    [Senate Hearing 114-]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in Room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Shelby, Collins, Graham, Boozman, Capito,
    Lankford, Mikulski, Feinstein, Shaheen, Coons, Baldwin, and
    Murphy.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         Office of the Attorney General

    STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Madam Attorney General, welcome again to this Commerce,
    Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, where we
    will be examining the Department of Justice fiscal year 2017
    budget request.
        Today, the subcommittee will continue the important
    responsibility of reviewing spending at the Justice Department
    to ensure that it has the necessary resources to carry out
    national security and law enforcement missions.
        Last month, you testified before this subcommittee about a
    set of executive actions recently issued by the President
    regarding gun control. At that time, I, along with other
    subcommittee members, expressed deep concerns about the
    constitutionality of key aspects of these executive actions.
        The President's 2017 budget request for the Department of
    Justice submitted a few weeks after that hearing has paid no
    heed to a lot of our concerns.
        The President proposes to increase spending at the
    Department of Justice by $802 million in 2017, for a new total
    of $29.9 billion. This includes $66 million in additional
    funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives for 200 new positions, 80 special agents, and 120
    industry operations investigators. I continue to have
    significant reservations about the potential abuses and
    harassment of law-abiding gun owners and purchasers that could
    result from bringing on these additional agents and
    investigators.
        In addition, I expressed to you at our hearing in January
    my apprehension about the President's Clemency Initiative,
    given the numerous examples of sentences that have been
    commuted for criminals with firearms convictions. You pledged
    to review this situation and get back to the subcommittee on
    this troubling topic. I am still waiting for your response. Yet
    the Department's budget request for the Office of Pardon
    Attorney includes $2.8 million to increase staffing for pardon
    and commutation petition reviews.
        I find it hard to believe that the President could
    spotlight his commitment to reducing gun violence in America
    when his administration is granting clemency petitions for
    criminals convicted of gun crimes.
        In another area, I note that spending for the Bureau of
    Prisons increases by $238 million above 2016 levels, despite
    another projected reduction in our Federal prisoner population,
    which continues to decline. I hope you can shed some light this
    morning on why our prison budget continues to increase instead
    of demonstrating savings and cost reductions at a time when we
    have fewer Federal prisoners.
        When it comes to law enforcement activities,
    counterterrorism and cybersecurity remain top priorities of
    this subcommittee. The massive recent cyber breach of the
    Office of Personnel Management computer network compromised the
    personal information of approximately 25 million Americans.
    That is an astounding number and reminds us what is at stake if
    the Federal Government is not prepared to combat cyber threats,
    both offensively and defensively.
        The Department requests an increase of $121 million for
    combating cyber threats, which includes $85 million for the
    FBI, $8 million for DEA, and $26 million for the Department of
    Justice Information Sharing Technology account.
        Despite the noteworthy funding increases for cybersecurity,
    I am disturbed by proposed cuts to other national security
    activities.
        Finally, when it comes to counterterrorism, I was dismayed
    by the President's announcement on Tuesday of his plans to
    close the Guantanamo detention facility. This announcement came
    on the same day that Spanish and Moroccan police arrested four
    terrorist recruiters that included a former Guantanamo detainee
    who once fought with militants in Afghanistan.
        Current law prohibits the terrorists held at Guantanamo
    from being transferred onto U.S. soil. I am left wondering what
    advice you possibly could have given the President that would
    make such a move legal.
        I will highlight more specific topics in my questions, but
    I appreciate your being here today, and I look forward to your
    testimony.
        Senator Mikulski.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And really a most cordial welcome to the Attorney General,
    Loretta Lynch. I look forward to hearing the Attorney General's
    testimony about the needs of the Justice Department and its
    impact on meeting the needs of the American people to be safe
    and to be secure.
        When we look at the many demands on the Department of
    Justice, they range from dealing with international efforts
    related to terrorism to the practices of organized crime, as
    much as drugs and cybersecurity.
        We really want to thank all of the people who work at the
    Justice Department, those who carry the guns and those who
    carry the Constitution. Actually, they all carry the
    Constitution there. And we really thank them for their work
    that they do every day in every way.
        I know Senator Shelby and I are committed to regular order
    in trying to move this subcommittee's appropriation, working
    also with Senator Cochran so that we do not get into sequester
    or all of those big tensions at the end.
        So we look forward to hearing your testimony, so that we
    can move it.
        I also want to particularly thank you on behalf of the
    citizens of Baltimore for your leadership during our Baltimore
    uprisings. Your work with the elected leadership, law
    enforcement, community leaders, and faith leaders was really
    enormously helpful, and for really helping us to enforce the
    law, living by law and order, for we must live by the law. A
    unique form of technical assistance was provided to us that
    helped our police department, but also helped our citizens, and
    now also helps our citizens have confidence in the police
    department.
        We know we have a long road to go on that. But I want to
    particularly thank you, as we try to rebuild the trust between
    police and the communities they serve.
        I know that this is faced in other parts of the country.
    That is why, in fiscal year 2016, working with Senator Shelby,
    we looked at how we could help modernize many of those efforts.
    So that is one issue.
        The other issue that I am particularly interested in, and I
    know my colleagues are, particularly Senator Shaheen, is the
    scourge of heroin in our communities. As I look around here, we
    have excellent bipartisan attendance, and I would say that
    every single one of us is facing a heroin crisis in our State,
    whether rural, urban, et cetera.
        We really need to come to grips with this. In my own home
    State last year, my State of Maryland, 5.5 million people, we
    had over 578 heroin deaths. I mean, this is just stunning.
        So whether we are rural, urban, or suburban, we just cannot
    enforce our way out of this crisis. We need to break the cycle
    of addiction for drug users. We need to crack down on the big
    dealers and traffickers. And we also need to engage in
    preventive strategies.
        I know, on February 2, the President announced $1.1 billion
    in funding to tackle the heroin and opioid crisis with most of
    the funding going to Health and Human Services and the Justice
    Department. We look forward to hearing from you on this.
        Also, we want to make sure that the FBI has the tools it
    needs. We thank you for what has been going on to give them the
    physical facilities they need.
        But this subcommittee and I believe that we do have to live
    by the Constitution. I know we will be talking about guns in
    this hearing, and I support the Second Amendment. I also
    support the Fourth Amendment right against unwarranted searches
    and seizures. So I look forward to hearing how voluntarily we
    might be able to break through this Apple-FBI standoff.
        I also support Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution
    that says that the President has the authority to nominate a
    Supreme Court Justice up until his last day of office.
        Every day, we count on the Justice Department to fulfill
    its vital mission. And I want you to know, again, I support all
    115,000 employees, many of whom live in my home State of
    Maryland.
        So rather than me talking in more detail, we want to hear
    from you. But most of all, we really want to work on a
    bipartisan basis to keep America safe and keep it safe under a
    constitutional government.
        That completes my remarks.
        Senator Shelby. Madam Attorney General, your written
    testimony will be made part of the record in its totality. You
    may proceed as you wish.

                   SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA E. LYNCH

        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Chairman and Vice Chairman Mikulski, and all the distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, with whom I have had the pleasure
    of working with on so many important issues, it is an honor to
    appear before you today to continue our dialogue about how we
    best protect the American people.
        I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the
    President's fiscal year 2017 budget for the Department of
    Justice. This budget reflects our enduring commitment to
    creating a stronger Nation and more empowered communities that
    every American deserves.
        In the last year, thanks to the thousands of dedicated men
    and women who serve the Department of Justice, and thanks to
    the ongoing support of this distinguished subcommittee, we have
    taken tremendous steps toward that goal. We have prosecuted
    violent extremists and dangerous criminals. We have defended
    the integrity of our markets and the beauty of our natural
    resources. We have worked to end human trafficking, to disrupt
    the flow of illegal drugs and weapons, and to eradicate
    international corruption. And we have created new opportunities
    for second chances in our justice system and new foundations of
    trust in our cities and towns.
        These are real and meaningful achievements, and the
    requests set forth in the President's fiscal year 2017 budget
    request will allow us to build upon this encouraging progress.
        As always, the Justice Department's first and most
    important priority is the safety and the security of the
    American people. The President's budget would invest an
    additional $781 million in our national security capabilities,
    including in critical measures to address the evolving
    challenges like homegrown extremism, online radicalization, and
    increasingly sophisticated encryption.
        Now, among other items, that request also contains funds
    for a new state-of-the-art FBI headquarters, which would reduce
    inefficiencies. It would streamline internal communications,
    and it would significantly boost our ability to thwart the
    emerging criminal and terrorist threats.
        It devotes an increase of $63 million to reinforcing our
    intelligence-sharing capabilities, allowing us to more rapidly
    coordinate with both our Federal partners and our counterparts
    overseas.
        And it directs $38 million toward developing the tools that
    we need to lawfully access encrypted data and communications,
    so that we can successfully investigate and prosecute criminals
    and terrorists who attempt to hide the evidence of their
    crimes.
        Now, as we have seen recently, this is not a theoretical
    issue. As we have made clear, the growing dark problem is a
    very real threat to law enforcement's mission to protect public
    safety and to ensure that criminals are caught and held
    accountable.
        It is a longstanding principle in our justice system that
    if an independent judge finds reason to believe that a certain
    item contains evidence of a crime then that judge can authorize
    the Government to conduct a limited search for that evidence.
    If the Government needs the assistance of third parties to
    ensure that the search is actually conducted, judges all over
    this country and on the Supreme Court have said that those
    parties must assist, if it is reasonably within their power to
    do so.
        That is what we have been asking for. And we owe it to the
    victims and the public whose safety we must protect to ensure
    that we have done everything under the law to fully investigate
    terrorist attacks on American soil.
        Now, of course, as technology continues to evolve, we are
    also focused on stepping up our work against those who attempt
    to use the Internet to attack America's infrastructure, to
    steal our trade secrets, and jeopardize the privacy and
    property of everyday citizens. Accordingly, the fiscal year
    2017 budget would dedicate $121 million in additional resources
    to investigating cybercrimes and to fortifying the Justice
    Department's vital information networks.
        Now, the majority of those resources, $85 million, would be
    used to enhance the FBI's capacity to collect and analyze
    digital evidence, and to increase the overall number of cyber
    investigations. Together, this important funding will allow us
    to keep pace with the fast-changing landscape of cybercrime.
        Our commitment to protecting the American people is matched
    by our dedication to ensuring that they benefit from a criminal
    justice system that is fair, efficient, and responsive. The
    fiscal year 2017 budget requests an increase of $247 million
    for one of our most successful and groundbreaking undertakings
    in that area, the Smart on Crime Initiative, which encourages
    alternatives to incarceration for low-level nonviolent
    offenders, which eases overcrowding in correctional facilities,
    and frees precious resources for the prevention and the
    deterrence of the most serious crimes.
        Of that total Smart on Crime request, $184 million will go
    to the Bureau of Prisons reentry, rehabilitation, and mental
    health programming, which are all essential components of our
    work to help formerly incarcerated individuals make the most of
    their second chance while also ensuring that our communities
    stay strong and safe, because those are the kinds of
    communities that we seek for every American.
        And they require bonds of trust and respect between law
    enforcement officers and the people that we serve. Helping to
    repair those bonds where they have frayed is one of my top
    priorities as Attorney General. The President's request
    reflects that focus with an increase of $25 million in a number
    of programs designed to foster collaboration between residents
    and law enforcement, including racial reconciliation and
    restorative justice initiatives, as well as improved data
    collection. It includes additional funds for the Department's
    Smart Policing program, which encourages local jurisdictions to
    improve police-citizen interactions while developing cost-
    effective solutions to crime in their communities.
        And it enlarges our investment in the Community Oriented
    Policing Services hiring program. This program extends funding
    to State and local departments to hire or retain officers, so
    they can continue to meet the full range of their constituent
    needs.
        Those of us who work in law enforcement have a special
    responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us, and few
    crimes pray more savagely on the vulnerable than human
    trafficking, which destroys families, which weakens
    communities, and erodes our society's basic foundations of
    decency and security. The fiscal year 2017 budget sets aside
    $89.3 million for the department's efforts to combat this
    scourge, including $45 million for efforts to help the victims
    of trafficking rebuild their lives and reclaim their futures.
        We have also resolved that each and every one of our young
    people should grow up in safety and security, which is why the
    budget includes a net increase of over $64 million for the
    Office of Justice Program grants, or OJP, as we call it,
    focused on juvenile justice and at-risk youth, including an
    increase of $25 million for the delinquency prevention program,
    which seeks to prevent young people from entering the criminal
    justice system in the first place by providing assistance and
    guidance as early as possible.
        I look forward to working with this subcommittee and with
    Congress to ensure the timely passage of the President's
    budget, which asks for a total of $29 billion in discretionary
    funding for the Department, including $27 billion for Federal
    programs and $2 billion for State, local, and tribal assistance
    programs.
        This level of funding will ensure that the outstanding men
    and women of the Department of Justice, who I am so proud to
    lead, can continue their tireless work to protect America's
    citizens, to defend America's values, and to strengthen all of
    America's communities in the months and years ahead.
        Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
    you today and to work with you in the future, and I am happy to
    answer any questions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Loretta E. Lynch
        Good morning, Chairman Shelby, Vice Chairwoman Mikulski, and other
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear
    before you today to present the President's fiscal year 2017 budget for
    the Department of Justice, as well as highlight the excellent progress
    the Department has made over the past year. The Department looks to
    build on our successes and continue progress on the most pressing
    issues affecting our communities and our citizens.
        The President's fiscal year 2017 budget requests $29 billion in
    discretionary authority for the Department of Justice (the Department
    or DOJ), including $27 billion for Federal programs and $2 billion for
    State, local, and tribal assistance programs. This is a $265 million
    increase over our fiscal year 2016 enacted funding level. The
    Department's fiscal year 2017 budget proposal supports Federal law
    enforcement priorities and the criminal justice priorities of our
    State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners. The request
    represents a comprehensive investment in the Department's mission and
    includes increases in funding for countering violent extremism and
    other national security areas, civil rights and advancing equality
    under the law, Smart on Crime activities, including increased funds for
    prisoner reentry initiatives, and other key enforcement initiatives.

        The key DOJ funding priorities include:

      --Security of the country and safety of the American people.--The
            budget invests an additional $781 million to counter violent
            extremism, improve intelligence gathering, strengthen foreign
            partnerships, and address the issue of Going Dark.
      --Investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes and countering cyber
            threats.--The budget provides an additional $121 million to
            investigate and address computer intrusions and cybercrimes,
            secure the Department's critical information networks, and
            protect against insider threats.
      --Augment the ``Smart on Crime'' initiative to continue to focus
            Federal criminal justice resources effectively.--The budget
            invests an additional $247 million in the Smart on Crime
            initiative, which focuses resources on the most important law
            enforcement priorities, reduces disparate impacts of the
            criminal justice system on vulnerable communities, and
            prioritizes crime prevention and recidivism reduction programs.
      --Building trust between law enforcement and the communities they
            serve.--The budget includes an increase of $129 million to
            further the efforts the Department and its State and local law
            enforcement partners have made to build and sustain community
            trust. Through the Office of Community Oriented Policing
            Services (COPS), the Community Relations Service (CRS), the
            Civil Rights Division (CRT), and the Office of Justice Programs
            (OJP), the Department provides law enforcement with access to
            the tools and support they need to do their jobs safely and
            effectively.
      --Protecting citizens and addressing threats as they emerge.--The
            budget requests an additional $164 million in investments to
            investigate and hold accountable those who break Federal laws
            and harm innocent citizens. This enhancement aims to combat
            violent crime and the increase in illicit drug use such as
            heroin, and strengthens the litigating divisions of the
            Department.
      --Protecting the Nation's most vulnerable populations.--The budget
            will provide an additional $81 million in funds to ensure the
            rights and opportunities of the elderly, youth, and tribal
            populations, among other vulnerable groups in our society. This
            includes expanding civil and criminal litigation, providing
            support through grants, training, and technical assistance, and
            issuing guidance and regulations.
      --Improving access to justice in both criminal and civil courts
            nationwide.--The budget includes an increase of $21.5 million
            to conduct research and build the Department's capacity to
            assist the States in improving their justice systems. Through
            the Office of Justice Programs and the Office for Access to
            Justice, the Department provides grants and technical
            assistance to jurisdictions to help justice systems work more
            fairly and efficiently by expanding access to counsel to low-
            income people.
      --Address gaps in critical Department infrastructure.--The budget
            invests an additional $179 million to protect DOJ's critical
            information systems and information from attack and
            exploitation. Enhancements include facility construction,
            network improvements, and additional staff.
      --Partnerships with State, local, and tribal entities.--The budget
            provides $4.7 billion in discretionary and mandatory funding
            for State, local, and tribal law enforcement assistance whereby
            the Department maintains its commitments to its partners
            without reducing its Federal operational role. Simultaneously,
            efficiencies are identified to ensure that Federal resources
            are being targeted to the most effective grant programs.
      --Protecting citizens in Indian Country.--The budget requests $418
            million in total resources for support activities across many
            DOJ components that address a range of criminal and civil
            justice issues facing Native American communities. The
            Department is requesting additional resources to facilitate
            tribal access to critical information sharing systems,
            strengthen enforcement of environmental laws on tribal lands,
            and support consultation with tribes and coordination of tribal
            policies through the Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ).
            national security and the safety of the american people
        National security remains the Department's highest priority. The
    Department will always maintain its commitment and its responsibility
    to safeguard American citizens and defend the homeland, while
    maintaining American values. Threats are constantly evolving, requiring
    additional investments to adapt to those threats in innovative ways. In
    fiscal year 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened more
    than 9,000 cases, of which approximately 1,100 were national security
    cases. During fiscal year 2015, the FBI's efforts resulted in over
    27,000 arrests and more than 14,000 convictions. The fiscal year 2017
    request continues to support a comprehensive national security strategy
    towards countering violent extremism (CVE) in U.S. communities. The
    recent tragedy in San Bernardino demonstrates the gravity of this
    threat, and the Department is committed to addressing it.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget will enable the Department to continue
    to respond to evolving threats by providing $781 million in program
    increases for five critical national security areas: (1) a new FBI
    headquarters; (2) countering violent extremism; (3) information sharing
    with the Intelligence Community (IC) and integrating new and enhanced
    biometric technologies into operations; (4) strengthening foreign
    partnerships and building new ones; and (5) addressing the Going Dark
    threat.
        Today's national security and crime threats require that the FBI
    maintain an interconnected and nimble workforce. The complexities of
    today's national security work dictate that the FBI be in an
    interconnected workspace to promote internal information sharing. A
    new, modern FBI facility will consolidate disparate worksites into one
    common location and exploit synergies previously stovepiped in the FBI.
    The men and women of the FBI are critical to protecting national
    security, and this request demonstrates our commitment to invest in
    their safety and provide them with an appropriate environment conducive
    to their important work.
        The Department requests an increase of $17 million to deter
    radicalization and violent extremism within the United States through
    locally driven prevention and intervention efforts and research.
    Supported by COPS and OJP grants, the Department will foster community-
    led CVE efforts, conduct research on the causes of domestic
    radicalization and strategies for effective intervention and
    prevention, and emphasize trusted partnerships between public safety
    agencies and local residents and community organizations. Additionally,
    the U.S. Attorneys' Offices will expand their community presence
    through Community Resilience Coordinators, and enhance Federal
    engagement with and support to local communities as part of the CVE
    initiative. These efforts will work to counter violent extremism
    espoused by both international and homegrown actors.
        To maintain its role as a national security leader, the Department
    requests an increase of $63 million in fiscal year 2017 to continue to
    address worldwide threats by enhancing its intelligence capacity and
    capabilities and strengthening coordination with foreign partners. The
    requested funding will enhance collaboration with the IC through
    leveraging the IC Information Technology Enterprise (IC ITE) components
    and services. IC ITE lays the groundwork that will enhance the FBI's
    ability to share information through improved infrastructure,
    capabilities, business operations, governance, oversight, and strategic
    partnerships. The request also supports critical operational funds for
    the FBI's new Biometric Technology Center (BTC).
        The Department is committed to building new foreign partnerships
    and improving existing ones. The budget request includes $16 million in
    additional funding to enhance technical assistance and training, as
    well as transform the manner in which DOJ provides legal assistance to
    its international partners. In particular, the Criminal Division will
    receive an additional $10 million in support of efforts to reform the
    Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process. To protect our national
    security, we must transform the manner in which we conduct
    international mutual legal assistance in criminal and counterterrorism
    matters.
        Through the International Criminal Investigative Training
    Assistance Program (ICITAP) and the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial
    Development Assistance and Training (OPDAT), DOJ plays a central role
    in policy formulation, strategic development, and implementation of
    global assistance programs that further U.S. national security
    interests. The fiscal year 2017 funding request will provide a
    permanent base budget for ICITAP's and OPDAT's headquarters operations
    to allow the Department to continue and expand its important work in
    this arena.
        As an integral U.S. source for international law enforcement
    intelligence, INTERPOL Washington is experiencing a large increase in
    demand from State, local, tribal, Federal, and international agencies
    for services and assistance due to significant increases in
    transnational crime and the threat of international terrorism. The
    requested funding increase of $1.4 million will enable INTERPOL
    Washington to hire additional employees and contractor support to
    process the increase in query traffic over the past 5 years and
    expected future growth in traffic. Accurate and timely processing of
    incoming requests is critical to INTERPOL's ability to provide timely
    investigative support to our foreign and domestic law enforcement
    partners.
        As technology and the means by which people communicate advance,
    the law enforcement community continues to lack the necessary tools to
    track dangerous criminals and terrorists. Law enforcement must adapt to
    evolving communication technologies, anonymization, and encryption. As
    a result, the law enforcement community faces an increased threat of
    Going Dark: the degradation of law enforcement's ability to lawfully
    access, collect, and intercept real-time communications and stored
    data. The FBI will use $38 million in funding to develop and acquire
    tools for electronic device analysis, cryptanalytic capability, and
    forensic tools to address the threat Going Dark poses to law
    enforcement and national security.
            combating cybercrime and countering cyber threat actors
        Cybercrimes are becoming more common, more sophisticated, and more
    dangerous. Our adversaries increasingly use computers and the Internet
    to further their illicit activities and threats to our security,
    welfare, and our way of life. The significant intrusions of private
    sector and government networks over the past 2 years, including the
    breaches into the Office of Personnel Management, have highlighted the
    increasing capabilities of these cyber actors. Safeguarding our
    essential information networks and the personal and private data that
    they hold is a top priority, and the Department is using every tool at
    its disposal to work proactively, respond swiftly, and adapt constantly
    to this threat.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget provides $121 million in additional
    resources to investigate and address computer intrusions and
    cybercrimes, defend the security of the Department's critical
    information networks, and protect against insider threats. The majority
    of this request provides $85 million in additional funding to enhance
    the technical capabilities of FBI investigative personnel, increase the
    number of cyber investigations, and improve cyber collection and
    analysis. The requested funding will build on the progress and
    development of the FBI's cyber efforts.
        An additional $2 million is requested for OJP's Cybercrime and
    Intellectual Property Enforcement Program--for a total of $15 million--
    to support efforts to combat economic, high technology, and Internet
    crimes, including the intellectual property crimes of counterfeiting
    and piracy. The program will also support crime analysis and delivery
    of evidence-based crime fighting technology--including information
    sharing systems, software and hardware development, mobile
    communications to support law enforcement, and reentry offender case
    management systems--through grants, training, and technical assistance.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget request includes an $8 million increase
    for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to enhance its cyber
    security posture. Requested funding will establish an insider threat
    program as mandated by Executive Order 13587, as well as build
    additional capability and capacity to monitor DEA's increasingly large
    and complex classified and sensitive information systems for threats
    that could degrade DEA operations. Additionally, a $26 million increase
    is included for Justice Information Sharing Technology (JIST) to
    maintain and strengthen the Department's cyber security environment to
    counter cyber threats and to ensure our personnel have unimpeded access
    to the IT systems, networks, and data necessary to achieve their
    missions.
                  building upon the smart on crime initiative
        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. The Smart on Crime initiative focuses Federal
    resources and places the harshest sentences on the most serious
    offenders rather than prioritizing the sheer number of prosecutions.
    Prioritizing crime prevention and recidivism reduction strengthens our
    justice system and places a lower financial burden on the budget so
    that funds can be spent on other essential public safety priorities.
        Of the $247 million requested in program increases for the Smart on
    Crime initiative in fiscal year 2017, $91 million is dedicated to
    reentry- and recidivism-reducing programs at the Bureau of Prisons
    (BOP). More specifically, this funding will expand programming to
    strengthen familial bonds, fund innovative reentry programs, increase
    Residential Reentry Center bed space capacity, and provide additional
    vocational and education training. At U.S. Attorneys Offices, an
    additional $5 million will support prevention and reentry coordinators
    in 53 districts. Additionally, OJP will use a $57 million increase to
    expand several key grant programs, to include its Residential Substance
    Abuse Treatment program and Second Chance Act grants with a goal of
    reducing recidivism rates.
        As the President has stated, reducing recidivism requires paying
    more attention to the mental and physical health of inmates. BOP will
    use $93 million for mental health treatment in the general inmate
    population, as well as at Residential Reentry Centers and other
    resources in Special Housing Units and Special Management Units. The
    enhancements will also be used for expanding Hepatitis C treatment,
    medically assisted treatment for individuals in the justice system
    dependent on opioids, and sex offender cognitive behavioral treatment.
    These enhancements reflect the President's directive to improve
    restrictive housing options by expanding mental health treatment
    options.
            building community trust and strengthening relationships
        Through the events involving adverse and sometimes tragic
    interactions between law enforcement officers and members of their
    communities over the past year, it is clear that the Department of
    Justice plays a role in strengthening the partnerships between
    community members and law enforcement professionals at every level of
    government. The Department is making good on its pledge to provide law
    enforcement with access to the tools and support they need to do their
    jobs as safely and effectively as possible. The President's Task Force
    on 21st Century Policing unanimously developed nearly 60
    recommendations to pave the path toward the administration's two-part
    goal of crime reduction and building trust between law enforcement and
    local communities.
        Law enforcement culture should build trust and legitimacy both
    within agencies and with the public. Toward that end, law enforcement
    agencies should adopt procedural justice as the guiding principle for
    internal and external policies and practices to guide interactions
    between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. The
    fiscal year 2017 budget includes an additional $63 million to advance
    the President's Community Policing Initiative through OJP and COPS. The
    budget invests $20 million in the Procedural Justice--Building
    Community Trust program, which focuses on enhancing procedural justice,
    reducing bias, and supporting racial reconciliation in the criminal and
    juvenile justice systems. The Department's Smart Policing Program
    includes $15 million in additional funds to improve police-citizen
    interactions while developing economical solutions to crime problems in
    their communities. This program includes the Body-Worn Camera (BWC)
    Partnership Program, which provides an additional $8 million in grants
    covering up to half the cost of purchasing body-worn cameras for State
    and local law enforcement.
        The law enforcement community has a unique opportunity to ensure
    fairness, advance bias-free policing, and strengthen community
    engagement and trust. The Department will tailor its efforts to the
    needs of the communities it serves through CRS, CRT, and OJP, with an
    increase of $25 million to further such initiatives. CRS will implement
    racial reconciliation and restorative justice programs that address the
    lack of mutual trust between minority communities and law enforcement
    agencies; fund assistance to local agencies with potentially volatile
    minority communities; and invest in research on best practices for
    building collaborative efforts between law enforcement and the
    communities they serve. With the additional funding, CRT will augment
    its staff and expand its capacity to address cases involving the rights
    of children and people with disabilities who come into contact with the
    justice system. OJP's request supports its National Crime Statistics
    Exchange Initiative (NCS-X), which will collect and report crime
    statistics to inform crime control policies at all levels of law
    enforcement; improves police responses to individuals with mental
    illness, and helps law enforcement agencies improve their response to
    children and families who come into contact with law enforcement.
        Community policing emphasizes working with neighborhood residents
    to advance public safety. With an additional $42 million, the fiscal
    year 2017 budget will increase, through the COPS Hiring Program, the
    number of community police officers working with residents to identify
    crime problems particular to their neighborhoods and collaborating with
    them on implementing solutions that produce meaningful results for the
    community.
          protecting citizens and addressing threats to public safety
        The fiscal year 2017 budget request supports the President's
    initiatives on reducing gun violence, as well as significant
    investments that focus on combatting violent crime throughout the
    United States. To this end, the Department requests $164 million in
    additional investments. The request includes $89 million to enhance the
    enforcement of existing Federal firearms laws and expand the Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF's) regulatory capacity.
    Funding will support National Firearms Act application processing,
    enhancements to the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network
    (NIBIN), and for the FBI to maintain fiscal year 2016 investments in
    the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
        The budget requests an additional $39 million in resources to
    combat violent crime. This additional funding will support hiring of 54
    additional Deputy U.S. Marshals, creating a new Regional Fugitive Task
    Force to apprehend violent fugitives, and improving Deputy U.S. Marshal
    safety equipment. In addition, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
    Task Forces (OCDETF) request operational funding increases in pursuit
    of Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) targets, such as those on the
    Top International Criminal Organizations Target (TICOT) list. Further,
    FBI will augment existing information technology (IT) systems to create
    a consolidated TOC watch list. The budget includes $5 million for OJP
    to continue to expand the Violence Reduction Network, which leverages
    the vast array of existing resources across the Department to implement
    and administer a comprehensive approach to violence reduction in some
    of the country's cities with the highest violent crime rates.
        The President's budget requests an additional $17 million to
    counteract increased availability and abuse of heroin, including
    resources for the DEA to establish additional Heroin Enforcement
    Groups. The Department's request also provides increases to thwart
    international drug trafficking and to support high priority
    prosecutions against drug trafficking organizations along the Southwest
    Border. These investments illustrate DOJ's commitment to combatting the
    opioid epidemic and supporting the victims of this public health
    crisis.
                   protecting the most vulnerable populations
        The Department's priority of upholding the civil and constitutional
    rights of all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable members of
    our society, remains of the highest importance. The Nation's vulnerable
    populations deserve the same rights, opportunities, and protections
    from injustices as the rest of society. The administration and the
    Department are committed to accomplishing this goal and ensuring our
    vulnerable members are always protected--particularly those caught in
    the clutches of human trafficking, a heinous offense that has
    appropriately been described as modern-day slavery. Seeking justice for
    the victims of human trafficking is a cause that has long been close to
    my heart, and it is now one of my main priorities as Attorney General.
    Our fiscal year 2017 budget includes $89.3 million to reinforce the
    Department's efforts to combat human trafficking and provide protection
    and services to victims. This includes $45 million for OJP's Victims of
    Trafficking Program.
        One particularly critical demographic of the country's vulnerable
    populations is our youth. It is of the utmost importance to provide
    services to children exposed to violence in order to break the cycle of
    violence and to address the needs of at-risk youth to prevent further
    contact with the criminal justice system. The fiscal year 2017 request
    includes a $64 million net increase for OJP's Juvenile Justice Programs
    appropriation account, in addition to increases in related State and
    local law enforcement programs. An increase of $25 million will augment
    the Delinquency Prevention Program, with the first goal being to
    prevent children from entering the criminal justice system by providing
    assistance, guidance, and support as early as possible. The budget
    requests $30 million to reestablish the Juvenile Accountability Block
    Grant Program, which encourage States and units of local government to
    implement accountability-based programs and services and strengthen the
    juvenile justice system. The Department is committed to supporting and
    protecting this country's young people.
        Additional resources are requested to ensure the Nation's police
    are properly trained to interact with children, people with mental
    illness, and people with disabilities, and to support enforcement,
    technical assistance, and the issuance of guidance and regulations
    related to the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, the
    Department is proud to protect the rights of our servicemembers, and
    this budget allows us to continue our commitment to defending the civil
    rights of active duty military and veterans.
                     improving access to justice nationwide
        The budget requests an increase of $21.5 million for programs to
    help State, local, and tribal partners address the access to justice
    crisis with systematic improvements to their indigent defense and civil
    legal aid systems, as well as for research conducted by the National
    Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. We have
    proposals to assist jurisdictions with training and technical
    assistance to improve their indigent defense programs, both for adults
    and juveniles. In another understudied area of our justice system, we
    propose a new grant program to incentivize States to create integrated
    civil legal aid delivery systems to better meet the legal needs of low-
    and moderate-income people. This funding would amplify the direct
    services provided by grantees of the Legal Services Corporation by
    engaging other stakeholders like the State judiciary to improve access
    to justice.
                   upgrading mission critical infrastructure
        In order to maintain an effective and efficient organization, the
    Department must invest in its infrastructure to support its
    investigative and prosecutorial enterprises. The request of $179
    million builds on investments previously made to address gaps in
    critical infrastructure, including IT improvements that support both
    law enforcement and litigating components, facility construction and
    maintenance, policy oversight, and personnel security investments.
        The resources requested for IT improvements total $79 million to
    upgrade outdated IT systems and enhance the capabilities of existing
    systems for multiple law enforcement and litigation components. The
    upgrades will keep pace with security, stability, and scalability, and
    will result in operational efficiencies for mobile capabilities and
    improved information sharing. For facility construction and
    maintenance, $93 million is requested for the FBI, the Executive Office
    for Immigration Review (EOIR), and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) for
    priority construction, infrastructure improvements, and detention
    housing of Federal prisoners. The Department requests $8 million for
    policy offices (supported by the General Administration (GA)
    appropriation) and the USMS's Office of Professional Responsibility to
    enhance policy analysis, coordination, and compliance functions. The
    Department's grant-making components will continue to implement
    GrantsNet, an integrated shared services approach that enables common
    business processes, decreases the number of grants management
    solutions, and eliminates standalone systems and tools. Finally,
    $277,000 is requested for personnel security to address the
    Department's current backlog of security investigations of both Federal
    employees and contractors and future security investigation needs.
        investing resources to assist state, local, and tribal partners
        The fiscal year 2017 budget maintains the Department's commitments
    to State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners without reducing
    DOJ's Federal operational role. It also begins a 10-year, $500 million
    per year commitment to funding criminal justice reform efforts
    nationwide. The fiscal year 2017 discretionary and mandatory request
    for State, local, and tribal law enforcement assistance is $4.7
    billion, including discretionary enhancements of $443 million. This
    request also contains identified efficiencies to ensure that only the
    most effective grant programs receive Federal resources.
        The fiscal year 2017 request for COPS totals $286 million, and
    includes an increase of $42 million for the COPS Hiring Program and $3
    million to supplement the CVE initiative. The Office on Violence
    against Women's (OVW) fiscal year 2017 request totals $489 million, and
    includes increases of $11 million for the Improving Criminal Justice
    Responses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence and
    Stalking Program (formerly known as the Arrest Program) to support
    coordinated, effective police, prosecution, and judicial responses to
    these crimes; $8 million to increase the availability of evidence-based
    legal services for victims; and $6 million for OVW's Campus Program to
    continue and expand the work being done to address sexual assault on
    college campuses. The fiscal year 2017 request for OJP totals $4.2
    billion, including $1.6 billion for discretionary grant programs and
    $2.6 billion for mandatory grant programs. It includes $326 million in
    discretionary enhancements, including increased funding for an indigent
    defense initiative, Second Chance Prisoner Reentry, Justice
    Reinvestment, and juvenile justice programs, new funding to support the
    Violence Reduction Network, and the CVE initiative and research on
    domestic radicalization.
                   providing public safety in indian country
        The United States has a unique legal and political relationship
    with American Indian tribes and Alaskan Native communities, as provided
    by the Constitution, treaties, court decisions, and Federal statutes.
    The Department of Justice, in particular, has an important legal and
    moral responsibility to prosecute violent crime in Indian Country.
    Federal investigation and prosecution of such matters is often the
    primary avenue of protection for the victims of these crimes.
        The President's fiscal year 2017 budget requests $418 million in
    total resources for public safety initiatives in Indian Country.
    Investments support activities across many DOJ components that address
    a range of criminal and civil justice issues facing Native American
    communities. A highlight is the COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program,
    which facilitates tribal access to critical information sharing
    systems. The increase will support the Department's Tribal Access
    Program for National Crime Information. Launched in August 2015, the
    program enables tribes to more effectively serve and protect their
    members by ensuring the exchange of critical data across systems, such
    as those managed by the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
    (CJIS) Division. The request also includes a 7 percent set-aside from
    OJP's discretionary grant and reimbursement programs for flexible
    tribal justice assistance grants. In addition, the Department requests
    resources to strengthen the enforcement of environmental laws on tribal
    lands, to support consultation with tribes and coordination of tribal
    policies through OTJ, and to help tribes hold non-Indian offenders
    accountable for domestic and dating violence committed in Indian
    country.
                                   conclusion
        Chairman Shelby, Vice Chairwoman Mikulski, and members of the
    subcommittee, it is my pleasure to highlight recent DOJ successes as
    well as identified efficiencies that help strengthen the Department's
    ability to ensure fairness, equality, and justice for all Americans. I
    thank you for your past support of the Department's financial needs,
    and for the opportunity to present our fiscal year 2017 budget request.
    Progress within our Nation has always been driven by our desire to live
    up to our ideals of inclusiveness and opportunity, of equal rights and
    equal justice. I look forward to working with you through the upcoming
    fiscal year to ensure that the Department of Justice remains on solid
    financial footing and can accomplish its multiple and varied missions
    effectively.

                            GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Attorney General.
        Since President Obama took office, Congress has
    consistently, on a bipartisan basis, prohibited the closure of
    the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay through
    multiple pieces of legislation. This subcommittee once again
    included two prohibitions in the fiscal year 2016 spending bill
    restricting the transfer and housing of these terrorist
    detainees on U.S. soil, and the President signed that bill into
    law.
        Yet, this week, the President has announced a new plan to
    close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. My questions:
    You have previously testified that Federal law prohibits the
    transfer of terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay to U.S.
    soil. How has your legal opinion changed, or has it, to warrant
    the President's announcement?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    opportunity to address that issue.
        The President did submit a proposal to Congress this week
    regarding the closure of Guantanamo Bay, which has long been a
    priority of the administration, and which I support, as it
    does, in fact, lead to the unfortunate recruitment of
    additional terrorist individuals overseas.
        Of course, as you note, the most recent legislation
    continues the prohibition on transferring detainees from
    Guantanamo Bay to American soil.
        Senator Shelby. That is the law right now, isn't it?
        Attorney General Lynch. That is the current law, and it
    continues previous iterations of those statutes.
        Certainly, I believe that is why the President's plan calls
    for him to work with Congress to discuss that particular issue.
    That is, I believe, the goal here.
        Obviously, we will continue to manage the facility as long
    as it is open, but I believe the President is looking forward
    to working with Congress to discuss those issues. That will be
    something that I am sure will be a matter of discussion between
    the administration and this body.
        Senator Shelby. Have you advised the President on using
    executive actions to close the Guantanamo prison and transfer
    terrorist detainees to American soil, despite the law?
        Attorney General Lynch. I have neither been asked nor
    provided----
        Senator Shelby. You have not done that?
        Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Advice on that,
    because the position is that the President will work with
    Congress to deal with the statutory limitations before any
    transfers could be made.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.

                        PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR VOTERS

        In the area of allowing noncitizens to vote, let me get
    into this topic with you a little.
        Recent press reports have indicated that the Department of
    Justice has failed in its duty to properly defend the U.S.
    Election Assistance Commission, EAC, in a lawsuit involving the
    right of States to require proof of citizenship for voter
    registration.
        It is my understanding that the Election Assistance
    Commission has approved the request of States, such as my own
    in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas, to require such proof of
    citizenship, and various outside groups are challenging this
    approval in court.
        Earlier this week, a Federal court denied a request for a
    temporary restraining order against the EAC's actions. But I
    was disturbed, Madam Attorney General, to learn about the
    conduct of the Department of Justice's lawyers in this case,
    who took the opposite position of your client, the Election
    Assistance Commission, instead of defending them.
        My question is this, did you authorize, as the Attorney
    General, the Department's attorneys to argue for a temporary
    restraining order and possibly even a preliminary injunction
    against the actions of your own client, the Election Assistance
    Commission, in this case?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you
    have noted, the Department does represent the Election
    Assistance Commission, as we statutorily do represent virtually
    all Federal agencies and other departments here.
        This matter is an open matter. It is in current litigation.
    So because it is in active litigation, it is not appropriate
    for me to comment at this time on those types of discussions. I
    would note that we did file papers in that matter, and our
    position is best set forth in those pleadings.
        Senator Shelby. Do you personally believe--you are the
    chief law enforcement officer of the country--that noncitizens
    should be allowed to vote in U.S. elections, although they are
    not American citizens?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I believe the law is
    settled as to who is allowed to vote in terms of citizenship.
        I believe this particular case focuses on matters of how
    documents will be prepared. As I indicated, we have filed
    pleadings in the matter, and I would refer you to those for the
    Department's position.
        Senator Shelby. Goodness.

                                SANCTUARY CITIES

        Sanctuary cities, my last question to you. There is an
    ongoing problem that we all have talked about with sanctuary
    cities in our country. I do not believe that your department is
    addressing this, or the administration.
        Madam Attorney General, let me preface this. I received a
    letter from Mr. Kadzik, not you, which states the
    administration is finally acknowledging and beginning to work
    on the problem of sanctuary cities.
        How are you approaching that? Isn't this a real problem in
    this country?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    raising this issue, because it certainly does reflect the
    numerous strands of tensions that arise as we try to carry out
    our obligations to work with our State and local partners, as
    well as deal with the issue of the need to remove individuals
    who are released from Federal custody and are deportable, and,
    therefore, are usually processed for removal by the Department
    of Homeland Security.
        Also, I thank you for your communications on this matter to
    me several months ago. Certainly, as we have reviewed this
    issue and looked at policies to best handle it, all of those
    issues have been important, so I thank you for your attention
    to this matter as well.
        As you note, Mr. Chairman, this has been an issue, and it
    raises a number of concerns about public safety as well as the
    comity and relationship between the Federal agencies and our
    State and local counterparts.
        It arises because, in many situations, when individuals,
    noncitizens--particularly those who do not have legal status
    and are, therefore, going to be deported--are released from
    Federal custody, from the Bureau of Prisons custody,
    traditionally, if there are other law enforcement agencies that
    have an interest in prosecuting or investigating these
    individuals, they have filed detainers. Another State, for
    example, may need to prosecute that individual for another
    crime. Of course, we support those citizens' right to justice
    as well.
        Typically, we would wait until the end of those other State
    adjudications before going forward with the Department of
    Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
    removal action, because to remove the defendant would mean the
    State would not be able to prosecute them, and those victims
    would not obtain justice.
        However, in situations where, at the end of the State
    proceedings or the end of State custody, we were finding that
    the ICE removal orders were not being honored. This presented a
    problem where individuals were being released without the
    knowledge of the Federal Government, without our ability to
    intervene, and then move forward with those removal actions.
        It has been further complicated by ongoing litigation in
    this matter. The Department is currently defending the
    Department of Homeland Security in two actions where
    jurisdictions are challenging their obligations to provide
    information to DHS, whether it is, for example, voluntary or
    mandatory. So those matters are ongoing, and we have had a
    ruling against us.
        What we have decided to do, however, is to look at this
    matter from a way of what policy can be best set up that
    effectuates the goals of, first of all, public safety as well
    as respecting our State and local colleagues' needs.
        So our current policy, as was outlined to you in your
    letter, in the letter that we provided to you, and has been
    recently announced, is that instead of the Bureau of Prisons
    placing the ICE detainer removal last in priority, they now
    have the right of first refusal. They are now first in priority
    when someone who is deportable is to be released from Federal
    custody.
        What this means is that, if the individual is likely to go
    to a jurisdiction that would not work with us at the end of
    their adjudication, that is taken into consideration, and the
    individual can be removed rather than being released and, in
    fact, further harming public safety.
        There are many jurisdictions that do work with us, however.
    So we do, as I mentioned, want to make sure that they can
    adjudicate their cases. So we want to have, essentially, the
    ICE removal detainer the first in line, and ICE will have the
    right of first refusal on removing someone.
        We think that this will help us manage the situation, while
    still letting jurisdictions have those prosecutions.
        Senator Shelby. Do you believe that municipalities in this
    country, cities, that refuse to cooperate with the Federal
    immigration laws should be allowed to receive Federal law
    enforcement grant funding of any kind? They are in defiance of
    the State Department, Homeland Security, or the Justice
    Department.
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
        Certainly, as we advise all those who apply for grants,
    they must comply with applicable Federal law. Certainly, where
    we receive allegations that they are not complying with the
    Federal laws that relate directly to those grants, we refer
    those matters to our Inspector General for investigation.
        As I mentioned earlier, one of the issues that has
    developed, however, and I note that we are defending the
    Department of Homeland Security in two cases now, challenging
    whether or not that requirement to cooperate with us with
    respect to that particular law is mandatory or voluntary. In
    fact, in one circuit, there has been a holding that it is not
    mandatory.
        So while we certainly will continue to advance our position
    in court, we also felt that, as a policy matter, having a
    policy that allowed us to deal first with the removal matter
    would be more effective and, frankly, more timely.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski.

                         INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Madam Attorney General, I want to go to the international
    scene and discuss international organized crime. From meetings
    and hearings in both this subcommittee and the Intelligence
    Committee, we see that there is a growth of international
    organized crime. One of my questions would be, is that valid?
        Second, is the scope of international organized crime
    growing, from either being contract killers for nation-states
    that do not want to get their hands dirty to human trafficking
    to fraud?
        Also most recently, I know some of my colleagues, some in
    this room over the age of 65, got the kinds of phone calls that
    I did, which told me that I was being sued by the IRS for
    failure of payment. All I needed to do was give them my credit
    card and pin number, and all things would be well. Of course,
    we have taken proper action on that.
        But that is pretty scary. It means that they are targeting
    people of a certain age. And it is one thing to get unsolicited
    phone calls to buy home alert systems. It is another to get
    this.
        So my question to you is, number one, is organized crime
    growing internationally? And number two, do you have the
    resources, because they are at it on so many different levels,
    from terrorism to trafficking to international fraud, some very
    big, trying to hack our Medicare system at the Social Security
    Administration, to an individual unsuspecting taxpayer scared
    to death by a pretty rough and rude phone call.
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
        You have raised some important issues, in particular, the
    fact that transnational organized crime is now cutting across a
    number of spheres of criminal activity.
        Just to address initially the last issue that you raised
    about the IRS scam phone call that you received, this is, in
    fact, the type of scam that we are seeing on the rise. Many of
    the calls originate from within the country. Some of them
    originate from outside the country. They do target our
    vulnerable populations, in particular our older Americans.
        That is why, not to focus specifically on transnational
    organized crime, but in terms of dealing with crime targeting
    our elderly citizens, one of the things that we are looking at
    is increased funding there that would give us 10 task forces
    around the country to focus specifically on elder-related
    crime.
        But to your first point about transnational organized
    crime, the fiscal year 2017 request does include $1.5 million
    to fund the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
    (OCDETF's) priority transnational organized crime initiative.
    In fact, that is one of the areas where we see this growing.
        The FBI is embarking on a 2016 pilot effort to watch-list a
    certain number of transnational organized crime individuals.
    The goal is to provide a watch-listing capability that the
    Government can operate similar to our terrorist screening
    center, so just because someone does not fall in the terrorist
    bucket, we can still set up a watch-list program for them that
    indicates they are involved in transnational organized crime.
        This cuts across so many areas. Our cybercrime request, for
    example, deals with the issue of fraud and also computer
    intrusions. Many of the computer hackings that we have
    experienced, be it on a government level or directed against
    individuals or directed against segments of industry, originate
    from overseas. So for these cybercrime efforts, we are asking
    for a total of $950 million in fiscal year 2017, which would
    give us the resources that we need within main Justice, with
    attorneys, with the FBI, with increased agents, to deal with
    that issue.
        As it relates to human trafficking, that request is for $89
    million. That would also cover domestic and international
    efforts to deal with human trafficking. It would support the
    work we do with task forces with our State and local
    colleagues, as well as the investigations that we do overseas.
        So this area is woven throughout the Department's budget,
    and I thank you for bringing attention to it.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, it shows really how big this is,
    and I encourage my colleagues to look at it.

                                  BODY CAMERAS

        One last question. As you know, we are working very hard to
    establish trust between local law enforcement and the citizens
    they are sworn to protect. Do you think that body cameras are
    an important tool to establish this for not only evidentiary
    reasons, but trust reasons? Or do you see impediments and
    potholes to this? Could you tell us what you think about the
    efficacy of body cameras for both sides, law enforcement and
    citizens, that you have actively engaged with yourself?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Senator.
        I think that this is one of the most important issues that
    we have facing the country, that is to say the trust connection
    between citizens and law enforcement. I think it is reflective
    of the bond between citizens and government writ large. So as
    we deal with this issue, we are strengthening and reinforcing
    that overall bond as well.
        Body cameras are an important tool in this regard, as it
    relates to local law enforcement. We currently support a number
    of pilot programs that have enabled several jurisdictions to
    purchase body cameras and to also deal with issues of data
    storage and data retention and privacy issues that also arise
    therefrom as well.
        I certainly think, in my travels across the country, as I
    have talked with law enforcement leaders and community
    leaders--I meet with them separately; I meet with them
    together. I talk to people who are actively working on this
    issue. The reason why I think it is still an important tool is
    that the conversations are helpful, but particularly in
    situations where the bond of trust is so frayed, having that
    third party sort of open eye can be very helpful.
        In fact, in jurisdictions that have adopted the use of body
    cameras, so far, over the last several years, those
    jurisdictions almost uniformly have seen a reduction in the
    number of citizen complaints against police officers. So
    citizens feel that, essentially, they have accountability.
    Officers who initially may be resistant to this, and it varies
    throughout the law enforcement community, depending upon the
    size of the department and the issues that it raises, but law
    enforcement may start out being resistant to this idea, but
    generally are finding it very, very helpful, because it also
    gives them the independent third eye as to what happened. And
    they have corroboration for their statements, and they have
    that useful evidence.
        Of course, it does not capture an entire interaction. It
    does not answer all the questions. But it does give both sides
    in the debate something on which to rely. From that, you can
    also work toward rebuilding the relationship of trust that is
    so important.
        So the jurisdictions that I have been speaking with are
    looking forward to receiving body cameras. Those that have them
    are finding them extremely useful. And I am getting very
    positive comments from community members as well.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you. That was very insightful.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Lankford.

                                SANCTUARY CITIES

        Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, again. I wanted to be able to follow up on a
    quick statement that you made, then I have multiple questions
    to go through.
        The chairman asked you about sanctuary cities. You are
    saying that you have changed the internal processes for the ICE
    detainers so they go first in this and that DOJ is now
    attentive to cities that are traditionally cities that have not
    cooperated with us in making sure that we do our prosecutions
    or deportations before they get to the city. Did I get that
    correct?
        Attorney General Lynch. That is correct. Just to clarify,
    the policy is a DHS policy with BOP. But, yes, that is correct.
        Senator Lankford. That is a real help, so I appreciate
    everyone getting the chance to start working through the
    process and trying to find some solutions.

                            GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES

        Yesterday, you had conversations with the House Committee
    on Appropriations and this issue of Gitmo came up at that time
    as well. You gave very thorough answers, and I appreciate that
    as well.
        One of the statements that you made, though, you were
    talking about individuals from Guantanamo Bay could be
    transferred, certain individuals, which is not the majority,
    but certain individuals could be transferred to other countries
    after significant vetting.
        You made the statement, with respect to individuals being
    transferred to the United States, the law currently does not
    allow for that, does not allow individuals currently to be
    transferred from Guantanamo Bay to the United States.
        So my question on that is, is that a current law, meaning
    Congress would have to pass something to change that? Or are
    you anticipating an expiration of some current law, and so
    there may be a time people could come? So just identifying that
    word ``currently'' in what you said and trying to identify, is
    there a new law that needs to be passed before individuals
    could be moved from Guantanamo to the United States, or there
    is some law you're watching for an expiration on?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I do not have a plan on
    that. That is something I believe the White House is going to
    speak to Congress about, in terms of what should be done
    statutorily, in terms of how to best close Guantanamo Bay. Of
    course, as we have discussed, because of the current state of
    the law, both the most recent National Defense Authorization
    Act (NDAA) and previous iterations of that contain a
    prohibition on bringing any of those individuals to U.S. soil.
    That is something that would have to be resolved between the
    administration and Congress.
        Senator Lankford. So I guess what I am asking is, do you
    anticipate Congress would have to pass something to change that
    or is there some expiration that you anticipate to say, after
    this date, the NDAA, for instance, currently it is in the law,
    but once NDAA expires this year, then maybe we could? That is
    what I am trying to identify.
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, there are a number of
    options, but I certainly am not advocating anything at this
    point. I believe that is up to the President, as he intends to
    have those discussions. And I intend to let him have those
    discussions and bring that matter before Congress.
        Senator Lankford. Sure. But, again, back to the same issue,
    would Congress have to pass something proactively for that to
    change? Or could the policy change based on expiration?
        Attorney General Lynch. I hate to give you the lawyer's
    answer that it depends, but it certainly depends on the state
    of the law, and when the matter is up for consideration.
    Certainly, the current state of the law, I anticipate there
    will be discussions between the White House and Congress about
    how to best handle that issue.
        I do not have any forward thinking on that for you to give.
    I am not looking to get ahead of the President on that issue.
        Senator Lankford. Okay.

                     POTENTIAL GRANT DUPLICATION REPORTING

        During fiscal year 2016 and 2017, the Department of Justice
    requested $22 million as a carveout in the Byrne JAG funding
    for the bulletproof vest program. So instead of having it as
    its own separate line item, it would be within Byrne JAG and
    just be a carveout.
        That is one that I have supported. It deals with some of
    the duplicative issues.
        We had asked, in last year's omnibus, to have a report on
    duplication. I have seen the report that has come back. It was
    due a couple weeks ago. The report was basically three pages of
    just very general statements saying we did not find much, but
    there was no real detail, and a more comprehensive report is
    coming at some point on duplication within programs.
        When can we anticipate that that would happen? That would
    be helpful to us as we make decisions in the days ahead, to
    have a more complete report on duplication.
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for raising that. I
    certainly would appreciate the opportunity to respond to you at
    the staff level with more information on that.
        Certainly, within this current budget, we are looking to
    avoid duplication and looking to where we may have had
    programs, in a very general sense, that were very similar to
    focusing on those that we found to be the most effective. The
    bulletproof vest program is certainly one that we feel has been
    very effective. But even within our grant programs, we are
    always looking for ways to make sure we are focusing on those
    that are most effective and not simply having multiple----
        Senator Lankford. Correct. There is a difference between
    effective and duplicative. There may be several effective
    programs that we could add administrative functions together
    and be able to----
        Attorney General Lynch. And generate savings.
        Senator Lankford. Correct. And be able to actually get
    additional bulletproof vests on the street rather than using it
    for administrative dollars.

                               CRIME VICTIMS FUND

        One last thing, you made a comment in your budget, fiscal
    year 2017 budget, about the Crime Victims Fund, saying you are
    estimating $10.2 billion in mandatory program authority. That
    was the request. But the actual request to spend was $2 billion
    in disbursements. About $2.7 billion, $2.5 billion is actually
    coming into that Crime Victims Fund each year.
        The $2 billion that you made a request on, does that meet
    the needs of all the crime victims and the crime victims
    issues? Is that why there is a $2 billion request when we have
    a larger amount than that that is actually coming in, a smaller
    amount that is actually the request? I assume that means that
    all requests have been fulfilled with your budget?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, what I can tell you
    today--and, certainly, again, with respect to those specific
    numbers, I appreciate the opportunity to get back to you at the
    staff level. But what I can tell you today is that, certainly,
    the budget does include the $10.5 billion in the mandatory
    budget authority----
        Senator Lankford. But only $2 billion in disbursements.
        Attorney General Lynch. $2 billion in disbursements from
    the Crime Victims Fund. And essentially, I know that this
    budget does focus on victims programs. And I know that the rest
    of that money is used in terms of an accounting method called
    scorekeeping.
        But again, I would rather not misstate that for you today
    on the numbers, and would appreciate the chance to get back to
    you on that.
        [The information follows:]

        The President's budget requests that, of the estimated $12.5
    billion in the Crime Victims Fund in fiscal year 2017, $2 billion be
    made available for obligation. The President's request will not meet
    the needs of all crime victims. However, this funding level builds on
    the $2.361 billion enacted in fiscal year 2015 and the $3.042 billion
    enacted in fiscal year 2016, continuing an unprecedented level of
    support for crime victims across the country. This request maintains
    strong support for formula grants to support victims compensation and
    services programs and will help ensure that victim's services providers
    will be able to responsibly implement the $3 billion provided to
    support CVF programs in fiscal year 2016. The fiscal year 2017
    President's budget request of $2 billion will maintain the fiscal
    integrity of the Fund for future years.

        Senator Lankford. Okay. Will do. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Feinstein.

                               HUMAN TRAFFICKING

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, Attorney General.
        I want to begin by thanking you, Sally Yates, and the FBI,
    for your activity during the Super Bowl in California to
    counter human trafficking.
        I have been very impressed with the coordination. San
    Francisco's FBI division oversaw more than 35 Super Bowl
    antitrafficking operations, and they did it very well.
        In L.A., the sheriff has constituted a special unit of the
    department that takes the matter very seriously. They made 198
    arrests. Only 13 of those were buyers that were booked. This is
    what I wanted to discuss with you today.
        Senator Mikulski spoke about organized crime. Nothing is
    more organized than human trafficking. I think the Senate
    really stands as unanimously as we ever get to counter this.
        I think a greater emphasis has to be placed on demand. That
    means arresting and booking buyers, not just citing them, and
    ensuring that they are prosecuted.
        I understand that in certain local jurisdictions,
    enforcement is reluctant to arrest and hold the buyers if they
    do not believe local prosecutors will actually take the case.
    And now we have Federal law that is actually stronger than
    California law.
        So I am hopeful that, because this is an organized crime
    effort, because it does go interstate and even international,
    that our Government will be willing to take a number of these
    cases as Federal cases and actually book and hold the buyers
    who buy children as well as adults.
        It is just something that I do not think this country can
    countenance. So I would be very interested in your reaction to
    that.
        Attorney General Lynch. Yes, thank you, Senator. You have
    certainly touched on one of my top priorities.
        I know that from your work with California law enforcement,
    you are aware of the efforts, the Herculean efforts, frankly,
    that they are undertaking to fight this scourge.
        We have seen, in particular, the corridor up from
    California into the Washington State area as one that has been
    extremely prolific in terms of human trafficking over the
    years. I was privileged to be in Seattle late last year to
    discuss the awarding of some grants we were providing to them
    to increase enforcement there.
        So at the local level, we are, in fact, providing the
    resources that we hope will generate more prosecutions. And,
    certainly, at the Federal level, we are looking to do that as
    well. We are expanding what is called the antitrafficking team
    initiative that gets local U.S. Attorneys involved in these
    cases also.
        Our focus is, frankly, primarily on rescuing the victims
    and trying to get them out of this life. So to do that, we
    partner with a lot of community resources and non-governmental
    organizations that can provide that kind of assistance.
        But then our focus is also to generate significant
    prosecutions of the traffickers and the buyers, both to
    prosecute them and hold them accountable, but as a deterrent to
    others who would engage in this particular heinous crime.
        So federally, we need certain types of jurisdiction for an
    individual buyer. That is why we do support the efforts of our
    State and local colleagues to generate those prosecutions as
    well.
        As I said before, my local U.S. Attorneys are very involved
    in this. Every office now is required to be involved in a human
    trafficking task force. That is part of the coordination that I
    hope you saw prior to the Super Bowl, so that before events
    like the Super Bowl, large-scale events--if, for example, the
    Olympics were to be here again, there would be similar
    initiatives.
        And the U.S. Attorneys coordinate and decide who will take
    this type of case. Again, for the individual buyers, those tend
    to be handled at the local level, but those discussions are
    also held in advance, so that our local colleagues are prepared
    to generate those types of cases.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I really appreciate that.
        In California, we are trying to develop sympathetic homes
    for girls that have been held. The captivity of these young
    girls, the way the pimps create--the fact that their survival
    is dependent upon them is really a very serious thing, and a
    lot of them are very young. So that is a work in progress.
        But we do need strong enforcement, and we do need to say to
    people who buy young children and do these things that you are
    going to be arrested and you are going to be booked and you are
    going to jail for it. I think that is still missing, in a
    consistent basis.
        So anything we can do, because we now have strong Federal
    law, stronger than California's, is very much appreciated.
        Attorney General Lynch. Yes, thank you. We are focused on
    that.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.

               DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE TO SAN BERNARDINO

        If I might, I want to talk about the San Bernardino event
    for a moment. I recently met with San Bernardino County
    officials, including the district attorney, as well as city
    officials, who discussed the great financial costs resulting
    from the December 2 terrorist attack and the ongoing public
    safety needs to reassure people there.
        The city has been through bankruptcy, so it does not have a
    lot of money. I think in cases of terrorism, it would be
    helpful to local communities if there were a one-stop shop of
    sorts at the Department of Justice where communities could go
    to understand all of the resources available and how to apply
    with them. We have that in FEMA cases, and I do think having
    some recourse within the department for that would be helpful.
        Can you tell us what sort of assistance your department has
    already provided to the City and County of San Bernardino in
    the wake of that terrorist attack, and what you think the
    department can and should do to help prevent another one?
        Attorney General Lynch. Certainly. I will say that I am not
    intimately familiar with everything that we may have provided,
    but we, certainly, through our Office of Victims of Crime would
    have been providing assistance to the individual victims'
    families.
        At the municipal level, though, I think you raise an
    excellent idea of finding a way in which we could collect all
    of our resources available to municipalities and make sure that
    they are aware of them. We typically do this through the Joint
    Terrorism Task Force at the law enforcement level, but there
    certainly are going to be other issues that I see that could
    arise from an incident like this that would not necessarily be
    tied in with the JTTF and might not have access to that
    information.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, it is one place where a county or
    a city or individuals can go. I would like to work with you on
    it, if I may, because San Bernardino is at a loss of where they
    are going to get the money to buy some of the materials, law
    enforcement materials, they need.
        For example, they do not have long guns. For a police force
    today, that has to be changed.
        So I would be very interested in working with you.
        Attorney General Lynch. We would appreciate that. Thank
    you, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Capito.

                           EQUITABLE SHARING PROGRAM

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Attorney General. I had a couple questions.
        I wanted to ask you, first of all, because we have heard
    from a lot of our State police, but some of our local law
    enforcement, county law enforcement, entities regarding the
    Asset Forfeiture Program's Equitable Sharing Program. You know
    that the funds have been withheld, and for some of these local
    entities, including our State police, these funds are pretty
    vital for them to move forward with their local law enforcement
    programs.
        Could you give us an update on the budgetary status? I read
    it was considered a pause where the money was not going to be
    forwarded on to the local entities. What is the status of that?
    And how have you been communicating with the local law
    enforcement agencies to keep them apprised of what is going on?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for raising this issue,
    because, again, it is certainly one of great importance, not
    only to our State and local colleagues, but to me as someone
    who, through the Department of Justice, relies very heavily on
    them for their participation in the work that leads to the
    funds that go into the Asset Forfeiture Program that we use for
    Equitable Sharing. It is based upon a very strong task force
    relationship that we have with local police, sheriffs, and
    other offices. And we value that contribution tremendously.
        The situation, as you have indicated, is of recent vintage.
    We make our Equitable Sharing payments, again reflecting the
    law enforcement contributions of our State and local colleagues
    in these actions. We make these payments out of the Assets
    Forfeiture Fund, which, of course, is dependent upon the
    proceeds that we receive throughout the year.
        Generally, we work to make sure that we stay on track of
    the proceeds coming in and the proceeds going out. At the end
    of the last calendar year, after finalizing the fiscal year
    2016 budget plan in late December, we received information that
    there was going to be a fairly large rescission from the Assets
    Forfeiture Fund, larger than in previous years. Certainly,
    while we typically have gotten rescissions in the $200 million,
    $300 million range and have always tried to plan to be able to
    make sure that those do not impact our operations, the
    rescission in late December, early January, was about $1.2
    billion.
        So with that rescission coming out of the fund, it left the
    fund depleted. What we have indicated, and conveyed to our
    State and local colleagues, and to our police organizations, is
    that this is a temporary hold on Equitable Sharing payments,
    and that we anticipate and it is our intention that, as the
    Assets Forfeiture Fund is replenished, to resume those
    payments.
        So we have communicated this by speaking to our law
    enforcement organizations. Members of my leadership team have
    had calls and meetings with them. I have communicated directly
    with the heads of law enforcement organizations, State and
    local counterparts, with whom I work with and met with, the
    National Sheriffs' Association also, and have raised this issue
    with them as well as the National District Attorneys
    Association.
        We view this as a temporary cessation because the funds are
    not in the account at this point in time.
        We have asked two things of our State and local colleagues.
    Number one, we have asked that they remain in the task forces,
    because we need them and they are vital to making sure that we
    work on public safety. They know this area like no one else
    does. But also so that as their work continues, we can in fact
    process the applications, and when the money is available, make
    those payments as soon as possible.
        We have also advised them that even though we are not able
    to make the Equitable Sharing payments at this time, what is
    called the JLEO, or Joint Law Enforcement Operation payments,
    which primarily cover the overtime costs of State and local
    officers, are being made.
        So we have asked our colleagues to stay in the task forces
    and to continue to submit all the forms they would ordinarily
    submit for that.
        We have also advised them that we will update them on a
    monthly basis on this. We intend to do so. I spoke with them
    most recently over the course of January and this month and
    have gone into detail about how this issue occurred and our
    regret for it occurring, and stressed the importance of their
    contribution.
        Senator Capito. I think they know that they shouldn't be
    counting on these funds to run their local departments. The
    temptation obviously, of course, over years in slim budget
    times, these become very vital funds for them.
        Very quickly, because I am kind of out of time, ATF, you
    have an increase. We have that tracing facility in Martinsburg,
    West Virginia.

               NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM

        The other thing I wanted to talk about was the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It is also
    located in West Virginia. I noticed in the statistics that we
    are doing twice as many background checks with 33 fewer people,
    and that you have asked for an additional 200 people, I am sure
    to meet the demands of the increasing workload there. How is
    the hiring going with that?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you.
        As you know, this issue is also very important to us, given
    the importance of the NICS system to making sure that we can
    promptly and efficiently respond to the requests that we
    receive.
        Because we are seeking to almost double the size of that
    facility, Federal hiring does take time, so we have begun the
    hiring already by hiring contractors who are able to come on
    board within the Federal system at a faster pace. So while we
    have not yet been able to add the total new number of people
    that we would like, it is proceeding.
        At the same time we are going to begin to work with
    contractors, we still intend to proceed with the Federal hiring
    process so that we can have full-time Federal employees on
    board as well.
        As you note, Senator, the applications for firearms
    transactions have increased dramatically, and we feel we have
    an obligation to respond as quickly and efficiently as possible
    to those dealers who submit information to us, as we ask them
    to do under the law, and to the individuals who also submit
    their information, as we ask them to do under the law.
        Senator Capito. I appreciate that. And, I would say that
    you noted in your opening statement that you are going to be
    consolidating and modernizing your FBI headquarters. Since my
    predecessor, Senator Byrd, was able to get all those great FBI
    employees in West Virginia, I think you ought to scope it out
    there. I think it would be a great place to just relocate the
    whole DOJ--sorry to the ranking member over there.
        Senator Mikulski. What are you relocating? [Laughter.]
        Senator Capito. Anything I can get.
        Senator Mikulski. I don't think I heard you right.
        Senator Capito. Anyway, thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. You know, Senator Byrd relocated
    everything to West Virginia. He was ready to relocate Virginia
    to West Virginia. [Laughter.]
        Senator Shelby. Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you very much, Attorney General Lynch, both for
    your testimony this morning as well as your leadership at the
    Department of Justice on a daily basis.

                    ASSETS FORFEITURE FUND EQUITABLE SHARING

        I want to pick up on Senator Capito's questions about the
    Assets Forfeiture Fund, because I have heard from everyone in
    New Hampshire, from our Attorney General to the Chiefs of
    Police Association to the average cop on the beat about the
    concerns that they have with what has happened.
        I think there are several ramifications for us in New
    Hampshire. One is, because we are dealing with a crisis in
    opioid and heroin addiction, any loss of support makes it even
    more difficult for law enforcement to address that challenge.
    They have also expressed concern about the communications and
    how sudden it was to learn that they were not going to be able
    to have the Equitable Sharing payments that they were
    expecting. They have also expressed concern about the formula
    for those payments and concern that they're hearing that
    formula could change from 80/20 to 50/50.
        You talked a little bit about your efforts to communicate
    on this issue, but can you talk about what more we can do so
    that local officials are not surprised by this kind of dramatic
    shift?
        Attorney General Lynch. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
        Certainly, it highlights the issues that arose at the end
    of the year as we were absorbing this rescission. And in terms
    of my discussions with my local law enforcement counterparts,
    both the heads of the police organizations and the sheriffs
    organizations, I have conveyed my direct apology to them,
    because we typically are able to build in communications with
    them over the course of policy changes like this, and that did
    not happen on this occasion.
        So it has caused an even greater hardship on our colleagues
    because they did not know it was happening. That, certainly, is
    not our intent and not our goal. So we have all been working on
    trying to resolve this issue in a way that restores the
    payments.
        Our goal would be to restore the payments to the full
    formula that we have been using.
        Senator Shaheen. So the 80/20?
        Attorney General Lynch. At this point, what we are doing is
    we are, on a monthly basis, keeping our State and local
    colleagues apprised of the progress of the Assets Forfeiture
    Fund, and we are doing this through communicating with the
    various law enforcement groups, major city chiefs, sheriffs, et
    cetera, as well as the DAs Association.
        So we also are awaiting the results on our review of some
    settlements coming into the Assets Forfeiture Fund, because we
    have to determine how we will essentially manage the victim
    payments that are required out of those first.
        Certainly, I know every law enforcement officer knows that
    the victims are why we do this. And of course, they take
    priority.
        But even with that, our goal is to try to restore it to the
    same program as before. We have certainly heard the same
    concerns and certainly anticipate hearing more and want those
    concerns. We want the communication with the law enforcement,
    with our DAs, with our State attorneys general, on this.
        We are keeping them apprised on a monthly basis of status.
        Senator Shaheen. I know you are reluctant to be pinned down
    to a date when you expect those payments to begin again, but
    are you looking at something that is going to happen within the
    next couple of months? Within the next 6 months? Within the
    next year? All of that has an impact, as you know, at the local
    level.
        Attorney General Lynch. Yes, it does. It does. Certainly,
    as Senator Capito has raised, it has an impact on their
    operations.
        But also, these are operations they are doing in
    conjunction with the Federal Government, so they are actually
    actively helping us. So we certainly do feel the obligation
    there on that level, for that reason as well.
        There has been discussion, and certainly I've gotten
    questions about whether or not the influx of asset forfeiture
    funds from some of our large settlements, which the settlements
    have been adjudicated, the monies coming in now can in fact
    restore these payments sooner rather than later. We are still,
    as I mentioned, working on dealing with the victim issue in
    those large settlements.
        So once we have that formula resolved, we will have a
    better idea of funds that will be left from large settlements,
    as well as an idea of how the Fund is being replenished on a
    monthly basis.
        Certainly, we have told our organizational colleagues that
    we will update them in mid-March. At this point, I do not have
    a date on when the payments would start. It is not our goal to
    delay them any longer than necessary. It certainly has never
    been our goal to stop them totally.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        I think the more information that can be provided at the
    local level, the more helpful it will be as they are trying to
    deal with how to compensate for the lack of those payments.

                               HEROIN AND OPIOIDS

        Mr. Chairman, I know that my time has expired, but I am
    hoping I can ask one more question.
        Senator Mikulski, in her opening statement, referred to the
    scourge of heroin and opioid abuse. One of the things that we
    have seen in New Hampshire in response to that, and in our
    State, we are losing a person a day to overdose deaths, three
    times as many as we lost in traffic accidents last year.
        So one of the things that is beginning to work in
    communities is that law enforcement is working with treatment
    professionals, with the medical community, with schools, to
    have a real comprehensive, cooperative approach to how to deal
    with this issue.
        I have been disappointed that, at the Federal level, we do
    not have the same sense of urgency and cooperative approach to
    deal with this issue, where we are working across agencies, and
    there is a real understanding that, in 2014, we lost 47,000
    people in this country to overdoses.
        So can you reassure me that there is a sense of urgency and
    that this is something that, across agencies, there is an
    understanding that we have to do better to address?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I cannot only reassure you
    of that, I can tell you that the Department is an active
    participant in a multiagency opioid task force that essentially
    pulls together the efforts in this to make this an all-
    administration effort, because we do recognize that it has so
    many factors. Even within DOJ, our Drug Enforcement
    Administration, or DEA, is dealing with this issue with what is
    called a 360 strategy, which is enforcement, talking also with
    the manufacturers at the corporate level, and the community
    education level as well. So recognizing that even for an
    enforcement agency, we have to have a multilevel approach.
        There is, as I mentioned, this opioid task force that cuts
    across agencies, not just DOJ but Department of Health and
    Human Services (HHS). And Veterans Affairs is heavily involved
    in this. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),
    all their various names.
        But everyone is focusing on this, HHS, in particular,
    because this issue has to be dealt with on multiple levels. So
    we found that that is the most effective way to deal with it,
    so I can assure you that not only is it viewed as an urgent
    issue, as an epidemic and a crisis, it is being viewed as a
    multiagency one in how we have to resolve it.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I appreciate the
    President's request in the budget for over $1 billion. I hope
    that Congress can provide the resources that are needed.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Senator Collins.

                               HEROIN AND OPIOIDS

        Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Attorney General. My questions also deal with the
    opioid and heroin crisis that is epidemic in my State as well.
        Recently, Federal law enforcement officials briefed me on
    the link between straw purchasing of guns and the heroin crisis
    in my State. What they described to me is a scheme in which
    out-of-state drug dealers with ties to inner-city gangs or the
    Mexican drug cartel come to my State with heroin, find addicts
    with no records, clean records, to buy guns and then there is
    an exchange of guns for heroin.
        In response to this problem, Senator Leahy and I have
    introduced a bill to greatly toughen the penalties for straw
    purchasing and illegal firearms trafficking, because right now,
    it is essentially treated as a paperwork violation, if you do
    not fill out the forms correctly.
        Our bill, I should make clear, fully protects the rights of
    law-abiding gun owners and purchases.
        Are you familiar with this link between gun trafficking,
    straw purchasing, and the heroin crisis?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, yes, I am familiar with
    that.
        It is a matter of grave concern to us as we look at both of
    these issues, the firearms issues, but, in particular, the
    heroin crisis.
        The use of straw purchasers not only inveigles these
    individuals into crime, but it exploits rather vulnerable
    people. As you note, the offenses right now tend to be
    considered paperwork offenses, it can be difficult to obtain
    cooperation from those individuals to allow us to work a
    Federal case up the chain, so to speak, and in fact, get those
    individuals who are really running a drug-trafficking ring
    across several States. And those are our targets.
        So we support the efforts that you have outlined to in fact
    strengthen the statutory authority that we would have to
    prosecute straw purchasers in instances like these.
        At this point, it would be extremely useful to have a
    stronger statute, because, first of all, it would hold
    individuals accountable for this behavior. As I mentioned, yes,
    they are vulnerable and they are being exploited, but
    individuals do have to be held accountable for their actions
    that they take. And it would give us the tools that we need to
    make those cases part of the larger cases, conspiracy cases and
    trafficking cases, that would bring in all of that criminal
    activity.
        Senator Collins. I look forward to working with you on
    trying to get our bill enacted into law.

                          COPS ANTI-HEROIN TASK FORCE

        The Department's budget for fiscal year 2017 zeroes out the
    funding for the COPS anti-heroin task force. Congress has
    appropriated $7 million in each of the last 2 years for this
    task force, which has funded competitive grants that have
    enabled law enforcement agencies in areas with high rates of
    heroin and opioid abuse to purchase drug detection equipment,
    expand data collection, strengthen information systems, all
    sorts of purposes.
        Communities in my State, from Fort Kent in the north to
    Portland in the south, have reaped the benefits of this
    funding. I think it is important to note that the heroin
    epidemic affects tiny towns, rural areas, as well as our larger
    cities. It is literally everywhere.
        As this epidemic continues to spread, I am very
    disappointed and, indeed, in some ways shocked, that the
    administration did not include any funding at all for this
    program, particularly since the Comprehensive Addiction and
    Recovery Act, which many of us have cosponsored, and which will
    be on the floor soon, specifically authorizes this task force.
    That is an indication of strong congressional support, as is
    the funding that it has received in each of the past 2 years.
        Why is the Department eliminating funding for this very
    successful competitive grant program that has been so useful,
    particularly to small towns that just do not have the resources
    to combat this epidemic?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for the chance to address
    this issue, because it is one of vital importance. And
    certainly, I regret the impression that has been given that we
    in some way are diminishing the importance of COPS efforts in
    this area, the COPS program efforts in this area, their
    effectiveness, or the need that exists there.
        In constructing the current fiscal year 2017 budget and
    dealing with the heroin epidemic, what the Department has done
    is to include $12.5 million and 42 positions for DEA to create
    four new heroin enforcement groups. These groups, as with most
    of our DEA groups, would also draw heavily on local law
    enforcement for members as well.
        So we are trying to deal with the enforcement side of the
    increased heroin effort that way. So it is our hope that having
    greater Federal resources would relieve some of the burden on
    local law enforcement and, again, allow us to make those cases
    federally.
        So that is the direct answer to the specific issues as to
    why the COPS program was shifted in that way. We still,
    however, will be using the Community Oriented Policing Services
    (COPS) program to support local efforts, for example, the DEA
    meth lab cleanup program.
        Within COPS, in particular, however, we do have an
    increased funding request for the COPS hiring and training
    program that would allow jurisdictions to literally hire and
    retain officers directly.
        So we are hoping to increase those local efforts through
    COPS for our jurisdictions. We are hoping to increase the
    Federal cases that we can bring on the heroin level. And we are
    hoping to continue with the grant program in other areas.
        Senator Collins. I hope, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Mikulski, this is an area that we can look at. It is a small
    amount of money, and it has done a lot of good.
        And finally, just to follow up on Senator Mikulski's point
    about scams, the Aging Committee, which I am privileged to
    chair, the ranking member, Senator McCaskill, just put out a
    resource guide on the top 10 senior scams. That IRS scam is
    number one. We do need a more cooperative and aggressive
    approach to get after these terrible con artists who are
    frequently located overseas. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, may I respond just for a
    second to the gentlelady from Maine?
        Senator Shelby. Go ahead, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. First of all, that $7 million was from
    when I was the chair of the committee. We kept it going as
    chairmanships shifted because it was what I was looking for,
    and I think your description of the way it has been utilized
    was that it was not only limited to just enforcement, but other
    activities related to enforcement.
        But I would suggest for those of us who are interested in
    this, let's review all the programs here, as well as the
    President's initiative and the supplemental. Let's see what we
    can do to maximize this.
        I agree. I think this is an issue of such bipartisan focus
    and cooperation, so I look forward to working with the
    gentlelady.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Baldwin.

                            BUILDING COMMUNITY TRUST

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for your service.
        As the ranking member mentioned in her opening statement,
    communities across the country have experienced unrest and
    uprisings following officer-involved shootings and other deaths
    in custody, often involving African-Americans.
        In response, the President took action to help rebuild
    trust between law enforcement and local communities. In
    December, the Department of Justice COPS office announced the
    creation of a new Policing Practices and Accountability
    Initiative.
        I have to tell you I was very pleased to see the Department
    choose former Madison, Wisconsin, Police Chief Noble Wray to
    lead this initiative.
        Can you tell the subcommittee more about how the
    Department's budget request will support this new initiative,
    and how the program will help advance the recommendations of
    the President's 21st Century Policing Task Force to further
    improve relations between law enforcement and the communities
    that they serve across these United States?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for the opportunity to
    talk about certainly what is one of my priorities as Attorney
    General, as well.
        We greatly appreciate the efforts of the former Madison,
    Wisconsin Chief, and all of his colleagues who have been so
    instrumental in working with the Department to help us bring
    those experiences and ideas from the ground up into main
    Justice to inform our policies, to inform our support of their
    efforts. It has been tremendously helpful, and we have found
    that type of peer-to-peer relationship has been effective, as
    we try to provide support for law enforcement agencies across
    the board.
        With respect to building community trust and community
    policing, for fiscal year 2017, those increases are $129.4
    million. They include $7.5 million for the body-worn cameras;
    $15 million for the Office of Justice Programs' Smart Policing
    program; $20 million for the COPS Collaborative Reform program;
    and $42 million for the COPS hiring program; under our
    Community Relations Services, funding for law enforcement
    reconciliation of $3.5 million; and under our Civil Rights
    Division, funding for policing and criminal justice of $2.7
    million.
        With all of those efforts, we are trying to take really a
    holistic approach to this issue and this problem. As you note,
    we have had a number of instances that have highlighted this
    broken trust. But I think we all have to agree that those
    incidents and the dissenting voices that arise from them are
    really drawing upon issues, situations, that were festering
    long before the law enforcement officer interacted with the
    individual and the tragedy resulted. So those issues also have
    to be dealt with.
        Police accountability, and the body-worn cameras, something
    that we found very, very helpful to both law enforcement and
    the community in making sure there is that vehicle for
    accountability----

                        COLLABORATIVE REFORM INITIATIVE

        Senator Baldwin. I want to pivot to the Collaborative
    Reform Initiative. If I might, I certainly continue to hear
    from my constituents in Wisconsin who are deeply shaken by the
    deaths of Dontre Hamilton in Milwaukee, Tony Robinson in
    Madison, among others. They are also concerned by this growing
    chasm that is the critical trust that must be present between
    law enforcement and the people that they risk their lives to
    protect.
        So the Milwaukee Police Department and the Department of
    Justice have joined together on such a Collaborative Reform
    Initiative to help speak to this problem. I want to just
    acknowledge that some of the Milwaukee constituents that I hear
    from believe that it is not a strong enough approach to the
    allegations of misconduct. I want to be sure that this effort
    leads to reforms and change.
        So you have increased the commitment in the budget for this
    program, as you just outlined, some $20 million. Can you talk
    about how those resources will help strengthen the work that
    they do in the Collaborative Reform Initiative?
        And how do you respond to those criticisms of Collaborative
    Reform, that it is not enough to achieve accountability?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you.
        Collaborative Reform is one of our most important tools. It
    is a tool that we both will offer to police departments, and
    one that they will come to us and request. So that has been a
    very positive development in the interaction on this issue.
        As always, an important part of it is the community
    response that you just outlined. In fact, my recollection and
    my notes indicate that in January, the first listening session
    regarding the Milwaukee Collaborative Reform, we were fortunate
    enough to have over 500 citizens come and express their views.
    This is vital.
        And I will say that it is important that they continue to
    provide their views on whether or not Collaborative Reform is
    achieving the effects that we all desire. But it is a process,
    and it is one that will take time.
        The listening is part of it, because it gives us an idea of
    how the community views the police department and whether or
    not the changes are effective. We are at the beginning of the
    process with Milwaukee, and we hope to continue working with
    them over the next 6 to 8 months to make those changes.
        We have always told all police departments that
    Collaborative Reform may, in fact, be the best tool for you.
    Sometimes there are other tools that end up being more
    effective. And I have seen situations where communities
    throughout Collaborative Reform have continued to hold the view
    that it has not been effective. And I have also seen situations
    where, over time, they do believe that it is becoming
    effective.
        In order for either of those views to be well informed, we
    have to have the dialogue. So part of the Collaborative Reform
    effort is building a process by which community members have
    insight into the department's current practices, proposed
    changes, and the opportunity to comment on them.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Shelby and Ranking
    Member Mikulski, for this hearing.
        Thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for your leadership of
    the department at this most difficult and important time.
        I would like to thank everybody in Federal law enforcement
    for their service and their hard work to advance justice. There
    are so many things we could talk about today, from your vital
    work in combating violent extremism or fighting human
    trafficking or international corruption or the important work
    that remains unfinished in terms of healing the real divide
    between law enforcement and communities of color across our
    country that Senator Baldwin was just asking about.

             VIOLENCE REDUCTION NETWORK AND CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS

        Let me focus more narrowly on my hometown of Wilmington,
    Delaware, for a moment, if I might, where I think there is a
    good news story, which is the Violence Reduction Network, now
    in its second year, which has proven to be a really effective
    program for small cities--like Flint, Michigan; West Memphis;
    Little Rock; Camden; Newark; and Wilmington--to access cutting-
    edge tools from law enforcement to partner with other agencies
    around the region and country and to make progress.
        Our own Wilmington Police Department has had their
    clearance rate for homicides jump from an abysmally low rate to
    now 50 percent, and they are making real progress in cold
    cases. I just want to specifically thank the Office of Justice
    Program grants (OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the team
    leader in Wilmington, John Skinner.
        I hope you can commit to continuing this program. It is
    vanishingly small in the scope of your total budget. I think
    the line item was $5 million, and I think we have gotten a real
    bang for our buck. I hope you will come and visit Wilmington
    and see its impact, and I hope you will continue to support it.
        Let me mention one other program. The Victims of Child
    Abuse Act funding, 2 years ago Congress on a bipartisan basis
    unanimously reauthorized the programs that come under the
    Victims of Child Abuse Act. The Child Advocacy Centers that are
    funded under this law conduct forensic interviews of those who
    are victims of child abuse in a way that is both respectful of
    the significant needs of child victims, but also meets law
    enforcement needs.
        I was very disappointed to see the President's budget once
    again request only half of the amount required for these
    programs, so I would like to hear your views on whether these
    are both of value, the Child Advocacy Centers and the Violence
    Reduction Network, and whether you think they are worthy of
    more robust funding and support in the years ahead.
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, for your comments on the
    work we are doing in Wilmington. And thank you also for raising
    the issue of the child abuse centers.
        Certainly, it is an important issue for us. We have it
    contained within a whole host of juvenile justice issues in
    which that program is housed. The total budget is $334 million,
    which is an increase over the current budget levels. So we are
    looking essentially at trying to, within that framework, fund a
    number of programs there. But it does not mean that we in any
    way view that program as not important or not helpful. So that
    is the comment there.
        Our request for juvenile justice is going to focus on
    formula grant programs such as the Part B formula grants, and
    the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants. We do think that
    those will be effective as well.
        But as I indicated before, it does not mean that we are not
    committed to that program. We are simply trying to work within
    the funding that we have.
        Senator Coons. I understand the complexities of a very
    large agency with lots of different funding streams, but the
    Child Advocacy Centers are a specific law enforcement response
    to a specific problem of child sexual abuse that I think is
    worthy of a specific appropriation.

             JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE

        Let me turn to two other things, if I might. The Justice
    Reinvestment Initiative that has had a strong and positive
    impact also in my home State of Delaware, which is now being
    looked to as a model for justice reinvestment. It helps States
    to fully implement reforms and measure their success through
    data collection and analysis in particular around reentry. If
    we are going to continue our journey toward criminal justice
    reform, we have to do a stronger job of managing reentry, and I
    am glad that your request increases funding for that.
        Last, in Access to Justice, I just want to commend you for
    the $13 million funding request for Access to Justice
    initiatives, indigent defense program for juveniles, for
    adults; a civil legal aid program; and one called Answering
    Gideon's Call that I think is of particular value.
        So I see that my time has about run out, but if you had a
    moment to just tell us how you think these two initiatives--
    Justice Reinvestment and Access to Justice--will strengthen
    criminal justice and the ties between law enforcement and
    community, I would be grateful.
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you so much. I am cognizant
    of the time as well.
        I appreciate those comments, because the people in the
    Department of Justice who work on these issues care very deeply
    about them, as we all care about all of our issues under our
    purview. But in order to make sure that our justice system,
    both criminal and civil, is fair and responsive to everyone in
    this country, it has been clear for years that access to that
    system has to be as open as possible. If individuals do not
    have the ability to adjudicate even small disputes, there is a
    spillover effect in terms of their relationships between and
    among themselves and within the community.
        So having that ability to know that there is a place that
    one could go to deal with even small issues is important. And
    having the resources dedicated to opening that up to everyone,
    be it counsel, be it language issues. Language barriers are a
    tremendous problem for so many individuals who are simply
    trying to advance the business of their lives. Those issues, I
    think it essentially helps us ensure that the promise of
    America remains open and real for everyone and not simply
    behind a door with a sign on it that people cannot read.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Attorney General.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Murphy.

                      GIRLS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

        Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am constantly impressed at your ability to handle the
    remarkable breadth, scope, and variety of questions that you
    get at these hearings. I have three to add to the list. I
    appreciate your indulgence.
        The first is on a program that I know is very dear to your
    heart, and that is our continued efforts to create gender-
    responsive juvenile justice systems. In Connecticut, we have
    been a national leader in recognizing that girls, more than
    almost anyone else, tend to get the short end of the stick in
    our juvenile justice system. For instance, a lot of status
    offenders that are girls end up in prisons, simply because we
    do not have gender-appropriate alternatives to incarceration.
        In the 2016 omnibus, there was $2 million for competitive
    grants focused on girls in the juvenile justice system. DOJ,
    you have not requested additional funds for the girls in the
    juvenile justice system program for 2017. I just wanted to ask
    you why that is, if you think that we are still in the process
    of expending those earlier funds or if there are other parts of
    the budget that may help to seed some of the programming like
    that in Connecticut, which really has set some national models
    for how you treat girls in the juvenile justice system.
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for that important issue.
    It is, indeed, an important issue, and I actually do not have
    that information at my fingertips now. I would appreciate the
    opportunity to get back to you on that, because it is such an
    important issue.
        [The information follows:]

        The fiscal year 2017 President's budget maintains the fiscal year
    2016 funding level for Girls in the Juvenile Justice System of $2
    million. In fiscal year 2016, the program was funded as a set-aside in
    the Delinquency Prevention Program. The fiscal year 2017 President's
    budget requests $2 million for this program as an independent line
    item.

        I will also note that the issue of how we handle issues of
    gender is something that we take very seriously. We have been
    working with local law enforcement and with OJP. We just
    recently released guidance for State and local counterparts on
    reducing and eliminating gender bias in law enforcement. That
    was a collaborative effort and one that we think is going to be
    very helpful. It focuses not just on issues of domestic
    violence and sexual assault, but how law enforcement deals with
    young people who are dealing with gender issues, particularly
    our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth
    community as well.
        So it is something that we take very, very seriously, and I
    would appreciate the chance to respond to your direct question
    with the specifics that I would like to give you.
        Senator Murphy. I know of your personal commitment to this
    issue, so a response on that line item would be helpful.
        Second, I want to turn to the President's executive actions
    to reduce gun violence. You and I have spoken about this.

                             GUN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY

        One of the most interesting parts of it is a directive to
    DOJ, DOD, and Homeland Security to conduct and sponsor research
    into gun safety technology. My hope is that at the end of that
    period of research, that there is an effort to use the
    procurement ability of the Department of Justice, and perhaps
    other agencies, to spur additional private sector research and
    development into smart gun technology. I understand these types
    of weapons are not the answer for everyone in law enforcement
    or in the military, but there certainly is an ability to
    leverage purchasing power on our side to promote research on
    the private side.
        I just wanted to get an update as to how that research is
    going and when we may expect some request for proposal (RFP)
    that prompts some private sector research.
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you. This is a very important
    issue and has actually been one under consideration within
    government for some time, as law enforcement and, in
    particular, the Department of Defense want to make sure that we
    remain current in the weapons that we provide to our law
    enforcement individuals as well as our Armed Forces
    individuals.
        So for approximately the past 2 years, there has been
    research being done, and the gun manufacturers have been very
    effective partners in this, in developing what are called the
    smart gun technology, various ways of making sure that you can
    limit who can handle a firearm, who can fire a firearm. Of
    course, issues of safety and reliability are at the forefront
    of everyone's minds on this.
        With respect to the President's directive that the
    Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and Department of
    Defense essentially focus on research, that is being done. Just
    within the past 2 months, our research arm, the National
    Institute of Justice, has initiated what they are calling a gun
    safety technology challenge to essentially assess the
    reliability of firearms that are currently available today,
    looking at the advanced gun safety that is integrated into the
    firearm, but also challenging our manufacturers, challenging
    our end-users to really focus on this issue and come up with
    the best product. We do not have a timetable yet for when we
    might be at the RFP stage.
        Certainly, we are aware that with the large purchasing
    power of law enforcement and the Defense Department that we
    could influence this. But of course, we want to make sure those
    guns are as safe and reliable as possible.
        Senator Murphy. I appreciate that. As you know,
    manufacturers and retailers in the private sector who have
    attempted to lead on this issue of gun safety technology have
    been regularly blacklisted. It is a chilling mechanism on those
    who want to pursue this without some pressure coming from the
    Federal Government, some backstops, cover from the Federal
    Government, so I appreciate your work and your seriousness on
    this. Thank you very much.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you very much for being here. I know that you
    have a lot going on, but this is really so very important.
        I think this has been a good hearing. We covered a lot of
    ground.
        I just want to reiterate, we talked in January about the
    Equitable Sharing Program. I know that several people brought
    that up today. I think that really does illustrate that it
    really is on our minds. Certainly, I know that you are working
    hard to get it straight. Anything that we can do as a
    subcommittee, I think I speak for all of us, we would certainly
    be glad to do that.

                   U.S. MARSHALS REGIONAL FUGITIVE TASK FORCE

        A couple things that have not been mentioned that are just
    kind of things that are of some concern. I understand the U.S.
    Marshals are requesting funding for an additional regional
    fugitive task force. Can you explain the importance of the
    program and explain where it would be located?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you so much.
        The regional task forces have been an important part of our
    violence reduction program over the past year. We find them to
    be a very effective counterpart to our State and local efforts
    at law enforcement. One of the things that we are looking to do
    is make sure that we do our part in keeping local communities
    as safe as possible. Where there are violent fugitives who,
    frankly, are often hiding in plain sight, but the local law
    enforcement agencies do not have the resources to track or
    apprehend them, the Federal Marshals Service will step in. In
    fact, that was one of the main reasons for the creation of the
    U.S. Marshals Service, that they tracked fugitives, and they
    are very good at it. I am very proud of the work that they do.
        So where we have been able to do that over the past year,
    we have seen an effective increase rate in capturing fugitives
    in communities across the country with the current task forces
    that we have. And we feel that adding this additional task
    force would help many communities who have this issue.
        I am not exactly sure if I know where that would be located
    at this time. I will get back to you if I have that
    information.
        [The information follows:]

        The fiscal year 2017 budget proposes opening an additional U.S.
    Marshals Regional Fugitive Task Force in the Carolinas.

        But essentially, it provides not just the manpower but the
    intelligence, the surveillance, all the information that goes
    into managing this difficult issue and obviously a dangerous
    issue. We have, of course, had some serious officer wounding
    situations resulting from these apprehensions.
        But it is a cause they take very seriously. I take it very
    seriously. And I thank you for raising it, because I am
    tremendously proud of the work that they do.
        Senator Boozman. Very much so.

                                   ATF HIRING

        One of the things we hear a lot about is the National
    Firearms Act applications. I think you have addressed it
    somewhat in the sense of hiring ATF personnel.
        Can you tell us how many people the agency intends to hire?
    Will they all be special agents, and specifically, will any of
    them be used to decrease the waiting period of the National
    Firearms Act?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
        The request for the ATF, $54.3 million, would provide 230
    positions for ATF. Two hundred would be a combination of
    Special Agents and Industry Operation Investigators--80 agents,
    120 investigators.
        The investigators are the individuals who primarily work
    with our licensed firearms dealers and community members. They
    man a booth at a gun show, for example, and provide
    information. The Special Agents will be focused on the
    enforcement operations involving violent crime, as I mentioned
    before, the rise of Internet firearms trafficking, and
    providing assistance to our State and local colleagues where
    they have serious firearms problems also.
        The other individuals will be working within NIBIN network,
    which is our National Integrated Ballistics Information
    Network. It would upgrade the imaging hardware and software.
    That is where we share information across law enforcement
    platforms with State and locals as well, when we apprehend
    individuals when we come across firearms evidence.
        In fact, 22 positions would support processing of all the
    license issues, which is the firearms licensees, the explosive
    licensees, as well as the National Firearms Act applications.
    We felt that it was important to increase the individuals who
    were processing those licenses because, number one, we may be
    asking more individuals to apply to be licensed dealers, but
    also under the National Firearms Act, we have had a backlog in
    recent years in that area. So in order to be able to
    effectively process these as we ask individuals to essentially
    apply as individuals, we are requesting those resources.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Graham, any questions?

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Senator Graham. Thank you very much.
        Senator Shelby. Just in time.
        Senator Graham. Which is unusual for me.
        Madam Attorney General, how bad is sequestration hurting
    your ability to defend the Nation and protect us domestically
    and internationally, if it goes back into effect?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, the most recent example of
    sequestration that we saw had the department losing
    approximately, I believe, 6,200 people, a combination of
    agents, attorneys, and staff members as well. That is a loss
    from which we have yet to recover, quite frankly.
        Senator Graham. Would there be more losses occurring, if
    sequestration kicks back in?
        Attorney General Lynch. There would be. There would be
    significant losses occurring, particularly at the investigative
    law enforcement level, if sequestration were to occur again.
    This would severely limit our ability to deal with the emerging
    areas and expanding areas of cybercrime, in particular
    international organized crime. And it would severely decrease
    our ability to provide the resources to our State and local
    counterparts that are so important to them as well.
        Our grants were cut in half during sequestration. That was
    tremendously painful not just for the department but for those
    individuals who depend on those grants to fund operations and,
    frankly, help us with task force type operations.
        Senator Graham. Is the FBI fairly much under siege trying
    to track all the groups that could penetrate the homeland?
        Attorney General Lynch. Well, the FBI will tell you that
    they will respond to every crisis, and they do. I am
    tremendously proud of the work that they do. But the reason we
    are requesting more resources, particularly in the area of
    cybercrime, is because this is an area in which we need the
    resources to keep up with the technological capability of the
    criminals, which quite frankly is growing exponentially.

                               EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

        Senator Graham. So let's talk about executive action. If
    the President tomorrow issues an executive order to transfer
    prisoners out of a Guantanamo Bay, given the restrictions
    Congress has placed in the NDAA, would that be appropriate or
    lawful?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I do not believe that is
    the President's intention at this point.
        Senator Graham. I know. But does he have that power?
        Attorney General Lynch. At this point, I have not been
    asked to opine on that by him. I certainly haven't provided
    advice on that.
        Senator Graham. Can I ask you to opine for me? You do not
    have to do it right this minute.
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir. As I have
    indicated, the current state of the law prohibits those
    transfers, which is why the President is indicating he wants to
    work with Congress to look at those statutory issues.
        Senator Graham. Did he talk to you--did you help draft this
    proposal that was sent over?
        Attorney General Lynch. No, sir. That was, I believe, the
    Department of Defense.
        Senator Graham. Did they talk to you at all?
        Attorney General Lynch. No, I was not involved in those
    discussions.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Interesting.
        I am going to ask you, does he have that authority, from
    the Attorney General's point of view? You can just write back
    to me later. Is that fair?
        Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Graham. Thank you.
        Executive action. The President has given legal status to
    how many million people who are here illegally?
        Attorney General Lynch. I am sorry?
        Senator Graham. The legal status given to illegal
    immigrants, how many people have been affected by his executive
    orders?
        Attorney General Lynch. Sir, I do not have those numbers at
    the top my head.
        Senator Graham. There are two groups. The Deferred Action
    for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) kids, who came here as small
    children, right?
        Attorney General Lynch. Well, I believe that they would
    have deferred status.
        Senator Graham. Right. And now it is their families, is
    that right? What he did the second time?
        Attorney General Lynch. Well, I believe that particular
    action is currently enjoined, so none would have been provided.
        Senator Graham. But he tried to do it, and the court said
    slow down. Is that fair to say? That he has been enjoined from
    doing what he thought he could do?
        Attorney General Lynch. Yes, that injunction is----
        Senator Graham. He thought he had the legal authority.
        What limits would there be on a President, in terms of just
    giving legal status to people here illegally? Are there any
    limits that you can think of?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I certainly think that, as
    we have discussed previously, when it comes to immigration
    laws, one starts with the statutes and then one looks at the
    court decisions. As you craft policy, you will have to look at
    those particular issues as well as any applicable regulations
    to determine whether or not----
        Senator Graham. Is there any court decision that would
    allow the President of the United States--any President--to
    issue an executive order to say that 3 million people here
    illegally now have legal status? Is there any Supreme Court
    case that would acknowledge Article I power to do that, that
    you know of?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, I am not aware that issue
    has been presented to the court, certainly, so I would not be
    able to give you that information now.
        Senator Graham. Okay. From your point of view,
    prosecutorial discretion is, ``I could prosecute somebody, but
    I choose not to for a variety of reasons,'' right?
        Attorney General Lynch. That is part of it, sir.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Isn't this different from saying, ``I
    am not going to prosecute you because I choose not to,'' versus
    giving you legal status? Is that prosecutorial discretion, to
    give some legal status?
        Attorney General Lynch. Senator, prosecutors do not have
    the authority to confer or take away a status regarding
    immigration or any other legal issue. That is determined by
    statute and by the courts.
        Senator Graham. What makes the President different than a
    prosecutor, in that regard? What authority does he or she have
    to do that? Because prosecutorial discretion is not the legal
    basis. I think you are right about that.
        And I will wrap this up. If you can't do it through
    prosecutorial discretion, a prosecutor can't, what authority
    does the Chief Executive have, inherit statutory or Supreme
    Court decision-wise, to allow him to do this?
        Attorney General Lynch. When you say ``this,'' sir, what
    are we referring to?
        Senator Graham. What he did, give legal status to millions
    of people by executive action.
        Attorney General Lynch. Well, Senator, I am not aware that
    is the actual result of that. Certainly, I would have to refer
    you to----
        Senator Graham. I know our time is up, but he did give
    legal status to millions of people who I am willing to deal
    with through the statutory process. He did that, didn't he, the
    President?
        Attorney General Lynch. I am not going to be able to give
    you a legal opinion on the effect as----
        Senator Graham. I am not asking your legal advice. I am
    just saying that is what he did.
        I mean, he did that. He issued an executive order saying
    you can stay here, didn't he?
        Attorney General Lynch. I would have to refer you to the
    terms of the executive order.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Graham.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no further questions this afternoon, Senators
    may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's official
    hearing record.
        We request, Madam Attorney General, the Department of
    Justice's responses within 30 days.
        [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 Richard C. Shelby
        Question 1a. Why does the administration fail to recognize--and
    subsequently fail to support--the valuable work that TEDAC
    accomplishes?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Recently, I joined FBI Director James Comey at a ribbon
            cutting event for the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
            Center--or TEDAC--which is America's single Federal laboratory
            and repository for terrorist improvised explosive devices, or
            I.E.D.'s. Counterterrorism is a top priority for this
            subcommittee, and the work TEDAC conducts is critical given
            that I.E.D.'s are still prevalent and dangerous tools used by
            terrorists at home and abroad. Even the President acknowledged
            the importance of gathering explosive intelligence against
            terrorists during his press conference regarding Guantanamo
            Bay. He specifically cited the successful prosecutions of the
            shoe bomber, the terrorist who tried to blow up a plane over
            Detroit, the terrorist who put a car bomb in Times Square, and
            the Boston Marathon bomber. The explosives forensics
            investigations that led to the convictions of these terrorists
            were conducted by TEDAC personnel. So you can understand my
            disappointment with the Department's 2017 budget request that
            includes a $74 million reduction-in-base to TEDAC, a $9 million
            rescission of prior year funds for TEDAC operations, and no
            money requested for TEDAC construction, which is a reduction of
            $52 million below the fiscal year 2016 level.

        Answer. The Department appreciates the additional funding provided
    in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus. The resources will provide mostly non-
    personnel and some positions to enhance important programs like TEDAC
    and HDS. The FBI will add 30 positions to the footprint at Redstone
    Arsenal, as reported in the fiscal year 2016 Spend Plan; however, the
    FBI is committed to maintaining these positions from within base
    resources in fiscal year 2017 if required. The $52 million in
    construction resources for TEDAC funded specific construction
    requirements in fiscal year 2016.
        While the Department's fiscal year 2017 budget request includes a
    $74 million program non-recur for the fiscal year 2016 increases, only
    a portion applies to TEDAC. Additionally, the request includes a $9
    million rescission of excess prior year TEDAC balances, but will not
    reduce TEDAC operations. Further, prior year funding provided for
    construction of projects at TEDAC is sufficient to fulfill the
    construction needs of the facility.

        Question 1b. What metrics was the administration using when
    deciding to cut counterterrorism funding such as TEDAC?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Recently, I joined FBI Director James Comey at a ribbon
            cutting event for the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
            Center--or TEDAC--which is America's single Federal laboratory
            and repository for terrorist improvised explosive devices, or
            I.E.D.'s. Counterterrorism is a top priority for this
            subcommittee, and the work TEDAC conducts is critical given
            that I.E.D.'s are still prevalent and dangerous tools used by
            terrorists at home and abroad. Even the President acknowledged
            the importance of gathering explosive intelligence against
            terrorists during his press conference regarding Guantanamo
            Bay. He specifically cited the successful prosecutions of the
            shoe bomber, the terrorist who tried to blow up a plane over
            Detroit, the terrorist who put a car bomb in Times Square, and
            the Boston Marathon bomber. The explosives forensics
            investigations that led to the convictions of these terrorists
            were conducted by TEDAC personnel. So you can understand my
            disappointment with the Department's 2017 budget request that
            includes a $74 million reduction-in-base to TEDAC, a $9 million
            rescission of prior year funds for TEDAC operations, and no
            money requested for TEDAC construction, which is a reduction of
            $52 million below the fiscal year 2016 level.

        Answer. Please see the response to 1a.

        Question 2a. If the President feels that State and Federal data
    sharing is so important, why has he proposed to cut funding in recent
    years for grants to States to upgrade criminal and mental health
    records for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The President's recent Executive actions on gun control
            include a call to: ``Ensure States are providing records to the
            background check system, and work cooperatively with
            jurisdictions to improve reporting.'' Many of our local law
            enforcement agencies have limited resources to make technology
            improvements, and at our hearing in January the subcommittee
            heard statistics which clarify this need. That's why this
            subcommittee has consistently provided funding for NICS grants
            to State and local law enforcement agencies to make the
            technology upgrades to enable better criminal data sharing. In
            fact, I recently provided $73 million for these State and local
            grants in the fiscal year 2016 funding bill, despite the fact
            that the President had proposed to cut these grants by $18
            million. Now, unbelievably, the President's fiscal year 2017
            budget proposes to cut these grants by $23 million on the heels
            of issuing his Executive actions.

        Answer. Since 2009, $310 million has been appropriated so that more
    records can be entered into our background check systems. In fiscal
    year 2015, 21.3 million background checks were submitted to NICS.
    Meanwhile, the NICS background check system has blocked over 2 million
    purchasers from getting firearms that they are not legally permitted to
    have.
        The Department, through the Office of Justice Program's Bureau of
    Justice Statistics (BJS), administers two grant programs that support
    improvements to criminal history records: the National Criminal History
    Improvement Program (NCHIP) and the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System (NICS) Act Record Improvement Program or NARIP.
        NCHIP has a broader scope and less restrictive eligibility
    requirements than NARIP and can provide the same support for efforts to
    improve the availability and quality of criminal history records as
    NARIP. The Department is requesting $50 million for NCHIP in fiscal
    year 2017--a $2 million increase over the fiscal year 2016 enacted
    level. In fiscal year 2015, BJS made awards to 38 States and
    territories, totaling $34.2 million through the NCHIP.
        NARIP supports States in providing certain information,
    particularly mental health records that prohibit the purchase or
    possession of firearms, to the NICS. In fiscal year 2017, the
    Department is requesting $5.0 million for NARIP--a $20.0 million
    decrease from the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. In fiscal year 2015,
    BJS made awards to 22 States, totaling $22.7 million through the NARIP.
        Currently, 29 States qualify for funding under NARIP. BJS continues
    to work closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and ATF
    to assist States in improving their participation in the NICS Index.
    Progress has been limited in States where meeting the NICS eligibility
    criteria requires changes in State laws and regulations. In contrast,
    all 50 States, the territories, and the District of Columbia qualify
    for NCHIP.
        Overall, the fiscal year 2017 request continues these efforts by
    seeking a total of $55 million for the NCHIP and NICS programs.
        The fiscal year 2017 request for these two programs is consistent
    with the President's Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence (https://
    www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-
    executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our). The Executive
    actions are focused primarily on administrative actions that could be
    taken within the Federal Government to make our communities safer from
    gun violence and keeping guns out of the wrong hands. This included
    improving the regulatory and enforcement functions at ATF and
    implementing improvements to the NICS.
        In addition to these grant requests, the department is also asking
    for critical funding to adequately staff the NICS in order to meet the
    increasing volume of Federal checks for a total of $35 million.
        In total, the fiscal year 2017 request continues these important
    efforts by seeking a total of $90 million.

        Question 2b. After our recent January hearing highlighted these
    vital funding needs, why did you, Madam Attorney General, propose these
    cuts to NICS grants in the 2017 budget request?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The President's recent Executive actions on gun control
            include a call to: ``Ensure States are providing records to the
            background check system, and work cooperatively with
            jurisdictions to improve reporting.'' Many of our local law
            enforcement agencies have limited resources to make technology
            improvements, and at our hearing in January the subcommittee
            heard statistics which clarify this need. That's why this
            subcommittee has consistently provided funding for NICS grants
            to State and Local law enforcement agencies to make the
            technology upgrades to enable better criminal data sharing. In
            fact, I recently provided $73 million for these State and local
            grants in the fiscal year 2016 funding bill, despite the fact
            that the President had proposed to cut these grants by $18
            million. Now, unbelievably, the President's fiscal year 2017
            budget proposes to cut these grants by $23 million on the heels
            of issuing his executive actions.

        Answer. See the response to Shelby 2a above.

        Question 3a. In such cases, are the settlement payments restricted
    to being used exclusively to remedy the communal harm caused by
    defendants?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Concerns have been raised about third-party (or community
            service) payments in settlements of Federal enforcement actions
            related to natural resource law violations (oil and chemical
            spills, negligent fires or discharges, etc.).

        Answer. The Department has long been authorized to manage the
    Federal Government's litigation interests (subject to certain
    exceptions not relevant here)--a responsibility that includes the
    authority to settle or compromise cases upon such terms as negotiated
    by the Department.\1\ This authority, and its long history, is
    described in an opinion by the Department's Office of Legal Counsel
    (OLC).\2\ Pursuant to this authority, the Federal Government has
    entered into settlements or resolutions that involved payments by the
    settling parties to third-party entities.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See e.g., 28 U.S.C. Sec. 516; United States Attorneys' Manual,
    Section 4-3.100, available at http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-4-3000-
    compromising-and-closing.
        \2\ The Attorney General's Role as Chief Litigator for the United
    States, OLC Opinion January 4, 1982 (see attachment 1 in the appendix
    at the end of the hearing).
        \3\ Application of the Government Corporation Control Act and the
    Miscellaneous Receipts Act to the Canadian Softwood Lumber Settlement
    Agreement, OLC Opinion August 22, 2006 (see attachment 2 in the
    appendix at the end of the hearing).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Community service payments in environmental crimes cases are
    governed by the United States Attorneys' Manual Sec. 5-11.115 ``'Global
    Settlements'; Community Service'' and Sec. 9-16.325 ``Plea Agreements,
    Deferred Prosecution Agreements, Non-Prosecution Agreements and
    `Extraordinary Restitution' "; and the ``Guidance on Restitution,
    Community Service, and Other Sentencing Measures Imposed in
    Environmental Crimes Cases'' (the Guidance) (see all in attachment 3 in
    the appendix at the end of the hearing).\4\ As discussed in section II
    of the Guidance, a prosecutor may consider imposition of community
    service in sentencing only after addressing restitution to identifiable
    victims of the crime and the payment of criminal fines. Once determined
    to be appropriate, the ``community service must have a `nexus,' that
    is, a relationship, to both the geographic area of the crime and the
    environmental medium affected by the crime.'' As the Guidance explains:
    ``[A]though the individual victims may not be identifiable, those
    living in the area affected by the crime are benefited by the
    service.'' The Guidance also discusses why community service payments
    to third parties are necessary in some cases: ``Furthermore, because
    the offender itself may not be equipped to implement the community
    service, the offender may provide the funds for another party with
    expertise specifically in the necessary remedial work to carry out
    valuable service that has the required `nexus' to the offense of
    conviction.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources
    Division has on a few occasions provided for payments to States,
    municipalities, or other governmental entities in civil consent decrees
    approved by the court. Those cases are not included in these responses.

        Question 3b. Does DOJ operate under internal guidance for third-
    party payments? If so, when was the internal guidance developed?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Concerns have been raised about third-party (or community
            service) payments in settlements of Federal enforcement actions
            related to natural resource law violations (oil and chemical
            spills, negligent fires or discharges, etc.).

        Answer. Yes. See the policies cited in the response to question 3a.
    The relevant portions of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual sections date back
    to 2008. Then-Assistant Attorney General for the Department's
    Environment and Natural Resources Division Ronald J. Tenpas issued the
    Guidance on January 16, 2009.

        Question 3c. When third-parties are used, how does the Department
    identify potential recipients and what minimum qualifications must be
    met?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Concerns have been raised about third-party (or community
            service) payments in settlements of Federal enforcement actions
            related to natural resource law violations (oil and chemical
            spills, negligent fires or discharges, etc.).

        Answer. For appropriate environmental cases, the Guidance outlines
    considerations for developing a community service project. These
    include, among others, that the community service amount should not
    exceed 25 percent of the total value of any sanction package; any trust
    fund involved must be managed by a non-Federal entity chosen without
    favoritism; community service must not accrue unintended benefits to
    the defendant; and funds directed to a third party to carry out
    community service must not be used for political or litigation
    activities. The Guidance also directs prosecutors to ``avoi[d] any
    general appearance of impropriety (e.g., a personal affiliation or
    interest in the entity).'' Guidance at 11. The sentencing court must
    approve any criminal plea agreement and any community service in
    environmental crimes cases.

        Question 3d. In the case of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and
    the third-party payment that resulted from the case's partial
    resolution, what steps has the Department of Justice taken to ensure
    that the funds have, in fact, been used to remedy the communal harm
    caused by the oil spill? Is there a reporting requirement? Can you
    provide examples of how the funds are being used to remedy the harm
    caused by the spill? Why was the third-party in question chosen? Is the
    third-party subject to audit? If so, by whom and under what authority?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Concerns have been raised about third-party (or community
            service) payments in settlements of Federal enforcement actions
            related to natural resource law violations (oil and chemical
            spills, negligent fires or discharges, etc.).

        Answer.

        (1)  In the case of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and the
    third-party payment that resulted from the case's partial resolution,
    what steps has the Department of Justice taken to ensure that the funds
    have, in fact, been used to remedy the communal harm caused by the oil
    spill?

        Judgments entered by the District Court in connection with cases
    involving BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (``BP'') (No. 12-cr-00292
    (E.D. La.)) and Transocean Deepwater, Inc. (``Transocean'') (No. 13-cr-
    001 (E.D. La.)) ordered the defendants to make what could be considered
    third-party payments pursuant to the court's discretionary authority to
    impose probationary conditions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3563(b)(22).
    Both BP and Transocean were ordered to make payments to:

      --The National Academy of Sciences (``NAS'') and
      --The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (``NFWF'').

        (See Order entered against BP dated Jan. 29, 2013 (``BP Probation
    Order'') at  34 (ordering payment of $350,000,000 to NAS) and  35
    (ordering payment of $2,394,000,000 to NFWF); Order entered against
    Transocean dated Feb. 14, 2013 (``Transocean Judgment'') at 5 (ordering
    the payment of $150,000,000 to NAS and $150,000,000 to NFWF).)
        The court orders entered against both BP and Transocean control the
    use of funds given to NAS and NFWF.
        Payments to NAS must be used ``for the purposes of oil spill
    prevention and response in the Gulf of Mexico.'' (e.g., BP Probation
    Order at  34.) NAS executed agreements with both BP and Transocean
    that further specify what the funds must be used for. Specifically, the
    NAS program subsidized by these funds must ``. . . seek to advance
    scientific and technical understanding to enhance the safety of
    offshore oil drilling and hydrocarbon production. . . .'' These efforts
    include ``assessment and evaluation of strategies and technologies with
    the objective of enhancing the protection of human health and
    environmental resources in the Gulf of Mexico and on the United States'
    outer continental shelf.''
        Payments to NFWF must be used to ``conduct or fund projects to
    remedy harm to resources where there has been injury to, or destruction
    of, loss of, or loss of use of those resources resulting from the
    Macondo oil spill.'' (See, BP Probation Order at  37). NFWF must carry
    out or fund that remediation of harm, or reduction of risk to future
    harm such that about one-half of the work or funding goes to specified
    project types related to coastal habitats in Louisiana; the other half
    is allocated by percentage across the other four Gulf States. (Id.) In
    addition, NFWF is directed to consult with the appropriate State and
    Federal resource managers ``to identify and maximize the environmental
    benefits of'' those projects. (Id.) At the sentencing hearings for both
    BP and Transocean, a representative from NFWF informed the District
    Court that NFWF agreed to be bound by the terms of the plea agreements,
    as subsequently entered as orders of the District Court.
        Both NAS and NFWF are recognized as national leaders in their
    respective fields, and have been periodically reporting to both the
    Department of Justice and the Probation Officer about their use of the
    funds received from BP and Transocean.
        Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (``Halliburton'') also made a
    voluntary and unconditional payment in the amount of $55,000,000 to
    NFWF. Halliburton subsequently pleaded guilty and this payment was
    recognized by the Department of Justice. (See No. 13-cr-00165 (E.D.
    La.).)

        (2)  Is there a reporting requirement?

        NFWF is a congressionally-chartered organization subject to
    statutory auditing and reporting requirements. See 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3707
    (audits and reports to Congress). As noted above, NFWF agreed to be
    bound by the terms of the District Court orders against both BP and
    Transocean, which require that, in addition to its statutory reporting
    requirements, NFWF must provide annual reports ``regarding the status
    and disposition of money it has received . . . until all such money has
    been spent.'' (BP Plea Agreement Ex. B at  37(d).) As noted above,
    NFWF has been providing such reports to the Department of Justice.
        NAS is also a Federal-chartered private corporation. See 26 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 150301, et seq. NAS also entered into separate agreements
    with both BP and Transocean regarding its use of funds received, both
    of which agreements also include reporting and auditing requirements.
    (See, e.g., BP Plea Agreement Ex. B-1, at  14 (periodic and final
    reporting),  15 (publication of a publicly available annual report),
    and  20 (accounting per generally accepted accounting principles and
    annual audit by independent accountant).)

        (3)  Can you provide examples of how the funds are being used to
    remedy the harm caused by the spill?

        NFWF provides information on its Web site about projects it has
    funded. See http://www.nfwf.org/gulf/Pages/gulf-projects.aspx for a
    list of projects funded to date.
        Similarly, information on the Gulf Research Program establish by
    the NAS can be found at http://www.nationalacademies.org/gulf/
    index.html.
        The Plea Agreements for BP and Transocean can be found publicly in
    a number of places, including here: http://www.nfwf.org/gulf/Pages/
    plea-agreements.aspx.

        (4)  Why was the third-party in question chosen?

        Both NAS and NFWF are congressionally-created organizations,
    nationally-recognized in their fields. They also were willing to take
    on the contemplated work in conformance with subject matter limits,
    reporting requirements, and other terms specified by the plea
    agreements and court orders entered in these cases.

        (5)  Is the third-party subject to audit?

        Yes, as described above.

        (6)  If so, by whom and under what authority?

        As described above, NAS and NFWF are subject to audit under both
    statute and the terms of the judgments imposed by the District Court
    against BP and Transocean.

        Question 3e. In prosecutions of natural resource law violations,
    the Government represents the interests of the communities or parties
    harmed by the violations. In the last 20 years, how many times have
    harmed communities or parties complained through the court, or to DOJ
    directly, that they did not support the remedies instituted or that the
    remedies fell short of correcting the harm inflicted? In each case,
    what was the basis of the objection or concern? In cases where plea
    agreements in prosecutions for natural resource law violations did not
    involve third-party payments to address communal harm, how,
    specifically, in those cases, was communal harm intended to be
    remedied? How would perpetrators be responsible for remedying communal
    harm other than through third-party payments? In cases where communal
    harm was not remedied, what recourse would injured parties or
    communities have to rectify wrongs?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Concerns have been raised about third-party (or community
            service) payments in settlements of Federal enforcement actions
            related to natural resource law violations (oil and chemical
            spills, negligent fires or discharges, etc.).

        Answer. The Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division
    is not aware of any case that it has prosecuted where communities or
    individuals who have been adversely affected by an environmental crime
    have complained that the Department failed to seek a result that was in
    their best interests. When there are identifiable victims of crimes as
    defined by the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 10607, the Department often seeks court orders of restitution.
    Individuals and organizations directly and proximately harmed by an
    offense can be considered to be crime ``victims"; however, the laws
    addressing crime victims generally do not identify communities as crime
    victims (though individuals within those communities may be victims).
    There are two provisions in the U.S. Code that specifically authorize
    and mandate restitution--18 U.S.C. Sec. 3663 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3663A,
    respectively--but they do not include criminal offenses under the
    environmental statutes. Instead, in environmental crimes cases, the
    Department has relied upon 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3563(b)(2), which allows for
    but does not mandate restitution as a special condition of probation or
    supervised release following incarceration.
        When a community has been adversely affected and restitution is
    unavailable or inadequate, the Department has used community service to
    address the environmental impact. For example, community service has
    directed funds to support a community medical clinic where illegal and
    excess air emissions travelled to the community, to pay for medical
    monitoring for people illegally exposed to asbestos, and to clean up a
    stream polluted by an unlawful discharge.
        In many instances, the community requests incorporation of a
    community service payment in a resolution and strongly supports a
    resolution that includes such a payment. An example is United States v.
    Tonawanda Coke, a case involving criminal violations of the Clean Air
    Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in which numerous
    community members, multiple State and local officials, and a Member of
    Congress expressed to the court their support for projects to address
    the harm the violations had caused to the community.
        When a community has been adversely affected, it may also have
    recourse to civil remedies.

        Question 3f. It has been suggested that direct payments to
    individuals harmed, rather than payments to third-parties, is
    preferable in cases involving violations of natural resource law. In
    terms of remedying environmental harm, what difficulties do you foresee
    in limiting restitution to harmed individuals?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Concerns have been raised about third-party (or community
            service) payments in settlements of Federal enforcement actions
            related to natural resource law violations (oil and chemical
            spills, negligent fires or discharges, etc.).

        Answer. As noted in the response to question 3a, prosecutors must
    address restitution to identifiable victims of environmental crimes
    before considering the propriety of community service. As the Guidance
    recognizes, however, the ``unique characteristics'' of environmental
    crimes and those who commit them make community service a necessary
    consideration:

            As to those unique characteristics, first, environmental
            offenses often involve harm that cannot be directly remedied.
            For example, the actual pollutants unlawfully emitted into the
            air cannot be recaptured through community service several
            years after their dispersion. Similarly, pollutants unlawfully
            discharged into a river cannot be cleaned up long after the
            current has swept them downstream. Second, individual victims--
            those who actually may have inhaled the contaminated air or
            been in contact with the polluted river--often cannot be
            identified.

        Guidance at 3-4.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
        Question 1. Can you explain why the Department continues to target
    the RISS program for cuts, despite the fact that its importance and
    positive impact has been lauded by the Department?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              During last year's hearing we talked about a very important
            and successful program called the Regional Information Sharing
            System, known as ``RISS.'' The program links thousands of
            criminal justice agencies through secure communications and
            information sharing services to help combat multi-
            jurisdictional crimes. Last year, we agreed that this system is
            particularly effective and serves the law enforcement community
            well. This year's budget request, however, again recommends
            cutting funding for the RISS program by $10 million.

        Answer. The requested funding level of $25 million for Regional
    Information Sharing Systems (RISS) reflects one of many difficult
    choices made in development of the President's budget. Although the
    RISS program does provide valuable services to State, local, and tribal
    law enforcement, and has done so for a number of years, it is difficult
    to sustain the fiscal year 2016 funding level for this program in the
    face of the many competing priorities the Department is responsible for
    addressing. The fiscal year 2017 request for this program is sufficient
    to sustain its current level of activity and will not result in any
    significant effects on program performance.

        Question 2a. Could you tell us which office or division within the
    DOJ covers scams that have an international component?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The Senate Aging Committee, which I chair, recently held a
            hearing on a new scam that targets seniors who inadvertently
            become international drug smugglers. We learned from
            Immigration and Customs Enforcement that at least 145
            unsuspecting ``couriers'' have been arrested by foreign
            governments after they became ensnared in this scam, and 30
            Americans, including one of my constituents--a 77-year old man
            from Dresden, Maine--are still being held in foreign prisons as
            a result of their involvement in this type of scam.

        Answer. The Department is working diligently to seek justice on
    behalf of society's most vulnerable victims. These efforts, including
    initiatives to investigate and prosecute international schemes, extend
    across the Department. For instance, the Department's Elder Justice
    Working Group features representatives from the Civil and Criminal
    Divisions, the U.S. Attorney community, and our grant making
    components. As each case is unique, the determination of which entities
    will investigate or pursue a particular matter will depend on the facts
    and circumstances of the matter, and governing law and policies.

        Question 2b. What specific resources from Congress are needed to
    help DOJ combat this growing problem?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The Senate Aging Committee, which I chair, recently held a
            hearing on a new scam that targets seniors who inadvertently
            become international drug smugglers. We learned from
            Immigration and Customs Enforcement that at least 145
            unsuspecting ``couriers'' ``have been arrested by foreign
            governments after they became ensnared in this scam, and 30
            Americans, including one of my constituents--a 77-year old man
            from Dresden, Maine--are still being held in foreign prisons as
            a result of their involvement in this type of scam.

        Answer. The fiscal year 2017 President's budget includes $101.48
    million to support our Nation's vulnerable populations, who deserve the
    same rights, opportunities, and protections from injustice as the rest
    of society. This includes a program increase for the Civil Division's
    Elder Justice Initiative of $558,000 (2 positions and 1 FTE). This
    increase would allow the Elder Justice Working Group to continue to
    expand its efforts to combat senior fraud and abuse that affects
    millions of older Americans each year, including financial scams
    targeting our Nation's seniors. Additionally, the Criminal Division's
    Organized Crime and Gang Section (OCGS) is involved in identifying and
    targeting transnational organized crime enterprises, including those
    which engage in various criminal schemes that defraud seniors.

        Question 3. Have you made progress in gaining more cooperation from
    countries where criminal scammers are operating? How many cases have
    been extradited?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              DOJ has explained that the cooperation of the country where
            criminals are operating is critical to the Department's ability
            to extradite those criminals to the U.S. for prosecution.

        Answer. The Department of Justice targets criminal drug enterprises
    through the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and handles all
    extradition cases through the Criminal Division's Office of
    International Affairs (OIA). OIA assists prosecutors and law
    enforcement personnel in the United States to secure the return of
    international fugitives to the United States for prosecution. The
    Office coordinates international fugitive matters with the Department
    of State and serves as DOJ's central point of contact for all requests
    for the extradition to the United States of fugitives located abroad.
    Every formal request for international extradition based on Federal or
    State criminal charges must be reviewed and approved by OIA. Moreover,
    OIA works to expand our cooperation with other countries through legal
    trainings and the negotiation of mutual legal assistance treaties.
        DEA personnel assigned to foreign offices focus their investigative
    efforts on major criminal enterprises and Priority Target Organizations
    (PTO), which engage in the highest levels of drug trafficking and/or
    drug money laundering operations that significantly impact drug
    availability in the United States. DEA's ultimate objective is to
    dismantle these organizations so that reestablishment of the same
    criminal organization and their schemes is impossible and the source of
    the drug is completely eliminated.
        The Department continues to work with partner agencies, such as the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to investigate and prosecute
    crimes where appropriate at the Federal level. In fiscal year 2015, OIA
    received 814 requests for extraditions relating to a variety of crimes,
    but none of these extradition requests are for criminals who target
    seniors who inadvertently become international drug smugglers.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
        Question 1a. How many arrests were made by these new counter-gang
    units each year since they were formed?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              This year, there have already been 444 people shot in the
            city of Chicago and 96 homicides. Chicago police have
            attributed most of this gun violence to criminal gangs. For
            this reason, this Committee created counter-gang units ($17.5
            million over the past 3 years) within each of the United States
            Marshals Service's Regional Fugitive Task Forces.

        Answer. During the latter part of fiscal year 2014, the United
    States Marshals Service (USMS) established full-time Counter Gang Units
    (CGU) based within each of its seven Regional Fugitive Task Forces
    (RFTFs).
        The CGUs are permanent, full-time enforcement units. Their mission
    is to conduct proactive investigations focused on specific gang sets or
    individual gang members. Working in collaboration with Federal, State,
    and local law enforcement, the CGUs target these specific gang sets
    through active criminal investigations that lead to arrest by the most
    immediate and prosecutorially advantageous method possible. CGUs seek
    to apprehend the most dangerous and violent gang members, collect
    investigative intelligence, seize criminal evidence, and disrupt
    criminal enterprises.
        In addition, the USMS also employs targeted gang initiatives which
    are mobile, short in duration, and cost effective. Under this scenario,
    the USMS works with its State and local law enforcement partners,
    frequently at their request, to identify specific gang sets that are
    vulnerable to strategic targeting. These efforts often focus on
    condensed areas such as housing projects, neighborhoods, or police
    precinct areas. This results in a significant, immediate impact on the
    community at large by removing violent offenders and associated illegal
    guns, narcotics, and currency.
        In fiscal year 2015, the CGUs were responsible for 557 arrests of
    violent gang members and the associated seizure of 112 illegal
    firearms, 43.52 kg of illegal narcotics, and more than $578,000 in U.S.
    currency.
        As of the first quarter in fiscal year 2016, USMS is on pace to
    exceed fiscal year 2015 results. During the first quarter, the seven
    CGUs were responsible for 302 arrests of violent gang members. The CGUs
    also seized 64 illegal firearms, 86.07 kg of illegal narcotics, and
    more than $567,000 in U.S. currency.

        Question 1b. How many arrests were made by the Chicago-based
    counter-gang unit?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              This year, there have already been 444 people shot in the
            city of Chicago and 96 homicides. Chicago police have
            attributed most of this gun violence to criminal gangs. For
            this reason, this Committee created counter-gang units ($17.5
            million over the past 3 years) within each of the United States
            Marshals Service's Regional Fugitive Task Forces.

        Answer. The USMS Chicago-based CGU, which is co-located with the
    Great Lakes Regional Fugitive Task Force (GLRFTF), has taken a
    proactive and collaborative approach to disrupting violent criminal
    street gangs. Since its inception, the GLRFTF-CGU has made 78 arrests
    of violent gang members and has seized 53 illegal firearms, nearly
    three kg of illegal narcotics, and more than $555,000 in U.S. currency
    through their targeted efforts.

        Question 1c. What are the Marshals and the rest of your Federal law
    enforcement agencies doing to remove gangs like the Gangster Disciples
    from neighborhoods like the new National Monument area Pullman?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              This year, there have already been 444 people shot in the
            city of Chicago and 96 homicides. Chicago police have
            attributed most of this gun violence to criminal gangs. For
            this reason, this Committee created counter-gang units ($17.5
            million over the past 3 years) within each of the United States
            Marshals Service's Regional Fugitive Task Forces.

        Answer. The USMS in Chicago leads the GLRFTF, which partners with
    law enforcement agencies in the Chicago metropolitan area to arrest
    violent offenders. Through its CGU, the GLRFTF coordinates with the
    Chicago Police Department; the United States Attorney's Office; Cook
    County State Attorney's Office; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms, and Explosives; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the
    Drug Enforcement Administration to address gang violence within
    Chicago.
        The CGU's efforts include investigations of criminal activity by
    gang members, intelligence collection from sources, and the
    dissemination of gathered intelligence to law enforcement partners.
    This collaboration ensures that partners are deconflicting
    investigative targets and tasking their work product in the most
    effective manner possible. Additionally, in an effort to mitigate the
    risk of pursuing and arresting gang members and violent criminals, the
    GLRFTF trains over 1,000 law enforcement officers each year in its
    Chicago training center.
        The Pullman District National Monument neighborhood is a large
    industrial area which, like many Chicago neighborhoods, has been
    plagued by gang activity and other violence. Similarly, the Gangster
    Disciples is just one known street gang that is active throughout the
    City of Chicago. Since October 1, 2014 (the first full fiscal year for
    which CGU data is available), 161 documented members of the Gangster
    Disciples have been arrested by the GLRFTF (including the CGU), with
    176 warrants cleared.

        Question 1d. How does the DOJ plan to focus resources, including
    grants, on areas plagued by violence caused by gangs of national
    significance? What metrics does the Department use to determine which
    areas to focus resources?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              This year, there have already been 444 people shot in the
            city of Chicago and 96 homicides. Chicago police have
            attributed most of this gun violence to criminal gangs. For
            this reason, this Committee created counter-gang units ($17.5
            million over the past 3 years) within each of the United States
            Marshals Service's Regional Fugitive Task Forces.

        Answer. Combating violent crime and gangs of national significance
    remains a top priority of the Department. The Violence Reduction
    Network (VRN) is a comprehensive partnership that brings together local
    law enforcement agencies with multiple DOJ components, including the
    Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. Marshals
    Service (USMS), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
    (ATF), the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), the Office
    of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and the Office on
    Violence Against Women (OVW). The partnership leverages programmatic
    and training and technical assistance resources to assist VRN cities,
    including Chicago, with sustained high rates of violence. Deputy
    Attorney General Sally Q. Yates announced on March 1, 2016 that three
    new cities--New Orleans, Louisiana, St. Louis, Missouri, and Milwaukee,
    Wisconsin--will be joining the VRN in fiscal year 2016. The Department
    is requesting $5 million in dedicated funding in the fiscal year 2017
    President's budget to support the continued expansion of the VRN.
        The Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction Program (also known as
    Project Safe Neighborhoods) is designed to create safer neighborhoods
    through a sustained reduction in gang violence and gun crime. This
    program's effectiveness is based on the cooperation of local, State,
    and Federal agencies through a collaborative task force led by the
    local U.S. Attorney. Each U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) is responsible
    for implementing Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN). USAOs work closely
    with their Federal partners, including FBI, ATF, USMS, and DEA, as well
    as local law-enforcement agencies to bring criminal gangs to justice.
    Each task force implements gang violence and gun crime enforcement,
    intervention, and prevention initiatives within the most violent
    neighborhoods in the areas they serve based on the five key elements:
    (1) partnerships, (2) strategic planning, (3) training, (4) outreach,
    and (5) accountability. In the fiscal year 2017 President's budget, the
    Department is requesting $5 million to continue the work of this
    program.
        The fiscal year 2016 Violent Gun and Gang Crime program
    solicitation is currently open for applications and will close on May
    17, 2016. For more details, please refer to the solicitation online at
    https://www.bja.gov/Funding/PSN16.pdf. OJP anticipates that awards
    under this solicitation will be announced by late summer of 2016.
        To determine in which areas resources will be focused, OJP bureaus
    and offices use the same general process in identifying criteria by
    which competitive discretionary grant awards are made. Each grant
    solicitation will identify the specific criteria used. For grant
    programs focusing on gang violence and prevention, OJP does not have a
    threshold of crime that is used to make determinations of eligibility
    for funding. While solicitations do ask applicants to include ``gun and
    gang'' crime data, OJP does not require that an applicant's crime rates
    exceed national averages. Instead, we require that applicants show that
    they have a significant gun and gang issue and leave it to them to
    describe the severity of that issue. Some solicitations have required
    geo-spatial analysis of violence, but have not required a per capita
    de-minimis.
        During the peer review process, reviewers may factor in local
    Uniform Crime Report (UCR) rates and specific crime data in their
    application ratings. Additionally, other Federal agencies are often
    consulted as part of the recommendation process. For example, as part
    of the review of Project Safe Neighborhoods site-based applications,
    the Bureau of Justice Assistance in OJP consults with EOUSA, the
    Department of Justice's Criminal Division, FBI Safe Streets Task
    Forces, and the National Gang Intelligence Center personnel to provide
    a more detailed understanding of the sites' gang and gun issues.
        Additionally, Federal agencies located in the Northern District of
    Illinois employ a vigorous antiviolence strategy in Chicago.
    Representatives from the USAO, FBI, ATF, USMS, DEA, High Intensity Drug
    Trafficking Area (HIDTA), and Organized Crime Drug Trafficking
    Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) meet regularly with local city,
    county, and State law-enforcement agencies to assess Chicago's greatest
    violent-crime threats, target the worst of the worst offenders and gang
    leaders, and deploy the resources necessary to apprehend and prosecute
    violent criminals. This coordinated effort relies on ongoing data
    assessments from Federal agencies and the Chicago Police Department.
    Deployments may be neighborhood-based, where there may have been a
    prevalence of recent shootings, or targeted on individuals whom
    agencies have identified as having a connection to violence. Federal
    agencies are particularly focused on stopping trigger-pullers and
    individuals responsible for driving violence in Chicago, and have taken
    proactive measures to prevent violence. Among these measures, the USAO,
    Cook County State's Attorney's Office, ATF, and the Chicago Police
    Department have hosted offender-notification meetings, which target
    parolees whom data have revealed are at-risk of reoffending or becoming
    shooting victims themselves, and strategic violence-reduction ``call-
    ins,'' which present a focused-deterrence, group-accountability message
    to gang-involved individuals. Academic evaluations of both the
    offender-notification meetings and the group-accountability call-ins
    show success in the form of a reduction in recidivism and overall gun
    violence. The USAO is attempting to replicate this success with a
    similar intervention targeting juveniles.
        The Department's Law Enforcement Components, ATF, DEA, FBI, and
    USMS, utilize the multi-jurisdictional task forces they operate or
    participate on to combat violent and gang crime. The National Gang
    Targeting, Enforcement and Coordination Center (GangTECC) within DEA's
    Special Operations Division (SOD) combines the abilities of its member
    agencies (Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Marshals Service, and
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) to coordinate
    information and enforcement activities to disrupt and dismantle
    regional, national, and international gang threats. More locally,
    enforcement efforts are focused through an understanding of the local
    crime trends. ATF, for example, uses its intelligence-driven domain
    assessments to identify and analyze significant violent crime problems
    within each field division's area of responsibility. Field Divisions
    propose a plan of action within the limits of available resources to
    mitigate or eliminate these threats. Similarly, the FBI's Violent Gang
    strategy is designed to reduce gang related violence by identifying,
    prioritizing, and targeting the most violent gangs whose activities
    constitute criminal enterprises. In addition, OCDETF has concentrated
    its efforts to reduce violence caused by significant gang activity in
    the Chicago metropolitan area through its co-located Chicago OCDETF
    Strike Force. Its participants include multiple Federal law enforcement
    officers from DEA, FBI, IRS, DHS/ICE, USMS and the United States
    Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, along with the
    Cook County State's Attorney's Office, the Chicago Police Department,
    the Illinois State Police, and multiple other State and local law
    enforcement agencies.
        The Chicago OCDETF Strike Force conducts long-term, intelligence-
    driven investigations and prosecutions involving multiple defendants,
    who participate in violent criminal organizations operating throughout
    the metropolitan area, the Northern District of Illinois and
    surrounding Federal districts. The primary goal of the Strike Force is
    to disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking, money laundering and
    criminal organizations, to reduce both the availability of drugs and
    violent crime in the area. It accomplishes this goal by aggressively
    targeting the highest level criminal organizations engaged in this
    activity, including those designated as Consolidated Priority
    Organization Targets (``CPOTs'') and Regional Priority Organization
    Targets (``RPOTs'') and their affiliates throughout Chicago and the
    Federal district in which it is located.
        By targeting the distribution of controlled substance by Mexican
    drug trafficking organizations to Chicago-based street gang networks,
    the Chicago OCDETF Strike Force is able to cut off the movement and
    supply of firearms associated with violent criminal activity, along
    with the illicit proceeds generated at the retail level which fuel the
    criminal activities of the command and control elements of the major
    drug trafficking organizations operating along the Southwest Border of
    the United States. A key unit within the Chicago OCDETF Strike Force is
    the Choke Point Unit, which targets the intersection between the
    Mexican drug trafficking organizations and violent street gangs, who
    are the customers of the Mexican organizations and the primary
    distributors of drugs throughout the Chicago area.
        Currently, the Chicago OCDETF Strike Force is targeting the illegal
    activities of the Conservative Vice Lords street gang, among others,
    whose activities span throughout Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin and
    Michigan and whose members are believed to be responsible for numerous
    murders, weapons violations, intimidation and the distribution of
    multi-kilogram quantities of heroin, cocaine, crack, and marijuana
    throughout Metropolitan Chicago.
        By coordinating the efforts of multiple Federal agencies, the
    members of the Chicago OCDETF Strike Force are able to eliminate
    superfluous effort, save valuable resources and produce the most
    successful cases against national, and international, criminal
    organizations.
        Additionally, OCDETF's Great Lakes Region has identified and
    targeted 18 organizations, including 13 Regional Priority Organization
    gang targets, who engage in violence to both protect and expand their
    drug sales territories, to fend off rival gangs, and to enforce gang
    rules within their ranks, such as the Black Disciples, Black P Stone
    Nation, Bloods, Gangster Disciples, Insane Spanish Cobras, Latin King
    Nation, Surenos, and Vice Lords. During fiscal year 2015, OCDETF's
    Great Lakes Regional Gangs Strategic Initiative demonstrates its
    commitment to targeting drug trafficking organizations that engage in
    criminal activities such as firearms/weapons violations, murder,
    material support to terrorist groups, or other violent activity. In
    fiscal year 2015, the Gangs Strategic Initiative led to the indictment
    of 362 defendants, as well as conviction of 396 defendants. The Chicago
    U.S. Attorney alone has investigated more than 30 OCDETF gang cases
    since 2013.
        As part of the fiscal year 2017 President's budget, the Department
    requests $31 million to enhance USMS enforcement operations, hire
    additional Deputy U.S. Marshals (DUSMs), establish a new Regional
    Fugitive Task Force and provide equipment and training to existing
    DUSMs to support their violent fugitive enforcement efforts. The
    Department is also requesting $36 million for additional ATF special
    agents and industry operations investigators to enforce existing
    Federal firearms laws, take violent criminals off the street, prevent
    firearms from getting into the wrong hands, and enhance ATF's ability
    to perform its regulatory duties.
        Finally, DOJ's Criminal Division (CRM) focuses on the most serious
    violent offenders as targets for Federal prosecution, working closely
    and collaboratively with law-enforcement partners. CRM's Organized
    Crime and Gang Section prosecutes gangs of national significance,
    participates in the formulation and implementation of criminal
    enforcement policy, and provides advice and assistance to law-
    enforcement agencies and USAOs to thwart those gangs, including the
    USAOs in Illinois.

        Question 2a. Why has DOJ not prosecuted Backpage.com in the same
    way it did My-Redbook.com?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Human trafficking is a growing problem nationally and
            internationally. Last month, 35 Illinois police and sheriff
            departments wrote to you asking for help in bringing a halt to
            the Nation's sex trafficking enterprises. Unfortunately,
            organizations like Backpage.com continue to traffic in children
            and young women without impunity and make millions of dollars
            each year off of these transactions. DOJ was successful in
            prosecuting, and convicting My-Redbook owner, Eric ``Red''
            Omuro for similar actions.

        Answer. The Department shares Congress' grave concerns about the
    role of Web sites in the commercial sexual exploitation of minors. As
    with all investigations and prosecutions, we will follow the evidence
    where it leads. 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. Where evidence of criminality exists, the Department
    will aggressively investigate offenses of this kind. When we can prove
    violations beyond a reasonable doubt, as we could with respect to the
    case against Eric Omuro and myRedBook.com, the Department will bring
    appropriate prosecutions.
        DOJ routinely prosecutes sex traffickers who use Web sites to
    advertise their victims for prostitution. For example, DOJ's Child
    Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) and the U.S. Attorney's
    Office for the Middle District of Louisiana are currently prosecuting
    five members of a sex trafficking ring. This case arose out of an
    undercover operation to locate a juvenile female engaged in
    prostitution. Investigators received a tip that the juvenile was being
    trafficked by a pimp in Baton Rouge and was advertised online. The
    undercover operation resulted in the arrests and subsequent
    prosecutions of several individuals for sex trafficking related
    offenses. In September 2015, Jeremie Tate, the leader of the sex
    trafficking ring, was sentenced to 115 months in prison for operating
    an interstate prostitution enterprise. Tate had earlier pleaded guilty
    to conspiracy to unlawfully use interstate facilities in aid of
    racketeering, two counts of use of interstate facilities in aid of
    racketeering and enticing another to travel interstate for
    prostitution. In connection with his plea, Tate admitted that he
    operated a prostitution business based in Baton Rouge involving at
    least one minor. Tate admitted that he personally recruited individuals
    to engage in prostitution and advertised for and scheduled prostitution
    sessions. Tate further admitted that he used proceeds from the
    enterprise to purchase controlled substances, which he distributed to
    the victims and others to manipulate and intimidate them.
        In early January 2016, Kellie M. Dominique, who ran the sex
    trafficking ring with Tate, pleaded guilty to conspiring to engage in
    sex trafficking of a minor. Sentencing has not yet been scheduled for
    Dominique. In connection with her plea, Dominique admitted that she
    conspired with others to promote the prostitution of a minor female out
    of Dominique's home and other venues. Dominique also admitted that
    under her direction, the minor female posted classified advertisements
    on Backpage.com for commercial sex acts in Louisiana and elsewhere.
    Dominique further admitted that she introduced the minor female to
    illegal drugs and used such drugs with the minor female. Three other
    defendants, Jon Garon, Roxanne Merritt, and Payton Shelton, pleaded
    guilty to conspiracy to use interstate facilities to promote a business
    enterprise involving prostitution. These defendants facilitated the
    operation by placing advertisements online to promote the prostitution
    business.

        Question 2b. How is DOJ investigating other websites that may
    involve sex trafficking?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Human trafficking is a growing problem nationally and
            internationally. Last month, 35 Illinois police and sheriff
            departments wrote to you asking for help in bringing a halt to
            the Nation's sex trafficking enterprises. Unfortunately,
            organizations like Backpage.com continue to traffic in children
            and young women without impunity and make millions of dollars
            each year off of these transactions. DOJ was successful in
            prosecuting, and convicting My-Redbook owner, Eric ``Red''
            Omuro for similar actions.

        Answer. The Department cannot confirm, deny, or provide information
    on any ongoing investigations. The FBI continuously assesses various
    online platforms/Web sites for their involvement with sex trafficking
    and works with Federal prosecutors to bring cases against those who
    violate relevant Federal statutes. The FBI also reviews open source
    data for information that might be of evidentiary value to existing
    cases and/or justify the initiation of new cases.
        In addition to investigating Web sites that may be connected with
    sex trafficking, the FBI annually conducts Operation Cross Country
    (OCC), a national operation focused on the recovery of juveniles from
    domestic sex trafficking. OCC is part of the overarching FBI Innocence
    Lost National Initiative (ILNI), which addresses the commercial sexual
    exploitation of children. The FBI currently has 72 child exploitation
    task forces throughout the country, which are comprised of
    representatives from local, State, and Federal partners, as well as
    non-profit organizations, and an international task force to combat the
    threat.

        Question 2c. How is DOJ working with local law enforcement to
    attack this issue?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Human trafficking is a growing problem nationally and
            internationally. Last month, 35 Illinois police and sheriff
            departments wrote to you asking for help in bringing a halt to
            the Nation's sex trafficking enterprises. Unfortunately,
            organizations like Backpage.com continue to traffic in children
            and young women without impunity and make millions of dollars
            each year off of these transactions. DOJ was successful in
            prosecuting, and convicting My-Redbook owner, Eric ``Red''
            Omuro for similar actions.

        Answer. The FBI is the Department's law enforcement agency
    responsible for investigating and combatting human trafficking crimes.
    This includes investigations in online domains, performing regular
    operations, and maintaining child exploitation task forces. As noted
    above, the FBI currently has 72 child exploitation task forces
    throughout the country, which are comprised of representatives from
    local, State and Federal partners, as well as non-profit organizations.
    The FBI annually conducts Operation Cross Country, a national operation
    focused on the recovery of juveniles from domestic sex trafficking. The
    last iteration of Operation Cross Country took place in 135 cities, and
    involved over 500 law enforcement officials from Federal, State, and
    local agencies.
    OJP Programs
        The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
    administers the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force
    Program, which is part of Project Safe Childhood, a Department
    initiative established to combat the sexual exploitation of children.
    The ICAC Task Force Program is a national network of law enforcement
    and prosecutorial agencies that prevent, interdict, and investigate
    technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and Internet crimes
    against children. The Program is comprised of 61 coordinated task
    forces representing more than 3,500 Federal, State, tribal and local
    law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. These agencies are engaged
    in both proactive and reactive investigations, forensic investigations,
    and criminal prosecutions. In May 2011, DOJ expanded Project Safe
    Childhood to encompass all Federal crimes involving the sexual
    exploitation of a minor, including sex trafficking of a minor and
    crimes against children committed in Indian Country. As such, all 61
    task forces receive training related to child sex trafficking, as well
    as investigate and prosecute child sex trafficking crimes within their
    task force regions. In addition, the ICAC Task Force Program partners
    with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC),
    which is also funded in large part by OJJDP, in investigating
    CyberTipline reports. The CyberTipline receives leads and tips
    regarding suspected crimes of sexual exploitation committed against
    children, including child sex trafficking.
        NCMEC currently has 11 full-time analysts within the Child Sex
    Trafficking Team, four Missing Child Case Management teams and a Child
    Sex Trafficking Specialist dedicated to supporting law enforcement
    working to identify and recover children victimized through sex
    trafficking. NCMEC's comprehensive approach provides analysis,
    technical assistance, victim support services and case management to
    support law enforcement in their efforts to recover victims and build
    strong cases against individuals involved in trafficking children.
    Local and State law enforcement also receive direct technical
    assistance and support on child sex trafficking investigations through
    the request and use of analytical resources at NCMEC. In 2015 NCMEC's
    Child Sex Trafficking Team provided analytical support in response to
    183 requests from local and State law enforcement. These requests made
    by local and State law enforcement may include some officers who are
    also working as part of a Federal task force combating child sex
    trafficking. Local and State law enforcement often request analytical
    support about any information relevant to a child sex trafficking case
    regardless of whether it involves a currently missing child.
    Enhanced Collaborative Model Task Force Program
        DOJ's Office for Victims of Crimes (OVC)OVC has administered the
    Victims of Trafficking Program since 2003 providing comprehensive and
    specialized services for victims. In 2010, OVC and the Bureau of
    Justice Assistance (BJA) began funding law enforcement agencies and
    victim services providers through the Enhanced Collaborative Model Task
    Force program. This program supports multidisciplinary task forces with
    Federal, State, and local law enforcement, Federal and State
    prosecutors, service providers, and community- and faith-based
    organizations to ensure that trafficking victims are identified and
    referred for appropriate services, and that these cases are
    investigated and prosecuted. The following link contains a map of
    funded task forces across the country: http://ovc.ncjrs.gov/
    humantrafficking/map.html.

        Funding for task forces helps law enforcement agencies and victim
    service providers:

        1.  Create a structure that engages representatives of all
    essential agencies, organizations, and individuals with clear
    operational protocols that outline roles and responsibilities;
        2.  Hold task force meetings at least quarterly;
        3.  Develop plans for routine collection of critical data as well
    as sharing and analyzing data;
        4.  Develop a plan for evaluating task force performance and
    effectiveness and using findings to improve task force performance;
        5.  Develop training and public awareness materials with a shared
    message;
        6.  Ensure that relevant stakeholders receive training;
        7.  Conduct proactive investigations of all forms of human
    trafficking, including sex trafficking and labor trafficking; and
        8.  Assemble a comprehensive array of victim-centered and trauma-
    informed services that address the individual needs of victims of all
    forms of human trafficking.

        Question 3a. Under current law can the President legally transfer
    any of these detainees to the United States?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Since the administration called for transferring terrorist
            detainees at Guantanamo Bay to the United States (specifically,
            to the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois) in
            2009, Congress has prohibited the transfer of detainees from
            Guantanamo Bay to the United States and prohibited construction
            or modification of any Bureau of Prisons facilities designed to
            house these detainees.

        Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016
    prohibits the Department of Defense from using funds to transfer,
    release, or assist in the transfer or release of individuals detained
    at the Naval Station Guantanamo to or within the United States through
    December 31, 2016. Further, the Fiscal Year 2016 Consolidated and
    Further Continuing Appropriations Act also prohibits the Department
    from using funds to transfer, release or assist in the transfer or
    release of detainees at Naval Station Guantanamo. I understand that the
    President is focused on working with Congress to lift the restrictions
    on transfer and to work to close the detention facility at Guantanamo
    Bay.

        Question 3b. Has the President asked for a legal opinion from the
    Department regarding the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United
    States?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Since the administration called for transferring terrorist
            detainees at Guantanamo Bay to the United States (specifically,
            to the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois) in
            2009, Congress has prohibited the transfer of detainees from
            Guantanamo Bay to the United States and prohibited construction
            or modification of any Bureau of Prisons facilities designed to
            house these detainees.

        Answer. The Department of Justice has participated in an ongoing
    interagency dialogue regarding responsibly and securely closing the
    detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Without addressing what requests
    for legal advice the President or others in the administration may or
    may not have made, I can report that, in view of the current
    prohibitions against transfer (see answer 3a), that dialogue has
    included discussions of working with the Congress to establish a
    location in the United States to securely hold detainees who cannot at
    this time be transferred to foreign countries or who are subject to
    military commission proceedings.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
        Question 1a. How do I explain to my fellow Arkansans that your
    Department, whose job is to protect them, is willing to release these
    most violent criminals back on the streets of our communities, and
    lower the sentences for future violent crimes?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Your office is supporting Federal sentencing reform that in
            some cases removes minimum mandatory sentences for some of the
            most violent offenders in the Federal system, such as armed
            career criminals, armed robbers, home invaders, and car-
            jackers, and it makes those changes retroactive. It has also
            claimed that the Bureau of Prison's overcrowding and costs are
            reasons behind reformation. However, due to the initial batch
            of 6,000 early released prisoners from the 2014 Sentencing
            Commissions actions, you were able to close 5 facilities, which
            is indicated by your budget request's 78.7 percent decrease for
            BOP buildings and facilities. There is also a $210.8 million
            dollar ``population decline adjustment.'' Your budget request
            says, quote, ``The requested offset is due to the anticipated
            population decline from sentencing reform and fewer Federal
            prosecutions. This downward population trend is expected to
            continue into fiscal year 2017.'' On multiple occasions now,
            you have testified before Congress stating that your top two
            priorities as Attorney General, are ``the safety of our
            citizens and our national security.'' Aside from the fact that
            your own Department states that there will be fewer Federal
            prosecutions, your own Department also states that the Federal
            prison population has declined and will continue to decline.

        Answer. It is critical that our sentencing and corrections policies
    protect the public, are fair to both victims and defendants, reduce
    recidivism, and control the prison population. I am proud of the
    progress the Department has made in improving the criminal justice
    system, and I support additional reforms. The Smart on Crime Initiative
    is allowing the Justice Department to help ensure that our sentencing
    laws are sensible, effective, and proportional to the crime; to hold
    offenders accountable; to conserve precious public safety resources;
    and to improve outcomes. We have incentivized crime prevention,
    community oriented policing, and enhanced services for victims and for
    reentry.
        Since the start of the Smart on Crime Initiative, the number of
    Federal drug cases has indeed declined, but the average guideline
    minimum sentence for drug trafficking cases has risen, indicating a
    focus on more serious cases and more significant or violent defendants.
    Moreover, the rate of guilty pleas has risen and, despite concerns
    raised by some, drug defendants have cooperated with the Government at
    the same rate as before the Initiative. There is more work to be done,
    though.
        To most effectively address the issue, congressional action is
    necessary. We applaud sentencing reform legislation that has passed the
    House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The fact that both Democrats and
    Republicans, in both the House and Senate, have advanced reform bills
    shows there is a bipartisan consensus that reform is urgently needed.
    The Department of Justice strongly supports sentencing reform for low-
    level, non-violent drug offenders and wants to do everything we can to
    ensure meaningful sentencing reform is enacted this Congress. I am
    hopeful that legislation that combines front-end and back-end reform
    can pass Congress to ensure that we maximize our resources most
    effectively to enhance public safety.

        Question 1b. How do we explain this to the victims of these crimes?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Your Office is supporting Federal sentencing reform that in
            some cases removes minimum mandatory sentences for some of the
            most violent offenders in the Federal system, such as armed
            career criminals, armed robbers, home invaders, and car-
            jackers, and it makes those changes retroactive. It has also
            claimed that the Bureau of Prison's overcrowding and costs are
            reasons behind reformation. However, due to the initial batch
            of 6,000 early released prisoners from the 2014 Sentencing
            Commissions actions, you were able to close 5 facilities, which
            is indicated by your budget request's 78.7 percent decrease for
            BOP buildings and facilities. There is also a $210.8 million
            dollar ``population decline adjustment.'' Your budget request
            says, quote, ``The requested offset is due to the anticipated
            population decline from sentencing reform and fewer Federal
            prosecutions. This downward population trend is expected to
            continue into fiscal year 2017.'' On multiple occasions now,
            you have testified before Congress stating that your top two
            priorities as Attorney General, are ``the safety of our
            citizens and our national security.'' Aside from the fact that
            your own Department states that there will be fewer Federal
            prosecutions, your own Department also states that the Federal
            prison population has declined and will continue to decline.

        Answer. See response to Boozman 1a. That response is the collective
    response for Boozman 1a and 1b.

        Question 2a. How do these programs target violent offenders,
    illegal firearms traffickers, and dangerous individuals acquiring
    firearms?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Federal prosecutions of gun crimes have continually and
            significantly declined since the President has taken office.
            Reports show that Federal criminal weapons convictions are down
            34.8 percent from 2005. In the President's own Executive
            actions, he stated through the Smart on Crime Initiative, the
            Department focuses resources on the most impactful cases,
            including targeting violent offenders, illegal firearms
            traffickers, and dangerous individuals who bypass the
            background check system. Now, in your testimony, the funding
            priorities have appeared to changed. Of the $247 million
            requested, $91 million is for reentry programs, and $93 is
            million for general inmate population mental health treatment,
            Hepatitis C treatment, and sex offender treatment.

        Answer. The Smart on Crime Initiative focuses on effectively using
    Federal resources for the most significant Federal law enforcement
    priorities, including violent crime, rather than prioritizing the sheer
    number of prosecutions. By marshalling our investigative and
    prosecutorial resources more effectively, we see that average sentences
    are increasing as we continue to focus on the most violent and
    dangerous offenders and prevent new offenders from entering the justice
    system. This demonstrates the value of the Smart on Crime Initiative.
    Our request this year features resources for complementary programs
    addressing the second half of the Justice process, after the
    investigation and the prosecution. Through these requests, we are now
    addressing needs that exist in our prison population to further reduce
    recidivism.

        Question 2b. Are the Holder memos that directs Federal prosecutors
    to not charge violations that trigger mandatory minimum sentences
    including drug offenses involving large amounts still in effect?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Federal prosecutions of gun crimes have continually and
            significantly declined since the President has taken office.
            Reports show that Federal criminal weapons convictions are down
            34.8 percent from 2005. In the President's own Executive
            actions, he stated through the Smart on Crime Initiative, the
            Department focuses resources on the most impactful cases,
            including targeting violent offenders, illegal firearms
            traffickers, and dangerous individuals who bypass the
            background check system. Now, in your testimony, the funding
            priorities have appeared to changed. Of the $247 million
            requested, $91 million is for reentry programs, and $93 is
            million for general inmate population mental health treatment,
            Hepatitis C treatment, and sex offender treatment.

        Answer. In August 2013, the Department of Justice launched the
    Smart on Crime Initiative, which still reflects current policy. The
    goals of the Initiative are to (1) ensure finite resources are devoted
    to the most important law enforcement priorities; (2) promote fairer
    enforcement of the laws and alleviate disparate impacts of the criminal
    justice system; (3) ensure just punishments for low-level, nonviolent
    convictions; (4) bolster prevention and reentry efforts to deter crime
    and reduce recidivism; and (5) strengthen protections for vulnerable
    populations. Attorney General Holder issued guidance as part of the
    Initiative, which remains in effect, directing prosecutors to decline
    to charge mandatory minimum sentencing statutes for any defendant who
    is a low-level, nonviolent drug offender, who has no ties to large-
    scale organizations, gangs, or cartels, and who has no significant
    criminal history. Since the start of the Smart on Crime Initiative, the
    average minimum sentence under the sentencing guideline for drug
    trafficking cases has actually risen, indicating a focus on more
    serious cases and more significant or violent defendants. Moreover, the
    rate of guilty pleas has risen and, despite concerns raised by some,
    drug defendants have cooperated with the Government at the same rate as
    before the Initiative.

        Question 3a. With the President's Executive action to hire over 200
    new NICS examiners, and the FBI already having the funding to do that,
    what is the problem?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              I have heard from a number of constituents who are concerned
            with the FBI's reassignment of NICS examiners, leaving no one
            to work on appeals and creating a massive appeals backlog.
            These appeals are primarily law abiding folks who happen to
            have a name, date of birth, or social security number similar
            to that of a prohibited person.

        Answer. The FBI works diligently to not only hire these positions,
    but resume hiring for the natural attrition that occurs throughout the
    year. While the President's fiscal year 2017 budget included a request
    to hire over 200 new NICS positions (Federal and contractors), it
    remains a multi-year effort. The FBI's fiscal year 2016 operating plan
    funds an additional 75 FBI positions and 68 contractors for NICS, and
    the fiscal year 2017 President's budget includes funding to sustain
    these positions as well as employ additional contractors.
        The FBI has made great strides in hiring these positions. The 68
    contractor positions are already on board, and the FBI hopes to have
    the bulk of the Government positions on board by the end of fiscal year
    2017. Training this many positions poses a significant challenge to
    onboarding. A new NICS position generally requires up to 1 year of on-
    the-job experience before reaching full proficiency in the processing
    of firearm background checks. The FBI fully understands the impact of
    temporarily reassigning appeals examiners, but is working to mitigate
    the impact of these temporary reassignments on the appeals workload and
    anticipates the increase in personnel over the next few years will
    significantly diminish the need for this surge in the future.

        Question 3b. Is the FBI going to have examiners work on these
    appeals, and when can we expect that to happen?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              I have heard from a number of constituents who are concerned
            with the FBI's reassignment of NICS examiners, leaving no one
            to work on appeals and creating a massive appeals backlog.
            These appeals are primarily law abiding folks who happen to
            have a name, date of birth, or social security number similar
            to that of a prohibited person.

        Answer. The volume of firearm background checks typically decreases
    during the summer months. As the volume begins to decrease, the FBI
    will return Appeal Examiners to their normal duties of processing the
    appeal requests. In addition, the FBI is in the process of hiring
    Federal Government staff and contractor staff. Once they complete the
    training requirements, these employees will be able to assist with the
    incoming firearm background checks, thus allowing the Appeal Examiners
    to be devoted to processing the appeal backlog.

        Question 3c. Please tell me the amount of appeals cases that are
    currently backlogged.
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              I have heard from a number of constituents who are concerned
            with the FBI's reassignment of NICS examiners, leaving no one
            to work on appeals and creating a massive appeals backlog.
            These appeals are primarily law abiding folks who happen to
            have a name, date of birth, or social security number similar
            to that of a prohibited person.

        Answer. As of May 31, 2016 approximately 7,353 appeal cases are
    pending resolution.

        Question 4. In regards to your budget request for $10 million to
    reform the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process, can you
    explain to me exactly how you plan to reform that system? Specifically,
    how will the $10 million be spent?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              I understand that national security is a top priority of the
            Department, and cooperation with foreign partners in
            international criminal investigations is critical.

        Answer. In an increasingly transnational criminal landscape, the
    Office of International Affairs (OIA) is at the center of DOJ's law-
    enforcement mission, with expertise regarding novel and complex
    international legal issues that arise in the pursuit and prosecution of
    cybercriminals, terrorists, and leaders of sophisticated organized-
    crime and fraud networks. Specifically, OIA's mission is to secure the
    return of fugitives from abroad and to request evidence and other
    assistance from foreign partners for U.S. criminal investigations and
    prosecutions. OIA also ensures that the United States meets its
    reciprocal obligations to assist foreign partners with fugitives and
    evidence located in the United States.
        The U.S. implements bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties
    (MLATs) and multilateral agreements that provide for mutual assistance
    with over 100 foreign partners. And the globalization of crime has led
    to a dramatic increase in the number of MLAT requests, most
    significantly in requests for electronic evidence. Since fiscal year
    2000, the number of requests for assistance from foreign authorities
    handled by OIA has increased nearly 85 percent, and the number of
    requests for computer records has increased over 1,000 percent. This
    explosion in requests is partly due to the growth in cybercrime and
    partly due to the increasing use of electronic evidence in a broad
    spectrum of cases.
        OIA initiated a reform of the MLAT process, beginning with
    development of a new framework anchored by a three-component strategy:
    (1) centralization, (2) training and outreach, and (3) reducing the
    backlog. In terms of centralization, OIA has established a Cyber Unit
    (dedicated to reviewing, analyzing, and executing foreign requests for
    electronic evidence) and the Incoming MLAT Unit (dedicated to
    reviewing, analyzing, and executing foreign requests for bank and third
    party records) in the District of Columbia. Further efforts toward
    centralization, enabled by hiring permanent resources in the form of
    attorneys and professional staff for these Units, will significantly
    expand our ability to address the ever-increasing caseload.
        In addition to the changes implemented by OIA the FBI has
    established a dedicated unit to support the centralization,
    streamlining, and expedition of the Department's response to foreign
    MLAT requests. This unit supports the intake, tracking and management
    of MLAT requests that require FBI support, and filter evidence
    associated with MLAT requests, training of FBI Legal Attaches (Legats)
    and foreign counterparts, and outreach to Internet service providers.
    This unit also supports the efforts of OIA to enhance the U.S.
    Government's ability to respond to MLAT requests in an efficient
    manner.
        Moreover, training our foreign counterparts, particularly those
    using different legal systems, continues to be critical to improving
    the MLAT process. Many foreign partners require assistance in
    formulating requests that contain sufficient information to meet
    demanding U.S. legal standards for production of evidence, especially
    the content of communications. With additional resources, OIA would
    encourage foreign governments to empower their MLAT ``Central
    Authorities'' (or equivalents) to screen their own requests for
    evidence located in the U.S. The quality of the requests received
    should improve which would result in faster processing times.
        Finally, additional resources are needed to address the current
    backlog of pending MLAT requests that will not be processed by the
    Cyber or Incoming MLAT Units. These additional personnel will not only
    handle any existing backlog, but will also take on new MLAT and
    extradition requests, and some will be dedicated to supporting the
    necessary operation of OIA, including legislative and policy
    development, litigation, and management.
        The complexity of its national security mission has required OIA to
    reorganize, improve business processes and procedures, and hire and
    train additional personnel to conduct legal analysis and litigation.
    Centralization is designed to create greater efficiencies with new
    dedicated units charged with the execution of foreign requests seeking
    electronic and other evidence. The growth of transnational crime and
    national security threats will continue to challenge OIA's capacity to
    respond to the increased demand for its service.
        In May 2015, a one-time transfer of funds helped initiate these
    required improvements and has resulted in a positive impact in the near
    term; however, long-term solutions require additional funding to
    sustain and continue to build upon the progress made. The fiscal year
    2017 President's budget requests an enhancement of $10 million to
    provide base funding for the 64 positions that are being filled with
    the one-time transfer funding, and for an additional of 33 positions to
    more fully support the MLAT reform as described above.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator James Lankford
        Question 1. Will this funding be used for States and localities and
    modernize their systems to move from paper to electronic submissions,
    or will it be used for something else?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The fiscal year 2017 budget request calls for $50,000,000 for
            grants to States to upgrade criminal and mental health records
            for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
            (NICS).

        Answer. Modernizing systems from paper to electronic submissions is
    one of many purposes of the requested $50 million for the National
    Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP). Other enhancements are
    needed to State databases and systems such as:

        1.  Computerized Criminal History (CCH) Systems--the backbone of
    the State's criminal history record repository.
        2.  Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS)--a critical
    system that is necessary for the rapid transmission of electronic
    fingerprints to the FBI systems.
        3.  Operational back-up systems for use in the event of failure of
    the primary criminal history record system to ensure access to critical
    criminal justice data at all times.
        4.  Statewide integrated system strategies which interface all
    components of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement,
    prosecutors, courts, and corrections, to the extent that such
    expenditures improve the availability of criminal record data including
    protection orders.
        5.  Digitization and cataloging of old fingerprint records.
        6.  Upgraded security and firewalls systems to ensure compatibility
    with FBI CJIS security policies.
        7.  Interfaces with National Incident-Based Reporting System
    (NIBRS). Funds can be used to interface with any State system which is
    compatible with NIBRS for purposes of identifying convicted of crimes
    against children, the elderly, or the disabled, and/or identification
    of records involving firearm crimes for operation or research purposes.

        Additionally, NCHIP funds can support the following:

        1.  State participation in the FBI's Next Generation Identification
    (NGI) program.
             a.  NGI, developed over multiple years, is an incremental
            replacement of the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint
            Identification System (IAFIS). The capabilities of NGI expand
            the collection, storage, and search of biometrics beyond the
            traditional 10-print images. One component, in addition to
            supporting efforts to expand the capture and submission of
            mugshots and palm prints, is ``rap back.'' A ``rap back'' or
            ``hit notice'' program informs a law enforcement/criminal
            justice agency, an employer, or other designated entity of the
            arrest of an individual whose fingerprints have been retained
            by the criminal history repository as a result of a
            fingerprint-based background check. The fingerprints are
            matched against a database that contains the fingerprints that
            were initially submitted, and the designated entity is notified
            of the individual's arrest.
             b.  Livescan technology replacement to ensure the majority of
            persons fingerprinted at the local level are electronically
            captured and automatically submitted and linked to the arrest
            charge.
        2.  Full State participation in the Interstate Identification Index
    (III), the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (Compact) and
    the National Fingerprint File (NFF) which increase the interstate
    accessibility and timeliness of criminal history records.
             a.  Funds are used to research and link court dispositions to
            arrests and fingerprints (but not all records requiring
            research and update are firearm disqualifying histories).
             b.  Synchronizing State-held and FBI-held records. There are
            instances of records bring held at the State level, but not
            being available within the III. The FBI offers a
            synchronization process to State entities as a way to ensure
            that arrests held in State criminal history repositories are
            likewise available at the national level within the III. Funds
            are used to identify the non-synced records and make them
            available through III. Another important data quality service
            that the FBI utilizes is known as a pointer process. State
            entities can elect to choose whether they prefer for their
            State-held record to respond to inquiries into the III or the
            FBI-held record (in essence which record does the system point
            to as the primary response). Funding can be utilized to ensure
            that the most complete, up-to-date and accurate record responds
            to incoming III inquiries.
             c.  Ensure proper sealing and expunction (deletion) of
            records.
             d.  Funds may be used to cover costs associated with State
            review and enactment of the Compact and with development and
            implementation of procedures (including purchase of equipment
            and development of software) necessary to facilitate operations
            pursuant to Compact protocols, including efforts relating to
            participation in the FBI's National Fingerprint File (NFF).
             e.  NCHIP funds can be used for States to develop and
            implement the necessary system components to become an NFF
            State. NFF is a system and procedures designed as a component
            of the III system, which when fully implemented, becomes a
            totally decentralized system for the interstate exchange of
            criminal history records.
        3.  Criminal history record audits, data quality assessments, and
    training.
             a.  NCHIP funds all States to conduct periodic audits to
            identify discrepancies in records, fingerprinting, and
            disposition information maintained by the local submitting
            agency and the central repository. Through auditing and
            training, criminal history auditors assist in updating and
            automating case outcomes in States records and the FBI's
            systems.
             b.  NCHIP funds are also used for training and participation
            in seminars and meetings. Limited funds may be used to cover
            costs of training and participation in State, regional, or
            national seminars or conferences (including travel, where
            necessary).

        Question 2. What response have you received from States so far, and
    have you received any commitments from any States indicating that they
    take steps to submit additional records into the NICS Index?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              As part of his announced Executive actions on firearms, the
            President indicated that you wrote a letter to States
            highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal
            history records and criminal dispositions, information on
            persons disqualified for mental health reasons, and qualifying
            crimes of domestic violence.

        Answer. The Office of Justice Program's Bureau of Justice
    Statistics (BJS) continues to work closely with the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives (ATF) to assist States in improving their participation in
    the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index.
    Tremendous progress has been made in records added to the NICS Index
    mental health file in particular. There are still several States that
    are not actively pursuing implementation of a relief program for the
    mental health prohibitor; however, the majority of these States are
    still providing records to the NICS Index with National Criminal
    History Improvement Program (NCHIP) funding or other Federal funding,
    or through existing State resources. (States are not required to have a
    relief program in place in order to submit records to the NICS Index.
    The relief program is a requirement in order to qualify for funding
    under the NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP).) Additionally,
    States continue to make available criminal history records identifying
    felonies and misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence as well as
    active warrants and protection orders.
        Currently 29 States have a mental health relief from disabilities
    program that is certified by ATF and qualify for funding under NARIP.
    Those States are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
    Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
    Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
    Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
    West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
        Colorado and North Carolina have enacted legislation that would
    qualify for certification, but have not submitted a certification form
    for approval by ATF. Additionally, Connecticut's 2011 certification is
    no longer considered qualified or approved by ATF due to 2013 changes
    in the State's mental health law. Connecticut will have to reapply to
    ATF for approval. BJS is aware of at least one other State that is
    pursuing implementation of a relief program and has sought guidance
    from ATF.
        In support of the publication of NICS Index participation by State/
    contributor on March 18, 2016, the FBI NICS Section held two
    teleconferences with State Point of Contact agencies and CJIS Systems
    Officers in January 2016 and March 2016. During these calls, the NICS
    Section explained the NICS Index statistics and answered specific
    questions from the States. The calls focused on explaining the numbers
    and preparing States to answer questions they may receive. The States
    were provided access to the detailed listing of December 31, 2015 NICS
    Index statistics in January 2016 in order to provide adequate time for
    their own review of their data.
        Several States have contacted the FBI NICS Section with questions
    related to their own State statistics. BJS also participated on the
    March 2016 calls to discuss the grant funding opportunities available
    to improve record reporting to NICS.
        As a result of the on-going conversations between the FBI NICS
    Section and the States, the following has occurred:

      --Puerto Rico inquired about submitting mental health records to the
            NICS Index;
      --Hawaii prepared their own press release regarding their statistics;
      --Indiana discovered a data entry error which prevented felonies from
            being entered into the NICS Index. Once resolved, Indiana
            submitted almost 180,000 records into the NICS Index. Indiana
            also developed a Web site in support of publication of the NICS
            Index statistics;
      --Multiple agencies have requested a spreadsheet containing all of
            their submissions to ensure their data corresponds to the data
            located in the NICS Index. This is a service the NICS Section
            has always offered to submitting agencies;
      --New Mexico has shown interest in submitting records more frequently
            to the NICS Index;
      --Maine has discussed providing records for other categories in
            addition to Felony and Mental Health; and
      --Since the HIPAA regulation change effective on February 5, 2016,
            Montana has discussed potential NICS Index participation.

        Question 3. If we have databases that have essentially the same
    information, other than one may have incomplete records, is there a
    need to maintain three separate databases--the Interstate
    Identification Index, the NICS Index and the National Crime Information
    Center (NCIC)--or could they be consolidated?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Madame Attorney General, when we last spoke, I asked about
            the lack of records in the NICS Index, specifically felonies.
            It is my understanding that felonies should be entered in the
            Interstate Identification Index (III), but if required
            information is lacking to enter the record in III, the
            incomplete record could be entered into the NICS Index instead.

        Answer. All three databases contain separate fields and data and
    are used for different purposes. It is only for firearm background
    checks that all three are used in conjunction. The Interstate
    Identification Index (III) houses criminal history information, which
    is available to all law enforcement, but many of the records in III are
    missing final dispositions and require additional research. The NICS
    Index is a repository of records, maintained by the NICS Section, that
    are Federal or State disqualifying records that do not appear in any
    databases searched by the NICS. Records within the NICS Index are
    utilized only for firearm and explosives purposes by authorized law
    enforcement agencies. NCIC is accessed by law enforcement for warrants,
    protection orders, and missing persons. The NCIC database should be
    kept separate to immediately receive actionable information.

        Question 4. Do you believe Congress has a responsibility to conduct
    oversight of the Department of Justice, and that the Department has a
    responsibility to cooperate and be forthcoming with documents and other
    information when Congress conducts oversight over the Department?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Under the current court order, the Department must turn over
            Fast and Furious documents by April 8th.

        Answer. Congressional oversight plays an important role in
    Government transparency. The Department seeks to accommodate the needs
    of congressional oversight committees, consistent with the Department's
    law enforcement responsibilities.

        Question 5. Do you agree that the Department, in 2011, provided
    false or misleading information to the House Oversight and Government
    Reform Committee and since then has obstructed the Committee's Fast and
    Furious investigation of the Department?

        Answer. The Department acknowledged that it had provided incorrect
    information about Operation Fast and Furious and corrected that
    information. Consistent with the Department's law enforcement
    responsibilities, the Department has worked with the House Oversight
    and Government Reform Committee to accommodate its information needs.

        Question 6. How many open beds does the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
    currently have?

        Answer. Capacity utilization within BOP varies by security level
    and facility. At the minimum security level, BOP currently has 17,579
    inmates in 7 facilities with a capacity of 19,105. At the low security
    level, BOP currently has 40,943 inmates in 31 facilities, with a
    capacity of 33,727. At the medium security level, BOP currently has
    53,638 inmates in 47 facilities, with a capacity of 42,753. At the high
    security level, BOP currently has 20,810 inmates in 17 facilities, with
    a capacity of 14,825. At these overall levels, BOP facilities are
    currently overcrowded at the following rates: low = 21 percent, medium
    = 25 percent, high = 40 percent. After USP Yazoo City and Thomson are
    fully activated, the high security overcrowding rate would drop to 21
    percent.

        Question 7. For those inmates released from BOP custody as a result
    of actions taken by the Sentencing Commission or the President's
    clemency authority, how many are considered to be non-violent
    offenders? How many of those, if any, who were released as non-violent
    offenders, originally plead down to a lesser charge from a violent
    crime charge?

        Answer. The Department does not collect in a readily available form
    charges originally brought but that were later dropped as part of a
    plea agreement. The analysis required to determine non-violent
    offenders and those who may have pled down to a lesser charge would
    require extensive resource allocation and man-hours to conduct. Even
    upon conducting a review, the Department may not be able to accurately
    assess these categories since it would rely on the review of every case
    individually via each Pre-Sentencing Report (PSR) or Statement of
    Reasons (SOR), which may or may not contain necessary information to
    make a determination on other charges.
        Executive Clemency cases are decided solely by the President. A
    list of pardons and commutations granted by the President can be found
    here: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemencyrecipients. This list
    includes the name of the offender, the offense, district and date of
    sentencing, the sentence, and the terms of the grant of pardon or
    commutation.
        As to offenders who received reduced sentences as a result of the
    retroactive guideline reductions in 2007, 2011, and 2014, the
    Sentencing Commission collects and reports data on its Web site on the
    characteristics of such offenders. The reports are available here:
    http://www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/retroactivity-
    analyses-and-data- reports/retroactivity-analyses-and-data-reports. The
    Commission has also done a thorough study of recidivism among those who
    received a retroactive sentence reduction under the 2007 amendment,
    which can be located here: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/
    research-and-publications/research-projects-and- surveys/miscellaneous/
    20140527_Recidivism_2007_Crack_Cocaine_Amendment.
    pdf. In addition, an extensive report about the impact of the Fair
    Sentencing Act of 2010 can be located here: http://www.ussc.gov/news/
    congressional-testimony-and-reports/drug-topics/report-impact-fair-
    sentencing-act-2010. For Amendment 782 (drug guideline amendment)
    cases, the U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2014 Drug Guidelines Amendment
    Retroactivity Data Report is available here: (http://www.ussc.gov/
    sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/retroactivity-
    analyses/drug-guidelines-amendment/20151203-drug-amendment-report.pdf).

        Question 8a. How are the new enforcement groups different from
    current interdiction taskforces working across the country?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The fiscal year 2017 budget requests 42 positions (including
            32 Special Agents and 4 Intelligence Analysts) at the Drug
            Enforcement Administration (DEA) and $12,483,000 for increased
            heroin-related enforcement efforts, including 4 new enforcement
            groups.

        Answer. While there are complex issues affecting spikes in heroin
    use and overdoses, including prescription drug abuse, the same
    significant poly-drug trafficking organizations responsible for other
    illicit drug threats are also responsible for the vast majority of the
    heroin supply. The composition of the requested heroin groups would
    mirror that of existing groups with the Special Agent and Intelligence
    Analyst resources increasing DEA's focus on heroin. Two chemists are
    also requested to support the new groups. Chemist support for this
    initiative is critical, as the backlog of evidence awaiting analysis
    has reached historically high levels, and the two chemists requested
    will ensure that the anticipated increase in heroin seizures will not
    exacerbate the backlog problem. Additionally, DEA has requested over $3
    million in operational funding devoted specifically to heroin
    investigations. This funding is significantly greater than the average
    operational funding for enforcement groups and will allow DEA to target
    the heroin threat more aggressively, increase the size/scope of the
    investigations, and address the threat regionally. These aggressive
    heroin enforcement actions will also support the Department's efforts
    to combat violent crime as drug trafficking has a proven linkage to
    gangs and other violent criminal organizations.

        Question 8b. How are the existing taskforces being evaluated for
    effectiveness?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The fiscal year 2017 budget requests 42 positions (including
            32 Special Agents and 4 Intelligence Analysts) at the Drug
            Enforcement Administration (DEA) and $12,483,000 for increased
            heroin-related enforcement efforts, including 4 new enforcement
            groups.

        Answer. DEA uses its task forces as a force multiplier in carrying
    out DEA's mission. DEA-led task forces are made up of multiple Federal,
    State and local law enforcement agencies within a specific region. They
    facilitate investigations by enhancing interagency coordination and
    intelligence sharing, leveraging Federal resources, and combining DEA
    expertise with local officers' investigative talents and knowledge of
    their respective jurisdictions.
        DEA Task Force Officers (TFOs) are well versed and practiced in the
    local judicial systems and their support has been critical and timely
    with respect to serving warrants and assisting with the identification
    and seizure of assets that may not have been identified solely by DEA.
        The partnership with State and local personnel also allows DEA
    access to additional resources. TFOs allow for: (1) close alliances
    with State and local agencies; (2) the use of platforms for
    surveillance assets (pole cameras and, in many locations, radio systems
    and frequencies); (3) access to city facilities and equipment as well
    as events, meetings, and conferences with a criminal justice agenda;
    and, (4) access to local and State intelligence databases to include
    drug databases, gang information, and local identifiers of significant
    drug trafficking areas.
        DEA measures the effectiveness of all its law enforcement
    initiatives, which generally include the broad integration of TFOs, by
    the overall impact they have on major international, national and
    regional Drug Trafficking Organizations. DEA implemented its Priority
    Targeting program in April 2001 to identify, target, investigate, and
    disrupt or dismantle those international, national, regional, and local
    impact drug trafficking and/or money laundering organizations having a
    significant impact on drug availability within the United States. DEA
    domestic field divisions (including task forces located within those
    field division areas of responsibility) identify and target major drug
    threats known as Priority Targets. Specifically, DEA domestic field
    divisions focus their investigative efforts on Priority Targets with a
    direct connection to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Consolidated
    Priority Organization Targets (CPOT), which include the most
    significant international command and control organizations threatening
    the United States as identified by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
    Task Force (OCDETF) member agencies. Two of DEA's drug related
    performance measures under DOJ's Strategic Goal 2 relate to Priority
    Targets:

      --PTOs Linked to CPOTS Disrupted or Dismantled. In fiscal year 2015,
            DEA disrupted 169 and dismantled 132 PTOs linked to CPOT
            targets.
      --PTOs not Linked to CPOTS Disrupted or Dismantled. In fiscal year
            2015, DEA disrupted 846 and dismantled 743 PTOs not linked to
            CPOT targets.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Shelby. The subcommittee now stands in recess until
    Thursday, March 3, at 10:30 a.m., when we will take the
    testimony of Department of Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker.
        The committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., Thursday, February 25, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
    Thursday, March 3.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                       MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]