So I think that the aggregate of those efforts will produce a sufficient statistical base. There are always some startup problems, and there may be some duplication or gap or overlap in those statistics. But I can assure you that the President is very concerned that this effort of compiling these statistics go forward and be done as accurately as possible. Senator SIMON. I share that concern, and as you outline it, where the FBI, in fact, gathers the data and then Community Services deals with that result, from my point of view that is fine. In connection with the uniform crime report, Harper Wilson, who heads that for the FBI, testified on the House side that that may have to be curtailed or even eliminated because of budget reasons. I would hope for a great variety of reasons that that program will be sustained and maintained. Attorney General THORNBURGH. I would certainly think that will be possible. As you know, Senator, there is always a lot of scurrying around to make sure we have enough appropriated funds to carry out the multitude of activities that the Department is charged with overseeing, and by the end of the year, we get most of it done. And this is a case where I think, perhaps properly, a red flag was raised with respect to the ability to fund this fully, and we will make it happen. Senator SIMON. Good. Attorney General THORNBURGH. We are not going to abandon our responsibilities in this regard. I have asked that some examination be undertaken of the differing statistical collection methods that are used in the Department so that the public is informed and not confused by information from differing sources. But that is a long-term kind of thing that I think we will want to discuss with you as we get more into it. But we won't countenance any crisis in the continuation of programs already under way. al Senator SIMON. Good. And while I am lobbying you here, Gener Attorney General THORNBURGH. Such candor. Senator SIMON. I have worked with the FBI on DNA testing, and I am pleased to say we got appropriations, and they are making real strides. It is a major breakthrough in crime detection. Attorney General THORNBURGH. Yes. Senator SIMON. What is clear from talking to police in Illinois and elsewhere is that the FBI is really going to have to establish standards. And I just pass that along so you can pass it along to Judge Sessions. Attorney General THORNBURGH. I might mention, Senator, apropos of Judge Heflin's concern about the technology in the hands of the criminals, that this is an example where the technology in the hands of the law enforcement community can have a positive effect. The experience thus far with DNA technology has been extremely positive and obviously, as with any new technology, is going to require careful oversight of the type that you suggest. And I am sure that Judge Sessions is aware of that and will be glad to share his views with you. Senator SIMON. And let me just add my commendation for Judge Sessions and the FBI for leading in this area, which, without question, is a major, major step forward. Attorney General THORNBURGH. They are still the premier law enforcement agency, in my mind, in the world. I think that commendation is deserved. Senator SIMON. Shifting to another subject, in 1980 the Justice Department and the three national television networks entered into consent decrees that parallel the FCC's financial interest in syndication rule. The FCC is now reexamining that at the request of the networks, and you have a situation where the independent producers, televisions stations, and consumer groups are on one side, and the networks are on the other side. I don't know what the FCC is going to be doing. I would simply ask that you continue to― that you monitor this thing very carefully. Nothing more than that at this point. Attorney General THORNBURGH. That I expect would be done through our Antitrust Division, but I will convey that to Assistant Attorney General James Rill. Senator SIMON. Then if I may I want to ask a question that I am sure has probably been asked during my absence. Are you satisfied with the progress that we are making in this whole savings and loan prosecution area? Attorney General THORNBURGH. It was asked, I believe, the last time that I appeared before this committee, Senator, and I think one of the difficulties in gauging progress is the unique and overwhelming nature of the challenge that we face here. Obviously, I would not be literally satisfied until we had the resources to pursue every person who had committed a criminal violation in connection with the savings and loans 'collapse and recovered every asset available to recompense those who had suffered the losses. We are not able to do that, but we, I believe, with the infusion of the $50 million appropriated to double our capacity in terms of investigators and prosecutors and accounting personnel, are in a position to make a far greater contribution, both in terms of criminal prosecutions and in recoveries, than we were before that. Now, it is often mentioned, well, how about another $25 million or another $50 million or another $100 million? As I said to the chairman, we will use profitably, I believe, every dollar that we get. But as I said at my last hearing, I first was in law enforcement over 20 years ago, and I have never met a police chief or an FBI agent or a U.S. attorney or an Attorney General who said they had enough in the way of resources to do the job. That is positive and constructive, I think, because it reflects a confidence that those dollars can be used wisely. But how much is enough is obviously a question that you have to wrestle with and that the administration has to wrestle with. We are confident that with the new prosecutors, new investigators, new accounting personnel, that we are bringing on board in the 27 cities where special task forces have been established to deal with the aftermath of the savings and loans 'collapse, that we will have extraordinary results in due course. Now, I emphasize "in due course," Senator, because these are terribly complicated investigations. The FBI looks at about a 4-year timespan from commencement to completion of one of these cases because it involves the following of an involved paper trail that has been laid down by persons who are bent upon deception, hiding what their illegal activities were. And they are represented by the best lawyers and the best accountants and whatever. But we are going to get them. And I think the results of the prototype in the Dallas task force, where 70 indictments and 49 convictions have been obtained against the upper level of the executive suites of the failed savings and loans in that particular area, has set a standard that will be followed by the other 26 task forces that are now taking up that task. Senator SIMON. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Attorney General, I have some questions that are of regional concern, but I think that they very definitely have implications on our national antitrust policy. The first one I want to deal with is concentration in the meat packing industry. A number of thoughtful observers in my State-and, of course, even other farm States-are very concerned over this high degree of concentration. We have had farm and commodity groups, labor leaders, and local political officials all worried about the effect on consumer and producer when the top four of the beef packers control 70, 80 percent of the market. Iowa just had a further blow to competition when Farmstead Foods went bankrupt. Let me say on a historical note that Congress broke up the "big five" concentration in meatpacking in the 1920's when there were only at about 35 or 40 percent of concentration. Without getting into the historical debate, though, over the merits of that policy or the Reagan administration's hands-off approach to conglomerate mergers, I am wondering who, if anyone, is keeping an eye out for the producers and their consumers? That is my first question. Attorney General THORNBURGH. We are aware, Senator, that concentration in the meatpacking industry is higher today than it was several decades ago back when the industry was much more diverse. When I was in your state earlier this year, I met with Governor Branstad and representatives of the affected agricultural groups who brought this matter to my attention. They have met with Assistant Attorney General Rill, the head of our Antitrust Division, and we have asked for their input and input from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and organizations like the National Cattlemen's Association, so that any anticompetitive-in the legal sense-activity that is discovered by these individuals and groups is brought swiftly to our attention. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is the agency which monitors these types of activities, and I am sure would be glad to give you in more detail than I can some sense of what their concerns are from the legal point of view. The Department did have occasion to investigate the Conagra acquisition of Swift, and the determination was that this was not an anticompetitive merger, that it was carried out to effect certain economies of scale, brought about by technologyonce again, technology of processing and technology of distribution. But that doesn't close the book on our responsibility to monitor these activities, and I can assure you they will be taken seriously and invite you to discuss this further with Assistant Attorney General Rill. Senator GRASSLEY. I am fearful that even though you looked at Conagra, that the Conagra one and the Cargill takeovers or big acquisitions in the early parts of the 1980's probably led the way somewhat to the overconcentration we have today. This leads me to ask: Is the Antitrust Division and the Packers and Stockyards Administration paying special attention to the very specific problem in the area of so-called captive supplies? This is where the big packers either feed their own livestock or vertically integrate by operating custom feedlots to service their own needs. Then, of course, this reduces the prices paid to other producers, the family farmers. Is there any particular attention being paid to that? Because those rules governing that were repealed in the early 1980's. Attorney General THORNBURGH. I want to be careful not to tell you more than I know, Senator Grassley, about this particular industry, and I would defer a specific response on that question to Assistant Attorney General Rill. And I would be glad to have him- Senator GRASSLEY. Well, let him answer in writing then. Attorney General THORNBURGH. Surely. [The information of Judy L. Whalley follows:] During the Committee's May 8, 1990, hearing on the Department of Justice 1991 Authorization, in response to Senator Grassley's questions about the Department's review of mergers in the meatpacking industry, the Attorney General stated that the Antitrust Division would submit a written response to Senator Grassley's question regarding so-called captive supplies, where the big packers either feed their own livestock or vertically integrate by operating custom feedlots to service their own needs. Senator Grassley expressed concern that this practice reduces the prices paid to other producers-particularly, family farmers. Assistant Attorney General Rill has recused himself from matters dealing with the meatpacking industry; therefore I am replying to Senator Grassley's inquiry. In the past decade the Antitrust Division has reviewed several major mergers involving meatpackers. In investigating the likely effects of those mergers, we have examined competitive conditions in a number of markets that might be affected. These include the markets for boxed beef, beef carcasses, fed cattle, cattle feeding, and feeder cattle. It appears that mergers in the packing industry have been driven, to some extent, by efforts to achieve substantial efficiencies of scale. Concentration in the meat industry is currently highest at the slaughtering and fabricating ("meatpacking") stages, and most industry participants believe that the greatest risk of non-competitive performance may be at these levels. In |