told by senior foreign law enforcement officials that they doubt the U.S. agencies' ability to maintain confidentiality.

In the protective area, it is important to note that the Secret Service is a recipient of information, as differentiated from the U.S. intelligence agencies which gather information. Intelligence information on individuals and groups is absolutely necessary for us to perform our protective role. The decrease in the quality and quantity of this information has forced us into a more reactive posture than we would like.

Without adequate information on individuals and groups, we are less able to predict where to apply our limited resources. We, therefore, have to use more agents, more State and local police officers, and more equipment-without the focus on what may be the real danger areas.

Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was asked if I would comment on S. 1394 and its effect on the Secret Service from the Freedom of Information Act standpoint and its effect on protection generally. Shall I do that now?

Senator HATCH. Yes, sir.

FOIA EXEMPTION FOR THE SECRET SERVICE

Mr. BURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In S. 1394, Senator DeConcini has introduced legislation which, in addition to enhancing our protective and criminal responsibilities, provides exemptions for the Secret Service under the Freedom of Information Act.

This legislation is more in concert with the exemption given the Secret Service by the Congress under the Privacy Act and the special access given us under the Financial Right to Privacy Act.

The bill enables the Secret Service to, first, assure the law enforcement community, both in the United States and abroad, that the information which they supply to the Secret Service for protective purposes will remain confidential.

This is important-both from the practical standpoint of enabling the Secret Service to better fulfill its functions by not disclosing potentially significant security information and in the abstract, by conveying the message that the Secret Service has the ability to control the dissemination of its records containing sensitive information.

ASSISTANCE TO PROTECTION

Second, Senator DeConcini's bill would enable us to respond directly to some of our more pressing protective security problems. Specifically, it would enable us to investigate and recommend prosecution of any individual threatening our protectees, as well as anyone who intentionally intrudes into a protective security area established to assure the safety of these protectees.

At the present time, we must frequently defer to State laws in these cases. As a result, we find prosecution impossible in certain situations.

Legislation would also permit the Secret Service to better utilize its protective resources by limiting our protective responsibilities for former First Ladies and other protectees for whom full-time

Secret Service protection is no longer necessary. This can be done, in our judgment, without jeopardizing the safety of any of these individuals for whom protection could then be authorized in response to a particular need.

Third, and finally, it would enhance our protective functions by providing a more fertile base of investigative responsibilities for the Secret Service.

SECRET SERVICE INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

By maintaining an investigative foundation, such as anticipated by this bill, on a national basis, the Secret Service will be able to provide challenging careers to highly qualified individuals, keep them in the employ of the Secret Service, and thereby support the nationwide effort of the Secret Service to meet its primary responsibility in providing protection to the President and others.

Thank you.

Senator HATCH. Thank you for your testimony.

I remember when Stuart Knight testified back in 1978. I was the Senator taking the testimony at that time.

He indicated that he had recommended that the President not go to at least two cities in this country. Has that condition changed or is it the same?

Mr. BURKE. The situation is very similar, Mr. Chairman, in that with the change in the intelligence climate, the Secret Service does not know as much about local conditions as it used to. This is due, in part, to the Freedom of Information Act and its chilling effect on State and local agencies.

Our dilemma is that when we have a security incident, it is much more difficult for us to resolve the incident. It is more difficult for us to evaluate the threat.

In some circumstances, since we have been unable to evaluate the threat, we have in the past recommended to the President that he not travel to a particular city.

Senator HATCH. Would you still stand with the statement he made then that there are at least two cities, or are there more than two now?

Mr. BURKE. It would be difficult for me to characterize that for you, Mr. Chairman.

The situation is ever-changing. It can change for example, with a significant foreign incident.

Senator HATCH. Is it changing for the better or for the worse? Mr. BURKE. I think it is changing for the worse, sir.

Senator HATCH. You indicate that there may be more than two cities within this country that the President probably should not visit.

Mr. BURKE. That is entirely possible, sir, connected with some particular incident that we may not be able to resolve.

Senator HATCH. Let me ask you this.

He indicated, as you have indicated in your short remarks here today, that the informant testimony has basically just dried up throughout the country. Therefore, you have nowhere near the ability you used to have before the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act to be able to go into an area and really check

it out in advance to determine just what potential difficulties might exist.

Mr. BURKE. That is true, Mr. Chairman.

It is our experience that informants are afraid to come forward; they are afraid of exposure.

Senator HATCH. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Rose testified earlier in our hearings that the FBI and DEA have reported a large number of incidents in which potential informants have cited FOIA as their reason for declining to cooperate with the Government.

Would your report be similar?

Mr. BURKE. Yes, sir, I think it would be.

Senator HATCH. S. 1394, the Secret Service Reform Act, would expand your jurisdiction for law enforcement purposes. Why when the Secret Service is apparently overworked already do you want expanded jurisdiction?

Mr. BURKE. First, Mr. Chairman, the Secret Service depends very heavily on the field offices that are spread throughout the Nation. Those offices provide the local intelligence information and the local knowledge for protective trips of the President and others. Those field offices provide the basic contacts with the local law enforcement that provide entree.

We do not have that "man from Washington" syndrome. We have people who are familiar with the ground. For our protective effort we must have these field offices.

We do a good job as investigators. Last year, only $5.6 million in counterfeit money was passed on the public. We seized approximately $55 million before it could be passed on the public.

The types of people that are attracted to the Secret Service are people that join for a career in law enforcement. They are interested in being criminal investigators.

We feel that the expanded jurisdiction provided by the DeConcini bill will attract these individuals and also will not materially increase our workload, because we will prioritize our investigations in such a fashion that we will be able to maintain the same number of active cases.

Finally, the impact of electronic funds transfer and direct deposit in the short run has not been great on the Secret Service in the area of check forgery. In the long run, it will be significant. As funds are transferred by electronic means, rather than by the paper Treasury check, we see a definite decrease in Treasury checks. Some of the responsibilities provided by the DeConcini bill will backfill in these areas.

ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON PRESIDENT REAGAN

Senator HATCH. Everyone is alarmed at the recent assassination attempt on President Reagan, of course. To what extent did the problems with the Freedom of Information Act which you have outlined contribute to the occurrence of that unfortunate incident?

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty with that question is, of course, that we do not know what might have been developed and what information might have been brought forward. It is very difficult to quantify a negative.

Had the restrictions on intelligence not existed, had informants not been reluctant to come forward, and had police departments been more forthcoming-all of these factors are unknown.

I do not know what its effect has been in this particular incident.

RESTRICTIONS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION FLOW

Senator HATCH. You have mentioned that other Federal law enforcement agencies are reluctant to share information and intelligence with your agency. All Federal agencies in turn receive information from State and local government agencies. To what extent has FOIA restricted this flow of information and intelligence among State, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies. Specifically, how many States send criminal information to you or to the National Criminal Information Center at the FBI?

Mr. BURKE. The effect, Mr. Chairman, on State and local agencies and on the Federal agencies, I believe, is different.

From the standpoint of the Federal agencies, I am absolutely confident that we get everything they have. The question is that they do not have as much as they used to. There has been a very significant decrease in quality and quantity.

With regard to the State and local agencies, I believe there is a problem.

Possibly by giving you an example that will illustrate it. I must give it to you in very general terms, because of some security considerations which are still ongoing.

As a result of a pending FOIA court case, a police department has informed this Service that release of information will jeopardize sensitive sources.

They have told us, and I cannot really elaborate here, although I will in executive session if you wish, that they will not provide us with any more information. They are giving us a flat moratorium on future information.

I think the State and local law enforcement officials definitely have very serious concerns about the ability of the Federal Government to maintain the confidentiality of informants and also to reveal their case interest prematurely.

As a result, they are very reluctant to give information.

If they for example, have some direct information on the assassination attempt that might be made on the President-I have no doubt that they will come forward.

Intelligence is an incremental thing. What may be seemingly insignificant today can be quite significant tomorrow when the two items of information are connected.

I feel that we may suffer a very significant decrease in this type of information from State and local law enforcement.

With regard to the NCIC of the FBI, I think most States contribute to the NCIC wanted persons file. Only seven, to my knowledge, contribute to the criminal history file of the FBI's NCIC network. As far as the Secret Service is concerned, using our 64 field offices-

Senator HATCH. Did you say only eight States contribute to the

Mr. BURKE. No, sir. I think most of the States do. I do not know the exact number, but I could provide that for the record.

Only seven, I believe, contribute to the other aspect of it, which is the combined criminal histories, where you can check in with the FBI and get the criminal history on a known and wanted individual.

As far as the Secret Service is concerned, we have 64 field offices and 40 resident agencies. These field offices and resident agencies maintain a continuing contact with the State and local police. They are constantly attempting to develop information which would be of protective interest to us.

That information, in turn, is funneled to our Washington Intelligence Division where it is compiled, analyzed, and provided to all our offices and protective divisions.

FOIA REQUESTS FROM FOREIGN SOURCES

Senator HATCH. Does your agency receive requests from foreign nationals or foreign agencies, and are they treated differently from requests by U.S. citizens?

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, we can treat requests from foreign nationals no differently than requests from U.S. citizens. The Secret Service does receive such requests.

Senator HATCH. In other words, even though they may be people whose interests are contrary to the best interests of the United States, you have no choice other than to comply?

Mr. BURKE. That is correct, sir.

Senator HATCH. Is it in the best interest of the United States to treat foreign nationals the same as U.S. citizens in answering FOIA requests?

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is.

FOIA EFFECT ON SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION

Senator HATCH. I do not either. I think that is one of the real problems that really has to be overcome.

Stuart Knight said in 1978, 3 years ago, that he would recommend that the President not visit at least two cities in the country and you are now saying that condition has deteriorated. It concerns me that a country that has been as free and open and as citizenoriented as this country has been has these restrictions on the travel of its Chief Executive.

I am sure that concerns you also.

Mr. BURKE. Yes, sir, it does.

Senator HATCH. And it must concern every agent who has to work on these cases to know that he has the obligation of throwing himself in front of the President when, in fact, he does not have the best intelligence information or even the material that he used to have available to him.

Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, our dilemma is possibly best explained by describing the Secret Service as a system. Most people view the Secret Service as a bodyguard operation, because, of course, they see the agents with the President; they see the agents surrounding the armored car.