[Senate Hearing 106-496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-496
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
__________
MAY 5, 1999
__________
Serial No. J-106-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-325 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah........ 1
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont... 4
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 23
WITNESS
Statement of Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, U.S. Department
of Justice, Washington, DC..................................... 12
ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED
Reno, Hon. Janet:
Testimony.................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 52
APPENDIX
Questions and Answers
Responses of Janet Reno to questions from Senators:
Hatch........................................................ 63
Thurmond..................................................... 76
DeWine....................................................... 86
Ashcroft..................................................... 91
Leahy........................................................ 94
Kennedy...................................................... 112
Additional responses of Janet Reno to questions from Senators:
Hatch........................................................ 153
Dewine....................................................... 155
Leahy........................................................ 155
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERSIGHT
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
Hatch (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Also present: Senators Thurmond, Grassley, Specter, Kyl,
Sessions, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, Feingold, and
Torricelli.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. It is a pleasure for me to welcome our
distinguished Attorney General. We are glad to have you here at
today's oversight hearing.
I hardly need to point out that the bulk of the Attorney
General's duties are crucial law enforcement ones and that the
credit owing to the Attorney General and the Justice Department
often goes unexpressed. Let me assure you, Attorney General
Reno, that while I will focus this morning on problems with the
Department's actions, this committee acknowledges and
appreciates the successes the Department has enjoyed during
your tenure--whether enforcing antitrust and business
competition laws, or investigating and enforcing our civil
rights, drug, and terrorism laws.
Yet there are serious issues, some of which have come to
light only recently. I am referring to questions of security
breaches of our country's nuclear technology that have occurred
at Los Alamos and questions about youth violence in our
country.
To begin with Los Alamos, some have described the recent
security breaches by Wen Ho Lee as the worst threat to U.S.
security since the Rosenbergs. I will not accept that
assessment unless confirmed by facts developed in the pending
investigations of this matter. But while all the facts are not
yet in, what we do know is staggering. Mr. Lee, who was
belatedly fired only 2 months ago, was implicated in some three
separate espionage inquiries:
First, with passing secrets to China about the United
States neutron bomb technology in the early 1980's;
Second, with passing information to China in 1988 that
enabled it to copy one of our most advanced nuclear warhead
technologies and assist the Chinese Government in placing
multiple warheads into a single intercontinental ballistic
missile, commonly known as W-88 technology;
And, third, and most devastating, the downloading in 1994
by Mr. Lee of 50 years' worth of so-called ``legacy codes,''
which contain our country's nuclear codes, onto a nonsecure
computer system that may have been accessed by third parties.
Based on information already in the public domain, it
appears to me that had the Department acted promptly and
properly 2 years ago, when urged by the FBI to petition the
court for wiretap authority over Wen Ho Lee's phone and
computer, that much of this apparent damage to our national
security may have been avoided.
Let me be specific, as I hope you will be with your
answers. As reported in the New York Times, the FBI in 1996
suspected Mr. Lee of involvement in espionage and in 1997
requested permission from the Department to seek a court
warrant to monitor Mr. Lee's phone and gain access to his
computer. The Times reported that such permission was initially
denied by the acting director of the Department's Office of
Intelligence Policy Review and then denied on appeal by the
Department's Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder.
The explanation subsequently proffered for this denial was
that the evidence did not meet the ``probable cause'' threshold
necessary for a wiretap to be issued. But consider that at the
time the Department turned down the FBI, the following evidence
was apparently known about Wen Ho Lee:
As far back as 1982, Mr. Lee was investigated by the FBI as
the result of a phone call he placed to another Taiwanese-born
scientist--Peter Lee, no relation--who had just been dismissed
from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory following an
investigation of China's theft of neutron bomb secrets.
Then in 1994 or 1995, Wen Ho Lee was observed being hugged
by a visiting Chinese scientist in a manner that was perceived
to be ``suspiciously congratulatory.''
Later, because of Mr. Lee's travel to China in 1988 and the
subsequent discovery of documents by the FBI from 1988 that
contained W-88 secrets, Mr. Lee emerged in early 1996 as the
FBI's prime suspect in the W-88 investigation.
And now I return to sometime in 1997, when the FBI urged
the leadership of the Department to allow wiretap authority of
Wen Ho Lee. One journalistic report has it that the Department
makes some 700 such wiretap applications to courts each year
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that the
Department only refuses the FBI once or twice a year. That is a
matter of great concern.
To move to another subject, in last year's oversight
hearing you pledged to help Congress pass juvenile justice
legislation. The recent tragedy in Littleton, CO, underscores
the need to confront the culture of crime and violence
infecting many of our Nation's youth. Yesterday I testified
before the Commerce Committee hearing that examined the
marketing of violence to children. At that hearing, I noted
that there is a sense among many Americans that we are
powerless to change our culture and that this feeling of
powerlessness has restrained our ambition for solutions. I
believe, however, that we can change our culture. The time has
come for us as a Nation to demand more accountability from
everyone, including the entertainment industry.
S. 254, the Hatch-Sessions Violent and Repeat Juvenile
Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act, is the product
of more than 2 years of work in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This legislation contains a $450 million juvenile
accountability incentive block grant; a ``juvenile Brady''
provision, which prohibits the possession of a firearm by
persons who commit a felony as a juvenile; and $435 million for
prevention programs. My home State of Utah is particularly
interested in the authorization of the juvenile accountability
incentive block grant. The Senate is set to consider S. 254
next week, and I would really call upon you and ask for your
help in enacting that bill.
In the aftermath of the Littleton tragedy, the President
called for additional gun control legislation. Given the
magnitude of this and other school shootings, no potential
solution should go unexamined. Having said this, I must note
that the Federal gun laws are not worth much unless the Justice
Department enforces them. After all, State and local law
enforcement officials cannot prosecute Federal law.
To date, the Clinton administration's record on firearm
prosecutions is disappointing. For example, the Judiciary
Committee's Youth Violence and Criminal Justice Oversight
Subcommittees examined Federal firearms protections in a joint
hearing on March 22. The subcommittees' findings were very
troubling. For example, as the first chart to my right shows,
between 1992 and 1997, Triggerlock gun prosecutions dropped
nearly 50 percent, from 7,048 to 3,765. And as you know, these
are prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the
commission of a felony.
It is also a Federal crime to possess a firearm on school
grounds. The second chart that we will put up right now,
illustrates that, despite the more than 6,000 students
illegally bringing guns to school last year--6,000 kids
illegally brought guns to school last year--the Justice
Department only prosecuted eight cases under this law in 1998
and only five such cases in 1997.
It is a Federal crime to transfer a firearm to a juvenile.
Yet, as the chart shows, the Clinton Justice Department
prosecuted--I think we need the next chart. The next chart, the
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only six cases under this
law in 1998 and only five in 1997.
Finally, while it is a Federal crime to transfer or possess
a semiautomatic assault weapon, as the chart reflects, the
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only four cases under
this law in 1998 and only four in 1997.
In short, one should weigh the sincerity of administration
officials advocating these newest gun control proposals. There
is arguably no better indicator of that sincerity than the
administration's record on gun crimes. So I urge the Justice
Department to prosecute our current gun laws to the fullest
extent. When the Justice Department does not fully prosecute
current laws, it undermines requests for additional gun control
legislation.
I look forward to this oversight hearing, and I trust that
your responses to our questions will be sufficiently specific
to assist this committee in better understanding a record that
at this time gives me a great deal of concern about our
country's security and the safety of our own citizens.
We are happy to have you here, and personally, I always
look forward to listening to your testimony and hearing from
you.
With that, we will turn to our ranking member, and then we
will turn to you.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Attorney General Reno, I am delighted to see
you here. I have been listening with great interest to the
chairman's comments. I am impressed at the amount of
information----
The Chairman. I wonder if some of us should go vote, so we
can come back and not interrupt. I will go vote, and I will
read my distinguished colleague's statement later.
Senator Leahy. I just want to say how impressed I was, Mr.
Chairman, at the information you were able to obtain about the
wiretap applications. I always assumed that was confidential
and not obtainable.
The Chairman. We have our ways.
Senator Leahy. It shows that you do, and especially for
wiretaps that were never applied for or granted, so I would
understand if the AG is a little bit reticent to talk about
something like that which is so confidential.
The Chairman. It is in the public record. It is reported.
Senator Leahy. I would assume that if we are going to go
into the events at Los Alamos thing, insofar as these events
apparently occurred during the Reagan and the Bush
administrations, as well as this one, I would assume that we
may want to go into a classified hearing so we can find out who
did respond and who didn't respond during three different
administrations. I know the chairman would not want to be
partisan, and he would want to make sure that we checked into
what happened in these other administrations, too.
Madam Attorney General, we are all, again, grieving for the
victims of school violence. I commended the President for
having convened the October 1998 White House Conference on
School Safety, and we are working with you to provide
additional community police and school resource officers across
the country. I met earlier this morning with the Secretary of
Education. I know that he and the Surgeon General are also
working on additional initiatives.
A number of us have sponsored legislation in this area.
Much of the legislation was never even considered by the
Judiciary Committee, although we were able to incorporate
portions in measures that have been enacted. We reintroduced,
again, on the first day of this session S. 9, the Safe Schools,
Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1999, building on the
1994 crime law. It is comprehensive. It is realistic. It is
funded by extending the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for
2 more years. We tried to avoid the easy rhetoric and focus on
the reality of what we face.
It targets violent crime in our schools. It reforms the
juvenile justice system. It combats gang violence, cracks down
on the sale and use of illegal drugs. It enhances the rights of
crime victims. It offers meaningful assistance to law
enforcement officers in the battle against street crime,
international crime, and terrorism. That bill, which was
cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Biden, Torricelli, Schumer,
and others, is an important step, I believe.
Unfortunately, however, this committee has spent more time
these last several weeks--in fact, this past year--on symbolic
issues like the proposed flag amendment to the Constitution. We
spent a lot more time on that than school violence. In fact,
the committee held four hearings on that proposed
constitutional amendment in the last year, none on the tragic
school violence incidents that occurred throughout the country,
including those before the shootings in Colorado.
I have said before that I have a feeling that if we were to
ask the parents of Colorado if they were wishing that we would
spend more time on school violence or more time on the
possibility that somebody somewhere might burn a flag, they
probably would say it is time for us to turn our attention to
school violence.
In fact, I was disappointed when the committee decided to
postpone last week's long-scheduled hate crimes hearing. And I
am disappointed that this week the Subcommittee on Youth
Violence canceled its hearing on reducing juvenile violence
through recognition of early-warning signs.
These are hearings that go into reality, not rhetoric. So I
hope that the chairman's expressed interest this morning that
we might go to juvenile violence means that we finally will,
because we could talk about such things as the booklet
developed out of the White House Conference on School Violent
that is now being used by schools throughout the country.
Senator Lott, the Republican majority leader, indicated
last week that he will finally allow the Senate to turn its
attention to these matters next week with a full and open
debate on proposals to combat school violence. I look forward
to that debate, and I know we will need your help on that. We
know that the Federal Government and Federal law alone cannot
solve the problem of school violence. But there are things that
we can do.
We have to recognize the traditional prerogative of the
States to handle the bulk of juvenile crime. We have to
redouble our efforts to find ways to help parents and State and
local authorities on matters of school safety.
After 3 years in which we have missed opportunity after
opportunity to cooperate in a bipartisan way on these matters,
it is long past time to put partisanship aside and work
together to make progress on prevention and enforcement crime
matters that affect us all. Unlike many crime issues that have
come before this committee in recent decades, maybe youth crime
can be addressed on a bipartisan basis if we want to and if we
stop squandering the opportunities.
Under your leadership, Madam Attorney General, and the
programs established by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, the Nation's serious crime rate has
declined for 6 straight years. I think it is probably an
oversight that that chart wasn't put up here. But no
administration during the 25 years I have been here, Democrat
or Republican, has been able to say before that the Nation's
serious crime rate has declined for 6 straight years. It has
with this administration. We are seeing the lowest reported
rate in many years. Murder rates have fallen to their lowest
levels in 3 decades. Juvenile crime rates have also been
falling. Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers
have been doing a good job in this, and the aid they have been
given by the Federal Government has certainly helped.
A matter on which we worked closely to assist State and
local law enforcement officers is the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Act, which began to be implemented by your
Department. That help is being made available online with a
minimum of bureaucratic hassles. And I commend you, Attorney
General Reno, for your leadership in those areas.
I commend you for helping to stem the tide of domestic
violence and for moving aggressively to help the victims of
this abuse and to improve rights and services for crime victims
in general. I hope that you and others in the Department will
work with us on the crime victims initiatives we introduced
last week in S. 934. I know that there are some problems in the
restrictive interpretation of the final language, but we can
work on that.
I appreciate the continuing cooperation of you and your
staff and the staff of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service and the Office of Special Investigations in evaluating
the sufficiency of current resources.
Last, I would say that the Department deserves credit for
the good work being done by Bill Lann Lee as acting head of the
Civil Rights Division. He has done a fine job. He should not be
relegated to second-class status any longer. The President has
now had to renominate him for a third time. It is time for the
Senate to have the guts to stand up and vote either for him or
against him, but not hold him in limbo. Let's bring that
nomination to the floor of the Senate. Let every U.S. Senator
stand up and either vote yea or nay. I think fairness demands
nothing less. Honesty demands nothing less. And I think it
would be wrong for the Senate to hide this from a vote any
longer. But that is my feeling. Of course, it is the feeling
of, frankly, every right-minded person in this country.
Actually, we ought to vote on a lot of these people. There
are four U.S. attorneys, two U.S. Marshal nominees pending.
There are 36 pending judicial nominees. We ought to vote on
those.
I regret that the Senate has lost sight of the fact that
for each nomination statistic, there is a man or woman whose
career has been placed on hold and whose reputation may suffer
unwarranted and unintended detriment if we do not perform our
duty and that the American people within the jurisdiction of
the Federal courts with longstanding vacancies are also being
punished.
We have held more than 20 hearings since February, but we
haven't held a single confirmation hearing for any nominee. It
is May and the Senate has confirmed only two judges and two
U.S. attorneys all year long. It is time we ought to move on
that.
It will be a revealing test of our diligence as legislators
to see at the end of the day just how much we are able to move
forward on these issues. The American people deserve safe
streets. They deserve safe schools. They deserve continued
protection of their civil rights. They deserve bipartisan
cooperation toward effective Federal law enforcement.
I will put my full statement in the record and go and vote
now, but, again, I would commend you, Madam Attorney General.
During your tenure we have seen the violent crime rates come
down in this country at a greater rate than we have at any time
since I have been in public office, and I commend you for that.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Attorney General Reno, I am delighted to see you and look forward
to working with you in the days and months ahead to make progress on
the justice issues we face as a nation.
We are all grieving, again, for victims of school violence. I have
commended the President for having convened the October 1998 White
House Conference on School Safety. We are working with you to provide
additional community police and school resource officers across the
country. I also know that you and the Secretary of Education and the
Surgeon General are all working on additional initiatives.
For the last several years a number of us have sponsored
legislation in this area. Much of that legislation was never considered
by our committee, although we were able to incorporate portions in
measures that have been enacted. We reintroduced, again, on the first
day of this session as one of the Democratic priorities, S. 9, The Safe
Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1999, which builds on
the successful programs we implemented in the 1994 crime law. Our bill
is comprehensive and realistic. The new program initiatives are funded
by extending the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for two more years.
We have tried to avoid the easy rhetoric about crime that sometimes
comes too easily in this crucial area. Instead we have crafted a bill
that can help make a real difference.
The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act targets
violent crime in our schools, reforms the juvenile justice system,
combats gang violence, cracks down on the sale and use of illegal
drugs, enhances the rights of crime victims, and offers meaningful
assistance to law enforcement officers in the battle against street
crime, international crime and terrorism. Our bill, cosponsored by
Senators Kennedy, Biden, Torricelli, Schumer and others, represents an
important next step in the continuing effort to enact tough yet
balanced reforms to our criminal justice system.
Unfortunately, this committee has spent more time these last
several weeks and this last year on the symbolic issue of the proposed
flag amendment to the Constitution than it has on school violence. The
Committee has held four hearings on that proposed constitutional
amendment in the last year and none on the tragic school violence
incidents that have occurred throughout the country. I was disappointed
when the Committee decided to postpone last week's long-scheduled hate
crimes hearing. Senator Kennedy has developed a good legislative
proposal that many of us have cosponsored and that many of us think can
help make a difference in providing federal resources and backup
authority on a serious and all-too-current crime problem. And I am
disappointed that this week, the Subcommittee on Youth Violence
canceled its hearing on ``Reducing Juvenile Violence through
Recognition of Early Warning Signs.'' That might have given us a useful
opportunity to talk about the efforts like the booklet developed after
the White House Conference on School Violence that is now available to
schools throughout the country.
Senator Lott, the Republican Majority Leader, indicated last week
that he will allow the Senate turn its attention to these matters next
week with a full and open debate on proposals to combat school
violence. I look forward to that debate and to Senate action on this
problem. We will need your help to come to a balanced legislative
proposal that recognizes the contributions that prevention and
community policing can make. We all know that the Federal Government
and federal law alone cannot solve the problem of school violence or
local crime. Nevertheless, we should help or at least make help
available. We must recognize the traditional prerogative of the States
to handle the bulk of juvenile crime while we redouble our efforts to
find ways to help parents and State and local authorities on matters of
school safety. After three years in which we have missed opportunity
after opportunity to cooperate in a bipartisan way on these matters, it
is long past time to put partisanship aside and work together with the
Administration to make progress on prevention and enforcement crime
matters that affect us all. Unlike many crime issues that have come
before the Committee in recent decades, youth crime can readily be
addressed on a bipartisan basis--if we will just make the effort to get
the job done--and we cannot afford to squander any more chances to work
together to tackle these problems.
Under your leadership and the programs established by the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the nation's serious
crime rate has declined for six straight years. We are seeing the
lowest recorded rates in many years. Murder rates have fallen to their
lowest levels in three decades. Even juvenile crime rates have also
been falling. Since 1994, violent crimes by juveniles and the juvenile
arrest rates for serious crimes have also declined. Our federal, State
and local law enforcement officers have been doing a good job in this
regard, and you should be commended for greatly improving the
effectiveness of our federal assistance efforts and for extending the
reach of those efforts into rural areas. Just last month, a matter on
which we worked closely to assist State and local law enforcement
officers, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act, began to be implemented
by the Department, and that help is being made available on-line with a
minimum of bureaucratic hassles. I thank you for your leadership is
these critical areas.
I also commend you for helping to stem the tide of domestic
violence and for moving aggressively to help the victims of this abuse
and to improve rights and services for crime victims in general. I hope
that you and others in the Department will work with us on the crime
victims initiatives that we reintroduced last week in S. 934, the Crime
Victims Assistance Act. In particular, I know that the emergency
reserve we established in 1995 and 1996 from the Crime Victims Fund is
being put to good use in the aftermath of the violence in Littleton.
While I intended my original amendment to provide authority to help the
victims of international terrorism, like the families of those on Pan
Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, I understand that restrictive
interpretation of the final language of that amendment has led to
problems. I would hope that we could fix those problems for those
victims' families and for those affected by the Khobar towers and
embassy bombings last year, without delay.
I also will appreciate the continuing cooperation of you and your
staff and of the staff of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
and the Office of Special Investigations in evaluating the sufficiency
of current resources, strategies and cooperation among the Department's
agencies in investigating allegations of human rights violations by
individuals who have immigrated to the United States.
The Department also deserves credit for the good work being done by
Bill Lann Lee as acting head of the Civil Rights Division. He has done
a fine job and should not be relegated to second-class status any
longer. The President has now had to renominate Bill Lann Lee for a
third time. It is time for the doors of the Senate to be opened to this
nomination and for the Senate to vote. I believe that in fairness and
out of a sense of dignity this committee should report his nomination
to the floor for a Senate vote without further delay. Bill Lann Lee has
earned our support, and all American's will be well served by his
confirmation.
Mr. Lee's nomination is one of three nominations for Assistant
Attorney General positions currently pending before the Committee. In
addition, there are five U.S. Attorneys and a U.S. Marshal nominee
pending. There are 36 pending judicial nominees for the many vacancies
that plague the federal courts around the country. Chairman Hatch
correctly noted a few weeks ago that consideration of judicial
nominations is ``a serious responsibility of this committee'' and that
what is important is ``the actual performance of our responsibility to
examine and take action on the qualified judicial nominees sent to us
by the Administration.'' I regret that the Senate has lost sight ``of
the fact that for each nominations statistic, there is a man or woman
whose career has been placed on hold and whose reputation may suffer
unwarranted and unintended detriment if we do not perform our duty''
and that the American people within the jurisdiction of the federal
courts with longstanding vacancies are also being punished by the
Senate's inaction. Although our committee has held more than 20
hearings since February, it has yet to hold a single confirmation
hearing for any nominee. It is May and the Senate has confirmed only
two judges and two U.S. Attorneys all year.
By contrast, the Department has much of which to be proud. I hope
that we will have an opportunity today to hear from the Attorney
General about these efforts and accomplishments and the plans to
increase the effectiveness of our law enforcement efforts over the
coming years. It will be a revealing test of our diligence as
legislators to see at the end of today just how much we have been able
to bury partisanship in the interest of shedding light on the long list
of issues that fall within our jurisdiction and within the
responsibilities of the Attorney General. The American people deserve
safe streets. They deserve safe schools. They deserve continued
protection of their civil rights. And they deserve bipartisan
cooperation toward effective federal law enforcement.
Senator Thurmond [presiding]. Ms. Reno, you may give your
opening statement.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, why don't we just go
ahead to your questions, if that would be OK?
Senator Thurmond. Proceed to questions?
Senator Grassley. We did meet Senator Hatch, and if you
were going to give an opening statement, he wanted us to start
in the meantime while he came back. So did you not have an
opening statement? Because if you don't, we will go to
questions.
Attorney General Reno. I think you might as well go to
questions.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you. Ms. Reno, I am extremely
concerned about the possible damage to our national security
that may have been caused by the compromise of nuclear weapons
design codes at Los Alamos National Laboratory. I understand
that in 1997 the Justice Department rejected the FBI's request
to seek court approval to establish a wiretap on the telephone
and computer of Wen Ho Lee, a scientist suspected of
compromising these codes. News reports indicate that the FBI
actually did eavesdrop on Mr. Lee as far back as 1982
concerning nuclear weapons-related espionage.
The question is: Why did the Justice Department reject the
FBI's 1997 request to seek court approval for a wiretap?
Attorney General Reno. Senator, the matter is, all these
materials are classified, and I would be happy to arrange for a
briefing with the committee and staff that has proper security.
It is also in the middle of a pending criminal matter, and we
would not want to do anything that would interfere with that.
But I would be happy to work with you in doing everything I can
to appropriately brief you on the matter.
Senator Thurmond. Ms. Reno, were you personally made aware
of the request for the 1997 wiretap regarding Mr. Lee? And if
not, does the Department have records regarding who was
responsible for rejecting the FBI's request?
Attorney General Reno. With respect to all of these
matters, sir, I think it is important that it be done in an
appropriate manner with appropriate classification.
Senator Thurmond. Serious questions have been raised in
various congressional committees about problems with the
Department of Energy's management of security at the National
Laboratories such as Los Alamos. Do you believe the
responsibility for security at these facilities should be
transferred from Energy to the FBI?
Attorney General Reno. I think it is important that we
proceed with this matter and then make appropriate
determinations in conjunction with Secretary Richardson and
after further discussion.
Senator Thurmond. On a different topic, after the Supreme
Court issues its decision in Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, the
Congress passed a statute, 18 U.S.C 3501, for the courts to use
to evaluate whether a confession was voluntary. Recently, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals followed other courts and ruled
in the Dickerson case that this statute is constitutional. The
court also criticized the Justice Department for refusing to
enforce the statute.
The question is: Has the Dickerson case in the Fourth
Circuit caused you to reconsider your refusal to enforce the
statute?
Attorney General Reno. As you know, it is the subject of
ongoing litigation in the Dickerson case to which you refer.
The defendant in that case is expected to file a petition for
certiorari, and we will be called upon to respond to that
petition. Our response will, of course, depend in part on
precisely what is said in the petition. It would be
inappropriate for the Department to address the subject of
current litigation in any forum other than the court. We would
be happy to provide you with the briefs we have filed on the
subject.
Senator Thurmond. If the Supreme Court accepts certiorari
and hears the Dickerson case, it is important for the Senate to
know whether the administration will defend the
constitutionality of section 3501 because the Senate should
defend the law if the administration will not. If the Dickerson
case is considered by the Supreme Court, will the Justice
Department argue that the statute is constitutional?
Attorney General Reno. Again, our response would depend in
part on precisely what is said in the petition, but I can
assure you that the Solicitor General takes quite seriously his
responsibility for defending the constitutionality of the
statutes of this country and for coordinating this effort with
Senate counsel.
Senator Thurmond. Even if the Supreme Court does not accept
certiorari and does not hear the Dickerson case, the fourth
circuit has held section 3501 constitutional. Will the Justice
Department encourage the courts to apply this law to the fourth
circuit?
Attorney General Reno. In the fourth circuit, we have
issued directions to the prosecutors to call to the attention
of the district courts the court's ruling in the Dickerson
case.
Senator Thurmond. In recent years, the Department of
Justice has experienced problems with its financial statement
audits. Although there have been some improvements, the
Department has received a disclaimer of opinion for 3 years in
a row concerning certain agencies, including the INS and
Marshals Service. As you know, a disclaimer of opinion means
that the information provided to the auditors was so
insufficient that they were unable to give an opinion
concerning the condition of the finances.
Are you concerned about these difficulties with balancing
the Department's books? And when do you expect the problem to
be fully addressed?
Attorney General Reno. We are always concerned with
situations like that, and we are focused on that and hope that
it will be resolved very shortly.
Senator Thurmond. There has been a great deal of discussion
recently about gun laws. As you know, gun prosecutions were
higher in the Bush administration than in the Clinton
administration. President Bush's Attorney General issued the
Thornburgh memorandum prohibiting U.S. attorneys from dropping
gun charges. However, I understand that when you became
Attorney General you modified the Thornburgh memo to give
prosecutors more discretion regarding gun charges.
The question is: Do you believe that this change in policy
may have contributed to the decline in firearms prosecutions?
Attorney General Reno. No, I don't think that that change
in the Thornburgh memorandum contributed. What we tried to do,
Senator, was recognize that numbers are not the issue. What is
at issue are the organizations that perpetuate violence
throughout the community. What is at issue are major criminals,
and what is at issue is forming a partnership with State and
local authorities so that each one is involved in planning on
how to do these cases and who can handle the cases in the best
interest of the community.
For that reason, we focused on major criminal
organizations, and yet we developed in March 1994 an
antiviolence initiative in which Federal agencies came together
to plan in each district and community and then reach out to
State and local officials to plan with them what the major
crime problems were, who should handle which cases, and, for
example, in Boston, the U.S. attorney and the local DA meet
regularly. The local DA takes most of the cases involving small
gun cases, but where interests of federalism or principles of
prosecution dictate that the Federal authority should take it,
they take the case.
What we are interested in is the bottom line and the
result, and the result in Boston has been a dramatic decrease
in the number of youth homicides, for example, attributed in
part to that.
What we want to do is work with everyone concerned in a
thoughtful, bipartisan way to address these issues, not in
terms of numbers but in terms of results.
Senator Thurmond. I just have one more question. I
understand that in the 1996-1997 school year, over 6,000
students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school, but
there were only eight Federal prosecutions last year for
possessing a firearm on school grounds. I recognize that
prosecutions may have been brought under State laws. However,
do you think that Federal prosecutions are sufficient? And if
so, are Federal laws like this useful?
Attorney General Reno. I think Federal laws like this can
be very useful in certain jurisdictions where there may not be
the capacity or the law that permits the prosecution of it. But
in most instances, the State and local authorities are going to
be on the front line on these issues. It is basically a local
issue, and this is part of our partnership in trying to reach
out to them and say when there is a reason why you can't bring
the case, we want to be prepared to do it.
Senator Thurmond. That completes my questions, and I thank
you very much.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you.
General would you care to make your opening statement?
Attorney General Reno. If you don't mind, because it is
important.
The Chairman. I would like to hear it. I am personally
pleased that you waited until we could get back.
Attorney General Reno. I appreciate that.
The Chairman. I apologize. There are other Senators who
want to be here, but this vote right at this time has
inconvenienced all of us.
Attorney General Reno. Please don't worry about it.
The Chairman. So let's take your testimony at this time,
and then what I will do is I am going to defer my initial
question round to Senator Specter, and he can have his when it
comes in the normal course. He was the first to arrive, so we
could go to him after the next Democrat. But we will go with
you then, General Reno.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Attorney General Reno. I have been in office a little over
6 years, Mr. Chairman. My first hearing before this committee
began March 9, 1993, and it is very vivid in my mind. I think I
have now had five oversight hearings plus some additional
hearings before this committee, and as I look at these 6 years,
we have done so much together. We have also disagreed upon
occasions, but we have really worked together, I think in a
very thoughtful, bipartisan way, and I have a great respect for
the committee and for each and every one of its members. And
before I do anything else, I would like to thank you all for
your thoughtfulness and your kindness to me during these 6
years, even in the middle of some fierce disagreements.
Senator Biden. I wouldn't go overboard, General. We are not
all that nice.
Attorney General Reno. Yes, Senator. I would have to
disagree with you. They have all been--even Senator Specter,
when he looks over his glasses at me. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. In some ways, we are a lot nicer than the
other side, I want you to know.
Attorney General Reno. I think you were very gracious, Mr.
Chairman, and that is one of the reasons I waited to make my
opening statement with your thoughtful comments.
The Chairman. I appreciate that.
Attorney General Reno. But I would not take the credit. I
think all America, this committee, this Congress, all America
deserves credit for the fact that violent crime is down 21
percent since 1993 and at its lowest level since 1973.
The overall crime rate is at the lowest level in nearly a
quarter of a century. Murders are down more than 20 percent in
larger cities and suburban communities. And violent crime by
juveniles is down for the third year in a row.
Mr. Chairman, when I came before this committee in 1993, I
said that youth violence, wherever it was, was one of the most
serious crime problems we faced in America. And our job is, as
you point out, still far from done. Now more than ever, we have
to resist the temptation of complacency. The tragedy at
Littleton reminds us all that there is still too much violence.
I agree with you. I think we can work together and
substantially eliminate the culture of violence and the
attitude towards violence in this country. And I just thought
your comments were right on target for eliminating the attitude
that we have. I would like to describe just in a general way
where I think we can go.
There was a certain partisan tinge, but there is also a
thoughtful nonpartisan approach in your comments. If we can
work together and understand that crime is not a Democratic or
a Republican issue, as I think we have on so many occasions in
this committee, if we can do everything we can not to
politicize it, if we can react based on common sense and hard
facts, analyzing the intelligence, develop the strategies,
working with State and local officials.
Let me give you an example, Mr. Chairman. When I came into
office, I had had some experience with weed-and-seed in Miami.
There were only about 2 dozen weed-and-seed sites in the
country. Weed-and-seed is a Republican program. It has now been
increased to over 200 sites because it is a good program and it
is working, and that is an example of how I think we can come
together to address these issues.
I think it is important and I know when you held your
hearing on the appropriations process you raised this issue
that we approach the problem with the idea that we must
preserve principles of federalism. We are focused on how to
reach a balanced budget. No one wants local and State law
enforcement dependent on Federal law enforcement for the long
run. It should stand on its own and not be permanently
dependent on Federal dollars. But Federal dollars can have a
marvelous effect in a community and in initiatives across the
country by providing new initiatives and giving them a chance
to see what works and what doesn't work, by providing
communities such as existed in 1993 who were in crisis for
violence with seed money to develop new programs. And so we
have seen Federal dollars, thanks to this committee and
Congress, use community policing, which needs to be enhanced
now so that it becomes ingrained in the community.
What you, what Senator Biden--Senator Biden, thank you for
that wonderful day in Delaware. It is just encouraging to see
what can be done. But you, Mr. Chairman, with your leadership,
the two of you together--and you take more of the credit, Mr.
Chairman, but you have worked together on it. In terms of
domestic violence and violence against women, Congress has
begun to change the whole attitude towards domestic violence in
this country, and I wish you had been there, Mr. Chairman,
because you would have appreciated the comments by the citizens
that things were different now because of what you all have
done with the Violence Against Women Act.
Drug courts. When I came to Washington, I told you about
the drug courts. A Republican Congress has continued to spread
drug courts across the land in a thoughtful, bipartisan effort
because it is working.
Technology. I wish Senator DeWine were here and Senator
Leahy, but their initiatives with the DeWine-Leahy Act are
again an example of how we must help State and locals adjust to
the new technology, develop the new technology so that they
will be prepared for the next century.
Community-building and youth violence, initiatives that can
make a difference are so important. Federal responsibilities
are important as well. I have addressed the issue of what the
Federal Government can do as a partner. And terrorism, national
security, and crime that crosses district and State lines,
exchange of information, legislation, all of this can be so
important.
With respect to guns, Mr. Chairman, we have a wonderful
opportunity. In the period 1992 to 1996, Toronto, a city
somewhat the same size as Chicago, had about 100 gun homicides
for the whole period. Chicago had 3,063 during the same period.
We don't have to accept violence as a way of life in this
country, and I think we have reached the point where we can put
aside the rhetoric and sit down and figure out that guns kill
people, that we ought to--as a Nation, if we can send people to
the moon and do some of the things that we have done, we ought
to be able to sit down and figure out how we keep guns out of
the hands of people who do not know how to safely and lawfully
use them or have evidenced an unwillingness to do so.
The President has presented a package. Other people have
ideas. Let's get together and come up with something that
really addresses the problems that this Nation faces with guns,
while at the same time recognizing those that have law-abiding
purposes with the guns.
It is important that there be a balance, and I was so glad
to hear you talk about prevention because prisons wouldn't have
worked in Littleton. They knew what they wanted to do with
their life when they went into that school, and prisons weren't
part of it and were not a deterrent.
If we can develop programs through education, prevention,
intervention, punishment that is fair, firm, fits the crime,
and makes clear to every American that they are going to be
held accountable when they do wrong, and that there are chances
of success when they come back from detention facilities or
from prison, that there are reentry programs that give them a
chance to come into the community, we can do so much if we form
and enhance our partnerships with law enforcement across this
country. We can do so much if we work with communities that
understand their needs and resources better than we do and help
them begin to build.
I have seen a city that you care a lot about and I have
come to care a lot about, Salt Lake City. I have seen programs
in Delaware where they are making a difference. I have been to
Philadelphia and seen so much of what is going on there in
terms of community-building, and to Boston. Communities have a
vitality and an excitement and a can-do attitude about
reweaving the fabric of community around children, creating the
building blocks of strong and healthy children, strong parents,
free of domestic violence, educare, nutrition, proper medical
care, afternoon and evening supervision, truancy prevention,
school-to-work programs, school counselors, conflict
resolution.
We know some of the things that can work. We don't know
whether they will work with respect to every child. But we are
trying to form a partnership with communities to address that,
and in that connection, we have developed a grant between three
Departments. HHS, Education, and Justice have come together to
create a unified grant for communities across America that
provides for funding in a comprehensive way to address healthy
children, safe schools issues. Doing and building on programs
like that, we can truly make a difference.
I really look forward----
The Chairman. Could I interrupt you just a second on that?
You are hitting a lot of things I really believe in, and I
think most of us up here do, and I am very appreciative of it.
And I am a great believer in prevention and juvenile justice
matters, as are my friends on both sides, especially Senator
Biden, who has worked very closely, and Senator Feinstein. And
I don't mean to interrupt you, but I just--pardon me for
interrupting you, but----
Attorney General Reno. That is OK.
The Chairman. At this point it just seemed like a good
point to just ask you, today and at last year's oversight
hearing, you pledged to help Congress enact juvenile justice
legislation. However, we are not aware of the Department's
position on the bill we filed, S. 254, the Violent and Repeat
Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act. Could
you tell us where you stand on that and whether you are going
to help us? Because that comes up next week and I need your
help on it.
Attorney General Reno. What I want to do is work with you
to make sure that there are programs for prevention out there
that can make a difference, that if there is a need for further
accountability on the part of juveniles, we address that issue.
I will be happy to sit down with you. One of the things that I
am excited about is----
The Chairman. It is going to happen next week, so we need
to sit down, we need to work this out.
Attorney General Reno. I will call you when I leave and
make an appointment.
The Chairman. It was unfair of me to interrupt you, but I
just wanted--you are making some very important points in my
eyes, and rather than wait until you were through, I thought I
would right at this point----
Attorney General Reno. OK, let me get----
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, just a 10-second intervention.
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Biden. You and I have been working at length on
this, and I just want you to know the Justice Department has
been in every single piece of the negotiation, because there is
nothing I have agreed with you about that I haven't checked
with Justice, and there is nothing that Justice hasn't said. In
other words, the only problem we have is whether there is
enough prevention money in----
The Chairman. I can presume that Senator Biden speaks for
you, then. That is----
Senator Biden. No, I don't speak for the General----
Attorney General Reno. No, no, no.
The Chairman. No, no. But I----
Senator Biden. No one speaks for the General.
The Chairman. I presume that Senator Biden and Senator
Feinstein are working----
Attorney General Reno. This is the reason I raise it, just
by the--I mean, you used to get after me last year about
talking about prevention too much, and so I am glad that you
are----
The Chairman. I don't think I got after you. Maybe others
did.
Attorney General Reno. But with this approach, I will call
you as soon as I leave. I will call your office and find out
when I can come, or I will be happy to meet with you and
Senator Biden, whatever we can----
The Chairman. Senator Sessions is a key player----
Attorney General Reno. And Senator Sessions who has been a
real leader in this whole effort.
But we have got the chance to really make a difference, and
I think we can do it, and I will make myself available----
The Chairman. I am sorry to interrupt you. I just----
Attorney General Reno [continuing]. And now I will hush up.
The Chairman. Well, are you through? I didn't mean to
interrupt you like that. Continue if you care to talk about
anything.
Attorney General Reno. I just think we have got to make
sure that our kids are held accountable, but no one wants to
see a kid commit a violent act if it can be prevented. And if
we can fashion a balance between punishment and prevention and
as well, Mr. Chairman, reentry into the community--we send too
many kids home after having detained them without any followup
or support. And when they come back to the apartment over the
open-air drug market where they got into trouble in the first
place, it just spells trouble again. We have a chance, working
with communities, to really, really make a difference.
And one final point, Mr. Chairman. I think there is a
significant--and the Deputy Attorney General has done a
marvelous job in this regard of focusing on children who are
witnesses or victims of violence. The studies now clearly
indicate that the child who is abused too often becomes the
abuser. And for too long now, we have let children drift
through foster care, and when they are abused and neglected, we
have not focused attention on them.
We have done some really good things with drug courts
together. Let us work together to develop some model children's
courts as well. We are on our way to doing that.
The Chairman. I also want you to look at the effect of the
Internet, movies, video games, and so forth and see if there is
something we can do in those areas, too, that is fair to the
communities, to the business community, but also fair to our
children. So give some thought to that.
Attorney General Reno. We are in the process of doing that.
One of the things that we are doing, Mr. Chairman, is looking--
the parent who is with the child during the day knows where the
child goes. The parent who has to work, whether it be where the
child goes or where the child goes on the Internet, needs help
and we need to work on that.
The Chairman. Senator Thurmond has already asked his
questions, and I will defer my question period to Senator
Specter, who has requested that, but we will go to the ranking
member first. Then I will defer to Senator Specter.
I suspect we will give you double the time because you will
have my time and yours.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I will defer to you, and then I will go to
the next Democrat and then back to you.
Senator Leahy. Let me start off with a discussion, and then
we will go to questions. As I said earlier in my opening
statement, I am glad if there is an indication that we will
finally move to these issues of violence and juvenile crime.
Maybe some of the hearings that we have had canceled this year
will be put back on the agenda, and we can go to it. I
appreciate the chairman, as I said in my opening statement,
saying now that we are going to look at it after all and
Senator Lott saying the same.
I appreciate your response yesterday, Attorney General, to
my letter of March 4, regarding independent counsel costs. I
understand the Department continues to insist as a matter of
policy it serves no more than a ministerial role of a
dispersing officer and does not have the responsibility to keep
detailed accounting of independent counsel expenditures or to
provide oversight on how they spend their unlimited budgets.
I do have a few questions about the information you were
able to provide me. I spoke the other day about Mr. Schmaltz on
the floor, and I will not go into things like self-
aggrandizement that he expressed by passing out wristwatches
referring to a prosecution of a former Cabinet member as though
that Cabinet member was some kind of a big-game trophy or any
of the other disgusting and, as I described on the Senate
floor, stupid things he did, but let me just go to Mr. Starr.
I note that over the course of Mr. Starr's investigation,
78 FBI agents, 25 Federal prosecutors, 524 support employees
from the Department had been detailed to him.
In looking at the number, to put this on contrast, and I
realize I am just a lawyer from a small town in Vermont, it
appeared to me this is more people than we have in most small
towns in Vermont.
Is it an unusually high number, 600 Department employees?
Attorney General Reno. I understand that the 600 number is
the total number deployed, detailed over----
Senator Leahy. I broke it down. It is 78 FBI agents, 25
Federal prosecutors, 524 support employees.
Attorney General Reno. That is detailed over the entire
course of the investigation and not at any one point in time,
but I am not in a position to comment since I am unfamiliar
with the work since I have tried to ensure his independence. I
am unfamiliar with the work, and I cannot comment.
Senator Leahy. I wish somebody with a checkbook would take
a less, independent attitude, so we at least would know what is
going on. Is it common practice to take Federal prosecutors
away from their assigned duties to be detailed to staff
independent counsel investigations?
Attorney General Reno. I understand that the Department has
routinely detailed prosecutors to an independent counsel when
requested through several administrations.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Starr used almost 80 FBI agents, but he
still spent a million dollars on private eyes or private
investigators and $850,000 on unspecified experts. Is there
really almost $2-million worth of investigative matters that
would fall outside the expertise of FBI agents requiring these
private detectives and experts?
Attorney General Reno. I do not know, Senator.
Senator Leahy. All right. I see that Mr. Starr spent
$196,000 on cash awards. Any idea what that might be?
Attorney General Reno. No, sir.
Senator Leahy. The Department reimburses attorneys' fees to
some Federal employees called as witnesses. The taxpayers paid
out about $11,000 in such expenses for Mr. Starr. The
Department has 24 more pending requests in connection with Mr.
Starr's investigations. Do you know how much this is going to
end up costing the taxpayers?
Attorney General Reno. I do not have the details on that,
Senator. I will try to have someone go through it and total it,
but we have not maintained it in that fashion.
Senator Leahy. My point is that we seem to have a automatic
ATM machine that the special prosecutor can keep just punching
and the money comes out, but no details are made of where it is
spent, how it is spent, who it is spent on or anything else,
and I realize the necessity of keeping the independence of this
person, but we do not allow anybody this kind of independence.
We are all elected officials up here who supposedly just
respond to the electorate of our States, but we have to account
for everything we spend from a piece of stationery we buy to a
trip we take.
I am a little bit concerned that you can have somebody
spend millions and millions of dollars, detailed over whatever
period of time, 600 Federal employees, hire private
investigators, private detectives, experts and so on, with no
specification of who they are, what they are for, or anything
else, and spend $2 million extra there on top of a $40-million
investigation and nobody knows how it gets spent. In my State,
$40 million is a lot of money.
The Boston Globe this week published two articles reporting
the individuals who may have committed human rights crimes
abroad and at least several individuals have entered with ease
under immigration laws. The INS efforts to investigate these
allegations against them seem to be ineffectual.
One of the individuals that the Boston Globe mentioned
currently resides in Burlington, VT, my home, and the
allegations made against him are very serious.
The article also raises questions about whether the
Department of Justice has a workable or operative strategy to
handle such cases, and this seems to be a repeat of the
problems that led to the creation of the Office of Special
Investigations in 1979.
What does the Department of Justice and Immigration and
Naturalization Service do when it becomes aware of allegations
that a person who has been legally admitted to the United
States may have committed human rights crimes abroad? Is there
coordination like, for example, INS, OSI, and so on, and does
OSI have the authority to pursue cases of war crimes?
Attorney General Reno. My understanding is that OSI works
specifically with Nazi war criminals, but we take generally
this whole category of cases involving people who may have
committed human rights crimes abroad very seriously, and we
pursue them.
Generally we receive leads with regard to potential war
criminals or others from organizations such as Amnesty
International or the Center for Justice and Accountability.
They often give us source information which we can follow up on
to verify the information, identify the perpetrator, and take
sworn statements with regards to their actions. We have worked
with organizations such as The Hague war tribunals, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to gain
additional corroborating information.
This information can then be used in removal proceedings
for possible prosecution if we can confirm conclusively that
the individual misrepresented themselves when they applied for
immigration status.
That being said, it is often hard to make these cases, as
there is usually very little documentation available, and the
legal standards for prosecution of having committed genocide or
systematically persecuted others or having them part of an
effort to violate human rights, it is very difficult to prove.
Senator Leahy. My time is up, but let me suggest this,
Attorney General. I understand the procedure, and I understand
what the departmental policy is. It might make it easier,
though, to understand how it is applied to a specific case. So
let me do this. I will get to you and your staff the accounts
of this particular person as it is reflected in Vermont, as the
Boston Globe outlined, and then if you could have somebody meet
with me and my staff and explain what steps were followed in
this particular case, how they reflect policy, because I
suspect if there is this case, there will be other cases in
other parts of the country, and if we could take this
particular one and follow it down, what a procedure has done
there, that would be very helpful to me.
Attorney General Reno. We will follow up and do everything
that we can to share the information with you, and I think your
suggestion is very, very important.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Attorney General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
As per Senator Specter's request, I will defer my time to
him, and then we will come back to you.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
scheduling me to question at this time.
I join my colleagues, Madam Attorney General, in welcoming
you here, and I agree with what Senator Hatch has said about
the generally very good job that you have been doing on so many
areas, although there have understandably been disagreements.
Your work in the juvenile field is exemplary, and the
pushing of the gun prosecutions, including my home State,
Southeastern Pennsylvania, is exemplary.
I put at the top of my list for questioning the very
important issues which have arisen involving national security
with respect to China, the espionage issue, the satellite
issue, and the prosecutions which are pending.
A very important question is posed today for congressional
oversight as to what action was taken by the executive branch
going directly to the President.
In his March 19 news conference, President Clinton first
commented about security breaches and then said, ``Now I think
there are two questions here that are related, but ought to be
kept separate. One is was there a breach of security in the
mid-1980's, and if so, did it result in espionage.'' That has
not been fully resolved, at least as of my latest briefing. So
that, on March 19, President Clinton says the issue of
espionage is an open question.
According to a variety of sources, Deputy Attorney General
Eric Holder reviewed a request by the FBI for a search warrant,
and without going into any of the details, which was turned
down.
There has also been extensive public comment about a major
memorandum which was prepared in November 1998 distributed to
top Department of Justice officials. So that, on this date of
the record, there are at least two major points of
notification, at least from what we know, and we ask you for
the specifics coming to the Department of Justice, to your top
Deputy and the memorandum to top officials.
My question to you is, did the Department of Justice,
either the Deputy, you or others, advise the President that the
issue of espionage had been clearly established, substantially
before his March 19, 1999, news conference?
Attorney General Reno. It is very difficult for me to
answer these questions because you posed some questions or make
some points that I would have to go back through classified
information, and what I suggested at the outset was I would be
happy to arrange for an appropriate classified briefing of this
matter so far as it did not impact on the pending criminal
case.
Senator Specter. All right. I would appreciate that, and it
may be that some of these matters will have to go into closed
session.
Attorney General Reno. I would be happy to do that.
Let me first make a point. We have reviewed all of the
information, and we will continue to review it. We are working
with Senator Rudman to make sure that everything is
appropriately reviewed, but I have no reason whatsoever to
conclude that the Deputy Attorney General at this point
reviewed the matter, that it was brought to him, and I think it
is very important that we look at it all very carefully and
give you as much information as we possibly can that does not
affect the pending investigation.
Senator Specter. I agree with you about the care. Deputy
Attorney General Holder was asked about this question on a
Sunday talk show several days ago, and gave an ambiguous answer
as to what had come to his attention. So let us defer that.
I think that the question as to whether the Justice
Department notified the President about espionage does not call
for the disclosure of classified material. Some of the details
might, but let me go on to the next point.
The issue of pending criminal prosecutions and pending
investigations is a complicated one, and in a moment, I will
cite the authorities which I think--and, of course, I want your
views--give the Senate and congressional oversight authority to
move into those matters, but before getting to the statements
of law, let me take up factually two matters.
One matter involves the satellite launches. Between 1989
and 1998, there were 13 Presidential waivers of post-Tiananmen
Square sanctions for exports of satellites or parts to China.
Seven of those 13 waivers came in the Presidential election
year of 1996. Four of those seven waivers were for Loral or
Hughes.
This matter has two parts to it. One part involves the
allegation that Loral and Hughes gave to the Chinese, the
technical information which would be relevant on missiles with
warheads, when they were talking about the satellite launches.
The other aspect of it involves the campaign contribution
of an extraordinary nature by the CEO of Loral, Mr. Bernard
Schwartz, more than 1\1/2\ million dollars.
Let me put that issue aside for just a moment, Madam
Attorney General, and go to the second matter, which is in the
nature of pending investigations and pending prosecutions,
although somewhat different.
Johnny Chung has entered a guilty plea, and there was a
plea bargain. The media reports--and regrettably, that is most
of what we have to go on--that Johnny Chung told Department of
Justice investigators that a Chinese intelligence official,
General Ji Shendai, had transferred $300,000 to Chung,
contemporaneously at a time when a good bit of classified
information was being passed on to China.
Then, when Chung was sentenced, Judge Manuel Real said
this, that if Democratic Chairman Don Fowler and former
Democratic Party Finance Director Richard Sullivan ``did not
know what was going on, they are the dumbest politicians I have
ever seen.'' ``It is very strange that the giver pleads guilty
and the givee gets off free.''
Now, I ask you these questions, Madam Attorney General, in
the context understanding that they involve pending
investigations and pending prosecutions, and we have discussed
these matters at very substantial length. Your response has
always been that you cannot discuss these matters. Maybe we
will have to go into closed session, but when we have had
closed sessions, you have declined to do so because they are
pending.
The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of
Sinclair v. United States said this:
It may be conceded that Congress is without authority
to compel disclosure for the purpose of aiding the
prosecution of pending suits, but the authority of that
body directly or through its committees to require
pertinent disclosures in aid of its own constitutional
power is not abridged because the information sought to
be elicited may also be of use in such suits.
So the Supreme Court came at the closure on the issue and said,
as I have just quoted, that it is not sufficient to decline
congressional oversight when a suit is pending.
Then, on the issues of investigations, the Supreme Court of
the United States in McGrain v. Dougherty said the following:
It is quite true that the resolution directing the
investigation, the congressional investigation, does
not in terms avow that it is intended to be in aid of
legislation, but it does show that the subject to be
investigated was the administration of the Department
of Justice, whether its functions were being properly
discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and
particularly whether the Attorney General and his
assistants were performing or neglecting their duties
in respect to the institution and prosecution of
proceedings to punish crimes and enforce appropriate
remedies against the wrongdoers, specific instances of
an alleged neglect being recited. Plainly, the subject
was one on which legislation could be had and would be
materially aided by the information which the
investigation was calculated to elicit. This becomes
manifest when it is reflected that the functions of the
Department of Justice, the powers, duties of the
Attorney General, and the duties of his assistants are
all subject to regulation by congressional legislation,
and that the Department is maintained and its
activities are carried on under such appropriations as
the judgment of Congress are needed from year to year.
There has been a Congressional Research Update as of April
1999 relating that Congress can in oversight in effect require
information from pending investigations of prosecutions, citing
authorities from the Palmer Raid, Teapot Dome, to Watergate, to
Iran Contra which is 1980's, and to Rocky Flatts in 1992.
I appreciate that is a fairly, fairly long analog, and it
may be that we are going to have to do this in closed session,
or it may be that a better way to do it is on an informal
basis, but I think that as a matter of oversight, when you have
national security matters involved at an oversight prerogative
of the highest nature and these matters have gotten to the
appellate courts and the District of Columbia circuit has
handled quite a few, they have referenced how complicated it
is, how important it is, and a balancing to some extent.
Let me start with my first point.
The Chairman. Senator, your time is up. I will come back to
you as soon as Senator Kennedy is through.
Attorney General Reno. Can I answer that?
The Chairman. Yes. I apologize to you. Of course, you can
answer.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, as I recall, you know
full well the efforts I go to, to meet oversight
responsibilities that I have to respond, and I think I feel
very strongly that it is important for the Attorney General to
be as responsive as she can to Congress to go to every possible
length to provide information that would not affect the pending
investigation, to do so in closed session as you and I have on
occasion, Mr. Chairman, in another circumstance.
Frankly, Senator, I probably know more than most Attorneys
General about the whole process and about the accommodations
process, and I commit to you that I will do everything I can
consistent with the responsibilities that I have to work with
you to ensure that you can do your oversight. I suggest that we
will explore with the chairman if you would like some
appropriate closed session.
The Chairman. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
General we want to again extend a warm welcome to you. We
are mindful of the very long and distinguished service that you
have had as the Attorney General of the United States and your
own public service before that, and I think all of us are very,
very grateful for what you continue to do as the head of the
Department. We thank you for being here today.
Under normal circumstances, General, I would like to
question you about what we are doing about the INS and INS
detection, and to talk a little bit about the antitrust laws.
We have had a recent case in Massachusetts, in terms of
banks, to give assurance that local considerations would be
there.
I want to talk to you also a little bit, as my friend and
colleague did, Senator Leahy, about the Bill Lann Lee
nomination, an outstanding individual, and about how important
it is for the Senate to take action on this issue.
I want to talk to you a little bit about hate crimes. This
is an important issue. We still have to address it. We have had
strong support for you and the President of the United States
about law enforcement officials nationwide.
I also want to talk with you a little bit about this racial
profiling and the traffic-stop statistics legislation. These
are all very, very important issues.
Given the limited amount of time that we have on this, and
I will submit other questions on that, I ask that my full
statement be entered in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Mr. Chairman, the Committee is holding this hearing while the
nation stands at an important cross road. The epidemic of youth
violence in our cities and suburbs has taken another victim--Littleton,
Colorado--and, once again, we find ourselves in the wake of another
senseless tragedy. Each of us deplores the senseless injury and loss of
life, the families torn apart, and the communities living in fear.
Faced with this national challenge, we clearly need to take bolder
steps to give children, parents, schools, and communities the help they
deserve.
We must do more to keep guns out of the hands of children. A 1993
survey by Louis Harris found that 59 percent of school children in
sixth through 12th grade said they ``could get a handgun if they wanted
one.'' A third said they could get one ``within an hour.'' It's a
national disgrace, but not a surprise, that we lose 14 children every
day to gunshot wounds. We require aspirin bottles to be child-proof and
we regulate toy guns. Why don't we do more to protect children from
real guns?
We need to pass legislation that calls for safety locks on guns,
that bans juvenile possession of assault weapons and high capacity
ammunition clips, that imposes increased penalties on adults who
transfer guns and ammunition to juveniles, and that takes other
necessary steps to close the gaping loopholes in the current gun laws.
I know the Administration and Attorney General Reno support these
efforts, and I look forward to working with them as we prepare to
debate these issues in the Senate next week.
But guns aren't the only problem, and new gun laws are only part of
the solution. We need to support steps to help parents and teachers
detect and address the alienation and the many other causes of youth
violence. Last year, the Department of Justice, the Department of
Education, and Department of Health and Human Services initiated its
innovative Safe Schools, Healthy Students plan to support community-
based efforts. Congress can and must do more to support communities
through this program.
I am also concerned about the treatment of immigrants seeking
asylum in the United States and the harsh laws guiding detention and
deportation policies. The INS should consistently implement its policy
of releasing asylum seekers who have established a credible fear of
persecution and are not a danger to the community. I am working with
Senator Leahy, Senator Robb and others on legislation to improve
conditions of INS detention, and define the cases in which asylum
seekers should be released from detention. All immigrants should be
treated fairly. Whenever possible, immigrants subject to detention
should be housed in facilities that are close to their families and
communities, where they are more likely to find legal representation.
The current detention policy is particularly harsh. It eliminates
the discretion previously granted to INS and immigration judges, and
changes the rules in the middle of the game for many immigrants. The
categories of crimes that could result in deportation have been
significantly expanded to include minor, non-violent offenses, where no
sentence was served. Even U.S. war veterans have been detained and
deported. There is no justification for measures that divide families,
deny immigrants their day in court, and turn immigrants into second
class citizens.
I know the Attorney General is prepared to discuss these issues and
many others--including civil rights enforcement and passage of the Hate
Crimes Prevention Act--and I look forward to her testimony.
Senator Kennedy. I would like to talk to you a little bit
about what most families are concerned about in the country,
and that is whether their children who are going to school
today are going to be safe and secure, and also what is on the
mind of probably a lot of children, about whether they are safe
and secure in the schools that they are attending today.
I think all of us certainly have thought about this. We
have watched it and read about it, and seen the enormous
emotion by the families who have suffered immeasurably in the
most recent tragedy at Littleton, but also in the six previous
tragedies as well. We are mindful that there are not any easy
answers or easy solutions, but I do not think that should bar
us from taking reasonable steps, particularly those steps that
have demonstrated at least some opportunity for progress in
some of the areas that really have been identified. We will
have an opportunity in the Senate next week, by the assurances
of the majority leader, to deal with some aspects in terms of
the gun legislation, and hopefully, we might even have an
opportunity to try and deal with some of the other aspects in
the supplemental.
We will be addressing the enormous needs that we have in
terms of Kosovo and the importance of making sure that our
armed forces are going to have the kinds of support that they
need in terms of carrying the responsibility forward and
protecting their lives, but we also have another crisis, I
think, that is out there in the schools and in communities that
need attention. A number of us are hopeful that we might be
able to give some help and assistance to schools, to families,
to teachers, to local law enforcement people, to personnel in
the communities that might have some ability to have some
impact in terms of trying to make schools safer communities.
So, really, there are two areas that I want to inquire of
you. I would just reference at the outset what has happened to
Boston, and then I wanted to inquire of you about the important
legislation that last year was developed with your leadership
in the Justice Department, Secretary Riley and Donna Shalala in
that Safe Schools Healthy Students Plan, which is a
consolidation of a lot of the programs which are going to be
available to communities. It is the basis of a lot of research,
which I think offers some real kind of hope, and maybe we can
get some focus and attention on that.
First, as you are familiar, we have some 13 children every
day in the country that die of gunshot wounds, and we have seen
the most obvious example in Littleton.
I was looking again back at my own City of Boston. Between
1995 and 1998, homicides dropped by 64 percent. In 1998, there
were 35 homicides in Boston, compared to 152 in 1990.
This year, thus far, there have been four murders in
Boston, which is down another 56 percent from this time last
year, 64 percent in the previous years--56 percent from this
time last year. During the period from July 1995 through
December 1997, no juvenile in Boston was murdered by a gun.
Last year, there were 16 murders, just general murders;
this year, to date, zero. These are just extraordinary results,
and I think we ought to try and see what we can learn. Boston
is different from other communities, but there certainly seems
to be a program or an approach there which has been very, very
successful in trying to deal with the problems certainly in
terms of youth violence.
This is what they call the Boston Gun Project. I know now
this program is trying to be replicated in a number of
different communities across the country by the year 2003.
We are going to hear Commissioner Evans make a very
effective presentation tomorrow in a different committee, in
our Human Resource Committee, where he is going to talk about
tough law enforcement and engagement. He is going to talk about
working with the schools, and he is going to also talk about
tracking of weapons.
I see that my time is almost up. I would appreciate it if
you could comment about which gun control measures you feel are
of the highest priorities, and also if you would comment on
that program that was developed with your leadership in the
Justice Department to help and assist schools. We would like to
find out what we can learn from those that might be immediately
applicable, trying to do something here and now.
We will have to do things over the longer term, but maybe
there are some steps that could be done now that could be
helpful to families.
Attorney General Reno. Let me talk about the long range and
the short range within it. You have clearly put your finger on
one of the important parts. If we are to focus on youth
violence, we also have to focus on all violence so that people
understand it is not acceptable, and that is the reason the
Boston Project is important.
We focused on violence. We let people know that they were
going to be held accountable, but we let others know that they
would be held accountable, but that there were alternatives. As
I recall, John Hancock came in and provided programs that
taught young people how to get jobs, how to hold jobs. The
faith community came in the schools, the courts, the citizens.
It was a remarkable effort.
We have translated that effort into five communities in a
strategic local planning project that focuses on the same
thing, what are the organizations, who are the people that are
committing these crimes, apprehend them, hold them accountable,
let them know that there is a firm, fair sanction that fits the
crime. Let the youngsters coming up know that they will be held
accountable, but there are other routes for them to go.
At the same time, there are different situations with
respect to youth violence that we have got to focus on, and I
just think it is important to realize that we cannot do a quick
fix in high school. We can do so much in terms of adding
counselors, but it is very difficult to grow up in this country
today. We need conflict resolution programs and problem-solving
programs in the schools.
Senator my dream is that we teach every teacher how to
teach their kids to resolve conflicts without knives and guns
and fists. It is possible to do. That we have counselors in the
schools who can identify kids who are on the verge of getting
in trouble, that we have programs to say that we will not
tolerate bullies and hassling and put-downs in schools.
Everybody should be respected.
School counselors can be a very effective force, and the
Conference of Mayors has called for youth counselors in the
schools of this country and the Federal assistance for this
effort.
Providing afternoon and evening programs that give young
people a variety of things to do can make a significant
difference, and that is what we are trying to do through the
grant that you speak of.
None of this is going to work if it is one piece here and
not a look at the whole if it is just prevention or not
punishment, if it is just a program for elementary school and
not for high school, if you do everything right by the kid, but
he cannot get a job or find something to do in the afternoon.
We have got to really restitch the fabric of community
around our kids and give them something to be positive about.
I would finally like to take a few minutes to say I have
had too many young people in the last year tell me why do
people not like kids, and I say from my experience in these
last couple of years that the young people of America are
extraordinary. They are fine. They are wonderful. They are
public-spirited. They want to contribute. They can be
obstreperous, but they can be witty and funny and caring and
dear, and we have got to do everything we can to support them.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much.
I see you have Mr. Jennings from Boston who is sitting
behind you. He is the coach for the Boston Celtics. You have
chosen wisely. We have a lot of respect for him.
Attorney General Reno. He is my coach now.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
The Chairman. We want to welcome you, Mr. Jennings. You
have got a number of big basketball fans here on this dais. So
we are happy to have you here with us.
Senator Leahy asked if we have a good team out in our
State. Can you imagine? That is typical.
Senator Specter.
Senator Leahy. I am just trying to keep you humble.
The Chairman. As you know, Senator Specter has my time
deferred, but he is now in the order to be heard.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, again, Mr. Chairman
for yielding me your time and now my time. I asked my
colleague, Senator Grassley, if this sequence gave him any
heartburn because we have been here since 1980. I do not want
to give anybody any heartburn, but especially Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. I even feel good that you are concerned
about it.
Senator Specter. I am concerned about it.
Senator Smith. Do not ask down at this end.
Senator Specter. I am concerned about Senator Kyl, Senator
Sessions, and everybody, but let me make better use of the time
than that repartee.
Madam Attorney General, I have posed a number of questions,
and I will defer to you suggestion on a closed session as to
what is happening with the pending investigations and/or
prosecutions as to Loral and Hughes and the other pending
matters. I think there are some closed issues which are
appropriate for public comment, which do not involve national
security.
There has been a closed plea bargain as to Johnny Chung. So
I think that is a proper matter for congressional oversight.
I did not have time to talk about Judge Real with respect
to his comment of his ``surprise'' that Attorney General Janet
Reno has not appointed a special counsel to investigate the
Clinton Campaign fundraising maneuvers, but I would ask you
specifically what action, if any, the Justice Department is
taking or if it is an open matter, as Judge Real who sentenced
Johnny Chung said, ``It is very strange that the giver pleads
guilty and the givee gets off free,'' referring to Mr. Fowler
and Mr. Sullivan.
Are there ongoing investigations as to Fowler and Sullivan?
Attorney General Reno. What I would suggest that we do,
Senator, so that I make sure that I do not do anything that
would inadvertently hurt the investigation, is respond to your
questions in writing.
Senator Specter. The plea bargain of Peter H. Lee resulted
in probation and a fine and some community service. Peter Lee
was one of those at Los Alamos where there were overtones,
perhaps more than overtones, as to the espionage issue, and
there was finally a guilty plea as to security breaches which
could have carried a sentence of 5 years in prison.
There was an issue as to reluctance to bring other charges
because of confidential information from the Department of the
Navy, but it seemed to me that given the circumstances of Los
Alamos--and like you, Attorney General Reno, we were old-line
district attorneys, you in Miami and me in Philadelphia--that
sentence of probation and community service and a fine was not
sufficient for what Peter H. Lee had done.
I would be interested in your comment as to the propriety
of that kind of a sentence on a plea bargain for something as
serious as that which was involved there.
Attorney General Reno. Let me respond in writing so I can
make sure that my answer is complete.
Senator Specter. OK; one of the difficulties with responses
in writing is that we do not have a chance to really discuss
it.
Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to come over and
discuss it with you to the extent that it is appropriate.
Senator Specter. All right. I understand that a good many
of these matters are specific, and I asked you about ones that
are very well known like Chung which is a big case and also
Peter H. Lee which is a big case, but let me come back to a
written response which I have had from you.
The Governmental Affairs Committee is considering what to
do about independent counsel, and this will be the fourth
hearing where I have asked you the question about the expansion
of the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to
move into the Monica Lewinsky incident.
I asked you about it in an oversight hearing about a year
ago. You told me that the application spoke for itself, and
there is never enough time. Then I asked you about it at a
Budget hearing here, a few weeks ago, and you said you would
study it and get back to me. I asked you about it in general at
Governmental Affairs more recently, and I did get an answer
yesterday, not from you, which surprised me a little bit
because we had had so much discussion about it. I understand
the need to function through assistants, but this is a matter
which I had looked for your personal views on.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Jennings wrote to me as
follows. The issue as to Judge Starr's expanded jurisdiction
involved his having been at the investigation of President
Clinton for about 4 years with Whitewater and the Filegate and
Travelgate and so many, many other matters, and the concern
which I expressed contemporaneously in January 1998 that the
public would misunderstand and think that there was as vendetta
when he was expanding his jurisdiction, and there were media
calls for speeding up his investigation.
The application which you had filed said just this, the
parts of two pages to the appointing court asking for expansion
of jurisdiction. ``It would be appropriate for Independent
Counsel Starr to handle this matter because he is currently
investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to
influence witnesses in his own investigation. Some potential
subjects and witnesses in this matter overlap with those in his
ongoing investigation.''
As I said to you the last time we talked about it--you used
the plural here, ``witnesses,'' ``subjects,'' and ``witnesses''
again, and to the best of my knowledge, the only one we had was
Webster Hubbell who was offered a job arranged by the same
lawyer for the same company out of the city.
To say that that application speaks for itself, I think it
is simply not accurate, but this is the letter I got yesterday
from Mr. Jennings, your Acting Assistant Attorney General for
Legislative Affairs, ``Upon reflection, the Attorney General
has determined that given the particular circumstances of this
matter, any further matter by her at this time beyond the
explanation provided in her public application to the Special
Division for expansion of the jurisdiction of an independent
counsel would be inappropriate. In addition to Mr. Staff's
pending litigation, these circumstances include the fact that
the events leading to the Attorney General's decision to
recommend that Mr. Starr's jurisdiction be expanded to include
the Lewinsky matter are under review by the Department of
Justice.''
We have had with frequency your deferring answers to a
closed session or to writing, but I have to tell you candidly,
Madam Attorney General, that I consider that response not only
totally insufficient, but really bordering on insulting, to
come back in the context of how many times we have raised this
question and the importance to pending litigation we are trying
to decide now, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,
whether we ought to continue independent counsel. A big issue
has been Judge Starr's excesses--that is the allegation, I am
not saying that they were--and his investigation of Lewinsky,
and we want to know why the Attorney General took the
initiative to expand his jurisdiction. This is an important
pending matter for consideration by Congress.
You have not said, ``Well, I will come in and talk to you
privately or a closed session.'' You just say it is
inappropriate.
I think it is important for us to know, so we can decide
what to do with the Independent Counsel Statute. This is not to
assess blame for the past, but to try to figure out where we go
from here. Why did you ask the court to expand its
jurisdiction, given all of the problems here, Madam Attorney
General?
Attorney General Reno. First of all, Senator, I would not
do anything that would even insinuate disrespect for you, and I
apologize to you if you feel like it was insulting because it
certainly was not, but you have put your finger on one of the
most difficult issues that I face, and that is how I exercise
my responsibility under the Independent Counsel Act without
interfering with the independence of the independent counsel.
There is a matter in trial now. There is a matter under
review now. I am happy to talk with you and the chairman about
how we might properly address this because it does go to the
independence of it. I have not dragged this along. I have tried
to see where we stood and whether it would be appropriate at
some point for me to comment, and I will be happy to explore
that with you, but I have got to make sure.
And I will tell you, since you have never been, I do not
think, on the other end, it is easy to be a prosecutor in
Philadelphia and it is easy to be a prosecutor in Miami.
Senator Specter. I do not remember that.
Attorney General Reno. It is much more difficult to be a
prosecutor in Washington and acknowledge and honor Congress'
oversight responsibilities, while at the same time trying to do
what you are supposed to be doing under the law, and I will try
my level best to do both to your satisfaction.
Senator Specter. My final statement, Madam Attorney
General, is I know you have got a very difficult job, and I
think you have done a good job over a very long period of time.
Our relationship goes back more than a decade, 1985, when I
came to Miami trying to move on career criminal prosecutors,
the statute that we had passed just the year before. So I have
watched you as a district attorney, and I will not prolong the
discussion. I think it is as tough to be district attorney of
Miami as it is to be anything, almost as tough to be district
attorney of Philadelphia.
One of the problems about doing all of this----
Attorney General Reno. But you did not do oversight, I
mean, when you came to Miami.
Senator Specter. Did not need to. Your job was so good.
Nobody needed to do any oversight.
The final point is that when we do it in closed session, we
do it by letter. The public does not really know what we are
doing. It is a prodigious, prodigious job to pursue this issue,
Madam Attorney General, through four hearings, and then we are
going to have a meeting, but I have an instinct that you and I
will meet again publicly and we may talk about it again
publicly.
Attorney General Reno. What I have said from the very
beginning is that to the extent that I can under Federal law,
with Privacy Act considerations and everything else--and
forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but I want to take my time on this
one--in Florida, we had a public records law, a sunshine law.
Everything became open when the matter was concluded. I had
closeout memoranda that were made available. So people knew
where I stood, and I always said I cannot comment during the
pendency of the investigation, but I can comment afterwards as
long as there is no other intelligence that will lead to
further subjects.
I am prepared to do that again, to the extent that I can
under Federal law, consistent with 6(e) and every other Federal
limitation, and I would anticipate and would appreciate the
opportunity to have another public discussion with you at the
appropriate time.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein, we will turn to you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is great to see you again, Madam Attorney General, and I
want to welcome you to the committee. I would like to talk
about essentially three things. The first is the assault
weapons. The second is children learning to make bombs from the
Internet, and the third is the Immigration and Naturalization
Service and some growing concerns that I have, specifically the
public charge issue.
You were very helpful in 1993 when I wrote the assault
weapons legislation, and the Department of Justice and you in
particular were very supportive. I am very, very grateful for
that.
As you know, it is very controversial legislation, and
there are loopholes. If I had my druthers, I would ban
possession of assault weapons. I see no reason for them to be
anywhere on the streets, and particularly in our schools in
America, but very shortly, I hope to introduce legislation with
a number of cosponsors to close a significant loophole which is
the importation of big clips coming from other countries.
If you will recall, we tried to get the President to do
this by executive order. Your Department held that he could
not; that it would take legislation to close this loophole.
As you will also recall, it is now illegal to manufacture,
sell, or possess a clip drum or strip of more than 10 bullets,
subsequent to the passage of the legislation in 1994.
The loophole is allowing the foreign importation. We would
like to close that loophole and strengthen the law with respect
to prohibiting possession of assault weapons by juveniles.
I would like to ask if you would take a look at this
legislation in the next few days, and hopefully, you will be
able to support it.
Attorney General Reno. I think we will, and we will
certainly look at it because I believe it is part of the
President's package.
Senator Feinstein. That is correct. It is actually
combining two things into one----
Attorney General Reno. Two points.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And trying to strengthen
it. So I would appreciate that very much.
For some years now, I have been concerned about the
availability of bombmaking information on the Internet. Let me
be very clear. For the information that I am concerned about,
there is no legal use. There is only an illegal use, and we
have had this bombmaking prohibition in bills for 3 or 4 years
now. They are always removed surreptitiously in conference.
Since Littleton, in just a few weeks, there have been seven
incidents of youth using bomb instructions from the Internet to
build bombs, and at Salt Lake City; Cobb County, GA; Wimberly,
TX; Brooklyn, NY, six of the seven incidents, these youngsters
brought these bombs to schools.
Senator Biden and now Senator Hatch have been in support of
this legislation, and you conducted a thorough study pursuant
to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996,
and in that study, you recommended the adoption of my
legislation. However, you also recommended that the state of
mind required to be proven be heightened from ``knowing'' to
either ``intends'' or knows that the person receiving the
information intends to use it to commit a crime.
I am concerned now that this is too difficult a standard to
ever really prove a case, and in light of what is now becoming
a widespread use of this information to actually build bombs,
and the recent decision by the fourth circuit. I want to just
quickly read to you part of that fourth circuit decision, ``In
the case of Rice v. Pallidin Enterprises, which ruled that a
publisher of one of these so-called mayhem manuals could be
held civilly liable to relatives of a victim who was murdered
by a criminal following the instructions contained therein.''
The court extensively cited and relied on the Justice
Department study on my amendment, noting, that the exhaustive
legal analysis set forth in that report and stating that the
decision we reach today follows from the principal conclusion
reached by the Attorney General and the Department in that
report, the court concludes, we are confident that the first
amendment poses no bar to the imposition of civil or criminal
liability for speech acts which the plaintiff or the
prosecution can establish were undertaken with specific, if not
criminal, intent.
The court then quotes from the Justice Department report,
The Government may punish publication of dangerous
and structural information where that publication is
motivated by a desire to facilitate the unlawful
conduct as to which the instructions inform or, at the
very least, publication with such improper intent
should not be constitutionally protected where it is
foreseeable that the publication will be used for
criminal purposes.
What I am essentially asking that you look at or respond
to, do you think we can safely restore the standard to
``knowing'' and still survive scrutiny under the first
amendment?
Attorney General Reno. Let us take a look at it, Senator,
and we will do so immediately and get back to you very quickly
because it is the subject of everybody's concern.
Senator Feinstein. Right, and particularly that fourth
circuit opinion.
Attorney General Reno. I have made the notes.
Senator Feinstein. I believe now that all of this material
only has a criminal implication. There is no legal purpose for
a light bulb bomb, a book bomb, a pipe bomb, a letter bomb, any
of these things, and when these manuals tell you how to break
into labs, how to assemble the materials, how with specificity
to craft any illegal instrument which can only be used
illegally, what I am hopeful is that now that there is broad,
wide knowledge, that knowledge alone can be the test.
Attorney General Reno. Let us check and get back to you.
Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate that very much.
I will go to INS for a moment. You might be aware that the
ambiguity of the public charge definition issue has caused much
confusion within immigrant communities. People are essentially
foregoing essential healthcare because they wrongly believe
that their participation in Government-run health programs will
jeopardize their immigration status or the status of family
members in the United States.
Recently, we have had a death in Orange County of an infant
who died after receiving an injection in the back room of a
local gift shop, and all throughout my State, these illegal
nonmedical treatment facilities are setting up to deal with the
problem.
In California alone, 1.7 million children go without health
insurance, despite the existence of a Federal program that
offers low-cost medical care, and in some areas of Los Angeles,
only 30 percent of preschool youngsters have been immunized.
I was just in Orange County at a center. 37,000 youngsters
have no immunization at all because they are afraid to
register, that their immigration status will be jeopardized.
I have been writing for 3\1/2\ months now to INS, and I do
not get a satisfactory response. What I am asking for is a
clear regulation, if possible. If not, I am prepared to
introduce legislation, but a clear regulation that would exempt
immunizations, public healthcare, public health-related
healthcare, and critical healthcare from any public charge
aspect.
Are we going to be able to get it as a specific regulation,
or do we need to introduce legislation? That is my question.
Attorney General Reno. The INS is currently engaged in
discussions on an interagency basis to develop an
administrationwide approach to the public charge issues.
We will embody it in field guidance and possibly the
regulation, but we at this point are in conversation with the
Department of Health and Human Services and Agriculture because
they have issues that directly relate to this. We are trying to
move it as fast as we can. At the conclusion of the interagency
process, we will be issuing the guidance. I think it should
address the issues, such as vaccination. We want to consult
with Members of Congress and make sure that we do this right
and that we do it with all deliberate speed because I know how
important it is.
Senator Feinstein. As I told the White House yesterday, who
called urging me to be patient, I have run out of patience. I
have really tried to be nice. I have tried to write letters.
Then entire California delegation has signed letters, and I
really think it is important, Madam Attorney General. People
are dying, and we are going to have a major public health
contagion problem in California unless we get this cleared up.
Attorney General Reno. Let me make a suggestion. Just keep
on being nice and as determined as you usually are and adamant
and----
Senator Feinstein. You know, that will get me a box of Mars
bars.
Attorney General Reno. No, no, no.
Senator Feinstein. Two tickets to next week's elections.
Attorney General Reno. One of the things that I have
discovered about you, you are probably the most tenacious
person when you get a subject. So just keep at it----
Senator Feinstein. All right.
Attorney General Reno [continuing]. And I will let you know
exactly where we stand because you are absolutely right.
The Chairman. She gets almost everything she wants on this
committee.
Senator Feinstein. That will be the day.
The Chairman. Well, you do pretty well, really.
Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. General Reno, I have some issues that I
want to bring up that are things that have been ongoing between
me and your Department, and it is more or less to get some
updates from you.
Not long ago, you were gracious enough to meet with me and
a number of other Senators from agricultural States regarding
our concern with agribusiness concentration. You indicated that
you would consider our concerns carefully, and I have no doubt
that you will, and that you would let us know if you saw any
problems.
Have there been any developments since that meeting?
Attorney General Reno. Yes; I follow this very carefully
now. I have an 8:30 morning meeting at which I go over my
checklist of things that are really critical, and ``pork'' and
``beef'' are the shorthands for the issues. And you all made
clear, the Senators made clear, what an impact this has had. I
can assure you that we take the concerns very seriously.
As I told you in the meeting, the Assistant Attorney
General for the Antitrust Division, Joel Klein, had determined
that he would go to--he went to Minnesota, met with farmers in
a public forum. It was attended by hundreds of farmers. He
heard their concerns personally.
The Antitrust Division has met and is continuing to meet
with various producer groups to discuss their concerns. On each
such occasion, we have invited farmers to provide us with
specific facts and circumstances pertaining to situations that
might be antitrust violations. We have a number of attorneys
and economists looking into the concerns the farmers have
expressed.
In certain areas, such as increasing concentration
resulting from mergers and price-fixing of goods that farmers
purchase, the Antitrust Division has brought enforcement
actions.
Senator Grassley. You say they have brought some----
Attorney General Reno. Enforcement actions.
Senator Grassley [continuing]. They are thinking about
doing it?
Attorney General Reno. No; this is in certain areas, such
as increasing concentration resulting from mergers and price-
fixing of goods that farmers purchase. The Division has brought
enforcement actions, those, for example, requiring divestiture
in the Monsanto/DeKalb biotechnology seeds merger, and the
criminal case of ADM; others for price-fixing of lysine and
livestock feed. It has a number of pending investigations.
In other areas, we are gathering information and working
directly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in order to
ascertain whether enforcement action by either Antitrust or
USDA is warranted. We are pursuing this. It is something that I
am personally following carefully, and we will do everything
that we can under the law.
Senator Grassley. OK; at that same meeting--and this would
be a followup of just what you said--at that meeting, we asked
you to consider whether or not, if the Department of Justice
did not have authority to take action--and you are showing
where you do have authority to take action, but that if there
were some other areas where there were problems that we needed
to deal with, if you didn't have the authority to do that that
you would let us know.
You also indicated that that could mean providing us with--
in fact, we asked for legislative suggestions, if that was
necessary, if you determined that these legislative changes
were necessary to help you do your job more effectively. A
review of existing antitrust law, then, a status of that review
that you promised us, if there might be any changes in law
needed?
Attorney General Reno. I have not been advised that there
are any changes needed yet, but I want to assure you that we
will continue to review it as we develop facts and understand
better what we can and can't do based on the factual situation
that we are able to develop.
Senator Grassley. I wonder if you would ask your antitrust
people, if there is anything to supplement what you have said,
if they would give my staff a phone call, because if there is
legislative language needed, or even a thought now that there
might be some, we need to be alerted to that so that we don't
lose a whole year.
Attorney General Reno. And, again, since it is a pending
matter, I can't assure that I can take specific action, but I
can assure you that I am following it very closely. And both
with respect to what we can do and with respect to the
legislation, we will follow through.
Senator Grassley. My last comment wasn't in regard to
action you can take under existing law. It would only be in
regard to a briefing for me if you think there might be some
legislative changes made even if you haven't made your final
determination.
Attorney General Reno. I will talk with Joel Klein as soon
as I return to the office.
Senator Grassley. And then I wrote a letter to Assistant
Attorney General Klein about visiting my State of Iowa, like he
did a very successful visit to Minnesota, and I got a response
back that it is still on their radar screen and they haven't
made a decision to do it or not to do it. I guess I would ask
that you put in a word of support of that letter if you would,
please.
Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir, I shall.
Senator Grassley. If I can move on to airline pricing,
please, I would like to know what progress the Antitrust
Division has accomplished in looking into predatory pricing
allegations and other possible antitrust violations by
airlines. In response to my written questions at the last DOJ
oversight hearing, you indicated that the Antitrust Division
was close to bringing certain aspects of its investigation to a
conclusion.
Could you give me an update, and do you see the Department
of Justice needing to take further action?
Attorney General Reno. My understanding is that our
preliminary review did not suggest predatory behavior, but we
are aware of the situation and will follow it closely. And what
I will do, Senator, is call Mr. Klein when I get back and find
out exactly what that means.
Senator Grassley. Also, you are probably aware of it, and I
should have included in my question, but some predatory pricing
situations are in the domain of the Department of
Transportation as well. And so I need to follow through with
them, and there may be some contact between your office and
them.
My last question, now that the yellow light has come on,
would deal with Federal law enforcement resources in our State,
specifically the FBI. The Omaha field office of the FBI, which
covers both Iowa and Nebraska, is slated to lose five full-time
agent positions through attrition. The Omaha field office has
already lost three of five positions.
I asked you about the issue earlier at our previous
hearings. Late last night, I received a response indicating
that the Omaha field office is being downsized, but that the
special agent-in-charge there has requested more personnel and
that the request is being considered.
Now, what is so puzzling about the personnel reduction is
that bank robberies in the Iowa-Nebraska area have increased
very dramatically in the last few years. Doubling the amount of
bank robberies in the area of the Omaha field office, they
would have gone from 61 in 1997 to 120 in 1998. The lead
Federal agency which investigates bank robberies, of course, is
the FBI. So we are reducing the FBI presence in Iowa, while at
the same time we are seeing a doubling of bank robberies. This
doesn't strike me as a wise way to allocate law enforcement
resources.
So, first, I would like to ask what is the status of the
request from the Omaha office of additional personnel. On the
one hand, we are told it is being reduced. On the other hand,
the special agent-in-charge has requested more personnel and is
being told that the request is being considered.
Second, I would want to appeal to you to grant this request
of the agent-in-charge because with so many bank robberies, I
think we need more, not less, in the way of law enforcement
resources in the Midwest.
Attorney General Reno. First of all, as I understand it,
during the operating year, FBI headquarters does make
adjustments to field staffing levels based upon emerging crime
problems and significant investigations that develop subsequent
to the setting of staff levels. The special agent-in-charge for
the Omaha field office has submitted a request for additional
staffing and that request, along with requests from a number of
other FBI field offices, is now being considered.
Let me give you a larger picture, and at some point, Mr.
Chairman, it might be well for us to share with you just our
methodology so that you understand what we are trying to do.
I am trying to develop some long-range staffing planning so
that when I add FBI agents in one jurisdiction, I make sure
that there are prosecutors that can handle the cases that the
agents make, and that there are marshals that can handle the
offenders that are taken into custody, and that we have a
seamless system that is appropriately balanced. We are engaged
in that effort.
There are some historical inequities that have to be
adjusted as we look at this, but it is something that is very
important to me because I want to make sure that we have
staffing levels that can respond to emerging crime problems,
respond to population increases, respond to particular skills
that are needed in particular areas. And I will check with
Director Freeh and ask him to advise you as soon as any
appropriate decision is made.
Senator Grassley. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. General, I have been sitting here worrying
about when we can hold this closed hearing. I think what I
would like to do is have a closed staff briefing this week, if
we could, before Friday, or Friday if you want. And then we
will consult with the ranking member and with you and see when
we can hold this closed hearing, which I think we are going to
have to hold.
So could you have the staff prepared to brief our staff?
Attorney General Reno. OK, and you will make sure your
staff has the appropriate clearances?
The Chairman. No question about it, we will have to do
that, OK?
Attorney General Reno. That would be fine.
The Chairman. So if we could do that before Friday, I would
appreciate it, and then we will try and work out when we can
have the closed hearing. I think it is important that we answer
some of these questions.
Senator Feingold, we will turn to you.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
General Reno. One of the benefits of waiting a while to speak
is you get the benefit of the wisdom of the more senior
members, and in this case I do want to just reinforce two
different issues that were brought up earlier.
The first one is the questions that Senator Grassley just
asked that are critical with regard to agricultural
concentration. I also attended with quite a number of Senators
from both parties the very good meeting we had with you. I want
to thank you for what was done in Minnesota, and hope serious
consideration will be given to Senator Grassley's request for a
hearing in Iowa. And, frankly, because of my concerns about
concentration in the dairy industry, at some point it would be
very helpful to have some opportunity to convey those concerns
and have the people convey those concerns in Wisconsin.
But I also want to reiterate what Senator Grassley was
asking. I think it was very clear, but I just want to second
it. We stand ready here, some of us on this committee, on a
bipartisan basis and in the Senate to propose legislation with
regard to antitrust or other laws if there are gaps. And we
need to know soon, as Senator Grassley clearly said, so that if
something needs to be done, it can be actually accomplished in
this Congress. And so let me just put that as high on your
radar screen as we can, given the crisis that we have in rural
America.
The second point I want to mention before I get to my main
question is to reiterate Senator Kennedy's reference to the
work that Bill Lann Lee is doing and the importance of his
confirmation. I had a wonderful meeting with him yesterday
where he outlined for me four or five areas that he has
emphasized, and I am very impressed and pleased with the
initiatives that he has taken in the civil rights area and am
hoping that we can move that nomination along as well.
General Reno, I want to shift gears now and just speak a
bit about a problem that is getting a lot more attention in the
country and in this committee and in the Congress, and you
actually referred to it in your remarks and so did Senator
Kennedy. That is the practice of racial profiling by certain
law enforcement agencies in traffic stops.
As you know, there have been a number of studies and
numerous anecdotal reports that the police in some places stop
African Americans and members of other minority groups for
alleged minor traffic violations more frequently than they stop
white drivers. This has led a new term to come into our
national vocabulary, particularly in our minority communities,
to describe the offense for which many African Americans are
stopped and it is called ``driving while black.'' I have had
Hispanic constituents of mine refer to the concept of ``driving
while Hispanic.''
Now, I think the fact that this term has even come into
existence is a disgrace. It is a shame that law enforcement
officers are even suspected by some Americans of enforcing our
laws in a discriminatory way. Whether it is actually a
significant problem or not, the suspicion is there and we have
a responsibility to address it.
So I have introduced a bill in the Senate, Senate bill 821,
The Traffic Stop Statistics Study Act, along with Senator
Lautenberg of New Jersey--and I believe Senator Torricelli is
also a cosponsor, and Senator Kennedy--to require the
Department of Justice to do a nationwide study of traffic stops
to give us the factual basis for addressing this racial
profiling issue.
Racial profiling has no place in our law enforcement
practices. All Americans must be free to travel our Nation's
highways without fear of harassment by the Government. The
stereotyping of African-Americans and other minorities as more
likely to be involved in drug trafficking or other criminal
activity is an insult to law-abiding citizens all over this
country of every race. People should be judged, as Martin
Luther King said, by the content of their character, not by the
color of their skin.
And so I would like to know what steps the Department is
taking to address this problem, which I think you would agree
is getting a lot of attention, and what is your position on the
legislation that I and Senator Torricelli and others have
cosponsored in the Senate. As you well know, there is a House
bill on this that I believe actually got through the House last
year, led by Representatives Conyers and Menendez, that I
believe is identical to the one that we have introduced in the
Senate. I would be curious about what is being done and what
your Department's position is on the legislation.
Attorney General Reno. We take the matter very seriously
because we share your concern and your feelings about it.
Racial profiling, a focus on conduct based on race or ethnic
background, is just plain wrong. And for that reason, the
Department has been involved in several investigations
concerning traffic stops and searches by law enforcement
officers, including in New Jersey, and these investigations are
ongoing.
At the same time, the Department sponsored a 2-day problem-
solving meeting on law enforcement stops and searches. This was
last December. It was attended by police chiefs, State police
directors, civil rights leaders, national police organization
representatives, and Federal law enforcement officers. And we
are using the results of that meeting to try and develop best
practices that can assist local law enforcement and State
police in addressing this issue.
Our findings have been people don't want it to happen.
Police administrators don't want it to happen, and we have got
to take steps to make sure that there are standards in place so
that people know what to expect, what they should do and not
do, and we are pursuing that as vigorously as we can.
Senator Feingold. General Reno, I also asked about the
legislation. We would very much like your----
Attorney General Reno. I have not had a chance to review
your legislation. Let us take a look at it and get back to you
quickly on it.
Senator Feingold. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Feingold.
We will now turn to Senator Sessions. Then we will go to
Senator Torricelli, Senator Kyl, and then Senator Smith.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Reno, with regard to the juvenile crime rate, there
have been some good numbers that we can be thankful for, but
overall the trend is not a healthy trend. I know some have said
that crimes rates are down. From 1993 through 1997, there was
an overall increase, according to the FBI statistics, of 14
percent in crime by those under 18.
I noticed you said that juvenile violent crime rates were
down, and I think this is true, considering murder and rape and
aggravated assault. But simple assault is up, as the numbers I
have show, by 17 percent. So I guess the answer is, as you well
know and we both know, we have got a very serious juvenile
crime problem and we ought not to be too optimistic about some
good trends in the last year or two. Would you agree with that?
Attorney General Reno. That is exactly what I have said in
my opening statement.
Senator Sessions. Very good. I missed that statement.
Attorney General Reno. But I would point out to you that we
don't have to be controlled by the demographics because the
number of young people is increasing dramatically over these
last 5 years and in the next 5 years to come. It is important
that we take steps.
It used to be people never paid any attention to assaults,
simple assaults. They told the kid to go home. I think people
realize that it is important that when we see violence even in
small terms that we take effective, thoughtful steps to
intervene to say we won't tolerate it.
Senator Sessions. I agree with that, and I do believe that
one thing that is failing us--and I think the core of Senator
Hatch and I--the bill that we hope you will be able to support
enthusiastically is to strengthen our juvenile court systems so
they can intervene effectively at those first assaults that
later turn out to be a stabbing or a shooting when the fights
continue or the child gets away with it. So I hope that you
will work with us on that and that we can make some significant
progress toward improving our juvenile justice system.
To me, we are confusing what we talk about prevention and
law enforcement. In many ways, they are the same. If a judge
has the opportunity to drug-monitor a youngster who is using
drugs, who has alternative punishments in schools and boot
camps or other discipline he can apply, that strengthens his
ability to intervene and change a child's life.
Do you agree that the court system itself, properly managed
by effective judges who have a myriad of options for sentencing
and discipline, in effect, can prevent further crime?
Attorney General Reno. Certainly, they can. And do you know
the first place to start? Since there is such a direct
correlation between kids who are abused as infants and small
children and subsequent abuse by them in subsequent violation
of the law, let's start with model children's courts that make
sure we have enough programs in place for those abused and
neglected children to interrupt the cycle of violence and make
sure they get off to the right start.
Senator Sessions. I agree, and I think the foster parents
program can be improved. It has some good things, but can be
improved. But I am not sure that the afterschool programs and
those kinds of programs are part of a criminal justice
judiciary bill. That would be more part of a health bill or an
education bill, and that is the only thing I would say to you,
that we can't put everything in this bill when we try to
improve juvenile justice.
Attorney General Reno. If we can't put everything in this
bill, let us do something, then, that the Departments of Health
and Human Services, Education, and Justice have done, which is
come together with the other committees, come up with something
that provides a comprehensive approach so that no piece is left
out because of the difference in jurisdictions. I think we can
do so much in this regard.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think we could, but this bill is
a good step, and I hope that you will support it. It may not
deal with preschool, afterschool programs, and other things
that some would like to see, but they ought to be as a result
of hearings in committees. Don't you agree?
Attorney General Reno. Well, I think there have been more
than enough hearings on it, and I will use my bargaining chip
with you to make sure that we get either in this committee or
some other committee an appropriate balance between prevention
and the courts. I really think we can do it.
Senator Sessions. A good court system prevents crime, and
if we disagree, we disagree on that.
Attorney General Reno. It is a lot less expensive to keep
them out of trouble in the first place.
Senator Sessions. Well, it is, but considering all of the
shootings that we have had, even those where juveniles had some
criminal record, perhaps had the juvenile system not been so
overloaded and so overburdened, there would have been more
probation officers, or the judge could have given more time to
it and perhaps the family could have been involved and those
kids may not have gone on.
Attorney General Reno. I couldn't agree more.
Senator Sessions. Well, we want to help that, and this bill
will really strengthen that option.
With regard to guns, there has been a 40-percent decline in
the prosecution of gun cases by this Department of Justice. I
have raised it with you really, I guess, for 2 years, and Mr.
Holder also. The reason it concerned me is because I was aware
of the program President Bush pushed to enhance prosecutions of
criminals with guns.
And then I was most pleased to see that a U.S. attorney in
Richmond was carrying on that same project, called Project
Triggerlock, and even enhanced it and called it Project Exile.
And it was not being favorably considered throughout the
Department of Justice. We set a hearing on it, and the Saturday
before our Monday hearing, the President himself praised that
Project Exile, and in his statement to the American people
directed that you study how to replicate that because they had
obtained a 40-percent reduction in violent crime as a result of
this project. I believe it will work.
Have you followed the President's directive?
Attorney General Reno. We have done that, and let me
explain where we are at. I don't know whether you heard Senator
Kennedy discussing what we have done in Boston. In Boston, the
laws apparently were somewhat different because the laws in
Virginia up until recently did not provide for as an effective
effort against illegal possession of certain guns.
What we are doing is forming a partnership with State and
local authorities. When the State and local authorities want to
do it, when they can do it, they should be doing it. That is, I
think, consistent with principles of federalism. Where, because
their laws are inadequate or for other reasons, they can't,
then we should be working with them to do it. But we should do
it recognizing that each community and each district in America
is different. There is no cookie-cutter approach, but there
should be one common understanding. People who illegally use
guns should know that they face the consequences.
Senator Sessions. Well, we do know--and my time is up--that
prosecutions are down substantially. I believe this project
will work. And I understand--correct me if I am wrong--that
your commission to study the President's directive is not going
to report back until 2001, or start the program until 2001.
Attorney General Reno. Start what program?
Senator Sessions. Well, let me read you what the President
said. Did you get that directive? He said he was directing that
you do a report and a study.
Attorney General Reno. What we have done is institute
Project Exile in Richmond. We have also done a study, which at
this point is inconclusive as to what portion of the
initiatives in Richmond have been responsible for what
reduction. And we are trying to make sure that we come up with
solid facts that can properly inform Congress, the President,
and everybody else.
Senator Sessions. Well, the President said this. He is
directing that Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney
General Reno to use every available tool to increase the
prosecution of gun criminals--and I say amen--and to ``report
back to me with a plan to reduce gun violence by applying
proven local strategies to fight gun crime nationwide, and to
hire more Federal prosecutors and ATF agents so we can
crackdown on even more gun criminals.''
Are you doing that?
Attorney General Reno. As I indicated to you earlier, what
we are doing is working with State and local authorities to
make sure that every gun case is properly prosecuted. We had
been doing that in Boston well before the situation with
Richmond arose, and we are trying to fashion it so that we work
as a partner with State and local authorities.
If the local authorities have the capacity and the law to
do it, then they will do it. But we want to make sure that we
use our resources in the wisest way possible. And, yes, I think
we are doing it.
Senator Sessions. Well, the President said for you to
report back, and I hope that you will.
Attorney General Reno. I have been talking to him.
Senator Sessions. The indication from your answer is that
you are not committed to proposing a replication of the
Richmond Exile Project to other U.S. attorneys offices. You are
hesitant to do that----
Attorney General Reno. No, I am not hesitant----
Senator Sessions [continuing]. Even though it had a
dramatic reduction in violent crime in Richmond.
Attorney General Reno. Well, let's look at it. We have
evaluated it, and what we have seen--I don't know whether you
heard Senator Kennedy, but he gave a really good description of
what has happened in Boston.
Senator Sessions. I like the Boston project.
Attorney General Reno. Now, I wouldn't want to change
Boston and say you have to do it this way. I want communities
working with the Federal Government in partnership rather than
the Federal Government coming down and saying, you do this and
you do that and you do the other. If Boston can do it, then we
should work with them to see that they do it.
I have been talking with the President. I recommend Exile
when it is appropriate, I recommend other programs when they
are appropriate. But one of the things, Senator--the
communities of America have a lot of sense of innovation and
creativity, and the Federal Government shouldn't be telling
them what to do when we can together do it better than this
one-way street that has too often existed.
And the prosecution by the Federal Government of small gun
cases that can better be handled by the State court, without
the Federal Government pursuing the organizations that we have
pursued, doesn't make such good sense. So we are trying to work
together, and if you have any community where you think we
should be doing something more, call me.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, the local communities
respond positively, as the chief of police in Richmond did, to
an aggressive Federal presence. It should be a partnership;
obviously, it should be. But this Department is not committed
to it, and I can tell from the Attorney General she is not
going to move those numbers. And I think it is really a
failure. I think this Department is not effectively enforcing
the gun laws.
The President continues to ask for more gun laws. We had a
school-ground gun law passed and there have been less than 10
prosecutions out of that. There are less than 10 under the
assault weapons ban, less than 10 under selling a weapon to a
minor. And we want more laws, but what we need is more
prosecutions.
Attorney General Reno. Well, let me suggest to you
something again because we should be very clear about what we
are talking about. State prosecutions of weapons offenders have
increased sharply. In other words, combined Federal and State
prosecutions for gun crimes have increased since 1992. In
addition, Federal prosecutions for major violent organizations
have increased. I think we are on the same track, Senator. I
don't think we are disagreeing, but if you have a case where
you think there is a problem, you let me know and let me pursue
it.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have gone past
my time. I feel strongly about this, and obviously we don't
agree. Thank you.
Attorney General Reno. Well, what I would like to know is
if there are State prosecutions, do you want us to double them?
Senator Sessions. I would like to see the project in
Richmond worked in general with local people throughout the
Nation. I think you would get much enhanced prosecutions. You
would reduce violent crime, you would save lives. Criminals go
away longer under the Federal law. The cases are quicker under
the Federal law. As you well know, in most States it would give
relief to the overburdened big-city courts, and it is extremely
popular with local people. All of those are facts, and you and
I both know that.
Attorney General Reno. No, sir, I don't, but I will be
happy to pursue it in every way that I can because I am
dedicated to making sure that anybody who illegally uses a gun
is prosecuted and appropriately held accountable.
The Chairman. Well, let me interrupt in this way. You both
are making good points. The Boston program has worked very
well. Project Exile has worked very well. I think what the
Senator is suggesting is let's expand that around the country.
Attorney General Reno. We are trying to.
The Chairman. Well, I think that is----
Attorney General Reno. But not just Exile. We are saying
here is Boston as an example that might work.
The Chairman. I am saying they both have similarities, they
both are working. You have indicated where one might work
better than another, you are willing to recommend that. But his
point is a good point, and that is we have the laws on the
books to prosecute these gun violations in schools, but they
are not being prosecuted.
We had 6,000 kids walk into schools this last year with
guns and we have had less than 10 prosecutions. Now, that is
the point. It is a good point, and you have indicated a good-
faith approach toward it that you are willing to do what you
can to step up and get these things spread around the country.
Attorney General Reno. We are doing it, Senator, and if we
are missing something, tell me about it so I can pursue it.
The Chairman. Well, I don't think you have had enough
prosecutions for the number of guns that have been walked into
schools.
Attorney General Reno. We don't do things based on numbers.
We do things based on who can handle it best.
The Chairman. But the point I am making is that I think
sometimes maybe numbers are important, too, when we have 6,000
known violations of Federal law. I am not saying you have to
prosecute all 6,000 of them. But, my gosh, less than 10
indicates you are not staying on top of it or your U.S.
attorneys are not staying on top of it.
Attorney General Reno. I don't think you can conclude that.
I think you, first of all, look at what State and locals are
doing and try and figure our the best way to do it and which
system has the best juvenile justice system to respond.
The Chairman. Well, I am not trying to put you on the spot,
General Reno, but what I am saying is this.
Attorney General Reno. The whole purpose of oversight is
for me to be on the spot and to be accountable, and I am here.
The Chairman. The thing that irritates us, to be honest
with you, is that we have this continual demand for more laws
when it is apparent to us, or at least seemingly apparent, that
the current laws on the books--there were 19 such laws violated
in the Columbine issue, maybe more, but I can name at least 19.
The fact of the matter is that the question is are we enforcing
the laws as they exist.
On the State and local levels, they claim they are. Are we
doing it on the Federal level? And I think you have tried to
answer that, but I would look at the criticisms and see if we
can improve.
Attorney General Reno. I am looking at it in every way I
can, and that is the reason I suggested to the Senator if there
is a specific case where we are not doing right, let me know.
Senator Sessions. A specific violation or a specific----
Attorney General Reno. No; a community where there is not a
good partnership between State and local authorities so that we
are doing----
Senator Sessions. I just would say this, Mr. Chairman. We
had a hearing on it a few weeks ago 2 days after the President
made his directive to the Attorney General.
Was it in writing? Did you get a written directive from the
President?
Attorney General Reno. I am sure there is a written
directive.
Senator Sessions. Or just what he said in his address to
the people?
Attorney General Reno. No. I get written directives.
Senator Sessions. Well, at any rate, I thought we had a
commitment after that hearing. We heard from the U.S. attorney
in Richmond and she was very much of a believer in this
project, and I thought we had a commitment that the President
was going to act and you were going to act. And now I hear that
nothing is going to be done; it is going to be business as
usual.
Attorney General Reno. No, sir, it is not business as
usual.
The Chairman. Well, you have indicated that you are in the
process of doing that, you want to do it, and we are going to
judge you next year on how well you have done it. And I think
Senator Sessions makes some good points. You have indicated a
good-faith effort and we will count on that.
Attorney General Reno. I am here, I am accountable, and you
don't have to wait until next year.
The Chairman. Well, I would like to see improvement. Let's
put it that way, OK?
Attorney General Reno. I can't promise you improvement in
numbers. I can promise you improvement in making sure that
these cases are handled as well as they possibly can,
consistent with Federal, State and local resources.
The Chairman. It seems to me the numbers will grow rather
than have the low numbers that we have.
We have infringed on Senator Torricelli's time, so I am
going to turn to him right now.
Senator Torricelli. Actually, you have taken so much time,
you have gone beyond my time. You have now infringed on Senator
Kyl's time, Senator Smith's time, and the next hearing.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Shall we go to Senator Kyl, then?
Senator Torricelli. Actually, it was worth it to hear the
Senator from Alabama suggest that authorities in Richmond would
like more Federal presence in enforcement of the law. It shows
just how far in the last 135 years America has really come if
the people of Richmond want this change.
Madam Attorney General, I found the conversation
interesting, and although this is not the thrust of my
questioning, but I only wanted to offer the observation that I
am sensitive to the frustration. I suspect in my State, if you
were to ask the people in New Jersey their two principal
priorities for Federal law enforcement, it would be enforcement
of narcotics laws because of narcotics trafficking, and the
trafficking of illegal guns into our State that contradict our
considerable efforts at reasonable gun control. Yet, I find
neither to be a priority of either local or Federal law
enforcement.
It is my impression that U.S. attorneys' offices throughout
the country are not operating with direction or a sense of
priorities. There is a continuing effort by individual U.S.
attorneys to set their own priorities often involving high-
profile cases at the expense of the day-in and day-out work
that makes our citizens safer, recaptures our cities, and
reflects your and the President's real priorities.
I do not claim to be an expert on the day-in and day-out
work of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark, but it is not my
sense that there are overwhelming resources to deal with
narcotics trafficking or this problem of the continued
incredible flow of illegal firearms into our State.
I know these issues don't get people promotions. I know
they don't win headlines, but I know they save lives, and I
share a little bit--while we are on dramatically different
sides of the gun control issue--I share a little bit of that
frustration because I suspect if we were to look at the numbers
today of how many gunrunners are being interrupted and the
number of high-level drug cases being prosecuted in my State,
my guess is it would not be an impressive picture.
However, now going to what I was going to ask you about,
what is impressive are Mr. Holder's efforts for which I would
like to thank you. My State has gone through some painful
revelations in dealing with the issue of racial profiling. The
State has had to admit some things about itself and its
practices in recent years that are uncomfortable and generally
unforgivable.
It appears that despite years of denial, there has been a
policy by law enforcement in New Jersey of using racial
profiling to question people along our major highways in ways
that are unforgivable. Our State is coming to terms with this
issue, but it has been facilitated enormously by the Department
of Justice, and I am particularly grateful to Mr. Holder for
his efforts.
In correspondence from you to Governor Whitman last week,
you noted that you would enter into negotiations with the State
of New Jersey with an objective of a consent decree. I would
like to ask you specifically whether indeed, to date, in
preparing for these negotiations with an objective of a consent
decree, the State of New Jersey is being cooperative, whether
there are additional levels of cooperation that you would still
like to obtain, and how you see this procedure unfolding toward
a consent decree.
Attorney General Reno, I was with Bill Lee Saturday night
and I have not heard anything in the ensuing days that would
indicate to me anything other than cooperation. The way I see
it unfolding, and what I would like to see, again, on a
nationwide basis, is the development of standards so that
police officers know what they should do and should not do, and
that it is very clear. And in the development of this consent
decree, I think the best practices and other standards can be
spelled out that can be helpful and informative not just in New
Jersey, but throughout the country.
Senator Torricelli. But, in fact, then, in these
negotiations and this consent decree, we actually could be
beginning provide a national standard for other communities to
follow so people recognize when this is going too far and when
citizens are victimized, as opposed to what is sound law
enforcement practice?
Attorney General Reno. National standards, with the
recognition that there are going to be different circumstances
in different places.
Senator Torricelli. Is Mr. Lee going to be the lead in the
negotiations with the State of New Jersey?
Attorney General Reno. Yes, he is.
Senator Torricelli. Generally, what is your sense----
Attorney General Reno. When I say the lead, he is going to
be the person responsible as the Acting Assistant Attorney
General. In terms of day-to-day efforts, he probably would not
be the negotiator on day-to-day matters.
Senator Torricelli. I understand that. Mr. Holder has also
been very knowledgeable on this matter and has, for many of us
involved in the process, earned a great deal of confidence at
the moment, for whatever value that may be to you.
Attorney General Reno. It is of tremendous value to me
because I rely on him a very great deal on that and many other
matters for the same reason.
Senator Torricelli. I can say that the confidence among
people in New Jersey, now that this process is coming to a
close, now that the Federal Government is providing some
oversight, and now that there will be a consent decree that
people will find free and fair, is in some measure due to Mr.
Holder's personal presence and the confidence on different
sides that he has engendered.
What is your sense, Madam Attorney General, of the timing,
if you could speculate at this point?
Attorney General Reno. One of the things that sometimes
frustrates me about the Justice Department is that it is slower
than I would like. I made that comment to you at the last
hearing. I think this is a matter of vital importance to this
Nation. I would like to see it done with all deliberate speed,
but I don't want to see it done precipitously. I would like to
see a lasting result.
Senator Torricelli. That is obviously important for us as
well in the State. We want this done properly, but this is a
conversation that should not be taking place among people in
New Jersey 1 year from now or 6 months from now. We need to get
this behind us. It goes to the credibility of our State
government and the confidence of people living in sometimes
difficult circumstances. So I hope this will receive that kind
of attention.
Let me also ask you, there have now been revelations that
hotel clerks and employees have been used as informants on
narcotics trafficking by the State police. I believe it is in
the great traditions of our country that citizens provide
information at their own risk to help law enforcement solve the
most dangerous crimes in our society. And I certainly believe
it is appropriate for the State police and the FBI to ask
citizens to be informants.
The problem is that there are allegations that law
enforcement was asking hotel clerks to look for people who were
speaking Spanish. In my judgment such use of language is not a
fair indicator of whether people are involved in criminal
conduct. The other indicators--the use of cash, the movement of
rooms, the frequency of phone calls, other patterns of
behavior--might be appropriate.
I want to congratulate New Jersey's citizens for offering
their assistance, but we need more sensitivity from law
enforcement. Finally, I am greatly concerned, Madam Attorney
General, that now that this practice has unfortunately been
made public, some of the most dangerous criminals in America
who are trafficking in narcotics across our highways are aware
that both in the past and even in recent weeks, ordinary
citizens were providing surveillance and acting as informants.
You know far better than any member of this Committee the
level of violence of which some of these narcotics traffickers
are capable. I hope in your conversations with the FBI Field
Office in Newark and with local law enforcement officials, you
will do your best to ensure that they are doing everything
possible to ensure the safety of the citizens who offered
information, and to put the criminal element on notice that we
care about these informants. We are aware. We are watching. And
we are going to take measures to protect them.
Attorney General Reno. May I have a break?
The Chairman. Sure.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you. I will be right back.
The Chairman. Let's have a 5-minute break. We are going to
have a vote here any minute and I would like to finish with our
last two questioners. So we will recess for 5 minutes.
[The committee stood in recess from 12:03 p.m. to 12:05
p.m.]
The Chairman. I apologize for not asking you if you needed
a break before then, so please forgive me.
We will turn now to Senator Kyl. There is a vote on, so I
would like to finish the last two, and so we will go with you,
Senator Kyl, and then last but not least Senator Smith.
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Madam Attorney General, for your
perseverance here this morning. I want to begin by spending
about 30 seconds on comments that the ranking Democrat on the
committee made regarding the costs of the independent counsel,
specifically Ken Starr's investigation, to make two points.
The first is that when I was in the House of
Representatives and we last reauthorized the statute, there was
a substantial Republican effort, in response to Lawrence
Walsh's investigation at the time, to control the cost of
independent counsel, and that was thwarted by Democrats.
Senator Leahy had his opportunity and did not take advantage of
it at that time.
The second point is this. Like spending money on national
defense, we may all prefer to spend our money on matters other
than law enforcement, but public corruption is very serious
business. It is a top priority of law enforcement, as I am sure
the Attorney General would agree, and it must be dealt with.
When targets don't cooperate but deliberately seek to obstruct
justice, as President Clinton did, now confirmed by a Federal
district judge, it will cost more. And, Mr. Chairman, I think
it is important to make those points in response to what
Senator Leahy said.
Now, Madam Attorney General, when you and I first met
before I was selected to the Senate in September 1994, in
Phoenix, it was on the occasion of my attempting to urge that
you make a top priority controlling Arizona's and the other
States' borders with Mexico. We had a horrible situation there,
and in your testimony you allude to the fact that you have made
substantial progress since that time. I commend you for the
progress to date, but express significant concerns about the
fact that that progress is now stopping.
Unfortunately, the strategy was first to control San Diego
and then to control Texas, funnel the illegal immigrants
through Arizona. And that is a good strategy if you follow it
through. The problem is when they get to my State, the strategy
is no longer in effect, and therefore my State is being overrun
by illegal immigrants and by contraband coming into the United
States illegally. It is a catastrophe. People are going to get
hurt, and this is what I want to focus on today.
The testimony of officials under your jurisdiction that it
was time to take a breather is fundamentally wrong. No one at
the border is taking a breather, and the Justice Department
cannot afford to take a breather either. You know that under
the 1996 immigration bill, we are supposed to hire 1,000 new
agents each year. That is supposed to be net. With attrition
rates approaching 10 percent per year--that is about 800 agents
per year--if we don't fund 1,000 new agents, there will be far
fewer agents than are currently deployed to do an ever-
increasing job.
In 1998, 1.5 million individuals nationwide were
apprehended while attempting to cross the border. Now, the rule
of thumb is that there are about three that are not apprehended
for every one that is. That is 4.5 million illegal immigrants
into the United States per year.
And just to bring it back to my own State of Arizona, in
March alone, in the Tucson sector alone, over 60,000 illegal
immigrants were apprehended in just 1 month. That equates to
about 725,000 apprehensions annually in just the Tucson sector.
Twenty-eight thousand pounds of marijuana were seized, an all-
time record. You have a situation where 600 immigrants are
trying to cross en masse, in broad daylight, near the small
town of Douglas, AZ. Ranchers nearby are taking laws into their
own hands. We are going to have more people die this summer as
they try to cross the border illegally out in the middle of the
desert.
This is a top Federal responsibility, but it is instructive
to me that in your opening statement of about 41 pages,
controlling illegal immigration--and I think this is a
metaphor--we get to that on page 35. There are programs that
are not Federal responsibilities, for example, supporting State
and local law enforcement, that have a priority--you start
talking about that on page 11. But here you have the Federal
Government which has the sole responsibility of controlling the
border. And as I say, I think it is a metaphor that we get to
that on page 35.
What you note in your testimony is that you launched
Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego and Operation Hold the Line
in El Paso, and that that has had some significant effect in
those communities. But as you know, the strategy, as I said
before, is to funnel those people through Arizona. You also
note that this year there were no funds requested to hire
additional Border Patrol agents, notwithstanding the 1996 law.
Now, it is unacceptable, and I am sure you can imagine my
plight of representing a State where people are saying, wait a
minute, I thought we were going to control the border and the
Attorney General asked for zero funds to hire any new agents.
In this past year, we were supposed to get 1,000 agents.
Arizona would have gotten about 350 to 450 of those agents, I
am told, but now we are only going to end up hiring about 200
to 400, according to the testimony of the head of the Border
Patrol, and Arizona is likely to get about 100 to 150 of those.
That is unacceptable.
Twenty of the twenty-one border chiefs have said that they
desperately need new agents. Chief Sanders has said we need
20,000. General McCaffrey said we need 20,000. A University of
Texas study says we need 16,000 just on the southwest border.
So it is clear that we have got to hire more border agents.
My first question to you is did you support Doris
Meissner's request for 1,000 new border agents in this year's
budget?
Attorney General Reno. We suggested that there be
additional Border Patrol agents, but we also feel very, very
strongly that with 48 percent of the Border Patrol agents
having 3 years of experience or less, it is very important that
we provide a balance.
Senator Kyl. I understand that. My question was Doris
Meissner acknowledged that she had requested 1,000 agents. Did
you support her in that request?
Attorney General Reno. I think I will provide you with the
exact amount that we--I don't remember----
Senator Kyl. Well, she said she requested 1,000. The
administration came up with zero.
Attorney General Reno. I do not remember whether----
Senator Kyl. Whether you supported the full 1,000 or not?
Attorney General Reno. The answer is yes.
Senator Kyl. You did support the full 1,000?
Attorney General Reno. That is what we went----
Senator Kyl. I thank you for that.
Attorney General Reno [continuing]. To OMB with.
Senator Kyl. Right, and OMB said no, it is zero, and the
same thing for Customs. And I appreciate that. We need to
continue to fight for it, though.
The rationalization now that you just gave doesn't apply to
the Tucson sector. Eighty percent of the people there have 2 or
more years of experience, so you could put a lot more new
agents in the Tucson sector. And, ironically, that is right
where they are needed. It shouldn't be a surprise. We have put
them in California, we have put them in Texas. There are more
new agents there. There aren't more new agents in Arizona
because we haven't put them there yet, so we could put more new
agents in the Tucson sector.
Attorney General Reno. And I understand that you are going
to be meeting with Deputy Attorney General Holder on this.
Senator Kyl. Yes, and I understand he has your full
authority to act in this regard to try to assist us.
Attorney General Reno. That is correct. Now, what we also
have got to make sure of is that there is a balance of adequate
resources because as you increase the Border Patrol, you have
got to have the capacity in terms of prosecution and otherwise.
Senator Kyl. Absolutely, and I could not agree more with
you on that and I support everyone, from the marshals to the
magistrates to the jails, and so on. Absolutely correct. We
need far more money than we are getting, and we need your
support in pushing OMB and the President to get what the law
requires.
Since my time is short and we have this vote on, let me
just ask you to please answer for the record this question. Of
the $93 million that was appropriated to hire the 1,000 border
agents for this fiscal year, will you tell us how much of that
to date INS has spent and whether you would support a program
to use some of that money for a hiring bonus this year so that
we can hire more than 200 to 400, as is the currently projected
number?
Attorney General Reno. I will get the exact amount of
dollars. I want to explore the hiring bonus because I don't
know what that does in terms of morale with troops who are
already on the line. So we have got to analyze that carefully.
Senator Kyl. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Smith, you will be our final
questioner.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we are about
out of time on the vote, but let me just ask the Attorney
General a couple of questions.
I know you indicated you don't want to talk about the
content of Los Alamos unless we go into executive session,
Madam Attorney General, but let me just ask you this. As I
understand it, agents of the FBI went to Justice, to the Office
of Intelligence Policy Review, to request an application to the
special court created by the Foreign Service Intelligence
Surveillance Act for a wiretap on Mr. Lee.
Now, Acting Director Gerald Schroeder denied that request,
I am told, and then the FBI appealed to Eric Holder, who also
denied the request. Did Director Freeh or any of his
subordinates appeal Mr. Holder's decision to you?
Attorney General Reno. No, and I will just again stress
what I did before. I think it is very important for you to hear
the whole picture and not just what you read in the newspapers.
I have no understanding that there was an appeal to Mr. Holder.
I think it is very important that we look at the process. We
are in the process of doing that.
At this point, I don't think that there has been any
incorrect decision, but we are going to look at it very
carefully. But don't, please, sir, jump to conclusions.
Senator Smith. I understand. I am just trying to get two or
three questions that I think just in----
Attorney General Reno. Well, I would urge you that these
questions can be far better and more completely answered and
more accurately answered in a closed session.
Senator Smith. I can appreciate that, but let me ask you
this. Did the White House contact you or any other Department
of Justice official regarding the FBI's request for a wiretap?
Did they ask you not to do it?
Attorney General Reno. No.
Senator Smith. Did they discuss it with you at all?
Attorney General Reno. No.
Senator Smith. Just one more question because we are out of
time. And I understand that we can get into this further in
executive session, but 99 percent of the requests for this kind
of information are granted. And here is a situation here where
a national security incident is out there, and yet this is
denied.
I would like to explore that with you at some point
wherever is the appropriate place, but let me just ask you
this. Why did your Department believe that a search warrant was
necessary for Mr. Lee when it is a Government computer, it is a
Government office, and it is a matter of the highest national
security of the U.S. Government?
Attorney General Reno. As I indicated, nobody should be
discussing these matters that are classified, and we will be
happy to try to brief you in an appropriate fashion with
appropriate security.
Senator Smith. Well, Mr. Chairman, these are very important
questions. Would you just at some point clarify for us when we
are going to have the opportunity to ask these questions?
Beyond that, I will yield back.
The Chairman. General Reno has said that she will have a
classified discussion with appropriately cleared staff before
the end of this week, and then we will try to jointly come up
with, with the ranking member, a date for a closed session.
Senator Smith. With members?
The Chairman. With members, right.
Senator Smith. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Attorney
General.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Would you tell them to hold the
vote for me? I will be right over. I just have one question,
and you have to appreciate me because I haven't hardly asked a
question.
Attorney General Reno. I always appreciate you even when
you ask me lots of questions and put up big posters and
everything else. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. I spared you today, except for the beginning.
Many in Congress have been searching for ways to limit the
exposure of violent or sexually explicit material or content,
whether in movies, songs or graphic video games, to children.
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am mindful of the
first amendment concerns implicated by government attempts to
regulate content on the Internet or over other media, but I do
believe we have to do what we can to promote responsibility on
the part of the entertainment industry.
Now, I am interested in hearing your views on a proposal
that I have been considering to provide the industry with a
limited exemption from the antitrust laws in order to give them
the freedom to develop and enforce voluntary standards and
enforcement mechanisms without the fear of antitrust liability
or regulation. This would allow the appropriate industries to
enter into joint discussions, joint consideration, and possibly
joint agreement among themselves in developing--and here is the
key--and enforcing voluntary guidelines to address the negative
impact of violence and sexually explicit material in video
games, music, movies, and the Internet.
Now, you can take time to answer this in writing, if you
would care to, and I think it will take some time to reflect.
But I am anxious to get your views on this possible proposal,
and I want you to work with me and my colleagues on the
committee in developing a reasonable proposal along these
lines, if you will. I would appreciate it. But if you will
submit your----
Attorney General Reno. I will be happy to submit it, and I
will be happy to work with you on this issue. I would be happy
to work with the committee, with Senator Sessions on the gun
package. I just have the feeling that in this next 1\1/2\ years
we can do so much if we work together.
The Chairman. If we work together, we can do a lot of good
for our young people.
Attorney General Reno. I am committed to doing everything
that I can.
The Chairman. Well, thank you so much. I know it is always
a pain to come up here, and especially on an oversight hearing.
We will have to have that private session, but as usual you
have cooperated very well and I appreciate it. I just hope we
can get to the bottom of some of these other questions.
Attorney General Reno. Can I just say one other thing?
The Chairman. Sure.
Attorney General Reno. There are times that you support a
person just because of reputation. There are times when you
support a person because you have watched them in action and
you understand the depth of their feeling, their fairness,
their intellect and their abilities.
Bill Lann Lee has been just a splendid person to work with,
and I just urge you to confirm him. He has such a wonderful way
of working with States and others to work out the issues
without sacrificing principle. He is doing a wonderful job now
and he will serve you and this Nation very well.
The Chairman. Well, I appreciate those comments. Let me
just say this. I intended to support Bill Lann Lee before his
testimony, and I told him he would have to be very careful in
his testimony. And, in my opinion, he did not evidence a
complete agreement to abide by the law.
Second, having been appointed as acting for over 15 months
now, in what I consider to be a violation of the Vacancies Act,
that alone causes some on our side to feel that it is flying in
the face of justice to resubmit him.
Third, my feeling about it is this. As you know, the
Department has been cooperating with us in investigating or
looking into and analyzing and evaluating Mr. Lee's efforts
down there. The purpose of that is for me to be fair to Mr. Lee
because I personally like him. I think he is an excellent
attorney. I think he is the type of person I would want to
serve in almost any other position in government, but I have
got to be assured that whoever serves in these very difficult
positions is going to abide by the law.
And we are going to look at that very carefully and, as you
know, I will be as fair as I can possibly be. I will be fair;
it is just that simple. And it may involve some angst on the
part of some people around here, but the fact of the matter is
we are looking at it. We appreciate the Department's
cooperation with us and Mr. Lee's cooperation with us. He has
been very cooperative, and that means a lot to me and it goes a
long way.
But we still have a little way to go to finish that
evaluation, and I think it is safe to say that the vast bulk of
what he does is not in question. But there are some matters
that are in question. As you know, I will try to be fair, but I
also have to abide by the law.
Attorney General Reno. You are always fair and I appreciate
that very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. We
appreciate you, and with that we will recess until further
notice.
[The prepared statement of Attorney General Reno follows:]
Prepared Statement of Attorney General Janet Reno
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, and Members of the
Judiciary Committee. Just a month and a half ago, I came before this
Committee to discuss the Department's proposed budget for fiscal year
2000. I am pleased to appear before you again today to testify about
the record of the Department of Justice and the work that we are doing
to enforce our Nation's laws, make America's communities safer and more
secure, and strengthen our law enforcement systems so that we will be
prepared to address the new challenges of the coming century.
The oversight function of this Committee is very important, and I
welcome it. You also have been active and full partners in so much of
the work we have done over these past six years. We could not have made
such tremendous progress in recent years without your strong support
and attention.
We need today to harness all the energy, expertise and resources
that we have in our Department, in this Congress, and in our
communities to break the cycle of violence in this country.
I hope that we can work together to face this challenge, just as we
have worked together on so many important issues, for this is one of my
highest priorities as I look to the future.
I first appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993. The
challenges that we faced at that time were great. Americans were
concerned about the problem of crime. Our own resources--at Main
Justice, among our law enforcement components, and in our U.S.
Attorneys' offices--were lacking. We had work to do to assure that our
personnel were trained and ready on an up-to-the-minute basis, with
current and integrated information technology. We did not yet have a
strategic plan to address the new and growing problem of cybercrime.
Criminal enterprises were becoming increasingly global, and yet we were
just establishing our own ability to fight crime abroad. The
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) lacked the manpower or
resources to effectively enforce our nation's immigration laws. And
communities across America had little faith that the federal government
could effectively address their concerns about crime, the environment,
or civil rights.
In 1993, I committed to working with you to address the nation's
domestic and international crime problems, improve enforcement of our
civil rights and environmental laws, secure our borders, assure a
competitive and fair marketplace as we transition to an information-
based economy, and ensure that every part of the Department of Justice
works effectively to advance our mission.
I am pleased to report today that, working closely with you and the
Congress, we have made great headway in each of these areas, and we
have laid a solid foundation to tackle the challenges that we face.
I. The Administration's Comprehensive Crime Control Strategy
Over the decades and across the country, Americans had grown very
concerned about the problem of crime. With the support of President
Clinton and Vice President Gore, the bipartisan efforts of this
Congress, the dedicated work of federal, state, local, and tribal law
enforcement, and with the strong support of our communities, we are
turning this situation around.
Over the past six years, the Department has implemented a
comprehensive crime control strategy with seven key objectives:
Vigorously enforcing federal criminal laws in cooperation
with other federal agencies to have the greatest impact on
crime problems--including terrorism and other crimes against
national security;
Building partnerships with, and providing resources to,
state, local and tribal law enforcement in order to ensure that
law enforcement agencies can conduct criminal investigations
and prosecutions effectively, without regard to turf or credit;
Developing a comprehensive initiative against drug
trafficking and abuse, which includes fair and firm punishment,
and education, prevention, drug courts, post-incarceration
monitoring, and reentry programs for drug-dependent offenders.
Developing a comprehensive program to end the culture of
violence through targeted efforts directed at gun violence,
juvenile crime, and domestic violence;
Working with law enforcement at all levels to develop the
capacity to investigate and prosecute cybercrimes;
Establishing a strong international presence to ensure that
there is no safe place for criminals to hide; and
Promoting integrity in law enforcement at all levels.
We started in 1994, by working with Congress to achieve passage of
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This legislation has
formed the basis for the Department's comprehensive crime control
strategy. Over the past five and half years, we have worked to enforce
this law, build strong partnerships with communities, and help
strengthen state and local law enforcement agencies. We believe that
the strategy now in place is working.
Today, the violent crime rate is down 21 percent since 1993, and is
at its lowest level since 1973. The overall crime rate is at the lowest
level in nearly a quarter of a century. Murders have fallen by more
than 20 percent in larger cities and suburban communities. And,
although it may be hard to believe after last month's tragedy in
Littleton, Colorado, violent crime by juveniles is down for the third
consecutive year. We must build on the progress we have made and
continue to work toward a safer America.
a. vigorously enforcing federal criminal laws
The Department of Justice vigorously investigates and, prosecutes
criminal violations of the laws of the United States. Overall, in 1998,
federal prosecutors successfully convicted 89 percent of those
defendants whose cases were closed during the year, and 77 percent of
all convicted defendants were sentenced to prison.
1. Targeting violent offenders, organized crime and white collar crime
In 1998, the Department prosecuted many violent criminal offenders
using the enhanced criminal provisions of the Violent Crime Control Act
of 1994. Last year, federal prosecutors filed 6,889 cases against 8,703
violent offenders, increasing the total number of cases by 10 percent
over the previous year.
The Department also prosecuted 26,906 defendants for narcotics
violations in 1998, increasing the number of defendants charged by 14
percent over the previous year. We have had particular success
targeting and dismantling major criminal and drug trafficking
organizations. In 1998, the Department filed 199 cases against 390
organized crime defendants. These included the 6 successful prosecution
of 22 members of La Cosa Nostra (LCN) on racketeering-related charges.
Additionally, the Department has continued to aggressively
prosecute ``white-collar'' crime, filing 6,669 white-collar crime cases
against 8,518 defendants last year.
2. Targeting domestic terrorism
The Department of Justice has taken steps to prevent and prepare
for the threat of terrorism in the United States, and to prosecute
those who commit such heinous acts.
Under its role as the designated lead agency for domestic
terrorism, the FBI and the Department are taking steps to ensure that
state and local communities are prepared in the event of a terrorist
attack involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). We convened a
meeting last August to get input and expertise from our federal agency
partners in this effort, the Departments of Energy, Defense, Health and
Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and FEMA, as well
as from state and local first responders.
We have proposed the establishment of the National Domestic
Preparedness Office (NDPO) to coordinate federal domestic preparedness
activities and to serve as a clearinghouse for information to state and
local first responders. Working in conjunction with other federal
agencies, the NDPO will act as a single point of contact for first
responders to access information about and receive assistance from the
multitude of federal domestic preparedness programs.
We have also looked to the state and local responder community to
provide us valuable input throughout our planning efforts. In the
proposed NDPO effort, an advisory committee of state and local
authorities will be the bridge between the federal planning team and
the states and local emergency response and health care community. We
also established a Center for Domestic Preparedness in Fort McClellan,
Alabama, to train state and local emergency personnel. To date, we have
helped train 500 emergency personnel at this new facility, and we have
provided $12 million to metropolitan areas for emergency equipment
needed to respond to terrorist incidents.
Additionally, at the direction of the Congress, we have prepared a
Five-Year Counter Terrorism and Technology Crime Plan (Five-Year Plan)
which was submitted on December 30, 1998. The Five-Year Plan serves as
a baseline strategy to combat terrorism in the United States and
against Americans abroad. I am committed to working with Congress and
with other federal agencies to continue to develop this plan.
In addition to our work to prevent and prepare a response to
terrorism, the Department has successfully prosecuted several
terrorists. Last year, Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death, and
Terry Nichols was sentenced to life in prison in connection with the
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City that
killed 168 Americans. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, convicted in the World Trade
Center bombing that killed six and injured hundreds, was sentenced to
240 years in prison. And, also last year, the UNABOMBER, Theodore J.
Kaczynski, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without
the possibility of parole.
3. Protecting national security
The Department of Justice plays a key role safeguarding America's
national security. During the last several weeks there has been a
considerable amount of publicity about possible espionage at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory. We are zealously investigating these claims
and I can assure you that we will aggressively prosecute any person
whom we determine illegally transferred classified information. Our
National Laboratories handle some of our country's most sensitive and
classified scientific research and we must make certain that their
secrets are not disclosed improperly.
I have discussed these issues with FBI Director Freeh and the
Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, and I know that they share my
concerns. Our goals at this point are twofold. First, we must take
every step necessary to ensure the security of the national
laboratories. Second, we must be certain that we identify, investigate,
and, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecute every person
responsible for divulging classified information.
c. building partnerships with state, local and tribal law enforcement
Beginning early in the Administration, we recognized that it was
essential to join forces with our state, local and tribal counterparts
and with local communities to fight-crime.
1. Supporting State and local law enforcement
The cornerstone of our community crime control strategy is
community policing. Since 1994, the Department has provided more than
$5.4 billion in funding for this program and we are close to reaching
our goal of funding 100,000 community police officers.
The Department of Justice is now planning to build on the
foundation we have laid for community policing with a new 21st Century
Policing Initiative. This initiative will strengthen community police
forces in high crime areas, and provide police with new technologies,
communication systems and equipment.
Senator DeWine and Senator Leahy have shown such tremendous
leadership in this area in their work last year on the Crime
Identification Technology Act (CITA). We hope that you will support our
21st Century Policing Initiative that includes $350 million
specifically for state and local crime-fighting technology.
The Administration is also building on community policing with a
community prosecution initiative to fund up to 1,000 prosecutors, each
year for five years, to advance community-based prosecution strategies
across the country.
Community policing and community prosecution programs are part of
our larger Department of Justice effort to support state and local law
enforcement. Since 1993, we have increased federal support for state
and local law enforcement by 294 percent--an increase of more than $2.9
billion.
Within the Department of Justice, the Office of Justice Programs
(OJP) principally works with federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
and organizations to develop, fund, and evaluate a wide-range of
programs to prevent and control crime. At the present time, we are
developing a new organizational structure for OJP to make the work of
this office more efficient and accessible for the state, local and
tribal communities.
2. Building Federal community-based crime strategies
At the federal level, the Department of Justice has developed a
community-based strategy for federal law enforcement to use in fighting
violent crime. We have dramatically expanded the Department's Weed and
Seed Program from about two dozen sites in 1993 to nearly 200 sites
today. In addition, we launched a major new violence reduction effort
in 1994: the National Anti-Violent Crime Initiative (AVCI). Throughout
the country, U.S. Attorneys have developed coordinated, comprehensive
strategies to address violent crime problems in their districts.
3. Improving tribal justice
The Department of Justice is committed to encouraging and
supporting continued-adherence to the principle of government-to-
government relations between federally recognized Indian tribes and the
federal government. Last year, we proposed a multi-year Indian Country
Law Enforcement Initiative to help raise the level of law enforcement
in Indian country to national standards. With additional funding in
fiscal year 2000, we plan to increase the number of law enforcement
officers on tribal lands, provide more equipment and training,
construct badly needed detention facilities, enhance juvenile crime
prevention and intervention, improve the effectiveness of tribal courts
and criminal statistics collection systems, and hire 26 additional
Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute major crimes in Indian
country.
c. developing a comprehensive initiative against drug abuse
The Department of Justice has a comprehensive program to control
the trafficking and use of illegal drugs. This program, prepared in
coordination with the Administration's National Drug Control Strategy,
aims to reduce the availability of illegal drugs in the United States.
It includes aggressive efforts designed to disrupt and dismantle multi-
jurisdictional drug trafficking organizations. It also includes drug
education, prevention and treatment programs to break the cycle of
crime and drugs.
The Department of Justice is now implementing a comprehensive Drug
Control Strategic Plan, announced in March of 1998, to attack drug
trafficking. First, the Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
Task Force (OCDETF) brings the expertise, experience and capabilities
from the law enforcement components into one group. OCDETF targets the
highest level traffickers and organizations. It also works with the
Department of Defense, and with state and local agencies to combat
illegal drug activities.
Second, our United States Attorneys are developing local drug
strategies to address the particular threats and needs in their
districts. We are developing these strategies in conjunction with state
and local law enforcement and with community leaders.
Third, we are coordinating drug enforcement efforts with violent
crime control and anti-gang measures undertaken as part of the Anti-
Violent Crime Initiative. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Mobile Enforcement Team Program and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) Safe Streets Task Force are particularly involved in this effort.
Fourth, we are working cooperatively with foreign governments to
develop productive counter-drug relations. We are negotiating
extradition treaties so that we can prosecute international drug
traffickers here in the United States; and we have established FBI and
DEA centers oversees to investigate drug trafficking and to coordinate
enforcement efforts with foreign countries.
At the same time, we are focusing more and more on the strong link
between crime and drugs. A recent report by the National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse, drawing upon data from the Department's
Bureau of Justice Statistics, found that 80 percent of people serving
time in state or federal prisons were either high when they committed
their crimes, stole to buy drugs, violated drug or alcohol laws, or
have a long history of substance abuse.
This tells us that it is not enough simply to punish drug using
offenders and then send them back out on the streets--still drug and
crime dependent. Over the last six years, the Administration has
developed a comprehensive program for drug offenders. It includes
expanded drug testing programs for arrestees, drug courts to compel
treatment and reduce recidivism by non-violent drug offenders, and
effective treatment for offenders while they are incarcerated. It also
includes testing, follow-up treatment, and sanctions to assure that
offenders stay clean after they are released. Such efforts are
demonstrably effective in reducing offender drug use and drug-related
crime.
I hope that we can build on this program with increased funding in
fiscal year 2000 for drug courts, and for drug testing and treatment
programs for offenders at the federal, tribal, state and local levels.
d. breaking the cycle of crime and violence
We have put an effective strategy in place to reduce crime. Now, we
must resist the complacency that often accompanies such substantial
progress. As the tragic events in Littleton, Colorado and the
continuing violence in so many of our inner cities remind us, there is
still too much crime and lawlessness in America.
Working together to reduce the unlawful possession of firearms, to
address the problems facing our youth, to end domestic violence, and to
assist crime victims and strengthen the ties in our communities, we can
help break the cycle of crime and violence for tomorrow.
1. Keeping guns away from criminals and children
The Department of Justice is taking a number of measures to reduce
gun violence.
First, the Department is implementing the Brady Law. Through
November 1998, during the first five years of the operation of the
Brady Law, over 250,000 felons and other prohibited persons were denied
firearm purchases. Since November 1998, the Department has implemented
the Brady Law's National Instant Check System (NICS). NICS has already
processed more than 3.4 million background checks, and the FBI alone
has denied gun transfers to more than 36,000 people who should not have
them. We estimate that our state partners have denied at least as many
as well.
The Department is seeking to restore the user fee for the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System. A user fee for NICS is the
best way to cover the cost of operating the system. Without a user fee,
taxpayers must pay for firearms background checks, and states will stop
conducting NICS background checks. We look forward to working with you
to resolve this funding issue.
Second, we have asked U.S. Attorneys to develop an anti-violence
strategy with state and local law enforcement to target illegal guns.
We recognize that each district will have a different strategy,
tailored to the particular needs in that community. In Boston,
Massachusetts, for example, the U.S. Attorney, working with local
enforcement and community coalitions, used a problem-solving approach
to combat gun and gang violence. The strategy helped cut youth homicide
rates by 71 percent in two years. In Richmond, Virginia, the U.S.
Attorney dramatically increased the number of federal prosecutions of
gun crimes. Richmond's Project Exile contributed to a 41 percent drop
in the number of firearms homicides in 1998.
Third, under the President's Directive of March 20, 1999, the
Department is taking our local efforts to reduce gun crime one step
further, building upon the Anti-Violent Crime Initiative's focus on
coordinated partnerships among federal, state, and local law
enforcement. I will be directing each U.S. Attorney to work closely
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Special Agent-
in-Charge, as well as with state, local, and tribal law enforcement and
community leaders, to develop an Integrated Firearms Violence Reduction
Strategy tailored to the needs of each district. Secretary Rubin has
directed ATF Special Agents-in-Charge to do the same.
Fourth, the Department has published a handbook of proven gun crime
and violence reduction strategies in place in communities around the
country. This handbook, Promising Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence,
has been distributed to Members of Congress, all U.S. Attorneys, and
others, and it is available to the public through the Department's
clearinghouse.
Finally, last week, the President announced that he is proposing a
comprehensive bill to strengthen America's firearms and explosives
laws. This Act would reduce illegal gun purchases and gun trafficking
by limiting the purchase of handguns to no more than one per month. It
would raise the age of the youth handgun ban from 18 to 21 years of
age, and halt the importation of large capacity ammunition magazines.
It would ban possession of semi-automatic assault rifles by anyone
under 21, and require Brady background checks for the purchase of
explosives. The proposed legislation would also help law enforcement
trace more guns used in crimes to their sources, and close the loophole
in our Brady law that allows criminals to purchase guns at gun shows.
1. Juvenile crime
The Department has developed a strategy to address juvenile crime
and improve juvenile justice. It provides for a continuum of programs--
from prevention to early intervention to graduated sanctions for
juvenile offenders. We are supporting state and local efforts to build
juvenile justice systems that can deliver the right services and
sanctions in a cost-effective manner. We are also providing states and
communities with funding to implement comprehensive delinquency
prevention programs. To date, the Department has awarded Title V
Community Prevention grants to 619 communities.
At the federal level, the Clinton Administration has proposed
legislation to enhance the effectiveness of the federal juvenile
justice system.
Finally, the Department is focusing on the specific problem of
violence in our schools. At the President's direction last year, the
Department convened meetings with a broad range of experts to discuss
the issues raised by last year's school shootings and the larger issue
of youth violence. The Department of Justice also worked hand in hand
with the Department of Education to publish and distribute Early
Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools, to help parents,
teachers, and principals recognize and respond to youth who have
displayed the warning signs of violent behavior.
The juvenile arrest rate for violent crime has dropped for three
straight years, falling 23 percent from 1994 to 1997, after rising
steadily from 1989 to 1994. We have also seen significant declines in
every type of juvenile violent crime, including a 43 percent drop in
the juvenile murder arrest rate from 1993 to 1997. Yet, the tragic
explosion of violence at Columbia High School in Littleton, Colorado
reminds us all that there is still too much violence in our schools and
our communities and many challenges still lie ahead.
3. Ending violence against women
Over the past six years, the Clinton Administration, largely
through the Department of Justice, has greatly expanded efforts to
address violence against women.
In 1994, Congress passed,the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
This law launched the first major federal effort to address violence
against women. Since the enactment of this law in September 1994, the
Department of Justice has made combating domestic violence, stalking
and sexual assault a major priority.
Over the past six years, the Department has filed 141 indictments
and obtained 100 convictions under the federal domestic violence laws.
To coordinate VAWA cases effectively, the Department has also assigned
a point of contact in every United States Attorney's Office who works
with the FBI, ATF, and local police and prosecutors to raise awareness
of VAWA, exchange information about domestic violence and sexual
assault cases, coordinate resources on those cases, and ensure referral
of appropriate cases for federal prosecution.
The Department is now responding to the increasingly serious
problem of international trafficking, particularly in women and
children. Through trickery, or physical, economic or other duress,
victims are smuggled into the United States and other countries for the
sex trade, unlawful labor, and other illegal purposes.
The Department has also, since 1994, awarded over $700 million to
police, prosecutors, victim service providers, and courts at the state,
tribal, and local levels through VAWA grant programs.
4. Assisting victims of crime
In the past decade, the federal government has taken unprecedented
steps to assist crime victims. New federal and state laws define and
protect the rights of victims--to information, to participate in
judicial proceedings, and to receive compensation. Currently, the
Department, through the Office for Victims of Crime, provides direct
financial assistance to victims nationwide, and today, every United
States Attorney's Office has a victim/witness coordinator.
e. fighting cybercrime
In this Information Age, people use computers, the Internet, and
other new information technologies (IT) to conduct business, perform
research, and to communicate with others. Criminals use these
technologies as a new means to commit old crimes like defrauding
unsuspecting senior citizens, distributing child pornography, stealing
credit card numbers, and robbing banks. Our Nation has become so
reliant on new technology that the national and economic security of
the United States now depends largely on the rapid, consistent, secure,
and reliable movement and storage of data. As a result, without proper
safeguards, we are potentially vulnerable to hackers, cyberterrorists,
and other criminals who would use their computers for illegal intrusion
into, and exploitation of, America's major information and
communications networks. Over the past several years, the Department
has begun to put these important safeguards into place.
First, last year the Administration established a National
Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) located in the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. The NIPC's job is to detect, deter, analyze and
respond to cyber threats, intrusions, and exploited vulnerabilities of
our Nation's critical electronic infrastructures. This mission requires
coordination with other agencies at every level of government. The
Department has also developed the National Cybercrime Training
Partnership (NCTP) to work in partnership with local, state, federal,
and international law enforcement agencies in response to cybercrime.
Cybercrimes, by their very nature; respect no national boundaries and
may be perpetrated from virtually any spot on our planet. Strong
liaison relationships with foreign police and security agencies are
essential to identifying and apprehending cyber criminals.
f. establishing a strong international presence
One of the greatest challenges I have faced as Attorney General has
been confronting the striking increase in international crime--and its
impact here in the United States and on Americans and American
interests at home and abroad.
The impact of international crime is felt daily in our communities.
International drug trade produces the horrible consequences of drug
abuse--drug trade and trafficking related violence. International
financial crime robs Americans of their savings, and exploits our banks
and businesses. The growing problem of international trafficking in
persons results in the most basic violations of human rights.
Cybercrime threatens the American financial sectors and our critical
infrastructures as well.
Confronting transnational crime requires two significant and
sustained efforts on our part. First, we need sufficient legal
authority and resources to match the increase in scale and complexity
of international criminality. Second, we need to build an effective
infrastructure of cooperation with other countries; we need that
infrastructure to collect evidence of trans-border crime and to bring
international criminals to justice.
Over the course of the past six years, we have worked to achieve
these goals, and we have made a great deal of progress.
We have strengthened our ``front line'' against international
crime: our FBI, DEA and INS agents abroad. For example, in the last
five years, the FBI has opened eight new offices--in Argentina, Israel,
Russia, the Ukraine, Estonia, Poland, Saudi Arabia and South Africa;
the Bureau now operates more than 38 overseas offices and is in the
midst of opening four more. Last year, these offices handled 20,000
investigative leads from our FBI offices at home. DEA, too, is
augmenting its network overseas, with further expansion into the Newly
Independent States of the former Soviet Union, Latin America, and Asia.
We now have prosecutors stationed in Rome, Mexico and Colombia, and in
Brussels to cover our increasing anti-crime work with the Europeans.
Our network of law enforcement treaties has been vastly expanded
and modernized. Just last year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
approved a record 38 new extradition and mutual legal assistance
treaties. As a result, we have doubled the extradition and foreign
evidence cases handled by our office of International Affairs.
We are making real inroads into what had been the greatest problem
in bringing international fugitives to justice: other countries'
refusal to extradite their own citizens. In every possible
international forum, I put this issue on the top of my agenda. And we
are seeing results: the first extraditions of Mexicans from Mexico; new
treaties in Latin America--with Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina--that
remove centuries-old bars to extradition of nationals; and promising
changes in the laws of countries such as the Dominican Republic and
Colombia.
g. promoting integrity in law enforcement
Across the country, there are nearly 700,000 Law enforcement
officers, and the overwhelming majority are hard-working public
servants who do a dangerous job justly, fairly, with excellence and
with honor. They put their lives on the line every day in the pursuit
of justice and public safety.
I support and salute these dedicated officers. We owe them a great
debt of gratitude. But we as a society cannot tolerate officers who
cross the line and abuse their position by mistreating law-abiding
citizens or who bring their own racial bias to the job of policing.
Even isolated cases of excessive force or bias can cause citizens
to lose faith in their law enforcement officers, and undermine the
trust that is so essential to effective policing. For too many people,
especially in minority communities, the trust that is so essential to
effective policing does not exist because residents believe that police
have used excessive force, that law enforcement is biased,
disrespectful, and unfair.
To restore this trust between communities and law enforcement,
police chiefs and rank and file officers agree that we must take
decisive action against the few officers who violate their oaths and
use excessive force or harass individuals. Most cases of excessive use
of force by police officers are prosecuted by state and local
authorities. However, the Department has important jurisdiction in this
area and during the past five years we have prosecuted over 300
officers for excessive force and other misconduct, and obtained the
convictions of more than 200. Recently, we completed our investigation
of the New Jersey State Police and determined that state police
officers are engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory traffic
enforcement. We look forward to working with the State of New Jersey on
a settlement that will ensure that New Jersey becomes a model for
guarding against discriminatory law enforcement.
II. Enforcing Federal Laws and Representing the Federal Government in
Judicial Proceedings
Central to the mission of the Department of Justice is our work to
protect civil rights, the environment, competitive fair market
practices, the integrity of America's immigration laws, the fair
enforcement of our tax laws, and our efforts to effectively represent
the interests of the federal government in litigation.
a. enforcement of civil rights laws
The Department of Justice is making significant progress in the
enforcement of civil rights. I would like to focus today on three areas
of particular activity by the Civil Rights Division.
First, is the work that the Civil Rights Division is doing to
enforce the promise of equal opportunity for Americans with
disabilities, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Department
has successfully resolved a number of cases involving discrimination in
public accommodations and access to services for persons with
disabilities. For example, Wendy's has agreed to modify queue lines in
nearly 1,700 restaurants, and Bass Hotels, the owner of Holiday Inn,
has agreed to modify their hotel facilities to make them more
accessible to people with disabilities. Connecticut's private hospitals
have agreed to provide sign-language interpreters to patients who are
deaf.
Second, the Civil Rights Division has sought to ensure that every
American who has the means to own a home can do so without being
discriminated against in the lending process. The Division has brought
a record 13 lending discrimination suits, which have resulted in
changes to make sure that lending practices are fair to all Americans.
Third, the Department is developing new strategies to fight hate
crime, a problem we believe is widespread and under-reported. In
particular, we have established a hate crimes task force in each of the
U.S. Attorneys' offices around the country which bring together state
and local law enforcement and community leaders to coordinate our
response to hate crimes.
From 1993 through 1998, the Department of Justice brought 32
federal hate crimes prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245. This law
allows the federal government to prosecute a hate crime case where a
victim was engaging in a federally protected activity. For example, in
South Carolina, a team of federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies prosecuted five members of the local Ku Klux Klan for a series
of hate crimes including two church arsons and the assault, with intent
to kill, of an African American man with a mental disability. These
five Klansmen were convicted of both state and federal offenses and
have been- sentenced to serve lengthy terms in prison.
The Department is committed to taking a firm stand against hate
crimes, and supports legislation to strengthen federal hate crimes
laws.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee is leading the
federal civil rights enforcement effort with expertise and dedication.
I urge you to move quickly to approve Mr. Lee's nomination.
b. protecting our environment
The Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD)
has a strong record of enforcement of our environmental laws. Overall,
between 1993 and 1998, ENRD brought more than 350 civil Clean Air Act
cases and 240 civil Clean Water Act cases, imposing more than $286
million in penalties. Among its recent successes are two settlements
with a major mining company, in cases brought for violations of the
clean water and hazardous waste laws. The settlements include an $11.8
million penalty, and will result in cleaning up of the contaminated
areas as well as a major upgrade of the company's environmental
management systems.
The Division has also brought successful criminal prosecutions
involving the illegal importation of chlorofluorocarbons, pollution of
oceans and inland waterways, discharges of massive quantities of
hazardous substances into the environment, and pesticide contamination;
and has launched an enforcement program targeting the $5 billion
illegal wildlife smuggling industry.
The Division's litigation has also resulted in the protection of
public lands and Indian rights and claims. In all of its work, the
Division has integrated alternative dispute resolution and carefully
selects cases to use the Department's resources cost effectively and
appropriately.
c. protecting american consumers from unfair market practices
The Antitrust Division works to ensure that American consumers
benefit from a competitive and fair marketplace. Strong competition
benefits American consumers, who are assured of high quality goods at
reasonable prices, and helps American industry in the worldwide economy
by promoting healthy rivalry and encouraging efficiency and innovation.
Because of the globalization of our economy and the growth of
technology, the Antitrust Division faces increasingly large and complex
cases each year.
Through its enhanced enforcement efforts, the Division has
recovered a record $470 million in criminal fines in the past two years
alone. On the civil side, the Division has challenged Microsoft's hold
on the computer software industry and the control that Visa and
MasterCard have on the credit card industry. The Department has also
conducted a number of antitrust investigations of the agriculture
industry in recent years, leading to a number of enforcement actions,
including the criminal prosecution of Archer Daniels Midland and others
for price fixing, and the required divestiture, as part of the
Monsanto/DeKalb Genetics merger, of cutting-edge genetic transformation
technology.
Second, the Antitrust Division has increased its work in the review
of mergers. Mergers have been occurring at a record pace--with merger
filings increasing 10 percent in fiscal year 1996, 20 percent more in
fiscal year 1997, and another 30 percent in fiscal year 1998. The
Antitrust Division recently successfully challenged the largest merger
in American history: the proposed merger of Lockheed-Martin with
Northrop Grumman.
d. representing the united states in civil proceedings
From 1993 through the beginning of 1999, the Civil Division secured
a record $5.5 billion in judgments and settlements. The majority of
these awards are the result of the crackdown on fraud committed against
taxpayers--specifically, the vigorous pursuit of health care fraud--and
successes in suits involving bankruptcy fraud, loan defaults, and other
commercial transactions.
In addition, in December of 1998, I concluded that there were
viable bases for the Department to pursue recovery of the federal
government's tobacco-related health care costs through litigation. The
Department has now formed a tobacco litigation team, housed in the
Civil Division, to pursue recovery of these costs. I hope that you will
support the Department's request for $20 million in fiscal year 2000 to
fund the tobacco litigation.
e. controlling illegal immigration and revitalizing the immigration and
naturalization service
Six years ago, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
lacked the resources, the personnel or the equipment to control illegal
immigration or administer our nation's immigration laws. The agency's
filing systems were inadequate. There were holes in our fences along
our border. Roads along the border were impassible for the Border
Patrol. Computers were antiquated. And there was no effective strategy
for controlling illegal immigration.
In the past six years, through the efforts of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) and the backing of this Committee, the
Department has put in place a comprehensive strategy to control illegal
immigration and improve the operation of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
The first priority was to reverse years of neglect along the
Southwest border. With your support, the Department has nearly doubled
the size of the Border Patrol to almost 9,000 agents today. Similarly,
we have added over 1,900 new Immigration Inspectors and deployed new
state of the art technologies to speed up the process of legal entry
and control illegal immigration at our Ports of Entry. We launched
Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation Hold the Line in El Paso
Texas, and Operation Rio Grande in South Texas. We will continue to
send reinforcements to Arizona and other sectors that are experiencing
great pressure as we close the traditional corridors for illegal
immigration. I would like to note that with the greatly expanded
workforce, the proposed budget for fiscal year 2000 does not request
funds to hire additional Border Patrol agents next year. We do,
however, request significant funding for facilities and for force-
multiplying technologies to support the Border Patrol.
Second, we are deporting illegal immigrants faster and in greater
numbers than ever before. From fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1998,
INS increased the number of annual removals from 42,471 to over
171,000. The number of criminal aliens removed from the country reached
56,100 last year, and is continuing at the rate of more than 1,000 per
week, double the number removed in 1993. We have significantly
increased detention space to support this effort. INS now detains about
14,500 criminal aliens, quadruple the capacity of 1994. Last year, we
were able to detain more than 150,000 aliens, 74 percent more than in
1995.
Third, INS has placed agents and officers overseas to target major
smuggling operations.
Fourth, INS has reformed the system for asylum processing to reduce
fraud and better respond to those who are fleeing persecution.
Fifth, the Department is continuing to reengineer the
naturalization process to accommodate the millions of new applicants
for citizenship. Overall, from fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1998,
INS has received over 5.6 million new applications for citizenship and
has completed nearly 4 million cases.
Finally, we will shortly present to you a draft proposal to
fundamentally restructure the INS by dividing its primary functions of
enforcement and services into distinct chains of command. This effort
will increase accountability, improve performance and strengthen our
immigration system.
f. promoting the fair enforcement of the federal tax laws
The Tax Division works to ensure fairness in the tax system. Since
fiscal year 1993, the Division has successfully blocked more than $2.4
billion in improper tax refund claims, including more than $275 million
in such claims in 1998. The Division also secured convictions in the
largest motor fuel excise tax case to date, involving an attempt by
organized crime figures to evade $140 million in taxes. The Tax
Division has also vigorously prosecuted large-scale electronic-filing
fraud schemes and helped to identify systemic weaknesses that led the
IRS to institute better fraud detection and prevention controls.
III. Managing a Growing Department and Preparing for the Future
The Department has experienced tremendous growth during the past
six years, moving from an annual budget of $11 billion and over 83,000
employees in fiscal year 1993 to more than $20 billion and 122,000
employees in fiscal year 1999. Through this important investment in
human and information resources, the Department has become better
equipped to fulfill its criminal and civil law enforcement
responsibilities.
a. managing our human resources
The Department has hired more than 35,000 additional employees over
the past six years. This includes an 18 percent increase in the size of
the FBI, a 33 percent increase in DEA, and a 67 percent increase in the
INS workforce. The Department has faced a tremendous management
challenge recruiting, screening, hiring, training and integrating these
35,000 new employees into our operations.
During this past decade, the federal prison population has also
grown dramatically up 142 percent. To manage this unprecedented growth,
the number of personnel in the Federal Bureau of Prisons has increased
by one-third over the past six years. The Department continues to
implement an aggressive long-term prison expansion program, requesting
$738 million in new initiatives for detention and incarceration
programs. We know that we are going to face tremendous challenges in
the future as we develop strategies to respond to the needs of our
increasing and aging federal prison population.
b. managing information resources
Over the past six years, with your support, the Department has been
able to invest in new technology to improve efficiency, aid law
enforcement and keep pace with rapid changes in crime. We plan to
continue this effort, as well as our efforts to improve the security of
our computer and technology systems against external threats and
internal weaknesses.
At the same time, we are working to assure that critical systems
within the Department of Justice operate correctly on January 1, 2000.
In 1999, Congress provided the Department with more than $84 million in
one-time funding to ensure year Y2K compliance. We estimate that the
total cost of Y2K compliance and implementation will be $109 million.
More than 90 percent of the Department's critical information systems
are now compliant, and we project that we will achieve 100 percent
compliance of these systems by October 1999.
IV. Conclusion
I appreciate the oversight function performed by this Committee as
well as the Committee's understanding of the Department's policy with
regard to providing information about pending cases. I know that this
policy often results in the Department not being able to provide the
Committee as much information as it would like. But, as you know, this
policy ultimately serves to protect the independence of the Department
many dedicated career attorneys.
These have been a challenging six years for all of us. I am pleased
that we have made such great progress on crime and in so many areas.
But we have more work to do and more challenges to face. I look forward
to working with every Member of this Committee as we seek solutions and
work to craft policies and programs that are tailored to the needs of
our communities and our country.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4325.095