[Senate Hearing 109-748]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-748
CHALLENGES FACING TODAY'S FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
__________
Serial No. J-109-109
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
32-149 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
James Galyean, Majority Chief Counsel
Neil MacBride, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio,
prepared statement............................................. 22
Graham, Hon. Lindsey, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 1
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 3
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin...................................................... 24
WITNESSES
Battle, Michael A., Director, Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.............. 1
Brooks, Susan W., U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Indiana,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C......................... 5
Shockley, William I., former President, National Association of
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Lake Ridge, Virginia................. 9
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Battle, Michael A., Director, Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared
statement...................................................... 12
Brooks, Susan W., U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Indiana,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement.... 17
Shockley, William I., former President, National Association of
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Lake Ridge, Virginia, prepared
statement...................................................... 25
Stein, Scott J., former Assistant U.S. Attorney, letter.......... 42
CHALLENGES FACING TODAY'S FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey
Graham, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Graham and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Chairman Graham. The hearing will finally come to order. I
apologize for being late. It has been one of those crazy days.
I appreciate your coming in and talking about a very
important subject matter to me and, I think, the Senate and
Congress as a whole. And without further ado, I look forward to
hearing from both of you, Mr. Battle and Ms. Brooks, about what
we need to be doing as a Senate and a Congress to make sure you
have the tools necessary to perform very vital jobs. And
without further ado, Mr. Battle?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. BATTLE, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
U.S. ATTORNEYS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Battle. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Graham. It
is indeed my honor to be here representing the outstanding men
and women of the 94 United States Attorneys' Offices, and on
their behalf I thank you for your continuing support of their
efforts.
My office provides oversight and coordination for the 94
U.S. Attorneys' Offices, which collectively employ over 5,500
Assistant U.S. Attorneys and over 5,000 support staff. We serve
as liaison between the United States Attorneys and the Attorney
General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Department's
litigating divisions, and other components. Additionally, the
office works with the United States Attorneys'' Offices to
implement the President's and the Attorney General's priority
initiatives, including efforts to combat terrorism, violent
crime, the exploitation of children, cybercrime, drug
trafficking, and other areas. Federal prosecutors play a vital
role in these and other priority law enforcement programs, and
the President's budget requests have sought the funding levels
necessary to allow the U.S. Attorneys' Offices to meet
important mission requirements.
So we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the overall
budget with you and to provide more details this afternoon. As
you know, Mr. Chairman, the full House and Senate
Appropriations Committee recently marked up the Department's
appropriations bill. The House fully funded the President's
request for the United States Attorneys at $1.664 billion and
the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed just $18.2 million
less than that amount.
Over the past several years, the cumulative effect of
permanent rescissions and rising costs, such as a cost-of-
living salary increase and rising rent, have contributed to the
budget difficulties now faced by United States Attorneys'
offices nationwide. Specifically from fiscal year 2003 through
fiscal year 2006, United States Attorneys' appropriations have
been reduced by rescissions of $67.2 million and absorption of
another $52.8 million in cost-of-living salary increases. These
two actions alone have effectively reduced the amount available
to the United States Attorneys by $120 million over a 4-year
period.
Despite the fact that the amount provided by Congress has
increased from year to year, those increases have not kept pace
with rising costs. Once amounts for centrally managed mandatory
costs such as rent, the telecommunications network, and
personnel benefits are set aside, the amount remaining to
allocate to the district offices has not been sufficient to
meet the baseline district expenses for each of these past
fiscal years, specifically the past 3 years. The declining
district allocations have occurred and grown despite
significant cost-saving measures because rising costs have
outpaced the savings realized and the funding that has been
provided.
Because of these funding limitations, a majority of United
States Attorneys' Offices nationwide have had to leave
vacancies unfilled. The problem caused by fixed personnel and
space costs rising at a faster rate than the g has particularly
deep ramifications in an organization where 72 percent of the
budget is attributed to personnel costs and another 15 percent
addresses rent costs. This means that 87 percent of the annual
budget needs to be devoted to people and space. When other
essential costs are included, such as the nationwide
telecommunications network and other necessary infrastructure
and critical operational costs are considered, the
discretionary budget segment is actually very small. That
budget segment has been insufficient to offset the effects of
the permanent rescissions and absorption of cost-of-living
increases. As a result, over the past 3 years a need to
generate cost savings that could not otherwise be attained has
increased the number of vacant full-time equivalent work years
from 198 in fiscal year 2004 and 465 in fiscal year 2005 to 775
FTE projected for fiscal year 2006. Just to keep pace with
rising costs during this same period, the United States
Attorneys needed increases of at least 3 percent per year, in
addition to enhancements. In the three most recent budget
cycles, however, the average increase was 2 percent per year
after rescissions, which included amounts intended for
enhancements. The base budget for the United States Attorneys
is eroding.
The growing amount of unfilled FTE is affecting the number
of cases filed and pending in the offices of the United States
Attorneys. Between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2006, the
number of criminal cases filed is projected to decrease by
almost 5 percent nationwide, going from 61,443 to 58,717. The
number of pending or backlog of criminal cases increased by
8,567, or 13 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2005. This upward trend is expected to continue in fiscal year
2006, and also in the civil area, affirmative civil cases filed
have decreased by 1,062 cases, or 12 percent, between 2003 and
2005.
These data demonstrate the effect of the base erosion of
the United States Attorneys' workforce and mission.
Full support of the President's fiscal year 2007 request
will serve to reverse the trend of receiving less
appropriations than needed to maintain current service levels
and will put an end to the recent string of rescissions and
absorptions that have caused the unfilled vacancies to continue
to rise. The fiscal year 2007 budget request of $1.664 billion
will support 10,262 positions. It will also provide $23.3
million in enhancements, which will support 149 more positions.
Now, while it will not totally offset the effect of permanent
rescissions and absorptions, it will better position our
organization to gain important momentum to address these gaps.
It will also better position Federal prosecutors to keep pace
with the substantial growth in resources that have been
provided to Federal investigative agencies and the cases that
they are bringing to us.
We recognize that stewardship of appropriated funds is a
serious responsibility. As the Nation's principal litigators,
the United States Attorneys are on the front lines to keep
Americans safe. The United States Attorneys have taken many new
responsibilities over the past several years, and I thank you
for the opportunity to discuss this budget with you today, sir.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Battle appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Graham. Before Ms. Brooks speaks, we have Senator
Sessions, who is my favorite U.S. Attorney, and who was really
good at what he did. I am glad he is in the Senate.
Senator Sessions?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Graham. It just turns
out that I have a conflict and would not be able to be with
you, because this is close to my heart, having served as
Assistant United States Attorney, I guess, for 2\1/2\ years and
U.S. Attorney for 12, and I care about it and was proud of the
work that our office did.
But I just want to make a couple of points because, Senator
Graham, when I became a United States Attorney, my office had
five AUSAs, and my secretary was the administrative officer in
the office, and we just all tried cases. I tried as many as any
assistant. By the time I left, we had 18 assistants,
supervisors, and office managers, and debt collection units,
and all of this. But I assure you the taxpayers got more
productivity per assistant when we first started because we
produced a lot with not a lot of help.
So I guess I am just wanting to ask you to be thinking
about what management decisions you can make to make sure that
productivity is at its highest possible level, No. 1.
Also, one thing that has happened is we got a lot of
pushback saying you are bringing too many criminal cases in
Federal court, these are smaller cases, they ought to be tried
in State court. Two things have happened that I think make that
maybe more viable today than 20 years ago, that is, State
police are usually much better, and so are State prosecutors.
And they are really more able sometimes to prosecute those.
Finally, I would ask, you know, you have got--and I do not
guess there is any way to really deal with this, but you have
got probably an aging group there because they were hired about
the time we ramped up when I was coming along in the 1980's,
and we had a surging crime rate. And so a lot of people are
supervisors now and things, and I am not sure they are in the
courtroom. The only thing we pay them to do is put people in
the slammer if they deserve it.
And so I am very sympathetic and interested in trying to
help, but I am not sure that we are aggressive enough at the
Department of Justice level on down in trying to really
challenge ourselves to find out how good we are doing and how
we can enhance the prosecutions.
I guess maybe since I have made those remarks I might let
them have a quick response, Senator Graham. Mr. Battle is at
EOUSA, and he is the one that everybody writes letters to
asking for more assistance. I bet I wrote a bunch of letters to
the EOUSA asking I had to have more of this and more of that,
and we got some, I have to admit.
Mr. Battle. Senator, that has not changed.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sessions. Would you comment on the thought that in
a time of tight budgets, maybe there are some steps we could
take. Maybe we do not have to take as many cases as we used to
that States could handle. Maybe we could be more productive in
handling the caseload we have.
Mr. Battle. Thank you, Senator. It would seem, Senator--and
I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the 1980's also, and I
remember when fundamentally the types of cases that we did were
more in the genre of white collar. And, of course, I left the
Department in the early 1990's and came back a number of years
later, and a lot of things had changed.
And what I came to learn was that U.S. Attorneys' Offices
were being to do a lot more than they did when I was an
assistant, and they were partnering more with State and locals
in areas of crime that we did not deal with in the mid- to late
1980's and the early 1990's. There tended to be more of a focus
on violent crime. The number of drug cases had been ramped up,
and the OCDETF units had grown in size. And we have now
formalized things like Project Safe Neighborhoods, Project Safe
Childhoods, and it seems that Assistant U.S. Attorneys and U.S.
Attorneys' Offices are actually being asked to do a lot more.
And that is not because we are trying to replace the number of
cases or what is being done by the State and local people. It
is that the nature of the crime that is finding its way into
our communities is straining the resources of our State and
locals so they are asking us for help.
There is more partnering of prosecuting cases across the
board between State prosecutors and Federal prosecutors for the
sole purpose of keeping people safe, and people in the
community have become sophisticated in their knowledge that
that partnership is, in fact, taking place.
So it seems that I do not--I can get the actual number of
what the average Assistant U.S. Attorney caseload is, but that
would vary from community to community, with the number of
cases, complexity of cases, and the types of crime that is
going on in their communities. For example, the Attorney
General announced his gang initiative about a year ago, and the
level of gang activity in each community looks a little bit
different. In some places, you have MI6, Bloods and Crips, in
others you have smaller gangs, but they are all putting strain
in a different way on their communities.
So the answer to your question is AUSAs are actually being
asked to do more. With the priorities that are being asked by
the President and the Attorney General, our caseloads are going
up. And, in addition, the complexity of cases is going up, and
that is a little bit different than what maybe you or I
experienced several years ago.
Senator Sessions. And with very few exceptions, Mr.
Chairman, that crime rate has gone down. Since 1980, I think
the crime rate is about half what it was. And there are a lot
of reasons for it. One of them, sadly, is that we have all the
people in jail. It is not true that everybody commits crimes.
Only a relatively small number do, and if you identify the
repeat offenders, it does help bring down the crime rate.
Well, I wish I could stay. I have an unavoidable conflict.
Senator Graham, thank you for listening to these fine folks.
Ms. Brooks, it is good to see you. There is a dispute over
whether being an assistant is the best job in the world or U.S.
Attorney. Which do you say?
Ms. Brooks. I did not have the privilege of being an
Assistant U.S. Attorney, so I came into the Department of
Justice as a United States Attorney, and I think it is the best
job in the world.
Senator Sessions. I liked it. They paid you good money to
play cops and robbers, and you always get to be the good guy.
Ms. Brooks. It is great work, Senator.
Senator Sessions. Great work.
Chairman Graham. I feel like I am at a family reunion here.
We will try to figure out what to do here. Anything else,
Senator Session?
Senator Sessions. No. Thank you. I have to run.
Chairman Graham. All right. Ms. Brooks?
STATEMENT OF SUSAN W. BROOKS, U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF INDIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Brooks. Chairman Graham, Senator Sessions, I am Susan
Brooks, United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Indiana. It is my honor to be here representing the United
States Attorneys who are the Nation's principal litigators and
who are at the forefront of our country's efforts to fight
terrorism and to fight crime. I am also the Vice-Chair of what
is called the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, or AGAC,
and the Chair of its Office Management and Budget Subcommittee.
The AGAC is a Committee of 16 United States Attorneys and one
Assistant United States Attorney, representing various Federal
judicial districts of varying sizes. We meet monthly to advise
the Attorney General on policies affecting the United States
Attorney community. The Office Management and Budget
Subcommittee provides the full AGAC with recommendations on
budget issues faced in our offices.
As a representative of the United States Attorney
community, I want to add my voice to the Department's
leadership and strongly urge Congress to fully fund the United
States Attorneys' Offices across the country at the level
requested by the President. I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the impact on our individual offices from our budgets
being funded below the President's recent requests. The
cumulative effects of not receiving the President's budget
requests, the consequences of past rescissions, and the
underfunded cost-of-living adjustments and the rising costs are
the underlying causes of our budget difficulties faced by
United States Attorneys. As you have heard, between fiscal year
2004 and fiscal year 2006, our offices' budgets have had to be
reduced between 6 percent and 16 percent, depending on the size
of our district, because of funding limitations.
The largest districts--typically in our largest
communities--have traditionally had higher turnover rates in
those offices. They have borne the burden of larger cuts
because the turnover in those offices would help to generate
savings as positions have been left unfilled. In smaller
offices, turnover rates are typically not sufficient to
generate savings so readily. So to avoid furloughs or
reductions in force at many levels, the budget strategy would
help the United States Attorneys across the country to remain
within funding availability without permanent personnel
reductions. In other words, this approach has been buying us
time to implement savings strategies so we could try to lower
our operating costs and avoid continuing to burden the larger
offices for the benefit of the smaller offices.
Our budget challenges were especially significant at the
beginning of fiscal year 2005 and 2006. The United States
Attorneys collectively resolved to generate as much savings as
possible, and we have generated some fairly significant cost-
saving measures, which have included: we have looked at all of
our space, we have reduced the space that we have; we have
reduced video and telecommunications lines; we now use far more
online library services rather than hard copies; we have
limited the ordering of real-time or hourly transcripts; we
have limited travel; and we have limited the use of translation
services.
But even so, the savings that have been generated in these
areas have not been sufficient to allow us to fill any
meaningful amount of unfilled positions. More and more
positions have been left vacant, just to make ends meet. As you
have heard from Director Battle, the United States Attorneys'
budget is personnel-intensive. Nearly 72 percent of our overall
budget is devoted to salary and benefits of our people.
District budgets are 98 percent payroll, mainly due to the fact
that some areas in our budget, such as employee benefits, rent,
and basic infrastructure, are centrally funded through EOUSA.
But as you have heard, the number of vacant full-time
equivalent work years, or FTE, has grown from 198 vacancies in
2004 now to a projection of up to 775 vacancies in fiscal year
2006.
As of August 2006, our overall vacancy rate for the United
States Attorney community as a whole is 10.3 percent, with 17
extra-large districts experiencing an average vacancy rate of
12.89 percent, which does include 12.08 percent for attorneys
and 13.7 percent for support staff. As I noted earlier, these
extra-large districts have taken larger reductions over the
last several years solely because of their larger turnover
rates. But it does come at the price of higher vacancy rates.
There is no question that filling these vacancies would allow
us to do more cases than we currently are able to do.
As Chair of the Office Management and Budget Subcommittee
of the AGAC, I have worked diligently with my colleagues so
that we may jointly address our budget situation. Our task is
straightforward yet complex. It is straightforward because we
know that if additional funds are not forthcoming, we do need
to continue to lower costs of doing business. It is complex
because the truly discretionary part of our budget is quite
small, so the focus on cost savings necessarily points then to
our workforce. Working with the Executive Office for United
States Attorneys over the last several years, we have used the
tool of what is called Voluntary Early Retirement Authority or
Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments, called VERA/VSIPs, to
create opportunities to lower our average work-year costs so
that we may start filling vacancies with the savings that that
would generate. But transforming the average costs of a
significant workforce is slow going. Most positions left by the
vacancy of the VERA/VSIP tool have not been backfilled, as the
savings were needed just to help to remain within our funded
levels. But the incentive to generate savings and to fill as
many vacancies as possible is strong. We will continue on this
path and other sound business management paths, as Senator
Sessions suggested, to address our budget issues responsibly.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today because I want to tell you that we are very committed as
United States Attorneys. We do take our responsibility for our
budgets to manage actively and responsibly while still meeting
the demands of our mission. We appreciate the efforts that
Congress has already made on our behalf in years past, but we
need your continued support to meet our important mission of
protecting this country. I am confident that by working
together, we can quickly and effectively reverse the impact of
these several years of rescissions and cost-of-living pay
absorptions. But the first opportunity for us to jointly
address this is now, as you consider these appropriations for
fiscal year 2007.
So on behalf of all the United States Attorneys on the
front lines, I am asking the Senate to help us by providing the
United States Attorneys with the President's full budget
request of $1.664 billion in fiscal year 2007. We ask that you
fund the United States Attorneys at the level requested by the
President, consistent with the House of Representatives, and
help us to avoid any rescissions that would take us below that
level.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to
answering any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brooks appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Graham. Well, thank you both. Well done. And I
appreciate Senator Sessions' showing up.
Ms. Brooks, how serious a problem is the pay cap which
prohibits increasing the pay of first assistants, chiefs, and
other senior AUSAs? If the President's full budget is approved
for 2007, will most AUSAs not subject to the pay cap receive a
cost-of-living increase?
Ms. Brooks. The pay cap that you are referring to--I am not
exactly certain which pay cap you are referring to, Senator.
Chairman Graham. The one that prohibits--the pay cap which
prohibits increasing the pay of first assistants, chiefs, and
other senior AUSAs.
Ms. Brooks. The pay cap issue is a very complex issue, and
as we talked earlier, I really believe that it will be
necessary for us to provide further information for the record
at a later time on the pay cap issue.
Chairman Graham. Fair enough. When it comes to securing
U.S. Attorneys' Offices, Mr. Battle, do we have the money to do
it where we are at with the review?
Mr. Battle. If you would give me a second.
Chairman Graham. Sure.
[Pause.]
Mr. Battle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys, we have been committed to
providing this overtime, particularly when you go back to--
Chairman Graham. Just very quickly, briefly if you could,
is there enough money to implement the security measures that
we believe are necessary?
Ms. Brooks. Senator, I am aware that in the President's
request for 2007, that is one of the enhancements. Physical
security is an enhancement that was requested of $1.43 million.
We do have ten districts that are in need of advanced
electronic security systems, and we are required to improve our
identification badging systems of 0.375. So that is an
enhancement that we have requested in the President's request
for physical security.
Chairman Graham. Thank you. What programs do we have, Mr.
Battle and Ms. Brooks, to retain Assistant U.S. Attorneys? Is
there anything new and novel going on there? Because these are
talented people, and you have got to do it more for the money
because part of it is just patriotism, but the money does
matter. Could you very briefly address that?
Mr. Battle. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we have a
world-class training facility in South Carolina, the National
Advocacy Center.
Chairman Graham. We do.
Mr. Battle. There is no better place that I have ever
experienced the level of training that goes on, and my office,
of course, monitors that.
Chairman Graham. Amen.
Mr. Battle. And what I hear from Mr. Bailey, who runs it
for us, is that he has to turn people away. People are breaking
down the door to get in there, and I have attended a number of
the trainings down there, and I can tell you, as you know, it
is the finest in the country.
In addition to that, we have a very aggressive mentoring
program that was just started by the--
Chairman Graham. I am sorry. I meant retaining, not
training. Or does it all go together?
Mr. Battle. We think that training goes toward retention,
yes.
Chairman Graham. Okay. Great.
Mr. Battle. Because this is what the AUSA community is
asking for in order to be better prepared.
Chairman Graham. Okay.
Mr. Battle. Because we hear from the judiciary about the
kinds of things that they need.
In addition to that, we provide opportunities for annual
percentage raises, all sorts of opportunities to give awards
and bonuses. We have a student repayment program and things of
that nature that make life as an Assistant U.S. Attorney the
place where people want to be.
Chairman Graham. Ms. Brooks, have you found these things to
be effective?
Ms. Brooks. They have been efficiency, and we offer a
couple of other things that other workplaces might not: in the
appropriate cases, flexible work options; in the appropriate
situations, we do have limited retention or relocation
incentives that we can offer. We think it is very, very
important for us to do what we can to retain the lawyers that
we do spend a lot of time training, not just the lawyers but
the other staff as well.
Chairman Graham. Right. Thank you both. I have no further
questions. I appreciate your testimony, and it has been--I know
the challenges of the U.S. Attorneys' Offices post-9/11 are
huge, and we need to make sure the budgets are there to meet
those challenges. Thank you both for what you do. Please pass
on from myself and the Committee the appreciation that we have
for the assistants and all those administrative people who keep
us safe. God bless.
Mr. Battle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Brooks. Thank you for your support.
Chairman Graham. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shockley, I am going to have to leave in about 7
minutes. I apologize. I have got something else to go to, but I
do appreciate your being here. From your association's point of
view, please tell us what we need to be doing.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM I. SHOCKLEY, FORMER PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS, LAKE RIDGE, VIRGINIA
Mr. Shockley. I am not going to say things that are a great
deal different than you have already heard, Mr. Chairman. But I
think that it will come from a slightly different perspective.
I am honored to be here today, and on behalf of all
Assistant United States Attorneys, we thank you for holding
today's hearing and for your support for Federal prosecutors.
We are especially appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of your
leadership as Co-Chair of the Prosecutors Caucus.
As previously discussed by Ms. Brooks and Mr. Battle, U.S.
Attorneys' Offices, or USAOs, face significant financial and
human resource challenges that diminish their ability to
effectively carry out the mission of the Department of Justice.
My 24 years as an AUSA ended earlier this year with my
retirement after service in Connecticut, Florida, Washington,
D.C., and California. I have come to believe that we may be
approaching a time when Americans will be less safe and our
system of justice less certain because of shortfalls in staff
and financial resources at the district level.
USAOs have responded to staffing constraints in part by
raising local prosecution guidelines so that increases in
criminal caseloads will not overwhelm the staff. Such adaptive
measures are not available, however, on the civil side since,
when the United States is sued, a civil AUSA must defend the
lawsuit. When restitution or fines are imposed, collection must
be sought. Since the civil attorneys in the USAOs in total
collect more dollars than it takes to run all of the offices,
it is difficult to understand, at least at the conceptual
level, why funding should even be an issue.
In addition to the areas previously mentioned, the
budgetary restrictions have had damaging effects in other ways,
for example, limiting the Government's ability to obtain and
process voluminous financial records; limiting funds for
routine training; and causing shortage of supplies. Legal
secretaries are often assigned to as many as five attorneys,
and attorneys must stay late into the night to perform their
legal work since much of their workday is consumed with tasks
routinely performed by legal secretaries or clerks in other law
offices.
For the attorneys and support staff alike, these conditions
can be demoralizing. What may be acceptable over the short term
becomes debilitating over the long haul. Additionally, we are
risking losing the best of our highest-performing young
attorneys because we are unable to provide them with pay
increases, rewarding their outstanding performance.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we agree with the
Department's witnesses that it is essential that the Senate
approve the administration's fiscal year 2007 requested funding
level for U.S. Attorneys' Offices and, additionally, that
Congress adequately protect the offices' funding from budgetary
rescissions.
Very quickly, let me address a second important issue.
There is a real need in U.S. Attorneys' Offices to achieve cost
savings in personnel while improving the retention rate of
younger but highly skilled AUSAs. The Department of Justice
recognized this over 15 years ago when a high-level task force
recommended the same approach that today is embodied in
legislation pending before the Congress. It would provide AUSAs
with the same retirement benefits as those received by Federal
law enforcement officers. Numerous U.S. Attorneys have
informally praised the legislation, which would accelerate the
departure of retirement-eligible AUSAs while helping to stem
the premature departure of skilled, experienced mid-level
prosecutors. Since on average AUSAs remain with the Department
for only 8 years, these early departures represent a critical
loss of litigation skill and experience to the Government.
Frankly, the larger United States Attorneys' Offices have, in
effect, become a Government-financed training ground for the
litigation divisions of large law firms.
Equally important, the costs of the legislation proposed
can be satisfied by the collections reform proposals that will
improve DOJ's ability to collect restitution and judgments and
increase Federal revenues.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the significant challenges
facing Federal prosecutors are surmountable with appropriate
funding at the district level. We believe that NAAUSA's
legislative proposal can and ought to be a substantial part of
the remedy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and support on
each of these fronts.
Chairman Graham. Thank you for your association's support,
and we will do everything within my power to try to get the
money into the budget that will allow us to defend ourselves,
and you, like other law enforcement agencies, the U.S.
Attorney's Office is out there on the front lines in the war on
terror. These Assistant U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys
literally are under threat, and I just thank you for what you
do. We will try our best to make sure the budget is robust.
Thank you very much, and with that the hearing will be
adjourned, and the record will remain open for 1 week, and I
would like to thank Bruce Moyer and Denise Boyd for bringing
this important issue to our attention and assisting in the
hearings. God bless. Thank you for what you do.
Mr. Shockley. Thank you, Senator Graham.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shockley appears as a
submission for the record.]
[Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[Additional material is being retained in the Committee
files.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2149.035