Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Customs Service. The FBI is engaged in a myriad of criminal investigative efforts that include enforcement actions against violent criminals and organized criminal enterprises. This includes traditional organized crime families and emerging organized crime groups. These individuals and organizations often engage in illegal narcotics trafficking as all, or part of their criminal activities. Similarly, U.S. Čustoms is charged with the responsibility of preventing the importation of contraband into the United States. Illegal drugs are often the contraband that criminal organizations are attempting to smuggle into the country.

These two examples illustrate primary areas where there can be similar enforcement efforts directed at illegal drug trafficking. The DEA has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with both of these counterpart Federal agencies, to ensure coordinated enforcement planning and operations. These agreements, along with regular contact and discussions at both the Headquarters and field levels, serve to achieve the goal of preventing duplication of efforts, maximizing each agency's effectiveness, and providing clearly delineated procedures to be followed when working narcotics cases that may involve both agencies.

The extensive role of the FBI in conducting criminal investigations necessitates that they and DEA work in a coordinated manner to effectively respond to the tasks facing each agency. We believe that recent initiatives have gone a long way towards achieving this goal. Under the terms of Resolution 6, in accordance with the Attorney General's Order No. 1814-93, dated November 18, 1993, the FBI has assigned personnel to DEA Headquarters in the Office of International Operations, the Office of Major Investigations, and the Multi-Agency Financial Investigations Center. The FBI has also assigned so-called Resolution 6 Agents to DEA offices in Bangkok and Mexico City. The goals of Resolution 6 are to ensure that the FBI's Foreign drug investigations are coordinated with DEA, thus avoiding duplication of efforts; to assist in prioritizing drug investigations that require the assistance of foreign countries; and to ensure that both agencies foreign drug investigations receive appropriate assistance.

In the foreign arena, DEA's operational plans are developed with the assistance and cooperation of the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Defense (DOD). The goal of an operational plan is to coordinate enforcement efforts through intelligence resource sharing among Federal agencies (and with foreign governments if appropriate. Foreign regional operations plans are instituted with DOS and DOD in embassies located in South America, Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean and the Far East.

The DEA and FBI have developed a coordinated response to the threat posed by international drug trafficking organizations along our southwest border. We are working to target the major organizations involved as well as their leadership. The goal is to dismantle these organizations, disrupt their supply systems, and apprehend their leaders. Two examples during the past year that reflect the tremendous potential of this coordinated enforcement action, are the well-known Zorro cases. These cases resulted in the arrest of major figures involved with Colombian and Mexican cocaine supply and distribution routes in the United States. The Southwest Border Initiative is expanding to include other Federal agencies such as Customs, the Border Patrol, as well as state and local law enforcement agencies.

There are other Federal agencies besides Customs and the FBI that, on occasion, will become involved in criminal investigations and arrests that may touch upon illegal drug activities. For example, ATF investigates violent gangs that are involved with illegal firearms. These gangs are often involved in some manner with drug trafficking. The U.S. Coast Guard, in its efforts to patrol our shores, becomes involved in drug trafficking. Other agencies whose responsibilities could touch upon drug enforcement matters include the Border Patrol, ÎNS, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals, FAA, U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. We also must coordinate our enforcement actions with the Department of Justice and internationally, the Department of State.

The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) also plays an important role in coordinating information from fifteen Federal agencies, various state and local law enforcement entities, and approximately twenty-five foreign governments. This information is archived in a database management system that facilitates providing responses to queries from field units on individuals suspected of drug, weapon, and/or alien smuggling. EPIC develops and disseminates intelligence on drug trafficking organizations and provides analysis of smuggling efforts, routes and sources, often in support of specific drug interdiction operations; and develops and provides tactical intelligence regarding drug shipments and investigative leads. Many of the Federal agencies previously named provide staffing support for EPIC.

DEA, as mandated by a previous ONDCP directive, is proceeding forward with the establishment of a National Drug Pointer Index (NDPIX) system. This system will provide a computerized data base that will immediately identify mutual targets of investigative efforts by Federal, state and/or local agencies. This system will greatly enhance coordination and reduce duplication of investigative efforts. This project involves Federal, state and local agencies and has progressed to the point where we anticipate it being operational during 1997.

DEA continues to work cooperatively with other Federal investigative agencies who may become involved with illegal narcotics trafficking through a system of direct contact, memorandums of understanding, and operational and intelligence structures as outlined above.

DRUG INTERDICTION

Question. Are the drug interdiction efforts of the DEA assisted by the HIDTA projects?

Answer. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) projects represent an excellent potential to assist DEA in responding to the problem of illegal drug trafficking. DEA has long recognized that to be successful in its efforts to reduce the flow of drugs into our country, and their distribution and consumption, it will take the support and coordinated efforts of Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The HIDTA concept strives to facilitate coordinated enforcement actions in those areas of the country where the problem is the greatest.

It should be remembered that HIDTA is a resource and funding mechanism; it is the responsibility of the agencies involved to ensure an effective utilization of the resources committed to this program. HIDTA efforts must be results oriented, with the measuring standard being their effectiveness in addressing the drug problems in their respective communities and not the creation of bureaucratic structures or positions. DEA supports this concept and is working to see that it succeeds.

DEA's drug interdiction efforts are part of an overall strategy that views drug trafficking as a seamless continuum from (as with cocaine) the Andean source countries, through the transit zones, to the streets of ours communities. Interdicting these drugs is important to this strategy. Through the establishment of "gateway" HIDTA's in key areas such as south Florida, the southwest border, Los Angeles, Houston, Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, and New York. The combined enforcement and intelligence capabilities of the involved agencies can be directed at arresting the traffickers, dismantling their organizations, and seizing their drugs. This is a stated goal of the HIDTA project, and as such, has the support of the DEA.

ROLE OF DRUG CZAR AND ONDCP

Question. What does the DEA see as the appropriate role for General Barry McCaffrey and the Office of National Drug Control Policy to play? What do agencies need, excluding more funding, to make the drug interdiction efforts more cohesive and ultimately more effective?

Answer. The identified role of the Drug Czar and the responsibilities of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) are delineated in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The act requires ONDCP to develop and submit to Congress a national drug control strategy, to coordinate and oversee implementation of the strategy by Federal drug control agencies, and to annually assess and reissue the strategy, taking into account the previous year's experience. DEA has an excellent relationship with General McCaffrey and ONDCP, and is supportive of his mission.

Federal agencies need to continue to work together and in conjunction with state and local law enforcement entities to make drug interdiction and investigative efforts more cohesive and effective. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) programs, established throughout the U.S., and within the current Southwest Border Initiative, are examples of cooperative efforts between Federal agencies. The HIDTA program facilitates the coordination of drug enforcement efforts, targeting, in their areas of jurisdiction, the most significant international or national-level drug trafficking and drug money laundering organizations.

DEA's primary role is to target major drug trafficking organizations through intelligence and investigative activities, and not just through drug interdiction. Interdiction works to disrupt the operations of major trafficking organizations, but in and of itself, does little toward effectively dismantling them. To maximize the disruption and immobilization of major drug trafficking organizations, efforts must be cooperative and integrated multi-agency endeavors. Dedicated multi-agency efforts have yielded collective investigative, interdiction, and intelligence expertise. Emphasis is needed on the development and cultivation of human intelligence directed against major trafficking organizations.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator GREGG. The subcommittee will now stand in recess until 2 p.m., when we will hear from the Secretary of State.

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Thursday, May 16, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.]

(AFTERNOON SESSION, 2 P.M., THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1996)

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room S-146, the Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Gregg, Hollings, Lautenberg, and Kerrey.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

SECRETARY OF STATE

STATEMENT OF WARREN CHRISTOPHER, SECRETARY OF STATE

OPENING STATEMENT

Senator GREGG. We will start this hearing now, it being 2 p.m. We will be joined as other members arrive. This vote may cost us a little bit of time to wait for other members to get here.

I certainly appreciate the Secretary's courtesy in coming to the Hill today to talk about the budget in the Department of State. I recognize that he is under severe time constraints. There are a few things going on in the world that demand his attention and this committee does not wish to overly draw on his very valuable time. We will have the Secretary out of here by 3:30 and no later than 3:30, maybe even earlier if this vote goes on longer.

When members come, if their staffs can advise them that we are going to have a time limit on the first round of questions at least so that everybody can get in their questions. We will limit the first round of questions, depending on how many members come, to 10 minutes, maybe less if more members come.

Mr. Secretary, it is a privilege to have you here before the committee. We can approach this as a casual statement or a formal statement or however you want to proceed.

Secretary CHRISTOPHER. Mr. Chairman, we have submitted a longer statement for the record and I appreciate your putting that in the record. If I could, I would like to summarize it here.

Senator GREGG. Certainly.

Secretary CHRISTOPHER. I am here to ask your support for the President's request for the State Department portion of your CJS account. I am very grateful for the close consultations we had on last year's budget and I appreciate very much the understanding that you have shown of the needs of the State Department in a very difficult budgetary climate.

BUDGET REQUEST

Let me begin with some facts about our new request for 1997. Our request to this subcommittee for the State Department is $5.45 billion, almost $170 million less than last year's request. It is the bare minimum, in my judgment, that we need to protect our Nation's interests while balancing the Federal budget in 6 years, as the President has committed to do.

Our entire international affairs budget has fallen 51 percent in real terms since 1984. It now constitutes just 1.2 percent of the Federal budget and thus represents only a tiny fraction of the amount that, for example, we earn from exports or the amount that our Nation would be forced to spend if a foreign crisis erupted into a war. This small investment is a protection for the interests of the American people.

I come, Mr. Chairman, from a generation that clearly recognizes the imperative of American leadership. Those of us who served in World War II understand that it was the global engagement both during and after that war that safeguarded our freedom and carried us to ultimate victory in the cold war, as well. We know that without our continued leadership, we could not protect future generations of Americans. I think that is the central lesson of this century and one that must guide us.

Our diplomacy has accomplished a good deal in the last 3 years, in many instances with bipartisan support. We have ended the fighting in Bosnia and eliminated the threat it posed to European security. We are bringing together former adversaries in the Partnership for Peace and we are moving ahead with a steady, gradual, but sure process of NATO enlargement. We stopped the flight of Haitian refugees to our shores and are giving that nation another chance at democracy and solvency. We put the North Korean nuclear program on the road to the scrap heap, and overall, our economic diplomacy has fueled an export boom, creating more than 1 million jobs for America.

ISRAEL AND LEBANON MISSION

Three weeks ago, the President sent me on a mission to end the confrontation that drove so many thousands of people from their homes in northern Israel and southern Lebanon. After a difficult week of negotiations, we succeeded in producing an understanding that ended the crisis and was designed also to prevent renewed violence. Prime Minister Peres said early on during our mediation effort that only the United States can do this, and he was certainly right.

Some of our achievements came about because we were prepared to and willing to use our military strength, but none of them, I believe, could have been achieved without the United States' diplomatic leadership, a leadership that is so essential because it gives us options short of going to war. But we cannot sustain this diplomacy on the cheap, and, of course, that is why the choices that this committee faces and the support that you have given us are so vital.

DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY

One of the dramatic changes that I have seen over the years is the erasure between domestic and foreign policy. That is particularly true when we talk about transnational challenges, such as terrorism, proliferation, international crime, narcotics, and damage to the environment. These must be fought together, both at home and abroad.

As the flagship institution of American foreign policy, the State Department is responsible for leading and coordinating all United