What type of grant is given to a state by the federal government that can be used to fund programs of the states choosing group of answer choices?

Page 2

tation or development of 203 affordable rental units and 37 new homes in the demonstration area.

QUESTION: In the absence of any substantial Seed funding, do you still believe it to be a wise use of money to continue to fund the Weed part of the program?

ANSWER: since 1991, approximately $26 million has been provided from Department of Justice funds to establish and maintain Weed and seed demonstration sites. This relatively small investment has resulted in the provision of an even greater amount of Seed resources from other Federal agencies and, as indicated in the preceding answer, substantial contributions from State and local governments and the private sector. I continue to support the Weed and Seed program and will endeavor to make sure that the concept of Weed and Seed is implemented in a fair and balanced way throughout America. My support of this program and that of the Administration is based on its comprehensive, coordinated approach that integrates law enforcement and social revitalization. It is important to coordinate law enforcement and neighborhood revitalization efforts so that each reinforces the other--for social revitalization efforts cannot work where they are undermined by crime and where people are afraid to take advantage of them.

Departmental Authority to Release Prisoners

QUESTION: An example of added responsibilities is the Federal prisoner population, which has tripled from 26,000 to over 75,000 since 1981.

Is it true that sentencing Guidelines and minimum mandatory sentences prevent you from releasing inmates prior to completion of their sentence for any reason whatsoever?

ANSWER: The Director of the Bureau of Prisons may now petition the courts for early release of inmates in extraordinary and compelling circumstances such terminal illness (18 U.S.C.S 3582 (C)) and may petition to change parole eligibility for those circumstances (18 U.S.C. S 4205 (9)). In fact, the Bureau has exercised those options approximately 12 times in the past year.

QUESTION: Do you believe the Attorney General or the Director of the Federal Prison System should have the ability to release prisoners for good reason, especially if it helps to relieve overcrowding?

ANSWER: No, the existing relationship with petition to the Courts is adequate. However, I want to work with the Sentencing Commission members, who I believe will be sensitive to this issue, and to explore legislative options to increase early release provisions.

QUESTION: Does any of the legislation being proposed for a future crime bill contain any language to give you such authority to release prisoners?

ANSWER: We are not aware of legislation that provides such authority.

Law Enforcement Grants to States

QUESTION: There are a number of different appropriation requests before the Congress to fund grants to states for additional police officers. There is $200 million for 1993 in the President's revised Economic stimulus Package (to be administered by HUD), $50 million in the Justice Department's 1994 request to be administered by you, and $500 million for 1994 under the Community Investment Program with no identified administrator. There is also another $50 million under Justice for Police Corps scholarships and Brady Bill implementation. Are you coordinating this "Cops on the Beat" program for the Administration, and can you explain the overall plan? These new grant programs are not authorized. Can you tell us the status of proposed legislation?

How much will these various programs cost over the next 5 years?

Why are the funds requested for Federal/State Partnerships in a separate appropriation account, instead of under the office of Justice Programs, which normally administers state and local grant programs for the Department?

Does the separate appropriation indicate that you will have to establish a new/separate management structure, and is this not an inefficient and costly way of doing business?

How will you ensure there is no duplication of state and local programs? ANSWER: The Administration's proposal for improving public safety spans several agencies and appropriations; however, the Department of Justice will be the primary coordinator for all of the new policing programs and implementation of the Brady Bill. At the time of this response, 1993 supplemental request for $200 million which will be administered by Justice through the discretionary portion of the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program. These funds will be awarded to States and localities to increase the number of sworn officers directly interacting with the public and to promote community oriented policing practices. Another facet of the program will be the utilization of $500 million from the Community Investment Program which will be authorized by the Economic Empowerment Act of 1993. These funds will also be administered by Justice and will be utilized for the policing programs that the Department is in the process of designing. A Departmental working group is currently reviewing options for how a program (or programs) to support policing could be implemented and administered. The group's considerations include the needs of State and local governments, input from research organizations and police associations, and other factors that are required for good public policy. When the working group has completed its recommendations, I will review the options and decide which program alternatives will be included in Title I of the Administration's Crime Bill. The bill should be transmitted to Congress by the end of May.

The cost of any Federally-sponsored policing programs, both in terms of the cost to the Federal Government, as well as the cost to State and local governments, is an important factor in determining which program alternatives will be chosen by the Department. To keep Federal costs to a minimum, there will not be

or separate management structure established to oversee the policing programs. However, an adequate amount of resources will be directed for the purpose of administration and evaluation in order to ensure that the grants are used appropriately and that the Federal program does not duplicate the efforts of other governments. Once the final program determinations have been made, outyear spending projections will be calculated and provided to you.

QUESTION: We have been providing formula block grants to the states to improve anti-drug law enforcement since 1988, with 1993 funded at over $400 million. Considering the budgetary constraints we must operate under this year, if you had to choose between continuing the current grant program at existing levels, or reducing them enough to fund the new grants for Federal/State Partnerships, which would you choose? ANSWER: To be asked to choose between funding grants that have become part of the lifeline in the war on drugs and funding new programs that could revolutionize policing in this country and improve the quality of life for Americans is an untenable position. The priorities of this Administration are clear when it comes to the issues of reducing violence and crime and improving the quality of life for Americans. There can be no choice between funding to fight the problems created by drugs, and funding the programs that I will present in greater detail in the near future that will improve policing in this country.

Juvenile Justice QUESTION: The historic focus of Federal Juvenile Justice programs has been more towards the removal of juveniles from adult facilities and less towards decreasing juvenile delinquency. Do you believe this program requires a new direction?

ANSWER: The Formula Grant Program of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has been very effective in addressing the serious national problem of holding juveniles in adult jails and lockups. However, the most recent monitoring data available (1990) from the States

reveal that only 5 States and 4 Territories held no juveniles in adult jails/lockups. Thirty-one were in full compliance with de minimis exceptions, i.e., less than 9 per 100,000 juvenile population in the State, and 9 States are seriously out of compliance with the jail removal requirements. Data on the remaining States and Territories are not complete or not yet due because those jurisdictions only recently began participating in the Program. Raw numbers supporting the compliance data reveal that in 1990, 23,131 juveniles were confined in adult jails and lockups figure that is still much too high. The OJJDP, through its Formula Grant Program, must continue to work to reduce these numbers and to prevent backsliding by those states that have reached compliance with the requirements of the JJDP Act. It is time, however, to look beyond jail removal and to support a national strategy to prevent juvenile delinquency. OJJDP does not require a new direction, but should enhance its programs by undertaking efforts to encourage States to implement programs designed to reduce juvenile delinquency. Also, OJJDP and the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention should collaborate to put into place a national partnership among Federal programs serving children to specifically target young children at risk of delinquency. We must not wait until children are in their teens to address problems, such as low educational achievement and lack of equal opportunity, that so often result in their being unable to compete in our society and become productive citizens.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN CARR

QUESTION: During the past several years this committee has supported the work of the National Crime Prevention Council, a public-private organization working to establish a program that reduces crime through citizen and community partnerships with law enforcement, schools, religious institutions, service organizations and municipal officials. They also reach children with crime and drug prevention messages using "McGruff, the dog", our nation's crime prevention symbol. will the Department continue to support efforts to promote citizen and community-based solutions to crime?

ANSWER: The proposals contained in the Federal/State Partnership budget are a clear indication that the Administration is committed to community-based solutions to crime. The continued funding for the Office of Justice Programs and the Weed and Seed Program reinforce the Administration's determination to promote

citizen and community-based efforts. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) plans to continue the National citizens Crime Prevention Campaign in 1994, with an allocation of $2 million from the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grant Program funds, as reflected in the 1994 budget request. The Campaign has been a very important part of BJA's efforts to prevent crime and drug abuse, and to encourage a partnership between law enforcement and the community in reducing crime. In fact, BJA and its predecessor agency have awarded over $20 million to the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to implement the campaign. In addition, nearly $6 million was provided to NCPC to implement related activities, such as the Community Drug Abuse Prevention Initiatives. BJA has been a leader in developing community-based programs through which criminal justice agencies work jointly with the community to address the causes of crime, violence and drug abuse. Descriptions are provided for a number of BJA'S current Discretionary Grant Program efforts that are designed to promote citizen and community-based solutions to crime:

In order to establish an understanding of community-oriented policing and the elements needed to implement it effectively, BJA has developed prototype for comprehensive Community Oriented Policing (COP) program. BJA established

consortium of the four primary professional police organizations that have had experience with COP: the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Police Foundation (PF), the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), and the National Sheriff's Association (NSA). The

Page 3

consortium developed a prototype, as well as a technical assistance plan and training curriculum, to support implementation at the local level. BJA plans to award grants this summer to four local jurisdictions to implement the prototype. These four jurisdictions will be selected on the pasis of their willingness to experiment with organizational change. An additional four sites are planned for FY 1994 and this effort could be expanded to more sites with increased funding.

BJA is also expanding the COP concept to other elements of the criminal justice system. A Community Oriented Prosecutions Program has been initiated in Kings County, New York, and BJA has provided funding for four sites under the Corrections Options Program that in many ways can be considered Community oriented corrections. ultimately, BJA intends to combine all of these initiatives into a broadbased, community oriented criminal justice system.

Innovative-Neighborhood Policing

Building upon the success of BJA'S Systems Approach and the Problem oriented Approaches

to

Narcotics Enforcement Demonstrations, BJA funded eight jurisdictions in November 1990 as Innovative Neighborhood oriented Policing (INOP) demonstration sites. The INOP approach fosters communityoriented policing and drug demand reduction at the neighborhood level. It re-orients police work away from reactive incident-handling toward more substantive problem solving. The process includes a major focus on community engagement and partnerships between law

enforcement, other city agencies, and the community. In 1992, police departments in four small jurisdictions received grants to test the applicability of neighborhood-oriented policing to rural areas. A Program Planning Guide was developed to assist the participating rural jurisdictions with implementation of the program.

Weed and Seed is a comprehensive, multi-agency approach to combatting violent crime, drug use, and gang activity in high-crime neighborhoods. The goal is to "weed out" crime from targeted neighborhoods and then to prevent crime from recurring by "seeding" the sites with a wide range of crime and drug prevention programs, human service resources, and community involvement. The implementation of community policing is a key element of the strategy. The program uses Federal funds to leverage significant public and private resources in order to focus criminal justice, social service and neighborhood revitalization resources in the demonstration areas. In 1992, Federal funding was provided by the U.S. Attorneys and BJA. In 1993, funds are provided by the Executive Office for Weed and seed and BJA. In addition to administering the grant program, BJA played a leading role in the development of the program guidelines, site development, and an implementation manual. Law enforcement, other government agencies at all levels, private sector organizations, and the residents of the 20 Weed and seed sites are building relationships and cooperatively addressing issues and problems.

Community Drug Abuse Prevention Initiatives The ten demonstration sites participating in the Community Responses to Drug Abuse (CRDA) Program have increased public awareness about drugs, mobilized local residents, improved police-community partnerships, and established drug-free school zones. This program and the Teens as Resources Against Drugs Program, described below, are both components of the Community Drug Abuse Prevention Initiatives, administered by the National Crime Prevention Council. The goal of CRDA is to develop and test effective community-wide strategies that local groups can implement to reduce drug abuse and fear in targeted communities. Each site identified the primary crime and drug problems in their community and established a task force to address them. Collective events, such as rallies, marches, and conferences were used by most sites to raise public awareness of the drug problem and mobilize local residents. Safety issues were addressed immediately: The development of police/community partnerships facilitated the identification of drug "hot spots" and the closing of drug houses.

Strategic Intervention for High Risk Youth

To implement the Strategic Intervention for High Risk Youth Program, BJA formed public-private partnership with Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, and the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. A joint effort was funded to test an intervention strategy for reducing and controlling illegal drugs and related crime and fostering healthy development among youth from drug and crime-ridden neighborhoods. Program guidelines were issued, and demonstration grants were awarded to Bridgeport, Connecticut; Seattle, Washington; Memphis, Tennessee; and Austin, Texas. Savannah, Georgia, and Newark, New Jersey, will be added as demonstration sites in 1993. The initial sites have started implementing community- oriented policing and prevention/intervention projects to deter drug abuse and delinquency, focusing on youths aged 11 to 13.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Program

Over 12 million elementary and junior high students in the United States received DARE training in school year 1992-93. The DARE Program teaches ways to resist peer pressure to experiment with and use drugs to K-12 grade students, with special emphasis on fifth and sixth grades. It is taught by over 14,500 law enforcement officers who have been trained by or with the assistance of the five BJA-supported DARE Regional Training Centers. DARE Parent Program Training Seminars provide an additional 36 hours of training for DARE instructors that have been selected to assist parents in helping their children remain drug free. DARE involves local police officers in a program to teach children the skills needed to recognize and resist the subtle and overt pressures that cause them to experiment with drugs and alcohol. DARE also teaches children about the penalties that society will impose for drug use.

Boys and Girls Clubs Demonstration Program

The goals of this program are to expand the number of Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing, and to build a system of networking and referral that provides youth living in public housing access to comprehensive children's services.

Many public housing projects in this country are located in crime and drug-ridden neighborhoods. Children residing in these projects typically have few opportunities to engage in organized recreational, educational, sports, social, vocational activities outside of school. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Inc., has undertaken this major effort to provide the youth who live in public housing with opportunities to participate in productive activities. An evaluation of past efforts showed that youth in public housing who participate in Boys and Girls Clubs become more involved in after-school activities that reduce the risk of involvement in delinquent behavior and drug abuse. Twelve new clubs have been established, and programming has been enhanced in eight additional clubs.

Wings of Hope Anti-Drug Program

The Wings of Hope Anti-Drug Program is a grassroots coalition and partnership-building effort involving law enforcement, public and private service providers, public housing, churches, businesses, schools, residents, and youth. It is a multi-faceted effort to rebuild culturally diverse inner city neighborhoods by providing education, treatment, and a multitude of other resources to combat crime, violence, and illicit drug use. The program, which is administered by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, strives to better educate communities about drug prevention awareness, the importance of family, and community well-being. The program is also designed to mobilize and better coordinate efforts among minority residents, churches, businesses, and service providers; and to create safer communities through the further development of Neighborhood Watch and other innovations that enhance the safety of public housing projects and inner city neighborhoods. The model is being demonstrated in

five communities of the greater Atlanta (Georgia) metropolitan area. In 1993, the program will be expanded to include up to 12 additional demonstration sites.

National Town Watch Crime and Drug Prevention Campaign

A record 25.2 million people in over 8,500 cities and towns took part in the National Night Out on August 4, 1992. The year-long crime and drug prevention campaign culminated in police-community celebrations that included parades, vigils, and neighborhood block parties. The purpose of the campaign is to provide information, materials, and technical assistance for the development of both neighborhood partnerships and innovative community-based demonstrations to reduce crime, violence, and substance use. First launched in 1984 by the National Association of Town Watch (NATW), the program initially involved just 400 communities. Now people from all States, U.S. territories, and many U.S. military bases around the world participate in the program. Once considered a special event, National Night Out has evolved into a year-long effort of coalition-building to empower people to build proactive partnerships with law enforcement agencies, other service providers, businesses and schools to prevent crime and the spread of illicit drugs. BJA is one of several sponsors of the National Night Out. Communities in Action to Prevent Drug Abuse

The Communities in Action to Prevent Drug Abuse Program, being implemented in 12 cities, is designed to educate, organize, and motivate community representatives to develop and establish innovative, community-based strategies to:

reduce crime, violence, and the use of illicit drugs; improve working relationships among all elements of the community;

encourage the acceptance and practice of community policing by local law enforcement agencies; and

document the impact of successful program strategies.

Neighborhood Crime and Drug Abuse Prevention

The Neighborhood crime and Drug Abuse Prevention Program is demonstrating strategies in five sites to resolve problems directly associated with crime, violence, and illicit drug use in high-crime, impoverished neighborhoods. The strategies are implemented through police/community partnerships involving service providers, businesses, community organizations, and citizens, including youth. The program is designed to: reduce the number of at-risk youth in defined neighborhood, establish alternatives

gang membership, develop a community environment conducive to economic growth, and promote community and problem-oriented policing techniques. This program is administered by the Eisenhower Foundation.

QUESTION: I am pleased to see that the Juvenile Justice program has received support from this Administration, the same funding levels as

last year.

This committee has continually supported this program in past years it has received little support from previous Administrations.

Do you feel that this funding level is enough? your request to OMB?

ANSWER: I am very supportive of Federal funding for Juvenile Justice and delinquency Programs. I believe this is one area in which it is essential that the Department provide Federal leadership. For 1994, I am requesting $73,450,000 for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) program, the same level as provided in 1993. However, as with other Department programs, I am closely reviewing the current objectives of the OJJDP program to determine whether changes are needed to address the problems of juvenile crime more effectively.

Rules of Ethics

QUESTION: In Michigan, all lawyers are governed by the Rules of Ethics promulgated by the Michigan State Bar. As such, all lawyers are subject to the disciplinary authority of the Michigan Bar. Last year, Justice promulgated regulations which were never finalized – which purported to exempt federal prosecutors from state Ethics Rules and from state disciplinary proceedings. How do you plan to address these regulations? ANSWER: I am advised by the Department's Designated Agency Ethics Official that the application of bar professional standards to our lawyers, is an issue that he would like to address later this year when we issue the Department's new standards of conduct to supplement the Executive Branch standards recently promulgated by the office of Government Ethics. He advises me that the Department's standards of Conduct (28 CFR Part 45) traditionally have addressed the application of bar rules to our attorneys, and that our new supplemental standards should do the same. While I have not yet received his specific recommendations, I will consider the issue thoroughly when we promulgate our supplemental regulations.

SEARCH Program

QUESTION: The SEARCH program is excellent program, serving many communities around the country, including my State of Michigan, and assisting local law enforcement agencies in assuring that vital information systems operate effectively and compatibly on a national basis. This vital infrastructure program returns the investment many times over by freeing up sworn personnel for service in their communities. This program is funded through the Bureau of Justice Assistance under their discretionary program and has received rave reviews. In the President's state of the Union address he identified five criminal justice priorities • one of them was a $25 million criminal records upgrade program. I certainly hope that as a part of that there will be additional and adequate funding for the National Technical Assistance and Training program operated by SEARCH.

Page 4

ANSWER: The SEARCH National Technical Assistance and Training Program is currently funded by the BJA, under the Byrne Edward Discretionary Grant Program. The Department has had a long and extremely successful relationship with SEARCH and its National Technical Assistance and Training Program. We agree with you that the Program has been quite effective in providing information systems infrastructure support to State and local criminal justice agencies throughout the nation. In particular, BJA has worked closely with SEARCH, through a cooperative agreement, in managing this program. Indeed, in 1993, BJA increased the Congressional earmark of $650,000 for the National Technical Assistance and Training Program earmark by an additional $125,000.

BJA, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), and other DOJ agencies work closely with SEARCH on numerous other projects aimed at improving the use of information technology for criminal justice. Indeed, the expressed statutory missions of both BJA and BJS include important information policy and systems missions that SEARCH has helped implement over the last two decades.

As you know, the President has identified the upgrade of criminal records as one of his criminal justice priorities. The Department of Justice fully supports that priority and intends to continue its Federal/State partnership with SEARCH and SEARCH's fifty governor appointees in an effort to improve and upgrade the Nation's criminal justice records systems.

QUESTION: In my District, which includes Flint Township in Genessee County, Michigan, a significant problem arises where youth gangs congregate and crime exists some of this is around shopping mall areas. Flint has proposed a multijurisdictional task force approach to connect their law enforcement and human service delivery networks to fight crime and improve the quality of life for its citizens and has formally applied to the Bureau of Justice Assistance for some help.

How will the Department address the problem of gang violence in our nation's communities?

ANSWER: office of Justice Programs. The issue of gangs involved in drug trafficking and related violent crime has been, and continues to be a major priority of BJA program efforts. The phenomenon of urban street gang involvement in drug trafficking and its attendant violent crime is becoming increasingly widespread. These gangs are generally formed around a specific ethnic or cultural orientation, and thus pose very difficult operational problems for law enforcement. We know through BJA funded efforts, well as efforts funded by other Office of Justice Programs (OJP) agencies that, while these gangs tend to exploit youths in their operations, the true core gang members are generally

young adults from 18 to about 25 years of age. A description of BJA's current gang-related activities follows: The Urban Street Gang Drug Trafficking Enforcement Program is developing and demonstrating city-wide or multijurisdictional enforcement strategies for the investigation and prosecution of drug distribution and related violent crimes by organized urban street gangs. The program targets influential and controlling gang members in cities or multiple contiguous jurisdictions with populations in excess of 250,000. Since 1989, grants awarded for this program have totalled $2,120,000. A model approach/prototype being developed under this program will be of benefit to all urban jurisdictions nationwide that face the problem of emerging or chronic street gangs engaged in drug trafficking. In 1992, BJA introduced the Comprehensive Gang Initiative. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) was awarded a $625,000 grant to develop a model comprehensive approach to gang issues, which carefully balances initiatives for prevention, intervention and suppression. The model will encompass strategies that bring together cooperative and coordinated efforts of the police, other criminal justice agencies, human services providers and community programs. Concurrent with development of the model, PERF is also developing a training curriculum and a program for providing technical assistance to model demonstration sites. The first four demonstration sites will be funded during 1993, with awards totalling $1,300,000. Each of the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) projects has developed an internal gang database. Each project has assigned an analyst to work with the database and to conduct regional assessments of gang activity. This effort is supported through the annual RISS grant awards. No additional funds have been allocated to establish the database.

Another OJP bureau, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), will be supporting a program through the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) to prevent youth from being involved in gangs and to intervene with youth who are in the early stages of their involvement with gangs.

The Targeted Outreach with a Gang Component Program recruits high risk youth into the clubs, where they are provided recreational, tutorial, mentoring and family related services. Approximately 24 new cities will receive training and begin this program in 1993. OJJDP is also supporting a Gang and Drug Training Program through its training division. This training and technical assistance effort works with communities to assist them in identifying their gang problems and to develop action plans to address these problems. A team of key leaders from each community participates in a week-long training program to help them identify and then develop action plans to respond to their gang problems. Technical assistance is also provided to assist communities with the establishment of community coalitions to address the gang problem and to resolve other problems as they arise.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Gang related violent crime, a problem plaguing metropolitan areas from coast to coast, is being addressed as a national priority by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI is the principal Federal agency charged with investigation of gang violence and in January 1992, the FBI implemented its Safe Streets violent crime initiative to address this criminal problem. The Safe Streets initiative focuses on gangrelated violence through the establishment of FBI led, multi-agency task forces utilizing innovative investigative techniques.

FBI task forces, teaming FBI agents with State and local police, have focussed on violent youth gangs who have been assaulting neighborhoods with home invasions, armed robberies of convenience stores, carjackings and other crimes of violence. One such task force, focussed on a very violent gang of 10 youths, ages 16 to 20. The investigation lead to Federal indictments and prosecution of the members, with the juvenile participants being certified as adults. The 17year old leader of that group plead to Federal charges resulting in a 39-year prison sentence. We believe, the application of stiff Federal penalties sent a severe message to other youthful offenders and law enforcement officials in that area also believe the task force has had a positive impact on their violent gang crime problem.

Within the FBI's Detroit field office, two very successful Safe Streets Task Forces targeting violent fugitives are operational One of these task forces teams the FBI with the Grand Rapids, Kentwood, and Wyoming Police Departments, the Michigan State Police and the Kent County Sheriff's Department. The other teams the FBI with the Wayne County Sheriff's office, the Michigan Department of Corrections and the Michigan State Police. During 1992, within the Detroit FBI field office's Violent Crime and Major offender Program, 452 subjects

arrested and recoveries/restitutions totaled $3,118,954.

Drug Enforcement Administration. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has substantial programs to encourage and assist cooperative law enforcement efforts against gangs at the local, regional, and national level. For example, DEA's Task Force program has task forces in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Seattle, targeting gang drug activity. DEA also initiated several special enforcement operations at DEA Headquarters against gang drug activity. They have established specific investigative units to investigate drug related homicides in Miami, Washington, D.C., and New York that are mostly gang related. DEA also extensively participates in the organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force program, which is directed at high level traffickers that include identified gang members and organizations.

Crisis in Funding for Indigent Defense QUESTION: Are you aware of the crisis funding for indigent defendants that has existed for several years? Federal funding to pay panel attorneys is exhausted each year, forcing attorneys to wait months to be paid for their work. In Michigan, in the 6th circuit, the judges are cutting by 25 percent or more the pre-approved vouchers filed by panel attorneys representing indigent defendants in Michigan. Thus, any attorney representing an indigent defendant in Michigan is not even being paid the $40 out of court and the $60 in court fee that is the going rate.

What effect, if any do you think this recurring situation has on the quality of justice being rendered indigent defendants in the state of Michigan, for example?

ANSWER: I am aware of the shortfall with regard to funds available to pay court-appointed attorneys for indigent defendants. on March 31, 1992, Judge John F. Gerry, Chairman, Executive Committee, Judicial Conference, and L. Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), wrote me to seek my support regarding the Judiciary's need for an emergency supplemental. It is my understanding that in the short-term, during May, funds will be exhausted to pay court-appointed private counsel for defendants unable to afford representation. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. Eighty-five percent of criminal cases prosecuted in the Federal courts require the services of counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), either private attorneys or staff of federal defender organizations. Court-appointed private attorneys are responsible for approximately half of these cases.

If payments to court-appointed private attorneys cannot be made, attorneys may not be available to provide constitutionally mandated services. Consequently, criminal cases may be delayed even dismissed, releasing criminal defendants. However, I understand that the Judiciary is employing whatever means are available to it to encourage private counsel to continue to accept CJA appointments pending a decision on the supplemental funding. In the long-term, the AOUSC believes that there may be a negative impact on the Federal criminal justice system if private attorney payments are suspended for what will be the third year in a row. A suspension this year may test the limits of the private bar's willingness to continue to provide CJA services at rates which frequently provide less return than is necessary to sustain their practices. This may result

in courts being unable to recruit private attorneys for CJA assignments who possess the requisite training, experience and skill to provide representation in what have become increasingly complex Federal criminal matters. If this occurs, then the threat to the Federal criminal justice system occasioned by the current Defender Services appropriation shortfall will become an extended crisis.

Furthermore, the AOUSC suggests that arbitrarily reducing valid panel attorney vouchers by 25 percent can only further add to the burden facing the Federal criminal justice system discussed above. The difficulties of attracting qualified members of the private bar to handle these types of appointments would be further exacerbated. It is likely that the attorneys would not be able to continue to provide their services to the Federal courts and the justice system in general.

Obviously, this is unacceptable. Defendants must be represented by counsel,

and

adequate funding must be provided to those counsel.

The above response reiterates the concerns expressed to me by the Judiciary. The Department of Justice, of course, is concerned that all defendants should be fairly represented in court. However,

detailed information this subject should be obtained from the Judiciary.

Page 5

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN MOLLOHAN

QUBSTION: In your testimony you mentioned a number of funds you are requesting to prepare for the Brady Bill. could you outline this for the Subcommittee?

ANSWER: In 1994, the Department of Justice is requesting $25 million to support the requirements of the Brady Bill, of which $10 million will be used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to upgrade the national criminal records database. The remaining $15 million will be granted to the States, on a priority basis, to upgrade the State criminal records databases or to meet other requirements for full implementation of the Brady Bill.

Federal/State Partnerships

QUESTION: You mentioned in you testimony that the Justice Department and the White House "are developing the necessary legislation to implement comprehensive policing program" to reduce crime. Can you tell us more at ut this legislation? What is your timetable?

ANSWER: The Department of Justice is preparing legislation that will outline programs to enhance public safety, promote law enforcement interaction with citizens, and improve the quality of life for many Americans. I am currently reviewing various program options that have been formulated by a Departmental working group and will include the options that best serve the goals of this Administration in Title I of the Administration's Crime Bill, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of May.

QUESTION: Your budget request for the Weed and seed program for 1994 is $13.5 million, an increase of approximately $350,000. You mentioned in your testimony that when this amount is added to funds available though the office of Justice Programs, the Weed and seed program will receive $23.5 million. Could you please tell the subcommittee how you intend to use the budget increase? Also, could you tell us how the program is doing, and what problems, if any, you are having?

ANSWER: The appropriation of $13.15 million for 1993 represented only a portion of the funding needed to provide for the total annual requirements of existing sites. In 1994, the Weed and Seed Program Fund has a request for $13,492,000. In addition, there will be another $10 million provided through the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded by the Justice Assistance appropriation. This total of $23.5 million in Department of Justice funds will permit the continuation of this program in 20 or more sites. The bulk

of the funds would go for continuation grants to 20 existing funded sites. The remainder would be spent the development of training and technical assistance for the sites to support the core elements of the strategy: law enforcement coordination; community policing; social revitalization; and economic development. In addition, we envision that there could be some limited expansion in the number of funded sites, as well as support for the official recognition process that provides guidance and assistance for sites adopting the strategy their own. There continues to be a great deal of interest in the strategy, but we are managing to keep up with inquiries.

Increase for Support of Prisoners

QUESTION: What accounts for the increase for the United States Marshals Service's Support of Prisoners appropriation?

ANSWER: The 1994 budget request for the support of United States Prisoners (SUSP) appropriation is $356,884,000. The 1994 baseline is $268,884,000. This amount includes $238,670,470 for 4,281,085 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) jail days with State and local governments, and $30,213,530 for medical care, guards, and miscellaneous expenses.

The baseline amount exceeds the 1993 availability by only $459,000, which accounts for mandatory price increases. At this funding level, the United States Marshals Service could not accommodate any growth in its prisoner population, jail rates, or medical costs, all of which have grown dramatically over the past several years. In addition, prisoners' length of stay has increased dramatically since the 1987 implementation of the Sentencing Guidelines. The General Accounting Office recently confirmed that the median time between indictment and conviction rose 40 percent under the Guidelines, and the median time between conviction and sentencing rose 70 percent. In the 1994 budget request, $88,000,000 is identified as Investments to permit funding for 1,578, 475 additional IGA jail days. This represents an increase of 13.8 percent for estimated total detainee jail days and 10.4 percent for estimated IGA jail days. Federal jail day availability is projected to increase 21.3 percent in 1994; this number is inflated due to the loss of use of the Miami Metropolitan Detention Center during most of 1993 because of hurricane damage.

Quantico Training Facility

QUESTION: You mentioned in your testimony that you did not request funds in 1994 to proceed beyond the studies already underway for the Quantico Training Center. Where are you in terms of determining whether or not you intend to proceed on this facility?

ANSWER: My intention is to reevaluate the Department's short and mid-term training needs before making a decision on whether to attempt to secure additional funding for construction of the new training facility. This reassessment of training needs is not yet complete but should be finished before DOJ submits its 1995 budget request to the office of Management and Budget in the fall of 1993.

Sentencing Guidelines QUESTION: Would you agree that there is much additional expense for the courts as result of the sentencing guidelines?

ANSWER: Some cases that, traditionally, would have been filed in State court are now being brought in Federal court by various United States Attorney's offices to take advantages of the sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences. The impact of this is an increasing workload for the Federal court system and corresponding increases in costs to the courts. The magnitude of the expense involved would be extremely difficult to estimate.

QUESTION: Could you provide some statistics which show the number and type of

processed by State Attorneys General? Do you think a great many of these cases should be tried by lower courts? ANSWER: Short of polling each State individually, we know of no way to collect this information. The National Center for State Courts collects information on the filing and disposition of cases in State courts, but does not collect statistical data on the jurisdictional nature of cases filed.

FEES AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES

STEPHEN R. COLGATE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ADMINIS

TRATION MICHAEL J. ROPER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONTROL

LER ROBERT N. FORD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEBT COL

LECTION MANAGEMENT ROGER M. COOPER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, INFORMA

TION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ADRIAN A. CURTIS, DIRECTOR, BUDGET STAFF DAVID L. MILHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRA

TION REVIEW STEPHEN H. GREENE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT

ADMINISTRATION ANTHONY E. DANIELS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TRAINING DIVISION, FED

ERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION EUGENE L. COON, CHIEF, WITNESS SECURITY DIVISION, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE

Mr. MORAN (presiding]. Good morning.

This morning, we hear testimomy concerning appropriations requests for General Administration, Fees and Expenses of Witnesses, and the Quantico Training Center. For fiscal year 1994 the Department requests $117,389,000 for General Administration and $83,596,000 for Fees and Expenses. The Department requests no funds for the Quantico Training Center for fiscal year 1994. We will insert in the record at this point the fiscal year 1994 budget justification for these accounts.

[The justifications follow:

Department of Justice

General Anahtration Estinto for fiscal Year 1995

Teot Content

................................

..................................................................................... .......... ................................................

...c

................ .......................................................... ............................... ........................................................................

................................................................................

........................................................................

................................................................ ........................................................

............................................

Appropriation Level Material
Summary Statement...
Justification of Proposed changes in Appropriation Language.....
Crosswalk of 1993 Changes........
Summary of Requirements.................................................
Base Comparison.......
Summary of Requirements · Reimbursable Resources.................
Financial Analysis - Program Changes.........................................................................................................
Detail of Permanent Positions by Category......................
Summary of Change.......
Justification of Adjustments to Base.....................
Sumonary of Requirements by Grade and Object Class..... Organization Level Material Program Direction and Policy Coordination

Department Leadership

Summary of Requirements....

Justification of Program and Performance.
Executive support

Summary of Requirements.......

Justification of Program and Performance.....
Intelligence Policy and Professional Responsibility

Summary of Requirements....

Justification of Program and Performance.....
Justice Management Division

Summary of Requirements.

Justification of Progrm and Performance....
Administrative Reviss and Appeals

Summary of Requirements..
justification of Program and Performance,

Page 6

General Administration Salaries and Expenses

Summary Statouent

Fiscal Year 1992 The General Administration appropriation is requesting a total of $117,389,000, 1,133 permanent positions, and 1,198 workyears in 1994. This request represents an increase of $1,370,000, and a decrease of 73 positions and 47 workyears from the 1993 Appropriation anticipated. The primary mission of the General Administration appropriation is to support the Attorney General and Department of Justice senior policy level officials in managing Department resources and developing policies for legal, law enforcement, immigration, and criminal justice activitie. Providing administrative support services to the legal divisions and policy guidence to all Department organizations is also part of the primary mission of this appropriation. The General Administration appropriation funds the organizations responsible for conducting the administrative review of immigration decisions, including handling appeals, and reviewing and moking recommendations on petitions for executive clemency. The missions of this appropriation are accomplished through progrms in two budget activities: (1) Program Direction and Policy Coordination and (2) Administrative Review and Appeals. The major 19% initiatives and resource requests for these activities are summarized below. Prorro Direction and Policy Coordination This budget activity includes resource for the offices that support the following programa: Department Leadership, Executive support, Intelligence Policy and Professional Responsibility, and the Justice Management Division. The Department Leadership progrm consists of the offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General (including the Executive Office for Asset forfeiture), and the more recently established Associate Attorney General. These offices are responsible for developing policies regarding the adninistration of justice in the United States; representing the United States in civil and criminal law matters; and providing advice and opinions on legal issues to the President, Menbers of the Congress, and the heade of Executive departments and agencies. A progrm decrease of 1 position, 1 workyear, and $125,000 is proposed to met personnel levels established by the Administration and reduce administrative expenses to assist on controlling the Federal deficit, and improving the Federal Government's dainistrative productivity. The Executive Support program consists of the Offices of Policy and Communications and Legislative Affairs. As part of the 1992 reorganization in the General Administration appropriation, the offices of Policy Development, Public Affairs, and Liaison Services were consolidated to form the office of Policy and Communications. The Office of International Affairs was replaced by the Office of International Programs under the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The Executive Support program has several missions. These missions include conducting legal and policy analysis in support of Department initiatives in the many policy areas in which the Justice Department has jurisdiction or responsibilities; ensuring that the Department advances its legislative goals by presenting its positions clearly and well to the Office of Management and Budget and Congress; informing Department personnel, the media, and the public Department activities; advising the Attorney General and other Department officials in their dealings with the media and Congress; acting as a liaison with Federal, State, local, and international governments and law enforcement officials; and acting as a liaison among other officials, professional groups, and the White House office of Intergovernmental Affairs. A program decrease of 1 position, 1 workyear, and $148,000 is proposed to meet personnel levels established by the Administration and reduce administrative expenses to assist on controlling the Federal deficit, and improving the Federal Government's administrative productivity. The Intelligence Policy and Professional Responsibility progrm consists of the office of Intelligence Policy and Review and the Office of Professional Responsibility. This program is responsible for the coordination, development, and inplementation of Departmental policy on intelligence and national security matters. It is also responsible for strengthening the integrity of and maintaining public confidence in the Department of Justice, and in fostering mong all Department employees • commitment to ethical principles. A program decrease of $48,000 is proposed to reduce administrative expenses to assist in controlling the Federal deficit, and improving the Federal Government's advinistrative productivity. The Justice Management Division (JO) is responsible for ensuring that the monagement Initiatives of the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress are implemented appropriately and that wdministrative support services are delivered to Department organizations effectively and efficiently. The Jio provides organizations with policy guidance on administrative function including personnel, training, procurement, information resources, management and planning, budget, facilities planning, and security. The 19% estimate for JNo includes program decreases of 8 positions, ó workyears, and $534,000. These decreases are proposed to neet personnel levels established by the Administration. The reductions will be achieved through fully utilizing attrition and possible corly-out program, Increased renegerial efficiency, and progran effectiveness. Also, progrm decrease of 8383,000 is proposed to reduce administrative expenses to assist in controlling the Federal deficit, and improving the Federal Government's administrative productivity. The reductions will be accomplished through the efficient and effective operation of offices and programs. These reductions will be taken across all JVD programs.

1

Page 7

General Administration Reimbursable Resources

Summary of Requirements

(Dollars in Thousands)

1992 Actual 1993 Estimate

1994 Request

Increase/Decrease WY Amount Pos. WY Amount

WY Amount
Collections by Sources:

Pos. WY Amount
Assets Forfeiture Fund

$12,073

$5,937 $6,174

$237 Antitrust Division

808

$74
Bureau of Prisons

(234) 1,315 1,368 1,423

SS
Drug Enforcement Administration

1 1

1 1 899

1 1 935

36 Executive Office of U.S. Allorneys

2 2 5,092

5.296 3,408

(1.888) Executive Office of U.S. Trustees

6 6 813

6 6 846 6 880

34
Federal Bureau of Investigation

S S 2,299

2 2 2.391

2 2 2,487

96 General Legal Activities

2 2 2,461

2 2 2.359

2 2

836 Immigration & Naturalization Service

(1,723) 33 33 1,853 39 39 2.573 38 38 2,723

150 Organized Crime & Drug Enforcement

3 3 1,367

1,349 1,422

73 U.S. Marshals Service

8 8 5,890

1 1 6,126

1 1 6,371

245 U.S. Department of State

41 SS46 SO SO 9,231 47 47 12,150

(3)

2,899 All Other

11 11 876 11 11

910 11 11 824

(86) Budgetary Resources

116 116 $41,023 116 116 $40.313 112 112 $40,201

(9 (9 ($106)
NOTE: The 1991 and 1994 est imtes are lower than the 1992 Actual became the Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture subsequently decided to obligate funds directly from the
Assets Forfeiture Fund rather than use reimbursable agreements for the major expenditures for the Consolidated Asset Tracking System (CATS). The 1994 estimale reflects the
transfer of Penoanel Suali penonnel services and the Debt Collection Management function to the Working Capital Fund (WCF). The transfer of these functions reduce the amount
of reimbursable funding anticipated for the Justice Managemeat Division (JMD).

Page 8

929 1,291 2,962

176 332 16

17 1,081

#3 16 48 123 22

Personal Stafi Personal Services.
JNO will transfer the Personnel staff's Personnel Services function to the Working Capital Fund (UCF). This
function will be financed on rei bursable basis from the Department components serviced by the JMD Personnel
Staft. These functions include staffing, position classification, pay doinistration, sployer-megement
relations, sployee benefits, performance appraisala/worde, time and attendance, payroll processing, personal
records maintenance, and personnel reporting. There will be no net effect on total Department resources from this
transfer.

Debt Collection Management function....
Adequate resource will not be available to operate the Central Intake fucility for processing and tracking debt
collection case referrals. The current appropriated funding shortfall is $2,100,000. The Debt Collection
Management function will be transferred to the Working Capital Fund and financed on reimbursable boals. This
will reduce the JND number of positions and workyears by 19.

1997 POY Amundition.
The pay mualization represents only

first quarter mounts (October through December) of the 1993 3.7 percent
pey increase effective in January of 1993 plus appropriate personnel benefits ($670,000 pey and $259,000 benefits).

Within-an de Insrenn ().
This request proviam for the expected Increase in costs of within-grade increase. This increase is based on a
accurate, dynamic model of the Department's wploye population which includes numerous factors such as anticipated
pay roises, adjustments to include three-yoor attritior separation rate, and career ladder series to reflect
promotion policy for each organization. The request Includes $930,000 for pey and $361,000 tor benefits.
Amalination of_1993 Position..
This provides for wuellution of 30 welditional positione approved in public low 102-395 for the Executive Office for Imigration Review (EOIR).

Nalth lentits

Uplorant cermation • redistribution
This increase reflects the most recent complete mual billing provided by the Department of Labor for employees'
nemployment compensation. Based on the actual billinga, u redistribution of the Department's bese is necessary.
The 19% mount will be $17,000.
General Services Administration (CSA) Rent.
GSA will continue to charge rental rates that approximate those charged to comercial tenents for equivalent space
and related services. The requested increase of $1,081,000 is required to meet our committment to GSA.
Postal : fuipment Purchase..
The equipment purchase is necessary to comply with the U.S. Postal Service mandate requiring federal agencies to
convert to direct accountability as the method of determining postage costs for Federal Government penalty wil.
Complying with the direct accountability requirements cannot be done without procurement of electronic mil
processing equipment for use at the Department offices and facilities across the country and worldwide. This one
time increase of 583,000 is for purchase of scales, mil processing equipment and contractor assistance.
Postal · fouipment Rental Maintenance.
The request provides for the additional increase for the recurring, mual expenses for meter rentals (camot be
purchased) and equipment mintenance necessary for the conversion of Federal agencies to the direct accountability
method of determining postage costs. An increase of $16,000 is required.
Postal - Contract Service
The U.S. Postal Service directive requiring the Department to conform with the direct accountability method of
gathering postage costs will require additional personnel needed to process mail at high-volume location only.
The Department anticipates contracting this service. The requested increase of $48,000 will be essential for the
Department to assure continued and timely mil delivery.
Postal - Under reported Portege Varese
The current sampling methods used by the U.S. Postal Service for assessing postage of penalty roll are not designed
to provide high level of precision and have proved highly inaccurate. Based on actual experience of Federal
agencies who have already converted to the direct accountability method, the Department's actual postage costs
will increase by 32 percent to 53 percent.
This increase is needed despite cost containment measures implemented in the Department (1.9., pre-sorting of
outgoing wil, centralized inil room operations), as well as reducing the use of expensive, non-contract sources
of urgent-delivery porcels. Estimtes besed on actual experiences and professional experience require an increase
of $123,000, 30 percent increase, which lo well below that experienced by other agencie.
Government Printing ortice (GPO) and Department Printing
The Genral Printing Office and the Department are currently projecting 3.7

percent increase over the 1993
printing and duplicating costs. An additional $22,000 will be required in 1996 for printing done either by GPO
or the Department's duplicating facilities.
Proiect EAGLE Maintenance.
Initiat installation of work stations and other equipment in 1991 was done on a 36 month lease-to-ownership plm.
Maintenance of installed base equipment and annualized contract administration and overhead costs, as required by
the EAGLE contract, are needed for 1994. An increase of $121,000 is required for 1996.

Page 9

Computer Security Disaster Recovery system..
As required under the Computer Security Act of 1987 (P... 100-235) and ONO Circular A-130, the Department is
Taplementing system to provide disaster recovery for the Department's mission-critical information processing.
Under the disaster recovery and continuity of operations plan, Justice Data Center users will be able to continue
to perforn essential functions in the event that automated information systems are interrupted due to natural
disasters, terrorist attacks, or other catastrophic events. As required, this system will reduce the Department's
current wulnerability to losing major portion

of its mission critical information processing, in the event that
normal data processing operations are disrupted. The General Administration appropriation is requesting total
of $539,000 in FY 1996 to cover equipment and telecommunications expenses for the computer security disaster recovery system. Eelon Date od Perrell Service

controllidoployee data and payroll services are provided to all Departmental organizations excopt the federal

A Recurrin teletrable service.
Rorar este poponts are do to SA for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and guard services provided in
excess of normal working

hours. Increase mounto by organization very based on anticipated actuel billings.
This request for 8528,000 Includes • Departmental redistribution that more accurately spread the current resources. General Pricinm Aluntemte.

mo request copul aprIcin guidance a of June 9, 1992, to selected expense categoria. The Incroured costs

FTS 2000 Reduction..
This decrecer reflects recently compiled doto provided to the Office of Management and budget by the General
Services Administration an FTS 2000. The price redetermination taken into consideration

both voice and data
decrease is $177,000.
service The 19 nt-wide seving, consistent with the Presidents' commitment regarding

Total andatory inerescu/docroose

Total adjustments to bene.....

1 1 1 2 13

9 13 8 3 7 1 10 205 118 115 61 72 7

1 1 1 2 13

9 15 6 3 7 1 10 215 117 108 61 80

7 49 14 153 135

1 1 1 2 13

9 15 8 3 7 1 10 211 100 93

Executive Level 1, $148,400. Executive Level IL, $13,000. Enocutive Lovel III, $123,100. Executive Lovel IV, $115,700. ES-6, $115,700... ES-5, S111,800 ES-4, $107,300. ES-3, 5101,800 ES-2 597,400 ES-1, 892,900 GS/GM-17, 883,032–94,104.

GS/GM-16, 572,298–89,787

GS/GM-14, 556,627–73,619

...
GS/GM-13, 547,920-62,293... GS-12, S40,298 -52,385 GS-11, 533,623 -43,712 GS-10,

830,603 – 29,783. GS-4, 527,789–36,13 GS-8, 525,159–31,170...

GS-7, 522,717–29,530.

Total appropriated position. Pay above stated annual rate.. Lapses....

Savings due to lower pay scales for part ol year

Net full-time permanent... Other than permaneat:

Part-time permanent......

Temporary employment.. Other personnel compensation.

Overtimo Administratively uncontrollable overtime.....

Other compensation........ Special personal services payment.. Total, Wortyean & personnel compensation.

73

7 42 41 105 132 66 S2 20

3 23 1,133

S&,001

424 (2925)

(490 55,004

55,746

207 (1,448)

(670) 53,837

Adjustments to Base:
1993 as enacted..

Transferred from other accounts (Super Surplus Fund)..
1993 permanent positions and workyear reductions...
1993 appropriation anticipated......
Transfer to and from other accounts:

Personnel staff personnel services.. Mandatory increases: 1993

pay annualization Within-grade increases (WIG).

Health benefits..

Total mandatory increases.. Decreases

FTS 2000. 1994 base.

Savings to achieve deficit reduction targets.. 1994 baseline.

173 55 15 63 191 16 S

2 115 635

LONG RANGE GOAL: To provide advice and opinions on Constitutional and legal issues to the President, and to the heade of Executive departments and ngoncies; to
develop appropriate policies regarding the administration of justice in the United States; and to represent the United States in civil and criminal law wtters. MJO. OBJECTIVES:

In his capacity as Attorney General of the United States, to advise the President on Constitutional matters and legal issues involving the execution of the love of

to provide executive-level leadership In: the continuing war on drugs; combating violent crimes; investigating and prosecut ing fraud and other white collar crimes;

vintstrative expenses to asist on controlling the Federal deficit, and improving the federal Government's administrative productivity.

Page 10

Supervised the work of the office of Information and Privacy (OIP), which adjudicated approximately 2.800 appeals from dentals of requests for access to recorde
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974 by any component of the Department, and responded to over 600 initial responses for access
to records of the Leadership offices of the Department.
Continued a series of training programs for all government FOIA personnel. Published a quarterly newsletter, FQIA Update, as well as the annual FOIA Cose blat

and "Justice Department Guide to the Freedom of Information Act".
1992 accomplishments of the office of Public Affairs:

The office of Public Affairs (PAO) facilitates all news stories and public relations activities regarding the Department. A staff of eight trained public affairs
specialists responds to all requests for public information within the Department.
Answered approximately 30,000 telephone and 1,000 mil requests for information. In addition, the PAO provided news media throughout the nation with detailed
information on such complex legal issues as white collar crime, boil reform, drug enforcement, civil rights, environmental crime, immigration, and constitutional issues. Coordinated media appearances and events for Department officials while on travel.

Upon request, provided guidance and talking points to the White House press office on Information on specific department initiatives and/or issues.
Accomplishments of the Office of Liaison Services during 1992 include:

Coordinated visits and exchanges with 379 legal, law enforcement, and judicial representatives for 79 foreign countries.
Maintained dialogue and responded to inquiries and requests for information from the offices of state and local governments, low entorcement officials, and state Bar Presidents.

Represented the Department st meetings of the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, the white house Intergovernmental Affairs Group, the white House

Office of Legislative Attaire COLA):

Accomplishment of the Office of Istislative Affairs during 1992 include:
Responded to approximtely 10,000 telephone inquiries and over 10,000 letters from the Congress, tracked and monitored over 5,000 places of propened legislation,

over 100 hearings.
Worked with the office of Policy Development (OPD) on requests for Administration review of Legislation from Congressional Committees and the Office of
Management and budget.

Page 11

General Administration/Intelligence Policy & Professional Responsibility

Salaries and Expenses Justification for Program and Performance

Activity Resource Summary (Dollars in thousands)

LONG RANGE GOAL : To assist in the development of national security-related policies and maintain confidence in the lawfulness of United State intelligence
activities, consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information, and the need for effective
counterintelligence. To assist the Attorney General in strengthening the integrity of and maintaining public confidence in the Department of Justice and
in fostering a commitment to the highest professional standards among all employees.

To provide legal advice concerning intelligence and national security matters to the Attorney General and to the Executive Branch of the Government.
To participate in the development of legal aspects of national security and intelligence policy.
To prepare FBI and other applications for intelligence searches and surveillance and approve other counter intelligence investigative activities.
To represent intelligence agencies as legal counsel before the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
to participate in pre-trial litigation involving the foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in criminal prosecutions for espionage and international terrorim.
To maintain liaison with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Mouse Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to ensure they are apprised of
Departmental views on national security and intelligence policy and are appropriately informed regarding operational intelligence and counter intelligence activities.
To improve and refine the Department -wide reporting system in which allegations of criminal or administrative misconduct against Department employees are reported,
investigated and monitored.
to conduct, oversee and coordinate all internal investigations of serious allegations concerning the conduct of Department attorneys, criminal investigators, and
other law enforcement personnel that may be in violation of low, Department regulations or orders, or applicable standards of conduct.
** Please note that the objectives of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) are different from the Office of the Inspector General (01G) in that opt focuses
on investigations concerning allegations of misconduct of Department attorneys, criminal investigators, and other law enforcement personnel, while the OIG focuses its
investigations on other Department personnel.
BASE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Intelligence Policy and Professional Responsibility program consists of the office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) and the
office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Base program descriptions for these organizations have not changed since the last submission.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND WORKLOAD: The principal accomplishments of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review in the policy area include substantial assistance in
completion of the first Department of Energy guidelines for its foreign intelligence functions. In addition, QIPR continues to serve as a bridge between the
intelligence and law enforcement communities on a variety of issues relating to the protection of intelligence sources and methods in the context of major narcotics
and terrorism investigations and prosectutions. Also, OIPR participated in efforts to enhance the Government's capabilities to protect against foreign intelligence
collection in the United States, international terrorism, illegal technology transfer and international narcotics activities. The office continues to represent the
Department on Advisory Group/Counter intelligence and Countermeasures, as well as other intelligence community bodies. In 1992, OIPR became the Department's principal
representative on issues of nonprolifiration of weapons of mass destruction. OIPR chairs the Department Review Committee setting policy on classification and
declassification of documents. It has issued legal and policy advice to a number of departments and agencies on national security topics both in broad-range and an
specific intelligence operations.
The principal accomplishment of OIPR in its operational responsibilities relate to administration of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. In
1991 DIPR handled 593 such cases. Moreover, OIPR has been given responsibility by the Attorney General to coordinate ali litigation inolving those aspects of
criminal prosecutions in which the FISA is at issue. Since 1983 DIPR has prepared motion papers and briefs in more than 50 criminal prosecutions or criminal appeals,
all of which have resulted in favorable decisions in upholding the constitutionality of FISA, its use in particular cases or the actual conduct of the surveillance.
Concomitant with electronic surveillance matters, OIPR has handied a proportional increase in other operational intelligence activities which require staff and field
review on behalf of the Attorney General. This includes counter intelligence investigations, undercover activities and other highly sensitive matters.
The Office of Professional Responsibility continues to conduct and oversee an increasing number of investigations involving attorney, criminal investigators, law
enforcement personnel, and senior Department officials against whom allegations of misconduct have been made. Most of these cases are highly sensitive and some
involve matters of national significance. In fiscal year 1992 OPR opened 979 matters, an increase of 130 percent over the 425 matters opened in fiscal year 1990.
PROGRAM CHANGES: A program decrease of $48,000 is proposed to reduce administrative expenses to assist in controlling the Federal deficit, and improving the federal
Government's administrative productivity.

Adjustments to Base: 1993 as enacted.

1993 permanent positions and workyear reductions..
1993 appropriation anticipated.....
Transfer to and from other accounts:

Personnel staff personnel services..

Debt collection management function... Mandatory increases: 1993

pay annualization. Within-grade increases (WIG)--

Health benefits..

Total mandatory increases..... Decreases:

FTS 2000..
1994 base.......

Savings to achieve deficit reduction targets...
1994 baseline.

(80) 432 457 53,326

(3,040 432 457 50,286

1993 Appropriation

Anticipated Pos. WY Amount

1993 as Enacted Pos. WY Amount

1994 Baseline Pos. WY Amount

1994 Estimate Pos. WY Amount

Increase Decrease Pos. WY Amount

Justice Management Division. Reimbursable workyears....

Total workyears.........

LONG RANGE GOAL: The Justice Management Division (JMD) is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the management Initiatives of the President, the Attorney General
and the Congress are implemented soundly and responsibly and that administrative support services are delivered efficiently and effectively. Specifically, JDD
provides organizations with policy guidance and/or direct support in the area of personnel, training, procurement, telecommunications, information processing,
management, budget, finance, facilities and security. Also included in Jo is the Debt Collection Management function (which coordinates the Debt Collection Private
Counsel initiative mandated by the Debt Recovery Act of 1986). MAJOR OBJECTIVES:

To ensure that Department management activities are provided central direction and control.

Page 12

To increase the number of fomole and minority applicants and hire within our key occupations. The Department has been the subject of recent study, of its EEO
Progrm, which was highly critical regarding the hiring of minorities and women in certain key occupations. In fact, all of the findings made by who relative to
recruitment and hiring had been previously identified internally within our affirmative action plans. In addition, in response to m Attorney Genera! Task Force
initiative, to utablish a contralized source of information for experienced attorneys and paralegals with particular emphasis on attracting and retaining minority
and handicapped cployees.
To ensure the development of adequate policia and procedures on Department-wide basis for all procurement wtters, and to administer highly visible and
aggressive competition advocacy progres, which Institutionalize the principal pools of the Campetition In Contracting Act (CICA) and related statutes and through a
progrm of enhanced oversight and compliance reviews, mourns that the Department's procurement activities are carried out in full compliance with applicable lawa,
regulations and Departmental policie.
To ensure that personnel management responsibilities throughout the Department are carried out in accordance with the applicable law, Executive Orders, rula,
regulations and policia, and that the Department implements worklite program, which are designed to balance the fully and personal neede of our wployees with the
demands of our program responsibilities.
To develop the Department's projected housing requirements, for GSA and Department of Justice controlled space, and related cost atintas, as required by GSM and one
to ensure that our mployees work in sate, erwironmentally sound space, which is free of architectural borriers for the handicapped and which contribute to mxlu
employee effectiveness and efficiency.
To represent the Department in financial matters with the Department of Treasury, ane, GAO, the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program, and other government
agencies.
To create and prepare Departmental financial statements that comply with the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and to expand the financial
menagement oversight capability of the J10.
to design, develop and implement standards and system for measuring productivity in Department of Justice programs and operations and to develop policy guidance for
the preparation of financial management plans and financial management budgets.
to establish procurement goals with the Small Business Administration for the award of contracts and subcontracts to mall business concerns and small disadvantaged
business concerns.
to maintain DOJ library syotan, which provides timely, effective, and comprehensive manual and automated on-line research and reference resistance and current and
comprehensive collections in multi-media formats.
to conduct market research and investigate developments, trends, and evergency technology and software for possible application to current and planned office
automation systems.
to provide telecomunications support using the latat technology, software and oyatoon to accommodate the relocation of personnel consistent with FP2000 Progru
requirements.
To ensure that DOJ components conduct comprehensive AIS planning and that they effectively and efficiently manage information resources including the we of GSA
granted delegations of AIS procurement authority.
BASE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Justice Management Division (Jo) bese program will transfer the personnel services function of the Personal staff to the working
Capital Fund (UCF). JNO resources will be reduced by 35 positions, 35 workyears and $2,211,000. These resources are being transferred to the appropriation
serviced. Additionally, the Debt Collection Management function and 19 positions and 19 workyears will be transferred to the WCF. The Department, with one guidance,
has proposed that language be included as a general provision in the commerce, Justice, and state bill that would allow the Attorney General to credit the WCF up to $
percent of all mounts collected pursuant to the Department's civil debt collection litigation activities to cover the costs of processing and tracking such
litigation.

Page 13

Coordinated follow-on activities related to both the General Accounting office (GAO) and the GSA review of the Department of Justice Information resources
management (TRN) activities. The primary purpose of these reviews was to assess management and acquisition of information technology within the Department,
with particular emphasis on management of authorities delegated by the GSA. Prepared response for the MG/A regarding GSA's Review conducted at the
Department from May through July 1990. The Department responded to findings grouped under the following categories: IRM organization and planning, resources

management, and acquisition management.
Continued to participate in El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) improvement Project, also known as Project Mountain Pass, • joint Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Defense (D00) Initiative. The objective of this project is to improve EPIC intelligence Information processing
capabilities required by the continued and expanded emphasis on inter-agency cooperation between DEA, the intelligence community and other law enforcement agencia.
Provided the MAG/A and other senior Departmental managers with detailed briefings on all aspects of this project.
Prepared synopsis of major technology initiatives within the Department for the time frame of FY 1993 through FY 1995.
Published and submitted guidelines to assist executive branch agencies in determining the admissibility of electronic evidence for we in court proceedings to office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
Prepared status report on the immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Information Systems Architecture for the Chairman, Subcommittee on International law,
Immigration and Refugees, Committee on the Judiciary. The report was prepared in response to a request at the Oversight Mearing on Imigration Management Issues.
Prepared issue paper for the Department's Management Review Team regarding the General Accounting Office Audit on the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Prepared criteria for evaluation of the INS automated system supporting the U.S. Border Patrol program.
Coordinated the Department's implementation of the Computer Security Act (CSA) of 1987. This included the following activities:

Implemented OMB Bulletin 90-08, entitled "Guidance for Preparation of Security Plans for federal computer Systems that contain Sensitive Information. Each Component:

updated their list of sensitive systems

prepared new computer security plans for systems that were significantly modified and new systems.
Began on-site reviews of Computer Security Plans, including the Tax Division (two systems reviewed), the Bureau of Prisons (one syota reviewed) and the
Executive Office for u.s. Attorneys (two system reviewed).
Prepared Department response to GAO report entitled "Justice Automation • Weak ADP Security Compromises Sensitive Data." Copies of the response were provided
to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, the House Committee on Government Operations, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on
Appropriations.
Provided answers on the Department's computer security in response to inquiries from:

Senator Herb Kohl, Chairman, Sub-Committee on Government Information and Regulation;
Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary;
Congressman Bob Wise, Chairman, Sub-Committee on Government Information, Justice and Agriculture

Congressman Jack Brooks, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.
Coordinated Departmental responses to office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletins and requests for information. This included the following activities:

Coordinated the Department's response to OMB Bulletin 91-10, which included the Department's Information Collection Budget.
Coordinated the Department's annual responses to three OMB calls for information technology budget estimates. Using automation technology, SPS consolidates
Departmental components 43 A and B submissions into an exhibit that one uses for review and decision-making regarding DOJ requests for intormation technology resources.

Produced a comprehensive response to a requert from OMB for information about the Department's planning and budgeting processes for information technology.

Page 14

During 1990, 3,853 criminel ollen cases were filed with EOIR and immigration judges completed 3,356. In 1991, 6,244 cases were filed and 5,156 were completed.
Figures to date in 1992 indicate the receipt and completion of an estimated 7,000 cases fully involving 75 active state and federal hearing location and the
participation of nearly 60 percent of the imigration judge corps. Data accumulated during the first four months of 1993 indicate a continuing increase in criminal
alien case receipts and completions. Because of the logistical complexities associated with the adjudication of this caselood, 1..., coordinating the usage of
adequate space, establishing hearing schedules with various state and federal prison officials, and ins, and costly and time-consuming judge and staff travel to often
remote correctional institutions, the continuing increase in case completion is noteworthy accomplishment.
Qilice of the chief Aduinistrative Maring Officer:
In 1987, the Department delegated to EOIR the responsibility for the establishment and management of this new program. Accomplishments to date include: the
establishment of office of the Chief Administrative Wearing Officer (OCAMO); the publication in the Federal Register, of Rules of Practice and Procedures for
Administrative Mearings Before Administrative Law Judges; recruitment and staffing of 27 legal and support positions, including four permanent Administrative law
Judge (ALJ) positione; establishment and starting of a field office in San Pedro, CA: creation of case docketing, reporting and tracking system; training and
designating 38 ALUS as having received the requisite training to preside over discrimination cases; and through the office of Personnel Management's ALJ loan progres,
acquisition of approximately 15 ALUS loaned from other agencies to hear employer sanction and anti-discrimination cases. EOIR'S usage of the loan program was
discontinued during 1992 due to budgetary constraints.
During 1990 and 1991, OCAMO received 681 complaints and rendered decisions in 830 cases, some involving fully litigated hearings. In addition to complaints, OCANO
receives a large number of other matters including, requests for issuance of investigatory subpoenas; requests for the initiation of federal court enforcement of
Investigatory subpoenas; and motions filed in response to subpoenas and for • wide variety of other reasons. Workload data received during 1992 and 1993 has
indicated , leveling oft of OCANO case receipts. However, provisions of the Immigration Act of 1990, together with ins entorcement Initiatives, are expected to
increase OCANO caseload in 1993 and beyond.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND WORKLOAD The following represents the accomplishments and workload for the office of the Pardon Attorney (CPA).

1992 1993

1996 Actual

Estimate Estinte
Grants of pardon....

50

50
Grants of cautation.............
Denials and no actions............

212 400

400 Correspondence processed..........

1,432 1,500

1,600
office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) processos a large caseload and sizable correspondence workload with a relatively mall stott of attorney and administrative
support personnel. The relatively small number of pardon and commutation grants in recent years has been largely the result of the increasingly exacting approach
which has been taken in determining the worthiness of applications. This approach has entailed more careful screening of applicants and more thorough background
Investigation, as well as the application of stricter standards for granting clemency.
PROGRAN CHANGES: The Executive Office for Immigration Review will reduce 9 positione, 6 vorkynors, and $482,000 to met personal levels established by the
Administration. Progrun decreases totalling $325,000 are proposed to reduce administrative expenses to assist in the Administration's initiative to control the
Federal deficit, and improving the federal Government's administrative productivity.

Page 15

Fees and Expenses of witnesses

Justification of Proposed changes in Appropriation Language
The 1994' budget estimates include proposed changes in the appropriation language listed and
explained below. New language is underscored and deleted matter is enclosed in brackets.
Fees and Expenses of witnesses
For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems
of witnesses for expenses of contracts for the
procurement and supervision of expert witnesses,
for private counsel expenses, and for per diems in
lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law, including
advances, ($81,010, 000), to remain available until

$83,596.000
expended, of which not to exceed $4,750,000 may be
available for planning, construction, renovation,
maintenance, remodeling and repair of buildings and
the purchase of equipment incident thereto for
protected safesites; (and) of which not to exceed
$1,000,000 may be available for the purchase and
maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation
of protected witnesses.

; and of which not to exceed $4,000,000
may be made available for the purchase.
installation and maintenance of a secure
automated information network to store
and retrieve the identities and
locations of protected witnesses

(5 U.S.c. 503 (b), 5537, 5751; 18 U.S.C. 3495-96, 3525, 4203, 4241, 4242; 28 U.S.c. 524, 1783, 1821,
1825, 1915, 1922; Department of justice and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1994.)
Explanation of Changes
The proposed change is intended to provide specific authority to allow the U.s. Marshals Service to
purchase and maintain a dedicated computer system for protected witness information with funding
appropriated to the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses appropriation.

Page 16

The base reduction of $3,702,000 should not adversely affect the operation of this appropriation. Primarily, funding requests are tied to anticipated staffing levels; that is, as more attorneys are hired, more FEW tunding is needed. For 1994, the Department's anticipated staffing level is expected to decrease by 1.5 percent below 1993. Thus, there should be a concomitant decrease in demand for FEW resources.

LONG-RANGE GOAL. To provide funding for payment of fees and related expenses incurred by those individuals who provide factual, technical or scientific testimony on behalf of the United States or court designated indigent individuals, as provided by law. Funds provided for this activity also guarantee the right of accused persons to a fair and impartial trial by ensuring that the accused is mentally competent to stand trial and that the court has testimony regarding the mental competency of the accused at the time of the offense.

To provide an adequate number of expert witnesses for the United States when legal proceedings require testimony of a scientific or technical nature.

To provide reasonable compensation for expert witnesses at rates established by the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 524.

To provide adequate resources to compensate fact witnesses who testify on behalf of the government for the expenses associated with the attendance at legal proceedings. The court-attendance fee paid to fact witnesses is set by law (28 U.S.C. 1821, as amended by P.L. 101-650). As a result of Public Law 96-346 (September 10, 1980), the amounts authorized for travel, per diem and mileage are set by regulations governing official travel by federal employees and promulgated by the Administrator of the General Services Administration.

To provide adequate resources to compensate fact witnesses used by those defendants designated as indigent by the courts. Expenses are paid to those witnesses who appear in criminal proceedings in federal court for the indigent defendants.

To provide for the fees and expenses of physicians or psychiatrists who perform court-ordered examinations to determine the mental competency of an accused person, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4241 and 4242.

BASE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION. This program provides for payment of fees and expenses of expert
witnesses who appear on behalf of the government when scientific or technical expertise is required
in the prosecution or defense of a case. The pursuit of complex litigation by the Department would
not be possible without qualified experts to testify and to refute the non-legal particulars of
individual cases. The testimony of expert witnesses is essential to the successful outcome of such
litigation. While a wide array of specialized disciplines are involved in the Department's
litigation, experts from certain disciplines are used extensively. For example, approximately
thirty-two percent of expert witnesses used by the Department in 1991 were either physicians,
psychiatrists, appraisers, engineers, or economists. Also, the testimony of fact witnesses is used
in court proceedings by the Department's legal divisions and the U.S. Attorneys. Fact witnesses are
needed in a wide range of court proceedings, as well as pre-trial conferences. Fees and expenses
paid to fact witnesses are intended to defray the costs of appearing to testify and are set by law
and/or regulation. Further, the importance of this program is underlined by the need to protect the
rights of accused individuals. Courts often order the government to pay the costs associated with
mental competency examinations conducted by physicians or psychiatrists. These examinations are
performed in an attempt to determine whether an accused person is mentally competent to stand trial
and/or was mentally competent at the time of the offense.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Funding allocated for this activity has been sufficient to allow the Department to
handle the continuing growth in expert witness demand and compensation. These resources have also
provided adequate protection of the rights of accused individuals through performance of mental competency examinations.

The following table illustrates the growth in requirements for these services.

The following table illustrates the growth in compensation levels for expert witnesses:

LONG-RANGE GOAL. To increase the effectiveness of the Department's efforts to combat criminal
activity in such areas as organized crime, drugs or narcotics, and murder or conspiracy to commit
murder, by providing funding to permanently relocate witnesses who face potential danger as a result
of their participation in criminal proceedings.

To obtain that which can be used to prosecute persons accused of organized crime or other serious
criminal activity.
To protect witnesses and their families when the testimony of the witnesses may jeopardize their personal security.

To compensate witnesses for subsistence costs such as housing, food, relocation, and incidental expenses as provided by the witnesses Security Reform Act of 1984.

To provide orientation, documentation and family-oriented services, etc., to new entrants into the witness Security program. BASE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION. The procedure for designating a person as a protected witness is set forth in Department of Justice OBD Order 2110.2 "Witness Protection and Maintenance Policy and Procedures." This order places within the U.S. Marshals Service the responsibility for the security of these witnesses and their families. This program provides for their financial maintenance including the followin subsistence expenses; housing; medical and dental expenses; travel; documentation expenses for identity changes; one-time relocation; costs for obtaining employment; and other miscellaneous expenses. This activity also provides for construction and maintenance of strategically located safesite facilities to house protected witnesses before and during trial.

Page 17

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND WORKLOAD. The nature of criminal cases underscores the importance of the Protection of Witnesses program. A number of major drug dealers, organized crime and other violent gang members are currently on, or awaiting, trial. In prosecutions that rely on the testimony of protected witnesses, the Government has a high rate of conviction. For the years, 1986 through 1990, in cases where protected witnesses testified, the Government obtained an 88 percent conviction rate.

Additionally, over the past several years the witness Security (WITSEC) Division, u.s. Marshals has
played a significant role in assisting the prosecutions of major international narcotics traffickers
(Carlos Lehder-Rivas, Juan Matta-Ballesteros, and recently Manuel Noriega) international terrorists
(Fawas Younis), would be Presidential assassins (John Hinckley) and mafia dons (John Gotti). The
WITSEC Division will continue to need adequate resources to ensure the safety of key prosecution
witnesses in an ongoing effort to dismantle drug trafficking organizations, international terrorist
networks, street gangs and other criminal enterprises.
In 1992, over 1,300 households (principal witnesses and their families) received active protection
and funding; that represents an increase of 507 households (63 percent) over 1991. Also in 1992,
385 witnesses were produced in 804 unique productions involving 2,125 production days. During all
of these production days, no witness following the guidelines of the witness Relocation Program was
injured or killed. This is no small accomplishment in that a verified death threat hangs over the
majority of witnesses. The following table presents select workload and accomplishment categories:

Page 18

Departament of Justice

Sumry Statement
Department of Justice Training Center

Fiscal Year 1994

Based on numerous studies, existing training facilities for low enforcement personnel at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, were determined to be insufficient to meet the training needs of both DEA and the FBI. The Department estimated that the combined training requirements already exceeded the capacity of the current facility and the situation would deteriorate in future years unless facility capacity was expanded. The Department subsequently requested a total of $34.6 million to expand existing training facilities at Quantico. The expension would provide 56,000 additional student training days, raising the annual capacity of the Quantico facilities to approximately 268,000 student training days. This increase in training days was required for the Department to meet its training needs in the mid and late 1990s, when a large number of retirements is expected to occur.

In the 1992 Department of Justice Appropriations Act, Congress appropriated $3.5 million for an architectural and engineering (AGE) study as a first step in expanding enisting facilities on land donated by the U.S. Marine Corps adjacent to the FBI Academy in Quant ico. DEA subsequently hired the Chesapeake Division (CHES DIV) of the Naval facilities Engineering Command as the contracting authority for the A&E study. An A&E fina has since been hired and a programming design study is in progress and expected to be completed in December 1993. In 1993, Congress appropriated $7.7 million for site intrastructure improvements. These funds will upgrade the utility system and relocate an existing road. These improvements will correct structural and security weaknesses.

For 1994, the Administration adopted a policy to reduce the Federal workforce and control the deficit. This resulted in, among other things, • reduction in the anticipated number of special agents for DEA and FBI in 1994. In response, the Department is reevaluating its short and mid-ten training needs, based on revised assumptions about growth in the agent workforce, attrition rates, and growth in other core positions, and will noke a determination at a later date on requesting the remaining funds in FY 1995. Nonetheless, the Department is proceeding with the ALE study and the infrastructure improvements, which will support the existing Quantico training facilities, and are necessary regardless of whether facility expansion is undertaken.

* The request included $3.5 million for an ALE study, $21.7 million for • single tower block containing 125 double occupancy rooms with dining
capacity and support space, an additional cafeteria, eight classrooms, offices for 150 stott, and a heating plant, $7.7 million for infrastructure improvements, and 51.7 million for fitting out costs.

Page 19

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

Department of Justice Training Center
Justification of Proposed changes in Appropriation Language

The Appropriations Language is deleted since no request from 19% is being made.

(For necessary expenses for planning, construction, and purchase equipment for an expanded law enforcement training center at the FBT Training Academy at Quantico, Virginia, $7,700,000 to remain available until expended, to be expended at the direction of the Attorney General, (Department of Justice and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993.)]

Department of Justice Department of Justice Training Center Justification of Program and Performance

Upgrade and, if warranted expand the Department's centralized training facilities at Quantico in order to meet the expected requirements of DEA and
FBI Basic Agent, other core series, in-service, and other training programs. The Department's overarching training goal is to establish, mintain,
and enhance the mission-related skills of Department personnel and teach drug low enforcement tactics and techniques to other federal, state, and
local law enforcement personnel involved in controlling illicit drug trafficking.

MAJOR OBJECTIVES:

Provide the highest quality level training for DEA and FBI Special Agents, DEA diversion investigators, intelligence analysts, and forensic chemists.

offer advanced and specialized in-service training to DEA and FBI investigative personnel in order to provide the most current legal,
investigative, enforcement, firearms, and safety instruction available. Provide supervisory, mid-level management, and executive development training for appropriate agency personnel.

Provide foreign language fluency training for DEA and FBI personnel in need of such training.

Offer quality training for other drug law enforcement professionals when possible.
the military, or other federal agencies.

These professionals may be from state and local agencies,

BASE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:

A common law enforcement training center is necessary to provide all DEA and FBI personnel the skills and knowledge necessary to fulfill the mission
of each agency.

Specialized aining courses include entry level training; advanced and in-service specialty training; management and supervisory
training; and foreign language training. The FBI and DEA provide training in basic, advanced, and specialized investigative methods and techniques to
State and local agencies, the military, and other federal agencies.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND WORKLOAD:

Progress on Construction of the DOJ Training Center to Date:

The process of upgrading the Department of Justice Training Center is on track and on time. An Environmental Assessment has already been completed,
at a cost to DEA of $116,000. The $3,500,000 received by DOJ in 1992 for an Architectural and Engineering (A&E) study has been transferred to DEA.
DEA has subsequently hired the Chesapeake Division (CHES DIV.), of the Navy Facility Engineering Command to act is the contracting authority for the
Training Center. A reimbursement agreement between agencies has been signed and the monies have been transferred from DEA to CHES DIV. An ALE fin
has been hired and a programming and design study is in progress. It is expected that construction documents will be finished by the summer of 1993.
for 1993, DOJ's budget contains $7.7 million "for expenses for planning, construction and purchase of equipment...to remain available until expanded."
These funds will be used for the infrastructure support needed at the Training Center and the FBI Academy. Current plans call for the relocation of a
road at the FBI Academy, which will enhance security and safety for the Training Center, the FBI Academy, and for Marine Corps firing ranges. Also,
it is anticipated the utilities currently servicing the FBI Academy and needed for the inaining Center will have to be upgraded. The Ale study is
fully examining these issues.

The $7,700,000 decrease will postpone the construction of additional law enforcement training facilities at Quantico for the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation until training needs are reevaluated, given the Administration's policy to reduce the Federal workforce and control the deficit.

The Department is proceeding with the architectural and engineering study for which $3,500,000 was appropriated in 1992, and infrastructure
improvements for which $7,700,000 was appropriated in 1993. This work is needed to support the existing Quantico training facilities regardless of
whether further expansion is undertaken.
The prior budget request included $23,375,000 for an administration building, central plant, cafeteria, 250 bed dormitory and classrooms, which would
have provided 56,000 additional student days.

8 Department of Justice Training Center Summary of Requirements by Grado and Object Class

Page 20

The adjustments-to-base also reflect the transfer of two functions currently funded from appropriated resources available to the Justice Management Division to the Department's Working Capital Fund. First, the transfer of personnel services function of the Personnel Staff and second, the debt collection management function will provide a mechanism for properly costing, pricing, and allocating these administrative services.

By moving the debt collection management function to the Working Capital Fund, we will address a long-standing concern over the lack of sufficient appropriated funding to effectively administer this high-priority program.

The Department, with assistance from the Office of Management and Budget, has proposed that language be included as a general provision in the 1994 Commerce, Justice, and State bill that would allow the Attorney General to credit the Working Capital Fund up to 3 percent of all amounts collected pursuant to the Department's civil debt collection litigation activities to cover the costs of processing and tracking such litigation.

Finally, the General Administration appropriation reflects program decreases totaling $2,045,000 and 19 positions. Proposed pro gram decreases are consistent with Presidential initiatives and will be taken across all General Administration programs. The reductions will be achieved through fully utilizing attrition and possible early-out programs. I plan to review all management and administrative functions to identify ways to perform functions more efficiently and possibly downsizing activities.

QUANTICO TRAINING CENTER Mr. Chairman, I am going to go on to the Quantico Training Center. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Training Academy at Quantico, Virginia is the site at which new and experienced FBI and DEA special agents and other agency personnel undergo training. The FBI Training Academy also provides a considerable level of training to State and local law enforcement officers.

During the 1992 appropriation process, the Congress provided $3.5 million for planning, construction and purchase of equipment for an expanded training center at the FBI Training Academy to be expended at the direction of the Attorney General. Accordingly, in 1992, these funds were committed to conduct an architectural and engineering study which should be completed in December 1993.

In 1993, Congress appropriated $7.7 million for site infrastructure improvements. These funds are being used to upgrade the utility system and relocate an existing road. These improvements are necessary to correct structural and security weaknesses, regardless of whether facility expansion is undertaken.

For 1994, the Administration adopted a policy to reduce the Federal work force and control the deficit. As a result of this policy, the anticipated number of special agents for DEA and FBI has been reduced. In response, the Department is reevaluating its short- and mid-term training needs based on revised assumptions about growth in the agent work force, attrition rates, and growth in other core positions.

Page 21

function, General Administration will retain $2,977,000 with which

to reimburse the WCF for some debt collection activities.

transfer of these functions will have no net effect on total 1994

Department resource requirements.

For 1994, a base program decrease of $3,930,000 is required for the General Administration appropriation to stay within the budget baseline established by the Administration. The savings to achieve deficit reduction targets will be taken across all General Administration programs. This decrease will be achieved by absorbing a portion of the anticipated increases in mandatory costs

and moving the debt collection management function to the Working

Absorbing mandatory increases will require a

concerted effort to keep these cost increases to a minimum, with such initiatives as controlling the General Administration portion

of costs for such items as the U.S. Postal Service conversion to

the direct accountability billing methodology and the computer security disaster recovery system. In addition, we will focus our

on acquiring all goods and

economical manner possible.

By moving the debt collection management function to the

Working Capital Fund, we will address a long-standing concern over the lack of sufficient appropriated funding to effectively administer this high-priority progran. The Department, with the assistance from the office of Management and Budget, has proposed

that language be included as

a general provision in the 1994

Commerce, Justice, and State bill that would allow the Attorney General to credit the Working Capital Fund up to three percent of all amounts collected pursuant to the Department's civil debt collection litigation activities to cover the costs of processing and tracking such litigation.

The General Administration appropriation reflects program decreases totalling $2,045,000 and 19 positions. Proposed program decreases are consistent with Presidential initiatives and will be

administrative expenses to assist in controlling the Federal deficit, and improving the Federal Government's administrative productivity. Also, decreases of $1,190,000 and 19 positions are proposed to meet the President's goal of reducing the number of Federal employees. The reductions will be achieved through fully utilizing attrition and possible early-out programs. I plan to review all management and administrative functions to identify ways to perform functions more efficiently and possibly downsizing activities.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Training Academy at

Quantico, Virginia is the site at which new and experienced FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agents and other

agency personnel undergo training.

The Training Academy also

provides a considerable level of training to state and local law

During the 1992 appropriations process, the Congress provided $3.5 million for "planning, construction, and purchase of equipment (incident thereto) for an expanded training center at the FBI Training Academy.... to be expended at the direction of the

Attorney General." Accordingly, in 1992 these funds were committed

to conduct an architectural and engineering study, which should be completed in December 1993. In 1993, Congress appropriated $7.7 million for site infrastructure improvements. These funds are being used to upgrade the utility system and relocate an existing road. These improvements are necessary to correct structural and security weakness regardless of whether facility expansion is undertaken.

For 1994, the Administration adopted a policy to reduce the

Federal work-force and control the deficit.

policy, the anticipated number of special agents for DEA and FBI has been reduced. In response, the Department is reevaluating its short and nid term training needs, based on revised assumptions about growth in the agent work-force, attrition rates, and growth

PEES AND EXPENSES OP VITNESBES APPROPRIATION

The request is for total of $83,596,000, of which $82,196,000 will be scored as mandatory funding and $1,400,000 will be scored as discretionary funding. The request represents an increase of $2,586,000 above the 1992 appropriation of $81,010,000. This funding level, along with the projected level of unobligated authority carrying forward, will be sufficient to fund the various activities of the fees appropriation in 1994.

For 1993, funding for the Pees appropriation was separated between mandatory and discretionary funding categories to appropriately reflect funding for the new Superior Court Informant program. Since the informant program is not statutorily mandated, we believe the relevant funding of $1,400,000 should continue to be scored against the Department's discretionary authority.

The decentralization of the Expert Witness Fund, and the subsequent allocation of those resources to the Legal Divisions and the U.S. Attorneys, continues to produce significant results

resources have generated a prior year unobligated balance of more

strict management of funding

allocated for Fact witness expenses has produced a

1993 carry forward balance of approximately $4 million. Further, lower than anticipated expenditures in 1991 and 1992 for the remaining programs have also resulted in significant unobligated balances

brought forward into 1993. Through these efforts to better manage

For 1994, we are requesting an appropriation language change to allow the witness Security Division of the U.S. Marshals Service

to use Fees and Expenses of Witnesses funding to purchase, install and maintain a new computer system.

The new system will replace

the current computer, which was installed in 1979 and has outlived

its usefulness. The new equipment will be used exclusively for storing and retrieving information concerning the identities and locations of protected witnesses. No additional funding is needed, but we are seeking authority to use up to $4,000,000 for this

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would again like to the thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions

you or the other Subcommittee members may have.

Page 22

OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Mr. MORAN. Thank you. I do have some questions. Can you address questions about the Office of Professional Responsibility or are you going to defer all those questions?

Mr. COLGATE. No. Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General is going to be appearing before the Subcommittee on April 28th. She would be more than glad to address the OPR-IG relationship, and will be prepared to do so.

Mr. MORAN. So you would rather that that be off limits for today's testimony. Mr. COLGATE. Yes, sir. you will get far more responsive com

. ments from the Attorney General.

Mr. MORAN. She probably has a little more latitude in terms of what can and cannot be said.

QUANTICO TRAINING CENTER I am interested in the Quantico Training Center. I heard your response to the first question of why you are not requesting funds to construct the expanded training facility, but you had planned to do some things that were consistent with that expansion out of 1993 funds.

Are you going to relocate a main access road and upgrade the water and sewage system and so on? Are you going to continue to do that, or are those funds not going to be used for that purpose?

Mr. COLGATE. No. We plan to do precisely that. As a matter of fact, we have signed reimbursable agreements between the Department, DEA and the FBI, to actually initiate that work. The full $7.7 million, it is my understanding, has been obligated to those accounts to begin those infrastructure projects.

Mr. MORAN. Well, I wouldn't want you doing that unless it is absolutely necessary. I assume that you have evaluated it to determine whether it is still needed in light of the decision not to expand the training center.

Mr. COLGATE. Regardless of the decision to expand or not to expand, those infrastructure requirements are critical to the continued success of that facility.

FUNDING FOR SENIOR POLICY OFFICES Mr. MORAN. You have included in your request the Department Leadership and Executive Support function increases from fiscal year 1992 to the fiscal year 1994 request. Don't those fall under the administrative type of positions that the President's Executive Order required a reduction in?

Mr. COLGATE. We have applied these management savings across the appropriation, including the Senior Policy Offices that you just described. For fiscal year 1993, we anticipate reducing our full-time equivalent, FTEs, assigned to our Department Leadership offices by two, and our Executive Support by one.

And in fiscal year 1994, we anticipate reducing our FTE assigned to Department Leadership by four and Executive Support by two.

Mr. MORAN. Well, that is fine. That is consistent. Good for you.

Mr. COLGATE. The Department made these across-the-board reductions prior to the arrival of the Attorney General. The Attorney General has indicated that she wants to take a look at these offices to see whether or not there can be further reductions as well.

Page 23

Mr. MILHOLLAN. Our heaviest case load right now is in New York and Miami. That will change from year to year. This year it is New York.

Mr. ROGERS. And what impact will your budget request, if we can find the money, have on decreasing that 40,000 backlog?

Mr. MILHOLLAN. We anticipate that the case load next year will go up, based on additional bed space that INS is in the process of completing right now. We are talking about bed space that will be available and will probably increase our case load. But with the additional resources that we are expecting, we would expect to be able to keep up with that additional case load.

So for example, in 1992 we received nearly 125,000 cases. We expect to receive, and of course we are projecting, during 1994, based on factors of which we are aware, 142,000 cases. With the additional resources that we are requesting, we would expect to keep up with that figure and adjudicate 142,000 cases.

Mr. ROGERS. What if you don't get the extra resources?

Mr. MILHOLLAN. That very likely would result in a larger backlog. Mr. ROGERS. How much?

Mr. MILHOLLAN. That is difficult to estimate and would depend on how much of the resources that we are requesting are cut.

IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND POLITICAL ASYLUM CASES Mr. ROGERS. How many Judges are there now?

Mr. MILHOLLAN. Eighty-five.

Mr. ROGERS. Do those Judges, in addition to their other duties, hear and assign the cases of political asylum requests?

Mr. MILHOLLAN. Yes, sir. Political asylum is simply an application for relief that is made in the course of either exclusion or a deportation hearing, and Judges do rule on those applications.

Mr. ROGERS. What percentage of your caseload is political asylum requests?

Mr. MILHOLLAN. In 1992, our figure was only around 13,000 asylum applications. Actually, over the past couple of years, the number of asylum applications that we are receiving as been de creasing.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am sure you may have seen or heard about the recent 60 Minutes report concerning abuses of our political asylum system

Mr. MILHOLLAN. Right.

Mr. ROGERS (continuing). About the so-called flood of people who are coming into our airports, having destroyed their admission papers along the way, or are entering with fraudulent papers who say the magic words, I want political asylum and are allowed into our country pending review of their claim. Since we don't have the jail space to house them pending a hearing, they are released into the United States never to appear for their hearing.

What is your comment on that report? Is it generally true?

Mr. MILHOLLAN. Well, I would question “no-shows” cited in the report. First of all, the number of appearances that we get, and if the committee desires that information, we have, I think, thanks to the support of the committee in the past, a very capable computer system, and can identify very specifically the number of cases where people do not appear. It is inconsistent with the report that I heard on television.

Page 24

PROTECTED WITNESS TRACKING SYSTEM

Mr. ROGERS. Now, you request an additional $4 million for the Marshals Service to purchase a new computer system to track witnesses in the protection program. Is that the total cost of the system? Is it a one-time shot?

Mr. COLGATE. Yes, sir. That is my understanding.
Mr. ROGERS. When will that be completed?

Mr. COLGATE. Other than ongoing maintenance that would be paid, yes, the total represents the actual equipment acquisition.

Mr. ROGERS. How much is the ongoing maintenance costs?

Mr. COLGATE. It would depend on the bids that we receive for the equipment, but it would be de minimis compared to the initial investment.

Mr. ROGERS. And when will they finish installation? Mr. COLGATE. Hopefully, it would be finished in fiscal year 1994, when we get the authorization to use the Fees appropriation, we would commence competitive procurement action and would want it completed within that fiscal year.

Mr. ROGERS. Who is the Assistant Secretary that has INS under their wing?

Mr. COLGATE. There is no Assistant Secretary. There is a Commissioner for the Immigration Service who reports to the Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. ROGERS. Who is that?

Mr. COLGATE. Right now, the Acting Commissioner of the Immigration Service is a woman by the name of Chris Sale, who is a career INS executive, who is acting Commissioner. Presently, we have no Deputy Attorney General. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Skaggs?

Mr. Colgate, I assume that the principal EEO responsibility for the Department falls under your shop somewhere?

Mr. COLGATE. Yes, sir. Fortunately, I have brought Mr. McBurrows who is the director of our Equal Employment Opportunity staff with me.

Mr. SKAGGS. I am just interested in progress or lack thereof being made within the Department. Just scanning the room, we are primarily white males this morning, although a modest representation of people of color and women. I think especially for the Justice Department, it is an important statement about our commitment. How are we doing?

Mr. COLGATE. I can just give you some general observations. For example, 40 percent of the Department's work force are women, compared to 45 percent in the civilian labor force.

Mr. SKAGGS. What are the GS ratings?

Mr. COLGATE. That is probably our biggest problem. Women by and large are underrepresented in some of our law enforcement occupations, as well as the Senior Executive Service. As we indicated, we are going to have a briefing for the Attorney General on the budget process on Tuesday. She is going to start off the morning by meeting with Mr. McBurrows and myself on the Department's work force. We will discuss ways in which we believe we can address and increase some of the diversity in the Department's work force.

Page 25

WITNESS SECURITY COMPUTER EQUIPMENT Mr. MOLLOHAN. You mentioned that you are seeking appropriation language to allow the use of Fees and Expenses of Witnesses funding to purchase new computers?

Mr. COLGATE. That is correct, for the witness security program.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the status of our payment program and what are your needs.

Mr. COLGATE. For this particular program, basically, the current witness security computer equipment was originally procured and installed in 1979, so it is very, very old.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What kind of a system is it?

Mr. COLGATE. I believe it is a DataPoint system, and I believe the manufacturer, if my memory serves me right about DataPoint equipment, may be out of business.

But it was interesting, the other day, I know we were scrambling around to try to find an electrical motor for this system because the motor had burned out and we were having a dickens of a time to try to find a replacement. We are in very desperate straits as far

a as that particular computer equipment is concerned.

FUNDING FOR WITNESS SECURITY COMPUTER EQUIPMENT Mr. MOLLOHAN. How much money are you requesting for this purpose?

Mr. COLGATE. $4 million that we would be able to use of this appropriation. Essentially, we are asking for language that will allow us to use the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses appropriation, where these protected witnesses are actually supported, to acquire this new computer equipment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you know if you can get anything this year?

Mr. COLGATE. This is a unique situation. The Fees and Expenses of Witnesses appropriation is used to pay for supporting witnesses appearing in Federal court hearings as well as supplementing folks who enter the witness security program.

This is unusual, extraordinary in the fact that we are asking for authority to use the Fees appropriation to buy this specialized equipment that will be used to support the Witness Security Pro gram. So we believe it is an appropriate use. We request the authority to use this appropriation.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. But you are not asking for that in what would be a normal account, an account that you did not have to have special authority to use the money for this purpose? I assume you have such an account. Perhaps I am wrong.

Mr. COLGATE. The salaries and expenses of the U.S. Marshals Service is what you would be referring to, they have the equipment budget. The Fees appropriation is another account that supports the Marshals Service activities, but by and large does not buy equip ment, it is used for other supporting activities. And that is why we are asking for this language, in order for us to buy equipment within that account.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay.
Mr. COLGATE. Maybe Mr. Roper could offer some guidance.

Mr. ROPER. Mr. Mollohan, it is not totally unique. From the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses appropiation the Congress has authorized us over past years to use money to build witness safe sites and to procure armored vehicles to transport witnesses. So we have used the funds to procure equipment.

Page 26

Questions SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN Moran

Justice Department Facilities QUESTION: Are you witnessing a larger and larger share of the various agency components budgets being eaten up by high lease costs in the downtown Washington, D.c. area?

ANSWER: The share of the Department's budget consumed by rent has remained constant at approximately 8 percent over the past 10 years. However, the actual amount of the Department's rent costs have increased. This is due mainly to the acquisition of several new buildings to accommodate substantial personnel increases approved by Congress between 1989 and 1992. Expansion space acquired in new buildings located in downtown Washington, D.c., proximate to existing Department of Justice space. Current GSA space acquisition projects, primarily lease replacements, for the Department are being satisfied by recently rehabilitated existing buildings, which are typically less expensive than newly constructed buildings.

Recognizing the trend toward ever increasing rental rates, the Department's Facilities Program 2000 (FP2000) addresses relocating portions of the Department to the suburbs. Studies were conducted within the framework of FP2000 to address conditions in suburban as well as downtown leasing markets, lease expirations, and component consolidation (excluding the Federal Bureau of Investigation). The Department's current plan, established by FP2000, is to decrease its occupancy from 80 percent in D.C. and 20 percent in the suburbs, to 20 percent in D.c. and 80 percent in the suburbs.

QUESTION: Is there any valid reason why agencies, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, need to be housed downtown, when similar space could be leased for an average of 25 percent less in the suburbs?

NOTE: August '92 realty market update average rent per square

foot for downtown D.C. was $41.23, Crystal city/Pentagon city was $30.76, and Rockville was $29.83.

ANSWER: The Department's Bureaus do not necessarily require downtown locations. For instance, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the United States Marshals Service are currently located in Arlington, Virginia. Also, the delineated area for the relocation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Bureau of Prisons and the office of Justice Programs is metropolitan-area wide, and includes the suburbs. However, the issue of delineated area is dealt with on a case-by-case basis for the Office, Boards, and Divisions. The feasibility of locating a component in the suburbs is dependent that component's function and interaction with other Department components located in the Main Justice Building. However, the magnitude of rent

savings depends on the location within D.c. or the suburbs. For instance, the average rent in the Union Station area may be very close to the average rent in Crystal city. Also, given the changing nature of the Washington area real estate market, the potential rent savings of relocating a component to the suburbs will vary on a specific location and/or building basis. QUESTION: Do your current space plans call for agencies to advertise on a metropolitan-vide basis, if there is no need for them to be downtown?

ANSWER: Yes, As mentioned above, this is part of FP2000 objectives.

QUESTION: Does the General Services Administration support efforts to shift office space out of the downtown area when it makes sense to do so?

ANSWER: The GSA has always been interested in lowering the Government's costs by increasing competition whenever it is compatible with the agencies' requirements to do so. QUESTION: Is one of your facility requirements that office space be close to public transportation, particularly the subway and an airport?

ANSWER: For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Prisons and United States Marshals Service, close proximity to the subway and an airport are requirements. The Office of Justice Programs only requires subway proximity. QUESTION: Do you perform periodic surveys of office space in the metro area to determine availability? ANSWER: When the Department has a specific requirement for space, the Department participates with GSA in a market survey, or performs an independent market survey. For example, the Department and GSA jointly developed a Master Plan for the Department in the Washington metropolitan area, which provided the basis for further evaluation of submarket conditions and housing options.

QUESTION: Are you aware that the latest DOD Base Closure and Realignment Report would shift over 8,000 Navy jobs currently in crystal city to other areas? If this Base closure proposal comes to pass, do you believe the space in Crystal city, with its excellent

to public transportation, could be possible candidate for Department of Justice complex?

ANSWER: Yes. he Department would conside Crystal city as a possible candidate for housing some of its components.

QUESTION: For the record, please provide the Committee with a list of the Justice agencies and bureaus whose leases expire over the next five years and who could conceivably be housed in crystal city? Also, for each of these agencies, please provide the anticipated number of personnel and their square feet requirements.

QUESTION: Why do you require the requested language alloving $3,317,000 to be available for the facilities Program 2000? What will these funds, if available, be used for?

ANSWER: Although funding

made available for Facilities Program 2000 in the 1994 budget, the Department does not wish to preclude funding these important and mandatory projects should funding become available. The funds would be used to fund the Department's engineering and above standard costs for the renovation of the Main Justice Building, which has received design funding from the Congress, the temporary swing space necessary to conduct the renovation of the Main Justice Building, and for Department costs associated with the lease replacement for the Justice Management Division into the Bicentennial Building.

Civil Division,

December 1996 901 E St, NW Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, (plus one five year option) Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, Asset Forfeiture Task Force Criminal Division,

December 1996 1001 G SL, NW Justice Management Division (JMD) (plus one five year option)

August 1997 1425 New York Ave. NW (plus one five year option)

Environment & Natural Resources,
Civil Rights Division,
Office of the Inspector General,
Civil Division,
Office of Special Counsel for
Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices

U.S. Marshals Service, Drug Enforcement Administration

* Note: does not include U.S. Attomeys for the Disctrict of Columbia, which must remain in Washington, DC

This list does not include leases that are expiring in FY 1993 and October 1993 (FY 1994), as these procurements : in the final stages. The district and regional offices for the Bureaus are also not included.

QUBSTION: Have the FBI and DEA reduced anticipated basic agent training requirements from the original projections nade in 1991 when the Congress first approved the proposed expansion? ANSWER: Yes. In the 1993 President's budget request to Congress, the Department estimated that the combined training requirements of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would exceed the capacity of training facilities at the FBI Academy at Quantico, VA by 20 percent in 1993 and 26 percent in 1994. of the total number of student days estimated for training needs of both agencies, 30 percent was estimated for basic agent training in 1993 and 35 percent in 1994. The basic agent training requirements were based on special enhancements received through the budget process and special agent attrition. Basic agent training requirements, however, have dropped because of decreases in special agent enhancements and special agent attrition in both agencies. Between 1992 and 1993, DEA and FBI received agent enhancements, which were significantly less than the original requests. Furthermore, special agent attrition has dropped significantly, in part due to the sluggish economy and the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act, which provided agents with an incentive for staying in order to increase their retirement benefits.

Furthermore, in the President's 1994 budget, there proposed administrative and deficit reductions. This will result in the decrease of 74 DEA agent positions, 151 FBI agent positions, and no proposed agent enhancements for either agency. Thus, it does not appear that additional training capacity at Quantico is needed for 1994. The Department will reevaluate its short and midterm training needs of DEA and FBI based on revised assumptions about growth in the agent workforce, attrition rates, and growth in other core positions. The Department will make a decision at a later date on requesting the remaining funds for expanded training facilities in 1995.

QUESTION: What has caused the decline in the projected number of basic agents?

ANSWER: The decline in the projected number of basic agents is attributable to lower than anticipated special

agent funding enhancements and significantly reduced special agent attrition for both agencies. QUESTION: Based on current projections, existing facilities at Quantico sufficient

handle FBI/DEA requirements for basic training, state and local training, and a reasonable amount of in-service training?