appropriation to the YRDFA for salmon
habitat and stock restoration projects, to conduct research on the
marine bycatch of salmon and to assess salmon productivity in the
marine environment. Funds would be transferred to the YRDFA through a
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine
Fisheries Service grant.
YRDFA'S CURRENT RESEARCH EFFORTS
In the fiscal year 2000 budget Congress authorized a $500,000
appropriation to YRDFA for ``habitat restoration, monitoring projects,
stock assessments and bycatch research.'' YRDFA is currently developing
the final list of projects to be carried out with this appropriation
and finalizing grant award paperwork with the National Marine Fisheries
Service. YRDFA's current research plans for the year 2000 are divided
into four objectives:
--Stock origins, migration patterns and marine productivity of Bering
Sea chinook salmon
--Habitat restoration of Yukon River drainage salmon streams
--Stock restoration through instream incubation technology
--Chinook smolt productivity analysis and outmigration.
Stock origins, migration patterns and marine productivity of Bering Sea
chinook
Analysis is focusing on scales from chinook collected by observers
in the Bering Sea trawl fisheries from 1997-1999. The first year of the
study would involve processing observer program samples, getting
baseline scales from agencies, digitizing baseline scales, and
developing and testing classification models. The second would focus on
digitizing and analysis of observer program samples and report writing.
Chinook data from NPAFC high seas cruises and other sources will also
be examined.
Anticipated primary results are: identification of trawl salmon
bycatch into broad regional stock groupings, e.g.: western Alaska,
central Alaska, southeast Alaska/British Columbia that will enable
managers to adjust trawl fishing effort to avoid stocks that are having
conservation problems. Likely secondary results are improved
understanding of migration patterns and marine productivity (i.e.,
ocean survival rates) of Bering Sea chinook that will enable managers
to better forecast returns of adult chinook salmon and to assess
impacts of changing ocean conditions (temperature, food supply, etc.)
on chinook stocks.
Habitat restoration of Yukon River drainage salmon streams
Efforts will focus on improving access of chinook and chum salmon
to spawning and rearing areas currently impeded due to historical
mining activity. Methods would include realignment and regarding of
stream channels, streambank reclamation, floodplain modification,
construction of fish habitat structures and enhancement of fish passage
to access spawning and rearing habitat. Likely project locations
include Sourdough, Ruby, Faith and Hope Creeks, the Birch Creek
watershed and the Minook Creek watershed. As part of this effort YRDFA
will also work with local miners--many of who still have active claims
in these areas--to educate them on the importance of protecting and
restoring fisheries habitat.
Stock restoration through instream incubation technology
Habitat restoration activities such as those described above as
well as USFWS and BLM efforts to build an access channel around the FE
dam (Davidson Ditch) on the Chatanika River will open up new areas for
salmon. In some cases, however, salmon spawning in these areas would
benefit from a ``jump-start'' through the use of instream egg
incubation boxes to greatly improve winter egg-fry survival rates.
YRDFA will also survey other road-connected streams for possible
installation of incubation boxes to serve as demonstration projects and
feasibility tests. Additional streams to be surveyed include the
Nenana, Delta, Chena, Salcha and Goodpaster.
Chinook smolt productivity analysis and outmigration
Trapping of juvenile chinook near the Chena River flood control dam
and other streams will enable us to gain a better understanding of
their overall health and to collect baseline data which will enable
fishery managers to make better forecasts of salmon returns in future
years. While the database on the number of adult spawners has been
steadily improving since 1994, little data is available, other than
that collected by USGS, on egg-to-fry survival rates and general health
of smolt and juvenile salmon. In addition to the Chena River YRDFA will
attempt to survey select index streams in different sections of the
drainage such as the lower Yukon and the Koyukuk River.
So as to maximize the effectiveness of research dollars YRDFA will
be working closely with various agencies and researchers. Cooperating
entities include the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S.
Geological Service and the University of Washington, School of
Fisheries.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 REQUEST
For fiscal year 2001 the YRDFA requests a reauthorization of
$500,000 in funding. If these funds were received YRDFA would be able
to:
--restore additional habitat and expand salmon restoration efforts in
the upper Yukon and Tanana drainages especially in the Tofty
mining area. Every spawning ground restored would help to
reclaim the biological and genetic diversity of Yukon salmon
stocks. As with the fiscal year 2000 appropriation YRDFA will
be working closely with the Bureau of Land Management and the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat Division.
--analyze chinook bycatch data from the 2000-2002 fishing seasons.
These data, when coupled with the 1997-1999 data currently
under analysis, will enable managers to structure groundfish
fisheries to avoid salmon stocks of concern.
--better predict future returns of salmon through analysis of inter-
annual growth of juvenile salmon and analysis of marine
productivity. YRDFA will examine ocean conditions (temperature,
food supply, etc) and correlate these conditions with
indicators of the at-sea survival rates of salmon.
Budget estimates for this request if fully funded are as follows:
YRDFA staff support--$120,000, Habitat and stock restoration--$100,000,
Chinook bycatch analysis--$130,000; Marine productivity assessment--
$150,000.
CLOSING STATEMENT
In summation our research funding request aims to fill information
gaps not addressed by current agency research plans. Yukon River salmon
are a vital resource to more than 14,000 Alaska residents in 42
different communities. The annual wholesale value of the commercial
salmon fishing industry approaches $10,000,000. Yukon River chinook and
fall chum salmon also spawn in Canada and are currently the subject of
negotiations between the two countries.
Our research program will aid significantly in the management of
this resource. Thank you for this opportunity to submit written
testimony.
______
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Prepared Statement of New York University
Thank you for allowing New York University (NYU) to submit
testimony on behalf of the International Center for Democratic Public
Service. NYU is requesting $5 million for the technological and
communications facilities to link its training and resources to public
servants in other nations.
Through its Robert F. Wagner Graduate School for Public Service,
NYU has established itself as the leader in training international
public servants for democratic public service. The Wagner School,
working with leaders of international NGOs and U.N. officials, has
implemented a unique new program that provides focused and practical
education and training for managers of international development,
advocacy and relief programs. The list of countries where we already
have had in impact include: Ukraine, Georgia, Mozambique, Slovak
Republic, Astonia, Romania, Latvia and Lithuania. The University is now
looking to centralize and focus its efforts in this area by
establishing a new International Center for Democratic Public Service.
As a first phase, the University has identified a technology/
communications hub as central to the goal of linking public servants
throughout the globe to the faculty and resources of NYU. The goal is
access to the full range of distance learning technologies including
digital televideo and data transmission, satellite communications, and
internet services, including video for faculty and students. To reach
its goal, NYU will reach out to both private and public sources for
funding and will draw on other sectors of the University, such as law
and business.
We hope you will find this project worthy of your support.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Miami
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present this testimony and to seek your support in
fiscal year 2001 for two projects at the University of Miami. First, a
timely and new initiative, the Cuba Transition Project in the Institute
for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies and, next, continuing support for
a unique national resource, the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center.
The Cuba Transition Project
The University of Miami is poised to play an important role in a
Cuba transition because of its location, programs, material and human
resources, language capability, and historical association with Cuba.
The Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies is the coordinating
body for all University activities on Cuba. It manages the Cuba On Line
database, the only database of historical and contemporary information
on Cuba and is the secretariat of the Association for the Study of the
Cuban Economy (ASCE), which brings together the most highly qualified
economists worldwide studying the island.
The Cuba Transition Project is designed to provide policy makers,
analysts, and others with accurate information, incisive analysis, and
practical policy recommendations. The Cuba Transition Project is
designed to be adaptable to the constantly changing circumstances of
Cuba reality and of U.S.-Cuban relations. Its work can be divided into
five major areas: (1) research; (2) task forces; (3) study groups; (4)
publications; and (5) professional development and education. Through
the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, the Project will
include offices for research, facilities for conducting briefings and
seminars, a website that will include a searchable database, and a
distance learning component.
The Project's programs will be clustered in three phases: pre-
transition, transition, post-transition. The emphasis during the first
phase is on current conditions, critical issue areas, planning, and
emergency aid. Programs are addressed primarily by Project researchers,
task forces, study groups, and publications. Programs and briefings are
directed primarily at congressional staff, officials, policy makers,
analysts at multi-lateral and international agencies, and non-
governmental organizations. Programs related to the transition phase
combine the analytical work of the first phase with the practical
necessities of an ongoing process of political, economic, and social
transition. The target audience of the programs will eventually
incorporate individuals resident on the island involved in the issue
areas that the are focus of the Project. The main focus during the
post-transition period will be on professional education, retraining,
academic exchange, and distance learning. The basic mission of the
Project remains the same during the three-step program: aiding and
accelerating the transition from a centrally planned economy and
communist party-state control to a free-market democracy.
For fiscal year 2001 we seek $10 million from the Subcommittee
through the Department of State to establish, develop and implement the
Cuba Transition Project at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American
Studies at the University of Miami
The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center
Next, we seek your continued support for the Dante B. Fascell
North-South Center. As you know, the Center has long enjoyed bicameral
and bipartisan support and in fiscal year 2001 as in past years, from
the Administration. The Fascell Center's mission is to promote better
relations and to serve as a catalyst for change among the United
States, Canada, and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean. My
colleagues there conduct programs of research, public outreach,
education, training, and cooperative study. It publishes and
disseminates policy-relevant information on the Americas. The programs
and activities also foster linkages among academic and research
institutions, NGOs, governmental institutions both civilian and
military, and philanthropic and private sectors throughout the
Americas.
We are convinced that such a mission is fundamental to the national
interest. Informed and balanced analysis and improved understanding of
our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere provide us great opportunities
to enhance our economy, expand our jobs, and learn of risks before they
reach threatening proportions. The United States has long equated
stability in the region with its own security interest. The maintenance
of that stability today requires a sophisticated partnership among the
countries of the Hemisphere. It also demands continually new approaches
in U.S. policy.
Fulfilling a singular role in inter-American affairs, the Center's
programs produce nonpartisan, policy-relevant analysis and discussion
of key issues directly affecting the lives and well being of U.S.
citizens. Unlike partisan institutes and advocacy groups, the Center
engages vital inter-American issues such as trade, investment,
competitiveness, security, corruption, civil-military relations,
institutional reform, drug trafficking, immigration, and the
environment from the perspective of the public good. Unlike academic
institutions, the Center devotes its efforts toward publishing
accessible and relevant analyses for diverse audiences, including
legislators, government officials, NGOs, and the private sector. Our
goal is to find viable solutions to the problems confronting the
nations of the Western Hemisphere.
The Center is a reflection of the belief that the nation benefits
when the great issues of the Western Hemisphere are analyzed and
debated by private sector and nongovernmental groups under the auspices
of a neutral forum. Governments cannot successfully convoke and
organize nongovernmental opinion, and academic institutions have a
different mandate. As a respected, independent, public policy
institution--fully cognizant of the special responsibilities attached
to its federal funding--the Center has served this function
successfully. It is crucial that business people, professionals, and
nongovernmental organizations have a trusted, nonpartisan policy center
that can assist them in exchanging opinions and bringing their views to
the attention of policymakers.
The North-South Center's activities are rooted in democratic
values, transparent, efficient and effective government, market-driven
economic prosperity, environmentally sustainable development, and
social justice. Recent events have made the Center's work and the
values it promotes all the more relevant to the American people. While
maintaining a commitment to its core mission and shared values, the
Center is also responding to new threats and opportunities. With its
wide array of linkages with government, business, labor and other civil
society actors in the Americas, the Center is actively engaged in
developing partnerships and new approaches to tackling the complex
problems remaining before the region.
The Center receives financial contributions from a variety of
government agencies, private foundations, corporations and individual
donors. Such contributions are directed toward specific programs and
projects, and do not normally cover core operations and overhead costs.
Congressional appropriations for core staff and operations allow the
Center to fulfill its congressional mandate while supporting efforts to
increase funding from other sources. Over the past year, the Center has
been making appropriate responses to an independent evaluation of its
programs and operations completed in November 1998. In addition to the
refocusing of research and outreach projects into areas with greater
potential for private funding, the Center is also engaged in the
development of an international advisory board.
Advancing Market Reforms and Democratic Development
In the Latin American and Caribbean context, one key set of
problems is clustered around the question of how to advance and deepen
market reforms, while assuring that citizens share broadly in their
benefits and are cushioned from the harshest effects of the
accompanying adjustment process. Center researchers engage these
concerns through ongoing research and policy analysis of trade and
economic integration (Free Trade Area of the Americas), studies on
addressing poverty and inequality through enhanced human capital
accumulation and institutional reforms, empirical studies of sectoral
performance (e.g., textiles, tourism), surveys of shifts in corporate
strategies, and examination of the effects of restructuring on patterns
of migration and immigration. A second set of problems relates to
weaknesses and flaws in the region's democracies. Chief among these are
weaknesses in political representation, failures in the rule of law,
and unresolved issues in civil-military relations. The Center will
continue to address these through research on civil society
participation and the role of political parties, analysis of judicial
reform, and study of the lingering influence of the military in domains
beyond those typical of civilian-led democracies. This last area is
further embedded in the Center's overall work on inter-American
security issues, which includes narcotrafficking. A third set of issues
relates to environmental concerns and their integration into a broader
vision of sustainable development. Here, the Center pursues program
activities that look into the means of achieving environmentally
sustainable trade and ways of instituting new regimes of environmental
law. The Center will also continue to contribute to the framing of new
understandings of the linkage between environmental stresses and human
security.
Building Human and Institutional Capacity
One of the most pressing challenges facing Latin American and
Caribbean countries is the development of human resources and
institutions capable of maximizing the benefits of free markets and
democracy. The shift toward market incentives requires the development
of the corresponding capacity to provide the regulatory mechanisms and
public information functions necessary for avoiding market failures and
suboptimal service delivery. To contribute toward this need,
collaborative practical training and education seminars in capacity
building will be a central focus of the North-South Center. These
activities address such areas as new public-private partnerships in
social services, the enhancement of consumer safety and standards, the
strengthening of laws related to environmental stewardship, and human
resource training in telecommunications, banking, port management, and
public security. The Center's collaborative endeavors in capacity-
building also serve to extend and deepen its ties with local
institutions and organizations throughout Latin America and the
Caribbean that work in these professional fields and issue-areas.
Building on the successes of these projects in 1999, the Center plans
to expand into new areas (including telecommunications, energy and
banking regulation) in order to develop human resources and
institutions in support of free markets and democracy.
The New Public Diplomacy
The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center conceives of and implements
its outreach programs in the context of a clear recognition of the
growing significance of strengthening civil societies throughout the
hemisphere. As a consequence, the Center will continue its role as a
facilitator and catalyst for public dialogue, actively seeking to bring
together civil society organizations, including representatives from
the private sector, to generate ideas and offer recommendations that
both enhance the agenda of policy options for public officials and
deepen the level of democratic participation in the policy process.
Having developed a widely recognized track record of significant
contributions to the Summit of the Americas process since its inception
in Miami in 1994, the Center will continue to seek out expertise from
civil society to monitor and evaluate the implementation of Summit
commitments in advance of the Summit of the Americas III in Canada in
2001. Similarly, the Center will continue its series of Diplomatic-
Private Sector Roundtables in Washington, which provide a forum for
frank discussion of emerging and high-priority policy issues.
The publications of the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center Press
serve as the most effective and enduring means of disseminating the
research results and policy recommendations produced by the Center. The
Press produces a focused set of publications, including peer-reviewed
books, the North-South Agenda Papers, North-South Issues Reports,
North-South Update (a short policy brief issued biweekly to government
officials and key policy analysts), and timely white papers aimed to
provide input to the Summit of the Americas process. The Press ensures
that all Center books, papers, policy briefs, and reports adhere to the
highest standards of quality, style, and accessibility. In 2001, the
Dante B. Fascell North-South Center will seek to increase the number of
its publications appearing in Spanish and Portuguese.
Today's Agenda of New Opportunities and Lingering Problems
Mr. Chairman, the interdependence between our neighbors in the
Western Hemisphere affects the daily lives of our citizens more than
any other region of the world. More Americans fly south to Latin
America and the Caribbean each year than to either Europe or Asia.
Policy decisions on such inter-American concerns as immigration, drug
trafficking, and transborder pollution have immediate impacts on the
quality of life of U.S. citizens. Trade with Latin America and the
Caribbean will soon surpass that of Europe and Japan combined. The
financial stability of countries like Mexico and Brazil has significant
ripple effects in global markets and far-reaching implications for U.S.
exporters. The North-South Center engages these issues by providing
ideas, analysis, and policy options that will support our nation's
interests.
There are many reasons to be optimistic about the region's future.
The nations of the hemisphere have made remarkable progress in recent
years in terms of market reform and democratic governance. Inflation is
down, trade and investment are up, and free and fair elections have
become the order of the day in most countries. Yet, many of the nations
of the Western Hemisphere are still burdened by enduring historical
legacies, and many societies are still negotiating the difficult
passage from old problems to new paths of development. Latin America
remains the region of the world with the greatest gap between rich and
poor and the tension between intractable poverty and steady but modest
growth presents a constant challenge for the hemisphere's governments
and political leaders. In the past year, this has been particularly
true in the Andean nations, where a problematic constitutional reform
process has taken place in Venezuela; concerns have been raised about
abuses by the executive in Peru; a disturbing, albeit limited, coup has
occurred in Ecuador; and the effort to halt the drug trade and bring
about reconciliation in Colombia has taken on dramatic proportions. All
of these developments are indications of how tenuous the progress to
date in the region can be. For fiscal year 2001, we seek $1.75 million,
the continuation funding requested by the Administration.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that this will be another difficult
year. However, we hope that you and your colleagues on the Subcommittee
will find it possible to support these two important initiatives that
deal with issues of crucial importance to U.S. citizens, the Cuba
Transition Project and the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center.
______
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 19 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional issues. As such, the
UMRBA has an interest in the budget of the Maritime Administration.
Of particular concern to the UMRBA is funding for MARAD Operations.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal includes approximately
$32 million for this account. Among other things, the MARAD Operations
budget supports research and development efforts, which help advance
ship design, construction, and operations. For example, MARAD funding
has been used to support the design of prototype mooring buoys used on
the Upper Mississippi River. Such buoys allow tows to tie up safely
while awaiting lockage, thus avoiding environmental damage that might
be caused by mooring to the shoreline. Funding for research and
development efforts such as these is critical to the safety and
efficiency of commercial navigation on this nation's inland waterway
system.
In addition, the MARAD Operations account supports MARAD field
offices on the inland waterway system, such as the office located in
St. Louis, Missouri. The St. Louis office is situated at the confluence
of the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois Rivers, on which move much
of the Midwestern grain destined for international markets. Such field
offices are essential for MARAD to maintain its involvement in an
increasingly wide variety of interagency and interstate river
management issues.
The UMRBA supports adequate funding for the Maritime
Administration's Operations account.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
It is proposed that the Small Business Administration support the
start-up operational costs of a technology-based incubator in
Albuquerque, New Mexico to assist in the attraction, admission,
incubation and graduation of technology based companies that create new
and better jobs for New Mexicans.
The Business Technology Group
In the fall of 1997, Dr. Robert Rubin, CEO and President of the
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) convened a broad
coalition of community leaders, representing the core Central New
Mexico business and educational institutions. The subject of the
meeting was to consider ways to help improve the future economic
stability of the area, given the change of focus to the national
laboratories, which form a critical economic base for the area. The
outcome was the formation of a new technology based incubator to
attract companies to New Mexico, and assist the formation of companies
to commercialize technology coming from the national laboratories, the
University of New Mexico (UNM) and LRRI.
LRRI and UNM merged its incubator (Albuquerque Technology
Incubator), along with other private efforts to incubate companies,
into the Business Technology Group (BTG). The initial steps to form BTG
continued throughout 1998, and DOE through its Office of Community
Worker Transition, provided $100,000 as initial funding to assist in
the formation of BTG.
The initial founder's intentions proved to be well founded. BTG has
accomplished in its first year, what most similar incubators accomplish
in their fourth or fifth year of operation. The BTG aim and strategies
are working. BTG has forty-one technology-based companies housed in its
three campus locations. There are approximately five others waiting for
consideration to join BTG. This initial cadre of companies forms the
critical mass for graduating successful technology based companies that
provide New Mexicans with new and better jobs.
One problem does continue to exist.
There is an urgent need to provide a small and effective staff that
will better utilize volunteer services to support the incubatee
companies and to build an infrastructure of services to accelerate the
growth of these start-up companies.
Current Status
BTG's ability to provide superior technical facilities and
equipment makes it nationally competitive to attract high potential
technology based entrepreneurs. BTG's founders formed a public/private
venture, providing the following non-cash inducements for companies to
join BTG:
--Created 120,000-sq. ft. of subsidized superior laboratory and
manufacturing space and 35,000-sq. ft. of office space with
total annual savings to incubatees amounting to $104,800.
--Immediate access to office equipment, furnishings and superior
laboratory equipment valued at $450,000 and use of umbrella
coverage under existing regulatory permits: Machine shops,
large storage areas and high-bay working areas; Animal care for
scientific studies; Radiation control and chemical waste
treatment facilities; and Electrical and wet laboratory
facilities.
--Annually, over 5,000 volunteer hours, which at the rate of $50 per
hour amounts to $250,000 of professional, administrative and
technical assistance.
--Currently, total private non-cash contributions approach $840,000
per year.
--BTG companies currently provide 200 technology-based jobs.
In conclusion, the BTG concept is working. It is at a critical
stage for growth into a long-term viable institution that plays a
critical role in the development and diversification of New Mexico's
economy. New Mexico is a wonderful place in which to live. Its economy
is below national averages in most or all indicators. BTG is working to
improve this economic condition. We request $400,000 in start-up
funding to bring stability to BTG. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee, we respectfully thank you for your consideration of our
request.
______
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 2001
Appropriations request for the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). The Institute would like to commend the Subcommittee for its
past efforts to assure adequate resources for the SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Investment Company Institute is the national association of
the American investment company industry. Its membership includes 8,021
open-end investment companies (``mutual funds''), 496 closed-end
investment companies and 8 sponsors of unit investment trusts. Its
mutual fund members have assets of about $6.728 trillion, accounting
for approximately 95 percent of total industry assets, and over 78.7
million individual shareholders. Many of the Institute's investment
adviser members render investment advice to both investment companies
and other clients. In addition, the Institute's membership includes 402
associate members which render investment management services
exclusively to non-investment company clients. A substantial portion of
the total assets managed by registered investment advisers are managed
by these Institute members and associate members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual funds are an integral part of the U.S. economy and have
become one of America's primary savings and investment vehicles. More
than 78 million investors in over 48 million U.S. households own mutual
fund shares today and, since 1990, the percentage of U.S. retirement
assets held in mutual funds has more than tripled. Moreover, most
mutual fund investors are ordinary Americans; the median household
income of fund shareholders is $55,000. These millions of average
Americans deserve continued vigilant regulatory oversight of mutual
funds. For this reason, sufficient funding of the SEC should be a
priority. The Institute urges Congress to provide appropriations at a
level sufficient to ensure the SEC's ability to fulfill its regulatory
mandate.
The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget proposes SEC funding
at a level of $422.8 million. The Institute supports this level of
funding to sustain the SEC's operations, especially those of the
Division of Investment Management, which regulates the mutual fund
industry. While we are also pleased that the fee rate for registration
statements and other filings pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Securities
Act of 1933 has decreased in accordance with the National Securities
Market Improvement Act of 1996, we remain concerned that SEC fees will
generate revenues significantly in excess of that required to fund SEC
operations. In the current fiscal year, for example, it is anticipated
that Section 6(b) fees will generate revenues of more than one billion
dollars, while the SEC's budget is $367 million. The Institute has
supported and will continue to support adequate financial resources to
provide effective regulatory oversight of mutual funds, but we also
believe that the fees should be reflective of their intended purpose,
that is, to offset the costs associated with the activities of the SEC.
Adequate financial resources are essential for the SEC to continue
its effective regulatory oversight of the securities markets and to
carry out important investor protection and awareness initiatives. Such
resources will enable the SEC to complete its many important
initiatives, which include, among other things, finalizing significant
rule proposals on fund governance issues, developing new rules for
mutual fund advertising, and addressing disclosure of after-tax
returns.
The SEC will also be conducting routine and special inspections of
investment advisers and fund companies, continuing its review of fund
prospectuses and fund profiles under the new disclosure rules, and
responding to projected increases in the number of interpretive
requests, shareholder letters, and exemptive relief requests submitted
by investment management participants.
Moreover, the SEC will address significant equity market structure
issues, such as decimalization, concerns over market fragmentation and
after-hours trading, and will respond to the many challenges new
developments in technology will bring. Finally, the SEC will continue
its ongoing investor education initiatives.
These initiatives will benefit the millions of Americans invested
in mutual funds and are integral to fulfilling the SEC's mission of
protecting investors and maintaining the integrity and the efficiency
of the nation's securities markets.
Equally important to having adequate financial resources to fulfill
these initiatives is the SEC's ability to maintain adequate staffing
resources. To this end, we believe that it is essential that the SEC be
able to combat the high attrition rate of its professional staff,
which, over the last two years, has resulted in a loss of 25 percent of
its attorneys, accountants and examiners. Accordingly, we support the
SEC's retention initiative, which would raise staff compensation to
levels comparable with the banking regulatory agencies. We believe the
proposed increases would go far in raising employee morale, thus
enhancing the SEC's recruitment and retention efforts. Attracting and
retaining qualified staff obviously are necessary in order for the SEC
to fulfill its mandate.
We appreciate your consideration of our views.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alachua County Board of Commissioners, Alachua County, Florida,
prepared statements..........................................383, 401
Albright, Hon. Madeleine K., Secretary of State, Department of
State.......................................................... 117
Prepared statement........................................... 119
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.. 398
American Public Power Association, prepared statement............ 388
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, prepared statement..... 402
Bilmes, Linda J., Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary
for Administration, Office of the Secretary, Department of
Commerce....................................................... 1
Bloom, Ellen, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Commerce......................................... 1
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, prepared statement........................... 412
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado,
questions submitted by.......................................110, 170
Carman, Gregory W., Chief Judge, United States Court of
International Trade, the judiciary, prepared statement......... 358
City of Gainesville, Florida, prepared statements..............380, 386
City of Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement................. 384
City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statements................384, 389
Daley, Hon. William A., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Commerce......................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
submitted by.........................................23, 90, 163, 253
Fishel, Andrew, Director, Office of the Managing Director,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 289
Freeh, Louis J., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice.......................................... 215
Prepared statement........................................... 216
Fuller, William P., President, The Asia Foundation, prepared
statement...................................................... 365
Gregg, Hon. Judd, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, questions
submitted by..............................................15, 88, 248
Heyburn, John G., II, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Judicial
Conference of the United States, the judiciary, prepared
statement...................................................... 337
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
questions submitted by........................................28, 309
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, questions
submitted by.............................................28, 267, 315
Investment Company Institute, prepared statement................. 426
Kennard, William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission. 289
Prepared statement........................................... 291
Kilmer, Deborah K., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of the Secretary, Department
of Commerce.................................................... 1
Klose, Kevin, President and CEO, National Public Radio, letter
from........................................................... 404
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey.......... 72
Prepared statements........................................153, 246
Questions submitted by.......................30, 111, 174, 318, 333
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions
submitted by................................................... 38
Levitt, Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission..... 323
Prepared statement........................................... 323
Local 511, Professional Employees of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service of the American Federation of Government
Employees, prepared statement.................................. 394
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, prepared statement...... 425
Marshall, Donnie R., Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice........................215, 227
Prepared statement........................................... 228
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the judiciary, prepared
statement...................................................... 357
McConnell, James M., Executive Director, Securities and Exchange
Commission..................................................... 323
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions
submitted by................................................... 105
Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, the judiciary, prepared statement................. 344
Meissner, Doris, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization
Service, Department of Justice................................. 183
Prepared statement........................................... 186
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland............ 72
Questions submitted by.................................35, 181, 271
Murphy, Diana E., Chair, United States Sentencing Commission, the
judiciary, prepared statement.................................. 359
National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation of
Government Employees, prepared statement....................... 391
National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
prepared statement............................................. 374
National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council, American
Federation of Government Employees, prepared statement......... 396
National Public Radio, prepared statement........................ 405
National Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement..... 378
National, Coordinated Law-Related Education Program, prepared
statement...................................................... 371
New York University, prepared statement.......................... 421
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........ 413
Reno, Janet, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General,
Department of Justice.......................................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Retzlaff, Barbara, Director, Office of Budget, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Commerce.............................. 1
Smith, Hon. Fern M., Director, Federal Judicial Center, the
judiciary, prepared statement.................................. 349
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, question submitted
by...........................................................253, 308
The Nature Conservancy, prepared statement....................... 409
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared
statement...................................................... 416
University of Miami, prepared statements.......................407, 421
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 425
Williams-Bridgers, Jacquelyn L., Inspector General, Office of the
Inspector General, prepared statement.......................... 128
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, prepared statement... 419
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 15
ATP.............................................................. 21
Census........................................................... 35
Census 2000...................................................... 28
China--intellectual property..................................... 34
Coastal impact assistance fund................................... 9
Critical infrastructure program.................................. 17
Department of the Interior's marine resource role................ 28
Digital divide............................................6, 33, 35, 42
E-commerce:
Initiative:
BEA's.................................................... 23
Effect of not funding.................................... 23
Effect of on small business.............................. 30
Revolution................................................... 38
EDA Internet access..............................................16, 42
Emergency Oil and Gas Loan Program............................... 24
Environmental impact statement backlog........................... 29
Fishermen, economic assistance to................................ 30
Global economy, funding for data on.............................. 24
Home Internet Access Program (HIAP).............................. 6
Intent of.................................................... 6
IIP versus ATP................................................... 11
Incremental funding for quality improvements, lack of............ 23
National Security Council........................................ 14
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)....................10, 21
Functions transferred to Library of Congress................. 11
National Textile Center.......................................... 13
Native Americans................................................. 12
NIST/infrastructure program...................................... 18
NOAA:
Delay of fleet............................................... 9
Lawsuit...................................................... 10
Programs, emphasis on funding................................ 22
Research in support of the agency's programs................. 21
Overview of Secretary Daley's statement.......................... 1
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program.................15, 22, 25
Rescission criteria.............................................. 13
Safe harbor agreement on privacy................................. 43
Shark finning.................................................... 30
Standards, maintaining without budget increases.................. 23
Suitland facilities.............................................. 36
Census.......................................................36, 37
NOAA......................................................... 37
Textile Program, elimination of.................................. 12
Tourism.......................................................... 10
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Additional committee questions................................... 248
Border Patrol:
Enforcement Organization, creation of........................ 242
Improving the................................................ 241
Budget initiatives............................................... 228
Budget request:
DEA fiscal year 2001 unfunded................................ 235
Fiscal year 2001............................................. 233
Colombia supplemental............................................ 237
DEA:
Initiatives, funding for other............................... 235
Strategy..................................................... 230
Drug abuse in America--the changing demographics................. 230
Drug trafficking:
Patterns..................................................... 227
Threat to the United States.................................. 229
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program.................... 269
Methamphetamine request.......................................... 234
Mexico, drug trafficking in...................................... 238
Mission and approach............................................. 228
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Additional committee questions................................... 248
Agents overseas, clarification on................................ 240
Budget request, overview of fiscal year 2001..................... 217
Counterintelligence.............................................. 217
Counterterrorism................................................. 221
Technology R&D--FBI.......................................... 259
Crime and violence rates, reducing the........................... 243
FBI:
Development of Domestic Terrorism Division................... 263
Jewelry theft:
Tracking of.............................................. 267
Efforts to combat this criminality....................... 268
Laboratory modernization..................................... 240
Mission, support of the...................................... 215
FBI-CIA coordination............................................. 238
Firearm retrievals............................................... 245
First responder training......................................... 264
Gun:
Retrieval notices............................................ 246
Show checks.................................................. 243
User fee for checks.......................................... 245
Heroin problem in northern New Mexico............................ 240
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program.................... 269
IDENT-IAFIS intergration......................................... 242
Indian Country, law enforcement in............................... 256
Information collection, management, and analysis................. 217
Investigative support............................................ 220
Law enforcement services......................................... 225
Legislative proposals............................................ 226
National Domestic Preparedness Office............................ 247
National laboratory protection................................... 241
Related departmental funding requests............................ 225
Rio Arriba County black tar heroin problem....................... 266
South Korea, crime problem in.................................... 239
Technology/cyber crimes.......................................... 223
Training......................................................... 218
Victim Witness Assistance Program................................ 268
Violent crimes................................................... 222
War crimes assistance............................................ 246
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Administrative and operational performance, external audit of.... 271
Anchorage district office expansion project...................... 253
Border Patrol..................................................184, 201
Agents....................................................... 211
Equipment for................................................ 213
Recruitment.................................................. 209
Capital investment account.....................................200, 208
Charleston case.................................................. 202
Status of the................................................ 203
Criminal illegal aliens.......................................... 196
Immigration and Naturalization Service results of House
Judiciary Committee subpoena on criminal aliens released
from detention............................................. 198
Report on Criminal Aliens Who Commit Crimes After Release.... 198
Deportation proceedings, determining resource needs for.......... 255
Detaining illegals awaiting trial or deportation................. 207
Detention........................................................ 209
Issues....................................................... 207
Enforcement...................................................... 187
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act,
enforcement of the............................................. 270
Illegal immigration via Colorado................................. 204
Immigration services...........................................185, 192
Incarcerations, reimbursing counties for......................... 210
Indian reservations.............................................. 205
Information technology infrastructure............................ 285
INS ISIS system, operation and maintenance center for............ 253
INSPASS.......................................................... 250
Mexican immigrants............................................... 206
Missing person................................................... 203
Naturalization backlog....................................195, 201, 279
Premium processing fee........................................... 210
Professionalism and infrastructure............................... 194
Restructuring.................................................... 195
Service enhancements............................................. 251
Staffing......................................................... 252
Technology integrate............................................. 286
User fee increase................................................ 248
Office of the Attorney General
Additional committee questions................................... 88
American Indian and Alaskan Native communities, protecting....... 56
Attorney overtime................................................ 83
Biennial budgeting--time-consuming nature of annual process...... 104
Border Patrol....................................................64, 69
Hiring agents................................................ 81
Pay raise.................................................... 74
Pay reform versus pay raise.................................. 70
Borders, securing our............................................ 53
Caseloads in Federal courts...................................... 104
CDC, DOD, HHS involvement with NDPO.............................. 60
Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory
Relief Act..................................................... 114
Civil rights laws, enforcing our................................. 53
Community prosecution............................................ 88
COPS Program..................................................... 88
Budget....................................................... 79
In schools program...........................................68, 83
In schools, 2001 funding for................................. 69
Counterterrorism and foreign counterintelligence................. 46
Crime:
Decline in................................................... 61
Decreased rates.............................................. 62
Through technology, fighting................................. 55
Crime-fighting initiatives, other................................ 57
Cybercrime....................................................... 84
Combating.................................................... 47
Death penalty.................................................... 113
Detention and incarceration, enhancing........................... 52
Drug treatment/Offender Reentry Program.......................... 111
Drugs, breaking the cycle of..................................... 51
Evaluation of results--expenditures for State and local
assistance..................................................... 100
Firearm manufacturers, litigation against........................ 110
First Responder Training Program................................. 91
GPRA:
Managing for results:
Is DOJ budget information credible?...................... 102
Linking DOJ component budget resource requests and goals. 103
Grant programs:
Elimination of major......................................... 79
Inconsistency in funding..................................... 80
Gun violence..................................................... 73
Combating.................................................... 49
Hiring, difficulties in.......................................... 85
Indian Country...................................................62, 65
Improvements to judicial system in........................... 77
Law enforcement in........................................... 93
Resolving issues in.......................................... 67
Indian judicial system........................................... 76
Law enforcement, improving community............................. 50
Legal representation, enforcement of Federal laws and defense of
U.S. interests................................................. 56
Methamphetamine trafficking...................................... 110
Mexico, certification of......................................... 61
Missing and exploited children's programs (MECP)................. 89
National Domestic Preparedness Office............................ 58
Facility..................................................... 60
Plan Colombia supplemental....................................... 86
Prison population, growing....................................... 84
Radiation exposure compensation program..........................77, 97
Resources officers placed in schools, number of.................. 68
Rio Arriba County................................................ 75
Black tar heroin problem..................................... 90
Southwest border drug problem.................................... 75
The Brady law.................................................... 74
Tobacco litigation............................................... 105
Tribal enforcement............................................... 66
Tribal law enforcement........................................... 66
VOCA legislation................................................. 90
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary of State
Additional committee questions................................... 163
Anti-corruption initiative....................................... 171
Antiterrorism assistance program................................. 155
Belarus, developments in......................................... 171
Budget request................................................... 117
China and WTO membership......................................... 168
Cyprus........................................................... 150
E-mail........................................................... 161
Embassy:
Construction................................................. 144
Security..................................................... 169
And construction......................................... 159
Foreign relations, improved conduct of........................... 130
International educational and cultural exchange.................. 170
International Law Enforcement Academy..........................154, 163
International organizations, leading through..................... 124
Kosovo:
And Bosnia................................................... 153
International police force in................................ 173
Libya/Pan Am 103................................................. 174
MIAs and Israel.................................................. 171
More effective, efficient, and secure operations and
infrastructures................................................ 134
OIG budget....................................................... 128
OSCE missions.................................................... 172
Overseas Presence Advisory Panel recommendations................. 175
Peacekeeping..................................................... 148
Professional and ethical conduct, greater adherence to
fundamental principles governing............................... 138
Security......................................................... 118
Service delivery................................................. 159
Staffing......................................................... 161
State programs................................................... 121
Supplemental requests, fiscal year 2000.......................... 127
Taiwan and China................................................. 162
U.N.:
Dues......................................................... 175
Peacekeeping................................................. 118
U.S. foreign policy priorities, better alignment of fiscal and
human resources with........................................... 132
United States-European Union hushkit dispute..................... 174
USIA and ACDA merger............................................. 157
War crimes tribunal.............................................. 150
World Trade Organization and China............................... 156
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Additional committee questions................................... 308
An affordable future: The fiscal year 2001 budget request........ 292
Back to the future............................................... 296
C-block licenses................................................. 300
Cross-ownership rules............................................ 307
Excess regulatory fees........................................... 299
FM radio service, low-power...................................... 302
Low-power reading services....................................... 306
Mergers.......................................................... 303
Partnership for the future....................................... 291
Past accomplishments build a successful future................... 293
Section 271 petition............................................. 305
Spectrum cap..................................................... 302
Technical staffing levels........................................ 299
Universal service................................................ 304
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Banking regulators, parity with the.............................. 328
Commission, effect on the........................................ 327
Committee responsiveness......................................... 326
Decimalization................................................... 332
Electronic market development.................................... 330
International organization of securities commissions............. 332
Internet:
And filing requirements...................................... 331
And securities fraud......................................... 325
Fraud........................................................ 329
Resources for fraud enforcement.............................. 329
The challenges of the........................................ 324
Introduction..................................................... 323
Opening remarks.................................................. 323
Proposals to provide relief...................................... 328
Recruitment...................................................... 327
Retention efforts................................................ 327
SEC:
Approach..................................................... 325
Fiscal year 2001 budget request to OMB....................... 330
Preparedness for cyber attacks............................... 332
Staff, pay parity for........................................ 330
Section 31....................................................... 333
Staffing crisis.................................................. 326
The agency and its staff......................................... 328
-