longterm undercover probe of floor trading corruption at the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The cases were centered in the soybean and bond pits of the Chicago Board of Trade and the yen and Swiss franc pits of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Two defendants have been added to the Swiss franc indictment bringing to 48 the total number of defendants involved in the proceedings. 18 of defendants (one-third of the total) have entered into plea bargains with the government and are cooperating with the government's ongoing investigation. Chicago Board of Trade Investigations

All three defendants indicted for corruption in the bond pit pled guilty and are cooperating. Additional charges may be brought against other traders in that pit. In the soybean pit prosecution, 13 defendants are scheduled for trial in September,

1990.

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Investigations

The Swiss franc pit trial is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, May 8. The Yen pit trial is scheduled for September. Many significant motions involved in the pre-trial stage of the prosecutions have been decided in favor of the government, including the overruling of motions to suppress evidence.

Ethics Course

As a direct result of the commodities trading fraud prosecutions, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange now requires all 2,500 members of its exchange to take a two hour course in ethics.

We anticipate that as a result of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force Program, and the successful prosecution of the defendants in the Chicago indictment, we will bring increased attention to the investigation and prosecution of trading practice abuses and help to ensure that the securities and commodities futures markets are safe for legitimate investors.

Q: Last year, the Justice Department suggested that a provision which would permit you to establish and collect fees to cover the cost of identifying, copying and distributing federal tax decisions be included in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill. That provision would have distorted the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts and would have permitted you to override fee provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that we carefully negotiated with the Department only three years ago.

I am troubled by this attempt to exempt the Department from compliance with the fee provisions of the FOIA and to endrun the Committee of jurisdiction. Most agencies look to the Justice Department for both legal and philosophical guidance on questions of access to government information. Last year, we repealed this ill-advised provision. Are there any plans to offer a similar

proposal again this year?

A: In Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 57 U.S.L.W. 4925 (1989), the Supreme Court held that the Freedom of Information Act required the Tax Division to provide copies of court opinions and judgments to a publisher of tax periodicals. The Court held that the opinions and orders constituted "agency records" within the meaning of FOIA once they were in the hands of Executive Branch officials. It reached this ruling even though the court opinions and judgments are directly available from the courts.

In the Supreme Court we estimated that the cost of compliance with each individual request would be approximately $70,000. In an effort to minimize the cost of responding to FOIA requests and yet fully comply with the Supreme Court's ruling, the Tax Division now routinely forwards copies of district court and appellate court opinions, orders and related memoranda to the Department's FOIA reading room. The reading room is open for public use and is equipped with a copying machine so that interested persons can make copies of any or all of these court materials. This setup, which was approved by Tax Analysts and other publishers, eliminates the need to have a paralegal conduct searches in response to individual FOIA requests.

Establishing a reading room has saved the Government approximately $47,000, compared to the cost of treating the requests for court decisions as individual FOIA requests. We have resolved the immediate problem to everyone's satisfaction, and we have no intention of asking for an amendment for that purpose.

However, the decision in Tax Analysts may have broader implications. If the Department begins to receive requests for all of the many thousands of decisions of all courts received by all components (the six litigating divisions, the Solicitor General's Office, and the 93 United States Attorneys), we may not be able to provide all decisions to a centralized reading room within a reasonable period of time. We will continue to monitor this issue.

Q:

Since 1962, Administrations have either personally asserted or approved assertions of executive privilege in response to Congressional requests for information. Please provide to the Committee the practice or policy of the current Administration with respect to executive privilege.

A:

- 26

This Administration adheres to the longstanding policy of the Executive Branch to comply with Congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch. In implementing this policy, the Administration's goal in all cases is to satisfy legitimate legislative interest while protecting Executive Branch confidentiality interests.

In order to discharge faithfully their constitutional and statutory responsibilities, Executive Branch agencies must seek to protect confidential information. Examples of confidential information include national security information, materials that are protected by statute (such as Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), information the disclosure of which might threaten the integrity of open law enforcement cases, and predecisional deliberative communications (such as internal advice and preliminary positions and recommendations). This list is not meant to be all inclusive, but rather illustrative of some of the considerations agencies must consider when they receive congressional requests for information.

When congressional requests encompass confidential information, the Administration will work to accommodate the Congress' interests while preserving essential confidentiality. Experience has shown that good faith communications between the agencies and congressional staff resolve almost all difficulties as they

arise.

Q: In response to a question from Senator Specter, you described the Department's procedure for responding to letters or inquiries from Members of Congress. While I appreciate that you and your staff are very busy, I am concerned that effective oversight and open communication are frustrated when letters from members of this Committee are ignored for months at a time. Please explain the procedure by which inquiries from members of this authorizing committee to the Attorney General will receive responses in a timely manner.

A: One of the conclusions of a management review conducted in July 1989, was that the Office of Legislative Affairs needed an automated tracking system to identify and help manage overdue Congressional correspondence. Specifications for such a system were developed; a contractor delivered the necessary programming software; and the first overdue Congressional Correspondence Report for the Office of Legislative Affairs was run on November 16, 1989, with the result that there were 576 letters in Legislative Affairs that had passed their internal suspense date for providing a response. The Department's goals, and hence suspense dates, are to answer all Congressional Correspondence within ten working days of receipt and all Congressional referrals of constituent correspondence within twenty working days of receipt. Because of the magnitude and seriousness of the

problem, three temporary service clerical individuals were contracted for under a ninety-day contract. The workload for reviewing correspondence in Legislative Affairs was realigned and the supervisor of the correspondence section was changed. A new supervisory position for the management of Congressional correspondence, hearings coordination and legislative tracking was filled in November 1989. Four new computer work stations were added to access the data bases used for managing Congressional correspondence and word processing support. Authorization was sought and granted for replacing two of the contract clerical hires with regular government employees. One of these positions has been filled. So far, these efforts have resulted in bringing the backlog in Legislative Affairs from the 576 figure down to 111 overdue correspondences as of April 26, 1990. While other sections of the Department also had, and to some measure still do have, overdue Congressional correspondence problems, we are confident that the actions that we have taken, coupled with continued efforts to improve our system, will result in responsive and effective management.

Q: You and I discussed the Exxon Valdez case. Accounts in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal indicate that Richard Stewart, Assistant Attorney General for the Land and Natural Resources Division, said that a plea bargain would be preferable to proceeding with the Department's indictment of Exxon and that the refusal of Alaskan officials to agree to the proposed plea bargain substantially influenced Exxon's refusal of the Department's offer. Do such comments make it more difficult for the public to understand what the government is doing in prosecuting this type of case? As I said at the hearing, this is a very important case that galvanized the American people's concern for the environment, and I commend the Administration for its concern. Will the public ever know what the government's position was secret or public on one of the most important environmental cases in recent years?

A: Regarding the Exxon Valdez case, I believe that our actions speak much more clearly than speculation reported in the press. The recent criminal indictment of the Exxon Corporation makes the goal of the United States clear: to hold Exxon criminally liable for misconduct that caused one of the worst environmental disasters in our Nation's history. Again, as a general policy, the Department does not discuss the details of pending criminal cases. In this case, the United States' position is, and has always been, that it would agree to a negotiated plea with Exxon only if the sentence agreed to adequately reflects the gravity of the great wrong done to the environment and the people of Alaska.

- 28 ·

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR HEFLIN

DEA Training Facility

Q: Mr. Attorney General, you will recall my interest in the Department of Justice's proposal to build a new training facility to train its agents and our proposal to offer ready-made and ready-to-go facilities at minimal cost to the American taxpayer at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. I believe it was last August 1989 that DEA Administrator Jack Lawn announced that Justice & DEA had decided to locate its facility at a new site at Quantico Marine Base just south of Washington.

-

Mr. Attorney General, it has come to my attention that preliminary costs figures for the Quantico site -- from start to finish are estimated to be in the neighborhood of $90 million dollars. Is that a reasonably accurate estimate to the best of your knowledge, information and belief? If not, do you have a current estimate from start to finish?

A: Although a $90 million preliminary cost estimate has been cited, validated estimates will be determined after completion of a formal architectural and engineering study.

Q:

Attorney General, could you refresh my memory on the reason or reasons for deciding on the Quantico site?

A:

In December 1989, the Department of Justice completed an internal study of alternatives to accommodate the training programs of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The findings of this study indicated that the most desirable training atmosphere would be accomplished by maintaining both the FBI and DEA training programs at the Quantico facility.

A number of very basic reasons support keeping all facets of DEA's program co-located with the FBI at Quantico. DEA and FBI personnel have been training in the same environment for over four years now, providing both the expectation and the opportunity for each to become familiar with the other's personnel and procedures. Among other advantages, this facilitates the development of closer working relationships in the field, a critical "extra" in group drive toward more coordinated Federal anti-drug efforts. DEA can take advantage of existing facilities and personnel at Quantico, including the FBI's legal unit staff. Although the prohibitory language in the Treasury Appropriations Act was a factor, after careful examination the Department believes that the continued colocation at the FBI facility remains the best option for the DEA and also the citizens at large.