tally at odds with the facts. The negotiations with regard to a plea were initiated by Exxon. They ultimately found unacceptable the parameters that we were willing to consider and we sought and secured an indictment.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

The Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HATCH

Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having the Attorney General here to testify, and I want to welcome you, General Thornburgh, to the committee. Frankly, I have been watching your tenure down there and I think you are doing a great job, and I think most people who have watched feel exactly the same way.

I think that you can do better with regard to judges, but, you know, I think we can do better up here, too. I have seen delays up here that have been really incomprehensible to me from time to time. I am not finding any fault with the chairman because he is trying to move this forward.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, thank you.

Senator HATCH. I want to make that clear, but I think there are times when this committee could do a better job on some of these appointments as well. So I am pleased to have you here.

I know that last January President Bush warned us that there was a Trojan horse standing at the gates of Congress. He was referring to S. 1970, the crime bill that is shortly going to be considered on the Senate floor.

Now, I would like to just have some quick answers. Doesn't that bill, in fact, expand the availability of Federal habeas corpus, while it purports to limit it?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. That is the interpretation that we have derived from our study of the bill, Senator, yes.

Senator HATCH. Instead of having these appeals be fair and reasonable, they become interminable under current Federal habeas corpus proceedings, and the way this bill is written, it seems to me they are going to become even more interminable. Would you agree or disagree with this characterization?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. We are faced with an explosion of these habeas corpus cases which follow on the termination of often lengthy and exhaustive State proceedings. In the last 45 years, you have seen the number of these habeas corpus cases in the Federal courts-this is according to the Weiss Committee's assessment-go from a little over 500 a year to over 10,000 a year, and that means that court time is being utilized, prosecutor time is being utilized at both the State and Federal level, to the extent that we feel that the recommendations of the Powell Committee, designed to address the question of the interminability of the proceedings and the lack of finality that is built into these cases, are ripe for action.

As indicated in our letter to Senator Thurmond, we support the proposals that he has made, and are skeptical of the proposals

which, by our reading, would either maintain the status quo or prolong this process even longer.

Senator HATCH. During the hearings up here, I have cited the Andrews case out in Utah-those were heinous murders committed by the person. Everybody knows it. He has been convicted and sentenced to death. Andrews is now in his 17th year of appeals, using 26 different appeal processes. It is going to go on forever unless we have some reasonable approach toward habeas corpus.

Doesn't this bill actually abolish the death penalty in every State under the guise of promoting racial justice?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. I believe that the so-called Racial Justice Act would have the effect of eliminating the death penalty. And in fairness to those who support it and are opposed to the death penalty, it may be their most effective strategy to use to negate the death penalty.

I don't quarrel with their right to oppose the death penalty, but I do think it is important for us to point out that the so-called Racial Justice Act has very little to do with racial justice and a lot to do with frustrating 37 States and the Federal Government, who have enacted a death penalty.

Senator HATCH. I am interested in your views on the subject of Federal habeas corpus. In 1983, for instance, your predecessor, General William French Smith, wrote that

The most straightforward solution to the tensions, burdens and inefficiencies presently resulting from habeas corpus would be the simple abolition of Federal habeas corpus for State criminal convicts. Eliminating Federal habeas corpus for State criminals would not upset any deep-seated tradition or historically sanctioned practicc.

Attorney General Smith then concluded that abolishing Federal habeas on a nationwide basis, as we already have done in the District of Columbia, was a reform that, deserves the serious consideration of Congress.

In 1988, Attorney General Meese echoed those sentiments in a report to the Attorney General entitled "Federal Habeas Corpus Review of State Judgments."

Because it is clear to me that there is no genuine intention to really limit the current habeas jurisdiction on the part of those who have recently offered so-called habeas corpus reform bills, I am also considering offering an amendment on the floor of the Senate to accomplish what these two other Attorneys General have suggested the end of statutory habeas corpus review by lower Federal courts.

Now, would your Department of Justice support such an amendment at this time?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. I think that that alternative would, in fact, provide for a more efficient Federal criminal justice system. But, on balance, I think we have taken the position that the Powell Commission recommendations, which do open the Federal courts for consideration of capital cases, in particular, are an appropriate response to the current heavy caseload on habeas corpus cases.

That is the administration's position, and a position that I think reflects an attempt to balance the concern for efficiency in the Fed

eral court system with the opportunity for one definitive consideration of any constitutional questions that might command the attention of the Federal court system, even in a State case.

Senator HATCH. I am going to submit a number of other questions on the habeas corpus issue because I think it is an important issue and one that we have a chance of reforming.

The consolidation of the organized crime strike forces within the U.S. attorneys' offices has caused considerable debate here in our committee and among other circles.

When the Senate turns to the crime legislation in the near future, we are again likely to address this matter. And while we are only a few months past the effective date of December 31, 1989, would you give us, if you can, an evaluation of the consolidation effort so far, and do you have any further plans with respect to this particular reorganization?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. The merger of the strike forces into the U.S. attorneys' offices has gone very smoothly. We have been successful in recruiting almost all of the experienced prosecutors that we wanted to make available within the Department as a strategic reserve to serve those areas that are not served by an organized crime unit in the U.S. attorney's office.

The Organized Crime Council held its first meeting in January. The U.S. attorneys are devising their strategic plans within their districts, which will be sent to the Organized Crime Council for consideration in devising the first national organized crime strategy which will focus not only on the traditional organized crime families, but the new, emerging groups that are, in particular, controlling much of the organized crime drug trafficking-the Medellin and Cali cartels; the Cripps and Bloods gangs centered in Los Angeles; new, emerging Asian organized crime groups; the Jamaican posses, and the like.

And the finishing touches on that strategy, we feel, will give for the first time a national overview of where resources ought to be focused in dealing with the continuing problem of organized crime.

At the same time, the effort has not diminished, as some feared. In fact, in certain areas it has increased. We have had major indictments against the organized crime family in Chicago and in New England, civil action filed under the racketeer-influenced and corrupt organizations statute against the hold that organized crime has had on the waterfront in New York, all of these taken since the first of the year.

My sense is that those involved in the organized crime effort are at a very high level of commitment and enthusiasm about the new format that is being utilized to increase our fire power against organized crime.

Senator HATCH. Thank you, General. We have to make a vote, but I do want to clarify that you endorse the Thurmond approach in S. 1971, as well as the Powell Committee bill with regard to Federal habeas corpus.

Attorney General THORNBURGH. Yes.

Senator HATCH. OK. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me understand that. You endorse the Powell Committee bill, is that correct, in terms of habeas corpus?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. We supported the findings of the Powell Committee and the tenor of the recommendations. We have expressed our support for S. 197-or S.-

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Thurmond

Attorney General THORNBURGH. Senator Thurmond's bill, yes. The CHAIRMAN. The Thurmond bill goes much further than the Powell Commission report. You are aware of that, and you do support that, is that correct?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. That is S.-wait a minute. That is in 1971.

The CHAIRMAN. 1971 is the Thurmond bill, and 1760 is the Powell bill.

Attorney General THORNBURGH. 1760, I am sorry; that is the Powell bill, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The Powell bill is more in line with what I have proposed. And the Judicial Conference, you are aware, went along and further modified the Powell Commission-the Judicial Conference. You are aware of that?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to make sure.

Attorney General THORNBURGH. We do support Senator Thurmond's bill. I didn't mean to mislead. I was looking at the principles that were embodied in the Powell Committee report.

The CHAIRMAN. I was being more hopeful than was warranted. Attorney General THORNBURGH. There is always room for discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania, and will be right back after this vote.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, Mr. Attorney General, when these votes come up back and forth-this is an especially heavy day for the votes with the final day on the Clean Air Act, so that accounts for all of the absences and the returns.

Attorney General THORNBURGH. I don't take it personally.
Senator SPECTER. Well, I am sure of that.

Mr. Attorney General, I would like to pick up on a point where I ended, and that is on the question of congressional oversight. It seems to us on this end that we don't have very much of it because of the press of other business, and I would be interested in your view.

I do not share the comments which my colleague from Vermont made after I had finished my session. I know the kind of volume of mail you have. When I discuss with you the example, for instance, on the Hastings impeachment matter, I know what happens and how many issues you have, and there are 535 of us in the Congress, although only 14 on this committee.

I would be interested in your own view as to whether you think there is excessive congressional oversight.

Attorney General THORNBURGH. Let me perhaps take a minute to explain how we try to cope with the inquiries that come from 535 Members of the Congress, Senator, because it may be of some interest, and perhaps you would quarrel with our procedure.

I don't read personally every letter that comes to me from the Congress. I hope that is not a revelation, but every day I receive

what those persons who process the mail that comes to the Department of Justice from the Congress and elsewhere their judgment as to what significant matters require my personal attention. And I do read those, and they sometimes will number as many as 15 or 20 letters a day.

Senator SPECTER. Are you able to read the letters from the Judiciary Committees, for example?

Attorney General THORNBURGH. It would depend. If it was an inquiry about something routine in nature, it wouldn't necessarily come to me. But if it was a matter of substance, and those are always difficult judgments to make, then it does come to me. And at the end of every day, I receive a rather sizable packet of correspondence across the board, but the legislative correspondence is always the top on the file. And I look through it and occasionally will scribble some notes on it, and it is then referred for response. On a matter of particular moment, I would review that response. But, again, I must in all candor tell you I do not review every response. And subject to the judgment of those persons who serve me in the processing of an enormous volume of mail, we try as best we can to be responsive. Obviously, we fall short in some instances, and I have had letters from your colleagues raising again an issue that they felt had been improperly dealt with, and we make every effort to rectify whatever may be the case.

I am not telling you much about the Department of Justice. What I am telling you about is trying to manage an organization of 75,000 employees with an $8 billion-a-year budget, dealing as best we can with 535 very interested, committed, and involved Members of the Congress.

I am not about to tell you that our performance in that respect is perfect, but I do tell you that we make a good-faith effort to perform a kind of triage on the correspondence that brings to my personal attention those matters which require that.

Other matters are referred out to component heads. They will go to the head of the FBI, the DEA, the head of the Criminal Division, the head of the Environmental Division, what have you, for their scrutiny and response.

One of the things that concerned me at the beginning of this year after a year in office was the enormous backlog that we had built up in responding, and I directed that specific steps be taken to reduce that backlog. And I was informed last week that it has been reduced by some 75 percent, and we hope to keep more current on those responses.

But with regard to timeliness and with regard to total responsiveness, no, I don't think we are ever going to perform up to the maximum expectations. But in that I think we are no different from any other institution of government or the private sector which has to deal with an enormous volume of correspondence.

Senator SPECTER. Well, Mr. Attorney General, I understand the problem. When you review the correspondence that I sent to you and that your deputy sent back to me on the Judge Hastings matter, I would be interested in your comment as to whether you think that was adequately handled. I understand your considerations.