[Senate Hearing 114-178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (Chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Alexander, Murkowski, Collins,
Kirk, Boozman, Capito, Mikulski, Leahy, Feinstein, Coons,
Baldwin, and Murphy.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
Welcome to today's Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee
hearing examining the Department of Justice's fiscal year 2016
budget request.
First, let me welcome Attorney General Loretta Lynch to her
first hearing before this subcommittee as she assumes the
important responsibility of serving as our Nation's chief law
enforcement officer. Welcome. As you begin your term as
Attorney General, I believe that it is critical for you to
return the Office of Attorney General to its constitutional
purpose, which is to enforce the laws of the land, not the
decrees and whims of the President.
The President has a White House counsel and plenty of
attorneys arguing for his points of view on immigration,
privacy, environmental regulations and more. The Attorney
General, I believe, is the servant of the laws and citizens of
the United States, not the President. I want to encourage you,
Madam Attorney General, to consider this perspective carefully
as you begin your service in a job that is critical to our
democracy and to the rule of law.
I am deeply troubled by your support of the President's
unilateral Executive actions, which provide amnesty to millions
of illegal immigrants. Fortunately, the sweeping policy change
undertaken without input from Congress has been stayed by the
courts while a detailed review is conducted through the lens of
the law and the Constitution. I hope that while this litigation
is pending, progress will be made on key responsibilities that
are within the Department's jurisdiction, such as the Executive
Office for Immigration Review. The President's 2016 budget
seeks a funding level of $482 million for this office, which is
$135 million above the current 2015 funding level. That is a
big increase.
Significant improvements and reforms I believe are needed
in our immigration court system in order to address the
approximately 440,000 pending cases, some of which involve
unaccompanied children. This backlog equates to a waiting
period of several years before a case is heard. I believe, and
I would hope you would agree, that this is unacceptable. While
the needs are great for immigration courts, I have serious
reservations about such a large funding increase when
inefficiencies in management concerns have yet to be addressed
within this office.
In your new role as the Attorney General of the United
States, I am interested in hearing your suggestions and
recommendations for prioritizing spending for the Department's
most important and pressing missions involving national
security, law enforcement, and criminal justice. The
President's 2016 budget request for the Department of Justice
totals $29 billion, which is $2 billion above the 2015 enacted
level. And while funding for the Department of Justice is one
of the Federal Government's highest priorities, we simply
cannot afford such an increase in spending while operating
under our current budget constraints, which puts a lid on all
of us. I am concerned that even in the midst of the current
fiscal climate, the President has proposed new grant programs
and initiatives that would further stretch the Department's
spending.
When it comes to law enforcement, your arrival at the
Department at a critical time of needed leadership is welcomed.
Since our hearing early this spring with the Department's law
enforcement chiefs, we have seen the departures of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director and
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator. I hope
that you will pay particular attention, Madam Attorney General,
to these law enforcement agencies to ensure that they
faithfully execute their duties during this time of change.
As an example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives has a rule pending that would impose burdensome
and, most people believe, unnecessary regulations regarding
firearms that are lost or stolen in transit. However, the ATF's
own statistics indicate that this number is insignificant and
should not be a cause for concern. It certainly does not
warrant, I believe, such encumbering regulations.
Oversight and accountability remain a top priority for this
subcommittee. I have consistently expressed my displeasure to
your predecessor regarding the Department's resistance to
cooperating with the Department of Justice's Inspector General.
I continue to hear from the Inspector General that this
office--his office is having difficulties in obtaining the
documents needed to do their job. I urge you to work with the
Inspector General to make sure that he and his staff can
successfully complete their reviews and audits of the
Department of Justice.
I have outlined that the Department faces many challenges
that will require fiscal support. The path for making
meaningful progress runs through this subcommittee. I know
that. As you begin your tenure, Madam Attorney General, I want
to express the subcommittee's hope that we will have a
productive and constructive working relationship. Thank you,
Madam.
Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
welcome the Attorney General. We are so glad that you were
finally, finally, finally confirmed, and we could get beyond
the petty politics that were the obstruction to that
confirmation.
Before I go into my statement, though, I want to remind the
subcommittee that yesterday was Senator Shelby's birthday, so
could we join in a round of applause and wish him good health
and blessings?
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Let us hope that is not the high point of
the hearing.
Madam Attorney General, you have had an eventful first 2
weeks in office. I know this is your very first congressional
hearing since you have been confirmed, and we are looking
forward to your testimony in terms of the Justice Department's
needs for its 2016 budget. We are eager to hear from you about
the many ongoing efforts at the many Justice Department
agencies.
We want to, first of all, thank you, Madam Attorney
General, for your work in coming to Baltimore and you were keen
to coming into Baltimore. It was tremendously helpful to the
mayor, to our police department, and, most of all, to the
citizens to have the presence of the Justice Department. I
personally want to thank you on behalf of the entire Maryland
delegation for the professionalism of your team and, of course,
yourself. I want to particularly acknowledge the Deputy
Attorney General, Ms. Gupta, Mr. Ron Davis, the Director of the
COPS Program, Mr. Grande Lum and your outstanding community
relations team that came in and provided very crucial technical
assistance during troubling times.
We were in Baltimore on Tuesday together as you listened to
faith-based community leaders. You met with local officials,
and even reached out to the Freddie Gray family. I will not be
asking you any questions about the Freddie Gray investigation
because we know it is an ongoing investigation.
You have gotten a request from the mayor about asking the
Department of Justice to open a pattern and practice
investigation into our police department. Later on this
afternoon you will be getting a letter from the Maryland
delegation supporting that request. That will go forward.
But I want to say this. In many cities throughout the
country, and including my own town of Baltimore, and in
communities primarily that have significant populations of
color, there has been now a tattered, worn, and even broken
trust between the community and the police department. We have
got to restore that trust. We need the police department. We
want to express our condolences to the people in the police
department of Queens about the death of Officer Brian Moore,
who was gunned down so brutally. But we also do need criminal
justice reform, and we need it with an urgency of now.
I intend to ask questions about what you need in the way of
resources to do the job that needs to be done, and also what
reforms that are needed that are specific and are targeted. We
are also joined today by an outstanding appropriator, but also
the chair of the--I mean, the ranking member--of the
authorizing committee on the Judiciary Committee, who has a
long history in this. We are here to show that the American
people have a Government on their side and to have a
constitutional focus to what we do.
We have put money in the Federal checkbook--$2.3 billion--
for grant programs, targeted resources for police, local
government, and communities. They range from more cops on the
beat, to dealing with the rape kit backlog, to child abuse.
Mayors have told us they need help getting more cops on the
beat. We had $180 million in doing that. We also wanted to help
them be able to have the equipment that they needed, and there
is $376 million in grant programs.
Now we have to look at what does that mean. Some are crying
out for body cameras. Is this just yet one more gimmick, or is
it a crucial tool? Communities and non-profits want to help our
young people, and this is why we will look for your thoughts
either today or in the ongoing discussion on our juvenile
justice programs, prevention, of intervention, who are helping
with everything from delinquency prevention to the ongoing
mentoring that we need.
As you know, many of our civil rights groups and community
leaders have called out for criminal justice reform. We are
looking forward to your advice to that, and we know that the
Judiciary Committee will also be doing it. But I am going to
have questions related to money and also training, that in
other words, if you get the money, should you get training. I
look forward to asking questions on whether if you get COPS
money, Byrne grant money, and others, should there be required
training on how to deal with racial and ethnic bias? What about
the use of force? Should there be national standards that every
department meets? What about body cameras? There are privacy
concerns, there are storage concerns, many concerns. What
should we do about it?
And last but not at all least, I do hope again for both
this conversation and ongoing the examination of the so-called
broken window policy. When the broken window policy was
initiated by or talked about by an imminent sociologist, John
Q. Wilson. I supported that policy, and I supported it as
somebody who started her career as a social worker, that if you
fix the broken window, that if you intervene with youth when
they were doing minor offenses, we could intervene in a way
that prevented them from growing up doing major offenses.
But while we were looking at the so-called minor criminals,
we were going to fix the broken windows. We were going to deal
with vacant houses. We were going to deal with the truancy
problem. We were going to do this. But now what seems to happen
is the policy has deteriorated to where we have stopped fixing
the broken window and we have escalated the frisking. No more
fixing, but lots of frisking, and that is what our folks feel.
Last year, 120,000 police stops occurred in Baltimore. We are a
population of 610,000. That is a lot. I do not know what the
appropriateness of that is, but I think we need to look at it.
So today I sit here as the ranking member of the
subcommittee that will fund your Department, and I assume my
national responsibility. But I am also here for the 85,000
kids, all of whom that day of the disturbance went home
peacefully. What can we do to help them? The 610,000 law
abiding people in Baltimore who obeyed the law and helped to do
that. So we look forward to working with you on what are the
tools to restore confidence between our police and our
community, but also put our arms around our young people and
see what we can do to help them. And maybe when we fix a broken
window, we have to fix the broken political process, and we
have to get the job done.
Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Shelby. Madam Attorney General, welcome to the
subcommittee. Your written testimony will be made part of the
record in its entirety. You proceed as you wish.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA E. LYNCH
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and remind me to come around on your birthday another
time. It is quite a celebration.
Well, good morning, Chairman Shelby, Vice Chairman
Mikulski, and the other distinguished members of the
subcommittee. It is indeed an honor to appear in front of you
for the first time as the Attorney General. I look forward to
working collaboratively with all of you today and in the days
ahead as we seek to protect and to serve the American people
together.
But I want to take a moment to extend a special thank you
to Senator Mikulski for your leadership in the United States
Senate over the last three decades, for your support of the
Department of Justice and its employees, and for the
extraordinary example of public service you have provided to
all Americans, and especially to women. And I am honored to
have the opportunity to work with you during your final 2 years
in office.
Senators, as we approach National Police Week, which begins
next week, it is fitting that we take a moment to consider the
contributions and the needs of law enforcement----
Senator Shelby. Madam Attorney General, would you mind
pulling your mic just a little closer?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir. Actually, sir, it
seems to be fixed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senators, as I noted, National Police Week will begin next
week, and at this particular time in history it is important
that we take a moment to consider the contributions and the
needs of our law enforcement officers across the country. Law
enforcement is a difficult profession, but a noble one. And
over the course of my career as a Federal prosecutor and as
U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, I have been
privileged to work closely with truly outstanding public safety
officials, and I have seen up close the dangers that they face
every day.
As mentioned by Senator Mikulski, earlier this week Officer
Brian Moore, a 25-year-old New York City police officer, died
after being shot while trying to question a man in Queens. And
just 2 days ago, Sergeant Greg Moore of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
was tragically gunned down, also while interacting with a
suspicious individual. The tragic loss of these brave
individuals serves as a devastating reminder that our Nation's
public safety officials put their lives on the line every day
to protect people they have often never met. Their exemplary
work is the foundation of the trust that must exist between law
enforcement officers and the communities that we all serve. And
that is why when there are allegations of wrongdoing made
against individual officers and police departments, the
Department of Justice has a responsibility to examine the
evidence and, if necessary, to help them implement change.
While I was in Baltimore on Tuesday, I met with the mayor,
law enforcement officials, and community, faith, and youth
leaders. I spoke with an officer who was injured amidst the
violence, and I heard a number of ideas regarding ways in which
the Justice Department can continue assisting Baltimore as they
work to recover from recent unrest. Although the city has made
significant strides in their collaborative reform efforts with
the Community-Oriented Policing Services Office, I have not
ruled out the possibility that more may need to be done. And I
assure you, Senators, that I am listening to all voices.
We are currently in the process of considering the request
from city officials and community and police leaders for an
investigation into whether the Baltimore City Police Department
engaged in a pattern or practice of civil rights violations.
And I intend to have a decision in the coming days.
Now, the situation in Baltimore involves a core
responsibility of the Department of Justice, not only to combat
illegal conduct when it occurs, but to help prevent the
circumstances that give rise to it in the first place. Going
forward, your support of the Department and of our funding in
the fiscal year 2016 President's budget will enable us to build
on our successes and make further progress in the mission with
which we are entrusted.
I am pleased to say that this budget request is in line
with my highest priorities as Attorney General: safeguarding
our national security, defending the most vulnerable among us,
and strengthening relationships of trust and collaboration
between law enforcement officers and the communities that we
service. Now, of course, our most important objective must
continue to be protecting the American people from terrorism
and other threats to our national security.
As you know, under my predecessor, Attorney General Eric
Holder, the Department of Justice engaged in essential efforts
to counter violent extremism and domestic radicalization, to
strengthen counterterrorism measures, to promote information
sharing and collaboration with the intelligence community, and
to provide training and technical assistance to our foreign
partners. We must advance this progress on all fronts. We must
prepare to meet new and emerging threats and vigorously defend
American citizens at home and abroad.
The President's budget will strengthen our national
security efforts by investing a total of $4.6 billion in the
Department's cutting edge counterterrorism and national
security programs. This total includes $775 million, an
increase of $27 million, for addressing cyber crimes and
enhancing the security of information networks. In an age in
which criminals have the ability to threaten our national
security and our economic wellbeing from far beyond our
borders, it is critical that we expand our focus and strengthen
our defenses to protect all Americans from exploitation and
abuse.
I firmly believe that cybersecurity must be among the top
priorities for the Department of Justice. This important
funding will allow us to build on the outstanding work of the
Department in identifying new threats, thwarting attempted
intrusions, and bringing the perpetrators of wrongdoing,
wherever they may hide, to justice.
As the Department works to safeguard American security, we
are equally committed to upholding American values, including
the protection of our most vulnerable populations. The fiscal
year 2016 budget would provide $103 million in new civil rights
investments to address hate crimes, sexual violence, and human
trafficking, an area that warrants our renewed focus and
redoubled effort. It would allocate $124 million to improve the
efficiency of our immigration court system by supporting
additional immigration judge teams and Board of Immigration
Appeals attorneys, by expanding the successful Legal
Orientation Program, and by allowing for additional legal
representation for unaccompanied children.
And it would deliver $247 million in program increases for
the Smart on Crime Initiative, which was designed to address
America's overreliance on incarceration while reducing
recidivism, and deploying law enforcement resources more
effectively. By all available evidence, this program has been a
major success as well as an area of bipartisan cooperation and
agreement. The requested funds in this year's budget will allow
us to extend this critical work and to amplify our shared
commitment to a fair, efficient, and effective criminal justice
system.
The Department has made it clear, and I firmly support,
that this innovative approach does not in any way lessen our
resolve to combat violent crime, drug trafficking, and other
violations of Federal law. We remain determined to vigorously
investigate and prosecute criminal activity. The President's
budget supports our goals in that regard by appropriating an
additional $43 million for us to investigate and hold
accountable those who break Federal laws and harm innocent
citizens, from illegal firearms and drug traffickers, to
perpetrators of healthcare scams and financial fraud.
In all our efforts, we intend to work closely not only with
this distinguished body, but also with our law enforcement
partners on the front lines across the country. And that is why
the President's budget allocates an additional $154 million to
support our State, local, and tribal partners in their own
efforts to counter violent extremism, to hire and retain
officers, to serve the victims of crime, to research best
practices, improve indigent defense, and expand reentry
programs. This appropriation includes nearly $95.5 million for
the Community-Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program, $35
million for tribal law enforcement, and $20 million for the
Collaborative Reform Initiative, a recently developed program
that facilitates collaborations between the COPS Office and law
enforcement agencies seeking assistance on a wide variety of
criminal justice issues, from use of force practices and the
deployment of crisis intervention teams, to building trust with
the members of their communities.
As we have seen even in recent days, programs that
establish trust and improve collaboration are essential to
carrying out our law enforcement duties effectively and to the
overall safety of the American people. In the days ahead, I
hope and I fully intend to bolster our efforts in that area. I
am eager to work with this subcommittee and with Congress to
build on the many achievements of the Department of Justice and
to secure the timely passage of the President's budget, which
provides $28.7 billion in discretionary resources for the
Department, including $26.3 billion for vital Federal programs
and $2.4 billion for State, local, and tribal assistance
programs.
As a former United States attorney who saw firsthand, who
lived through the unsustainability of sequester, I can tell you
that this level of support is necessary to ensure that we can
continue to protect the American people and effectively serve
the priorities of the United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, ranking member of the subcommittee, I thank
you once again for the opportunity to meet with you here today
and to discuss the work of the Department, and I am happy to
answer questions that you may have. Thank you for your time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Loretta E. Lynch
Good morning, Chairman Shelby, Vice Chairwoman Mikulski, and other
distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is an honor for me to
appear before you today for the first time as Attorney General of the
United States. I want to thank you for the trust you have placed in me
through your confirmation of my nomination. Throughout my tenure as
Attorney General, I will strive to uphold that trust to protect and
defend our Constitution, to safeguard our people, and to stand as the
leader and public servant that they deserve. I look forward to working
with this subcommittee, the United States Senate, and the entire United
States Congress to protect and serve the American people. Vice
Chairwoman Mikulski, I am particularly honored to work with you in your
last 2 years as a Senator. I would like to thank you personally for
your leadership, example, and support to the Department of Justice and
the Nation.
In my new role as Attorney General, I am here to highlight the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget request for the U.S. Department of
Justice (the Department or DOJ). While this budget pre-dates my arrival
as Attorney General, I am pleased to say that it is in line with my
highest priorities for the agency: the safety of our citizens and our
national security; protection of the most vulnerable among us; and
strengthened relationships between America's brave law enforcement
officers and the communities they are entrusted to serve.
Continuing our focus on the Smart on Crime initiative is critical
to achieving these priorities because, while the aggressive enforcement
of Federal criminal statutes remains necessary, we cannot prosecute and
incarcerate our way to a safer Nation. We must reduce our prison
populations by better preventing and deterring crime, improving
charging and sentencing, and enhancing rehabilitation and reentry
programs that reduce recidivism. We must also invest in improving
relationships between communities and the criminal justice system in
order to restore faith in our systems.
As we convene this morning, I know we're all still mindful of the
situation in Baltimore. I assure you that in the days ahead, the
Justice Department will continue to work to ensure justice, restore
calm, and resolve unrest.
This budget will further these important goals and allow the
dedicated employees of the Department to continue the great work they
do every day to reduce crime, reform our criminal justice system, and
ensure our safety and security.
Thankfully, as a result of bipartisan efforts, DOJ has been able to
implement a process to backfill critical vacant positions resulting
from the Department-wide hiring freeze between 2011 and 2014. DOJ
brought on approximately 2,500 staff in fiscal year 2014 and we hope to
bring on 1,500 more in fiscal year 2015. The fiscal year 2016 budget
provides funding to both sustain these employees and provide for an
additional 1,600 positions.
The fiscal year 2016 budget requests $28.7 billion in discretionary
resources for the Department, including $26.3 billion for Federal
programs and $2.4 billion for State, local, and tribal assistance
programs. This represents a 4.8 percent increase over the comparable
fiscal year 2015 enacted funding level. The key funding priorities
include:
--Defending U.S. citizens from national security threats.--The budget
invests an additional $107 million to develop the Department's
capacity in critical national security areas including:
countering violent extremism and domestic radicalization to
violence; counterterrorism; cybersecurity; information sharing
and collaboration with the Intelligence Community; and training
and technical assistance for our foreign partners.
--Upholding civil and constitutional rights.--The budget includes
$103 million in new investments to better address human
trafficking, hate crimes, and sexual violence in our primary
and secondary schools as well as higher education. The
additional funds would expand civil and criminal enforcement
efforts to ensure the rights of our Nation's most vulnerable
populations.
--Investing in improvements to our criminal justice system.--The
budget invests $247 million in the Smart on Crime initiative to
better deter crime and protect the public. The initiative
focuses resources on the most important law enforcement
priorities, reduces disparate impacts of the criminal justice
system on vulnerable communities, and considers alternatives to
incarceration for low-level, non-violent offenses in order to
reduce taxpayer expense and prevent recidivism.
--Maintaining safe and secure Federal prisons.--In addition to $146
million for the Bureau of Prison (BOP) included in the Smart on
Crime initiative above, the budget invests an additional $71
million to increase staffing at high security prisons to
improve officer and inmate safety; increase medical beds for
severely ill inmates; and undertake essential rehabilitation,
modernization, and renovation of aging BOP facilities.
--Improving the efficiency of the immigration court system.--The
budget invests $126 million to support additional Immigration
Judge Teams and Board of Immigration Appeals attorneys, to
expand the successful Legal Orientation Program, to allow for
greater representation of unaccompanied children, to modernize
information and data sharing systems to improve the efficiency
of processing case materials, and to keep pace with workload
demands associated with civil cases.
--Improving responses to violent crime, illicit drugs, and healthcare
fraud.--Simply maintaining existing capacity is not sufficient.
The budget requests $43 million in additional investments to
investigate and punish those who break Federal laws and harm
innocent citizens. This includes preventing the illegal use and
trafficking of firearms, addressing the increase in heroin and
other emerging drug trends, thwarting international drug
trafficking organizations, addressing international piracy of
intellectual property, and combating healthcare fraud and
wildlife trafficking.
--Enhancing State, local, and tribal law enforcement programs.--The
budget requests $154 million in net discretionary program
increases to support the ability of our State, local, and
tribal partners to counter violent extremism, hire officers,
better serve victims of crimes, conduct research to build
evidence on best practices, improve indigent defense, and
expand re-entry programs.
--Addressing gaps in critical Department infrastructure.--The budget
invests $27 million in the renovation and repair of prisoner
holding spaces in Federal courthouses, Department-wide
information technology improvements, and oversight of
Department policies and procedures.
protecting the american people from terrorism and other national
security threats
Defending U.S. citizens from both internal and external threats
remains the Department's highest priority. The Department made
significant achievements in this area in fiscal year 2014. The
Department's counterterrorism investigations disrupted 214 terrorist
threats and the FBI investigated approximately 14,000 national security
cases. The FBI, DEA, ATF, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret
Service, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service successfully
coordinated on many efforts, including the arrest of multiple vendors
involved in online forums, such as Silk Road 2.0, which were
trafficking counterfeit currency, narcotics, firearms, explosives, and
illicit documents.
The fiscal year 2016 budget will enable the Department to continue
meeting the challenging and ever-changing threats to our national
security by providing a total of $4.6 billion in resources, including
$107 million in program increases for four critical national security
issues: (1) countering violent extremism and domestic radicalization to
violence; (2) cybersecurity; (3) information sharing and collaboration
with the Intelligence Community; and (4) training and technical
assistance for our foreign partners.
To counter violent extremism and domestic radicalization to
violence, the fiscal year 2016 request provides $15 million to allow
the Department to foster community-led efforts through funding from the
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies
and community organizations nationwide. At the National Security
Division (NSD), $1 million in additional resources would support its
investigative and prosecutorial efforts focused on homegrown violent
extremists intent on attacking the United States.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request also includes $775 million in
total for cyber-related activities that address cybercrimes and defend
the security of critical information networks. This request includes
increases of $27 million for key program enhancements to the FBI, NSD,
U.S. Attorneys, and the Criminal Division. The FBI will continue
improving its cyber collection and analysis, while extending its
centralized cyber capabilities to the field through its Next Generation
Cyber initiative. NSD will bring on additional attorneys to help with
prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution, and vulnerability
management, as well as policy development and program oversight related
to cyber threats to national security. To prosecute increased
cybercrimes across the country, the U.S. Attorneys require additional
attorneys that specialize in cybercrimes, as well as increased training
on digital evidence. Enhancements to the Criminal Division would
increase the Division's capacity in six key areas: training for
attorneys on cybercrime and digital evidence; enhancing digital
forensic capacity; providing technical and legal expertise; improving
information sharing efforts with the private sector; building and
strengthening relationships with foreign law enforcement partners, and
developing cyber policy. Finally, in order to protect the Department
from increased cyber threats and intrusions, the fiscal year 2016
budget invests in additional cybersecurity tools and IT infrastructure
maintenance and improvements.
Information sharing and collaboration with the Intelligence
Community is critical for the success of the Department's efforts to
ensure our national security. A program increase of $3.2 million for
NSD will enhance its court-authorized intelligence collection efforts
and increase its oversight of information used during national security
investigations and prosecutions. Increases for the FBI and DEA will
allow both agencies to improve their information technology systems.
Because crime increasingly transcends national borders, the United
States must improve its coordination with foreign partners. The Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) is the mechanism that enables the
provision of evidence and extradition of persons across borders.
Improvements are still needed to reduce the backlog in MLAT requests
from our foreign partners and improve MLAT response time. As of January
2015, the Office of International Affairs (OIA) in the Criminal
Division had a backlog of over 11,500 pending cases. The Department is
working to fully replace its existing, antiquated IT system with an
anticipated completion date of mid-2016. The Department has also begun
to gather better data from its existing case management tool, such as
timelines for the processing of requests, which will generate useful
metrics to evaluate the execution of MLAT requests. OIA has made
significant progress in filling attorney vacancies that accumulated
during the Department's hiring freeze. However, without the $32 million
investment for personnel and technological resources requested in the
fiscal year 2016 budget, OIA will not be able to accomplish its plans
for centralization or process improvement.
Finally, the fiscal year 2016 budget also invests additional
resources for the International Criminal Investigative Training
Assistance Program (ICITAP) and the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial
Development Assistance and Training (OPDAT). Both agencies further U.S.
national security interests by helping stop terrorism and crime before
it can reach our shores. ICITAP and OPDAT costs have been generally
funded by the State Department, however, as the issues to be addressed
grow, so has the need for steady base resources within the Department's
budget.
protecting civil rights
The Department must protect not only American citizens but also
American values. Accomplishing the Department's mission to uphold the
civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly the most
vulnerable, requires resources to investigate, litigate, and conduct
outreach and technical assistance. As such, the Department is
requesting program increases totaling $103 million across several
components. For the Civil Rights Division (CRT), the fiscal year 2016
request includes total enhancements of $16 million to expand efforts
associated with human trafficking, voting rights, and enforcement of
Title IX and other laws that address discrimination against students on
the basis of sex. The request for CRT also includes additional
resources to protect servicemembers and individuals in institutions,
and to expand efforts to ensure that all communities have effective and
democratically accountable policing. An enhancement of $7 million would
allow for new Assistant U.S. Attorneys to focus exclusively on civil
rights law enforcement and work in tandem with CRT on the more
complicated and time consuming cases, such as sex and labor trafficking
cases.
The Community Relations Service (CRS) has been engaged in forging
constructive partnerships to prevent and relieve tensions between law
enforcement and communities around the country, including Ferguson, New
York City, and most recently Baltimore. The fiscal year 2016 request
includes an increase in funding for CRS to help prevent hate crimes and
engage local communities and law enforcement departments in dispute
resolution activities. Funding will also support the goals of the
President's My Brother's Keeper Initiative, which seeks to address
persistent opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color to
ensure that all young people in this country can reach their full
potential. The Department requests $78 million in grant program
increases to: improve the public's access to counsel and legal
assistance in State, local, and tribal courts and juvenile justice
systems; implement the recommendations of the White House Task Force to
Protect Students from Sexual Assault; and assist law enforcement
agencies on criminal justice issues, including use of force practices
and the deployment of crisis intervention teams.
becoming smarter on crime
In early 2013, the Justice Department launched a comprehensive
review of the criminal justice system in order to identify reforms that
would ensure Federal laws are enforced fairly and, in an era of reduced
budgets, efficiently. As part of this review, the Department studied
all phases of the criminal justice system, including charging,
sentencing, incarceration, and reentry, to identify the practices that
are successful at deterring crime and protecting the public. The Smart
on Crime initiative was created to focus Federal resources and place
the harshest sentences on the most violent offenders rather than
prioritizing the sheer number of prosecutions. Considering alternatives
to incarceration for low-level, non-violent offenses strengthens our
justice system and places a lower financial burden on the budget so
that funds can be spent on essential public safety priorities. The
Smart on Crime initiative will also help contain incarceration costs
over the long term by facilitating inmates' successful transition back
into society.
Of the $247 million requested in program increases for the Smart on
Crime initiative in fiscal year 2016, $146 million is dedicated to re-
entry and recidivism reducing programs at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
More specifically, the funding would expand sex offender management
programs, mental health staff, cognitive behavioral treatment,
vocational programs, as well as medically assisted treatment programs
for individuals in the justice system dependent on opioids. The request
also includes funding for a new, broader reentry program that reaches
out to offenders' children and families to strengthen familial bonds,
which are critical for helping inmates transitioning back home. At U.S.
Attorneys' Offices, $25 million would support dedicated prevention and
reentry coordinators in all 94 districts. OJP will add new resources to
its Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program and Second Chance Act
Program so that State, local, and tribal governments can address the
critical needs of the sub-population of offenders who most need the
services and drive most jurisdictions' recidivism rates. Enhancements
to OJP's Smart Policing and Smart Prosecution programs encourage the
development of data-driven strategies by local law enforcement and
prosecutors to address specific crime problems more effectively and
economically in their jurisdictions.
maintaining safe and secure prison and detention facilities
To increase safety for officers and inmates, the fiscal year 2016
budget requests $71 million in program enhancements. For BOP's 17 high
security institutions, $32 million would ensure that there are two
correctional officers on duty in each housing unit at all times. The
Department is requesting $5 million to convert Federal Correctional
Institution Fort Worth to a Medical Referral Center that will house and
treat severely ill inmates currently housed in community hospitals.
Finally, the request increases funding for BOP to undertake essential
rehabilitation, modernization, and renovation of BOP institutions, one
third of which are 50 years old or older. This maintenance and repair
will preserve our capital investments and ensure sufficient security
within these aging institutions.
enforcing immigration laws
The Department plays an integral role in the immigration system by
ensuring the fair, expeditious, and uniform application of the Nation's
immigration laws. The Department's Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) oversees the immigration court and Board of Immigrant
Appeals. In recent years, EOIR has sought to keep pace with the rising
number of immigration cases, in order to maintain the efficiency and
effectiveness of its immigration enforcement, adjudication, and
detention programs.
To process the increasing workload and improve the efficiency of
the immigration court system, the Department requests an increase of
$124 million to support an additional 55 Immigration Judge (IJ) Teams
and 28 Board of Immigration Appeals attorneys and provide for other
improvements to the immigration system. This enhancement will help IJ
Teams and attorneys adjudicate rising immigration caseloads resulting
from the increase in Southwest Border crossings. Also included in this
program increase is $50 million to expand legal representation for
unaccompanied children and $10 million to improve efficiencies in
immigration court proceedings by expanding the Legal Orientation
Program.
The Department's Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation
(OIL), also plays a crucial role in upholding the immigration
enforcement actions of DHS and EOIR. OIL defends the Government in
district court cases and challenges to removal orders filed in circuit
courts. The Department requests an increase of $1 million to address
the growth in class-action immigration cases.
improving responses to violent crime, illicit drugs, and health care
fraud
The Department's mission and responsibility is to investigate and
punish those who break Federal laws and harm innocent citizens.
Continued investments are needed to strengthen the Department's ability
to uphold those commitments and obligations. Simply maintaining
existing law enforcement capacity is not sufficient. For fiscal year
2016, the Department requests $43 million in additional investments to
address violent crime, illicit drugs, and healthcare fraud.
Investments to combat violent crime include resources for the
United States Marshals Service (USMS) to investigate violations of the
Adam Walsh Act and assists State, local, tribal, and territorial
jurisdictions in locating and apprehending an estimated 100,000 non-
compliant sex offenders. Funding is also requested to expand officer
safety training for USMS operational officers and task force officers.
The budget supports a strong response to the increase in heroin
abuse and other emerging drug trends. This includes additional
resources for DEA's information sharing efforts to thwart international
drug trafficking organizations as they seek to exploit financial
markets, intellectual property, the energy sector, as well as other
legitimate sectors and markets. The request also includes resources to
pay for State and local clandestine laboratory cleanup program.
For the Department's litigating divisions, the budget requests
additional resources to enforce laws that address international piracy
of intellectual property), healthcare and financial fraud, as well as
fraud against the military. Each year, industry loses hundreds of
billions of dollars due to counterfeiting and global trade of
illegitimate goods. In recent years, the Criminal Division has returned
billions of dollars to the Federal Government from its efforts to
combat fraud. The Civil Division not only recovers billions of dollars
for taxpayers; it also saves billions by defending the U.S. against
lawsuits. In fiscal year 2014 alone, the Civil Division defended
against suits in which approximately $100 billion was at issue. To
continue successfully safeguarding taxpayer dollars and protecting the
healthy, safety and economic security of the American people, the Civil
Division needs additional staff to handle the increasing number of
cases they receive. Finally, $2 million would support the multi-
national efforts of the Environment and Natural Resources Division to
combat wildlife trafficking and related transnational organized crime
activities.
investing in state, local and tribal assistance programs that work
Crime and the ability to respond effectively to it continue to be
major challenges for many communities across the country. The fiscal
year 2016 budget maintains the Department's commitments to State,
local, and tribal partners without reducing the Department's Federal
operational role. The fiscal year 2016 discretionary a request for
State, local, and tribal law enforcement assistance is $2.4 billion
with a net discretionary increase of $154 million. This includes a
program increase of $15 million to implement the administration's
Countering Violent Extremism Initiative that will address domestic
terror incidents and the emergence of groups attempting to recruit
Americans to take part in ongoing conflicts in foreign countries. The
budget also targets $97 million for the President's new Community
Policing Initiative to build and sustain trust between law enforcement
and the people they serve. Both the COPS and OJP budgets include
enhancements to support these two initiatives.
The fiscal year 2016 request for OJP supports a net increase of $30
million in grant funding for indigent defense, Second Chance Prisoner
Reentry, Justice Reinvestment, and juvenile justice programs. The
budget includes the mandatory grants of $1 billion for the Crime
Victims Fund and $100 million for the Public Safety Officer's Death
Benefits.
The fiscal year 2016 request for COPS provides an increase of $95.5
million, including $69.5 million for the COPS Hiring Program, with $5
million targeted towards improving diversity in law enforcement, and
$35 million for Tribal Law Enforcement. The request includes $20
million as a separate line-item for the Collaborative Reform Initiative
which enables the COPS Office to partner with law enforcement agencies
that may need assistance on a wide variety of criminal justice issues
that range from use-of-force practices and the deployment of crisis
intervention teams, to building trust with the communities served.
Again, it is efforts like these that may help to prevent situations
like those in Ferguson and Baltimore.
The fiscal year 2016 request for the Office on Violence Against
Women (OVW) includes a total of $50 million in enhancements. Protecting
students from sexual assault is a top priority for this administration,
and the budget reflects this by including a $14 million increase to the
Campus Violence Program to better meet the need on college campuses.
Other increases include $5 million for a new Tribal Jurisdiction
program, $21 million for a new program to improve law enforcement and
prosecutorial response to sexual assault, and $10 million for
enhancements to the Legal Assistance to Victims Program.
addressing gaps in critical department infrastructure
In order to maintain an effective and efficient organization, the
Department must invest in its physical and non-physical infrastructure.
The infrastructure resources requested for fiscal year 2016 are focused
in three categories: information technology (IT) improvements; facility
construction and maintenance; and oversight functions.
The resources requested for facility construction and maintenance
total $5 million to renovate and repair USMS prisoner holding cells in
Federal courthouses. This funding will significantly reduce the repair
backlog so the USMS can better provide for the safety and security of
judges, court personnel, and others in Federal court facilities.
For IT improvements, $15 million is requested for the Department to
continue its data center consolidation efforts, provide the public
greater access to the Department's data, and increase automated
litigation services. With every passing year, a healthy IT
infrastructure becomes more critical to ensuring that DOJ operations
remain effective. Consolidation of data centers is one of the ways the
Department is saving and avoiding costs while increasing data security.
Finally, $10 million is requested to enhance oversight functions
such as increased funding for contract oversight by the Inspector
General and increased staff for Department leadership to strengthen
policy analysis and compliance efforts.
conclusion
Chairman Shelby, Vice Chairwoman Mikulski, and members of the
subcommittee, it is my pleasure to highlight recent DOJ successes as
well as the resources identified for fiscal year 2016 to maintain and
build upon such successes. The Department clearly understands the need
for fiscal restraint and has achieved as many cost savings as possible
without jeopardizing its mission. The increases requested in the
President's budget are those necessary to address the most pressing
criminal justice needs of our country. As my father always reminded me,
we all gain the most when we act in service to others. It will be my
honor to work together with each of you in service to the American
people and in the spirit of mutual respect and Constitutional balance.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
IMMIGRATION
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. In
November of 2014, the President expanded immigration amnesty
through Executive order in furtherance of his 2012 Executive
order to people over the age of 30 and to new arrivals. It also
allows about 4 million additional illegal immigrants, who have
been in the country for 5 years and who are parents of U.S.
citizens and legal residents, to apply every 3 years for
deportation deferrals. In January this year, you testified
during your confirmation hearing that you believe that the
President's Executive actions are legal and constitutional,
even though the President stated on record many times that he
did not believe he had the constitutional power to grant
amnesty without authority from the Congress.
Why do you believe that the President's Executive actions
granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants are legal
and constitutional?
Attorney General Lynch. Mr. Chairman, you certainly are
focused on one of the most challenging issues facing our
country today, how to deal with the immigration issue. As I
indicated during my January testimony, as a career prosecutor
and former U.S. attorney, I particularly focused on the
prioritization of the removal of the most dangerous illegal
immigrants from our country. With respect to that issue, I
found that to be an imminently reasonable exercise of
administrative and prosecutorial discretion.
With respect to the actions involving the issuance of
deferrals to new members who would apply for that, I believe
that matter is a subject that is under consideration by the
courts. As you have noted, those actions have been enjoined. As
I stated during those proceedings, I am committed to abiding by
the injunction and certainly working with the Department of
Homeland Security to ensure that the injunction is supported
while it is pending.
Senator Shelby. As you assume, and you have, the position
of Attorney General, how will you, Madam Attorney General,
enforce current immigration laws given your belief that the
recent Executive actions trump existing laws? In other words,
do all the Executive actions and presumptions there trump the
laws of Congress? How do you rationalize that?
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I believe that our
existing laws are a vital resource in dealing with the problem
of both illegal immigration and as well as criminal activity
that results from illegal immigration. In particular, the
Department's own Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR)
is charged with adjudicating various types of immigration
violations. As you have noted, EOIR has suffered from a backlog
of cases and inefficiencies that have delayed actions separate
and apart from the President's new policies that has delayed
actions for far too long. Within the new budget request, the
Department would seek to hire additional immigration judges, 55
in total, to reduce this backlog.
But also, Senator, recognizing that we simply cannot wait
for additional money, we are taking steps already to try and
make the Executive Office of Immigration Review more efficient.
Previous to my testimony, the judges have already worked to
triage, so to speak, the types of cases that need to be
adjudicated quickly. Judges have been reassigned and redeployed
to handle the backlog of cases because we recognize that that
is unsustainable. Separate and apart, of course, from the
Executive Office of Immigration Review, as I am sure the
subcommittee is aware, approximately 30 percent of Federal
criminal cases that are brought by our U.S. attorneys across
the country relate to immigration offenses.
So, Senator, separate and apart from the legal result or
the court result of the November policies, the Department of
Justice is moving forward both to prosecute criminal activity
resulting from illegal immigration and to support the work of
its Executive Office of Immigration Review, which we believe is
vital.
FINANCIAL FRAUD
Senator Shelby. I want to shift into another area of
financial fraud. In one of your previous jobs, you were
directly involved in several high profile financial fraud
settlements during your tenure as the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of New York. However, it is my understanding
that not one of those settlements also involved a criminal
prosecution. Why did you and the Department--I know you were
not the Attorney General then; you were the U.S. attorney--not
pursue criminal charges, and how could you enter into billion
settlements sometimes with firms guilty of fraud, and yet never
see fit to prosecute not one person for mortgage or financial
fraud? And will that change now since you are the Attorney
General? In other words, are people buying justice by
settlement?
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, with respect to the work
with which I was proud to conduct as U.S. attorney regarding
the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Initiative, my
office was involved in two of the major settlements of that as
well as other outstanding U.S. attorney's offices across the
country. Throughout those investigations, the message from the
leadership at the time, from all the U.S. attorneys working on
that, and from myself to my team, the direction was that no
entity is above the law, no individual is above the law, no one
is too big or too powerful to jail or to fail.
But what the Department of Justice does in every case,
Senator, is follow the evidence. We ascertain the best way of
achieving legal compliance when there have been violations and
providing redress to victims. We look carefully in every case,
not just the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS)
cases, but every case involving a financial institution where
American citizens have lost hard-earned money to determine the
best way to bring those wrongdoers to justice. And where the
evidence leads us to find that we can prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that there has been a criminal violation, we go in that
direction.
And I would point you to the number of criminal fraud
prosecutions brought by my office on behalf of the victims of
Ponzi schemes, mortgage fraud schemes, and real estate schemes
over the years involving hard-working Americans who were
defrauded of their life savings. Where we find evidence that
points toward civil liability, we pursue that. But I can assure
you, Senator, that both in my prior position and going forward,
I take very seriously the obligation to protect the American
citizens from fraud of all types, and it is one of my highest
priorities as Attorney General.
Senator Shelby. But the standard threshold for a civil case
is not as high as a criminal case, and neither should it be. Is
that correct?
Attorney General Lynch. That is correct. There is a
different burden of proof on the Government, and where we have
evidence that meets the criminal burden of proof, we do
proceed. And there are several people who are sitting in
Federal prison contemplating the results of their actions now
who can provide proof of that.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney
General, there are many programs you have functioning at the
local level, certainly in Baltimore. We have a top notch U.S.
attorney's office, an outstanding Baltimore FBI field office,
joint task forces working with local government going against
everything--dealing with everything from human trafficking--
such a violent, despicable thing--to Medicare fraud, which we
know, for example, in Florida, is already to $3 billion
defrauding our Government of money that should be in the trust
fund helping sick people. So we thank you for what you are
doing.
GRANT PROGRAMS
The issue, though, is also focusing on criminal justice
reform because of our grant program, particularly in COPS,
Byrne, others, that go directly to local law enforcement. Do
you think that there should be mandatory training in the areas
of ethnic and racial bias as well as also on the use of force,
and that there should be a national standard? In other words,
in order to get the money, you have to take the training so
that behavior will not tatter or wear out or even break the
trust that the community must feel.
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I think as we administer
our grant programs to our local law enforcement partners, all
of those issues are on the table and are under consideration.
Currently, I will say that our view is that the grant program
is a very important tool in bringing offices into compliance
with not only Federal standards, but also community standards.
So we would not use that as a barrier to the grant program, but
rather as an incentive to work with us and gain training on use
of force policies.
We have grants that are specifically targeted towards that.
Through the COPS Office, whether there is a collaborative
reform effort or not, we provide specific training on best
practices involving use of force. Not only do we provide the
training, we also attempt to link local law enforcement with
other local law enforcement offices that themselves have either
received training for the COPS----
Senator Mikulski. But, Madam Attorney General, I mean, we
will get lost in collaborative reform and all this, and I do
not mean lost. First of all, we do know that Baltimore City
through its both mayor, and police commissioner, and the
concurrence of other elected officials have initiated a
collaborative reform effort in Baltimore. That is a voluntary
effort where police departments reach out to you, meaning the
Attorney General, and his or her offices to evaluate the
Department on how to better improve police community relations.
That is under way, but that is voluntary.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. That is voluntary. Then, of course, there
is the pattern and practice investigation. We know we have
asked for that. You will make your determination later on
whether you will initiate it.
But what about where they have not asked for collaborative
reform, but they have asked for money? There is a lot of let us
gets the money, you know, and we supported more cops on the
beat. We supported the Byrne grants so that our law enforcement
would have the tools that they needed, whether it is other
technology or whatever. But, again, they took the money, but we
see that there are other issues that community-based leaders,
faith and grassroots and others, are saying the relationship is
worn. And my question is if you get the money, should there be
training, whether it is latent bias, deliberate bias, and also
the use of force?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, Senator, and I certainly
agree----
Senator Mikulski. So do you think that apart from whether
they have a collaborative reform effort underway or not?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, Senator. Separate and apart
from whether there is a collaborative reform effort, in a pure
grant situation we do seek to provide training. My only point
was, and I actually do not want to disagree with you on that
because it is such an important point. My only point was we do
not use that as a barrier to obtaining the grant, but rather as
an incentive to work with us and obtain training from a variety
of different sources. Some of that training will come as a
result of the grants. Some of the training comes as a result of
us connecting police departments with others.
Senator Mikulski. I understand that, but the community
feels they get a lot of money from the Feds, and we do not have
the necessary things. So I would like to have ongoing
conversation with you about it.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, and those issues are under
consideration because, as you indicate, they are very, very
important and essential to the----
Senator Mikulski. What other tools do you feel that you
have on criminal justice reform to help restore this trust that
exists that we need to restore on our communities?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Senator, we have touched a
little bit on the collaborative reform process, but, again, as
we have seen, without community trust in that, it may not be as
effective as we would wish. Certainly we then have other tools
to consider.
Within our programs we do provide training on use of force.
We do provide training on building community trust. We also, as
you mentioned earlier in your statement, through our Community
Relations Service worked directly with the community to attempt
to empower them to engage with their local leaders, with the
police department, and to hold them accountable as well,
because we do think that community accountability is an
important part of that relationship.
Senator Mikulski. Well, we have more to ask. If there is a
second round, I want to focus then on juvenile justice.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Kirk.
Senator Kirk. Madam Attorney General, I want to raise
questions about Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) prosecutions. I understand that countrywide we have
about 1,517 under the RICO statutes. Assuming that Illinois is
about 5 percent of the United States, that would mean we would
have had over 60 RICO prosecutions in our area. Right now it is
about zero. I want to encourage you very strongly to work with
Zach Fardon, our U.S. attorney there, to make sure that the
RICO prosecutions that we have underway, that we can prosecute
gangs of national significance that then Chairwoman Mikulski
backed me on to take on the issue of crime gangs, which are
taking over some of our cities. I think RICO is the particular
statute that we should go with.
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I could not agree with you
more on the efficacy of the RICO statute in targeting----
Senator Kirk. Let me just follow up on one other thing.
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly.
GANG VIOLENCE
Senator Kirk. This subcommittee has added $18,500,000 to
the U.S. Marshals to combat these gangs. My understanding is
the new task force of Chicago has arrested about 344 people in
relation to this effort. Is that your understanding?
Attorney General Lynch. Sir, I do not have that exact
number. I would have to get back to you, but I know that it is
very active in the Chicago area.
[The information follows:]
As of July, there have been 695 arrests made in Chicago in relation
to this effort.
Senator Kirk. Thank you.
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, just to follow up on your
previous point, I could not agree with you more on the efficacy
of the RICO statute as a tool to target violent crime,
particularly gang violence. The importance of taking out the
leadership of a gang, both from a law enforcement perspective
and from a community perspective, cannot be overstated. I thank
you for the discussions that you and I had during my courtesy
visits with you, and, in fact, I have had discussions with the
U.S. attorney in Chicago as well as with the head of our
Criminal Division here in Washington about finding ways to
bolster those efforts, and both have assured me that they are
also committed to using this important tool.
Senator Kirk. I want to make sure we get the word down to
Leslie Caldwell and Doug Crow and make sure they follow up.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, sir. I have spoken with them,
and they are committed to this as well.
Senator Kirk. Thank you.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney
General, it is nice to see you again.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Senator Leahy. Thank you for being here. And I agree with
what Senator Mikulski said about your presence in Baltimore,
and that sort of thing is not only important for the community,
which you would understand far better than I, but it is
important to the country. And I understand that as you did in
your hearing before the Judiciary Committee, you were asked a
number of questions on immigration, and questions on something
that since I have been here every President has done, Executive
actions on immigration. I think probably the most extensive
were by President Reagan. But I would also point out if--an
Executive action is usually done, it is when Congress does not
act.
Now, we spent hundreds of hours putting together an
immigration bill in the U.S. Senate. It passed a couple of
years ago. Two-thirds of senators voted for it, Republicans and
Democrats alike. Huge bipartisan effort. Even though by all
analyses the immigration bill would have passed the House of
Representatives, the Republican leadership in the House refused
to take it up.
So I have a little trouble hearing criticisms of the
President finally acting when the Congress would not. If the
Congress does not like what the President has done on
immigration, pass an immigration bill. We did it in the Senate.
Again, Republicans and Democrats came together. However, the
Republican leadership refused to bring it up in the House. Had
they, we would not even be having this question. So I would
just say that if we do not like it, then the Congress must pass
a bill.
I also think we ought to reform our Federal sentencing
laws. The Bureau of Prisons is consuming nearly a third of the
Department's budget, and we talked about what we should be
doing on law enforcement and other priorities. A third of your
budget is going into the Bureau of Prisons. Excessive mandatory
minimum sentences are wasting money that could be spent
otherwise.
One of the proposals under consideration by the Senate
Judiciary Committee, the Modern Sentencing Act, would reduce
mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenses. In your law
career as a Federal prosecutor, you prosecuted many drug cases.
I prosecuted many drug cases. Do you think we can reduce those
mandatory minimums, and still keep our communities--excuse me--
and still keep our communities safe?
SENTENCING REFORM
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I think we absolutely can
have sentencing reform that enables us to reduce the mandatory
minimums and keeps our communities safe. It is important to
note that the recent efforts at sentencing reform that seek to
reduce mandatory minimums do not eliminate them. They still
recognize the need to provide serious punishment for the most
serious offenders. In fact, what we have seen with the Smart on
Crime initiative is that while overall drug cases may have gone
down, the longer sentences have actually gone up. We are now
focusing on those larger offenders, the large-scale traffickers
who are flooding our communities with poison as opposed to the
lower level offenders, who did need to be punished, but at a
different scale. So I think sentencing reform is an excellent
way to make sure that these efforts continue.
Senator Leahy. I think also we sometimes think we can do a
one-size-fits-all. California did that with three strikes you
are out, and it darn near bankrupted the State. I worry about
what is happening when we are taking money from law enforcement
to lock up people. Some people should be in prison. I am all
for that. Others we are wasting time and money, and that money
could be used in other areas of the criminal justice system.
HEROIN
I am also worried about the increase in heroin use and
overdose. It has become a health crisis. Even in my home State
of Vermont we have not been spared. Between 2000 and 2012,
treatment for opioid addiction in Vermont rose by more than 770
percent. Just last week, the Vermont State Police issued a
warning about the dangers of heroin laced with the drug
fentanyl, after it was linked to a number of multiple overdose
deaths in our State.
Interdiction alone is never going to solve the issues, but
the law enforcement agencies, particularly in small and rural
States or small rural areas, which every State has, need some
help. I pushed last year to create a new grant program to
support an anti-heroin task force. I understand the grant
program is getting under way. Last year, the Justice Department
was instructed to create a multi-agency task force to address
the rising number of heroin uses. Can you tell me how that is
going and what you might be able to do to help with----
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, Senator.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. This public health crisis?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, Senator. It certainly is the
intersection of law enforcement and a public health issue. Our
budget does request additional funds to deal with this uptick
in heroin abuse and other emerging drug areas.
As you noted, there is a Senate-mandated heroin task force.
They held their first meeting just last week. The Deputy
Attorney General is actively involved in that, and it deals not
only with law enforcement, but the public health issues of
that. It is also led and supplemented by several of our U.S.
attorneys who over the past several years have themselves
worked with public health officials and local communities to
deal with this as a public health crisis. So we are bringing
all voices to the table in an attempt to get the policies that
have been effective at a local level promulgated nationwide and
make them available to other communities as well.
As I mentioned, the President's budget does call for
increases that would support our law enforcement efforts in
heroin as well as opioid addiction in general because, of
course, we still have the prescription drug crisis that is tied
to this as well.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Senator Collins.
FISA SECTION 215
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General
Lynch, just this morning the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held
that Section 215 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
does not authorize Government to engage in the bulk collection
of phone numbers under the metadata program. One of the
President's independent review groups which looked at this law,
Mike Morrell, the former deputy director of the CIA, as well as
the former director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, have said that
had this program been in place prior to the terrorist attacks
on our country on 9/11/01, it likely would have prevented those
attacks. So we have a very serious question here of balancing
security with privacy rights and the clarity of the law, which
is set to expire. That provision expires June 1.
Since January of last year, this section of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has been conducted
pursuant to new procedures that were instituted by the
President. Now, the AG provides a semi-annual report on privacy
violations associated with the law. The new procedure provides
that except in emergencies, the FISA Court is now required to
approve ahead of time any queries of phone records database
because of the changes made by the President.
Two questions. One, are you aware of any significant
privacy violations that have occurred since the President
instituted these reforms? And second, has the Justice
Department made a decision yet on appealing this decision by
the 2nd Circuit? I realize it just came down.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Section
215 has been a vital tool in our national security arsenal, but
the Department has, as you note, been operating under the new
directives by the President with a view towards modifying the
program to keep its efficacy, but preserve privacy interests. I
am not aware at this time of any violations that have come to
light. I will certainly seek a briefing on that, and should I
learn of any, I will advise the subcommittee of that if my
knowledge changes on that. But as of now, I have not been
informed of any violations under the new policy.
With respect to the decision from the 2nd Circuit, my home
circuit actually, we are reviewing that decision this morning.
But given the time issues involving the expiration of it, we
are and have been working with this body and others to look for
ways to reauthorize Section 215 in a way that does preserve its
efficacy and protect privacy.
ELDER FRAUD
Senator Collins. Thank you. I want to turn to an issue that
you and I discussed when we met at my office, and that is the
tremendous increase in the number of scams that are targeting
our Nation's seniors. They range from the Jamaican lottery
scam, the grandparents scam, and most recently the IRS imposter
scam. What we have learned is that these scammers typically
operate offshore, and they rely upon advanced communication and
payment technologies. And the losses suffered by individual
victims are devastating and they aggregate in the billions, yet
the Federal Government has been extraordinarily lax in its
approach to actually going after these criminals. And only the
Federal Government can realistically tackle the international
crime networks behind many of these scams.
I also want to bring to your attention that under your
predecessor, and I want to make it very clear it was before
your time, that the Department refused to send to the
subcommittee a witness to testify on the Department's efforts.
That was appalling to both the ranking member, Senator Claire
McCaskill, and to me. What can the Department do to be more
aggressive in prosecuting these scams which aggregate in the
billions of dollars, and will you pledge that from now on the
Department will cooperate with our investigations?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Senator, with respect to the
very, very important role that this subcommittee plays in
gathering information about the Department's priorities, I will
always strive to cooperate and provide either a witness or
information, whatever is best, for the subcommittee to receive
so that we can help you learn not only about our priorities and
issues, but also to do the important work of this subcommittee.
I am not aware of the circumstances that were around that
previous request, but certainly I will always commit to
providing this subcommittee with the assistance that it needs
either before the subcommittee or at the staff level.
With respect to the very important matter that you raise--
many of them are overseas based fraud schemes. The other
troubling factor to me is that many of them target our elderly
population, and that is a particularly vulnerable population to
telemarketing schemes be they based locally or be they based
overseas. So that is very troubling to me, and the protection
of our vulnerable population is one of our priorities.
I am not aware right now of the cases that we may have in
our pipeline. I certainly will ask for a review of this
important issue. Our budget does, of course, ask for funding to
continue the fight against fraud, and I know that all of the
agencies that are involved in this, you mentioned, for example,
the IRS scam calls, are very concerned about that.
As someone who actually received one of those calls myself,
I can tell you that if one is not aware of the fraudulent
nature of them, they can be very disturbing. And it is easy to
see how our seniors in particular, but other people, can get
pulled into that.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Vice
Chairwoman Mikulski, for holding this hearing, and welcome,
Madam Attorney General. It is so great to see you again this
time in your now official capacity leading the Department of
Justice.
VA INVESTIGATION
I was pleased to hear a few minutes ago your giving voice
to the seriousness with which you take issues of over
prescription, addiction, and abuse, and diversion of opioid
drugs. And I want to call your attention to a situation in my
State of Wisconsin at the Tomah VA medical facility where there
are a number of investigations ongoing, all relating to these
very pressing issues.
I called on your predecessor, Attorney General Holder, to
investigate potential criminal activity at this facility. My
request and communication to your predecessor was based on
multiple sources, including published investigative journalism
reports, numerous whistleblowers and citizens who have
contacted my office conveying information that in my mind
raises serious questions about potential criminal activity.
Currently the VA is conducting an investigation as is the VA
Inspector General, and the DEA is engaged in an investigation
of allegations of drug diversions at the facility.
But I remain convinced that there are additional elements
that warrant further criminal investigation. And my letter to
your predecessor outlined some of those, including an alarming
number of 9-1-1 calls made from the facility over the past
several years--over 2,000--reports of 24 unexplained deaths,
allegations of illegal access to confidential patient
information and law enforcement records, et cetera.
Now, I understand you cannot get into any details of
ongoing criminal investigations, so as a consequence I would
simply ask if you will evaluate these allegations and
coordinate with the existing three Federal investigations to
determine if there are additional criminal investigations that
are warranted and appropriate in this particular case?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Senator, I thank you for
raising this important issue because I think that the safety
and security of those who use our Veterans Administration's
hospitals is foremost a priority, not just for my tenure as
Attorney General, but for our country. As someone whose family
has used those hospitals, I am well aware of how vital a
resource they are to the families and to those who are ill. And
certainly, I am aware of the situation. I have not yet had a
briefing on the matter, but I will commit to you that I will
request a briefing on this matter and make sure that all
efforts to coordinate are being undertaken.
Senator Baldwin. I thank you for that. And one additional
matter, again, given the urgency with which we respond to the
opioid abuse problems that we have throughout our Nation, I
want to make you aware of some impediments in the DEA
investigation into drug diversion at the Tomah VA. The DEA and
the VA have differing interpretations of the scope of a VA
specific patient privacy law, which may be limiting the ability
of VA personnel to fully participate in interviews if they are
told that they cannot reveal particular information about
patients. It certainly would be an incredible obstacle to a
thorough investigation if not fully resolved.
And so, if you have previously been briefed, I would ask
you what is the status of the Department's effort to resolve
the confusion? If you need authorization language from the
Congress to resolve this issue, I would appreciate it if you
would provide that to me and my staff.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Senator. As I indicated,
I have not yet been briefed on this matter, although I am aware
of the DEA's investigation into the situation, and of course
fully support it. And we will also look into whether or not
there are impediments to DEA being able to view this as a
criminal matter.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Madam Attorney General, welcome. I was
in New York City for my law school reunion at New York
University (NYU) this past weekend, and many of my classmates
knew you and were very complimentary of you.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Senator Alexander. I want to begin by thanking you and the
Department for something. It is my understanding that sometime
today the Drug Enforcement Administration will approve the
State of Tennessee's application to import certified industrial
hemp seeds for research purposes. That may seem like a small
matter, but it was important to our State agricultural
department, and there was a practical issue. The seeds had to
be planted in May, so I thank you for moving that along.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG WHOLESALER REQUIREMENTS
Second, on the Drug Enforcement Administration, I would
like to call something to your attention that has been called
to my attention. I do not have a solution for it, but I think
it deserves really the attention of the Attorney General and
the management, and it has to do with prescription drug abuse
and the relationship between the Drug Enforcement
Administration and the wholesalers or pharmacies who distribute
controlled substances.
Now, here is what seems to be the problem. DEA requires
wholesalers to track and report on ``suspicious orders.'' These
would be orders from local drug stores I guess. And it
restricts how those orders can be filled if they are flagged as
suspicious. Well, there is no guidance or clarity about what is
a ``suspicious order,'' and as we both know in the law,
whenever the law gets too vague, sometimes there are risks and
problems associated with that.
One risk, of course, if a wholesaler refuses to send a
controlled substance to a drug store, then someone with a
broken arm goes to the drug store, and that person is out of
luck. The other risk is that there develops an adversarial
relationship between the Drug Enforcement Administration and
the wholesalers over this issue.
So my request is simply this. Would you please take a look
at the words ``suspicious orders'' and the relationship between
the DEA and wholesalers and pharmacies, and see if there needs
to be additional guidance so that we do not have an adversarial
relationship between people who really should be in a
partnership to make sure controlled substances are not sent to
the wrong people at the corner drugstore?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, Senator, I can commit to
that. I also echo your concern that in a desire to protect
people, we may be, in fact, inhibiting the ability of people
who have legitimate needs for pain medications to obtain them,
which is not our intention. And it certainly is something that
I will undertake to review.
METH LAB CLEAN UP
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much. And my final
question also is just to put a spotlight on something. Our
State, Tennessee, is third in the Nation in meth lab seizures.
It is a big problem, especially in rural areas and because the
demand for enforcement exceeds the funding. Our State developed
what they call a central storage container program. They found
a way to clean up meth labs for $500 per lab instead of $2,500
per lab. Now, that is progress if you can do something for 20
percent of what you used to do it for.
So we were pleased to see the budget of $4 million more for
the meth lab cleanup program this year, but disappointed that
the Department decided not to include funding for the
competitive grant program for State anti-meth task forces.
Given that the meth epidemic is one of the most urgent drug
problems that we face, especially in rural areas, what was the
thinking, especially as it affects rural communities with less
resources, in not expanding or continuing the competitive grant
program for States?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Senator. My
understanding of that competitive program, the COPS Anti-
Methamphetamine Program, is that the funding that exists is 2-
year funding, and so there was not a need to request funding
for this year because the program as enacted last year would
cover this fiscal year. It is, believe me, not a desire to end
or in any way diminish the program.
And it is also my understanding that the solicitation for
this fiscal year will be released very soon, later this month
in May. So I regret the appearance that the Department may have
pulled back or withdrawn from that, but it is my understanding
that because we have 2-year funding for that, that we will then
have to come back in the next fiscal year to request additional
funding.
Senator Alexander. Well, that would be very encouraging.
Thank you for that explanation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murphy.
FCI DANBURY
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
Attorney General Lynch. Congratulations on your confirmation. I
had a few broader questions to ask, but I wanted to begin with
a rather specific one to the Northeast region and to
Connecticut. We have historically had a women's correctional
facility in Danbury, Connecticut, and in July of 2013, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons announced it was going to close that
facility, which would essentially be the only--was the only
facility for women in the Northeast. We had a number of really
positive discussions with the Department of Justice and with
the Bureau of Prisons, and they reversed that decision,
understanding that it would be incredibly detrimental to women
who are incarcerated in the Northeast if they had to be
transported hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to other
facilities.
The solution was to build a new facility, a low security
facility for women in Danbury. And the initial schedule was for
that facility to be completed by this month actually. And in
the interim, all these women are being spread amongst jails in
the Northeast, jails that really are not equipped to be able to
handle the things that these women need, especially drug
counseling in the long run.
So I just wanted to ask you if you had an update on
progress of the construction of that facility and whether we
can expect that construction will be completed as soon as
practicably possible so that we can transition these women who
are now in places like Brooklyn and Philadelphia back to a more
long-term suitable facility.
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, Senator, and I share
your concern over that important issue. When I began my career
as a young assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) in the early 1990s,
Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Danbury was not yet a
total women's facility, and most women who were prosecuted in
the Federal system ultimately ended up being housed in West
Virginia. And the facility actually was fine, but for women
from the Northeast it presented a significant negative impact
on their ability to stay connected with their families. It
harmed their relationships with their children. Those
collateral consequences are the types of things that we seek to
avoid. And so, having FCI Danbury in the Northeast has
certainly been a positive law enforcement step for all of who
work in that area.
My understanding is that the environmental impact studies
were completed quite recently, and that there are additional
matters. In fact, I believe that there are pricing materials
being resolved this month, and I am told by my team that
construction should begin this summer. I do not have an
anticipated completion date for you, and I regret to say that I
am hesitant to offer one having seen several government
construction projects in my day. But I am told that
construction should begin this summer on the new facility, and
I share your concern and view that it is an important law
enforcement resource for the Northeast.
Senator Murphy. Thank you for your personal attention to
this. I look forward to talking with you about it as we move
towards the construction schedule. Again, this is really a
development of a really positive series of conversations. Not
easy to reverse course on something like this, and I really
thank the Bureau of Prisons for considering the impact of
shuttling women prisoners to the far reaches of the Northeast.
NATIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Just one other query. I represent Newtown, Connecticut,
Sandy Hook. It is a community that is still grieving dealing
with the ripples of trauma that still exist there. I understand
the realities of this place that we are not likely to get a
bill expanding background checks, though 90 percent of
Americans support the notion that everyone should have to prove
they are not a criminal before they buy a gun. But as Senator
Shelby noted in his opening comments, the ATF position is open,
a very important position, for the enforcement of existing
laws.
And the existing national background check system can be
made much better to make sure that all of the data is being
uploaded into it, making sure that that information is
distributed. A hundred thousand individuals every year are
prohibited from buying guns because of the background check
system. It works.
And so, I just I would ask for your commitment to work with
us to make sure that the ATF has the resources that they need
in order to carry out existing laws, and your commitment, as
your predecessor did, to work with us on making sure that our
national background check system has the resources it needs to
continue to do the good work that it has for decades.
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, Senator. I am committed
to that important goal of supporting and strengthening the ATF,
as well as making sure that their processes and the existing
systems are as efficient as possible because that is how we
protect our citizens.
Senator Murphy. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Senator Murkowski.
TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney
General, welcome and thank you. I want to point out the aspects
of your budget that focus on tribal law enforcement. This is an
issue, of course, that is very important in my State. We had an
opportunity to discuss it in your pre-confirmation meeting that
we had, and I know that you have recently had a conversation
with Julie Kitka, who is the president of the Alaska Federation
of Natives.
The public safety challenges that face Alaska Native
villages run the gamut, everything from the absence of full-
time law enforcement officers in some villages, inadequate
resources devoted towards community-based prevention, and
restorative justice efforts. We have a tribal court system that
is struggling because it is just really in an embryonic stage.
We have human trafficking of our native women. The heroin
issues that you have heard discussed here today are not just
limited to the cities. They are out in our villages.
I know that you have got a lot on your plate. It is clear
from the discussions here this morning. But I would like your
commitment that you will work with me, you will work with the
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) to really be involved to a
personal extent and degree with some of these challenges that
we are facing as they relate to rural justice in our native
areas--in our rural areas. I have been asked by AFN, and I am
actually going to be speaking to their board by video or by
teleconference this afternoon, for an opportunity to sit with
you and some of the native leadership to discuss some of these
issues that are just so very troubling to us right now.
So I would like your commitment that we can have that
meeting and perhaps very quickly your observations based on
your conversations with not only me, but Ms. Kitka, about some
of the substantive issues that we have with rural justice in
Alaska.
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I would look forward to
such a meeting, and I would welcome it.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Attorney General Lynch. I think that the commitment that
the Department of Justice and our Nation have made to Indian
Country over the last several years has shown great promise,
but it is one that must be sustained, maintained, and improved
upon. We have several requests in the budget that go directly
to the issues of tribal justice, the Office of Violence Against
Women, for example.
And because it such an important issue to me, I am just
going to outline them briefly because we are asking for an
increase of $100 million, but part of that money would go for
tribal grant set asides. Twenty million would go for the Crime
Victims Fund Tribal Assistance Program. Five million would go
for the Office of Violence Against Women Domestic Violence
Jurisdiction Program.
As I know you are well aware, we recently had great success
in enabling tribal courts to deal with offenders who commit
violence against women and children on native lands when the
offenders are non-Natives. That had been a bar for some time.
It has been tremendously helpful to have given that
jurisdiction to the tribal courts.
We also are asking for money to address environmental
problems in Indian Country as well as to maintain current
positions. I firmly believe that this commitment must be not
only maintained, but expanded upon else we really do risk
sliding backwards, Senator, with all the issues faced by tribal
lands, particularly, as you and I discussed with Alaska, having
such a large land mass and dealing with the law enforcement
challenges there. We have to set in place systems that will
work, but that will also be maintained.
HEROIN
Senator Murkowski. Well, I agree with you. We have got a
lot of work to do, and I look forward to those conversations
with you and your team. On the heroin issue, you have heard it
repeated several times here today, but I will reiterate that in
our very remote rural areas, areas that are islands, areas that
are not accessible by road, we are seeing the impact of heroin,
whether it is in Dillingham, whether it is in Kodiak. And
actually we have got meth issues in the community of Kodiak,
and law enforcement is focusing on that, so they are not able
to focus on some of the smaller villages that are out there.
So you mentioned the heroin task force that is in place. I
would ask that you not forget the smaller communities where we
see--we see an addiction and a devastation truly just taking
our communities, just wiping them out. And it is a frightening
thought that the resources may be there and available for the
cities, but that our smaller communities where losing a few
young people can be so significant to just health, morale, and
safety. So I would ask that you work with us on that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do have other questions that I would
like submitted for the record, most specifically with the
codification of the Brady obligation in statute. We have talked
about that, but I would like further follow up on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Shelby. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you Chairman Shelby, and thank you,
Attorney General Lynch, for your service and for your testimony
before us today. I want to congratulate you as you being your
important service in the interest of our Nation.
Last year, Congress demonstrated its commitment to the
Victims of Child Abuse Act by unanimously reauthorizing the
programs in both chambers. Children's advocacy centers funded
under this law conduct forensic interviews in a way that is
both effective in serving law enforcement needs and respectful
of the delicate needs of child victims of abuse.
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS
I was frankly very disappointed to see the President's
fiscal year 2016 budget request once again only asked for half
of the amount needed to fund these crucial programs. We are
talking a modest amount, $11 million out of the $20 million
authorization. What has your experience been with children's
advocacy centers in your law enforcement role, and do you
expect to be an advocate for them within the Department in 2016
and beyond?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Senator, my experience has
been based primarily with my experience as a U.S. attorney in
the Eastern District of New York, and we have found children's
advocacy centers to be extremely powerful partners. And for us
it has been in dealing with children who may be related to the
victims of human trafficking. That has been a huge problem that
we have seen in the New York area. And so, I know that there
are other issues that are in other parts of the country, and I
look forward to learning more about those. It is definitely a
program that I feel is extremely important.
The overall budget includes our request for Juvenile
Justice Programs, and it is our hope that the panoply of
programs that we offer will, in fact, help provide a valuable
safety net for those children in need.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you on these valuable programs that I think are under
resourced, but there are many challenges in our budget
environment.
VIOLENCE REDUCTION NETWORK
Let me next reference the Violence Reduction Network, which
is an effective program for cities like my hometown of
Wilmington to address violent crime and connect local law
enforcement with cutting-edge law enforcement resources, mostly
Federal resources. I want to thank the very hard-working team
in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP's) Bureau of Justice
Assistance and the Wilmington team that is led by John Skinner.
I hope you commit to ensuring the Violence Reduction
Network (VRN) Program is maintained and supported with
necessary resources so that it can continue to serve as a
valuable connection between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
a number of communities that have seen dramatic increases in
violent crime. Is that something you are inclined to support?
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I support it
wholeheartedly. Certainly Wilmington has been one of the
flagship cities in this, not a distinction that you sought, but
one which came upon you, I understand. But Wilmington has been
an excellent model frankly for the level of cooperation between
the Wilmington Police Department and the FBI, and the State and
local and other Federal law enforcement agencies as well.
My understanding is we actually have identified five
additional cities for the next fiscal year to be involved in
this program. Again, not a distinction that they would seek,
but one which we think is an area in which we think we can
provide assistance. Beyond just the VRN, of course, we do have
other resources for violent crime for our cities that may not
have such extreme, and we are fully committed to those programs
as well.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I look forward to continuing to
work on Federal, State, and local law enforcement partnerships
that can reduce violent crime.
COLLABORATIVE REFORM INITIATIVE
Let us turn to the Collaborative Reform Initiative. As we
all know, we have strained relationships between law
enforcement and communities in cities across the Nation, most
recently and tragically Baltimore, but this has occurred in
many other places. I am particularly interested in the
Collaborative Reform Initiative efforts that are underway in
Baltimore, and would be interested in hearing more about what
is on the table for the project, and how it is going to be
sustained, and whether recent events in Baltimore have affected
the CRI timeline.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, with respect to the situation
in Baltimore, the Collaborative Reform Initiative was begun
last fall actually at the request of the Baltimore Police
Department. And our COPS Office went into Baltimore and has
been very, very active in working with both the police and the
community to work on ways to improve the Baltimore Police
Department. As we have discussed in this chamber earlier today
and throughout my most recent visit to Baltimore, recent events
have certainly made us cognizant of concerns that both city,
the police, and the community have about the efficacy of a
collaborative reform process. And we are listening to all those
voices, and we are certainly considering the best as we move
forward to help the Baltimore Police Department.
It is important to note, I think, that collaborative reform
has been a very successful tool throughout the country. We not
only provide technical assistance and training to police
departments around the country, but we connect them with other
police departments who have themselves either been through the
process or who themselves have very positive law enforcement
practices. So we try and make it a peer-to-peer relationship in
terms of work and training as well. It is a tool, very, very
important tool. And as you will note, our budget does request
an increase of about $20 million to support these important
reforms.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. I will
submit a question for the record about forensic hair analysis.
I was very concerned to see reports that FBI forensic experts
may have overstated the strength of evidence, and I look
forward to hearing what DOJ will be doing to provide meaningful
relief to those convicted on the strength of misstated or
inaccurate testimony.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir. That is, in fact,
an ongoing process, and we are very committed to working on
that issue.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
running back and forth to you and our Attorney General.
There are two things that are really important to Arkansas,
the sense of combatting violent crime and the other things that
we are dealing with, but also reauthorizing the child nutrition
programs. And so, we have a subcommittee going on in that
regard, too, which both of those things go together, you know.
If you have hungry kids, then, again, it all--it all flows
together.
In the Smart Crime Initiative, I know that you have talked
a lot about that and how important it is, and that in your
request you state the initiative will spend $247 million to
focus resources on reducing disparate impacts of the criminal
justice system on vulnerable communities. Certainly that is
important to Arkansas. But my understanding that I am hearing
from attorneys general throughout the country that the reality
is that there seems to be a directive coming down that
terrorism and cybercrime, it is kind of the number one--
terrorism and cybercrime are the number one things that they
are to devote their resources to. Can you talk a little bit
about that? I know that is so important, and yet, you know, we
have so many communities now that are experiencing violent
crime and that it is increasing.
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, thank you for the
opportunity to address that issue. Obviously national security
and cybercrime are important areas, as I have noted. They
represent not only ongoing threats to public safety and to
American citizens, but new and emerging threats. And so, our
budget does ask for funding for that.
VIOLENT CRIME
With respect to violent crime, however, I will reiterate
the Department's commitment and my own commitment to that issue
has not wavered. One of the things I think that is very
important as a former U.S. attorney myself has been to
recognize that every prosecutor knows best the crime problems
of their area. What we try and do in the Department as I look
at policies and interact with not just people here in
Washington, but also in the field, is to make sure that we
maintain the flexibility that allows U.S. attorneys working in
conjunction with their State and local counterparts to identify
the crime problems in their area and focus their resources on
them. For example, my former office, the Eastern District of
New York, has both a strong national security practice and a
large violent crime program. Every office is not going to be
similarly situated, so it is my goal to give my prosecutors the
flexibility that they need to deploy their resources to best
address the crime problems at hand.
With respect to violent crime, the Department's anti-
violent strategies for several years have been focused on three
main issues. Law enforcement, effective, vigorous, strong, is
the core of that and the first part of that. But we are also
attempting to look at prevention as well as reentry programs,
and it has been very gratifying to see members of this body
also address those issues at the statutory level as well.
As you mentioned, with respect to the food services
program, not a DOJ program, but one that certainly impacts the
crime rate of an area because it impacts the poverty rate of an
area, and the health of the children, and the opportunities
that they have, so it is interdisciplinary. It is holistic, and
I can assure you that there is not an over emphasis on one type
of priority over others. If a U.S. attorney feels that the
largest problem in their area is one of violent crime, we have
a number of ways in which we deal with that. We will
concentrate resources for them. We will provide assistance from
other offices and main Justice for them. I myself have in the
past detailed attorneys from my office to others to help out on
cases, capital cases and the like. And so, you will find a
very, very strong commitment to violent crime prevention and
enforcement within the Department.
HEROIN
Senator Boozman. Thank you. Another huge issue going on
throughout the country, not only in Arkansas, is opiates and
heroin, and there are reports of doubling, tripling, things in
that nature. Can you talk a little bit about addressing that
problem? And then the other thing that I think is so important
are the drug courts, and I think, for the first time, you have
actually something in your budget for that.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes.
Senator Boozman. Are you an advocate or lukewarm or
whatever? I really feel like that is--if there is a solution,
that that is one of the key components to it.
Attorney General Lynch. One of the key components certainly
in the reduction of over incarceration as well as crime
prevention have been drug courts. At the Federal level, not
only are we focused on drug courts, we are focused on expanding
our network of veterans drug courts because what we have seen
also is that our veterans are returning with a number of
problems for which the criminal justice system may not be the
best method to treat them, for lack of a better phrase. And so,
we are trying to expand opportunities to provide treatment as
well as crime prevention for our veterans, as well as other
low-level drug offenders.
They have been tremendously successful. My former district,
the Eastern District of New York, has a very strong pre-trial
diversion program as well as a pre-trial opportunity program.
We try and pair those with reentry programs also, so I think
that that is a very, very important tool.
I would add, however, that it really has been the States
who have been showing us by example how effective drug courts
can be in reducing crime, reducing recidivism. And the real
goal is to make productive members of society out of those
individuals whom we otherwise might have incarcerated for way
too long.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Senator Mikulski.
PRISON POPULATION
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I know the House is late. I
just have a few comments for ongoing efforts. First of all, I
want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Leahy, the
gentleman from Vermont, about the need for reviewing sentencing
reform. But the prison population, you know, your
appropriations request for prisons is $7 billion. It is a
significant amount of money because it constitutes almost one-
third of your appropriations.
I would hope because there is bipartisan effort in this
area in terms of looking at what we need to do to safely reduce
the prison population. We have an excellent facility in
Maryland in Cumberland, but our concerns would be the public--
safety for the public. Second and parallel, safety for the
correction officers because you have got significant challenges
in the prisons with overcrowding, and I worry about their
safety.
And then third, what are the issues where prisoners who are
either really old or really sick? In other words, how can we
begin to do an evaluation of who is in prison and should they
be in prison? And, Madam Attorney General, I would hope as you
begin your term here that you look also at those of a
significant age or significantly ill where they would pose no
threat to the general public. So let us have an ongoing
conversation about it, and we look forward to your
recommendations.
HEROIN
Heroin. It has come up just about from all of us, both side
of the aisle. My Governor, a Republican Governor, a 90 percent
congressional--Democratic congressional delegation. We are Team
Maryland and wanting to deal with this, so we ask that your
task force, which I initiated when I was chair with the support
of Senator Shelby, is that it not only be internal to the
Justice Department, but it be across the board involving the
Department of Education, the Department of Human Services, the
Department of Homeland Security. Is that the nature of the task
force, or is it internal to the Justice Department?
Attorney General Lynch. Senator, the task force had its
first meeting last week, and I have not been fully briefed on
that, but I will confirm the level of participation to you.
Even if it is, however, focused on the Department of Justice,
that does not preclude us from, as you noted, reaching across
the street to those agencies and pulling them into the debate.
Senator Mikulski. We think this is a big issue. It is a big
issue in our State. The third point that I want to make is
juvenile justice. There are several grant programs here in the
area of juvenile justice. I would hope in the days ahead we
could work with your Department on what you feel would have, as
we work with our mayor and our community-based groups, what
would be the effective juvenile justice programs that we could
either bring additional resources in or appeal for or apply for
these grants.
I know speaking for the delegation and speaking for the
leadership of our city, not only government, but our private
sector as well as our community-based, faith-based leaders, we
see this as a situation in which there could be an opportunity
to really do something very significant in terms of our young
people so that for those that are on track, we help them stay
there. For those who need to get back on track, help them get
there. And for those who really constitute significant risk to
our community, we also do the right intervention. So we look
forward to ongoing conversation. You are always welcome back in
our hometown, but we also appreciate the availability, and the
accessibility, and the professionalism of your staff.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Senator Collins.
DRUG COURTS
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from
Arkansas about the value of drug courts and the special
veterans courts. I have seen firsthand in Maine the difference
that these courts can make in helping people straighten out
their lives, avoid imprisonment, and really change the
direction of their lives. I know that does not happen in every
case, but I have got to believe that these are cost effective.
And that is why I am disappointed that the administration's
budget cuts $5 million from the drug courts program compared to
last year when it was funded at about $41 million, and also
cuts a million dollars from the veteran treatment courts. I
hope our subcommittee will take a look at that, but I wonder if
the Department has done any sort of cost benefit analysis
because this is a case where I think we are being penny wise
and pound foolish.
Attorney General Lynch. Ma'am, I am not aware of any cost
benefit analysis to that, but I will see. I will ask if that
was done, and so I do not know the basis for that particular
allocation of funding there, but I certainly share your
commitment to the efficacy of drug courts and the veterans
treatment courts. And like you, I have seen them literally
change lives.
Senator Collins. Well, I have seen it firsthand because I
actually several years ago hired someone who had gone through
the drug court program successfully. I will admit that I was
somewhat apprehensive, but she turned out to be a wonderful
employee, and I wanted to give her a chance. And but for drug
court, her life would have gone in a very different direction.
I have also spoken at a graduation ceremony for a drug
court in Portland, and it was really inspiring to see largely
younger people being reunited with their significant others or
spouses and children, and know that they really were committed
to turning their lives around. I have also heard of the cases
that were not successful, but that is the beauty of the drug
court. And I just think this is something that deserves our
support.
Attorney General Lynch. I agree. Thank you, ma'am.
REGIONAL INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM
Senator Collins. Let me just end with one other very
successful program in my State that also unfortunately is cut
quite severely in the administration's budget. And I realize
you have not been on the job very long and were not involved in
formulating this budget, so I am not certain whether you are
familiar with this program. But it is called the Regional
Information Sharing System (RISS). And I hear repeatedly from
police officers, detectives, sheriffs, law enforcement at all
levels in Maine, State, local, county, about how essential the
RISS Program is in their efforts to fight violent crime, drug
activity, human trafficking, and a host of other criminal
enterprises.
I want to give you a specific example. A detective in
Franklin County, a rural part of our State, told me recently
about a fascinating case involving counterfeit silver dollars
from China. He used the RISS databases to discover that the
suspect was committing this crime throughout the State of
Maine. He was also able to determine whether the same crime was
occurring in other States. What was at first just a one
incident case became a statewide investigation with the help of
the RISS network and tools, which are especially vital in a
rural State like Maine.
And that is why I am disappointed that the President's
budget has slashed funding for this program. It is such an
important tool for rural law enforcement to use. So I hope
looking forward that you will take a look at programs that
encourage that kind of collaboration at all levels of
government, and allow a local sheriff who has arrested someone,
to find out that this person has been committing crimes not
only throughout his or her State, but in other States as well,
and thus build a stronger case.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, ma'am. I share your view that
that system is particularly efficacious. My understanding of
that is that the request in the budget this year mirrors the
request last year, which was increased by $5 million, so that
it was not viewed as cutting that program, but maintaining it
because we do feel it is so important.
Senator Collins. Well, it is my understanding that we
plussed up the program in the Appropriations Committee because
it was so successful, has bipartisan support, but then the
administration in its budget request went back to the previous
level. I may be mistaken about that, and I would certainly
welcome any additional information.
Attorney General Lynch. We will provide you additional
information on that issue.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year 2016 President's budget request includes $25
million for the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS), which
matches the fiscal year 2015 request.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Collins. Attorney
General Lynch, thank you for appearing here today and being
patient with all of us and our questions. We look forward to
working with you to make sure that the Justice Department is
properly funded.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If there are no further questions here this afternoon,
Senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's
official hearing record. And we request that the Department of
Justice's responses to those questions come back within 30
days, Madam Attorney General.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Loretta E. Lynch
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
stopping human trafficking and pedophiles
Question. What efforts is the Justice Department taking to stop
human and sex trafficking in the U.S.? What additional resources are
needed by Justice agencies to put traffickers out of business?
Answer. The Department aggressively prosecutes human trafficking
cases. The Department has worked with its community and law enforcement
partners to increase reporting and identification and to provide
services to stabilize and support victims, in order to both facilitate
victims' recovery and prosecute the offenders. Some cases are
prosecuted federally while others are referred to State or local
authorities for prosecution. In others, the case might result in the
defendant being convicted of a criminal offense other than trafficking.
The Department also collaborates closely with our interagency partners
on innovative anti-trafficking initiatives, including the Anti-
Trafficking Coordination Team (ACTeam) Initiative and the U.S.-Mexico
Bilateral Human Trafficking Enforcement Initiative. In addition, the
FBI leads or participates in 51 Human Trafficking Task Forces and 65
Human Trafficking Working Groups across the country.
The Department also continues to respond to dynamic threats
involving the commercial sexual exploitation of children, such as gang-
related child sex trafficking and the use of Web sites to facilitate
prostitution. The FBI's Violent Crimes Against Children Section (VCACS)
leads 71 Child Exploitation Task Forces across the country and partners
with 400 local, State, and Federal agencies in targeting those who
victimize children through commercial sex trafficking. The Department,
through the FBI, Civil Rights Division, Criminal Division, Office of
Justice Programs, and other components, has also provided training on
all forms of human trafficking to investigators, prosecutors, judges,
Federal employees, non-government organizations, and others throughout
the United States and in dozens of countries abroad.
In sum, the Department's trafficking programs continue to grow in
scope, complexity, and impact. The $2.8 million enhancement in the
fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Civil Rights Division would
allow the Department to further build on this momentum.
Question. What kind of connections are agencies like the FBI seeing
with gangs and human trafficking and sex trafficking?
Answer. Gang involvement in human trafficking and commercial sex
operations is another area in which the FBI can work to disrupt and
dismantle criminal organizations that use the exploitation of adults
and juveniles for profit. Historically, gangs had limited involvement
in human trafficking, but that level of involvement has increased due
to the potential for profit from these crimes and the perception of a
lower risk of detection and punishment.
The FBI works with other Federal, State, local, and tribal law
enforcement agencies and victim-based advocacy groups to target human
trafficking activity, including gangs that perpetrate the activity, and
to rescue the victims of these crimes. The National Gang Intelligence
Center and multiple law enforcement agency reports indicate that some
gangs derive their income through human trafficking of adults and
juveniles. Some gangs recruit, as well as exploit, affiliated female
gang members for sex trafficking. Prostitution and human trafficking
provide a significant source of income for a growing number of gangs.
Street gangs and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs have expanded their criminal
scope into commercial sex. Gangs involved in prostitution and human
trafficking employ control techniques, including: the use of drugs,
violence, sexual assault, rape, branding or tattooing, and manipulation
of victims to commit other crimes in furtherance of the gang. Similar
to traditional pimp-and-prostitute relationships, gang members provide
security, transport victims to dates, and schedule appointments.
combatting heroin
Question. In the fiscal year 2015 omnibus, we requested that the
Department of Justice convene a task force to come up with a
comprehensive Federal solution covering law enforcement, healthcare and
treatment, and prevention efforts. I was disappointed to hear that the
task force had not even convened at our law enforcement hearing in
March. What can you tell us about the status of the task force? Who is
participating?
Answer. DOJ continues to increase support for drug abuse education,
prevention, and treatment through partnerships with doctors, educators,
community leaders, and police officials. As directed by Congress, the
Department has joined with the Office of National Drug Control Policy
to convene an interagency Heroin Task Force to confront this challenge.
This Task Force is co-chaired by the U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Pennsylvania and the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Deputy Director for State, Local and Tribal Affairs. The Department,
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and more than 28 Federal
agencies and their components are actively participating on the Task
Force. As noted in more detail below, other participants include
medical community, enforcement, public health, and education experts.
The Task Force is taking an evidence-based approach to reducing the
public health and safety consequences caused by heroin and prescription
opioids. We expect the Task Force to submit its comprehensive Strategic
Plan to the President and Congress by the end of 2015.
The Task Force has convened three times as of July 28, 2015. Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates and the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Michael Botticelli, opened the first
meeting. DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention Director Thomas Frieden opened the second
meeting. Four committees have been established to develop solutions to
the heroin crisis. The committees include Prevention and Education, Law
Enforcement, Treatment and Recovery, and Coordinated Community
Response. The committees have met on multiple occasions to receive
evidence, evaluate the problem, and begin developing recommendations.
Participating agencies include: the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration,
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Criminal Division,
Community Oriented Policing Services, Drug Enforcement Administration,
Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, Food and Drug Administration, Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Health Resources and Services Administration, Office of HIV/
AIDS and Infectious Disease, Homeland Security Investigations, Justice
Management Division, National Institute of Justice, National Institute
of Drug Abuse, National Security Council, Office of the Deputy Attorney
General, Office of National AIDS Policy, Office of National Drug
Control Policy, Office of Urban Affairs, Justice and Opportunity,
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, Public Housing Support
Services, and the United States Attorney's Office.
Question. Will the subcommittee receive a complete and
comprehensive final report by December 2015?
Answer. The Task Force expects to complete and submit its full
report to the subcommittee by the end of 2015.
Question. This subcommittee added funding of $7 million in the COPS
Office for State and local enforcement combatting heroin in communities
across the United States. Why was this program eliminated in the
Justice Department's fiscal year 2016 budget request?
Answer. The Department of Justice and the administration have other
resources available through the Drug Enforcement Administration and
Office of National Drug Control Policy and, based on other budgetary
needs, did not request funding for the heroin program in fiscal year
2016. Additionally, the fiscal year 2015 funding provided will support
the task forces for 2 years.
body cameras
Question. Fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $30 million for
body cameras. The fiscal year 2015 budget had $20 million for body
cameras as a Byrne-JAG program. How many cameras are expected to be
purchased with each of these of amounts?
Answer. The Bureau of Justice Assistance plans to deploy over
11,000 cameras in fiscal year 2015 and over 15,000 cameras in fiscal
year 2016. This funding also creates a national service provider to
offer training and technical support to all agencies, thereby ensuring
federally and non-federally funded programs have the greatest chance at
success.
Question. What is the Department's cost estimate to put a body
camera on every police officer? What costs come with data storage?
Answer. The Bureau of Justice Assistance has worked to create a
per-camera, 2-year program cost of approximately $3,000. This funding
metric is used in the Body-Worn Camera Pilot Implementation Program
where the award maximum is $1,500 per camera to be deployed and is to
be matched with State and local funds. A 100-camera program maximum
award is $150,000 for a total 2-year program cost of $300,000.
Storage costs vary based on tangential considerations such as in-
house versus cloud, security requirements, bandwidth needs, retention
guidelines, scalability and redundancy. Current market trends for
hosted solutions range from $20 to $100 per month, per camera. Similar
scalable cost could be associated to in-house managed storage solutions
though the quality of tangential considerations will also vary.
Ongoing annual costs, primarily storage, are estimated at $150
million per year, an estimate that could be reduced with rapid
development of storage technologies and economies of scale.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that there are 477,000
sworn officers in America and that 65 percent of officers (310,000)
perform a patrol function. This can vary between police agencies and
sheriff's offices where the role of corrections is more prevalent.
Given these considerations, if every patrol officer needed to be issued
a new body camera, OJP estimates the total Federal cost to be $465
million, to be matched by State and local jurisdictions for a total 2
year program cost of $930 million. This is inclusive of policy
development, training, implementation and estimated storage costs.
Ongoing annual costs (year 3 and out) are estimated at $150 million per
year, an estimate that could be reduced with rapid development of
storage technologies and economies of scale.
Question. What are the privacy implications of body cameras? What
is the Justice Department doing to study and publish best practices on
body camera usage?
Answer. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) fiscal year 2015
body-worn camera solicitation requires agencies to perform an extensive
review of all identified aspects of the body-worn camera program,
including privacy considerations. BJA is also funding a national
training and technical assistance provider to support all law
enforcement agencies in policy development and implementation. This
national provider will work with Department components to further
develop policy, best practices, and research.
BJA has also developed the Web-based National Body-Worn Camera
Toolkit, which represents a broad collection of the topics pertinent to
developing and implementing body-worn camera programs, including
privacy issues. As a clearinghouse of reference material, policies,
lessons learned and other resources, this website received over 30,000
visits in its first month alone. Examples of the resources that are
already available through the toolkit are the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services 2014 Implementation Guide, the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law
Enforcement and the Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center review
of research on body-worn cameras. The Toolkit site also offers
multimedia testimony from active practitioners to provide valuable
insights into the efforts required to establish successful body-worn
camera programs.
NIJ is providing funding for two research projects currently being
conducted to examine the impact of body-worn cameras on policing.
--Researchers in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department are
currently examining the use of body-worn cameras by
approximately 400 police officers in Las Vegas, Nevada. Outcome
measures will include officer compliance with department
policies, changes in police-citizen behaviors, and decisions by
officers to use force in police-citizen encounters.
--Researchers are also evaluating body-worn cameras in the Los
Angeles Police Department to examine their impact on privacy
issues, police legitimacy and changes in police services, and
reductions in crime.
In fiscal year 2015, BJA transferred $1 million to BJS so it could
begin collecting data and generating statistics on this issue for a two
part multi-year project. Of those funds, $500,000 was used to fund a
2015 survey. The first body-worn camera survey will be conducted this
summer and fall (2015), in which BJS will survey local law enforcement
agencies about their use of body worn cameras. The survey will address
the following topics:
--When an agency obtained body-worn cameras;
--An estimate of the number of body-worn cameras in use;
--The level of deployment of body-worn cameras;
--Reasons for acquiring body-worn cameras (for those agencies that
have them);
--Reasons for not acquiring them (for those agencies that did not
acquire them);
--Collaboration with other entities in relation to body-worn cameras;
and
--Formal body-worn cameras policies related to:
--General operations (when to turn them on/off, recording
effectively, informing citizens);
--Transfer, storage, disposal of body-worn cameras video;
--Frequency of upload and off-loading video;
--Responding to external requests for video footage;
--Retention and disposal of body-worn cameras video; and
--Restrictions on internal/external access to body-worn cameras
video.
BJS expects to have results from this survey by the end of 2015/
early 2016.
The remaining $500,000 will support a second survey to be conducted
in 2017. By repeating the survey 2 years later, BJS will be able to
assess change in use and policies.
Body-worn cameras are intended to produce benefits to law
enforcement and the residents of the places they serve. Among the
potential benefits to law enforcement are improvements in evidence that
can be used to clear crimes and the lessening of conflict that could
result in officer or citizen injury or death. To study whether there is
a relationship between the adoption of body-worn cameras and clearance
rates or assaults (on officers or by officers), BJS will link its Law
Enforcement, Management & Administrative Statistics data with the FBI's
Uniform Crime Reports data on clearances by arrests, and the FBI's Law
Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted and data from its body-worn
cameras surveys to study the relationship between body-worn cameras and
these outcomes. As additional data on body-worn cameras become
available in future years, BJS would replicate this analysis with new
data.
crime data reporting
Question. How many States report National Incident-Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) data to the FBI?
Answer. The FBI has certified 33 State Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) Programs as NIBRS-certified. These 33 States are divided into two
groups:
--In the first group of 16 States, labeled ``complete reporting
States,'' all the State's law enforcement agencies that have an
associated population report NIBRS data to the State's NIBRS-
certified UCR program. Actual reporting rates by these agencies
vary over time.
--In the second group of 17 States, the State UCR program is
certified to report data to NIBRS, but not all of the State's
local law enforcement agencies submit incident-based data.
The remaining 17 States and the District of Columbia do not have a
NIBRS-certified component to their State-level UCR program. Fifteen of
the 17 States report only to the FBI's Summary Reporting System (SRS),
and two of the 17 have no State-level UCR program at all (Indiana and
Mississippi). https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2013/
resources/nibrs-participation-by-state.
While currently more than 6,500 local law enforcement agencies
participate in NIBRS, these agencies cover about 31 percent of the
resident population in the United States.
Question. What is the average annual IT operation and maintenance
cost for States to submit Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data to the FBI?
What is the estimated cost for a State to also submit NIBRS data to the
FBI?
Answer. BJS is not aware of any estimates for the costs for States
to submit UCR data. The costs vary by State based on their collection
and reporting levels as well as their population size. Each State also
pays for the costs in different ways.
While there are costs to the States, the majority of the costs
associated with collecting, coding, analyzing, and submitting NIBRS
data to UCR State programs fall to the local law enforcement agencies
that collect and submit their crime data to the State.
It is not necessary for each State to submit NIBRS data in order
for BJS to generate nationally representative incident-based data. BJS
and the FBI created the NCS-X program to recruit the scientifically
determined sample of 400 additional law enforcement agencies into NIBRS
which, combined with the currently participating NIBRS agencies' data,
will produce nationally representative crime estimates. Currently more
than 6,500 law enforcement agencies submit NIBRS data to the FBI, which
is approximately 40 percent of the Nation's law enforcement agencies.
When completed, nationally representative NIBRS data will increase our
Nation's ability to monitor, respond to, and prevent crime by allowing
NIBRS to produce timely, detailed, and accurate national measures of
crime incidents.
The costs for the States are small by comparison to the costs to
the local law enforcement agencies. Below is a chart outlining the
total estimated costs of $112 million for the NCS-X program:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Component Total Cost Deliverable/Outcome
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State UCR Program Support............... $11.4 million.............. Establishing new NIBRS-certified
reporting components in 17 States;
expanding capacity for receiving and
processing NIBRS data in 16 States.
Costs for States may range from less
than $100,000 to over $1 million
depending on their needs.
Training support for local agencies..... $11.0 million.............. Funding to support agency-specific
training on data entry, coding, and
quality assurance--cost per agency often
dependent on volume of incidents
handled, type of RMS data structure,
point of entry for data, and agency-
specific review processes.
Training on NIBRS....................... $4.0 million............... Funding to support the development of
NIBRS training, for use by both local
agencies and State UCR programs--this
training would build on training already
conducted by the FBI CJIS UCR staff, and
would include a Web-based component.
Support to the 400 local law enforcement $85.6 million.............. Conversion of the sample of 400 agencies
agencies in the NCS-X sample. to NIBRS reporting; generation of
nationally representative estimates of
crime based on the attributes of the
offenses It is possible that some funds
may be allocated for crime analysis
training needs as well as for Web tool
updates (e.g. with socio-economic data,
NIBRS, and other data). Costs for law
enforcement may also range from less
than $100,000 to over $1 million
depending on their needs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These costs were estimated based on information gathered from State
UCR programs, from the 400 sampled agencies via a survey about
reporting capacity conducted in 2014, and feedback from service
providers who implement and support record management systems for local
law enforcement agencies and State UCR programs.
The amount of hardware or software needed to support a local agency
in reporting incident-based data in the NIBRS format varies by agency
and across States, depending on the incident-based data structure
required by the State (if any), the volume of incidents handled by the
local agency, the type of record management systems and other databases
used by the agency, the point of entry for the data, and other agency-
specific factors.
Question. What is the Justice Department doing to get more State
and local law enforcement to report on data like officer related
shootings?
Answer. The Department of Justice's only current source of such
data is the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR), which:
--captures only voluntary reports by law enforcement of the deaths
they deem to be ``justifiable homicides.''
--does not capture arrest-related deaths attributed to suicide,
intoxication, accidents, or natural causes, or homicides that
were not deemed ``justifiable.''
--does not capture additional details about the incident, such as
actions taken by both the decedent and law enforcement during
the event that caused the death.
--reports data only annually with a 2-year lag.
--is prone to significant error because many agencies do not
volunteer to participate.
The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program recently received
approval from the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory
Policy Board (APB) to expand their current voluntary data collection to
include fatal and nonfatal officer-involved shootings. The current
collection of justifiable force by law enforcement is limited to
homicide, so this would represent an opportunity to provide a more
complete picture for the Nation. At present, the UCR Program is working
with representatives from the law enforcement community--including
major organizations such as the International Chiefs of Police,
National Sheriffs' Association, Major City Chiefs Association, Major
County Sheriffs' Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum--
to refine the definition and content of this collection.
The work with law enforcement representatives continues to focus on
opportunities to improve the amount of information available for
officer-involved shootings, as well as increase participation in the
existing data collection of justifiable homicide. This information is
vital to both law enforcement in order to inform policies and training
on use of force, and to the communities that they serve in order to
increase transparency and demonstrate the principle of procedural
justice.
BJS is undertaking methodological research to improve the
collection of data under its Arrest Related Deaths (ARD) Program,
through which it aims to capture data on all deaths in the process of
arrest and respond to the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act (Public Law
113-242) request for such data.
BJS collected data on deaths in the process of arrest under its ARD
program beginning in 2003 but temporarily suspended data collection in
2014 because BJS did not have the necessary resources to ensure the
accuracy and reliability of the data.\1\ At that time, BJS evaluated
the extent to which ARD and the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report
obtained data on all justifiable homicides and homicides by law
enforcement officers. In March 2015, BJS reported that both the ARD and
the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report were undercounting arrest-
related deaths by half of the expected number. The BJS reports can be
found at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ardpatr.pdf and http://
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ardpdqp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BJS was using approximately $250,000 per year to operate the
program during that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BJS has been testing new methodologies to improve the collection of
ARD data and will have results by early 2016. The methodologies involve
a combination of ``open source'' (such as Web searches, news accounts,
etc.) for cases of deaths to be investigated further and direct survey
of law enforcement agencies, medical examiners offices, and other
State-level offices that investigate officer related shootings, to
obtain data to confirm the facts surrounding a death. The methodology
also provides a basis for auditing the completeness of the records
submitted to BJS by law enforcement. BJS has started collecting data,
will evaluate the quality (coverage and accuracy) of the data it
collects, and use the results of this methodological research to
implement improvements to its ARD Program.
These new methodologies will be used to implement an ongoing,
continuous data collection that identifies and validates eligible cases
of arrest-related deaths and minimizes the number of such deaths that
are not reported to the program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
guantanamo bay detainees
Question. If Gitmo were closed, what is the administration's plan
for dealing with detainees who fit in this category?
Lead-in information from original document.--
The administration has said that there are 37 detainees held
at Guantanamo Bay who are in preventive detention because they
are too dangerous to release, but who will not be tried in a
military tribunal or an Article III court. The President's plan
to close Guantanamo Bay is unlikely to succeed without a plan
to deal with these detainees.
Answer. The closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility
remains a top administration priority and a national security
imperative. The facility's continued operation undermines our standing
in the world, damages our relationship with key allies and partners,
and emboldens violent extremists while at the same time draining
hundreds of millions of dollars each year that could be better spent on
other national security priorities. Accordingly, the administration is
currently finalizing a draft plan to close the Guantanamo Bay facility,
which will include addressing detainees who remain too dangerous to
transfer or release but who will not be tried. Those detainees will
remain eligible for review by the Periodic Review Board, which brings
together representatives from the Department of Defense, Department of
Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of State, Office
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence to examine whether, given current intelligence and other
information, continued detention remains necessary to protect against a
continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.
transfer of foreign detainees
Question. If the administration's plan is to transfer foreign
detainees in preventive detention to the United States, does the
administration believe it has sufficient legal authority to
indefinitely detain foreign nationals in the United States under the
law of war without jeopardizing the lawfulness of their detention?
Answer. Current statutory bars exist on the expenditure of funds
for purposes of detaining Guantanamo detainees in the United States. In
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, however, the Supreme Court held that the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 authorizes the
indefinite detention of enemy combatants in the United States, while
active hostilities under the AUMF continue. As periodically reported to
Congress consistently with the War Powers Resolution, the United States
is engaged in active hostilities under the AUMF in various countries.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
cell phones in prison
Question. In 2013, 2,916 contraband cell phones were recovered in
Bureau of Prisons facilities, including 1,083 recoveries from secured
facilities. What is the Department of Justice's (DOJ) strategy to
achieve a total communications blackout in Federal prisons to stop
incarcerated gang members from communicating with outside criminal
organizations? What resources are necessary to achieve such a blackout,
and what legal hurdles, if any, should Congress consider in addressing
this issue?
Answer. The financial resources necessary for DOJ to achieve such a
total communications blackout are significant. As of May 2015, BOP
conducted a cost estimate for implementing a cellphone detection
solution at a ``representative BOP facility.'' While no two sites are
exactly the same, there are three general location classifications for
testing: an institution in a rural location, an institution in a light
urban area, and finally, an institution in a metropolitan location.
Each context has its own unique set of challenges and concerns. By
grouping sites in this manner, and using Managed Access Systems (MAS)
as the technology solution, BOP can provide a gross estimate of the
required pre-deployment efforts to modify the facility infrastructure,
deploy system electronics, and sustain the capability with a focus on
efficacy, affordability, and maintainability. The current estimated
cost to implement a viable cell phone detection technology in these
three contexts ranges from $795,000 for a rural site to $3,080,000 for
a metropolitan site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Sites Surveys and Deployments..... $795,000-$1,795,000/Site
Light Urban Sites Surveys and $1,050,000-$2,050,000/Site
Deployments.
Metropolitan Sites Surveys and $2,080,000-$3,080,000/Site
Deployments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BOP emphasizes that any MAS solution should augment existing
sound correctional procedures and physical security technologies
already in operational daily use. There are 121 individual correctional
institutions in the Bureau of Prisons; a rough order of magnitude
estimate to deploy an enterprise-wide communications cellular device
blackout using a managed access solution would be at least $118 million
to $239 million or potentially more. It is important to note that it is
premature to provide a definitive estimate for the required funding
because an RFQ has not been completed and the technology continues to
evolve and improve.
The legal hurdles Congress should consider in addressing this issue
would be ensuring that legislative barriers to the implementation of
such technology do not exist. (For example, laws relating to cellphone
monitoring and interception should exclude prison environments.)
new technology to disrupt gang networks
Question. Computer programs like Palantir have been successful in
mapping terrorist networks in Afghanistan and human trafficking rings
in the United States. How do you plan to direct the Department to
incorporate new technology into its investigations to map, track and
disrupt criminal gang networks in the United States?
Answer. The Department of Justice utilizes a wide array of
technologies and techniques to disrupt criminal and gang networks
across the Nation, some of which cannot be disclosed in an open
setting. One technology that the FBI's Criminal Investigative
Division's Violent Crime and Gang Section (VCGS) and the Criminal
Intelligence Section (CIS) actively utilize are geospatial platforms to
map and plot the density of gang members, their affiliations and track
violent crime statistics.
Geospatial maps are further utilized to assist in interpreting
cellular data and geospatially plotting the movements of perpetrators
and victims of crime. New technologies are also being explored to
assist our task forces in exploiting all avenues of criminal behavior,
including social media, which is utilized by gangs for recruitment and
communication purposes.
Specific advances in technology have been made to enhance
surveillance activities by rapidly acquiring GPS and pertinent
telephonic information, pen register data, and directly feeding this
data to operational field surveillance agents to track and disrupt gang
activity. The FBI will continue to explore all avenues, including the
acquisition of new technologies, to assist efforts to combat the gang
threat.
combatting gangs
Question. Numerous neighborhoods in Chicago, including the Kenwood
and Pullman areas, have been economically stifled by the presence of
gangs like the Gangster Disciples. How will you lead the DOJ effort to
remove gangs of national significance from these communities?
Answer. The Department is committed to rooting out criminal
organizations, including gangs like the Gangster Disciples, from
communities that have suffered at their hands, whether through
violence, intimidation, addiction, or economic depression. United
States Attorneys' Offices around the country work with the Criminal
Division's Organized Crime & Gang Section (OCGS) prosecutors who bring
specialized knowledge about both the targeted criminal enterprises and
a toolbox of laws, tactics, and strategies to dismantle the most
nefarious gangs in the United States. These prosecutors have brought
sweeping RICO indictments and successful prosecutions against gangs
across the country, including MS-13, Latin Kings, Imperial Gangsters,
Aryan Brotherhood and others.
The U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Northern District of
Illinois is similarly experienced and committed to using all available
tools and strategies to eradicate gang violence. The USAO recently
created a Violent Crimes section, comprised of prosecutors dedicated to
the sole mission of combatting violent crime in the District. The USAO
is working closely with State and local prosecutors and law enforcement
agencies, including the Cook County State's Attorney and Chicago Police
Department, to ensure a coordinated approach to target gang violence,
including through its Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force
strike force. Recently, the USAO charged the patriarch of a Gangster
Disciples faction and 34 other defendants who allegedly sold heroin and
crack cocaine on Chicago's west side. The USAO has also brought a
racketeering conspiracy prosecution that alleges murders, attempted
murders, solicitation to commit murder, robberies and the operation of
a drug trafficking organization against nine members of the Hobos
Street Gang, a tight-knit, violent crew who banded together from
factions of the Gangster Disciples and Black Disciples street gangs.
Moreover, the USAO has obtained strong sentences against high ranking
gang leaders in Chicago including: in April 2015, against a high-
ranking Black Disciples leader sentenced to 15 years in prison; in
September 2014, against a high-ranking Traveling Vice Lords leader
sentenced to 35 years in prison; and in 2012, against the highest-
ranking leader nationwide of the Latin Kings sentenced to 60 years in
prison, the statutory maximum, after being convicted at trial under
RICO and other charges. The Department will continue its efforts to
stem violence in Chicago and elsewhere through such vigorous
prosecutions using all the tools at our disposal.
The Violence Reduction Network (VRN) has been working with the City
of Chicago extensively since the VRN was launched in September 2014 by
former Attorney General Eric Holder. The VRN is a partnership across
the Department of Justice that seeks to leverage programmatic and
Federal law enforcement training and technical assistance resources to
support cities with sustained high rates of violence.
Although the City of Chicago has not requested assistance with gang
intervention or prevention, we are available to assist. The VRN can
support advanced gang training for the Chicago Police Department. We
can work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Gang
Intelligence Center (NGIC) to provide gang training on investigative
and prosecution strategies to include creation of a regional gang
threat assessment that would describe the gangs that are active in
Chicago, their behaviors, size, organization structure, etc. FBI is a
critical partner in VRN efforts to enhance public safety in our sites.
monitoring social media for threats
Question. Recently, social media accounts claiming to be associated
with the terror group ISIS posted threats against targeted locations in
Chicago, including the Old Republic Building on North Michigan Avenue.
Will you direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation to hire more
Arabic-speaking investigators to effectively monitor social media for
threats against U.S. cities?
Answer. In an effort to address the Arabic language needs of the
FBI, the Bureau's Foreign Language Program pursues a number of
initiatives to recruit from ethnic Arabic and heritage speaker
communities. The FBI continues to provide training for special agents
in Arabic, and has recently renewed an incentive program for foreign
language use to develop in-house capacity.
Additional information is classified. The Department will work with
the subcommittee to ensure that a response is provided in an
appropriate manner.
shutting down human trafficking web sites
Question. Online classified Web sites like backpage.com continue to
facilitate prostitution and human trafficking. How will the Department
of Justice shut down these Web sites and prosecute individuals that
aide and abet sex traffickers?
Answer. The Department shares Congress' grave concerns about the
role of Web sites in the commercial sexual exploitation of minors. The
Department has vigorously pursued sex traffickers, including those who
use the Internet to illegally exploit minors, and thoroughly
investigates Web sites that may be aiding and abetting child sex
trafficking.
As a general matter, any prosecution of an online classified Web
site operator specifically for advertising child sex trafficking would
require the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Web
site operators actually knew that a particular advertisement that they
accepted offered sex with a child. Sufficient evidence of a crime
against children is not indicated, however, where an advertisement on
its face is for a legal service offered by someone who appears to be an
adult.
Where evidence of criminality exists, the Department will
aggressively investigate and prosecute using all appropriate statutes.
The recent prosecution of the owner and operator of myRedBook.com and
sfRedBook.com exemplifies the Department's determination in this
regard. In June 2014, the FBI seized the Web sites. Eric Omuro, the
owner of the sites, and one of his employees were arrested. Both
pleaded guilty to using a facility of interstate commerce with the
intent to facilitate prostitution. On May 21, 2015, Omuro was sentenced
to 13 months in prison. As part of his plea agreement, Omuro agreed to
forfeit more than $1.28 million in cash and property as well as the
sfRedBook.com and myRedBook.com domain names.
While the myRedbook.com Web site purported to provide legal
services such as ``Escort, Massage, and Strip Club Reviews,'' the
evidence showed that it was used to host advertisements for
prostitutes, complete with explicit photos, menus of sexual services,
hourly and nightly rates, and customer reviews of sex workers'
services. Evidence demonstrated that the Web site defined acronyms for
sex acts in graphic detail in a ``Terms and Acronyms'' section and
provided a section to review and rate prostitution services, offering
special access to the reviews for a fee. If a customer purchased a
membership with myRedbook, they received benefits such as early and
enhanced access to sex worker reviews, enhanced sex worker review
search options, and access to additional VIP forums, among other
things. According to an affidavit submitted in connection with the
sentencing hearing, the FBI identified more than 50 juveniles who were
also advertised on myRedBook for the purpose of prostitution.
Furthermore, despite being contacted by the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children (NCMEC) in 2010, myRedBook never registered to
participate in the center's CyberTipline, which receives leads and tips
regarding suspected crimes of sexual exploitation committed against
children, and never communicated with NCMEC.
The prosecution of the operators of myRedbook.com and the
shuttering of the Web site demonstrate that the Department will pursue
viable prosecutions using existing legal tools, when the elements of
the statutes have been met and can be proven in court beyond a
reasonable doubt.
using innovative technology to combat human trafficking
Question. How is the DOJ incorporating the use of new innovative
technologies in its strategy to combat human trafficking? How will the
Department partner with local law enforcement to deploy these types of
technologies and ensure their use?
Lead-in information from original document.--
It is critical that local law enforcement agencies be
equipped with the latest innovative technologies to combat
trafficking and rescue victims. The Web-based software called
Memex, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) and recently used in New York City, is
one such example.
Answer. Through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)-funded Human
Trafficking Advanced Investigators training, human trafficking
investigators are exposed to a variety of technological tools and
resources that can be used in their efforts to combat human
trafficking. Human Trafficking Law Enforcement Task Force grantees are
permitted to purchase investigative tools and technology with grant
funds and use grant funds to attend trainings on the use of such
investigative tools. BJA will ensure that the new Human Trafficking Law
Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance provider (being funded
with fiscal year 2015 funds) promotes the use of Web-based software for
human trafficking investigative purposes in the technical assistance
provided to task forces.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
funds the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program.
The 61 ICAC task forces focus on all forms of technology-facilitated
crimes against children, including child sex trafficking. Through its
regularly scheduled meetings with the ICAC task forces (generally three
times a year), OJJDP demonstrates promising investigative tools that
each task force can deploy within their own jurisdictions. For example,
last fall OJJDP brought in Emily Kennedy (Carnegie Mellon University)
to provide a demonstration on her tool ``Traffic Jam'' (funded in part
by DARPA) which mines the deep Web and helps law enforcement identify
offenders and rescue victims. OJJDP will continue to ensure that its
ICAC task forces are exposed to promising tools and resources that can
assist them in their efforts to protect children from online
exploitation.
The FBI leads 71 Child Exploitation Task Forces and is associated
with over 100 human trafficking task forces and working groups. These
task forces and working groups, and vetted technologies, are available
to address various forms of human trafficking. In an effort to support
law enforcement entities throughout the country, the FBI is currently
engaged in a process to enhance the Innocence Lost Database (ILD) to
automate the analysis of various governmental, non-governmental, and
open source data sets in an effort to identify enterprises responsible
for the commercial sex trafficking of children. Additionally, the ILD
project will incorporate biometric capabilities to more efficiently and
effectively identify and recover child victims. In regards to the Memex
Project, DARPA has sponsored this initiative in an effort to develop
capabilities which identify online indicators of human trafficking.
Understanding that technical needs vary from agency to agency, DARPA
has designed the Memex Project so that agencies can utilize the
independent technical solutions developed by the Memex Project team.
The FBI collaborates with the Memex Project team to share best
practices associated with this sophisticated technical development.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
citizen safety
Question. Please explain how you plan to provide our citizens with
adequate security when the Department is seemingly focused on
implementing our President's unconstitutional immigration directive?
Lead-in information from original document.--
Your prepared remarks state that your top two priorities are
``the safety of our citizens and our national security.'' In
looking at the overall budget request, it's obvious that the
Department's priority is immigration, with a 40 percent
increase from fiscal year 2015. In comparison, your lowest
request for fiscal year 2016, is a 1 percent increase for law
enforcement components such as investigating violent crime,
trafficking of firearms, international drug trafficking
organizations, piracy of intellectual property, and healthcare
fraud.
Answer. While the fiscal year 2016 president's budget does include
a 38.8 percent increase for the Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR), this is predominantly to address the current caseload pending
before the immigration courts, which ended fiscal year 2015 with just
over 456,500 pending cases. These requested additional resources for
EOIR are not tied to the President's immigration executive action from
November 2014. The additional funding requested for EOIR in fiscal year
2016 is critical to moving the current caseload through the immigration
courts in a timely and efficient manner.
Furthermore, the Department's 2016 request for immigration-related
activities is 8.6 percent below the fiscal year 2015 enacted level due
to significant decreases to the Bureau of Prisons and the Office of
Justice Programs. The President's 2016 budget proposes only slight to
moderate increases for immigration activities for Civil Division,
Criminal Division, U.S. Marshals Service and Federal Prisoner
Detention, and no increase for the U.S. Attorneys for immigration
activities.
The Department of Justice's fiscal year 2016 budget request does
continue to prioritize resources for national security and cyber
security, with increases of $106.8 million to develop the Department's
capacity in a number of critical areas including: countering violent
extremism and domestic radicalization; counterterrorism; cybersecurity,
both domestic and abroad; information sharing and collaboration with
the Intelligence Community; and training and technical assistance for
our foreign partners. In addition, enhancements of $23 million will
support the Drug Enforcement Administration's efforts to combat illicit
drugs like heroin and other emerging drug trends. Additional violent
crime initiatives that tackle gang violence, crimes against children,
and promote gun safety also see increases over fiscal year 2015 enacted
levels.
violence reduction network sites
Question. Is this a program you plan to continue to offer and
support? If so, what will you do within the U.S. Attorney's Office to
compliment the work of the local and Federal agencies there?
Lead-in information from original document.--
As a response to the violent crime in Little Rock and West
Memphis, Arkansas, I understand that both are being considered
as VRN (Violence Reduction Network) sites, however, I do not
see any funding going to the VRN program.
Answer. Launched in 2014, the Violence Reduction Network (VRN)
Initiative synthesizes existing resources from across Department of
Justice (DOJ) law enforcement agencies (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA);
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); United States Marshals Service
(USMS)); and grant program offices (Office of Justice Programs (OJP),
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and Office on
Violence Against Women (OVW)), with subject-matter expertise from the
criminal justice, local government, advocacy, and academic communities;
lessons learned from evidence-based violence reduction initiatives; and
key data from organizations representing other disciplines, increasing
the capacity of local communities to implement data-driven solutions to
increase public safety. In addition, the United States Attorneys'
Offices are critical partners in the VRN.
The organization and structure of the VRN sites are designed to
convene Federal, State, and local law enforcement and key stakeholders
in the selected sites around the issue of violence reduction and
includes the following:
--United States Attorneys' Offices and local law enforcement
leadership serve as the local points of contact and coordinate
activities and services for the VRN sites.
--A Strategic Site Liaison (SSL) works with each site to coordinate
project services and support enhancement of the site's violence
reduction efforts (paid with OJP's training and technical
assistance funds).
--A DOJ Program Office Champion from OJP, COPS, or OVW serves as the
point of contact for the site to effectively navigate access to
DOJ programmatic resources.
--A DOJ Law Enforcement Champion from ATF, DEA, FBI, or USMS serves
as the point of contact for the site to effectively navigate
access to DOJ law enforcement resources.
--A VRN Analyst, provided by BJA's training and technical assistance
(TTA) provider, supports the site's violence reduction efforts
(paid with OJP's training and technical assistance funds).
--DOJ law enforcement agencies (ATF, DEA, FBI, USMS) support local
violence reduction efforts through their field offices.
Camden, New Jersey, Chicago, Illinois, Detroit, Michigan, Oakland/
Richmond, California, and Wilmington, Delaware were the first cities
selected to participate in the VRN. In fiscal year 2015, five
additional cities were selected to join the VRN, including Little Rock
and West Memphis. OJP is working closely with the U.S. Attorneys to
discuss the VRN and how it can leverage Federal resources to support
Little Rock and West Memphis's efforts to address violent crime.
Although the VRN does not provide direct funding to participating
sites, the resources and expertise dedicated to selected communities
through this partnership opportunity are substantial. Within the past 6
months, and with the 10 current VRN sites, VRN has successfully
delivered on (or is currently coordinating) over 118 resource and
training and technical assistance requests; reaching 722 individuals
representing over 5,585 training hours.
The VRN complements DOJ's Smart on Crime Initiative. The VRN
leverages lessons learned and the vast array of existing resources
across DOJ law enforcement and grant-making agencies to deliver
strategic, intensive, training and technical assistance in an ``all-
hands'' approach to reduce violence in select cities. Sites identified
as candidates for the VRN are cities that have experienced precipitous
increases in violent crime and have violent crime rates that exceed the
national average. They also represent jurisdictions in different
geographic regions with distinctive characteristics, such as multiple
Federal initiatives or a unique law enforcement structure. DOJ makes a
2-year commitment to cities selected to join the VRN.
Over the next 2 years, the goal of VRN is to deliver the following
to the VRN sites:
--Resources, training, and technical assistance targeted to the
sites' most urgent needs.
--A comprehensive and collective understanding of drivers of violent
crime within a jurisdiction.
--An in-depth review of technical, legal, and policy-based obstacles
to improve information sharing.
--Performance metrics and a sustainability plan to measure success
and ensure continued progress through improved operational
strategies, training, and policy enhancement.
--A committed focus at the Federal, State, and local levels on the
identification of violent offenders and an all-hands approach
towards holding them accountable through evidence-based
practices and constitutionally based policing.
--A national community of practice around violence reduction.
--A training and technical assistance delivery model for violence
reduction to cities across the Nation.
drug addiction
Question. What are your enforcement and treatment strategies, such
as drug diversion programs, for the growing epidemic of heroin abuse,
and do you plan to accomplish these through the 1 percent funding
increase you have requested?
Lead-in information from original document.--
Not only in Arkansas, but throughout the Nation, we are
seeing a very dangerous addiction become a growing epidemic.
This country is now dealing with individuals, from all walks of
life and economic groups, who are turning to heroin and other
opiates to feed their addiction that was often initiated from
an addiction to prescription medicine. Many statistics I have
seen discuss the doubling or tripling of heroin users over the
past couple years.
Answer. We share the Committee's concerns about the serious threat
to our communities posed by prescription drug abuse, addiction, and
diversion. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget includes over $8.2
billion for the Department's drug enforcement, prosecution, diversion
and treatment efforts, a 5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2015
enacted level. The budget supports a strong response to the uptick in
heroin abuse and other emerging drug trends, including additional
resources for the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) deconfliction
and information sharing to attack the full range of drug trafficking
threats. The Department's request also provides increases to thwart
international drug trafficking organizations, and supports drug abuse
education, prevention, and treatment.
The rise of heroin use and abuse of prescription opioids in the
United States are some of the biggest challenges to public health and
safety that we are currently facing. With DEA as the lead, and
implemented in part through/in conjunction with the Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) National Heroin Initiative, DOJ
is working to dismantle the heroin supply chain and prevent the
diversion of controlled substances. The uptick in heroin use and
overdose coincides with the rise of prescription drug abuse.
Law enforcement plays a significant role in combatting the Nation's
heroin problem. Heroin availability in the United States has steadily
increased over the last few years as Mexican Drug Trafficking
Organizations (DTO) have increased their production and trafficking of
heroin to the United States. The Southwest Border (SWB) remains a
particular concern as it is the most trafficked region in the United
States. Based on the 2014 National Drug Threat Assessment, seizures at
the SWB are up 160 percent from 2009 to 2013. DEA estimates that South
America and Mexico accounted for approximately 96 percent of the heroin
in the United States in 2012. DEA also estimates that Mexico's share
has been steadily increasing from under 5 percent in 2003 to about 45
percent in 2012.
DEA has opened more than 7,300 Domestic and Foreign investigations
related to heroin since 2009. The number of heroin cases opened in
fiscal year 2014 accounted for over 13 percent of all cases over that
same timeframe. Heroin cases have increased 141 percent from fiscal
year 2007 to fiscal year 2014, and 30 percent from fiscal year 2013 to
fiscal year 2014. Heroin arrests accounted for more than 16 percent of
all DEA arrests in fiscal year 2014, ranking third behind cocaine and
methamphetamine. Heroin arrests have increased 96 percent from fiscal
year 2007, and increased 15 percent from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal
year 2014. fiscal year 2014 was the first year heroin arrests surpassed
marijuana arrests.
OCDETF data, which includes many DEA investigations but also
investigations led by other Federal law enforcement agencies such as
ATF and FBI, also shows an increasing trend of investigations involving
heroin, which has recently been on the rise quarterly, and a similar
trend in indictments with heroin charges annually. OCDETF
investigations involving heroin increased by approximately 20 percent
from the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013 to the third quarter of
fiscal year 2015, rising from 1,211 to 1,440. At the end of fiscal year
2010, 10 percent of OCDETF indictments contained heroin charges, as
compared with 15 percent at the end of fiscal year 2015. Currently,
16--or 40 percent--of the Consolidated Priority Organization Targets,
the highest level targets in interagency drug enforcement, are involved
in heroin trafficking. To combat this serious nationwide threat, OCDETF
has adjusted its resources to target these investigations in an attempt
to reduce the supply.
In addition to supporting the large volume of traditional OCDETF
cases focusing on disrupting and dismantling high-level criminal
networks responsible for distribution of heroin in the United States,
in fiscal year 2015 OCDETF developed a new national initiative designed
to combat the rise in heroin overdoses and deaths in a new way. The
OCDETF National Heroin Initiative has two major components: (1)
national coordination of, and information sharing in, heroin
investigations and prosecutions; and (2) a funding mechanism to support
local and regional ``outside-the-box'' initiatives designed to fill in
existing gaps in the development of significant heroin cases.
OCDETF is uniquely situated through its coalition of U.S.
Attorneys, Federal agencies, and State and local task force partners to
actively engage in the fight against the heroin and opioid epidemics
through promoting the goals of collaboration, communication, and
interdependent, real-time reporting of cooperation and progress in its
ranks. Toward that end, OCDETF worked with the United States Attorney
community to designate and fund a full-time Assistant United States
Attorney with current expertise in heroin investigations and
prosecutions to act as OCDETF's National Heroin Coordinator, detailed
to the OCDETF Executive Office since May 17, 2015. Since the
appointment of the National Heroin Coordinator, nationwide coordination
efforts include:
--Sixteen strategic initiatives have been approved for districts and
regions under acute attack from the heroin and opioid
epidemics, including Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, St. Louis,
Northern Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The OCDETF National Heroin Coordinator works with the funded
districts and regions to ensure real-time information sharing,
efficient and effective use of resources, and collaboration
amongst nontraditional partners, such as State medical
examiners, coroners and State health departments.
--Each of the 93 U.S. Attorneys and the regional offices of OCDETF's
Federal components have designated points of contact for all
heroin and opioid issues.
--OCDETF's National Heroin Coordinator has met with top officials in
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of National
Intelligence/Information Sharing Environments, Executive Staff
of the DEA, the DEA Research Laboratory, and the OCDETF Fusion
Center to discuss potential joint efforts against the heroin
and opioid threats to the Nation.
--Collaboration is ongoing with Federal Bureau of Investigation
regarding emerging heroin threats.
--The OCDETF Heroin Coordinator has attended or will attend Heroin/
Opioid Summits in Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other
States as invited, as well as impacted areas where best
practices are being employed in the heroin fight, such as
Minneapolis and Boston, so those practices can be memorialized
and disseminated for use by law enforcement and prosecutors in
the fight against heroin and opioid use and abuse.
--The Coordinator has engaged in extensive briefings with the leaders
of New Jersey's cutting edge Drug Monitoring Initiative (DMI)
to explore replication of the DMI program in a national level.
--OCDETF will host a national conference in November of 2015 for all
U.S. Attorney and Federal agency heroin/opioid points of
contact. The conference, entitled ``No Boundaries--United in
the Fight'' will bring stakeholders together for education,
sharing of successes and challenges, and exploration of
enhanced, proactive best practices in the fight against the
heroin and opioid epidemics. Additionally, OCDETF and DEA are
working closely to support similar efforts going forward.
As a direct result, local and regional efforts are enhanced by the
influx of new ideas and approaches to the common challenges.
To enhance the work already being performed in the field and by the
OCDETF National Heroin Coordinator, OCDETF has also dedicated a limited
amount of operational funds to support the OCDETF National Heroin
Initiative. This funding does not replace or supplement OCDETF's
existing base funding that already supports OCDETF-level multi-agency,
multi-jurisdictional cases targeting prescription drug abuse or heroin.
Rather, OCDETF's National Heroin Initiative provides small amounts of
operational ``seed money'' to help law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors work collaboratively to fill existing gaps in intelligence,
enforcement activities, and prosecutions that currently hinder the
development of single-instance heroin overdose investigations into
multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional cases against the criminal
organizations with the most impact on our communities. This funding is
intended to assist the agencies and prosecution offices with
extraordinary expenses that cannot otherwise be funded within currently
available resources.
Internationally, DEA's Sensitive Investigative Unit (SIU) program
partners with host nations to combat illegal drug trafficking at the
source. SIUs comprise groups of host nation investigators that are
polygraphed, trained, equipped, and guided by DEA. DEA manages 13 SIUs
including programs in Mexico and Colombia, countries with strong links
to the U.S. heroin trade.
DEA's Diversion Control Program (DCP) prevents, detects, and
investigates the diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances and
listed chemicals from legitimate channels using criminal, civil, and
regulatory tools to identify, target, disrupt, and dismantle
individuals and organizations responsible for the diversion and illegal
distribution of pharmaceutical controlled substances. The DEA believes
the increased heroin use is driven by many factors, including an
increase in the misuse and abuse of prescription psychotherapeutic
drugs, specifically opioids. Part of the DCP's mission is to identify
and minimize the diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substance, such
as opioids, and Tactical Diversion Squads (TDSs) are one method DEA
employs to combat this. DEA's TDSs incorporate the enforcement,
investigative, and regulatory skills sets of DEA Special Agents,
Diversion Investigators, other Federal law enforcement, and State and
local Task Force Officers. As such, the TDSs are DEA's primary method
of criminal law enforcement in the DCP. The expansion to 66 operational
TDS's in the U.S. has enabled DEA's Diversion Groups to concentrate on
the regulatory aspects of the Diversion Control Program. Further, in
order to target the most likely offenders of diversion, the DCP has
increased the frequency of scheduled investigations registrants in
selected business activities.
The Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP)
monitor prescription drug sales and also play an important role in
identifying doctor shopping and diversion, particularly at the retail
level where no other automated information collection system exists.
How PDMPs are organized and operated varies among States. Each State
determines which agency houses the PDMP; which controlled substances
must be reported; which types of dispensers are required to submit data
(e.g., pharmacies); how often data are collected; who may access
information in the PDMP database (e.g., prescribers, dispensers, or law
enforcement); the circumstances under which the information may (or
must) be accessed; and what enforcement mechanisms are in place for
noncompliance.
DOJ supports more than 2,900 specialty courts that connect over
142,000 people convicted of drug-related offenses with the services
they need to avoid future drug use and rejoin their communities. These
courts include adult drug courts, veterans' treatment courts, DWI
courts and others. DOJ provides financial support, training, and
technical assistance to many of these courts annually. DOJ is also
urging first responders to carry naloxone, a drug which restores
breathing during a heroin or opioid overdose. The Department has
created an online tool kit to assist these efforts.
DOJ continues to increase support for drug abuse education,
prevention, and treatment through partnerships with doctors, educators,
community leaders, and police officials. As directed by Congress, the
Department has joined with the Office of National Drug Control Policy
to convene an interagency Heroin Task Force to confront this challenge.
This Task Force is co-chaired by the U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Pennsylvania and the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Deputy Director for State, Local and Tribal Affairs. The Department,
DEA, and more than 28 Federal agencies and their components are
actively participating on the Task Force. Other participants include
medical community, enforcement, public health, and education experts.
The Task Force is taking an evidence-based approach to reducing the
public health and safety consequences caused by heroin and prescription
opioids. We expect the Task Force to submit its comprehensive Strategic
Plan to the President and Congress by the end of 2015.
The fiscal year 2016 President's budget would allow DEA to maintain
and enhance valuable drug enforcement tools. The request includes
funding to expand DEA's case management and deconfliction systems and
enhance the IT infrastructure at the El Paso Intelligence Center
(EPIC). EPIC's primary mission is to support the law enforcement
community through improved information sharing. EPIC funding will
provide Federal, State, local, tribal, and international law
enforcement agencies with faster responses and improved access to
investigative tools. At the request of State and local partners, DEA
has instituted a Community of Interest site on the EPIC Web portal
specifically for the exchange of information related to heroin. The
fiscal year 2016 President's budget supports the creation of a new
financial investigation unit as part of DEA's Bilateral Investigation
Units at the Special Operations Division to enhance DEA's efforts in
targeting the financial networks of foreign-based drug traffickers. In
addition, the fiscal year 2016 President's budget requests funding to
sustain and further develop the capacity and capabilities of existing
SIUs. This funding will support training, vetting, program
coordination, judicial wire intercept systems and other IT-related
requirements. The fiscal year 2016 budget also includes increases for
grants to help State and local governments develop residential
substance abuse treatment programs and maintain community-based
aftercare services for offenders.
cyber security
Question. How does the department plan to utilize the requested
$106.8 million increase to handle our Nation's cyber security breaches,
especially the cyber hacking led by ISIS?
Answer. The response to this question entails classified
information. The Department will work with the subcommittee to answer
this question in an appropriate manner.
assets forfeiture fund
Question. Can you please explain whether you believe the Civil
Asset Forfeiture program needs to be reformed, and if so, how? Can you
also put Civil Asset Forfeiture into perspective for me, by telling me
how many seizures are legitimate and how many are not? How many
individuals have made claims for their property in comparison to how
many have not, and would that help to indicate how many people are
actual ``victims'' of this program?
Lead-in information from original document.--
I would like to talk about Civil Asset Forfeiture for a
minute. I hear that civil asset forfeiture is a slush fund for
law enforcement and that innocent individuals are being robbed
of their property and money. I also hear that the funds augment
law enforcement agencies discretionary budgets to further
target criminal activity. I would like to see some hard figures
on this issue so we may better determine how to move forward.
Answer. Asset forfeiture is a critical legal tool that serves a
number of compelling law enforcement purposes. The Department is
committed to ensuring that asset forfeiture laws are used appropriately
and effectively to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes,
break the financial backbone of organized crime syndicates and drug
cartels, and to recover stolen property that may be used to compensate
victims and deter crime.
Civil forfeiture is often the only mechanism by which the
Government can take criminally tainted assets out of circulation
because criminals often go to great lengths to insulate themselves from
the proceeds and instrumentalities of their criminal acts--including by
giving those assets for safekeeping to individuals who knowingly accept
and retain the criminally tainted property, even though they did not
engage in the criminal activity themselves. Civil asset forfeiture is
the only avenue to recover proceeds of crime if the criminal is dead, a
fugitive, or where stolen artifacts are recovered but no defendant can
be identified.
Not only does asset forfeiture deprive criminals of their illicit
proceeds, it also enables the Government to compensate victims of
crime. In fact, since 2000, the Department has returned over $4 billion
in assets to the victims of crime through asset forfeiture, of which
$1.87 billion was recovered civilly. In addition, the Department
expects to distribute approximately $4 billion in civilly forfeited
assets associated with the Madoff fraud scheme. At that point, victim
compensation from forfeited funds will far exceed the nearly $5.4
billion of forfeited funds that have been reinvested in law enforcement
to fight crime as part of the Equitable Sharing program.
Federal law authorizes the Department to share federally forfeited
property with participating State and local law enforcement agencies
through a program known as Equitable Sharing. The Equitable Sharing
Program was created by Congress, in part to strengthen law enforcement
by fostering cooperation among Federal, State and local law enforcement
agencies. Once a forfeiture is successfully completed, the Federal
Government disposes of the assets and then pays expenses and provides
for any applicable victim compensation in a case. Only after these
expenses and victim payments are deducted, if there are any remaining
proceeds, are funds available for equitable sharing with State and
local law enforcement agencies that participated in the underlying law
enforcement action that led to the seizure or forfeiture of the asset.
The Department has many procedures in place and a host of prohibitions
on how equitable sharing funds may be used to ensure that they
supplement but do not supplant the funds allocated to law enforcement
agencies by State and local governments.
That said, the Department takes seriously the concerns raised about
civil asset forfeiture and has responded with significant, carefully-
considered reforms including the prohibition on adoptions (which occur
when a State or local law enforcement agency seizes property pursuant
to State law and requests that a Federal agency take the seized asset
and forfeit it under Federal law) and restrictions on the seizure of
structured funds. We are continuing a comprehensive review of the
entire asset forfeiture program in order to improve and strengthen it,
while preserving the rule of law and the rights of property owners.
Question. Can you also put Civil Asset Forfeiture into perspective
for me, by telling me how many seizures are legitimate and how many are
not?
Answer. Assets can only be seized by the Government either pursuant
to the seizure warrant issued by a judge, or pursuant to an exception
to the warrant requirement. In either instance, however, the law
requires that there be probable cause linking the asset directly to
criminal activity. The probable cause requirement is a core tenet of
our legal system and is the very same standard of proof required to
place an individual under arrest. The forfeiture process does not allow
for the seizure of property in the absence of probable cause.
Question. How many individuals have made claims for their property
in comparison to how many have not, and would that help to indicate how
many people are actual ``victims'' of this program? I would like to see
some hard figures on this issue so we may better determine how to move
forward.
Answer. Civil asset forfeiture is used to recover the ill-gotten
proceeds of crime and, in many instances, returning the forfeited funds
to victims of crime who have suffered financial losses at the hands of
criminals. In the forfeiture process, it is essential that we protect
the due process rights of innocent individuals. Recognizing this,
Congress put safeguards in place to protect innocent property owners
when it passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA). These
protections are essential to preserve the integrity of the Asset
Forfeiture Program and to ensure that individual due process rights are
preserved and protected. Even where the Government has borne its burden
of proving that property is linked directly to crime, CAFRA allows a
property owner to defeat a forfeiture if they can show they are an
innocent owner. In such cases, the Government must return the seized
assets to the innocent owner, who may also be entitled to attorney's
fees.
In the past decade, 1,952 claims have been filed in connection with
48,927 (approximately four percent) assets seized for administrative or
civil forfeiture. Of those 1,952 claims, 878 of those assets
(approximately 45 percent) have been returned either to the owner or
another claimant with a property interest in the asset, such as a
lienholder.
ammunition ban
Question. As the new Attorney General, will you revive this
ammunition ban, or attempt to implement any other ammunition ban?
Lead-in information from original document.--
On February 13, 2015, the ATF released a framework on how
they proposed to apply the ``Sporting purposes'' test to exempt
ammunition that they state, qualifies as armor piercing.
Although through this proposed framework, ATF would have
reversed an exemption that was granted 29 years ago for target
shooting ammunition that is popular for use in modern sporting
rifles. After public outrage and multiple letters from
Congress, ATF withdrew the framework.
Answer. Congress enacted the prohibition on armor piercing
ammunition in the Law Enforcement Officer's Protection Act of 1986
(LEOPA). LEOPA provides that all ammunition containing certain
specified metals that may be fired from a handgun is defined to be
``armor piercing'' and prohibits the manufacture and sale of all such
ammunition. The statute further provides, however, that the Attorney
General may exempt particular rounds of ammunition that otherwise meet
the statutory definition of ``armor piercing'' upon a determination
that the round at issue is ``primarily intended for sporting
purposes.'' The authority to make exemption determinations has been
delegated to ATF.
ATF drafted the proposed framework in response to a large influx of
new ``sporting purpose'' exemption requests and was designed to provide
industry and the public with clear, objective guidance on the criteria
ATF would apply to those requests. In crafting the criteria for the
proposed framework, ATF's foremost obligation was to ensure that those
criteria were consistent with the primary objective of LEOPA--the
protection of law enforcement from the threat posed by ammunition used
in handguns.
In light of the significant number of comments received, ATF has
decided to cease with finalizing the proposed framework. ATF is
currently reviewing the comments to inform future steps, if any, and
additional process--including public notice and comment--will be
afforded prior to any further action. At this time, ATF has no plans to
further consider reversing the standing exemption for 5.56 x 45mm
rounds of ammunition in M855 and SS1109 cartridges. The process of
reviewing and considering the large number of comments received will
take time, and I look forward to working with Congress and all
interested parties should any further action be proposed.
immigration court program
Question. Your budget request includes a 40 percent increase for
improvements to the immigration court system. Could you explain the
justification for such a significant increase? Also, could you please
share how many immigrant applications are in the current backlog and
which cases would be prioritized for adjudication if this amount were
authorized?
Answer. The Executive Office for Immigration Review's (EOIR) fiscal
year 2016 budget request is a 38.8 percent increase over fiscal year
2015 enacted levels and includes $124.3 million in program increases.
These program increases include additional funds for the following:
additional immigration judge teams; immigration court support; legal
representation for unaccompanied children; expansion of the legal
orientation program; and information technology modernization. These
program enhancements will provide EOIR funding to increase staffing to
more rapidly address the large volume of pending cases and will
increase the efficiency of the courts through increased representation
and updated electronic and communication efforts. Specific information
about each of EOIR's requested program increases follows.
--Immigration Judge teams/Immigration Court Support.--The fiscal year
2016 budget request includes $60 million to add 55 Immigration
Judge Teams, and $1.3 million to add 15 attorneys to support
the agency's mission by supporting the immigration judge corps
and providing legal assistance with immigration matters before
the courts. These two program increases are necessary to
provide sufficient resources to adjudicate the cases before the
immigration courts. Cases received at EOIR are inextricably
tied to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforcement
efforts. As DHS places more individuals into proceedings before
EOIR, the number of adjudicators must increase in order to
address new cases as well as the pending caseload. These
increased funds will provide EOIR the resources to hire
additional immigration judges and provide those immigration
judges with the necessary staff support and work space to
adjudicate cases.
--Legal Representation for Unaccompanied Children.--The fiscal year
2016 budget request includes $50 million in 2-year funding for
the legal representation of unaccompanied children. When
unaccompanied children have legal representation from the
beginning of their immigration court proceedings, we expect
that immigration courts will be able to reduce the number of
continuances granted for the purpose of obtaining counsel,
preparing any applications for relief, and gathering evidence.
In addition, counsel can facilitate court proceedings,
resulting in faster hearings and earlier identification of
relevant legal issues. All of these factors will assist in
reducing EOIR's case backlog while providing efficient
adjudicatory proceedings.
--Legal Orientation Program (LOP).--The fiscal year 2016 budget
request includes $10 million for the expansion of the LOP. This
requested increase will expand the successful LOP and continue
to improve efficiencies in immigration court proceedings for
detained aliens by increasing their awareness of their rights
and the overall immigration proceeding process. Independent
research and evaluation reports have shown that LOP
participants complete their immigration court cases in
detention an average of 12 days faster than detainees who do
not participate in an LOP. The requested additional funding
will respond to elevated demand at existing DHS sites and
enable LOP to add additional sites.
--Information Technology Modernization.--The fiscal year 2016 budget
request includes $3 million for information technology
modernization to provide an update to EOIR's electronic
systems, improving the efficiency of processing case materials
and other data communication efforts. This program increase
will go towards the planning and development of updates to
improve EOIR's electronic systems. The improvement of EOIR's
court and case management systems will enhance EOIR's ability
to meet core mission functions by increasing efficiencies and
allowing more staff time to focus on EOIR's adjudications and
other responsibilities. An update of EOIR's electronic systems
will also allow for better communications with DHS law
enforcement entities currently using EOIR case information.
Regarding the pending caseload, as of September 30, 2015, EOIR had
456,500 proceedings pending before the immigration courts. Per the June
2014 Presidential directive to process priority cases as fairly and as
quickly as possible, EOIR realigned its adjudicative priorities, and
refocused EOIR's immigration court resources. In July 2014, EOIR added
new priorities to its pre-existing priority for detained cases. EOIR's
priority cases now include those individuals whom DHS has identified as
recent border crossers who are unaccompanied children, adults with
children in detention, adults with children released through
Alternatives to Detention (ATD), and other individuals in detention.
legal orientation program
Question. Is the department intending to use the LOP authorized
funds to provide work authorization to those afforded deferred action
by the President's executive order?
Lead-in information from original document.--
I understand the Legal Orientation Program operates utilizing
nonprofit legal service agencies to provide information to
immigrant detainees to assist in their removal process. Please
describe how this program has been successful and explain why
you are requesting an additional $116 million to support this
program.
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes an additional
$10 million, not $116 million, to expand the successful Legal
Orientation Program (LOP). EOIR has carried out the LOP since 2003 and,
by fiscal year 2014, the LOP was able to serve roughly one-third of all
detained aliens in immigration court proceedings. Through the LOP,
representatives from nonprofit organizations provide comprehensive
explanations about immigration court procedures along with other basic
legal information to large groups of detained individuals.
This requested increase of $10 million will expand the LOP and
continue to improve efficiencies in immigration court proceedings for
detained aliens by increasing their awareness of their rights and the
overall immigration proceeding process. Research and evaluation reports
show that LOP participants complete their immigration court cases on
average 12 days faster and spend on average 6 fewer days in ICE
detention than detainees who do not participate in an LOP. The LOP is
currently in 30 locations, 28 of which are ICE detention facilities.
LOP funds have not and will not be used to provide work
authorization to those afforded deferred action by the President's
executive order. The LOP does not provide legal representation, and the
DOJ has no intention of changing this policy in the future. The LOP
assists individuals representing themselves pro se by helping them
understand the various legal options available to them and, where
available, referring individuals to pro bono counsel, not funded under
the LOP. The LOP provides information on legal options that may be
available to detainees, it does not provide any direct assistance in
carrying out those options. Thus, while an LOP provider may explain
what deferred action is, and may explain what is required to gain work
authorization, the individual would need to seek those actions on their
own or through the use of counsel that is separate and distinct from
the LOP contract.
convicted felons possessing firearms
Question. Is that the case? Who sets the thresholds? Can you tell
me what the threshold is for a convicted felon in possession of a
firearm in Arkansas?
Lead-in information from original document.--
In my research, I have learned that prosecuting convicted
felons in possession of a firearm is a major factor in
combatting violent crime, by taking these armed criminals off
the street, often before they commit more acts of violent
crime. I also understand that the U.S. Attorney's Office across
the country has established certain thresholds that have to be
met prior to accepting these cases.
Answer. All United States Attorneys' Offices (USAOs), including
those for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, carefully
review the acceptance of potential firearms cases in light of the
guidelines set forth in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. These
principles require USAOs to consider whether a substantial Federal
interest would be served by prosecution and whether a potential
defendant is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction.
The USAOs evaluate the facts and circumstances on a case by case basis.
In Arkansas, neither United States Attorney's Office has a threshold
for acceptance of felon in possession cases. All felons found in
possession of firearms are potentially subject to Federal prosecution.
Practically speaking, this usually involves a discussion among Federal,
State, and local prosecutors and law enforcement about the most
appropriate venue for prosecution.
When considering these principles, USAOs assess, among other
things, Federal law enforcement priorities; the nature and seriousness
of the offense; the potential defendant's culpability; the strength of
the evidence that would be admissible in court; a potential defendant's
criminal history; the probable sentence or other consequences if the
person is convicted federally as opposed to locally; the strength of
the other jurisdiction's interest in prosecution; the other
jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively; and
the effectiveness of potential non-criminal sanctions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
border tunnels
Question. What changes would you recommend that Congress make in
order to strengthen this legislation and more effectively address this
issue?
Lead-in information from original document.--
Since 2001, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has discovered
at least 170 tunnels along the Southwest Border originating in
Mexico and ending on the U.S. side of the Border, predominantly
in California and Arizona. In the last 2 months, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection discovered three tunnels leading from
Mexico to Calexio and San Diego. I authored two bills that were
signed into law in 2006 and 2012 to provide law enforcement and
prosecutors with additional tools to investigate illegal tunnel
activity and prosecute those responsible, including landowners
who allow others to construct illegal tunnels on their land.
However, it is my understanding that U.S. Attorneys are not
bringing charges against individuals under the tunnel statute
because they are having difficulty proving that the property
owner knew about the tunnel. In fact, since 2011, the San Diego
Tunnel Task Force has only successfully arrested and indicted
two individuals using this legislation.
Answer. We appreciate your efforts to help combat crimes committed
through the use of border tunnels. We have many available statutory
tools depending upon the nature of crime related to a border tunnel.
Often, the Controlled Substances Act is the best mechanism as it
provides stiff penalties for drug crimes, which can include the use of
border tunnels. In addition, some defendants have prior drug
trafficking convictions and/or are career offenders, making their
sentence exposure more significant when they are charged with crimes
other than 18 U.S.C. Sec. 555. To the extent the Department identifies
additional statutory tools needed to address border tunnels, we would
welcome the opportunity to work with you and your staff.
Question. How can we better ensure that property owners or renters
on the U.S. side of the border who allow others to construct illegal
tunnels on their property are brought to justice?
Lead-in information from original document.--
Since 2001, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has discovered
at least 170 tunnels along the Southwest Border originating in
Mexico and ending on the U.S. side of the Border, predominantly
in California and Arizona. In the last 2 months, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection discovered three tunnels leading from
Mexico to Calexio and San Diego. I authored two bills that were
signed into law in 2006 and 2012 to provide law enforcement and
prosecutors with additional tools to investigate illegal tunnel
activity and prosecute those responsible, including landowners
who allow others to construct illegal tunnels on their land.
However, it is my understanding that U.S. Attorneys are not
bringing charges against individuals under the tunnel statute
because they are having difficulty proving that the property
owner knew about the tunnel. In fact, since 2011, the San Diego
Tunnel Task Force has only successfully arrested and indicted
two individuals using this legislation.
Answer. If we have evidence that property owners or renters on the
U.S. side of the border ``knowingly'' or ``recklessly'' allow others to
construct illegal tunnels on their property, then we can charge them
under section (b) of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 555. However, absent some
corroboration from a cooperator, an admission by the defendant, or
actually finding the owner or renter at the tunnel, prosecutors often
face evidentiary issues in criminal cases against the landowners or
renters.
There are no civil penalties for land owners who ``negligently'' or
``acting in reckless disregard'' allow the rental of their commercial
warehouses or family residences to be used for construction of tunnels.
Many commercial warehouses in San Diego and Imperial County have
absentee owners who use local management companies to rent their
warehouses. Establishing civil penalties within this statute would
place the landowners on notice and liable--in a civil setting--to make
sure that they are renting to legitimate companies and individuals.
community policing
Question. With the funding you have requested, how do you intend to
encourage local law enforcement to engage in community policing and to
model best practices for these communities?
Lead-in information from original document.--
Over the past several months, we have seen protests over the
deaths of unarmed men, many of them African-American. Some of
these protests have turned violent. It is apparent that, in
some communities, relationships between community members and
law enforcement are not strong enough, leading to suspicion and
mistrust by both police and residents.When protests do occur,
we often see a line of heavily armed officers on one side, and
protesters on the other. I believe that the Department of
Justice must use its bully pulpit and the Federal grant funding
it provides to local jurisdictions to reinvigorate community
policing nationwide.
Answer. The Department leverages multiple programs and approaches
to strengthen community policing and the vital trust among law
enforcement officers and the communities they serve. When these bonds
are strong, our crime prevention efforts are more successful; incidents
are more likely to be reported and addressed; and police are more
likely to have the support they need to do their jobs safely and
effectively. The fiscal year 2016 budget includes funding to initiate
initiatives specifically cited in the President's 21st Century Policing
Report, like data collection and statistical analysis of crime
incidents, and training and technical assistance for law enforcement
and public defenders. In addition, resources are provided for the
administration's Community Policing Initiative for programs aimed at
promoting restorative and procedural justice, reducing implicit bias,
and supporting racial reconciliation and outreach efforts.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
The mission of the COPS Office has always been to advance public
safety through community policing. With the funding appropriated to the
COPS Office in fiscal year 2015, the COPS Office funded several field-
initiated projects based on key topics and recommendations outlined in
the final report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century
Policing, which will continue throughout fiscal year 2016.
The Task Force on 21st Century Policing was created to strengthen
community policing and trust among law enforcement officers and the
communities they serve--especially in light of recent events around the
country that have underscored the need for and importance of lasting
collaborative relationships between local police and the public. It was
established by the President on December 18, 2014 and included law
enforcement representatives, community leaders, young adults and
notable scholars--who examined, among other issues, how to strengthen
public trust and foster strong relationships between local law
enforcement and the communities that they protect, while also promoting
effective crime reduction.
Through the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing Field-
Initiated Projects, the COPS Office invited applicants to offer
innovative ideas to advance a set of the recommendations of their
choosing. Projects include demonstration sites, promising practices
assessments, guidebook development, and training and technical
assistance.
Through the COPS MicroGrant Initiative for Law Enforcement, the
COPS Office funded nine law enforcement agencies to develop
demonstration sites or pilot projects that may focus on implementing
specific recommendations in the report (e.g., enhancing partnership
development, improving problem-solving activities, or supporting
organizational changes).
The COPS Office will support convenings on topics that advance the
implementation of the Task Force's recommendations through its
Community Policing Emerging Issues Forums. Each convening will result
in a publication that provides background information on best practices
and the state of knowledge on that topic, as well as considerations,
recommendations, and guidance to the field as we build consensus for a
path forward.
The COPS Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance
(CRI-TA) is designed to improve trust between law enforcement agencies
and the communities they serve by providing a means for organizational
transformation through an analysis of policies, practices, training,
tactics and accountability methods around specific issues, all of which
are strongly linked to the foundational pillars of and recommendations
within the Task Force Report. CRI-TA will be expanded to require
procedural justice and implicit bias training for all selected sites
and, in fiscal year 2015, an additional five sites were selected to
participate in the Collaborative Reform process based on selection
criteria consistent with the principles within the Task Force report.
The experiences that those agencies go through in transforming their
policies, procedures, training, accountability mechanisms and community
trust building will serve as a model for the rest of the profession,
and will be disseminated through a series of reports that will offer a
roadmap for change for agencies interested in replicating those
organizational change efforts.
The COPS Hiring Program (CHP) provides funding for the hiring and
rehiring of entry-level policing capacity and crime prevention efforts.
In fiscal year 2015, the COPS Office gave additional consideration to
applicant agencies that selected the category of ``Building Trust,''
and those agencies were encouraged to refer to the Task Force report
for suggested actions to incorporate into their proposed community
policing strategies. In fiscal year 2015, 83 agencies that selected
``Trust Problems'' received funding for 365 officers. CHP is the COPS
Office's largest grant program, and provides funding directly to State,
local and tribal law enforcement agencies to hire and rehire career law
enforcement officers in an effort to increase their community policing
capacity and crime prevention efforts.
With support from the COPS Office, law enforcement focused
organizations will develop national-level, industry-wide projects for
several of the pillars outlined in the Task Force report. Supported
activities will include the creation of positive and meaningful
engagement opportunities between law enforcement and youth,
identification of best practices for engaging the community in the
mutual responsibility of public safety, exploration of the
circumstances and causality behind documented line-of-duty injuries,
and promotion of officer safety and wellbeing.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
Community Policing--Smart Policing Initiative.--Community
engagement is a central principle of the Smart Policing Initiative
(SPI), administered by the Office of Justice Program's Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA). SPI supports law enforcement agencies and
represents a strategic approach that brings more science into police
operations by leveraging innovative applications of analysis,
technology, evidence-based, data-driven practices, and improving
performance and effectiveness while containing costs--an important
element in today's fiscal environment. BJA currently has several
projects underway that are testing innovative approaches to building
such partnerships and trust between police and the communities they
serve.
Community Policing--Project Safe Neighborhoods.--Most of the
Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) strategies submitted contain some form
of community policing as part of their overall gun and gang violence
reduction efforts. PSN is designed to create safer neighborhoods
through a sustained reduction in crime associated with gang and gun
violence. The program's effectiveness is based on the cooperation of
local, State, and Federal agencies engaged in a unified approach led by
the U.S. Attorney (USA) in each district. The USA is responsible for
establishing a collaborative PSN task force of Federal, State, and
local law enforcement and other community members to implement gang and
gun crime enforcement, intervention, and prevention initiatives within
the district. Through the PSN task force, the USA will implement the
five design features of PSN--partnerships, strategic planning,
training, outreach, and accountability--to address specific gun crime
and gang violence, in the most violent neighborhoods. These five
elements are essential for PSN to be successful.
One of the strengths of PSN is the flexibility that allows PSN task
forces to adapt the key components of PSN to the local context. The
difference in levels and the nature of gun crime across the 50 States
and across the Nation's cities are enormous and require local
adaptation. The most common strategies employed by PSN task forces were
increased Federal prosecution; joint Federal-local prosecution case
screening; directed police patrol; community policing; chronic violent
offender programs; street level firearms enforcement teams; offender
notification meetings; re-entry programs; and firearms supply side
interventions.
Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program.--The Byrne Criminal
Justice Innovation Program (BCJI) is designed to help local and tribal
communities develop place-based, community-oriented strategies with
coordinated Federal support to change neighborhoods of distress into
neighborhoods of opportunity. This has consistently been done by sites
focusing on public safety as their primary issue, and using innovative
criminal justice strategies to address the varying public safety needs
of each community. Because BCJI requires cross sector partnerships and
is based on the fundamentals of collaboration within a community,
community policing is not only encouraged but also built into the
concept and execution of this program. The best way to articulate this
is through a few examples of sites to date that have been implementing
community policing strategies that have had a direct impact on the
relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
--Alameda County, California (Fiscal Year 2014 Planning &
Implementation).--The Sheriff's Office in Alameda County excels
at community-oriented strategies to foster trust in law
enforcement and crime prevention. Deputies use theater and
other non-traditional approaches to engage residents in
discussion about sensitive police-community issues, while the
Deputy Sheriff's Activities League (DSAL) provides
opportunities for thousands of kids and their families to build
community and get to know law enforcement officers in non-
threatening settings. More than 1,300 kids and 100 parent
volunteers currently participate in the DSAL's Youth Soccer
program, for example.
--Providence, Rhode Island (Fiscal Year 2013 Planning &
Implementation).--Even as it weathers a significant reduction
in force due to budget constraints, the Providence Police
Department remains committed to community policing, and has
invested heavily in building partnerships with local community
development and service organizations which participate in
BCJI. In Providence, the community organized the Annual
Olneyville Shines Clean-up Day in May 2015, which brought out
120 volunteers including officers. The community also organizes
the Olneyville Fall Festival and, for the first time last year,
National Night Out, which might become an August tradition.
--The collective efforts have spawned a robust Crime Watch group
led by residents in the BCJI target area, and a variety of
annual events that bring officers and residents together.
Chief Clements also invites community partners to
participate in Compstat and command staff meetings to
maintain transparency and foster cross-sector problem-
solving.
--Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Fiscal Year 2012 Planning &
Implementation).--The Milwaukee BCJI effort benefits from
explicit programming to foster community-police dialogue and
problem-solving, such as the ``STOP'' (Students Talking It Over
with Police) curriculum, which brings police officers together
with juveniles in high crime neighborhoods in structured
dialogue that yields greater mutual understanding, builds
relationships, and seeks to prevent conflict between youth and
police on the streets. This program earned the top honor at the
International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in
fall of 2014.
All the BCJI sites are able to engage one another in peer-to-peer
dialogue, which helps to develop their practices and strategies, and
enables them to learn from one another in a meaningful way. Each site
has developed community policing efforts in a different way, with some
innovative approaches to building the relationships between law
enforcement and the community. These practices and efforts are shared
through our technical assistance provider's Web site and can be used as
models for non-BCJI sites throughout the country.
Procedural Justice--Building Community Trust Program.--The
Procedural Justice--Building Community Trust Program focuses on
enhancing procedural justice, reducing bias, and supporting racial
reconciliation in the criminal and juvenile justice systems and
furthers the Department's mission to ensure public safety and the fair
and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. This
program, which will be administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, will provide grants and technical
assistance to State, local, and tribal courts and juvenile and criminal
justice agencies to support innovative efforts to improve perceptions
of fairness in the juvenile and criminal justice systems and build
community trust in these institutions.
Civil Rights Division
The Civil Rights Division will continue to investigate and, when
necessary, prosecute law enforcement officers who engage in excessive
force or intentionally violate individual's rights. The Division's
civil enforcement work is designed to address systemic problems in
police departments by securing agreements with law enforcement agencies
that provide for meaningful reform, including community policing
requirements. As part of the investigative process, the Division
engages with and solicits feedback from the community and works
cooperatively with COPS and OJP in facilitating relationship-building
between the community and law enforcement. The Division is continually
examining its enforcement work to ensure that it is encouraging
departments to use the best practices, such as proper use of body-worn
cameras and data collection and reporting. To protect individual rights
and ensure communities' trust in law enforcement, the Division will
continue to commit substantial resources to these important cases.
Community Relations Service
Police-community relations surrounding excessive use of force, and
the possibility of racial violence, particularly in minority
communities, consumes more than half of the Community Relations
Services' work. To meet the demand for tailored services regarding the
policing of minority communities, CRS requested 10 positions and $1.2
million for three program increases in the fiscal year 2016 President's
budget. The request funds local capacity building to reduce tensions
through online resources, allowing CRS to direct its limited resources
towards the most vulnerable, highest priority populations ($240,000 for
the CRS Training Academy request); provides conciliation services in
support of the President's My Brother's Keeper Initiative and the
proposal for the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and
Justice ($775,000 and 10 positions as part of the Collaborative
Community Strengthening Initiative); and funds in-depth consultation
and guidance to local law enforcement agencies who are party to
potentially violent, public safety degrading conflicts with minority
communities ($200,000 for the Law Enforcement Organizational Change
Initiative).
lost and stolen guns rider
Question. Do you share my view that ATF should no longer be
prohibited from requiring gun dealers to conduct regular inventories of
their firearms?
Lead-in information from original document.--
On May 2, 2015, a New York Police Department officer, Brian
Moore, was shot and killed by an assailant who used a gun
stolen 4 years ago from a pawnshop in Georgia. That pawnshop
had guns stolen on at least one other occasion, according to
press reports. The tragic shooting of Officer Moore highlights
a serious problem in our laws. Since 2004, a policy ``rider''
included annually in appropriations bills has prohibited ATF
from requiring that gun dealers conduct an inventory analysis
to determine if any guns are lost, stolen, or missing. As a
result of this prohibition, guns can be stolen from stores or
given to criminals by unscrupulous dealers without ATF's
knowledge.
Answer. Some Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) do not conduct
annual inventory inspections and record reconciliation and, as such,
are often unable to account for some of the firearms that, according to
their records, are in their custody. Missing firearms for which no
record of disposition exists is the most often cited violation during
the FFL inspection process. ATF encourages FFLs to conduct annual
inventories of their firearms, but cannot require them to do so, and
cannot explore possible rulemaking relevant to inventories to enhance
timely reporting of lost/stolen firearms. If Congress removed the
appropriations restriction, and ATF intended to propose a regulation on
this issue, it would do so through the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA), which would include opportunity for public comment. ATF believes
that public discourse on this issue, through the APA process, is a
worthwhile exercise and could help it develop a regulation that would
minimize the burden on industry while maximizing its ability to
investigate firearms trafficking and streamline the inspection process.
daniel chong detention by dea
Question. The DEA's administrator, Michele Leonhart, is stepping
down, effective May 15th. As DEA transitions to new leadership, how
will you ensure that the agency does not let an incident like this one
happen ever again?
Lead-in information from original document.--
College student Daniel Chong was held in a detention cell at
the DEA's San Diego office without food or water for 5 days
with his hands handcuffed behind his back. He nearly died. When
he was found, he was suffering from dehydration and kidney
failure.
Answer. What happened to Daniel Chong is unacceptable. Following
the incident, DEA leadership took immediate steps to implement
protocols and procedures regarding the monitoring of holding cells and
detainees. Furthermore, DEA instituted the recommendations made by the
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in its investigation report
before the OIG report was even finalized. DEA took action within 60
days of the incident to ensure that nothing like this ever happens
again.
Additionally, as a result of the OIG review, the head of the
Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility is
examining DEA's processes and procedures for investigating allegations
of misconduct as well as its processes for determining and
administering disciplinary action when appropriate. Following
completion of this review, DOJ will work with DEA to enhance its
policies and procedures to ensure that all allegations are thoroughly
investigated and that any substantial findings of misconduct are
properly addressed.
Question. Will you ensure that DEA responds to congressional
inquiries, particularly following such tragedies, in a timely manner?
Lead-in information from original document.--
Last summer, I sent Administrator Leonhart two letters,
expressing my outrage at Mr. Chong's treatment and requesting
answers as to how DEA intended to remedy what an Inspector
General's report called ``systemic deficiencies'' that led to
Mr. Chong's detention. I have not received any response to my
two letters.
Answer. It is important that the Department respond to
congressional inquiries in a timely manner. I understand that DEA
responded to your letters on June 9, 2015.
Question. Are you confident that DEA has sufficient funding to
remedy the deficiencies identified by the Inspector General?
Lead-in information from original document.--
Last summer, I sent Administrator Leonhart two letters,
expressing my outrage at Mr. Chong's treatment and requesting
answers as to how DEA intended to remedy what an Inspector
General's report called ``systemic deficiencies'' that led to
Mr. Chong's detention. I have not received any response to my
two letters.
Answer. Yes. As previously stated, all of the OIG recommendations
were in place before the OIG finalized its report. DEA took action
within 60 days of the incident to ensure that nothing like this ever
happens again. DEA responded to your letters on June 9, 2015.
restitution for trafficking victims
Question. What training do prosecutors receive on mandatory
criminal restitution for trafficking victims?
Lead-in information from original document.--
In a letter dated April 20, 2015, Assistant Attorney General
Peter Kadzik responded to a letter Senator Portman and I had
written to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to
seek restitution for all victims of human trafficking. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (codified at 18
U.S.C. ss 1593) provides that the Federal courts ``shall order
restitution for any offense'' committed under Federal laws that
prohibit human trafficking. That law requires the court to
order the greater of the calculation of wages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act or the value of the victim's services
to the trafficker. As discussed in the letter Senator Portman
and I sent to Attorney General Holder, a recent report by The
Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that Federal
prosecutors did not request restitution in 37 percent of
qualifying human trafficking cases that were brought between
2009 and 2012, despite the requirement in Federal law that
restitution is mandatory in these cases. Mr. Kadzik stated
that, in some instances, there may be ``insufficient evidence''
to support a claim for restitution, noting that restitution
requires ``proof that specific harms were caused as a result of
an offense'' and ``evidence establishing the amount of losses
incurred or projected to be incurred. ``It is clear that many
trafficking victims are essentially sold and exploited for
profit, and many have significant healthcare needs resulting
from their trafficking. One paper produced by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services stated that a ``number
of studies have identified the serious and often complex mental
health needs of victims of human trafficking.'' As an example,
in one Federal case in which restitution was ordered (United
States v. Shelby, Memorandum Opinion, 09-213 (D. D.C. June 13,
2011)), the Guardian Ad Litem appointed to represent the four
minor victims in that case concluded that each victim suffered
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder specifically relating to
the victim's experience with the defendant. The statute
provides for how losses should be calculated. In addition, to
address physical and mental healthcare needs, victims incur
costs, either now or in the future, and traffickers must pay
for those costs.
Answer. Securing restitution for victims is an essential part of
the Department's victim-centered approach to trafficking investigations
and prosecutions. The Department provides in-person training and
written guidance for United States Attorneys' Offices throughout the
country on seeking restitution for victims of trafficking. Restitution
is a component of almost all Project Safe Childhood trainings at the
National Advocacy Center, and restitution training is presented at
national conferences such as the Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Force national training for law enforcement and prosecutors. In 2014,
for the first time, the Human Trafficking Prosecution course for
Federal prosecutors at the National Advocacy Center included a
specialized, stand-alone segment on restitution.
The Department has also already issued guidance to the field
regarding the new restitution provisions in the Justice for Victims of
Trafficking Act, and the Department is currently planning additional
trainings for prosecutors on the new enforcement and restitution
provisions in the law. The Department's human trafficking prosecutors
are also increasingly collaborating with their counterparts in the
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section to more effectively
anticipate and address complex issues arising in restitution and
forfeiture proceedings.
Question. Are prosecutors instructed that they must seek
restitution?
Lead-in information from original document.--
In a letter dated April 20, 2015, Assistant Attorney General
Peter Kadzik responded to a letter Senator Portman and I had
written to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to
seek restitution for all victims of human trafficking. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (codified at 18
U.S.C. ss 1593) provides that the Federal courts ``shall order
restitution for any offense'' committed under Federal laws that
prohibit human trafficking. That law requires the court to
order the greater of the calculation of wages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act or the value of the victim's services
to the trafficker. As discussed in the letter Senator Portman
and I sent to Attorney General Holder, a recent report by The
Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that Federal
prosecutors did not request restitution in 37 percent of
qualifying human trafficking cases that were brought between
2009 and 2012, despite the requirement in Federal law that
restitution is mandatory in these cases. Mr. Kadzik stated
that, in some instances, there may be ``insufficient evidence''
to support a claim for restitution, noting that restitution
requires ``proof that specific harms were caused as a result of
an offense'' and ``evidence establishing the amount of losses
incurred or projected to be incurred. ``It is clear that many
trafficking victims are essentially sold and exploited for
profit, and many have significant healthcare needs resulting
from their trafficking. One paper produced by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services stated that a ``number
of studies have identified the serious and often complex mental
health needs of victims of human trafficking.'' As an example,
in one Federal case in which restitution was ordered (United
States v. Shelby, Memorandum Opinion, 09-213 (D. D.C. June 13,
2011)), the Guardian Ad Litem appointed to represent the four
minor victims in that case concluded that each victim suffered
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder specifically relating to
the victim's experience with the defendant. The statute
provides for how losses should be calculated. In addition, to
address physical and mental healthcare needs, victims incur
costs, either now or in the future, and traffickers must pay
for those costs.
Answer. Prosecutors are instructed to seek restitution in every
case where there is an identifiable victim that suffered a compensable
loss, as defined by applicable statutes, as a result of the offense of
conviction and where there is available, admissible evidence to support
such a request. Securing restitution for victims is an essential part
of the Department's victim-centered approach to trafficking
investigations and prosecutions.
As indicated in the April 20, 2015 letter from Assistant Attorney
General Peter J. Kadzik, there are a number of factors which may impact
whether restitution may be ordered. For instance, if victims indicate
that they do not wish to obtain restitution from defendants or
participate in sentencing or restitution proceedings, the Department
respects their decisions. Further, the Department can only proceed
where there is sufficient evidence to support a loss calculation for
restitution purposes, including evidence establishing actual losses as
statutorily defined. If necessary evidence is unavailable, there may be
no factual basis to support a restitution order.
Question. Has the U.S. Attorneys' Manual been updated to include
instructions for seeking restitution under 18 U.S.C. ss 1593?
Lead-in information from original document.--
In a letter dated April 20, 2015, Assistant Attorney General
Peter Kadzik responded to a letter Senator Portman and I had
written to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to
seek restitution for all victims of human trafficking. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (codified at 18
U.S.C. ss 1593) provides that the Federal courts ``shall order
restitution for any offense'' committed under Federal laws that
prohibit human trafficking. That law requires the court to
order the greater of the calculation of wages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act or the value of the victim's services
to the trafficker. As discussed in the letter Senator Portman
and I sent to Attorney General Holder, a recent report by The
Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that Federal
prosecutors did not request restitution in 37 percent of
qualifying human trafficking cases that were brought between
2009 and 2012, despite the requirement in Federal law that
restitution is mandatory in these cases. Mr. Kadzik stated
that, in some instances, there may be ``insufficient evidence''
to support a claim for restitution, noting that restitution
requires ``proof that specific harms were caused as a result of
an offense'' and ``evidence establishing the amount of losses
incurred or projected to be incurred. ''It is clear that many
trafficking victims are essentially sold and exploited for
profit, and many have significant healthcare needs resulting
from their trafficking. One paper produced by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services stated that a ``number
of studies have identified the serious and often complex mental
health needs of victims of human trafficking.'' As an example,
in one Federal case in which restitution was ordered (United
States v. Shelby, Memorandum Opinion, 09-213 (D. D.C. June 13,
2011)), the Guardian Ad Litem appointed to represent the four
minor victims in that case concluded that each victim suffered
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder specifically relating to
the victim's experience with the defendant. The statute
provides for how losses should be calculated. In addition, to
address physical and mental healthcare needs, victims incur
costs, either now or in the future, and traffickers must pay
for those costs.
Answer. The United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) directs U.S.
Attorneys to seek restitution where appropriate. For example, section
9-16.320 discusses restitution--particularly mandatory restitution--in
the context of plea agreements. Section 9-75.500 of the USAM and
section 1977 of the Criminal Resource Manual discuss mandatory
restitution in the context of sexual exploitation offenses, directing
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) that issuance of a restitution order
is mandatory. Section 9-27 of the USAM contains the Principles of
Federal Prosecution, and directs AUSAs to consider whether restitution
has been paid when considering the serious nature of the offense. The
USAM does not, and cannot, specifically address restitution for each
individual statute in which restitution can be obtained. Nevertheless,
the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys is in the process of drafting
guidance addressing Sec. 1593's mandatory restitution provision.
Question. If a victim wishes to obtain restitution from a
defendant, what specific problems does the Department face in proving
the victim's amount of losses?
Lead-in information from original document.--
In a letter dated April 20, 2015, Assistant Attorney General
Peter Kadzik responded to a letter Senator Portman and I had
written to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to
seek restitution for all victims of human trafficking. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (codified at 18
U.S.C. ss 1593) provides that the Federal courts ``shall order
restitution for any offense'' committed under Federal laws that
prohibit human trafficking. That law requires the court to
order the greater of the calculation of wages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act or the value of the victim's services
to the trafficker. As discussed in the letter Senator Portman
and I sent to Attorney General Holder, a recent report by The
Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that Federal
prosecutors did not request restitution in 37 percent of
qualifying human trafficking cases that were brought between
2009 and 2012, despite the requirement in Federal law that
restitution is mandatory in these cases. Mr. Kadzik stated
that, in some instances, there may be ``insufficient evidence''
to support a claim for restitution, noting that restitution
requires ``proof that specific harms were caused as a result of
an offense'' and ``evidence establishing the amount of losses
incurred or projected to be incurred. ``It is clear that many
trafficking victims are essentially sold and exploited for
profit, and many have significant healthcare needs resulting
from their trafficking. One paper produced by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services stated that a ``number
of studies have identified the serious and often complex mental
health needs of victims of human trafficking.'' As an example,
in one Federal case in which restitution was ordered (United
States v. Shelby, Memorandum Opinion, 09-213 (D. D.C. June 13,
2011)), the Guardian Ad Litem appointed to represent the four
minor victims in that case concluded that each victim suffered
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder specifically relating to
the victim's experience with the defendant. The statute
provides for how losses should be calculated. In addition, to
address physical and mental healthcare needs, victims incur
costs, either now or in the future, and traffickers must pay
for those costs.
Answer. In addition to ``the full amount of the victim's losses,''
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) restitution provisions
require the court to order the greater of the wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act or the value of the victim's services to the
trafficker. This requires proof of prevailing wages and hours worked,
or alternatively of proceeds generated by a victim for the trafficker's
benefit. Other restitution provisions allow recompense for out-of-
pocket expenses, such as healthcare costs, if there is adequate
documentation. In many instances, there are few if any written records,
and victims' recollections can be imprecise due to isolation, trauma
responses, the long duration of the offense, and other factors. In
addition, a victim may not have been employed (or his or her employment
may not have been affected by the offense conduct), and the victim may
not have been able to receive medical, therapeutic or rehabilitative
services (or may not provide any records reflecting any such services).
Other difficulties include victim unavailability and losses
attributable to prior trauma.
Question. How do Federal prosecutors have difficulty finding
``evidence establishing the amount of losses incurred or projected to
be incurred'' by trafficking victims?
Lead-in information from original document.--
In a letter dated April 20, 2015, Assistant Attorney General
Peter Kadzik responded to a letter Senator Portman and I had
written to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to
seek restitution for all victims of human trafficking. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (codified at 18
U.S.C. ss 1593) provides that the Federal courts ``shall order
restitution for any offense'' committed under Federal laws that
prohibit human trafficking. That law requires the court to
order the greater of the calculation of wages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act or the value of the victim's services
to the trafficker. As discussed in the letter Senator Portman
and I sent to Attorney General Holder, a recent report by The
Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that Federal
prosecutors did not request restitution in 37 percent of
qualifying human trafficking cases that were brought between
2009 and 2012, despite the requirement in Federal law that
restitution is mandatory in these cases. Mr. Kadzik stated
that, in some instances, there may be ``insufficient evidence''
to support a claim for restitution, noting that restitution
requires ``proof that specific harms were caused as a result of
an offense'' and ``evidence establishing the amount of losses
incurred or projected to be incurred. ``It is clear that many
trafficking victims are essentially sold and exploited for
profit, and many have significant healthcare needs resulting
from their trafficking. One paper produced by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services stated that a ``number
of studies have identified the serious and often complex mental
health needs of victims of human trafficking.'' As an example,
in one Federal case in which restitution was ordered (United
States v. Shelby, Memorandum Opinion, 09-213 (D. D.C. June 13,
2011)), the Guardian Ad Litem appointed to represent the four
minor victims in that case concluded that each victim suffered
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder specifically relating to
the victim's experience with the defendant. The statute
provides for how losses should be calculated. In addition, to
address physical and mental healthcare needs, victims incur
costs, either now or in the future, and traffickers must pay
for those costs.
Answer. Victims may not remain involved post-trial, and may become
unavailable, which may adversely affect the Government's ability to
estimate the victim's actual losses with reasonable certainty, and may
adversely affect a judge's consideration of a restitution request that
is made. In addition, while restitution is sometimes sought for medical
or psychiatric care, defense counsel and courts may question whether
the loss can be proven to be causally related to the offense, as
opposed to prior or subsequent traumas that are common in the lives of
many trafficking victims.
Under the TVPA, a victim of labor or sex trafficking is entitled
to, among recompense for other losses, ``the greater of the gross
income or value to the defendant of the victim's services or labor or
the value of the victim's labor as guaranteed under the minimum wage
and overtime guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act.'' However,
where the underlying nature of the work is illegal, such as
prostitution, victims are unable to benefit from a prevailing wage
standard. To remedy this issue, the Department has argued that victims
should be compensated based on a theory of unjust enrichment, granting
an award in the amount that the defendant(s) profited from exploiting
the victim, whether for labor or for illegal commercial sex acts. Under
this method, the Department has argued that a victim is entitled to
recover the ill-gotten gains the trafficker derived, but not all courts
have accepted this legal theory.
Question. Would the Department recommend any legislative changes to
Section 1593 to improve its usefulness for trafficking victims?
Lead-in information from original document.--
In a letter dated April 20, 2015, Assistant Attorney General
Peter Kadzik responded to a letter Senator Portman and I had
written to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to
seek restitution for all victims of human trafficking. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (codified at 18
U.S.C. ss 1593) provides that the Federal courts ``shall order
restitution for any offense'' committed under Federal laws that
prohibit human trafficking. That law requires the court to
order the greater of the calculation of wages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act or the value of the victim's services
to the trafficker. As discussed in the letter Senator Portman
and I sent to Attorney General Holder, a recent report by The
Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that Federal
prosecutors did not request restitution in 37 percent of
qualifying human trafficking cases that were brought between
2009 and 2012, despite the requirement in Federal law that
restitution is mandatory in these cases. Mr. Kadzik stated
that, in some instances, there may be ``insufficient evidence''
to support a claim for restitution, noting that restitution
requires ``proof that specific harms were caused as a result of
an offense'' and ``evidence establishing the amount of losses
incurred or projected to be incurred. ``It is clear that many
trafficking victims are essentially sold and exploited for
profit, and many have significant healthcare needs resulting
from their trafficking. One paper produced by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services stated that a ``number
of studies have identified the serious and often complex mental
health needs of victims of human trafficking.'' As an example,
in one Federal case in which restitution was ordered (United
States v. Shelby, Memorandum Opinion, 09-213 (D. D.C. June 13,
2011)), the Guardian Ad Litem appointed to represent the four
minor victims in that case concluded that each victim suffered
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder specifically relating to
the victim's experience with the defendant. The statute
provides for how losses should be calculated. In addition, to
address physical and mental healthcare needs, victims incur
costs, either now or in the future, and traffickers must pay
for those costs.
Answer. The Department is examining this section to see what
legislative changes may help improve 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1593's efficacy in
helping trafficking victims.
Question. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that, when
restitution is ordered, any assets the defendant forfeited may be used
to pay restitution?
Lead-in information from original document.--
In a letter dated April 20, 2015, Assistant Attorney General
Peter Kadzik responded to a letter Senator Portman and I had
written to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to
seek restitution for all victims of human trafficking. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (codified at 18
U.S.C. ss 1593) provides that the Federal courts ``shall order
restitution for any offense'' committed under Federal laws that
prohibit human trafficking. That law requires the court to
order the greater of the calculation of wages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act or the value of the victim's services
to the trafficker. As discussed in the letter Senator Portman
and I sent to Attorney General Holder, a recent report by The
Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center found that Federal
prosecutors did not request restitution in 37 percent of
qualifying human trafficking cases that were brought between
2009 and 2012, despite the requirement in Federal law that
restitution is mandatory in these cases. Mr. Kadzik stated
that, in some instances, there may be ``insufficient evidence''
to support a claim for restitution, noting that restitution
requires ``proof that specific harms were caused as a result of
an offense'' and ``evidence establishing the amount of losses
incurred or projected to be incurred. ``It is clear that many
trafficking victims are essentially sold and exploited for
profit, and many have significant healthcare needs resulting
from their trafficking. One paper produced by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services stated that a ``number
of studies have identified the serious and often complex mental
health needs of victims of human trafficking.'' As an example,
in one Federal case in which restitution was ordered (United
States v. Shelby, Memorandum Opinion, 09-213 (D. D.C. June 13,
2011)), the Guardian Ad Litem appointed to represent the four
minor victims in that case concluded that each victim suffered
from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder specifically relating to
the victim's experience with the defendant. The statute
provides for how losses should be calculated. In addition, to
address physical and mental healthcare needs, victims incur
costs, either now or in the future, and traffickers must pay
for those costs.
Answer. Returning assets to victims of crime is a priority in the
Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Program. The Department has
returned more than $4 billion in civilly and criminally forfeited funds
to crime victims since 2002, with $723 million paid to over 150,000
victims in the last 3 years alone. The Department's human trafficking
prosecutors are also increasingly collaborating with their counterparts
in the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section to more
effectively anticipate and address complex issues arising in
restitution and forfeiture proceedings. The Department also looks
forward to employing the new tools provided in the Justice for Victims
of Trafficking Act to ensure that forfeited assets of traffickers are/
will be used for restitution.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
fbi testimony
Question. What is the DOJ doing to complete its analysis of cases
in which the FBI provided hair analysis testimony, including in those
cases where local jurisdictions have not been working cooperatively?
Answer. In 2012, the FBI initiated a comprehensive review of
microscopic hair comparison analysis or testimony provided in more than
20,000 cases prior to December 31, 1999, when mitochondrial DNA testing
became routine at the FBI Lab. The FBI has completed the review of 98
percent of these cases. The review determines whether the FBI
Laboratory analysis revealed a positive association between hair
evidence and a known sample. To accomplish this process, which includes
identifying cases, locating transcripts, and reviewing and evaluating
transcripts and reports, the FBI has used the services of 5 FBI
employees full-time, more than 18 FBI employees part-time, and 3
contractors full-time. The Department has been working in cooperation
with the Innocence Project (IP) and National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers (NACDL) in this review.
The FBI reached out nationwide to U.S. Attorneys' Offices, State
and local District Attorney Offices and last known defense counsel to
obtain transcripts of FBI Hair Examiner trial testimony. The IP and
NACDL have also reached out to their contacts to obtain transcripts,
which they will provide DOJ and FBI. The FBI anticipates completing its
review of all received case transcripts by the end of 2015.
The FBI, IP, and NACDL are developing additional measures to secure
transcripts from jurisdictions that have not been responsive to the
requests including enlisting the assistance of the State and local
prosecutor associations or contracting for the preparation of
transcripts of previously un-transcribed testimony.
inaccurate forensic testimony
Question. What is the DOJ doing to provide meaningful relief to
those convicted on the strength of misstated and inaccurate forensic
testimony?
Answer. DOJ reviews requests for relief on a case-by-case basis
based on an individual review of all case information. In the event
that the prosecuting office determines that further testing is
appropriate or necessary, or the court orders such testing, the FBI is
available to provide mitochondrial DNA testing of the relevant hair
evidence or short tandem repeat (STR) testing of related biological
evidence if the testing of hair evidence is no longer possible, if (1)
the evidence to be tested is in the Government's possession or control,
and (2) the chain of custody for the evidence can be established. In
the cases with a positive association, the FBI determines whether the
hair examiner involved exceeded the scope of science when the evidence
was introduced at trial or to support a plea. In all convictions where
a positive FBI hair analysis was used, DOJ will notify the appropriate
prosecutor, the defendant, his/her attorney when possible, the
Innocence Project (IP), and the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers (NACDL)--whether or not there was a prior error. For
example, the FBI reached out nationwide to U.S. Attorneys' Offices,
State and local District Attorney Offices and last known defense
counsel to obtain transcripts of FBI Hair Examiner trial testimony. The
IP and NACDL have also reached out to their contacts to obtain
transcripts, which they will provide to DOJ and FBI. The FBI
anticipates completing its review of all received case transcripts by
the end of 2015.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Shelby. Now, the subcommittee stands in recess
subject to the call of the chair. The subcommittee is
adjourned.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., Thursday, May 7, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]