TOP OF DOC
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR
1998
CHARLES RINKEVICH, DIRECTOR,
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
FLETC Opening Remarks
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much.
With that, we will proceed. Mr. Rinkevich, I would
remind you, as I have all the other witnesses, that the full statement you
have will be placed in the record and we hope you will summarize your
testimony, so that we can go to questions.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RINKEVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Hoyer. We appreciate the interest and the support that this committee, over
time, has expressed and provided to the Center. We look forward to working
with you, Mr. Chairman, and the staff, in the months and years to come.
I will, indeed, ask that my full statement be
admitted to the record. I just want to summarize, for a very brief moment,
two items, the workload and the dollars that are driven by that
workload.
SUMMARY OF WORKLOAD
In 1996, the Center graduated 19,352 students, for
an average student population of over 1,700. In 1997, the current fiscal
year, we estimate that we will graduate 29,500 students, for an average
resident student population of slightly over 2,600. In 1998, based on the
agency's projections—and we are very comfortable with these, given
the buildup that's occurring in a number of agencies—we're looking at
a graduation of about 31,100 students, for an average resident student
population of over 2,640. That gets to the question of workload, which you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
Our request before you for 1998 is for $68,284,000
in the S&E account, and $32,548,000 in the ACI&RE account, which is
our construction master plan account, and a total request of 527 full time
equivalents.
There are eight initiatives, which we would be
pleased to answer questions about, and this 1998 request represents about a
29 percent increase in appropriations from 1997. But that is clearly driven
by the enormous workload that we are confronted with.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
Now, Mr. Chairman, knowing of your interest in
both technology and innovation, I would like to take just a few minutes to
highlight four areas where the Center is studying or applying technology to
improve its operations, its quality of training, and its responsiveness to
our customers.
First is the area of virtual reality. First I
would like to briefly demonstrate for you some amazing new technology that
the Center's Financial Fraud Institute is studying to determine its
potential and application to training.
What you are seeing is the beginning of a series
of digital pictures that have been loaded into a computer, using a new,
unique software. The software seamlessly knits several pictures of an area
together so that a 360 degree panoramic view can be seen. The operator can
even look up and down. The photographs, by the way, that you're seeing are
of the Center's Glynco campus, and also the buildings you're seeing are the
result of the master plan that this committee has supported.
NEW DORMITORIES
The first photo is a picture of our two new
dormitories, the Brunswick Hall and the Gunnels dormitory. The operator
will pan to an artist's rendition of the third new dormitory, which we will
be constructing on that site, and that will be constructed with dollars
that have been appropriated in fiscal 1997.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
INDOOR/OUTDOOR RANGE
The second photo is a view of one of the Center's
new state-of-the-art indoor/outdoor ranges, which is another master plan
project. You can see the fan up there is in space that allows for the
circulation of fresh air into the ranges, which makes it an indoor/outdoor
range. As the camera pans around, you can see the students on the firing
line. It's a 50 yard firing range with 25 firing points. So it's a project
that will be replicated two or three more times with additional ranges at
the Center.
VIDEO CONFERENCING
The third photograph is of the Center's distance
learning facility. This is a broadcast-quality, television video
conferencing studio, and is a result of the combined effort between the
United States Customs Service and the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center. It is available to all of the Center's customers for distance
learning technology, and the delivery of distance learning. I think you can
see that the potential for this kind of technology. This ''bubble vision''
as it's called, is really enormous, both in terms of crime scene
photographs, as well as in security surveys.
STEGANOGRAPHY
The next example of technology is something called
steganography. Steganography allows criminals to hide their illegal
activity from law enforcement by burying one computer file within another.
The use of steganography to hide criminal activity might involve the hiding
of child pornography within apparently innocuous graphic images. The hidden
file degrades the original graphic image very little, if at all, and when
combined with encryption, steganography is virtually impossible to
detect.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
If you will look at the images that are now being
projected, you will see a simulation of steganography. To start with, an
innocuous computer graphic or photograph is chosen as the ''host'' for the
hidden file. In this case, it's a picture of our Artesia training facility
in New Mexico. The file to be hidden is combined with the steganography
program with the host image, rendering the hidden file virtually impossible
to see or detect. The graphic image containing the hidden file can then be
distributed by a variety of methods, and in this case, in the simulation,
it's the Internet being used to deliver the file.
Once received, the hidden file can be extracted
from the graphic file by using the same program and encryption system that
was used to combine the two files. In this case, the hidden image of that
is the Fermilab, a Government research facility, but it could just as
easily have been one dealing with child pornography or other illegal
materials. As in the past, our Financial Fraud Institute will take an
active role in developing and providing and using the training needed to
assist our customers in combatting this kind of criminal activity.
TRAINING ENHANCEMENTS
Now I would like to briefly discuss the Center's
efforts to assess and enhance the quality of its training and services,
followed by a very short discussion and brief video of a computer-based
interactive training module.
STUDENT FEEDBACK SYSTEM
The Student Feedback System, or SFS as we call it,
is a major element of the overall, ongoing quality assurance program at the
FLETC. It was implemented in 1990, and is used to evaluate the quality of
the Center's basic training program. We're in the process of expanding this
system to include all of our Center advanced programs.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Data from the Student Feedback System provides two
of the key outcome measures used in the Center's annual performance plan
required by the Government Performance and Results Act, commonly referred
to as GPRA. These are student ratings on the quality of training and
student ratings on the quality of our services.
Students are asked to rate the courses,
instructors, programs and administrative services. The FLETC then analyzes
the student responses to these questions on a class-by-class basis and
prepares a quarterly and an annual summary on each program.
Students are asked to evaluate the Center's
performance in each of the following program areas: practical exercises,
written exams, faculty support, learning support, and student conduct.
Students are also asked for their overall evaluation of the training and
instruction. As you can see from the next slide, those ratings over the
last five years have remained at levels above ''good'', and verging on
''excellent''. This compares very favorably with our established standard
of ''good'' for performance in this area.
Students' perceptions of our administrative
services are also gathered. Students are asked to rate the FLETC in the
administrative service areas that are being displayed here.
Finally, we ask our students for an overall rating
of these administrative services. As you can see, in the latest annual
report covering 1996, FLETC has met its standard of 4.0 or ''good'' for
administrative services.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEYS
In addition to the Student Feedback System, the
Center conducts customer satisfaction surveys to ensure that the FLETC is
meeting the needs of its agency customers. The latest survey for which we
have complete data was completed in fiscal year 1994 and measured customer
satisfaction in three general areas: training systems, training services,
and support systems.
The graph you see displayed now shows the
consolidated results of that survey in these three major areas. As you can
see, FLETC ranked very high in two areas—training systems and
service. The overall average for the areas evaluated under these categories
was 93 and 90 percent respectively. This means that 90 percent or more of
our agency customers felt that we were meeting or exceeding their
requirements in these areas.
RATINGS IN CRITICAL AREAS
Customer ratings in three of the most critical
areas of training systems, which are curriculum content and quality of
instructors and quality of training, were 94 percent, 96 percent, and 94
percent respectively. This means that 94 percent or more of our customers
told us that the Center is meeting or exceeding their requirements in these
three areas.
RATINGS IN SERVICE AREAS
In the service category, our customers were asked
to evaluate the quality of services provided by the FLETC in 45 different
areas. Examples are like student registration, recreational services,
uniform issue, and other kinds of similar services. As you can see from the
graph, 90 percent of our customers felt that the quality of these services
met or exceeded their requirements.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
RATINGS IN OTHER SUPPORT AREAS
We also asked our customers to evaluate other
support systems and services at the Center. These included items such as
student housing, maintenance, communication and interaction, organizational
structure and the like. Again referring you to the graph being displayed,
you will note that in this category 76 percent of FLETC's customers felt
that the support systems met or exceeded their requirements.
Following this survey, FLETC began working with
its customers to improve its performance in all areas, especially in those
areas where customer expectations were not being fully met. We recently
conducted another survey and the results of that survey are currently being
analyzed, and a report will be issued some time later this month. Although
we are very pleased with the 1994 customer satisfaction survey, we are even
more pleased with the data that the current survey reflects. It will show
an across-the-board improvement in almost all areas, and indicates the
actions we have taken to correct the weaknesses have, in fact, worked.
The Student Feedback System and customer
satisfaction surveys ensure that FLETC focuses on continuous improvement in
meeting the needs of our students and their agencies.
COMPUTER BASED TRAINING
Finally, Mr. Chairman, for the past several years
the Center has been expanding the use of computer-based training, or CBT,
as a means of improving quality and/or controlling program costs. We are
now using five CBT training courses in our basic criminal investigator
program. That means that, in five course, we are asking the students to
develop this information, and learn this information, in a one-on-one
situation with a computer. This takes away the need for them to be in the
classroom for that period of time, therefore allowing us to insert other
training into the classroom environment.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
DRIVE AND MARINE CBT
Additionally, our Driver and Marine Division is in
the final stages of developing a computer-based interactive video that will
focus on defensive and high-speed pursuit driver decision making skills, a
terribly important area in American law enforcement today. Much of the
instruction provided using CBT is after hours and the students do it on
their own. CBT is a good, long-term, cost avoidance savings and quality
improvement tool.
INTERACTIVE VIDEO TECHNOLOGY
I would now like to show a five-minute video which
will demonstrate a new situational awareness and response module, which has
been recently developed by our Firearms and Media Support Divisions. This
module combines CBT and interactive video technology, using a scripted
scenario that incorporates the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's
use-of-force model and the Justice/Treasury use-of-force policy.
Don, if you will key up the video, we will take a
look at it.
[Video Presentation.]
That, Mr. Chairman, concludes our opening
statement and this demonstration. I want to again thank you for your
support and interest in the Center, and also I should comment on the
tremendous support that the Center has received through the Department as
well as the Office of Management and Budget.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional
material here."
Mr. KOLBE. Don't worry. If I make a
critical error in my judgment here, in my questioning, it will not be ''to
shoot''. [Laughter.]
Thank you. That was very interesting. We were just
saying that probably all the kids are playing this on the Internet
anyhow.
Mr. HOYER. When you go down there, they
also have a program they did not show here. We sat at a table and had the
scenario in front of us. You've got a gun in your hand and you act out,
like a video game. It's the same concept of whether you correctly shot or
if you shot the secretary coming out the door.
CHARLESTON WORKLOAD
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much.
I have very few questions, and a couple of them I
will submit for the record. But there is one I do want to get on the record
here. It has to do with the training that you're doing currently at
Charleston for the INS.
I think currently almost 45 percent of your
workload is in training INS, is that correct?
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RINKEVICH. That's correct.
Mr. KOLBE. It's the Border Patrol we're
talking about here. And this surge led you to the decision to open a
temporary training facility in Charleston.
What kind of INS training is being carried out by
FLETC there in Charleston?
Mr. RINKEVICH. At this time, Mr. Chairman,
all of the training at Charleston is for the U.S. Border Patrol. We have a
student population there at any given time—I think this week there
are about 450 Border Patrol students. When they first opened the Charleston
facility, and until we brought some of the special training facilities,
like the firearms and driver ranges on line, they did some of the
Non-Border Patrol training that did not require as much use of those
ranges. But now that these several ranges are on line, all of the training
there is Border Patrol.
Mr. KOLBE. Is the training all the way from
beginning to end, or do they move from Charleston to another location?
Mr. RINKEVICH. No, sir, it's beginning to
end. Their entire 19-week experience is at Charleston.
TIMEFRAME FOR VISTING CHARLESTON SITE
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. KOLBE. At what point do you expect
that you would be able to do all the training for INS, the Border Patrol,
with your current facilities at Glynco and Artesia?
Mr. RINKEVICH. Based on what we know now,
Mr. Chairman, the end of fiscal '99 should be the point in time where we
will be able to assume all of the training for INS at Glynco or Artesia.
This, of course, is contingent——
Mr. KOLBE. You said fiscal '99?
Mr. RINKEVICH. Yes, sir, at the end of
fiscal '99. Through fiscal '99 is the period that Charleston will be
required, based on the anticipated increases that the Border Patrol and
other INS series will be increasing. Of course, these increases for this
year and '99 will depend on congressional appropriation.
Mr. KOLBE. At that point you would then
phase Charleston out?
Mr. RINKEVICH. Yes, sir, that is our plan
at that point, to phase Charleston out and have all the training done at
Glynco.
ATTRITION TRAINING
Mr. KOLBE. What are your assumptions about
the numbers of INS agents over the next couple of years that would go into
that?
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RINKEVICH. We're assuming that the
INS—the Border Patrol being the biggest part of INS—will have
an authorized strength of 10,000, and therefore their attrition rate will
be against that base.
Mr. KOLBE. So you would just be doing the
training for the attrition?
Mr. RINKEVICH. That's correct. The
attrition training for both the Immigration Service and the Border Patrol
part. We're assuming there will be no major increases in either of those
organizations beyond fiscal '99.
Mr. KOLBE. Beyond the 10,000.
Mr. RINKEVICH. Yes, sir.
Mr. KOLBE. And as I recall, that is what we
have currently authorized, is that not right?
Mr. RINKEVICH. That's correct. That's my
understanding as well.
IMPACT OF CHARLESTON
Mr. KOLBE. What would be the impact on
FLETC's overall budget, and your per student training costs, if Charleston
became a permanent facility after that point?
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RINKEVICH. It is hard to say at
this point, Mr. Chairman, but I think it would have a dramatic impact on
our budget, not only in terms of the staffing necessary for Charleston, but
the Charleston Navy Yard was an industrial facility and the security that
we would have in place there would be difficult to continue to maintain.
There are environmental questions that would have to be resolved, and our
experience at Glynco, with a facility that was closed down by the Navy in
1975, is such that we're investing significant amounts of money there to
clean up environmental problems.
It is only three, three-and-a-half hours from
Glynco. It would be a very costly, resource intensive second operation to
run. Our view, of course, is that as the Department of Justice and Treasury
have agreed, when the big push is over with in fiscal '99, then we will
retreat to permanent facilities at Glynco and Artesia.
PROJECTED WORKLOAD FY 1998
Mr. KOLBE. You're estimating an increase of
five percent of the students in fiscal '98, and one percent of student
weeks, I think, better than a 14 percent increase in the number of
instructors.
Is that explained by the plan to consolidate this
training from Charleston to Glynco in 1999?
Mr. RINKEVICH. Not in '98, no, sir. The
projections in dollars for '98 are to handle the workload that we project
to occur in '98 at both Charleston and Glynco. Of course, the increase in
instructor ranks is a direct result of that workload. But it
doesn't——
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
INSTRUCTOR INCREASES FY 1998
Mr. KOLBE. Then the question is, with only
a five percent increase in students—I think we're talking about a 14
percent increase in the number of instructors. How do we get that?
Would you identify yourself, sir?
Mr. RINKEVICH. This is Deputy Director Joe
Miller, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MILLER. I think it's the combination of
student weeks that we're training, that some student weeks require more
instructional support than other student weeks, so you cannot use the two
comparisons and come up with the same—It's a different mix of
programs that would result in the increase of staff.
[CLERK'S NOTE.—Bureau added later
that they are not fully staffed for the FY 1997 project.]
Mr. KOLBE. Just one other question.
Well, I have a couple more. I'll come back to
mine. Go ahead.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, following up on your Charleston
question, obviously Charleston took a heck of a hit. This is Navy property,
is it not, that you're on?
Mr. RINKEVICH. Yes, sir.
CAPITAL FUNDS AT CHARLESTON
Mr. HOYER. It took a heck of a hit in the
'93 base closure, as you know. They lost much of the Navy there. In point
of fact, my district competed with Charleston on the Naval Electronics
Systems Engineering activities and we lost some of ours and kept some of
it.
Mr. Chairman, this is a specific example of what
is so difficult to oppose, where everybody wants a little bit of this, that
and the other.
How much are we spending on capital funds at
Charleston?
INS FUNDS AT CHARLESTON
Mr. RINKEVICH. Mr. Hoyer, the expenditure
of funds for bringing Charleston on line for training came out of the
Immigration Service budget. Our understanding is that it was something in
excess of $10 million to bring on ranges and refurbish buildings that
needed to be refurbished.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. HOYER. What it came out of, so we
all understand, is the 602 allocation to this committee. What I mean by
that is, that was the overall number, with 602A being the big number and
the 602B being the committee number. But that's $10 million, Mr. Chairman,
at a facility that could have very well used $10 million, that we would
have then had as a continuing resource to be utilized not just by INS but
by law enforcement officials, not only at the Federal level but state and
local levels.
Now, I don't think we're going to get in a fight
right this second with the leaders in South Carolina who have substantial
seniority on all of us, probably cumulatively, if we added us all up.
[Laughter.]
And who may be here when all of us are gone.
Mr. KOLBE. Just one of them takes care of
all of us. [Laughter.]
Mr. HOYER. That's what I mean. I mean, if I
were elected to Congress in 1862, I would have been able to get this in my
district.
INVESTMENT IN CHARLESTON
Having said all of that, are the facilities that
we built—because this is going to be the issue when we come to
1999—are the facilities we built able to be utilized by the Navy? If
they revert to the Navy, do they have any expected use for it? Clearly, if
I were in South Carolina, no matter how much seniority I had, I would say,
''Look, you made this investment. You're certainly not going to abandon
these facilities at this point in time.''
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I presume these are bricks and mortar, or are they
temporary buildings. What did we put there?
Mr. RINKEVICH. Part of the investment was
to bring existing structures up to standard, so they rehabed existing
structures. The new structures were a drivers training track and a firearms
range complex. Those were brand new from the ground up.
Mr. HOYER. Could we have enhanced in any
way the driver training track that I had the opportunity of driving on down
at Glynco with a positive effect?
Mr. RINKEVICH. Absolutely.
Mr. HOYER. It would have had an ongoing
effect.
I mean, what is our plan in '99 to tell the
Justice Department and the Commerce, State and Justice Committee, on which
you also serve, Mr. Chairman, that it makes sense to reconsolidate at
Glynco?
Mr. RINKEVICH. An important part of that is
money that was appropriated for a new dormitory in the current fiscal
year—and we'll be breaking ground on that, Mr. Hoyer, come the next
month or two——
Mr. HOYER. In Charleston?
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RINKEVICH. No, no. At Glynco, to
give us the capacity at Glynco, so that when Charleston——
Mr. HOYER. I understand that, and that's
important. I understand your argument. But here's what I'm concerned about.
If we put $10 million plus at Charleston, come 18 months from now, when
we're making up the budget for fiscal year '99, how do we justify saying,
''Okay, that $10 million is not going to be used further?'' In other words,
do we have an alternative use? Is there a plan, post-'99, or do we just
write that off to a 24-month training expense?
Mr. RINKEVICH. The buildings that were
rehabed are in the main complex of what was the Navy shipyard, which has
been turned over by the Navy to an economic development group in
Charleston, so those facilities would be usable by some other entity, if
they chose to.
The two facilities that I referred to earlier, the
drivers training track and the firearms complex, were built some distance
from the Charleston Navy Yard on an active Navy installation, the Navy
Weapons Center in Charleston. The arrangement between the Immigration
Service and the Navy is that, when those ranges are no longer needed, the
Immigration Service would return that property to its original state. So at
this point there is on the table an expectation that those ranges will be
disestablished.
COST OF DRIVER TRAINING TRACK
Mr. HOYER. How much did the drivers
training track cost? Do we know, a ballpark figure? A million dollars?
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. RINKEVICH. I would think less than
that.
Mr. MILLER. I would think between
$500,000–$600,000.
Mr. HOYER. And it will take some money to
return it to the state. So we have an existing excellent driving facility
that could be enhanced at Glynco, and we've opened one and we're going to
close one and return it to the state that we found it in. It's an example
of what we fight about all the time with FLETC.
Mr. Chairman, I may have used my five minutes on
pursuing that. I will come back to my other questions.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Price.
RURAL DRUG TRAINING
Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rinkevich, I would like to explore one of the
smaller items in your budget but one that has a great deal of policy
interest, and that is the work you're proposing to do in rural drug
training.
In your testimony you indicate that one million
dollars in funding was authorized under the '94 Crime Bill for this purpose
that has never been appropriated. You are now proposing to use these funds
for four training programs to assist small, rural law enforcement agencies.
Of course, this is a small part of your overall budget, but one of
potential importance for districts like mine, with rural counties and local
law enforcement agencies that need all the help they can get in fighting
the war on drugs.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
I am new to the subcommittee. I wonder if you
could tell me, is this the first time that you have requested the funds
authorized under the Crime Bill for this purpose?
Mr. RINKEVICH. No, sir. My recollection is
we requested those funds and they were not included ultimately in our
budget.
Mr. PRICE. They have never been
appropriated and you have requested appropriation——
Mr. RINKEVICH. Requested but not included
in the previous year.
Mr. PRICE. Well, we're only talking about a
million dollars, but you propose to use that to support four programs in
drug enforcement training, rural crime drug enforcement task force
training, airborne counterdrug operations training, and advanced airborne
counterdrug operations training.
Are these new programs? What can you tell us about
them and the uses to which you would put these funds?
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
Mr. RINKEVICH. Mr. Price, I should also
comment that one of the entities of the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center is our National Center for State, Local and International Training.
We have, since 1983, trained roughly 2-3,000 state and local officers
through that center, either in programs especially developed for state and
local police, or allowing access of state and local police to Federal
programs.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Of the four programs that are part of the rural
drug and law enforcement training initiative, two of those programs are
already developed and functioning: the airborne counterdrug operations
training program and the drug enforcement training program. Two others are
in the process of being developed. They are the rural crime and drug
enforcement task force training and the advanced counterdrug operations
training program.
For two to three years we have been offering
training through the drug enforcement training program, in cooperation with
DEA, as well as the airborne counterdrug operations training program. So
even though we're going to be offering more of those programs through this
initiative, on a smaller scale those very same programs have been available
to state and local police, including rural law enforcement officers.
Mr. PRICE. Have they had a particular rural
emphasis, or rural focus?
COUNTERDRUG PROGRAMS
Mr. RINKEVICH. Yes, indeed. The airborne
counterdrug operations training program is a program that trains local
police on how to use government aircraft, principally National Guard
aircraft, to spot illegal drugs being grown. Obviously, the application of
that is in rural areas more likely than urban areas. The drug enforcement
training program, the one that we do now offer, is a trainer program and
it's designed specifically for those small communities that can't afford to
send folks off for long, extensive periods of time. We would train trainers
who would offer this on a regional basis to local law enforcement,
particularly those in small communities.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PRICE. So this fits with work that you
have underway?
Mr. RINKEVICH. Yes, sir.
TRAINING EXPANSION
Mr. PRICE. Can you be more specific about
the million dollars and three FTE's that you're requesting, how that would
augment your——
Mr. RINKEVICH. I can give you a breakout of
that, Mr. Price. The three FTE's would constitute slightly in excess of
$300,000. There is $200,000 in travel costs because these programs are
designed to be exported. That is, we will take them out to the field,
rather than having them done at Glynco.
Training services, $229,000, supplies of $120,000,
equipment of $125,000, printing of $20,000, and transportation of $5,000.
If my figures are correct, that should be about a million dollars.
Mr. PRICE. Alright. Presumably, that then
would give you some basis for judging the potential of this effort and what
kind of expansions might be appropriate.
Mr. RINKEVICH. Absolutely. One of the
important ingredients in any of our training programs is an evaluation
component, to make sure that we're meeting the needs of the students, as
well as the agencies that send the students to us.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 2
Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. I have some
other questions, but I'm going to submit mine for the record.
Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of
questions and I will also submit them for the record.
Closing Remarks by Chairman Kolbe
Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. We
appreciate your coming, and appreciate your testimony and the good work you
do. I'm looking forward to getting down to Glynco.
Mr. RINKEVICH. We look forward to having
both you and Mr. Price coming down, and Congressman Hoyer as well for a
return visit.
[Questions for the record and selected budget
justification material follow:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional
material here."
