Segment 1 Of 2 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Thursday, February 26, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
Introduction
Mr. ROGERS. The committee will come to order.
This morning we would like to welcome Attorney General Janet Reno to appear before the Committee on behalf of the Department of Justice's 1999 budget request.
You are seeking $18.3 billion from this Committee for the Department, which represents an increase of $800 million, or 4.5 percent, over fiscal year 1998.
This subcommittee and I personally continue to be among the strongest supporters of the Department of Justice and its law enforcement agencies. We have provided increases totaling over $5 billion since 1995, 42 percent, to give Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies the tools they critically need to fight crime at a time when we are also trying to balance the budget.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am pleased to see that some of this investment is paying off. Serious crime fell 3 percent last year and has dropped for the fifth consecutive year. But our work is far from done; we still have serious crime problems that paint a dark cloud over that success.
We have fallen critically behind in the drug war over the last 5 years. While some applaud that drug use by eighth graders is leveling off, cocaine use by eighth graders is still 57 percent higher than 5 years ago. Marijuana use by this group is 175 percent higher than 1992. Drug abuse crime among juveniles is rising to unprecedented levels.
Madam Attorney General, we can't wait 10 years for these changes to happen, as the Administration has set out to do. We need aggressive and creative initiatives to turn this around. We are doing our part by providing the resources in unprecedented amounts, and we need your leadership if we are going to win that war.
While we still will continue to support law enforcement, we will also hold you accountable. There are still some serious mismanagement problems that need to be addressed if the taxpayers are going to get the most out of their investment in the Department of Justice. We can no longer continue to provide resources to the Immigration and Naturalization Service without fundamental change in its structure. It can't handle its responsibilities. I have waited 15 years to say that on this subcommittee, and I have finally, sadly concluded that INS has got to go. It has botched its mission over the past years; it can't continue.
Your challenges for managing the largest law enforcement agency in the country are great and come at a time when the Department finds itself simultaneously conducting a number of investigations of Administration officials and at the same time defending the Administration's position in court. That is a hot seat, but I have to say that it has been created. We will be watching closely how the Department walks that very fine line.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Madam Attorney General, as always, this committee will continue to work with you to ensure that law enforcement has what it needs to fight crime. We appreciate your being here today.
We will insert your written testimony in the record, and we are willing to hear your statement at this time.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO'S OPENING STATEMENT
Attorney General RENO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mollohan, and members of the subcommittee. I am very happy to be back with you once again to present the budget request for the Department of Justice. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with you, to consult with you, to consider the issues that you have raised, Mr. Chairman, and to work together with you and the subcommittee as we address them together. For fiscal year 1999, including fees, we are requesting $20.9 billion, an $877 million, or 4.4 percent, increase in funding over last year.
Since I became Attorney General in 1993, funding for the Justice Department has increased more than 87 percent, due in large part to the efforts of this subcommittee, and we are very appreciative not just of the funding, but of the thoughtfulness that you have devoted to the very issues that we face in the Department.
I believe our investment is paying off, as you have indicated, Mr. Chairman. Over the past several years we have witnessed a decrease in violent crime, and juvenile crime appears to be on the decline. We are continuing our fight against drug trafficking and abuse, and I think we have seen successes as indicated by the reduction in violent drug organizations that have spread violence across this land.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We have added Border Patrol agents in record numbers and we have seen results as those agents have gone into place along the California border; and we are spreading this effort throughout the entire Southwest border. We have removed criminal aliens at a record pace. We are continuing a concerted effort to combat computer crime, and have taken critical steps to protect our Nation from the threat of terrorist attack. Yes, I think we have had some successes, but I couldn't agree more with you, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot more to be done.
The budget I present to you today does just that. It builds on past successes and helps to prepare us for the law enforcement challenges of the 21st century.
COPS PROGRAM
One of our top tasks is to do everything in our power to see that crime continues to fall. At the cornerstone of this effort is our commitment to place 100,000 community police officers on the streets of America by the year 2000. The budget before you seeks $1.4 billion for the community oriented policing services, or COPS program, to fund an estimated 16,000 officers in fiscal year 1999, bringing the total to 99,000 funded officers one full year before our pledge to fund 100,000.
YOUTH VIOLENCE
But, to sustain our success in fighting crime, we must also continue our efforts aimed specifically at youth violence. For the second year in a row, juvenile arrest rates for violent crime and homicides have fallen. While this is encouraging news, youth violence is still far too prevalent in far too many of our communities, and we need to increase our resources in the immediate future in significant proportion. So I think this is an area that requires our continued focus.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Consistent with the Administration's Anti-gang and Youth Violence bill proposed last year, the Department's fiscal year 1999 budget seeks to focus additional resources on three youth violence grant programs and restructure current juvenile justice programs. Our request includes nearly $500 million in targeted program enhancement and restructuring aimed at preventing and fighting juvenile crime and youth violence. These initiatives include $100 million in grants to State and local prosecutors' offices to fight youth drug gang and violence problems through earlier intervention and the identification and rapid prosecution of these offenders; $50 million for innovative court programs to better handle and hold accountable young violent offenders within the justice system; and $95 million to fight truancy, school violence and strengthen anticrime after-school programs.
PROSECUTORS
Our request also seeks to change the way that prosecutors across America serve their communities by providing $50 million to increase the number of local prosecutors interacting directly with police officers and community residents to identify and solve crime problems in their neighborhoods. Around the country—for example, in places like Portland, Oregon; Austin, Texas; and Indianapolis, Indiana—earlier efforts at community prosecution are being deployed, and this program appears to work. With this funding you will provide us with an opportunity to fund and test this very promising strategy.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
To combat violence against women, we are requesting $271 million, and following your lead, we have included targeted set-asides for civil legal assistance programs, research concerning violence against women and the United States Attorney's Domestic Violence Unit in the District of Columbia.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
CYBERCRIME INITIATIVE
Another central focus of our request and one of the greatest challenges of the next century is to address cybercrime before it can become an epidemic within the United States or around the world. Every day the United States relies more heavily upon its interconnected telecommunications and automated information systems for basic services, such as energy, banking and finance, transportation and defense. As such, we must be certain that they are safe and secure.
For fiscal year 1999, the Department is seeking $64 million in increased funding to expand efforts to protect the Nation's critical infrastructures from cyber-attacks and to combat cybercrime. These additional resources will support 75 new FBI agents and 24 Assistant United States Attorneys to track down and prosecute cyber-criminals. The FBI will focus its new resources on the formation of six additional new computer investigation and threat assessment squads in cities around the country.
Also included in the initiative is $10 million for the FBI's Computer Investigations and Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center which is being restructured and renamed the National Infrastructure Protection Center. These funds will be used to expand operations, develop an early warning system, and conduct infrastructure vulnerability assessments. For the Counterterrorism Fund, the cybercrime initiative includes $33.6 million for activities related to the protection of the Nation's critical infrastructures. Most of these funds will be needed for the National Infrastructure Protection Center, but some could be used to reimburse other agencies.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DRUG INITIATIVE
To continue the fight against drug trafficking and abuse, the budget before you seeks $167 million in increased resources in fiscal year 1999, allowing us to hire more drug enforcement agents and prosecutors and increase drug testing and intervention programs. This balanced investment will decrease drug use and help stem the violence it brings into our communities.
Funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration will grow by 4.6 percent to $1.25 billion, with program enhancements totaling $64 million. Included within these additional resources are funds to support 100 more DEA agents, to attack methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse; 54 more agents for the Caribbean corridor strategy, and 95 more agents to intensify efforts against heroin traffickers. Our drug initiative will also support the hiring of 64 Assistant United States Attorneys and five Criminal Division attorneys to pursue and prosecute drug traffickers and to implement our national strategy against methamphetamines.
We also want to help State and local agencies conduct vital drug testing and intervention programs and have included $94 million in additional grants to State and local agencies to implement comprehensive systems of drug testing, drug treatment, and graduated sanctions.
IMMIGRATION INITIATIVE
For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, we are requesting $4.2 billion, or 10.2 percent more than last year, to strengthen and improve existing programs and to implement new measures that will guard against illegal immigration and promote legal entry into the United States. With the support and leadership of this Committee, the INS has nearly doubled the Border Patrol agent work force since 1993 and has introduced innovative deterrent and advanced technologies to address illegal immigration at all borders of the United States.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
For fiscal year 1999, the Department requests $272.5 million in increased funding for ''force-multiplying'' technologies and 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. Funding will also be dedicated to programs to detain and remove illegal aliens, including criminal aliens, to address the proliferation of alien smuggling by strategically placing INS personnel along major smuggling transportation corridors and to ensure the integrity of the naturalization process.
Clearly, we have not resolved all of the problems that face this country in deterring illegal entry, nor have we completely resolved the problems to ensure adjudication and naturalization for legally admitted aliens eligible for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. I recognize the management issues that you raise, Mr. Chairman, and I continue to focus on these, and in the course of this hearing, will discuss with you steps that we have taken. But as we recognized in 1994 when we launched our comprehensive Southwest border strategy, the investment necessary would be multiyear and multifaceted. This budget request continues the measured, prudent growth required to allow a reengineered Immigration and Naturalization Service to cope with the challenges it will face in the 21st century.
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
The budget before you also seeks some new initiatives and program enhancements to address critical infrastructure needs fundamental to the effective enforcement of our Nation's laws. Rebuilding continues to be a personal focus of mine, and while we are making progress, our automation and communication capabilities are still outdated. As I have stated in earlier appearances before this Committee, without the proper tools to get the job done, current, let alone additional, attorneys, agents and inspectors will be less efficient and less effective in performing their duties.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
OTHER ISSUES
For fiscal year 1999 we are asking for more than $20 billion because we face many challenges. We are seeking funding to launch a comprehensive national hate crimes initiative, reduce violent crime on Indian lands, address the burgeoning defensive civil litigation caseload and build additional capacity in the Federal Prison System.
The budget I present to you today will help us address our ongoing challenges and prepare for new ones, and I look forward to working with you in this effort.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
CALEA
Mr. ROGERS. I thank you, Madam Attorney General, for that statement.
We have a number of members that will be asking questions. I suggest at the outset here that we go on a 10-minute cycle per member so that all members will have a chance on a first round.
Madam Attorney General, over 3 years ago on behalf of law enforcement and to ensure public safety, the Congress passed and the President signed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, CALEA, the method by which you would be able to continue court-ordered wiretaps and other surveillances with a new technology that is coming into play. Both you and Director Freeh have testified to this committee and others of the vital importance of that initiative, and of course, that goes without saying.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We responded by providing funding and legislative provisions to establish a funding mechanism to pay for those switch changes, $500 million. We have also tried to move the process of defining law enforcement requirements by including legislative provisions that address disclosure of capability and capacity needs. We have convened meetings of industry and law enforcement to facilitate resolution of outstanding issues. We have required progress reports.
Unfortunately, I think I can say now, with certainty, we are no closer today than we were 3 years ago in implementing this law, and time is running out. Can you tell us the current status of your efforts to resolve the outstanding issues with the telephone industry?
Attorney General RENO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all that you have done in this effort. As you know, this is a technical and a very difficult issue, and we have undertaken it on behalf not just of Federal law enforcement, but of all law enforcement. We are essentially dealing with an issue that requires the development of significant new technology in order to maintain law enforcement's capacity to pursue electronic surveillance.
This task turned out to be far more significant and difficult than we had originally anticipated, with many different technological as well as implementation issues that we have had to understand and address. We were probably somewhat remiss early on in our deliberations by taking too strict an interpretation of the law and its requirements. However, when it became apparent that this program was not progressing as it should, Director Freeh and I both felt that it was important to reach out to the industry, and the industry reached out to us. We needed to set aside the arguments, the verbal arguments that had started as people tried to address these hard issues.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I had the opportunity to begin initially a meeting with the Vice Chairman of Bell Atlantic. He indicated a willingness to engage leaders in the industry to participate in discussions. We agreed to assign senior personnel to this effort, and we have had considerable discussion as we have tried to move this process forward.
After the initial discussions that were necessary to clarify just what the issues were, we began in earnest in October to itemize the industry's very specific concerns, and through negotiation in the past 5 months, we have put forth compromised positions in each of the following areas to address their concerns:
First, with respect to capacity, we have developed application language within the final notice of capacity which allows the telecommunications carriers and manufacturers to determine the impact on the switching systems. The Department undertook an extensive legal review of the law enforcement requirements under section 103 of the act and provided the industry its legal opinion relative to the requirements that law enforcement needed that were not part of the industry's proposed technical solution. The results of this review provided greater flexibility as to how industry would meet the law enforcement requirements and also provided for a phased implementation to reduce the impact on the carriers. We also eliminated the most difficult requirement to perform, which also would have been very expensive.
In addressing industry's concerns about the October 1998 compliance date, a proposal was submitted to industry that would allow flexibility and enforcement. We provided industry an approach that would waive our ability to take enforcement action against them if they had in good faith developed and implemented on schedule a technical solution that met law enforcement needs.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We approached our negotiations with the goal of providing maximum coverage to the industry realizing, though, that we are limited to a reimbursement of $500 million, but with the goal, wherever possible, to provide the broadest possible coverage by reimbursement to the industry. Our goal was to approach development of the software solution on an across-the-board basis.
What this means is that we were still willing to purchase a manufacturer's software solution for all of its currently deployed switches if they were available pre-January 1, 1995. This would provide greater coverage and assist those carriers who deployed equipment after the January 1, 1995, cutoff date.
Although there has been quite a bit of effort, both on behalf of industry as well as government, it now appears, based on discussions as recent as Wednesday, February 25th, that we may be at an impasse. Let me explain to you what I understand to be the industry's proposal.
Simply said, the industry's proposal is that all equipment, services and facilities installed or deployed as of October 1998 would be deemed in compliance forever with section 103 of CALEA, unless the government agrees to pay to modify or to upgrade it. Only if the government accepted this cost reimbursement scenario will industry incorporate the full technical functionality required by law enforcement under section 103 into the industry's technical standard and build a technical solution to meet law enforcement's requirements.
The condition that we provide reimbursement now for a greater period of time, extending the date from January 1 of 1995 to October 1 of 1998, will significantly increase the costs that the government would have to reimburse the telecommunications industry. It is our expectation that the cost would exceed the $500 million that has been authorized.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Given the fact that we cannot exceed the amount provided for reimbursement authorized by Congress, I believe that we will be at an impasse. It is my expectation that if this impasse cannot be resolved shortly, we will have to file a petition before the FCC on behalf of all law enforcement stating that the proposed industry technical solution is deficient and will not meet the fundamental evidentiary legal law enforcement requirements necessary for successful prosecution of cases. If this becomes necessary, we will file our petition by March 13 of 1998.
Unfortunately, if we are pressed to take this step, we will avail ourselves of all lawful mechanisms available. I hope that this process can be avoided.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, so you're saying that by Friday the 13th of March, if you and the industry have not been able to work out successfully what the standards, the technical capacities and requirements are to be, and the other issues—that is, the dates and the compliance issues—that unless those are worked out amicably by March the 13th, you plan to file your petition with the FCC to have it decided by the FCC?
Attorney General RENO. That is correct, sir. At the same time, I will make myself personally available on any occasion to address the issues with leaders of the industry, because we have had, up until now, a very frank and very thoughtful and positive discussion.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, I have been a party to some of those discussions and, in fact, have tried to play midwife to a deal, but it is becoming frustrating and it looks to me like perhaps it is at an impasse and will have to be decided by the FCC and/or by the courts.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
And I just want to reiterate again here today that I have told you and all of the Justice Department and the industry that $500 million is it; and we expect to see this matter resolved before we appropriate any more funding.
As you have stated, the value of having the ability to electronically surveil in criminal cases is absolutely vital, particularly in organized crime, and particularly in the drug fight, and I will not stand by and see that capacity wane away. So I expect you to live up to that commitment. If it can't be resolved peacefully by Friday the 13th, I expect to see the FCC waiting at their door with bated breath for your petition.
Attorney General RENO. Mr. Chairman, I personally asked that the date be checked to make sure we could do it.
Mr. ROGERS. I will buy your cab fare down there to file the papers.
Now, looking back over the last 3 years, I have to say that the FBI contributed to this impasse. I am an FBI supporter, but I have to say that they contributed to their own problems here. What do you think about that?
Attorney General RENO. As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, I think that we were perhaps a little too rigid in the beginning as we tried to address the FBI's requirements, but I think with Director Freeh's leadership in joining with the Department, we have been able to work through those issues—through the technical issues, through the legal issues—and I think it basically comes down to cost now.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROGERS. Well, the FBI contributed to the problem, did they not, by just simply refusing to move on this thing for better than 2 years?
Attorney General RENO. I think there is something to be said for that, but I think that with the effort that we have undertaken and with what Director Freeh has done, we have gotten substantially beyond that.
Mr. ROGERS. Now, you have asked $100 million for CALEA in your 1999 request. Given the impact if it does develop and you end up petitioning the FCC for a ruling, is it likely that you will need that $100 million in 1999?
Attorney General RENO. As you know, I am hopeful that our petition can be reviewed on an expedited basis by the FCC. Our CALEA reimbursement account is a no-year account, and the funding deposited in that account is available regardless of the fiscal year. I am concerned that once we resolve these issues, given the fact that I believe the industry has already done a significant amount of work in that area, that their request for reimbursement may actually exceed the revenue stream available. If the 1999 request is not approved, then I would urge you to provide that requested funding.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, we will wait and see.
Let me ask you briefly now, when do we—when can we expect that the Department's capability to electronically surveil will become limited unless changes are made? How long do we have?
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. I think we are there.
Mr. ROGERS. You think we are there now?
Attorney General RENO. Yes.
Mr. ROGERS. How long do you anticipate that the FCC might take on a ruling?
Attorney General RENO. My hope is that they would move very expeditiously with respect to the issue. I think the issue has been framed by the constructive discussions that we have had.
Mr. ROGERS. And the minimum time that they can move, I understand, is six months; is that correct?
Attorney General RENO. I am told by Mr. Colgate that that is correct.
Mr. ROGERS. Now, even after the FCC rules and they decide what the standards are for the new equipment, only then can the companies and the manufacturers begin to design and build the equipment that has to be installed; is that correct?
Attorney General RENO. That is correct. But I think that they have done some considerable work on that.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROGERS. Do we know how long it might take for that process to take place before the equipment can be installed?
Attorney General RENO. Mr. Colgate indicates—and I always welcome him; as you know, he is a person I rely a great deal on.
Mr. ROGERS. As do we. He is a valuable asset to you and to us all.
Attorney General RENO. He indicates that as long as 18 months, but it would depend on different circumstances and depend on the carrier.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, even at best then, before the new equipment could be installed and operating to allow the Department to continue electronic surveillance, we are looking at at least six months' FCC time, assuming they rule the first minute they can; and then another year to 18 months thereafter to design and build the equipment to be installed. So we are looking at upwards of 2 years-plus, are we not, before the matter could conceivably be resolved?
Attorney General RENO. It looks like that.
Mr. ROGERS. Is there any way to shorten that time, without an amicable settlement on the matter?
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. As Mr. Colgate points out and as I mentioned earlier, there are some manufacturers that have done some considerable work, so for some it may be shorter in time.
Mr. ROGERS. Okay. Well, my time has expired for the moment. I have other questions, and I will return.
Attorney General RENO. Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate that we will pursue this with all possible dispatch, and I will give personal attention to it; and we will do everything we can to get an expedited resolution of this matter before the FCC. I would appeal to everybody concerned, though, that what is at stake here is America's law enforcement interests, not just of the Federal Government, but of State and local. What is at stake here is this Nation's interest, and I think the industry—and I know a number in the industry have reflected concern for these issues. I would hope that we could come to the table and get this resolved quickly in America's interest.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, not only hope; it is going to happen. I am going to make it happen or you won't get any money. I don't know how more bluntly I can put it. You have dragged your feet for 3 years.
There are a lot of people at fault here. I am not just blaming the Department. I think the industry has dragged their feet. I think it is a plague on both houses. But the only house that I have any pull with, if that is what it is, is the government's part; and I am not going to let the government sit here and not do its part to resolve this absolutely vital, critical, national interest, security matter. So I am going to be checking with you every 15 minutes the rest of this year.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. I will be waiting for your phone call.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Attorney General. We appreciate your being here this morning, and we appreciate your good work at Justice. You have a tough job, and you do it well.
The Department of Justice has enjoyed unprecedented increases in the last few years. Since fiscal year 1995, I note that the Department's budget has increased by 42 percent. Such a dramatic infusion of resources results in significant management issues and challenges.
I want to take this opportunity, Madam Attorney General, to compliment you on how you have handled these additional funds and the new challenges that you have undertaken. I believe that we are seeing an era of unprecedented cooperation among our law enforcement agencies, and I know that this subcommittee, in particular, wants that to continue and to continue strongly.
I note that the Department, under your leadership, has had a number of accomplishments over the last year. For example, in the area of illicit drugs, the Department has pursued a number of programs which lowered the demand for drugs, reduced the supply and availability of illicit drugs, and dealt with the devastating impact that drugs have on our communities and on our families. This has been accomplished through programs like DARE, the Southwest Border Initiative, the COPS program, which I think is proving to be particularly successful, and many Justice Department grant programs.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I also wish to compliment the work of the organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
In the area of counterterrorism, we all applaud the efforts of the Department and its work with other agencies in bringing back to the United States the terrorists associated with the mortar attack on the U.S. embassy in Jakarta and the murder and wounding of CIA employees in Virginia. These are all major, difficult accomplishments.
Lastly, in the growing area of cybercrime, we note that the FBI has made a number of arrests of computer hackers who jeopardize the integrity of telephone companies, credit reporting agencies, our armed forces, the World Bank, and on and on.
As mentioned in your statement, you are requesting a 4.4 percent increase in the Department's budget for fiscal year 1999, and I join the Chairman in looking forward to reviewing that request carefully.
Madam Attorney General, as you know, the FBI has spent considerable time and funds developing a premier fingerprint identification system known as IAFIS. I want to compliment you and Director Freeh on putting in place a very strong management team to bring IAFIS on line. It has not been an easy task. You have adjusted to the challenges, and to the setbacks. I am impressed by the way you have accomplished this task, and with the quality of the system that you are bringing on line, and its potential for serving our law enforcement community.
IDENT/IAFIS INTEGRATION
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Similarly, the INS is in the process of developing its own separate fingerprint system known as IDENT. INS and the FBI are under your jurisdiction. I am concerned that the IDENT procurement activity in INS is not being carefully examined and that millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted developing INS' own automated fingerprint system when the FBI already has an automated fingerprint identification system. Not only does the FBI have one, they have an integrated IAFIS.
If we were to build on IAFIS, you would have an integrated system, a system that is developed with a superior technology to IDENT. You would have a system that could be adapted to other customers' needs at a relatively low cost. You would have a system with the immediate advantage of interface compatibility on a universal scale, not only with INS, not only with law enforcement, but with the whole world.
In summary, I am concerned, Madam Attorney General, that you are spending millions of dollars developing an inferior system based on similar matching technologies, when you have in hand this superior, less costly solution that is adaptable to many purposes.
While millions of scarce dollars are at stake here, I am concerned that the Justice Department has not been serious in addressing this issue, has not been rigorous in overcoming parochial agency interests and has not had a competent, independent overview. I am also concerned that the Department has not established the appropriate process, or at least one appropriate process, to address this concern.
It certainly has not established an integrated product and process development, which is a common procurement system. This concern has been expressed repeatedly by the Committee, and we have asked that this matter be investigated for several years now.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Madam Attorney General, could you start out your answers by giving the Committee a status report on your overview of this concern?
Attorney General RENO. Yes, because I think this is one of the great challenges that any manager faces in this day and time, how we use the extraordinary resources and the extraordinary benefits that technology can provide us in the wisest way possible without duplication and redundancy, without fragmentation.
It is an extraordinary challenge, because I think one of the great issues that we face in government, and in the private sector as well, is where do we find the people with the expertise that understand both the government processes and the processes of technology. And this is something that I have focused on, and I appreciate your concern on this issue.
To briefly summarize the issue, the FBI wants all apprehended illegal border crossers to be ten-printed, believing that some illegal aliens have committed crimes in the United States or may commit future crimes, which is clearly correct. The rolled set of ten prints would be used for searching latent fingerprints at crime scenes and for helping State and local authorities who request fingerprints.
This would cause several problems, including significant disruption of operations at the border because of the time it would take to ten-print large volumes of apprehended aliens who are not guilty of serious crimes. Those who are suspected of serious crimes or who have exceeded the local threshold for repeat crossers where it is determined by the United States Attorney in that district are already ten-printed.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I would just put a caveat on that, because we are also reviewing other issues with respect to IDENT to make sure that in terms of training, in terms of usage and the like, that there has been or will be appropriate follow-through.
While there are some similarities between IDENT and IAFIS, there appear to be differences in the system which serve to meet the INS's and FBI's respective, unique operational requirements. We are reviewing the issues now to determine whether the systems are complementary and where they are redundant. I would like to report our findings to you by June 1st to assure you that DOJ has taken the steps necessary to avoid duplication without jeopardizing operational requirements.
As part of the review, I have tasked the FBI and INS through Steve Colgate, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, with several items. First, INS and FBI will report on the feasibilities of conducting a ten-print pilot at one or more appropriate sites. If successful, the pilot will demonstrate the extent of the operational burden which INS would bear by taking ten-prints for all aliens apprehended.
Secondly, the FBI has been tasked with developing an assessment of benefits which would accrue by INS's adoption of a procedure which takes ten prints from illegal border crossers who are held only briefly before their voluntary return. Simultaneously, INS will report on the cost attendant to 10-digit printing for all INS arrests and describe the operational burden that ten-printing brings.
In addition, the FBI will visit INS Southwest border sites to observe firsthand the operational requirements incumbent on the Border Patrol and inspections as INS processes apprehend aliens through the IDENT system. This will help clarify the similarities and dissimilarities of the two systems and highlight the areas where improvements may be made. The FBI will provide a cost estimate for furnishing a dedicated database and 10-print system for INS use.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
If such a course of action is feasible, response times from the FBI's IAFIS could be reduced to a level that meets INS operational requirements. Alternatively, the FBI will provide an outline of the capability of the CJIS-wide area network, reporting whether there is sufficient bandwidth to support INS in the transmittal of 10-prints.
INS and the FBI will collaborate on a report of cost, feasibility, and the components' willingness to adopt procedures by which the FBI, upon receipt of 10 prints from State and local authorities, seals off and transmits to INS the two matched fingerprints against IDENT. This would satisfy the FBI's concerns that State and local authorities be able to match against an INS database of illegal entrants.
I would like also to point out again something that I had mentioned. Our IG has also looked at issues with respect to IDENT, and we will be—I will be asking Mr. Colgate to form a working group to analyze the report and to see what needs to be done in terms of remedies and processes to achieve the ultimate best use of this automation.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not going to be able to get through these series of questions during my time, so I am going to ask you a couple of general questions here, and then I will get back to it in a second round, if I might.
With regard to your goal, when you look at this whole issue of being able to establish a system or systems whereby you can identify criminals, is not the first thing that comes to your mind integration? That is the first word in the IAFIS system. Don't you want the ability to have universality? Don't you want to be able to incorporate all of these identification systems or link all of these identification systems in a seamless way so that you have one repository or one controlling entity or clearinghouse entity which would be used by local, State, and eventually, international law enforcement? It seems to me that adhering to that principle of integration would be tremendous leadership on the part of the Department, and in the long term, would help develop a system that would incorporate a principle of universality.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
When you think about establishing this very important system, what importance do you give to integration and universality?
Attorney General RENO. A very great deal of importance.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I would think.
Attorney General RENO. What we have got to try to do is to make sure that we have the system integrated, that we avoid redundancy and duplication or fragmentation; and whether it be in the check of State and local law enforcement records, we also have got to focus on the unique problems that someone faces in, for example——
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. INS, for example, has its own unique problems?
Attorney General RENO [continuing]. INS. And I think through this process that Mr. Colgate will oversee that we will be able to address these issues.
We have been through other issues with the IAFIS itself. We are now beginning to see great results from the system that can immediately match prints and identify perpetrators; and I think through this process and through the report that you will receive on June 1st that we will do everything we can to ensure integration, to ensure the systems working together, while at the same time meeting specific needs without costly duplication.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, in the meantime, you are going to be spending an awful lot of money on the continued development of this IDENT system.
Attorney General RENO. What I am asking Mr. Colgate to do is to make sure we don't spend money unnecessarily until we have the right answers.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. So what does that mean?
Attorney General RENO. That means, I don't want to waste money between now and June 1st.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I don't want to either, but operationally what does that mean? Does that mean that you are stopping the expenditures of money in regard to the IDENT development at this time until this report comes out?
Attorney General RENO. What I am asking Mr. Colgate to do is to see what can be done to avoid the expenditure of any money that would not contribute to a long-term solution and the maximum integration possible, consistent with the mission of the different agencies involved.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. I imagine my time is up, and I don't want to start a line without being able to finish it, Madam Attorney General. Thank you for your answers to my questions.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Taylor.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, Madam Attorney General, you recently appointed an Independent Counsel to probe the activities of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt regarding the rejection of an application by an Indian tribe for a casino permit.
Can you tell us what the scope of that investigation will entail? And I understand it is quite limited, but could you give me some information about that?
Attorney General RENO. I will be happy to provide you with the exact language, so that it is accurate and I do not misquote it. I do not have it with me.
Mr. TAYLOR. How would you interpret that? Is it limited or broader, the investigation?
Attorney General RENO. I would not interpret it, other than to refer you to the precise language so that you might interpret it for yourself.
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, the public has to live with that year after year in this administration.
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
The request for appointment of an independent counsel involving Interior Secretary Babbitt was limited to the issue of whether Secretary Babbitt testified falsely before Congress in a manner that warrants criminal prosecution. The order appointing the Independent Counsel charged the counsel to investigate whether Secretary Babbitt may have violated federal criminal law, including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1001, in connection with sworn testimony on October 30, 1997, before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and to determine whether prosecution is warranted.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The order conveyed to the Independent Counsel the jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Secretary Babbitt committed a violation of any federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, by making false statement during the course of congressional testimony concerning a decision by the Department of the Interior to deny an application by three Indian tribes to take land into trust in Hudson, Wisconsin, for an off-reservation gambling casino, or conspiring with others to do so.
Jurisdiction and authority was also conveyed to the Independent Counsel to investigatge the decision itself, any violation of 28 U.S.C. 1826, any obstruction of the due administration of justice, any material false testimony or statement in violation of federal law, any related allegations and evidence of any violation of federal criminal law by any individual or organization as necessary to resolve this matter including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided and abetted any of the subject federal offenses.
Within this scope—the investigation on the decision itself and the testimony given on October 30, 1997—the Independent Counsel has prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prosecute all matters and individuals whose acts may be related, inclusive of authority to investigate federal crimes that may arise, including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.
IMMIGRATION INVESTIGATION
Now, how about the immigration investigation? Perhaps we can look into that. Do you remember at last year's hearing that the committee asked a number of questions regarding the naturalization of a number of immigrants prior to the 1996 presidential election, and reports were later released confirming that a number of naturalizations were made to immigrants with criminal records.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Can you give us a report or some indication of the investigation and the correction of those mistakes, and an idea of what has been spent or going to be spent to correct those mistakes?
INS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Attorney General RENO. As you are aware, we established a new Office of Naturalization Operations in June of 1997. The first task that this new office undertook was the development of naturalization quality procedures known as our NQP program. With the development of this process, INS undertook an extensive training effort, training personnel from all of its naturalization field offices in simple and easy to understand procedures. These new procedures were reviewed by KPMG to ensure that they met the quality control and integrity requirements necessary, which they did.
After the training was complete, we had KPMG go out to the field to ensure that the information was properly disseminated and available to the field, which it was. To ensure that the procedures were being followed and that the past process failures had been corrected, we had KPMG perform an audit of cases in offices performing 85 percent of the naturalization workload. You will recall that KPMG issued its report in December of last year.
It is my view that INS has moved in a period of months from having a failing report card to a solid A-minus. The NQP process has demonstrated that INS can effectively deploy a naturalization process that works and meets the integrity requirements that we should expect.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
INTEGRATION OF FINGERPRINT PROCESSING SYSTEM
The next major effort that we have undertaken is the establishment of an effective and secure fingerprinting process system. As you will recall, the integrity of the fingerprint process system was the major systemic problem within the prior naturalization process. INS has undertaken a massive effort to establish a network of nationwide application support centers. These centers allow INS to supervise the selection of fingerprints while maintaining quality control and providing adequate coverage to the applicants.
This effort consists of four tiers:
First, 75 application support centers established within storefront operations across the country; these centers take the majority of fingerprints for INS benefits.
Fifty-one INS district sub-offices established one- and two-person fingerprint operations in small offices where there isn't a support center within 100 miles.
Thirty-nine law enforcement agencies will provide additional coverage in areas where either an INS sub-office or support center is over 100 miles away.
Forty-four mobile routes were established with over 84 service points to serve clients in remote locations.
We believe that by the end of March we will be functioning at full capacity and we can provide a detailed listing by type of center to you for the record.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Building on this success, I have asked the director of the naturalization office to expand these reforms and lessons learned to other INS benefits programs.
LONG-RANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR NATURALIZATION
Finally, we have received the long-range improvement plan for naturalization from Cooper and Lybrand, and with the significant funding you provided in the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act, we can begin implementing the long-range improvements for this entire process.
I want to thank the committee for its support in this effort.
Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Attorney General, perhaps I misstated. I appreciate the efforts that have been made toward the future, and hopefully, in future relations nothing this shameful will happen again.
IMMIGRATION INVESTIGATION
But it was my understanding, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to go back and look at what has happened in the past, go back and investigate those felons that may have been declared citizens without benefit of proper scrutiny; and that costs money and also has to have a plan. That is why I wondered what has been done in that area and what might be the cost for this Congress and the taxpayer.
Attorney General RENO. As part of the effort to ensure that past naturalization cases were adjudicated correctly, the Department engaged KPMG Peat Marwick to oversee and validate several INS reviews of cases of persons who were naturalized between August of 1995 and September of 1996. In particular, two reviews sought to identify cases where citizenship was granted despite potentially disqualifying criminal histories or exclusion proceedings. A third review was conducted on a random sample of cases in order to determine the extent to which other internal processing problems existed in the naturalization program during that period.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996, INS naturalized 1,049,867 individuals. INS, with the aid of the FBI, attempted to determine the number of these persons that had FBI records. Based on what we know today, 767,366 persons have been identified as having no FBI criminal history records; 76,678 persons have been identified as having FBI records, which include INS administrative actions, misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions. 124,711 persons have not had definitive criminal history checks conducted because their fingerprint cards were rejected by the FBI because their poor quality rendered them unclassifiable.
Of 61,366 persons for whom it cannot be determined whether or not FBI record checks were ever conducted; 19,746 were elders and minors for whom INS policy does not require FBI record checks.
The FBI produced 76,382 rap sheets for the individuals identified as having FBI records; 32,929 individuals were arrested only for administrative violations, 26,196 individuals were arrested for 1 or more misdemeanors, but no felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude, and 17,257 individuals were arrested for one or more felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude.
INS assembled a naturalization review team consisting of adjudicators to review the files in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Charleston, South Carolina, and independently determine whether the applicants were eligible to be naturalized based on statutorily defined residency and good moral character criteria. KPMG provided quality control and validation during the entire review process.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
The Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review also assisted in this process by providing an independent validation of the NRT decision. A total of 16,858 case files were reviewed; 369 case files could not be located for the review, 10,535 cases were proper. The NRT adjudicators found that the statutorily defined residency and good moral character criteria were met.
The 369 were presumptively ineligible; the NRT adjudicators found that the statutorily defined residency and good moral character criteria were presumptively not met. 5,954 cases require further action; the adjudicators found that they could not validate that statutorily defined residency and good moral character criteria were met based on the information contained in the case files.
Of the 6,323 cases that were presumptively ineligible or require further attention, 5,634 reveal a failure to reveal an arrest. All 6,323 cases were referred to the INS revocation team for possible revocation. The review was conducted—the deportation exclusion case review was conducted to identify individuals who were naturalized while they were subject to deportation proceedings or pending an order of deportation or exclusion. The period under review was August of 1995 to September of 1996.
KPMG compared the INS database of individuals naturalized during the subject period with an EOIR database containing records of deportation or exclusion actions; a total of 716 individuals were listed on both. A total of 600 of the 716 cases were reviewed. INS could not locate 33 files, and 83 others were not reviewed because the files were found to contain no evidence that the affected individuals had ever been subject to deportation or exclusion proceedings, or had been naturalized. The latter findings are being pursued to identify possible data systems or file documentation problems.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Thirty-eight cases, or six percent of all cases reviewed, revealed evidence of improper naturalization; of these, 23 cases involved deportation and 15 cases involved exclusion. Five hundred sixty-two cases showed no evidence indicating an improper naturalization. The 38 cases were referred to the INS revocation team for possible revocation.
We then did a sample case review. This effort did a sampling approach to perform a review of the universe of cases naturalized between August of 1995 and September of 1996.
Mr. TAYLOR. Madam, could I dare take my time now to give an aside? Could I ask one simple question? Has a single person been decitizenized based on this atrocious situation nearly 2 years ago?
Attorney General RENO. The final administrative action on naturalization revocation shows that of the total cases, 31 cases have been finalized, six affirmed a grant of naturalization, 19 terminated administrative—terminate administrative proceedings and referred to the United States Attorney—terminated administrative proceedings. For revocation of naturalization, the appeal time expired without appeal on six; and I think that would be indicated that of the final actions, six have been revoked because they did not appeal.
Mr. TAYLOR. Do we know where they are?
Attorney General RENO. What they are?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. TAYLOR. Where they are. Were they deported or are they wandering around?
Attorney General RENO. I would have to check and let you know, sir.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Quickly, do I understand that of the 6,000 revocation cases that have been developed so far out of this disaster, Citizenship USA—out of the 6,000 possible, you have only denaturalized six?
Attorney General RENO. The total cases reviewed to date are 2,100——
Mr. ROGERS. Just answer my question. Out of 6,000 possible cases, you have only denaturalized six. Right or wrong, correct or incorrect?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. That is what I understand, yes, sir.
Mr. ROGERS. The answer is yes?
Attorney General RENO. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROGERS. Okay.
Mr. Skaggs.
ENCRYPTION POLICY
Mr. SKAGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Attorney General, Mr. Dixon and I both serve on the Intelligence Committee and were siezed last fall by the issue of encryption policy in this country, and I think confounded by the lack of agreement among different elements of the executive branch as to exactly how we should proceed.
My request is that you use your good offices to help reconcile and consolidate a single Administration policy in this area so that we might have the benefit of one voice coming from the executive branch as to what we in Congress should do.
Attorney General RENO. I think we have made very substantial progress, and I think there will be one voice.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. SKAGGS. Do you know when it will be expressed?
Attorney General RENO. Hopefully, shortly.
Mr. SKAGGS. Before the Vernal Equinox?
Attorney General RENO. I forget when the Vernal Equinox is.
ANTITRUST DIVISION INCREASE FOR FY1999
Mr. SKAGGS. A few weeks away. Well, good.
On a statistical or accounting matter, the numbers for the Antitrust Division have an enormous increase in the tables I was just looking at for this year. I assume that that is just a function of different accounting for fees and arrangements of numbers. It doesn't reflect a huge increase in FTE in the Antitrust Division; is that correct?
Attorney General RENO. Mr. Colgate indicates that that is correct, but with your permission, I will let him address that.
Mr. SKAGGS. If that is correct, we will let it go at that since I don't have much time.
COPS PROGRAM
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As I recall, the first set of hires in the COPS program will be exhausting the grant period shortly, and I am just wondering if we are starting to get any data as to the extent to which local law enforcement authorities are in fact interested in and able to have continued employment?
Attorney General RENO. They are—the word I am getting back is that they are very anxious to continue the employment. Cities are looking for monies, because when the COPS program was established, it was clear; and the clear terms of the COPS program was that it was designed to provide a transition to community policing to give departments an opportunity to transfer the system from just patrol-oriented policing to community policing in the truest sense, and that cities would be expected to sustain the hires after the grants expired.
We are in the process of looking at this to determine just what we can get in terms of hard data, and we will be happy to share with you just what the cities and towns and counties are telling us.
Mr. SKAGGS. Well, I think the subcommittee would appreciate whatever data, hard or soft, with appropriate footnotes you are able to provide for the record on this, since there was a good deal of concern about whether we were setting ourselves up for a temporary improvement, but an unsustainable one, given fiscal pressures on local departments.
[The information follows:]
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Attorney General RENO. The word that we are getting back from the reaction of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, when I visit with them, and the National Sheriffs Association, is that there will be a lasting impact on the part of these police officers, that it has helped change the whole orientation of policing so that it involves the community, the processes through technical assistance for these new hires, and enhanced an officer's ability and knowledge and skill in relating to the community and involving the community in developing the answers to the problems, and identifying priorities and identifying problems.
DRUGS INITIATIVE
Mr. SKAGGS. I was encouraged to see that in the initiative regarding drugs, somewhat more than half of the total new amount requested would be going toward treatment and discouraging use, I guess. The term escapes me at the moment, which certainly is consistent with the advice I have received time and time again from law enforcement in the field, who say, as much as we would love to have additional monies for law enforcement interdiction, whatever it may be, we see the real tracks in the effort against drugs on the treatment and prevention side. So I am glad to see the ratios as they are.
But it really raises the question, I think, of whether, as we continue year-by-year to struggle with this issue, the Department has undertaken or could undertake a kind of zero-based review of national drug policy. I know there is a Drug Czar, but you are aware of where the action is in many respects. Perhaps the Department could start from scratch and see whether our overall strategies really constitute a coherent and effective whole, or whether some major shifting of priorities might get us further down the road to the goal that we are trying to reach.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. We are constantly reviewing what we are doing to make sure that it makes sense and that we are on the right track. There has clearly been a shift towards providing additional treatment and prevention initiatives that we think can work.
With the effort of this committee last year, for example, we have embarked on the development of a very sound juvenile justice prevention program in terms of preventing the use of drugs, and we would be happy to share that with you. But there is also a recognition, as you point out, on the part of police officers, and General McCaffrey is one of the great proponents of additional treatment, that it makes no sense to prosecute and convict somebody for the use of drugs, knowing that they have a drug problem, and send them to jail or put them on probation without providing sound treatment.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Obviously, one of the big initiatives in this area has been the development of drug courts, and they have spread as people have come to understand that the combination of the criminal justice system, with appropriate treatment programs, can have a real impact by using a carrot-and-stick approach on nonviolent first offenders or others.
For the person who is in the prison, who has had a drug problem, and somebody has said, well, how can they get drugs in prison, in the Federal Bureau of Prisons we have taken significant steps to avoid that. But the problem that caused this situation in the first place is still there, and unless it is addressed while in prison, they are going back to the streets with the chance of recurring all over again.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
One of the big dollar arguments that I hear about drug treatment is that we have no place to treat them. In the criminal justice system, for those people in prison, we have a place to treat them and we can make it effective, so it makes awfully good sense, both from the prevention and the treatment and intervention point of view.
At the same time, we are constantly reviewing our drug strategy. For example, when I first came into office, the focus was on Colombia and then, as the pattern shifted, we shifted to the Southwest border with Mexico. As we put pressure on the Southwest border, it starts to shift to the Caribbean. So we have looked at it more from the point of view of the ''southern frontier,'' constantly trying to be prepared to move ahead of the game as pressures produce shifts in one direction or the other. Those are just examples, Congressman.
Mr. SKAGGS. I appreciate that. I think, in addition, it doesn't make any sense—the example that you gave, it also doesn't make any sense to be spending several hundred thousand dollars on the typical arrest, prosecution and incarceration of someone with a drug problem, when earlier intervention and prevention would have done us some good.
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT
One final question, and then we are all going to race to vote. The Independent Counsel Act is going to be coming up for reauthorization in a little while. From a good management and justice point of view, would you encourage the Congress to introduce some budget control and accountability in the future?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. I have tried to avoid commenting on what the law should be with respect to that, and I had written Senator Hatch saying that there should be some provision. Everybody in public service should be operating under a budget and some budget controls, and I think it would be appropriate.
Mr. SKAGGS. Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Attorney General, we have a vote on the floor. It will be just a few minutes and we shall return.
Attorney General RENO. I have plenty of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS. You get a deserved rest.
[Recess.]
Mr. ROGERS. The Committee will come back to order, and the gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Attorney General. It is a real pleasure for me to have you here, and I just want to tell you I continue to have the highest personal regard for you, and the job that you do. And I think, unfortunately, you are put in a very awkward position because of some of the conduct in the Administration, but no one should ever question your integrity or what you do. It is very much appreciated, and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I would like to echo the concerns that Mr. Taylor had as far as the granting of citizenship to convicted felons, and I think it really undermines the value of U.S. citizenship. I think it is one of the darkest hours as far as what this government can do in relationship to the most prized possession we have here as U.S. citizens, and I continue to have grave concerns about that.
I would also like to personally thank you for coming last fall and visiting the people from my district, taking your time for that little event we had. It was most appreciated, and I want to publicly thank you.
COPS PROGRAM
In last year's appropriations bill, I had some language in that to create a new initiative in the COPS program to help local law enforcement fight the problem with mass production trafficking in the tri-state area—in Iowa, South Dakota and Nebraska. The local law enforcement and Sioux City police who are going to coordinate this effort are still awaiting direction from the COPS office here in Washington.
We are almost halfway through the year, and the COPS office has yet to assign someone to draft the program's criteria, and obviously, we are unable to implement the program. And just to give you an idea of the gravity of the situation, you know, Iowa has about 1 percent of the Nation's population, and I think last year we had 9 percent of the meth arrests. It is a huge problem for us, and we need to move on this very quickly to have a coordinated effort throughout the region.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Would you be able to tell me what is causing the delay as far as the criteria in Sioux City and when we can expect to be able to move forward?
Attorney General RENO. COPS is working now with DEA and the other agencies that are involved in this effort to make sure that the grant is useful and effective and not just duplicative of existing training efforts.
The area that you point out is really extraordinarily important. I have had a chance to talk with officers from that area and understand just what the whole problem of methamphetamine has done there. This is a problem that is very important for us.
What I would like to do is continue to keep you advised. I will let you know as soon as they come up with what they think could be effective criteria. I will ask them for a time deadline and see if I can't get back to you and to the chief and to make sure that we do it right.
One of the concerns that I have, I want to make sure that we use it as wisely as possible, because I think a grant like this can be very, very useful and quite innovative in its impact. So I would like to follow up with you on that.
Mr. LATHAM. Obviously, my concern is, there hasn't even been an assignment or a person responsible to even begin the process yet, and that is quite frustrating, because we do have a situation where the tri-state area has worked very closely together and really tried to work on a coordinated basis; and from my understanding, there isn't even anybody trying to initiate what was in the law last year.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. Somebody is about it, and I will find out who, because somebody is talking with DEA and with the other agencies to see just what is being done on training. Let me find out specifics for you, call you back. If we don't have somebody that is assigned to it, I will get that corrected.
Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Very good. I would appreciate that very much.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
ASSETS FORFEITURE AUTHORITY
On a different subject, under the farm bill in 1996, the FAIR Act, the Inspector General at USDA was given augmented forfeiture authority, and it is my understanding that the IG has negotiated a memorandum of understanding with the Justice Department regarding this matter of forfeiture. It is also my understanding that the Justice Department has been dragging its heels and has yet to sign the memorandum of understanding.
Why is this the case, and when is the Justice Department expected to act on this critical issue? There is about $11 million, that is sitting in Justice apparently, that should be over in the USDA.
Attorney General RENO. I had occasion just recently to speak to the combined group of Inspectors General, and the issue of asset forfeiture was raised; and with respect to the particular matter that you talk about, it was presented as if it is a fait accompli—why don't you sign it? I was told that proposals had been made and we were trying to work through them.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
As you know, this Congress has expressed concerns, as others have, about the appropriate use and standards for asset forfeiture. I asked when I heard, well, if it hasn't been worked through, then let's get, I think his name is Mr. Viadero in and let's get it worked out. So I will follow that one up as well.
Mr. LATHAM. I also serve on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and we had the IG in there and he obviously expressed real concerns about this, and wanted to get moving, and to get it resolved. They would like to have the $11 million, and they say it is sitting over in Justice; and if you could look into that, I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
With that, again, I appreciate the chance to have you here, and I am not going to get into, like last year, whether we have laws on the books as far as campaign contributions on government property or those things. But thank you.
Attorney General RENO. Let me just point out something to you and to the Chairman. The Chairman, I think, knows this from our extensive conversations, but nothing upsets me more, makes me feel worse, than to see something like the naturalization process gone awry. My father came to this country when he was 12 years old with his parents from Denmark, and that process is sacred to me.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Dixon.
Mr. DIXON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Madam Attorney General, I join in a bipartisan tribute to your personal integrity. I know that it is very difficult when there are some who think that you are doing too much and are too aggressive; there are others who think that you are not aggressive enough, and that suggests to me that you are probably handling it just right.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE
I would like to ask you about two small agencies within your department and get your evaluation of them. The first is the Community Relations Service. I notice that you have requested a $1.2 million increase. It is an organization, I think, that has worked very effectively, at least in California, and I would like to receive your assessment of it.
Attorney General RENO. My assessment is derived from direct observation as the State attorney in Miami for 15 years during some very turbulent times. The Community Relations Service was one of the most effective agencies at reducing conflict, easing tensions, bringing people together, and doing it in not a big, programmatic sort of way; but every time you turned around, when there was a crisis, the representatives of the CRS would be there, not talking a lot, but moving quietly, working carefully with people, doing it in a hands-on, direct sort of way that was very refreshing for government from Washington. As State attorney I had a chance to see them in action any number of times.
Now, for the last 5 years, even with their budget significantly reduced, I have watched them in action, and again, chiefs of police, community advocates, others across the country are telling me what I see firsthand. They are doing an extraordinary job with small resources at easing tension and bringing people together, and preventing problems from escalating into major disturbances. I think for more than 30 years attorneys general of both parties have supported the Community Relations Service, and daily, as we watch them in action, I support it 100 percent. I think it has been one of the most effective agencies that I have seen.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Mr. DIXON. The second agency is the Inspector General. As you are probably aware, I have had some direct contact with the Inspector General from time to time over the past 2 or 3 months, and in the course of conversation, I—and with correspondence, he had asked for a modest increase in his allotment. I think it was $5 million. As a matter of fact, he has been very aggressive in the Citizenship USA investigation and the prisons investigation. I understand thoroughly that there is only so much money, but can you evaluate his job and whether you think an adjustment in his allocation is appropriate?
Attorney General RENO. I think he has done an excellent job, and I feel very comfortable, and I think I have the best working relationship with an Inspector General you could have. He can be arm's length, but he is constructive and positive when he takes the results of his investigations and puts them to work.
Last year we asked for an increase and he received an increase of about 10 percent of the base, and what I would like to do is see how that works out, and what we need—what we need in terms of ongoing investigations and address it for the future.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Mr. DIXON. Yesterday we had the Legal Services Corporation before us, and the Chairman and I engaged in some conversation with the Chairman of the Board and the President about what they intended to do with the increase in funding that they were requesting. They indicated that 70 percent of that increase would go for domestic violence programs. The Chairman pointed out that in the 1997 budget for your department we had provided a substantial amount of money.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I was really not clear as to what their response was, but in general I thought it was that they could not look forward in 1997 to much of that money. And so, is there some impediment to them receiving money? Can you tell me how much they have received, if any, and what your view of that situation is?
Attorney General RENO. May I consult with Mr. Colgate?
Mr. DIXON. Certainly. I realize that this wasn't your forethought.
Attorney General RENO. I think it is 1998 that you're referring to, rather than fiscal year 1997.
Mr. DIXON. You are correct.
Attorney General RENO. Chairman Rogers, as I recall, made sure that $12 million was provided to augment civil legal assistance in this whole area. Our budget request this year would continue this program. The Violence Against Women Office is in the process of developing the grant solicitation for this year. It has held meetings with the Legal Services Corporation, and I hope that this grant will be available very shortly. I will ask that we check the time for you, so that you will know precisely.
Mr. DIXON. Does the staff know exactly how much money was in that category last year?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. $12 million, I believe.
Mr. ROGERS. It was $12 million that was earmarked just for legal aid, but there was $271 million in Violence Against Women appropriations, which is an unprecedented number, a good portion of which could be used for that purpose, in fact.
Mr. DIXON. Well, that is the reason I raised it, Mr. Chairman.
On the one hand, the Chairman feels that probably more than $12 million could go toward that. And Madam Attorney General, as I hear you, you are thinking that they are only eligible for $12 million, or they would only receive $12 million. So I would just like to——
Attorney General RENO. Well, let me clarify for you.
I think what the Chairman is indicating, under the grants to the States, the act provides for grants to all of the States based on the criteria. They have got to develop a plan. Part of that plan and part of that grant can be used for legal aid in this context, and there is no prohibition from the Federal point of view. There might be some different priority established by a State, but that is available; and I think what the Chairman is trying to do is to jump start it, if you will, and get people to understand how beneficial civil legal assistance can be in these situations.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. ROGERS. Please do.
If the gentleman will yield, the Attorney General is correct. We substantially increased the Violence Against Women Act funding last year. In fact, I think we provided several millions of dollars more than the Administration requested even, but I am chagrined that the money is not being spent. Whether it is because people don't know it is available on the State and local levels, or what, I don't yet know, but the money is there and it is lying there waiting.
A good portion of that money could be used by Legal Services grantees, because I think 60 percent of the work that they do is representing abused women and children, and this money would be able to augment what is already available for Legal Services grantees.
Attorney General RENO. But again the money is out in terms of the grants to the States and, Mr. Chairman, it may well be being used by the States for reasons other than Legal Services. We will get you a report on that.
What is of concern, though, is that for the $12 million specifically designated, we want to make sure we get that out as fast as possible.
Mr. DIXON. If I understand you, Madam Attorney General, the $12 million is earmarked for them, and then they are eligible under State programs to receive additional monies if the States so desire?
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. That is correct.
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
2000 CENSUS
Mr. DIXON. That is kind of a fair summary.
And last, I know that you are aware that there is a difference of opinion in Congress as to how we proceed to take the year 2000 census, and I noticed in the budget request, in the Civil Rights Division, you have requested $383,000; and not to create any confusion, I wonder if you would tell us what that money would be used for.
Attorney General RENO. That fiscal year 1999 program increase request for the Civil Rights Division has nothing to do with the likely litigation the Commerce Department might become involved in regarding the census. That is a totally separate issue. The Civil Division would handle that; no additional monies are being asked for for handling that litigation.
The Civil Rights monies are focused on the litigation that has developed from Shaw v. Reno, and with the census, leaving aside how it is done, with the census coming up, State and local, as well as Federal districts, are being addressed anew and in a prospective fashion, so that we have seen an increase in cases; and we expect more and want to be prepared to handle it.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. DIXON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Regula.
INDIAN COUNTRY
Mr. REGULA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Attorney General, I want to ask a few questions on the Indian country law enforcement initiative. As I understand it, there is to be additional funding for this, and the White House presently has under review how would be the better way to ensure that these law enforcement programs are done with the best possible assistance and training.
In your opinion, would the Department of Justice or the Bureau of Indian Affairs be in a better position to administer and oversee the significant increase in law enforcement resources being proposed for Indian country law enforcement?
Attorney General RENO. In this instance, the President has recognized the dual responsibility when he directed both the Secretary of Interior and myself to address it, because I don't think anybody disputes that there is a critical concern about law enforcement in Indian country.
We agree that at this point neither department could address the issue alone; we are working together. We are asking for funds for three reasons in the Department of Justice. We already have an existing grant structure. We have considerable expertise in the types of programs that are necessary in Indian country, such as corrections and juvenile justice, and there are serious needs to be addressed now.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I think the DOJ grants will jump-start the necessary improvements, and we have the structure and the law enforcement expertise necessary to do it. So at this point I think as the budget request reflects, we can best address it.
Mr. REGULA. So you think the Justice Department really needs to take the lead on this expansion and a more intensive effort in law enforcement in Indian country?
Attorney General RENO. I think to jump-start it and to get it on its way, and then I think we have to ultimately resolve it.
Mr. REGULA. I am concerned also that this program relies heavily on the COPS grant program, and as you know, that is a 3-year cycle. What happens when that funding ends? Are there some plans? You need continuity, obviously.
Attorney General RENO. I think, again, from what I have seen—and I first addressed this issue in May of 1994 at a listening conference in Albuquerque; and again and again tribal leaders from all over the country stood up and told me what needed to be done in terms of law enforcement, and I have heard it ever since.
This is an effort on the part of the Administration to try to use what is available and the expertise in the Department of Justice to get it jump-started and on its way and to develop a sound framework for law enforcement; and then ultimately, I think it would have to be funded by the BIA or whoever is responsible for managing Indian country programs.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. So you see your role as getting it moving and then eventually BIA taking over?
Attorney General RENO. Or whoever is responsible.
Mr. REGULA. Right. It envisions 15 more prisons. How do you see this being handled, the building, operations and maintenance of these prisons? Would it be BIA or would it be Bureau of Prisons?
Attorney General RENO. I think we would have to look at that and how it is organized, and how the tribes organize it as well. When we are talking about prisons, we are talking about detention facilities, too, and correctional facilities. In terms of a major prison for violent offenders, I think that the regular prison system would be more appropriate.
What we are trying to design is to recognize that they are not jailed, they are not detention facilities that are tribally oriented, and so we are going to have to work with tribes. And this is just a suggestion, because we are trying to work through these issues. For example, the Sioux Nation involves a number of tribes, and they might work together to develop the detention facility for a certain area.
Mr. REGULA. So you see the BIA dealing with the lesser criminal types, and if it is more of a severe hard-core, if you will, then that would be probably best done through the Bureau of Prisons?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. That is what I envision.
INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE
Mr. REGULA. Industrial espionage, I think this is going to be a growing problem because of the competitiveness that exists in the world today and the availability of sophisticated communications programs. We have had that happen in an instance in my own area, and—my question is, what resources would the Department be currently providing for investigation and prosecution of the theft of technology and intellectual property? A: Are you involved; and B: Does the Department envision increases to combat this type of industrial espionage in the fiscal year 1999 budget?
Attorney General RENO. The FBI does not, I have discovered, track resources for economic espionage, and I am going to be talking with Director Freeh about this, because he is one of the major proponents of initiatives in this area for just the reasons that you discuss; and I agree with him completely. I think this reflects the fact that we are building now a capacity, and I think we will need to look at this and see how we can properly identify the resources.
The number of FBI investigations is classified, but I think recent press coverage indicates some of the initiatives that are being taken. With respect to increases, there are none. But at this point, I am satisfied, based on what Director Freeh has told me to date and looking at the resources that are available in the FBI, that we can address this current caseload adequately, just looking at the classified——
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. So you are saying you are very sensitive to the problem and the growing magnitude of it; am I correct?
Attorney General RENO. That is correct. And again just for, if you will, accounting purposes, it has just never been broken out of white collar crime, and it will vary from white collar crime to infrastructure protection. I mean, we have to look at all of the resources that can focus on this as well.
FALSE CLAIMS ACT
Mr. REGULA. My last question or issue is the use of the False Claims Act to investigate medicare billing practices by hospitals. It has come to my attention that they make errors. There are 200,000 Medicare claims, 200,000 daily, 72 million every year, and it is an enormous paperwork burden on hospitals, and they do make some mistakes.
It seems to me there ought to be a de minimis threshold in terms of enforcing the False Claims Act, and I think what we have is a concern in our area is that sometimes this is used to gain elaborate settlements from hospitals, which are really unfair, because the billing practice was an honest mistake, and yet enforcement people say, pay up or else.
Attorney General RENO. I am very—I know a little bit about this issue, because I spoke recently with the American Hospital Association——
Mr. REGULA. Okay.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO [continuing]. And I explained to them that I don't want to be after anybody for an honest billing mistake.
The statute says, and I think it is a good standard, that if there is a reckless disregard of the truth or indifference—there has got to be that recklessness to it. And I think we should pursue those situations.
What I told them is, if anybody is pursuing an honest billing mistake, we have a process in the Department for making sure that people are heard and that we take steps to avert problems like that. I pledged to them open and continuous dialogue with the Association, and I want to do everything I can to make sure that people understand we are not after the honest billing error; but if somebody has all of the facts there, and they just turn a blind eye, I want no part of that.
This is very important to me, because I think health care fraud is one of the major issues that we face, and people have got to have confidence in the process. So if you have any specifics, I would welcome the opportunity to follow up on them.
Mr. REGULA. Well, I think you are clearly saying you are sensitive to the problem.
Attorney General RENO. I would like to be just more than sensitive to the problem. The Chairman would say, she sometimes says she is sensitive to the problem, and then what does she do about it?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. REGULA. But you are trying to make sure that it is not unfairly enforced?
Attorney General RENO. The important thing for me is to get the word out. If you think it is being unfairly enforced, let us know. If you get stonewalled by a U.S. Attorney, let me know, so that we can follow up and address the problem, sit down with the industry and look at it.
They may say, look, it looks to you like it is a reckless disregard, but here are accounting procedures that confuse the issue. There may be explanations. We have to have an open dialogue so that it can be considered.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you.
Mr. ROGERS. Madam Attorney General, it is approaching the noon hour. I have a number of matters I need to take up with you, and I will try to do it as briefly as we can. Is that agreeable?
Attorney General RENO. I am here for as long as you want me, Mr. Chairman.
IMMIGRATION INVESTIGATION
Mr. ROGERS. Well, I want you here as long as we can keep you, but I want to get you out of here at a reasonable hour. I want to quickly, if we can, as quickly as we can do this, discuss with you the Citizenship USA and INS.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
You and I share, I think, along with a lot of other people, the conviction that we need to be sure that the granting of U.S. citizenship, the most valuable thing this country can give someone, is protected as much as can be possible. Now, the Citizenship USA in 1996 was an absolute—''disaster'' is not the word for it.
Attorney General RENO. ''Catastrophe.''
Mr. ROGERS. ''Catastrophe.'' And I hate to go back and stir in the barnyard about this, but we have to, because there are a number of problems that are still on board resulting from that.
The audit that KPMG Peat Marwick did drew the following conclusions: INS did not have enough information to determine whether they were naturalizing people with criminal histories to bar their citizenship. They did not even review whether certain statutory requirements for naturalization were met in these cases, including permanent residency in the U.S. for 5 years; passage of history, civics, English tests and the like. Their procedures were inconsistent regarding other naturalization criteria pending deportation orders or proceedings and, quote, ''good moral character requirements.''
In April of 1997 a second audit report by that agency found that INS was not following its new naturalization quality procedures, which the Attorney General and the director of the agency put in place; they still wouldn't do it, concluding that it was probable that criminals were continuing to be naturalized. Twenty-three out of 24 INS field offices were not in compliance with the procedures after we hammered you and you hammered them. At that point, you then took over the naturalization program and you installed Bob Bratt, a career official, as the head of naturalization operations.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
A followup report in December of 1997, they had made significant improvements in internal controls, but still four out of 24 failed a review of field offices.
Three weeks ago, KPMG issued its findings on a sample of case reviews that it conducted to determine the extent to which naturalization applications were correctly processed during the Citizenship USA period. They found, Madam Attorney General, the auditors found that 90.8 percent of the cases they sampled contained at least 1 error, most prevalent of which was the lack of evidence that a fingerprint card was sent to the FBI, nine out of ten. That is an adequate sample to project the processing errors for the total of 1.05 million cases. It can be assumed that 920,733 cases had insufficient documentation to support a naturalization decision under the law and under procedures of the Department.
They also found that 38,845 cases can be projected to have been, quote, ''presumptively ineligible to receive naturalization''; that is, they did not fulfill their residency requirement, didn't pass the tests they have to pass, had criminal records, didn't have good moral character, what have you. That doesn't even factor in the fraudulent testing that was later found just a few weeks ago. It is abysmal.
As you know, I have been on this subcommittee 15 years as a member of the Minority, as Ranking Minority member and now as Chairman. I have wrestled with INS and the problems they have had, as have the Justice Department and tons of other people for all of these years. I have come to the conclusion that with all of these things that keep piling on top of themselves and the money we throw at this agency—we have absolutely flooded them with money and personnel to no avail; it just seems to get worse and worse as time goes on.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am convinced now that the agency is unmanageable, which I tend to believe, because I think the missions of the INS are contradictory. On the one hand, they are supposed to grant privileges and rights to immigrants, and on the other hand, they are supposed to punish immigrants. I don't see how they can—anyone can administer that kind of a conflicting mission. Either it is unmanageable or we have never had anybody who can manage that agency, and I doubt that there ever can be. Consequently, I have concluded that we must do something drastic.
And I know the Attorney General is concerned about this and has been ever since she has been the Attorney General, and rightfully so, as has all of the Department. We will probably differ on how we look at a remedy to the INS problem, but I, after 15 years, have concluded that it is unsalvageable, that we may as well start afresh.
I have looked over the Barbara Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform report in some detail. I have conferred with several Members here who have expertise in this field, and I have concluded that the Barbara Jordan Commission is 99 percent on track. It is not a perfect answer, but it seems to me that it is the best that we have.
Let me ask you what you think about the Barbara Jordan Commission findings? And I know you are due us a report in April on how you think we should reorganize INS, but could I ask you what you think about the Barbara Jordan findings?
Attorney General RENO. I have reviewed the report, and I have met with representatives from the Commission. I have talked to people, talked to people at INS, talked to people who—such as you and other Members of Congress, trying to keep an open mind, because the one thing I did when I came to Washington was promise myself I didn't want to worry about turf. If there was a part of the Justice Department that could be more effective someplace else, so be it. If there was something that we should do, we would do it, but we wouldn't do it because we wanted somebody else's turf. So I started looking at it and went into it with an open mind.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I have concluded—because the questions I asked of people were, how would the other agencies do it better? And basically, Mr. Chairman, I come down to the conclusion—and you have just given me some hope, because I think I have been here almost 5 years and I sometimes think, well, I haven't seen enough changes, but if you tell me that for the 10 years before I got here there was a big problem, then I will tell you that I sure inherited a big problem.
I inherited an agency that didn't have either the personnel or the management infrastructure to do the job, an agency that didn't have the automation and the technology. I saw an agency grow tremendously. I watched it face a peso crisis that it had no control over. I watched it become responsible for a new law and implementing a new law.
And in many instances, it has done a remarkable job. In other situations—and I have shared my feelings about this situation with you—there is more to do. But my—the Administration, through the Domestic Policy Council, has brought the agencies that are affected together and basically concluded that it doesn't solve any problem to split something up. The problem is to fix it, and we are in the process of trying to fix it and trying to present to you a thoughtful report.
Wait just a minute, Mr. Chairman. Hear me out just a little bit, please, sir.
One of the things that has impressed me, you have—I mean, from almost the first time I came to talk to you, you talked about the need for accountability and for responsibility, and it has been very frustrating to me to see a situation coming from Washington out to a regional office down to a district commander to a Border Patrol chief, with the Border Patrol chief up here in Washington.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
What we are trying to do as we focus on this is to remember your words and create something that has a direct line of authority in enforcement. As you point out, there are two roles here; there is enforcement and there is service, and a direct line of authority and accountability in the service function, but with the recognition that there are tie-ins to the two—that the two, in terms of information exchange and the like, could benefit from a well-constructed system of automation, and that is one of our challenges.
We, as you know, retained Booz Allen, we are looking at it and trying to explore all the aspects of it, but I look forward to presenting you a report and to discussing with you something that—you were one of the first people to point out to me the need for accountability in the two lines of responsibility of this service.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, you have had 6 years.
Attorney General RENO. Five.
Mr. ROGERS. Five.
Attorney General RENO. I am not going to be here for ten, so let's just see how we work this one out.
Mr. ROGERS. Well, you have had 5 years to wrestle with this thing—I mean—and you have wrestled.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Attorney General RENO. You didn't do it in 10 years before, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS. I didn't have Attorneys General who were as dedicated to cleaning up INS as you are.
But the problem certainly existed before you got here; I am not blaming you for the problem. I think we can begin to assign some degree of responsibility, now that you have been here 5 years, for getting it cleaned up; and let me just cite you some facts and figures.
We have thrown money at the agency since 1995. As I have sat in this chair, the INS budget has grown by 84 percent. We have given them $1.7 billion more than they had before. We have provided increases to INS of over $500 million each year in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Most of the positive changes that have occurred there, in fact, over the last 4 years, are largely a product of its growth in resources, not a result of any better management. So they can't say that they don't have the money.
Regardless of those funding increases, we have seen no evidence that they can handle the responsibilities. There are still 5 million illegal immigrants now living in the U.S.—the same peak level we saw 3 years ago, 2 years ago—growing at the same rate each year, regardless of the number of resources we throw at them, regardless of the number of Border Patrol and better technology we throw at the agency. We can't be assured that the border is any more under control now than it was 4 years ago, despite the fact that we have added 2,700 more Border Patrol agents—an increase of 60 percent, and no improvement.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Then we have Citizenship USA, corrupting America's naturalization process, giving away American citizenship for whatever reason, giving it away in a corrupt way. Mission overload, lack of management oversight, even you admit that you had to take over the agency, and you did, rightfully so; Steve Colgate taking over management of the naturalization process, installing Bob Bratt to fix problems resulting from that. But for that, I think you would still be floundering, trying to make the changes to the naturalization process that got us in the fix before. Little, if any, accountability.
And I cite you the deception of a congressional task force, itself, during a visit to Miami during that Citizenship USA program, that were purposefully misled by agency employees with very little punishment meted out by the agency. I could go on. I mean, there are, as you know, dozens of examples that we could rehash here about the failure of that agency.
Of all of the agencies that we appropriate on this subcommittee in three major departments of the government, plus most of the independent agencies, plus the international organizations that we appropriate for—U.N., OAS, and so on, hundreds of those—of all of the agencies that we have to deal with, including the dozens in the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce, no agency that we deal with is as inept and unmanaged and out of control and not carrying out their responsibility, valuable though it is, as is INS. I do not intend to let that continue on my watch.
Now, you and the White House and the Administration can do what you want, but I am going to try to get the Congress to make a drastic change, admitting that INS cannot do the job and following the lead of the Barbara Jordan Commission, which spent 2 years with experts focusing just on this question in an unbiased, unfettered way. No one attempted to influence their opinion. I don't agree with the philosophy of a good number of those Commission members, but I do agree that they focused intently and that they came up with a sensible recommendation.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Out here on the border of our country we have eight or ten agencies. The Department of Labor is out there checking for violations of illegal aliens coming to work. The Department of Justice, of course, is there, the Border Patrol, INS, to protect us against illegals getting in the country. The DEA is there protecting against drugs. The FBI is there protecting against criminals. The Department of Agriculture is there to look after, that we are not getting improper agricultural products in.
One can look under the hood, but they can't look in the back seat. One can look in the trunk, but not under the hood. One can look in the car, but not over the top of the trailer or whatever. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Not only are we wasting money, we are wasting the time of the people trying to come and go in a legitimate fashion.
There should be one border agency, in my opinion. I would like to see it under the Department of Justice, where it should be, and that is what I intend to see. But there should be one agency with one person who can look under the hood, in the trunk and under the car and on the roof and everything else without having to call in somebody else from afar. I think it is absolutely ludicrous, it is silly, it is funny, it is tragic.
Because it is not working, drug importations are on the increase out of Mexico. Illegal aliens continue to flood the country and live here. We are not deporting people who have been improperly naturalized. It is in a mess, and the people know it is in a mess, and they want something done.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
We have given you 5-plus years. You have not done it. You have tried. And I am saying to you, I don't think anybody could have done it. I am not blaming you for that. I think it is an impossible job for one agency to do. So I would hope that you would consider that as you consider your recommendations, knowing that on the Hill there is deep sentiment about getting something done, whatever it takes.
Attorney General RENO. I know how strongly you feel, and I feel just as strongly. This has probably taken as much of my time as anything else.
Mr. ROGERS. I know it has.
Attorney General RENO. You know that I care a great deal about it. But I have also watched an agency face tremendous challenges. Not just the peso crisis, but I watched an agency come to grips with the fact that right as it was facing so many other challenges—Colombian transportation chains from other parts of the country to come through Mexico; and the Border Patrol that does an extraordinary job for this Nation, Mr. Chairman, day in and day out, faced new responsibilities.
As they put the pressure on the border and at the ports of entry, alien smugglers, who were mean, vicious thugs, started smuggling people as well as drugs, and they faced that; and they faced more danger than they have faced in previous years because of these pressures, because of their successes.
When we came into office, there was nothing—I remember being down on the border in August of 1993 in San Diego. There was no organization, there was nothing. I watched an agency get organized with Operation Gatekeeper and make that California border become a different place. I watched fences being strategically placed. But I have also been down the lengths of that border from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, and I know how long and lonely it is. And it is not something that can be done overnight, but I have watched success in El Paso, and we have to do more.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
There is so much that we must do along the border, not just with respect to additional resources in those areas that have not yet had their share of resources allocated, but in the sense of the Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute cases that local prosecutors are throwing up their hands at because the situation is difficult.
I listened to you, and I haven't taken over INS. Doris Meissner does one great job under the most difficult circumstances, one good thing even with me and with you and working with us.
Mr. ROGERS. I admit that.
Attorney General RENO. I don't know whether you have had the chance to meet her new deputy commissioner, but I think we should all come talk to you, not to persuade you, but you have new leadership on board, fresh leadership. You have some great, strong people there and you have a cadre of pe