U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64–325 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

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

(

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

JON KYL, Arizona

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri

SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel

(II)

(III)

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

(1)

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;

2

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.

3

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.

4

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,

5

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

6

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. DurVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:36 May 24, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 JUSTICE SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
7

ing 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

8

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?

9

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

10

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

11

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.

12

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.

13

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 figVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:36 May 24, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 JUSTICE SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
14

ure 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 communitybuilding, 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

15

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.

16

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

17

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.

18

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

19

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

20

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 11⁄2 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.

21

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

22

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.

23

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

24

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.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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.

30

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

31

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

32

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 lowcost 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 31⁄2 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.

33

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

34

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.

35

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

36

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.

37

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 lawabiding 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 problemsolving meeting on law enforcement stops and searches. This was

last December. It was attended by police chiefs, State police direcVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:36 May 24, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 JUSTICE SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
38

tors, 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

39

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.

40

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

41

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.

42

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.

43

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.

44

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

45

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,

46

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.]

47

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

48

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——

49

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

50

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.

51

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 11⁄2 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.

52

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.

53

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 successVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:36 May 24, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 JUSTICE SJUD4 PsN: SJUD4
54

fully 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

55

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 continuedadherence 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

56

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, followup 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

57

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 AntiViolent 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

58

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

59

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.

60

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. § 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.

61

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

62

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.]

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157