[Senate Hearing 115-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2018
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room 192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Alexander, Collins, Murkowski,
Graham, Boozman, Capito, Lankford, Kennedy, Shaheen, Leahy,
Feinstein, Coons, Schatz, Manchin, and Van Hollen.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STATEMENT OF HON. ROD J. ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, welcome to the Commerce,
Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, which will be
hearing about and examining the Department of Justice's fiscal
year 2018 budget request.
I am pleased to welcome you here to your first hearing
before this subcommittee, and I am grateful that you and
Attorney General Sessions have brought new, desperately needed
leadership to the DOJ.
Your input is helpful and necessary as we review the
President's spending priorities for the Justice Department in
order to ensure that the country's national security and law
enforcement needs are funded appropriately and sufficiently.
This is a challenging budget climate, as you know. As
violent crime has risen and terrorism has escalated, fiscal
constraints have tightened. The President proposes to decrease
funding at the Department of Justice by $637 million in 2018,
for a new total of $28.3 billion.
Since the start of the new administration and during the
early days of your tenure as the Deputy Attorney General, I am
pleased that the Department is refocusing on its core mission
of enforcing our Nation's Constitution and duly enacted laws.
I believe it is critical that we target our finite law
enforcement resources towards the worst criminals in our
society, and I agree with the Attorney General's directive to
Federal prosecutors to go after the most violent offenders that
we have in our country.
Additionally, the importance of prosecuting violent crime
is reflected in the President's budget request for 230 new
assistant U.S. Attorneys to help address this growing problem.
This re-ordering of priorities was further underscored by
the Attorney General's reversal of the Obama administration's
lenient charging and sentencing policies, requiring Federal
prosecutors now to pursue the most serious charges and
sentences possible.
The stronger Federal law enforcement approach toward drug
crimes I believe is critical, and this is a key area where we
hope to, and I hope you will, see results from more stringent
prosecution and sentencing.
The heroin and other drugs crises that we have are fueled
by drug traffickers who must be brought to justice, I believe,
under the law.
The Department has also refocused on the critical problem
of illegal immigration, making it a priority for prosecutors
and empowering them to bring felony charges whenever possible
under the law. Illegal immigration has become one of the most
critical problems facing our Nation, so it is encouraging to
learn that President Trump's tough approach is already
resulting in reduced illegal border crossings.
To back up the newfound emphasis on tackling illegal
immigration, the budget request seeks 40 deputy U.S. marshals
to address the criminal alien problem, 70 additional border
enforcement prosecutors, 20 attorneys and support staff to
handle civil condemnation work for the Southwest border wall,
and 20 attorneys and support staff for immigration litigation
assistance.
I also appreciate the Department's related efforts to place
immigration judges in jurisdictions where they are most needed
and to quickly hire the immigration judges which this
subcommittee has previously funded.
Over the last 8 years, dozens of these benches have gone
unfilled due to the former administration's failure to act. In
the meantime, the backlog of immigration cases has grown to a
staggering number of 600,000.
The proposed budget seeks an increase of $65 million for
the Executive Office for Immigration Review to hire another 65
immigration judge teams on top of the 10 that were just
provided in the 2017 omnibus. We will closely review the
details of this request to balance the tremendous need with the
restrictive budget environment that we are facing.
I trust that the recent establishment of the Department's
Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety will continue
to provide new ideas and recommendations on how our Nation can
best combat violent crime, illegal immigration, and other law
enforcement challenges.
Cybersecurity and counterterrorism remain two of my top
national security concerns, and I will want to know more about
how this budget supports the Department's efforts in these
critical fields.
I thank you for your testimony today, and we look forward
to hearing from you during the question period.
Your entire written statement, Mr. Deputy Attorney General,
will be made part of the hearing record in its entirety. You
may proceed.
Wait a minute. I am moving too fast.
Senator Shaheen.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
having the opportunity to make a statement this morning, and I
appreciate your being here, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
The Appropriations Committee not only holds the purse
strings for the Federal Government, as you are aware, but it
also plays a key role in performing oversight for all agencies
under its jurisdiction, including the Department of Justice.
I am troubled because, for this subcommittee, it is
incredibly unusual to hold a hearing with the Deputy Attorney
General when there is a sitting Attorney General. This is the
second time that Attorney General Sessions has declined to
appear before this subcommittee, canceling just days before he
was scheduled to appear in an open public setting. As the
Nation's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General is
the most appropriate person to come before the subcommittee and
testify as to the important work of the Department of Justice.
DOJ is on the frontlines, fighting the deadly, uncontrolled
opioid epidemic, which is still gaining strength. The DOJ
hiring freeze risks the safety of correctional officers in our
Federal prisons, and, curiously, the request for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation is less than what Congress provided for
fiscal year 2017, even while the FBI conducts the crucial
counterintelligence investigation into Russian influence during
our 2016 election process.
While providing testimony before a newly scheduled Senate
Intelligence Committee hearing is important, the Attorney
General is still responsible for answering critical questions
from this subcommittee. He needs to provide his explanation of
DOJ's budget, as well as a defense of his policies in an open
public hearing not only for us, but for the American public.
Mr. Rosenstein, I applaud your appointment of Robert
Mueller as the Special Counsel to oversee the ongoing
investigation into Russian interference during the 2016
election. I believe this will help to depoliticize that
investigation. However, many questions remain about both your
and Attorney General Sessions' roles in this matter, your
knowledge of resource requests made by former Director Comey,
your involvement in former Director Comey's firing, and your
prior meetings with Russian officials, among many other
concerns. I will return to these subjects during my question
period later and know that many of my colleagues will express
their concerns in questions as well.
So, Deputy Attorney General, I look forward to your
testimony, to our discussion today, and to, at some future
date, having the Attorney General appear before us in open
session.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy, do you have an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and Ranking
Member Shaheen, for the opportunity to make these remarks.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, I will not mince words:
You are not the witness we were supposed to hear from today.
You are not the witness who should be sitting behind that
table. That responsibility lies with the Attorney General of
the United States.
Attorneys General of the past did not shy away from this
Committee's questions, regardless of the topic, regardless of
the party. Attorneys General of the past did not cower at the
request of Congress to fulfill its constitutional oversight
responsibility. And they did not agree to come and then cancel
at the last minute, and then send their second-in-command in
their stead because the Members of this Committee may have
questions they may not want to answer. Until now, that is.
And so, with respect, Mr. Rosenstein--and I voted for you,
as you know--you are not who I am interested in speaking with
or hearing from today.
I do have questions for the Attorney General. I want to
know why he provided false testimony to me and to Senator
Franken. I want to know why, if he was recused from the Russia
investigation, he played any role in the dismissal of FBI
Director Comey. I want to know how he believes he can credibly
lead the Justice Department, for which he has requested $28.3
billion, amid such distressing questions about his actions and
his integrity.
Importantly, I believe the Attorney General of the United
States, the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, owes it to
the more than 116,000 Justice Department agents, intelligence
analysts, attorneys, and support personnel; the roughly 1
million State, local, and Tribal police officers; and staff
supporting more than 4,500 local victims assistance programs in
every State to justify the budget request of the Department of
Justice.
He owes them that courtesy because the President's budget
request for the Justice Department is abysmal. It cuts the
Department's budget by $643 million from the fiscal year 2017
enacted appropriations level. The Department's request is built
on unrealistic assumptions.
But worse than that, it is also built on the backs of crime
victims, with a permanent rescission of $1.3 billion from the
Crime Victims Fund.
Let me repeat that. The President and the administration
have talked about how they support the victims of crime, but
they are asking for a $1.3 billion rescission from the Crime
Victims Fund.
I do not know you try to combine the rhetoric with the
reality, how you can say you are for the victims of crime but--
oh, by the way--we are going to close the door on you.
Ironically, in a budget touted as tough on crime, the
President cuts funding for FBI operations and investigations by
$44 million. We know we have to move ahead with a new FBI
headquarters. There are no funds for that.
I have my own suspicions about why the President may seek
cuts to FBI operations and personnel, but I wanted the Attorney
General to come here and talk about it.
Just this week, the Attorney General crowed about how he
has law enforcement's back, but the Justice Department budget
slashes $326 million in assistance to State and local law
enforcement assistance grants--many States, represented on both
sides of this dais, will feel these cuts.
The budget slashes funding for anti-opioid and -heroin
initiatives by more than $27 million from fiscal year 2017
enacted levels. That includes eliminating $10 million from the
COPS Anti-Heroin Task Forces, which State and local law
enforcement teams in areas worst hit by the opioid epidemic use
for investigations going after street traffickers and networks.
You know, everybody calls the opioid situation a public
health crisis. I do not know how the Justice Department
justifies cutting resources that help our communities with
prevention, education, and treatment.
I am not surprised that while they cut out the money for
opioids, they propose millions of dollars to hire lawyers to
focus on seizing private land from hardworking Americans along
the Southwest border so the President can build his misguided
wall. We will not protect our people but, by golly, we will
seize their land.
The unbalanced and misplaced ``priorities'' of this budget
makes one thing clear: Rather than a ``foundation for American
greatness'', President Trump and Attorney General Sessions are
intent on making our communities less safe, abandoning victims
of crime, and victimizing and villainizing immigrants who
contribute to our communities.
Finally, Mr. Rosenstein, regardless of the circumstance for
your appearance today, I will raise this one point with you. On
May 1, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion arguing
that the executive branch is not obligated to meet the
legitimate oversight requests of individual Members of
Congress. It opined that only requests from the chairs of
committees must be met.
This is an affront to the Congress, a co-equal branch of
government. I have been here with Republican and Democratic
administrations. I have been here a number of times when
Republicans controlled the Senate, a number of times when
Democrats did. I have never, ever heard anybody, Republican or
Democrat, make this claim. In fact, we have roundly rejected it
on both sides of the aisle.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, with whom I have
worked both when I was chair and when I was ranking member,
called your opinion ``nonsense''.
Now, the Attorney General has the authority--I actually
believe he has an obligation--to withdraw that opinion.
The administration may seek to hide many things from the
American people, but they should know this: Today's committee
chairs are tomorrow's ranking members. Obstructing
congressional oversight will do nothing to advance the
interests of the American people. This opinion should be
withdrawn.
Mr. Chairman, I will put my whole statement in the Record.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Thank you, Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Shaheen, for the
opportunity to make these remarks.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, I won't mince words: You are
not the witness we were supposed to hear from today, and you are not
the witness who should be sitting behind that table. That
responsibility lies with the Attorney General of the United States.
Attorneys General of the past did not shy away from this Committee's
questions, regardless of the topic. Attorneys General of the past did
not cower at the request of Congress to fulfill its constitutional
oversight responsibilities. And Attorneys General of the past did not
send their second-in-command in their stead because the Members of this
Committee have questions they may not want to answer. Until now, that
is.
And so, with respect Mr. Rosenstein, you are not who I am
interested in speaking with or hearing from today. I do have questions
for your superior. I want to know why he provided false testimony to me
and Senator Franken. I want to know why, if he was recused from the
Russia investigation, he played any role in the dismissal of FBI
Director Comey. I want to know how he believes he can credibly lead the
Justice Department, for which he has requested $28.3 billion, amid such
distressing questions about his actions and his integrity. Importantly,
I believe the Attorney General of the United States--the Nation's chief
law enforcement officer--owes it to the more than 116,000 Justice
Department agents, intelligence analysts, attorneys, and support
personnel; the roughly one million State, local, and Tribal police
officers; and staff supporting more than 4,500 local victim assistance
programs in every State to justify the budget request of the Department
of Justice.
He owes them that courtesy because the President's budget request
for the Justice Department is abysmal. It cuts the Department's budget
by $643 million from the fiscal year 2017 enacted appropriations level.
The Department's request is built on unrealistic assumptions and on the
backs of crime victims, with a permanent rescission of $1.3 billion
from the Crime Victims Fund. Let me repeat that: An administration that
claims to support crime victims is asking for a permanent rescission of
$1.3 billion from the Crime Victims Fund. How in heaven's name can you
justify that assault on the rights and needs of crime victims?
Ironically, in a budget touted as ``tough on crime,'' the President
cuts funding for FBI operations and investigations by $44 million, and
fails to provide the needed funding to move ahead with a new FBI
headquarters. I find these cuts curious, as they come on top of media
reports that, prior to the President firing him, former FBI Director
James Comey asked the Department for additional resources for the
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. I know I
have my own suspicions about why the President may seek cuts to FBI
operations and personnel, but the Attorney General should be here to
justify them.
Just this week, the Attorney General crowed about how he has law
enforcement's back. But the Justice Department's budget slashes $326
million in assistance to State and local law enforcement assistance
grants, on which our communities rely to keep our neighborhoods,
children and schools safe, ensure crime victims have the tools they
need to bring their attackers to justice, and make sure that our tax
dollars spent on corrections do not simply fuel a revolving door in and
out of prison. Instead this budget's lowlights include:
--More than $70 million cut from Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants, the
bread and butter of our local law enforcement agencies;
--$20 million cut from rape kit backlog reduction grants;
--$22 million cut from youth mentoring grants that support groups
like the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and ensure that our
children have safe havens to go after school and during summer
months while their parents are at work;
--$30 million cut from school safety grants, which Congress funded in
the aftermath of the tragic shootings at the Sandy Hook
Elementary School; and
--$20 million cut from Second Chance Act grants, which reduce prison
recidivism rates.
This budget slashes funding for anti-opioid and heroin initiatives
by more than $27 million from fiscal year 2017 levels. This includes
eliminating $10 million for the COPS Anti-Heroin Task Forces, which
State and local law enforcement teams in areas worst hit by the opioid
epidemic use for investigations and going after street traffickers and
networks. Just this weekend, The Washington Post reported that the
opioid epidemic is now pushing up death rates for nearly every group of
Americans. How--when everyone calls this a public health crisis--does
the Justice Department justify cutting resources that will help our
communities with prevention, education, and treatment?
I am not surprised that the budget before us proposes millions of
dollars to hire lawyers to focus on taking private land from
hardworking Americans along the southwest border so that the President
can build his misguided wall. I am also not surprised that the Justice
Department budget seeks to punish local law enforcement and victims of
domestic and sexual violence and other violent crimes by pushing a
misguided and misdirected expansion of conditions placed on so-called
``sanctuary cities.'' The unbalanced and misplaced ``priorities'' of
this budget makes one thing clear: rather than a ``foundation for
American greatness,'' President Trump and Attorney General Sessions are
intent on making our communities less safe, abandoning victims of
crime, and villainizing immigrants who contribute to our communities.
Finally Mr. Rosenstein, regardless of the circumstances for your
appearance today, I will raise this one point with you. On May 1, the
Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion arguing that the executive
branch is not obligated to meet the legitimate oversight requests of
individual members of Congress. It opined that only requests from the
chairs of Committees must be met. This is an affront to the Congress--a
co-equal branch of government--and the argument the OLC makes has been
roundly rejected on both sides of the aisle. Judiciary Committee
Chairman Grassley--with whom I worked as both chair and ranking member
on a number of oversight matters--called this opinion ``nonsense.'' The
Attorney General has the authority, and I believe an obligation, to
withdraw that opinion. This administration may seek to hide many things
from the American people. But this administration should know this:
Today's committee chairs are tomorrow's ranking members. Obstructing
congressional oversight will do nothing to advance the interests of the
American people. This opinion should be withdrawn.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Rosenstein, you may proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Shelby,
Ranking Member Shaheen, Members of the subcommittee. I am
honored to present the President's fiscal year 2018 budget for
the Department of Justice.
Our proposed budget advances the interests of the American
people by allowing the dedicated men and women of the
Department of Justice to continue their outstanding work. We
are grateful for your strong support, and we look forward to
building on our successes as we work to protect the Nation,
promote the rule of law, and to ensure equal justice for all.
Our 2018 budget request shows a strong commitment to the
Justice Department's top priorities. It provides more funding
to fight terrorism and cybercrime, to reduce violent crime, to
tackle the opioid epidemic, and to combat illegal immigration.
It also gives us the resources we need to support our State,
local, and Tribal partners in their essential law enforcement
work.
This budget reflects three important themes: number one,
truth in budgeting; number two, increases in efficiency; and
number three, focusing on priorities.
These changes are critical and they support the executive
order of the President to reorganize government agencies for
the goal of increasing efficiency and effectiveness.
A first, the budget is an honest one, eliminating from the
books thousands of previously unfunded and vacant positions
that give a misleading impression of the personnel we have on
duty in the Department. Those ghost positions, in most cases,
have been vacant for years or have never been filled at all.
Secondly, this budget seeks to identify areas where we can
afford to cut back without harming our mission.
And, finally, the budget improves the allocation of our
precious resources so that we can do the most effective work
with every taxpayer dollar that we spend.
National security remains our highest priority. We face a
wide array of evolving threats from terrorism to espionage and
cybercrime.
We also need to come to terms, Senators, with the ``Going
Dark'' challenge, which I know you are all familiar with.
``Going Dark'' refers to law enforcement's increasing inability
to lawfully access, collect, and intercept real-time
communications and stored data. Even with a warrant, as a
result of changes in technologies, this phenomenon severely
impairs our ability to conduct investigations and bring
criminals to justice.
Our law enforcement officers operate within the
Constitution, and they respect legitimate privacy interests.
When there is a legitimate law enforcement need to access
electronic information, and we have a court order or other
legal authority, public safety is jeopardized when we are
unable to retain that relevant information. Our Department must
keep adapting to evolving challenges.
To that end, the budget provides an extra $98.5 million to
combat terrorism, espionage, and cybersecurity threats.
The Justice Department also is committed to protecting the
American people from violent crime and from the adverse effects
of illegal drug distribution, both of which are spiking at
alarming rates. Violent crime is rising in many areas of our
Nation, and drug-related injuries and deaths are increasing
across the country.
Senators, the evidence of this is indisputable. Rising
violent crime and increasing drug abuse are devastating many
American families, and the Justice Department is confronting
these crises head-on, and we need your help.
The proposed budget provides the Department's law
enforcement agencies with extra support, so they can target the
worst violent criminals, transnational crime organizations,
gangs, and drug-trafficking rings. It also provides, as the
chairman mentioned, for 230 additional assistant U.S. Attorneys
to focus specifically on our efforts to fight violent crime.
Those additional resources will enhance the ability of Federal
law enforcement to fight crime and to keep our communities
safe.
We are focusing also on getting illicit drugs off the
streets through strong enforcement efforts and through our drug
takeback programs. In addition to that, we call on doctors,
pharmacists, and pharmaceutical companies to take a hard look
at their practices and help us develop ways that we can reduce
the harmful overprescription of pharmaceutical drugs.
The American people also expect our government to secure
our borders and to restore a lawful system of immigration. The
Department of Justice will do our part in conjunction with the
Department of Homeland Security. Our proposed budget provides
much-needed funding to hire 75 additional immigration judges
and support personnel to reduce the unacceptable backlog in our
immigration courts. It will also allow us to hire more deputy
U.S. marshals and 30 more border enforcement prosecutors so
that we can effectively apprehend and prosecute criminal aliens
who threaten our communities.
The Federal Government, of course, does not maintain public
safety alone. Eighty-five percent of the law enforcement
officers in our country are not Federal. They work for our
State, local, and Tribal partners, and we rely on them heavily.
The men and women serving on the frontlines are our first line
of defense, and they help to keep our communities safe. They
deserve our support.
Our budget maintains our commitments to these valued
partners, and it prioritizes grant funding to the high-
performing programs that have proven to be effective.
This budget funds important priorities while helping us
achieve a more efficient and cost-effective Department. We will
do all we can to be good stewards of the Department's
resources. We have a duty to avoid waste and to safeguard
taxpayer money so it will be available to fight crime and
protect people.
The Department of Justice is home to 115,000 honorable men
and women who work every day to serve, protect, and defend the
American people and respect the Constitution of the United
States. This budget makes it possible for us to do our jobs
with the investments set forth in the budget. And with your
support, we will continue to fairly enforce our Nation's laws
and ensure safety and equal justice for all Americans.
So I look forward to working with this subcommittee and the
Congress in the months and years ahead.
If I may, Senators, with my few remaining moments, I
learned this morning about an incident in Georgia in which we
understand that two correctional officers were murdered in the
course of transporting prisoners in Georgia. I talked with the
Marshals Service Director David Harlow this morning, and we
have committed all Federal resources to help catch those
fugitives and hold the perpetrators accountable.
Our thoughts are with the victims and their families and in
support of law enforcement personnel who are working on the
case as we sit here today. An attack on any American law
enforcement officer is an attack on every American law
enforcement officer and on the principles that we all believe
in.
Senators, I will be happy to take any questions about our
proposed budget, and I look forward to that.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein
Good morning, Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Shaheen, and other
Members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you today to
present the President's fiscal year 2018 budget for the Department of
Justice. The Department looks forward to building on our successes and
continuing progress on the most pressing issues affecting our
communities and our citizens.
Let me start by thanking you for your strong support for the
Department in the recently completed fiscal year 2017 bill. The
President's fiscal year 2018 budget requests $27.7 billion in
discretionary authority for the Department of Justice, including $25.8
billion for Federal programs and $1.9 billion for State, local, and
Tribal assistance programs. The Department's fiscal year 2018 budget
proposal aims to support Federal law enforcement priorities and the
criminal justice needs of our State, local and Tribal law enforcement
partners. The request advances the safety and security of the American
people, because without safety there can be no prosperity. In this
regard, this budget includes increases in funding to confront
terrorism, pursue cybercriminals, reduce violent crime, tackle the
Nation's opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration.
The key Department funding priorities include:
--Ensuring the security of the country and safety of the American
people.--The budget allocates an additional $98.5 million to
enhance our abilities to combat terrorism, espionage, and
cybersecurity threats through the investigation, apprehension,
and prosecution of foreign and domestic perpetrators.
--Combatting violent crime and the opioid epidemic.--The budget will
support efforts at the Department's law enforcement agencies by
providing an increase of $198.5 million to target the worst of
the worst criminal organizations and drug traffickers by
addressing the violent crime and opioid epidemics that are
ravaging our Nation. Of particular note, this budget will
provide for 230 new Assistant United States Attorneys to
address violent crime across the country.
--Combatting illegal entry and unlawful presence in the United
States.--The budget provides a much-needed increase of nearly
$75 million for the hiring of 75 additional immigration judges
and associated support staff at the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) to bolster its efforts to more
efficiently adjudicate removal proceedings. Further, it
enhances border security and immigration enforcement by
providing 70 additional border enforcement prosecutors and 40
deputy U.S. Marshals for the apprehension, transportation, and
prosecution of criminal aliens.
--Promoting partnerships with State, local, and tribal entities.--The
budget provides $5.1 billion in discretionary and mandatory
funding for State, local, and tribal law enforcement assistance
to maintain our commitments to our partners without reducing
our Federal operational role. These programs focus on ensuring
the implementation of critical training that protects the lives
of State and local law enforcement personnel. In addition, the
Crime Victims Fund mandatory appropriations provide $3.0
billion in funding.
--Reprioritizing and reshaping resources for a smaller, more
efficient Department.--In line with the President's Executive
Order on a ``Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive
Branch,'' this budget request focuses on funding increases in
priority initiatives that secure the safety and prosperity of
the American people.
ensuring the security of the country and safety of the american people
National security remains the Department's highest priority. The
Department will always maintain its commitment and responsibility to
safeguard American citizens and defend the homeland while maintaining
our Constitutional principles. Threats are constantly evolving,
requiring additional investments to mitigate those threats in
innovative ways. Terrorists seek to sabotage critical infrastructure;
organized crime syndicates seek to defraud individuals, governments,
banks and corporations; and spies seek to steal defense and
intelligence secrets and intellectual property. All endanger our
Nation's economy and security.
The fiscal year 2018 budget will support the Department's ability
to respond to these evolving threats by reprioritizing $98.5 million
that will provide program increases for the areas of (1) combatting
domestic and foreign terrorism; (2) intelligence collection and
analysis; (3) cybercrime; and (4) investigative and law enforcement
technology.
Today's domestic and foreign terrorist threats are complex, and
require the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to make adjustments
in methods and capabilities while maintaining and improving procedures
that are working well. Accordingly, the budget request will provide
$8.2 million to conduct physical surveillance on high priority targets.
The Department has developed a proactive, intelligence-based
strategy to predict, detect, and deter those who wish to harm the
American people and the national interest. The FBI will devote $19.7
million to address the threats posed by foreign and insider operations.
Cybercrimes are becoming more common, more sophisticated, and more
dangerous. Our adversaries increasingly use computers and the Internet
to advance their illicit activities. The Department has a unique and
critical role in cyber security that emphasizes countering and
mitigating cyber threats by investigating, prosecuting, and providing
legal and policy support for intrusion and cybercrime cases. The
Department's fiscal year 2018 budget provides $41.5 million to enhance
the technical capabilities of FBI investigative personnel, increase the
number of cyber investigations, and improve cyber collection.
Intrusions of private sector and government networks over recent years
have highlighted the increasing capabilities of these cyber actors.
Safeguarding information networks that hold personal and private data
is a top priority. The Department is using every tool at its disposal
to work proactively, respond swiftly, and adapt constantly to this
threat.
The Department of Justice must continue to take a leading role in
enhancing the capabilities of the law enforcement and national security
communities. This budget request will provide $21.6 million in funding
to counter the ``Going Dark'' threat. The seriousness of this threat
cannot be overstated. ``Going Dark'' refers to law enforcement's
increasing inability to lawfully access, collect, and intercept real-
time communications and stored data, even with a warrant, due to
fundamental shifts in communications services and technologies. This
phenomenon is severely impairing our ability to conduct investigations
and bring criminals to justice. The FBI will use this funding to
develop and acquire tools for electronic device analysis, cryptanalytic
capability, and forensic tools. The Department's role has been to
collect, house, analyze, and share critical data among our Federal,
State, local, and Tribal partners. The fiscal year 2018 budget supports
the operations and maintenance of the Biometrics Technology Center,
operated collaboratively between the FBI and Department of Defense,
with a $7.4 million investment.
combatting violent crime and the opioid epidemic
Violent crime and drug abuse are increasingly commonplace
throughout our country. While today's overall crime rates are near
historic lows, recent trends indicate that those levels are at risk.
Updated FBI statistics show that from 2014 to 2015, violent crime has
increased more than 3 percent, which is the largest 1 year increase in
the last 24 years. The murder rate has increased 10 percent, the
largest increase since 1968. Compounding this issue is the opioid and
illegal drug epidemic. Heroin overdose deaths have more than tripled
from 2010 to 2014, while illegal drugs flood across our borders into
cities and towns, bringing violence and tragedy with them. Protecting
the people of this country from violent crime is a high calling of the
men and women of the Department of Justice. Today, it has become more
important than ever.
Consistent with the President's Executive Orders, the fiscal year
2018 budget requests $198.5 million to (1) reduce violent crime; (2)
combat the prescription drug and opioid epidemic; and (3) target
Transnational Criminal Organizations. These resources will enable the
Department to target and dismantle the worst criminal organizations and
drug traffickers that are bringing violence, death, and destruction to
our communities. The Department of Justice utilizes a comprehensive set
of programs that leverage law enforcement operations, prosecutorial
action, and support for State and local governments to combat the
violent offenders in our communities.
The Department's approach to combatting violent crime includes a
request for $50 million that will go to support ballistics tracing,
expedite National Firearms Act applications, address the high volume of
criminal background checks, and replace body armor and radios for
deputy U.S. Marshals. The National Integrated Ballistic Information
Network (NIBIN) will be supported with $6.5 million that will provide
additional office space, crime gun intelligence, training for State and
local partners, and equipment needed for operations. We request $19
million to support a multi-agency Violent and Gun-Related Crime
Reduction Task Force. This will enhance investigative capabilities and
prosecutorial capacity. The task force will strategically focus on the
hardest hit urban areas by using innovative methods to track and
apprehend individuals, organizations, and gangs and is composed of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), FBI, United States Marshal Service
(USMS), and the United States Attorneys. Funding will bolster
investigative capacity, apprehension efforts, and grants to State and
local partners.
The budget request includes an increase of $40.4 million, for a
total of $625.2 million, in Departmental resources directed to
combatting the prescription drug and heroin epidemic. The Department
will take a two-pronged approach to tackling this scourge. First, this
funding will support the investigation and prosecution of criminals
that are bringing the illicit drugs into our communities. Second, we
will leverage our relationships with medical providers, educators, and
community leaders to increase awareness, education, and treatment. This
request also funds the DEA's Diversion Control Program. These resources
will increase regulatory and investigative capacity under the
Controlled Substances Act.
The Department will target the most notorious violent criminals,
gangs, and drug trafficking rings. The fiscal year 2018 request
includes $5.8 million for OCDETF, $6.8 million for FBI, and $6.5
million for DEA--all to confront, disrupt, and dismantle transnational
organized crime. Also included is $18.8 million not financed by adding
money to the Department budget, but by redirecting current resources
and reprioritizing Department missions to support the hiring of 230 new
Assistant United States Attorneys to combat all types of violent crime
through comprehensive prosecution and prevention efforts.
combatting illegal entry and unlawful presence in the united states
The President's fiscal year 2018 budget places a priority on
enhancing border security and improving enforcement of immigration
laws. The backlog of immigration cases, as well as the upward trend in
transnational crime, present crucial threats that must be addressed.
The budget request of $144.9 million will allow the Department to
secure our borders with the full weight of both the immigration courts
and Federal law enforcement to preserve America's national security.
The efforts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
increase immigration enforcement have resulted in an 87 percent
increase in the number of cases brought before our immigration courts.
The requested resources will allow the Department's Executive Office
for Immigration Review (EOIR) to respond by providing 75 new
immigration judges and associated support staff to efficiently and
effectively adjudicate these cases. To support the efforts of DHS and
EOIR, the U.S. Attorneys offices will add 70 additional border
enforcement prosecutors and the Civil Division's Office of Immigration
Litigation (OIL) will add 20 additional positions to defend the Federal
Government's immigration enforcement efforts.
Transnational gangs and international cartels flood our country
with drugs and leave death and violence in their wake. Criminal aliens
and document forgers undermine our system of lawful immigration. The
President's Executive Orders on Border Security, on Transnational
Criminal Organizations, and on Public Safety are our guideposts. We
will execute a strategy that secures the border; apprehends and
prosecutes criminal aliens who threaten our public safety; combats
gangs; and dismantles and destroys the cartels.
promoting partnerships with state, local, and tribal entities
The fiscal year 2018 budget maintains the Department's commitments
to State, local, and Tribal law enforcement partners without reducing
the Department's Federal operational role. This funding will ensure
greater safety for law enforcement personnel and the citizens they
serve. The fiscal year 2018 discretionary and mandatory request for
State, local, and Tribal law enforcement assistance is $5.1 billion.
The fiscal year 2018 request for the Office of Justice Programs
(OJP) is $4.4 billion, including $1.3 billion for discretionary grant
programs and $3.1 billion for mandatory programs. The budget includes
$70 million for a new, Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN) Block Grant
program, which will build on the work of the Department's ongoing PSN
initiative to create safer neighborhoods through sustained reductions
in gang violence and gun crime.
The fiscal year 2018 request for the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) totals $218 million, which includes $207
million for the COPS Hiring Program of which $30 million is dedicated
for Tribal law enforcement. The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)
fiscal year 2018 request totals $480 million, and includes $215 million
for the STOP program, which provides critical funds to States to
support their responses to violence against women. Another $35 million
of the request will support the Sexual Assault Services Program,
dedicated to direct intervention and related assistance for victims of
sexual assault.
reprioritizing and reshaping resources for a smaller, more efficient
department
In executing the President's Executive Order on a ``Comprehensive
Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch,'' the Department of Justice
is dedicated to good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. As an example,
the Department's fiscal year 2018 request dedicates $274.7 million, an
increase of $24.9 million, to support our work against civil and
criminal healthcare fraud. The most recent projections show that the 3-
year average return on investment on healthcare fraud funding for the
Department and HHS is $5 to every $1 invested. This is the type of
stewardship that protects the vulnerable and provides significant
returns to the American people.
I am honored to submit the President's fiscal year 2018 budget
request. This request funds the Department's priorities and will result
in a more cost-effective Department. As Deputy Attorney General, I am
committed to making the Department of Justice run as efficiently as
possible, without adding to the burden on the American taxpayer.
conclusion
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Shaheen, and Members of the
subcommittee, it is my pleasure to highlight our efforts to be good
stewards of the resources and authorities bestowed on us as we
strengthen the Department's ability to ensure public safety and equal
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 2018 budget request. 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.
Senator Shelby. Thank you for your testimony. I am sure you
are going to have a lot of questions. I will try to stay within
the budget area that I am interested in this morning.
Mr. Rosenstein, what specifically is the Department of
Justice doing to accelerate the hiring of new immigration
judges?
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you, Senator. This has been one of my
top priorities. As you know, I have been in the job for 6
weeks. And I learned when I took the position----
Senator Shelby. Can you take the mike up to you a little
bit.
Mr. Rosenstein. I learned very early in my tenure about
this extraordinary backlog in immigration cases, and that has
been one of my top priorities, to address that. Our fiscal year
2018 budget includes $145 million to enhance border security
and immigration enforcement. And that includes, as I mentioned
in my opening statement, 75 new immigration judge teams. I
believe it is approximately 450 people, the judges and their
support staff, and $75 million to address that backlog, which
exceeds 500,000 and is approaching, as the chairman mentioned,
600,000.
It also includes additional assistant U.S. Attorneys and $7
million to prosecute violations of immigration laws, additional
deputy U.S. marshals, and additional attorneys in the Civil
Division.
But with regard specifically to your question about the
backlog, Senator, we are very focused on that. One of the
challenges that we had was some bureaucratic delays in hiring
and filling vacancies. So in addition to creating 75 new judges
and filling those positions and their support personnel, we are
also expediting the hiring of immigration judges to fill the
existing vacancies.
So it is a big challenge. I have talked with the leadership
of that office, and we are going to make it a top priority to
first put an end to the increase in the backlog and then to
work on ways that we can more efficiently and more quickly
reduce that backlog. Because my view, Senator, is that
everybody who has a case pending in our immigration court
deserves an expeditious resolution of that case.
Senator Shelby. Can you move and are you moving some judges
around to where they are most in need? There has to be a surge
somewhere.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, in fact, we have moved some
immigration judges to the border districts, I believe, and we
are going to continue looking at that. Obviously, we have the
75 who are proposed in this budget. We have, I believe,
approximately 56 vacancies that already exist, and we are
certainly going to put those judges where we think they are
most needed and where we think they can do the most good.
COUNTERTERRORISM
Senator Shelby. Getting into counterterrorism, you know
that is a top priority for this subcommittee, and I believe it
is for the Justice Department, too. Of course, the FBI's
Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center, we call it TEDAC,
is very critical, given that IEDs are still prevalent and
dangerous tools, as you know, used by terrorists at home and
abroad, and could and probably will visit us in a big way in
this country.
The forensics investigations conducted by TEDAC personnel
led to the convictions of the shoe bomber, the Boston marathon
bomber, and other terrorists. So you probably can understand
some of our disappointment when the Department's budget request
included a $76 million reduction proposal for the FBI's
construction account, which includes facilities for TEDAC. That
is hard for us to swallow.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Senator. My understanding of that--as
you mentioned, the TEDAC was formally designated to serve as
our single strategic center to investigate IEDs, explosive
devices, in January 2015. And I think it has been
extraordinarily valuable, as you mentioned, in investigations
and in training for the government.
My understanding, Senator, with regard to that $76 million,
and this is based upon our career experts, some of whom are
sitting behind us, is this was a one-time, nonrecurring
request, and we simply did not have the need for additional
construction funds this year. It does not reflect any lack of
support for the operations of the TEDAC. We believe it is a
very efficient and effective operation, and we intend to
continue supporting it. We simply do not need that additional
construction funding this year.
Senator Shelby. Okay. We are going to have to work on that.
We will try to work with you.
SANCTUARY CITIES
Sanctuary cities, this is an ongoing problem in our
country, and you know this very well. My question, grants
awarded to State and local jurisdictions are tied to compliance
with Federal laws, as I understand. And the Bureau of Prisons
must give Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials
priority regarding Federal detainers.
Is that correct? Do you want me to state that again?
Mr. Rosenstein. I am sorry? Priority?
Senator Shelby. I understand that grant awards to State and
local jurisdictions are tied to compliance with all Federal
laws.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Shelby. And that the Bureau of Prisons must give or
should give Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials
priority regarding Federal detainers.
Mr. Rosenstein. I do not believe we have an issue with
cooperation from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. That is
correct, Senator.
Senator Shelby. This is a problem, though, in the country,
is it not?
Mr. Rosenstein. It is a challenge with regard to some State
and local facilities that do not honor our immigration
detainers.
Senator Shelby. I have a few other questions for the
record, but there are a lot of people wanting to question you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
Mr. Rosenstein, many news outlets both last night and this
morning have reported that President Trump is considering
firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Under the regulations
governing the appointment of a Special Counsel, 28 C.F.R. 600,
and I quote, ``The Special Counsel may be disciplined or
removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney
General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for
misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of
interest, or for other good cause, including a violation of
departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the
Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or
her removal.''
Now, Mr. Rosenstein, in this matter, you are actually the
one exercising hiring and firing authority, because Attorney
General Sessions is recused.
Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Shaheen. At this point, have you seen any evidence
of good cause for firing Special Counsel Mueller?
Mr. Rosenstein. No, I have not.
Senator Shaheen. Have you given the Special Counsel full
independence from the Justice Department to conduct this
investigation?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Senator. I appreciate that question.
At the last hearing I attended, I explained it would require a
long time to explain exactly why I am confident that he has
full independence.
The short answer is, though, that that regulation, as you
may know, was written and implemented during the Clinton
administration under the authority of Attorney General Reno. I
know the folks who wrote that. They wrote it to deal with these
sorts of situations. And I am confident that he will have
sufficient independence.
And it is certainly theoretically possible that the
Attorney General could fire him, but that is the only person
who has the authority to fire him. And in fact, the chain of
command for the Special Counsel is only directly to the
Attorney General or, in this case, the Acting Attorney General.
So nobody else in the Department would have authority to do
that.
And you have my assurance that we are going to faithfully
follow that regulation and Director Mueller is going to have
the full degree of independence that he needs to conduct that
investigation appropriately.
Senator Shaheen. Is there a record that gives him that full
independence? Is that done in a letter or an order from you as
the Deputy Attorney General?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Senator. It is done in the order,
which I believe was issued on May 17. The order references the
regulation from which you have read. And so that is the source
of his authority.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
You mentioned in your opening statement the importance of
the budget request for 230 assistant U.S. Attorneys. I
certainly agree that is important. I am concerned, however,
that we had an en masse firing of U.S. Attorneys throughout the
country. And, as far as I know, at least in New Hampshire, the
Administration has not made any nominations to replace the
person who was fired.
Can you tell me how many U.S. Attorneys have been nominated
throughout the country?
Mr. Rosenstein. I believe, Senator that the President
announced his first set of nominations yesterday, and I believe
there were seven or eight in that first round.
U.S. ATTORNEY APPOINTMENTS
What I can assure you is that we are moving very
expeditiously. I think there has been some press that I think
may be somewhat misleading about that. I believe that we are
actually going to be ahead of most recent administrations in
the speed by which we are appointing U.S. Attorneys. It is
obviously very important to me, because I spent 12 years
serving as U.S. Attorney, and I know how important good U.S.
Attorneys are to the operation of the Department of Justice. In
fact, the last two Saturdays I have spent in the Department
interviewing candidates for about 10 districts each weekend. So
we anticipate that, by the end of the summer, we will see a
large number of U.S. Attorneys nominated throughout the
country.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I am certainly glad to hear that. It
is my understanding that, at least in New Hampshire, we have
not seen wholesale firing of U.S. Attorneys in the way that we
did in this administration. Was there a reason why every U.S.
Attorney in the country was fired on the same day?
Mr. Rosenstein. So, Senator, I am pleased to tell you not
everyone was fired because I was one of the U.S. Attorneys that
day.
Senator Shaheen. Good.
Mr. Rosenstein. There were four who were not fired, but I
was not in the Department at that time. I learned about the
firings after the decision had been made, so I have no insight
into why that decision was made.
Senator Shaheen. You mentioned in your opening statement
the tragedy in Georgia and the officers who were murdered. It
is a reminder that those who work in our prisons have a very
difficult job that is very dangerous.
I am troubled by the fact that, while the administration's
hiring freeze was lifted in April, the Department of Justice
has been under a self-imposed hiring freeze since mid-February.
And while there was a blanket exemption for positions relating
to public safety and national security, that provision does not
include the Bureau of Prisons, which is still under a hiring
freeze.
DEPARTMENT GUIDANCE ON HIRING
In fact, in New Hampshire, FCI Berlin had extended
conditional offers to seven potential employees, five of whom
were correctional officers, but due to the imposition of the
hiring freeze, those positions were canceled by DOJ, so they
were not able to go forward with those hirings.
As you point out, this is a difficult job. Can you explain
why we continue to have a hiring freeze for correctional
officers at the Bureau of Prisons?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I appreciate that question. I
think there may be some misunderstanding about this. The
Department froze BOP hiring at the headquarters in Washington
and at the regional administrative offices. But my
understanding is that the Department allowed BOP institutions
to continue hiring up to their staffing levels as of January
22, which means that, if people left, they would be able to
fill those vacancies.
So within that overall level of staffing, I believe we have
left the discretion with BOP to hire for whichever positions it
believes are most critical to its operations. Now, obviously,
there has been a continuing decline in the number of Federal
prisoners and, commensurately, probably less of a need for
personnel.
But I am going to go back and talk with the Director Kane
about that and make sure that we do have proper staffing for
that prison. As far as I know, he, indeed, does have discretion
to fill those positions, if he thinks it is appropriate.
Senator Shaheen. I appreciate your willingness to do that
and would urge you to follow through. It is my understanding
that, because the positions were not officially filled by the
time of the February guidance, that they were canceled by DOJ.
Mr. Rosenstein. I will look into that.
[The information follows:]
The hiring freeze as interpreted by the Department, applied to BOP
positions that were vacant as of January 22, 2017; this guidance
covered the positions you highlighted. Subsequently, the BOP has been
permitted to hire staff and fill positions at its institutions, so long
as BOP do not exceed the staffing level that existed on January 22,
2017. The BOP is presently reviewing vacancies at all of its
institutions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
Deputy Attorney General Mr. Rosenstein, I just want to
follow up quickly on the two questions that Senator Shaheen
asked you about the Special Counsel.
Has the President ever discussed with you the appointment
of the Special Counsel or discussed the Special Counsel in any
way?
Mr. Rosenstein. No, he has not.
Senator Collins. And second, if President Trump ordered you
to fire the Special Counsel, what would you do?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I am not going to follow any
orders unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate
orders.
Under the regulation, Special Counsel Mueller may be fired
only for good cause, and I am required to put that cause in
writing. And so that is what I would do. If there were good
cause, I would consider it. If there were not good cause, it
would not matter to me what anybody says.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
HEROIN AND OPIOID EPIDEMIC
I want to turn to the opioid crisis, which plagues my State
and so many others. Last year, drug overdoses were responsible
for more than 59,000 deaths in this country, including a record
376 such deaths in Maine.
That is 104 more overdose deaths than the year before in my
State, so we are not making progress. The situation is actually
getting worse, despite considerable efforts on the part of so
many.
Last year, I was briefed in Maine by Federal law
enforcement officers who told me that they had seen a major
influx of drug dealers coming from out of State with the direct
ties to gangs in major cities. As well as the Mexican drug
cartels. For example, in one case, gang members trafficked
heroin between New Haven, Connecticut, and Bangor, Maine, where
I live. They traded drugs for firearms and then distributed
those firearms to other gang members upon their return to
Connecticut.
We obviously need a multipronged approach to the heroin and
opioid crisis. That includes treatment, education, prevention,
and law enforcement. And key to that law enforcement leg of the
stool is cooperation among Federal, State, and local officials.
The Department's budget requests $3 million less than Congress
appropriated for the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act
programs for the current fiscal year. And even more troubling
to me there is no funding proposed for the COPS Anti-Heroin
Task Force. In my State, this program has helped law
enforcement officers seize heroin and prescription opioids, and
arrest drug dealers.
Why is the administration proposing this cut in the CARA
funding and eliminating the funding for the COPS Anti-Heroin
Task Force?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I appreciate that question.
I think there are a lot of issues. For me, this is actually
one of the most important issues that I hope to talk about
today. I do not know if I can give a complete answer in 1
minute, 35 seconds, but let me tell you, I actually brought
with me a chart that I think would be of interest to you.
This is a chart of drug overdose deaths in the United
States of America. This issue first came to my attention as
U.S. Attorney in Maryland about 3 or 4 years ago when it was
brought to my attention that there had been a significant spike
in deaths attributable to opioid drugs in our State, and it has
only accelerated since then.
These are frightening numbers, Senator. The final
statistics from 2015 reflect about 52,000 Americans lost their
lives to drug overdoses that year, and we believe the 2016
projections may be over 60,000. It will be sometime before we
have final numbers.
More than half, a substantial proportion of those, are
attributable to opioid drugs. When I first learned about this,
we were talking about the heroin crisis, and people thought
about heroin and oxycodone, which is a lawful prescription drug
that often can be abused. Increasingly, the challenge we face
is about fentanyl, which is an even more hazardous drug that
poses a danger even to our first responders, our police, our
firefighters, and paramedics who are responding to scenes of
overdoses, because of how deadly and dangerous that drug can
be.
So this is a very significant challenge to us. There are a
lot of issues, a lot of ways we can go about addressing it, one
of which you talked about, the gangs that bring drugs into your
home State. I know from my experience as U.S. Attorney, that is
an area where our Federal prosecutors and our DEA agents can do
a lot of good.
And law enforcement is not the only solution to the heroin
and opioid crisis. But from our perspective, it is an important
part. It is one of the key tools the Department of Justice has
to target these organizations that try to identify the sources
of supply and put those drug dealers out of business.
So one of the most important things I think that we are
going to do this year under this budget is that we are going to
be able to fund about 900 additional employees for DEA. These
are not new positions. My understanding from our budget experts
is that these are positions that are existing, but, for the
most part, were not filled because of budgetary constraints.
So we anticipate we will have up to 900 more personnel on
the frontlines of DEA. We will have additional Federal
prosecutors. And that, from the Department's perspective, will
help us combat that.
But, if I may continue, it is not just about law
enforcement. There are many other areas in which--many other
ways that we can combat drug abuse. The Justice Department,
obviously, focuses primarily on law enforcement, but we do have
these grant programs that allow us to do other things.
The COPS program, as you mentioned, is proposed to be
eliminated in this budget. But we request--there is $7 million
funding that I think is not in this year's budget. But we do
request $40.4 million in additional Federal funding for DEA
prescription, opioid, and heroin enforcement programs. So this
is the matter not of reducing our emphasis on that issue but of
reprioritizing the money to places we think it will be more
effective.
This will allow DEA to expand funding for its 360 Strategy,
which is intended to illustrate that it is not just about law
enforcement. It is a 360 program to try to reduce drug abuse.
It will allow us to enhance operations against domestic cartels
that are responsible for drug distribution, and to enhance and
establish regulatory enforcement groups in the diversion
control program and increase funding for our prescription drug
disposal programs, because often drugs that are legally
prescribed and not used then may be diverted to illegal uses.
So through all of those ways, Senator, I can commit to you
that we are very much attuned. I am going to be watching those.
I will be watching those overdose numbers. And I will not be
satisfied until I see that trend turn around and start going
the other direction.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RECUSAL
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, thank you for being here.
Could you describe in as clear and quick of a fashion as
possible the scope of Attorney General Sessions' recusal?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, Attorney General Sessions' recusal
is in the public record, and I understand I have been asked
this question several times. From my perspective, as you know,
I have been--in the matters in which he is recused, I am the
Acting Attorney General, and, therefore, I know what we are
investigating. He does not. And I think that is what is
important for you to recognize. He actually does not know what
we are investigating, and I am not going to be talking about it
publicly.
Senator Schatz. But I guess the question is, so in what
appears to be the only statement that Jeff Sessions made on
this, I may be incorrect, but the main statement was March 2,
2017, ``I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or
future investigations of any matters related in any way to the
campaigns for President of the United States.''
So are we to understand that to the extent there may be a
counterintelligence investigation not related to campaigns for
the President of the United States or even a criminal
investigation that could be obstruction of justice or a
violation of another statute--so who decides where the line is?
Because that seems to be about a particular thing, and now we
have a Special Counsel and we have multiple investigatory
processes going on. We also have public policy questions
related to how we interact with the country that was engaged in
active measures against us.
So the question, again, is who decides what he is recused
from? And why is there no clarity on what he is recused from?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I think within the Department, we
do have clarity, and the reason for that is there is a career
ethics official who made that determination in conjunction with
the Attorney General before I arrived. I arrived, I believe,
around April 27 or 28. And that career official works in the
Deputy's office. So I am able to consult with him if any
questions arise about what matters the Attorney General is
recused from. That is why----
Senator Schatz. Can you tell the public what matters the
Attorney General is recused from?
Mr. Rosenstein. What I am trying to explain, Senator, is it
would be inappropriate for me to do that because he is recused
from Department of Justice investigations, and we do not talk
about the subject matter of investigations while they are
ongoing. That would interfere with what our investigators and
prosecutors are doing.
Senator Schatz. So normally, I think, in a law firm or even
in a public agency where there is a recusal, there is a
memorialization of the recusal. There is a delineation of what
is in and what is out of that recusal. And there is also a
process by which we can determine whether or not there is
compliance with that recusal. Is there such a document?
Mr. Rosenstein. The way the Department operates is very
different from a law firm.
Senator Schatz. I know that, but is there such a document?
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, no, because it is not necessary,
because the Department is a hierarchy, and so nothing gets to
the Attorney General about the matters he is recused from
unless they come through my office.
Senator Schatz. What if they come through the Oval Office?
Mr. Rosenstein. If they come through the Oval Office? Well,
we are not briefing the Oval Office about our investigations
either, so I do not know how they would get there.
Senator Schatz. It could be my lack of a law degree, maybe
there are a couple lawyers on this panel or in the public who
can help me to understand the most basic question here, which
is that the Attorney General had a press conference and said,
given all these challenges, given all this controversy, I am
out, I am recused from these matters. Now the question becomes,
which matters?
So I am just going to ask one final time if you can just
try to describe for the public, for the layperson, for the
person who is following this but may not possess a law degree:
What is the Attorney General allowed to be involved in, and
what is he not allowed to be involved in? And who makes that
determination? And how do we know whether he is complying or
not?
Mr. Rosenstein. I appreciate that sincere question,
Senator. I want to try to explain. And you are right. I have
spent 27 years in the Department of Justice. I think about
these things differently than people who are not in the
Department who are not lawyers.
What is important for me to explain--in this matter, I am
acting as Attorney General of the United States, and that means
a lot to me. And one of the things it means is that I have a
responsibility not to talk publicly about what we are
investigating or who we are investigating because that could
adversely affect the investigation and because it would be
unfair to people who may be under investigation.
Senator Schatz. Is it possible that the Attorney General is
a witness in this investigation?
Mr. Rosenstein. If he were, Senator, I would not talk about
it.
Senator Schatz. What about you?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I am not going to be talking about
the investigation. The purpose of my appointment of Special
Counsel Mueller was to ensure that there be public confidence
in the outcome of that investigation, and he now has
responsibility for that. And I think that if there are any
questions, they should be directed to him. And I know he is
going to do the right thing, as I would, and defend the
integrity of that investigation.
Senator Schatz. Just one final question, because I am over
time. If you become a witness in this investigation, do you
think there is a conflict of interest there?
Mr. Rosenstein. I am not going to answer hypotheticals
questions, and the reason, Senator, is, I am working with
career professionals who know these rules and are responsible
for enforcing these rules. And I can assure you that we are
going to do the right thing, and we are going to defend the
integrity of that investigation.
Senator Schatz. Can you just consider this a question for
the record, if you could please put in black-and-white for the
subcommittee the scope of the recusal and how this all works? I
think then you can be a little more careful.
I mean, I understand you have to be careful about not
referring to an investigatory process. I get that. But still, I
think the public deserves to know exactly how this all plays
out. I cannot imagine that you cannot describe it even in the
abstract so that we are assured that there is a fair and
thorough investigatory process.
Thank you.
Mr. Rosenstein. I appreciate the question, and we will make
an effort to do that in writing in a way that may be,
hopefully, better than my efforts.
[The information follows:]
On March 2, 2017, the Attorney General announced his recusal from
``any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any
way to the campaigns for President of the United States.'' This
statement was broadly worded in order to avoid suggesting the existence
of any particular investigation. Longstanding Department policy
prohibits discussing ongoing investigations. Consistent with practice,
the Attorney General's Chief of Staff effected the recusal by notifying
the Department components that may have relevant information about the
subject matter of the Attorney General's recusal and instructing those
components not to provide information to the Attorney General or his
staff regarding any such matters. The Chief of Staff's email further
noted, ``The Attorney General's recusal is not only with respect to
such investigations, if any, but also extends to Department responses
to Congressional and media inquiries related to any such
investigations.'' The Attorney General's staff was also notified about
the recusal. The instruction to the relevant Department components and
the Attorney General's staff about the recusal effectively screened the
Attorney General from any information about such matters. Although the
language of the publicly announced recusal was necessarily vague, it
provided sufficient information to the components to insulate the
Attorney General from any matters that may have been covered by the
recusal. The regulation on which the Attorney General based his
recusal, 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2, applies only to investigations or
prosecutions.
Shortly after the Attorney General's recusal, he received a letter
from Senators Grassley and Feinstein regarding the recusal, among other
things. In a March 6, 2017 letter to Senators Grassley and Feinstein,
the Attorney General stated, ``[Your] March 3, 2017, letter also asked
why I had not recused myself from `Russian contacts with the Trump
transition team and administration.' I understand the scope of the
recusal as described in the Department's press release would include
any such matters. This should not be taken as any evidence of the
existence of any such investigation or its scope.'' On March 20, 2017,
former FBI Director James B. Comey testified before the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and confirmed that the FBI, as part of
its counterintelligence mission, was investigating the Russian
Government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,
including any links between individuals associated with the Trump
campaign and the Russian Government and whether there was any
coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. He noted that
as with any counterintelligence investigation, the FBI's investigation
would also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
This description provided further detail about the matters from which
the Attorney General recused himself.
On May 17, 2017, the Deputy Attorney General, acting as Attorney
General by virtue of the Attorney General's recusal, appointed former
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to serve as Special Counsel for the
investigation Mr. Comey confirmed.
But as I said, I just want to assure you and assure
everybody that is what I am about here, is making sure that the
rule of law is followed and that we reach a fair result in
which people can have confidence. And I am working with career
professionals in the Department who are going to help me to do
that.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rosenstein, thanks for being here. You have testified
in front of every Senator in closed sessions. You have
testified in front of the Intelligence Committee in open
sessions. You have had lots of conversations on this. So I
appreciate you being here again today to go through some budget
areas.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
I do want to help clarify one thing. I read with some
interest in the paper that there was some secret plan to be
able to privately remove the Special Counsel who you just put
in place. To be able to see that, all I could think about was
Jim Comey's statements publicly saying how many times he read
newspaper stories with unnamed sources that, as he read them,
he thought these were completely false.
Is there anything to some secret plan that is out there
from you or anyone in the administration to try to go in and
remove the Special Counsel?
Mr. Rosenstein. No, there is no secret plan that involves
me. No, Senator.
Senator Lankford. I would just say, no one in America is
above the law, and no one in America is not faced with
accountability and checks and balances. Every one of us has
checks and balances. The President, every Member of the
Cabinet, the Vice President, every judge has checks and
balances in the system.
I cannot seem to understand the fascination to say we need
to create some Special Counsel. That would be the only person
in America that has no accountability structure anywhere for
anything. I would assume everyone has a check and balance
somewhere. That does not mean it is under consideration in the
process. So I appreciate you trying to clarify that for us.
I do also want to thank you and the Department of Justice.
Senator Warren and I do not agree on everything, but last year,
we started working on a process for the Department of Justice
to stop these slush funds in the background where the
Department of Justice was forcing businesses to be able to
spend money on third-party groups or not revealing the nature
of those settlements. The Department of Justice just last week
announced that you are stopping that process.
And I just want to say thank you. That is something that we
have worked on for a couple years, tried to get accomplished
legislatively, the previous administration would not work with
us on. You just implemented that. So I just want to say I
appreciate that.
CRIME VICTIMS FUND
Let me also say that I have a question about the Crime
Victims Fund and the rescission. Help me understand the
rescission back to the Treasury of a part of the Crime Victims
Fund.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Senator. Thank you.
The Department's budget requests $3 billion from the Crime
Victims Fund for fiscal year 2018. This will build on almost $8
billion provided for crime victims over the last 3 years. It
includes $2.2 billion in formula grants for Victims
Compensation and Assistance Grants, $25 million to improve the
treatment of crime victims, and 5 percent or $150 million set
aside for Tribal governments.
The $1.3 billion rescission is a cut from excess balances
because of record high collections in the past.
And I have to tell you, Senator, I am a business school
graduate. This is government budgeting. I know it can be
complex. I have talked with the career professionals in the
Department, and they have explained to me that that is what
that number represents. It represents a cut of excess balances
because there have been record high collections in the past.
But we are recommending the spending of $3 billion in the next
fiscal year.
Senator Lankford. So let me tell you why this is so
important, and this subcommittee will know this well. For the
last 2 years in our subcommittee and in the full committee, I
have raised the issue of the Crime Victims Fund. The Crime
Victims Fund was set aside as dollars that have come into it
specifically for use to be able to help, by definition, crime
victims. It has been used in that in multiple areas in multiple
places completely appropriately.
What has happened, though, is that because it has an excess
balance, this year around $9 billion, Congress says we are
planning to spend that and then does not spend that and takes
that $9 billion and actually spends it somewhere else on paper,
and then the next year spends the same $9 billion again on
paper.
It is $9 billion of excess spending above our budget caps
that are done. You may know it as the Changes in Mandatory
Programs, what is affectionately called around here CHIMPS.
I have raised for the last 2 years in this subcommittee and
in the full committee the possibility that those dollars would
be spent one time and then could not be spent again the same
dollars the next year, year after year. I have so far been
unsuccessful to be able to do that. Now you are bringing in
another element of this, of a rescission to be able to move it.
I am trying to figure out how to get transparency in
budgeting, that the Crime Victims Fund is used for victims of
crime that it is not used as an offset for our budget here, and
it is not used as a rescission somewhere else, back to
Treasury. It is actually used for victims of crime.
And any way that we can get transparency and be able to
actually use that fund for what it was originally intended for
rather than a budget gimmick here or rescission there, I am in
favor of.
How can we work together to be able to solve this?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I appreciate that question, and I
have reviewed this issue of the Changes in Mandatory Programs,
or CHIMPS. As I know you recognize, it is a very technical
issue of budget and appropriations.
Senator Lankford. But it is not technical that we overspend
an additional $9 billion on paper but nowhere else gets to see
it.
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, that is not a Justice Department
issue. I think that is a broader OMB issue.
Senator Lankford. That is us.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, I do not think it is a question that I
am best positioned to answer. I think OMB would be the right
agency for that question.
Senator Lankford. Well, I hope to be able to work together
on that, not only to be able to solve this rescission issue and
to figure out how we actually use those dollars for victims of
crime, rather than go back to Treasury, but also as we solve
that issue long term for us, that budget gimmick goes away.
I will try to follow up with a question for the record on
private prisons that I know you are trying to reengage with in
that, and we will follow up in the days ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, thank you for being
here today.
Obviously, you are here because Attorney General Sessions
abruptly canceled his commitment to appear before this
subcommittee. It is Attorney General Sessions' job to be here
today. The fact that he has again chosen to skip this hearing
is unacceptable.
The Attorney General, I believe, has chosen to skip this
hearing today in order to avoid difficult questions about the
scope of his recusal, questions which have already been asked
of you by several Senators, but I will attempt to explore a
little further. I think it is important that we have a full and
engaged conversation with the Attorney General about the
Department of Justice in the front of both the Judiciary
Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for
the entity he still leads.
Let me start briefly with some good news, if I might. Mr.
Rosenstein, you are here in part to talk about the budget of
the Department of Justice. In 2014, Congress demonstrated its
commitment to the Victims of Child Abuse Act by unanimously
reauthorizing it in both chambers. The Children's Advocacy
Centers funded by this law conduct important forensic
interviews that help serve law enforcement needs and meet the
needs of child victims. I am pleased that President's fiscal
year 2018 budget request fully funds these programs. So I
thought we would start with at least one positive thing we can
talk about.
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you.
FBI DIRECTOR FIRING/SPECIAL COUNSEL
Senator Coons. As has been discussed by several others, it
is the scope of recusal that is utterly unclear both to lawyers
and nonlawyers on this subcommittee. You are here instead of
the Attorney General, and you are here as Acting Attorney
General with regard to the Special Counsel, and you exercise
the hire and would exercise the fire decision with regard to
Special Counsel Bob Mueller. That is because Attorney General
Sessions is recused from that matter.
On May 9, you delivered a memo to Attorney General Sessions
entitled, ``Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.'' Your memo
exclusively focused on Director Comey's conduct during the
Clinton email investigation and concluded, ``The way the
Director handled the conclusion of that investigation was
wrong,'' and you ultimately stated, ``Having refused to admit
his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the
necessary corrective actions.''
Is that roughly correct? Am I citing that----
Mr. Rosenstein. I believe it is, yes.
Senator Coons. On that same day, Attorney General Sessions
sent a memo to President Trump, relying exclusively on your
memo, where the Attorney General recommends Director Comey be
removed. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. I believe that is correct.
Senator Coons. During his January 10 confirmation hearing,
Attorney General Sessions stated he would recuse himself from
any matters involving campaigns for President of the United
States and specifically investigations into Secretary Clinton's
email server. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. That is my understanding, Senator.
Senator Coons. So why did you write a memo to Attorney
General Sessions exclusively discussing a matter that, as I
understand it, Attorney General Sessions explicitly told us in
Congress he was recused from? And why was that an appropriate
basis for him to make a hire/fire recommendation to the
President on?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I do not think that is a question
for me to answer. I have said in my previous briefings of the
Senate and the House that my memo truthfully reflects my views.
I am not in a position to comment on anybody else.
So from my perspective, Senator, that memo is about what it
is about. I do not know what was in anybody else's mind.
I understand there are serious allegations that have been
raised, and I think that it is up to Director Mueller to
determine in the first instance whether any of these issues
were in the scope of his investigation.
That is why I have not commented on it. I just appointed
him several weeks ago. I have not talked to him about the
substance of the investigation since then.
But I recognize the importance of these questions, and I
think that Director Mueller ought to review that and make a
determination of whether or not he believes it is within the
scope of his investigation.
Senator Coons. I appreciate that answer. It is distinct
from an answer that I got from you previously in another
setting, so I want to make sure I understand you. I will
proceed carefully. Let's see if we can get to an answer that is
appropriate in a public setting.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RECUSAL
Is it not your argument that the Attorney General made a
recommendation to hire or fire the FBI Director because that is
outside his recusal? The scope of his recusal does not affect
his ability to manage the Department?
Mr. Rosenstein. I do have a personal opinion about that,
Senator. I just do not think it is appropriate for me to be
expressing my personal opinion about that.
I hope I have not said anything inconsistent with what I
said elsewhere, and please let me know if I have.
But, yes, I do not want to comment on the recusal. I think
the Attorney General made the decision to recuse. I was not
there at the time, as you know, and the decisions had already
been made before I arrived about what matters would be
appropriate for the Attorney General to handle.
When I stepped in, I continued consistent with what had
been done by these career professionals in the Department, and
I believe that I have faithfully, within the Department,
honored that recusal with regard to matters pending in the
Department of Justice.
But I just do not want to comment on what may have been in
anybody else's mind or offer any opinion about that, because it
is not for me to make those decisions.
Senator Coons. Well, it is exactly why I think Senator
Schatz asked a whole series of questions about the scope of
recusal, because I am a lawyer--Senator Schatz may not be; he
asked better questions than I did--but I also am having real
difficulty understanding the scope of the recusal, its contours
and definition. I have an unresolved question about whether or
not that is why the Attorney General failed to appear before us
today, is to avoid having to answer direct questions about the
scope of his recusal.
I do appreciate and respect your appointment of a highly
talented Special Counsel. There have been questions from both
sides that imply strong support for his independence and his
conduct.
I appreciate the care with which you are answering my
questions, but I am simply going to conclude by saying I have
unanswered questions that perhaps can only be answered by the
Attorney General himself, and it is my hope that we will have
him appear before both the Judiciary Committee and the
Appropriations Committee charged with overseeing the funding
for the Department he is currently directing.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Rosenstein.
Why isn't Jeff Sessions here today?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, my understanding is consistent
with what was in the Attorney General's letter. I do not know
of any other reasons beyond what he set forth publicly.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
Senator Graham. Okay. It is 13 June. Do you know of any
reason for cause to fire Mr. Mueller, as of this date?
Mr. Rosenstein. No, I do not, Senator.
Senator Graham. And that would be your decision, if that
ever happened, right?
Mr. Rosenstein. That is correct.
Senator Graham. And you are going to make it. Nobody else.
Mr. Rosenstein. As long as I am in this position, Senator,
it will be my responsibility to make that decision.
Senator Graham. I am glad you are in this position.
Is giving political donations a reason to disqualify
somebody for serving in the Special Counsel's office?
Mr. Rosenstein. No, Senator, it is not a disqualification.
It is not.
Senator Graham. As a matter of fact, in many States, their
judges and prosecutors are actually elected. Donations are a
part of that system. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is true.
Senator Graham. Would it be a disqualification for somebody
in the Special Counsel's office who had represented Ms. Clinton
in the past to serve?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, it would depend on the facts and
circumstances. As a general matter, I think the answer is no.
Senator Graham. Isn't that much closer to a conflict of
interest?
Mr. Rosenstein. I do not answer hypotheticals, Senator.
Everybody needs to make a determination based upon the facts
and circumstances of a particular case.
Senator Graham. How would you get it before the Special
Counsel? What process could a Member of the Senate use to
inform the Special Counsel that you have a concern about hiring
somebody that represented Clinton?
Mr. Rosenstein. We have a process within the Department of
Justice, Senator, so I would encourage you, if you have those
concerns, to raise them with Director Mueller or to raise them
with me, and I will make sure----
Senator Graham. Should I do it to you or him?
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, you could do it to both.
Senator Graham. Okay, that is fair enough.
Mr. Rosenstein. And we have career----
Senator Graham. And I do not know if I will do that, but I
have read some things that were--I do not think donations are
disqualifying at all, but if you represented the Clinton
Foundation are Clinton herself, that would be a bit disturbing
to me. But I will take care that.
As to Russia, do you have any doubt that the 17
intelligence agencies' report that was submitted last year or
early this year, that Russia interfered in our election is
accurate?
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH 2016 ELECTIONS
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, this was an issue that was
discussed in my confirmation hearing, and several of you
attended that. At that point, I had access only to the public--
--
Senator Graham. Right.
Mr. Rosenstein [continuing]. Information, from which
classified information----
Senator Graham. So what can you tell us now?
Mr. Rosenstein. I now have access to classified
information, and I think that assessment made by the
intelligence community is justified, based upon the
investigation and evidence they had.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much.
DOJ BUDGET
What role did you play in crafting this budget? Where did
this budget come from for the Department of Justice?
Mr. Rosenstein. I appreciate that question, Senator.
The budget actually is a product primarily of career
professionals in the Department. It is $27.7 billion. It is
very complicated. Some of them are actually seated behind me,
but they have a whole team behind them. And I suspect there are
dozens of folks who have been involved.
Senator Graham. Is it their desire to cut the budget by 2
percent or did that come from OMB?
Mr. Rosenstein. You know, Senator, I do not know the answer
to that but let me just make clear----
Senator Graham. Could you find that answer?
Mr. Rosenstein. We are accountable for that. That is the
political leadership of the Department. We are accountable for
that. I am not in any way suggesting those were their
decisions. They faithfully implement the priorities that are
given to them. So I did not mean to shed responsibility for the
bottom line.
But the assistance that we have in preparing the budget--
Senator Graham. Well, it is a simple question. Were you
directed to cut the budget by 2 percent or did you agreed to
cut the budget by--did that come from within the Department of
Justice or a mandate outside the Department of Justice?
Mr. Rosenstein. I honestly do not know the answer to that.
I will try to find out for you.
Senator Graham. That is all right. You can get back to me.
[The information follows:]
The preparation of this budget reflects a collaborative process
between the Department and OMB. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget
request reflects the administration and Department's priorities on
national security and public safety.
NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS
In terms of threats to the country, are they going up or
down?
Mr. Rosenstein. I would not want--I have not done a study,
so I would not want to characterize it.
Senator Graham. Terrorism.
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, I think everybody recognizes the
terrorist threat is extremely serious.
Senator Graham. Will we have more FBI agents under this
budget or less than we did last year?
Mr. Rosenstein. I believe we will have--I apologize,
Senator. I am consulting.
Senator Graham. I am actually asking budget questions, so I
do not want to throw you off here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rosenstein. I appreciate the budget questions.
According to the numbers that I have, the FBI will have an
increase of 150, for a total of 12,484.
Senator Graham. So there will be more agents by 150. Is
that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. That is my understanding, Senator. Let me
check that and get back to you.
[The information follows:]
As of June 13, 2017, and in accordance with the Department's fiscal
year 2018 budget request, the FBI's budget proposal requested funding
for 12,484 Special Agents. This number may vary moving forward based on
congressional appropriations and input in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal
year 2018.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Do you agree that the FBI, the Department of Justice, is
national security in another form, in many ways?
Mr. Rosenstein. I am sorry?
Senator Graham. It is national security is another form,
that the role of the Department of Justice is a national
security role as well as a domestic role?
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, actually, my answer, Senator, is it
is national security in reality and in another form. We
actually----
NATIONAL SECURITY--DOJ BUDGET
Senator Graham. So here is my final question. We are
dramatically increasing the Defense Department because it has
suffered mightily over sequestration. Can you make an argument
that, if you are a national security component of our overall
defense strategy, why we would cut you now given the threats we
face?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I believe that, if you look at the
budget, we are not cutting the critical areas. Violent crime,
terrorism, the areas that you have raised are areas where there
will be no cuts, cybercrime, all of those areas. So the effort
in this budget, as I understand it, is to reduce only in areas
that are not critical to those operations. It is an effort to
be more efficient to achieve the goals of the American people.
But I can assure you that our goal is to use these
resources more effectively, to reduce crime, to reduce drug
abuse, and to fight terrorism. So we are not going to relent in
our commitment to those goals.
Senator Shelby. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, good to see you.
I will say, as many of my colleagues have, that it is the
height of arrogance for the Attorney General not to come before
the subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department budget.
That being said, I am glad to have you here.
CONSENT DECREES
As you know, during the confirmation process, you and I had
a conversation about the consent decree between the Justice
Department and the Baltimore City Police Department and
Baltimore City. Since our conversation, the courts have
approved that consent decree. I just want your continued
assurance that you will work in your capacity as Deputy
Attorney General to make sure that we further that agreement
and make sure that we can get the parties together and move it
along.
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, our goal is to reduce violent
crime, protect constitutional rights. In Baltimore, that
consent decree, as you know, is in effect. And I know you are
aware, and it is very painful to me, we have a crisis in
violent crime in Baltimore. And the murder rate this year is on
track at the moment, actually, to reach a record high. In 2017,
we may have a record high murder rate in Baltimore City.
So we need to do everything we can to support our local
partners, and we are working in many ways to support that local
police department. Last year, we had 318 murders. The year
before, about 342. And we are on track now, potentially, to
have more in Baltimore this year.
So that is a very high priority for me. Although I am no
longer there physically every day, I am very engaged with that.
And I am going to continue to work with our authorities, with
the Federal agencies, and with our U.S. Attorney's office, to
do anything we can to help support our partners in Baltimore
and turn around that trend in violence in that city.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. Thank you. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on what is an
unacceptable increase in the murders. Any crime increase or any
crime is unacceptable, but seeing the spike is something we
have to tackle with urgency.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
I do want to follow up on some of my colleagues' questions
regarding the Special Counsel. It is especially pressing in
light of these reports that did come out yesterday that folks
at the White House, maybe the President, were looking at ways
to fire Special Counsel Mueller.
As you already testified today, given the current
situation, you are the only person today in a position to
actually do that firing. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. That is correct.
Senator Van Hollen. And as I understand your testimony, you
said that this is a matter within your jurisdiction. So based
on that, I would assume it would be a violation of the Attorney
General's recusal if he were to try to fire the Special
Counsel. Isn't that right?
Mr. Rosenstein. I do not expect that to happen, Senator.
Senator Van Hollen. Okay. But it would be a violation of
his--this is now a matter that is under your jurisdiction, so
it would be a violation of his recusal, were he to attempt to
do so.
Mr. Rosenstein. I think that is probably fair, but that is
not going to happen.
Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Well, I am glad to hear that. And
I am actually more worried about the scenario, at this point,
where, if you were to receive an order from the White House to
fire the Special Counsel, I am less worried about you doing it
because you have just testified today that you would only do it
based on good cause. I am worried about, in those
circumstances, the President trying to keep going until he
found someone willing to take that action.
So my question relates to the definition of ``good cause,''
because you were fairly clear in your testimony that the
authority to remove the Special Counsel is based on the finding
of good cause. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is right.
Senator Van Hollen. And is an order from the President to
fire the Special Counsel good cause?
Mr. Rosenstein. It does not matter who the order comes
from. Good cause would be based on the reasons for the proposed
removal.
Senator Van Hollen. Right. And removing the Special Counsel
in order to prevent the Special Counsel from pursuing the
investigation, that would not constitute good cause, correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. Correct.
Senator Van Hollen. So if somebody else were to fire the
Special Counsel--in other words, if the President were to find
someone to do it--my question is, what is the protection in
that ``good cause'' definition? In your view, could the Special
Counsel contest his firing, if the Special Counsel did not
believe it was good cause?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I hope I will not have to answer
that hypothetical. The purpose of that regulation, the folks
who wrote it put a lot of thought into it, and they anticipated
that people would follow the rules.
Your question is, ``Well, what if somebody does not follow
the rules? What happens next?'' We have a lot of very well
informed folks and great lawyers in the Department who would
deal with that, if it were to arise, but I do not anticipate
that it is going to arise.
Senator Van Hollen. So I am just wondering, in your
opinion--I am hoping it does not arise either, but we all know
that there are scenarios even that have some historical
precedent where this kind of question could arise. So my
question is, would the Department or, in this case, would the
Special Counsel have recourse in the courts arguing that there
was not good cause for the firing?
Mr. Rosenstein. I just do not know the answer to that,
Senator. I hope we never reach that point. I can tell you, as
long as I am in this position; he is not going to be fired
without good cause. And if he were, it would not be my
responsibility.
But that is like a law school hypothetical. I would be
reluctant to answer it without doing some research first.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Deputy Attorney General.
TRIBAL AFFAIRS
I had a conversation in my office with the Attorney General
prior to his confirmation, and we spoke about the Department of
Justice's government-to-government work with the Tribes. He
admitted to me at the time that his familiarity with the some
229 Tribes in Alaska was limited. It was important for him to
hear the depth of some of the issues that we are facing as we
deal with any level of law enforcement. So many of our
communities have none whatsoever. As a consequence, we are
dealing with some very troubling statistics within our State.
So, I was pleased to note that the Department is making
grants for the implementation of VAWA's Special Domestic
Violence Criminal Jurisdiction in fiscal year 2017, and then
also requesting funds to continue that work in fiscal year
2018. So that is good.
I think that we have some things that we would like to
discuss with you and your folks with regard to fiscal year 2017
funding levels that are a bit problematic. The Tribal court
funding is again the one that I have a great deal of interest
with.
But I do want to find a path forward with DOJ as it relates
to some of the more immediate and very unique issues that we
have as we deal with our Tribal Villages and the issues that
they face. You would think that we are remote enough that the
opioid epidemic would not be hitting us in Alaska, but it is.
The level of domestic violence and sexual assault that we face
in terms of the statistics, the uptick of violent crimes that
we are seeing in urban Alaska, these are areas that we believe
deserve a more specific approach, and we would like to work
with you. We have invited and welcomed the Attorney General as
well as you, and others within the Department of Justice, to
come up to the State to sit down with some of our Native
leadership to discuss these issues. I again would reiterate
that, and essentially ask for your continued willingness to
work with us in perhaps some innovative ways to address the
issue of justice and law enforcement in rural Alaska.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I welcome that
opportunity. We did not have this issue in my home State of
Maryland, but many of my colleagues in the past two
administrations, U.S. Attorneys, have talked with me about the
challenges that we have on those Native American issues. And I
have met early in my tenure as Deputy Attorney General with the
director of our Tribal Justice Office, Tracy Toulou, and talked
about some of these issues.
So I would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with
you on that.
Senator Murkowski. Good. We need to do that.
MARIJUANA
Let me switch gears a little bit. We have been talking
about opioids and addiction, but let's talk about another
issue. Alaska is one of those States that has not only enacted
medical marijuana statutes but we, through ballot initiative,
have allowed for a broader sale and use of marijuana that is
regulated as we would regulate alcohol.
In this State, we think that our regulatory regime is a
fairly strong one and is consistent with the Cole memorandum.
Now, that memorandum suggests that the Federal Government
will not get in the way of States which maintain strong
regulatory regimes. I had some correspondence with former
Attorney General Lynch, relating to this. But the fact is that
the banking sector is still closed to those in the marijuana
business, making it difficult for States to access a paper
trail to ensure that those in the business are compliant. We
recently heard that postal inspectors believe that they can
seize State tax payments sent by mail from people in the
marijuana business.
Now, I understand that DOJ wants to eliminate the
appropriations rider prohibiting Federal interference with
State medical marijuana laws.
So I am concerned, and I am speaking for a lot of people in
my State who are worried about the inconsistency between the
State marijuana laws and the Federal policy. The Department of
Justice has not taken the position thus far that the State
marijuana laws are completely preempted by the Controlled
Substance Act. I do not know if you are headed in that
direction. The Cole memorandum suggests strong deference to
State laws, but we are not seeing the Federal Government doing
much to ensure that those strong State laws are enforceable.
So the bigger question is: where are we headed with
marijuana?
Mr. Rosenstein. I appreciate your concern about this,
Senator. It is a very difficult issue. Obviously, it is a
situation where we do have a conflict between Federal law and
the law in some States. It is a difficult issue for parents of
teenagers like me who have to provide guidance to our kids
about how they should treat----
Senator Murkowski. Believe me, I agree with that, yes.
Mr. Rosenstein. But I can tell you I have talked to Chuck
Rosenberg, the Director of DEA, about this, the Administrator
of DEA. And we follow the law and the science. And from a legal
and scientific perspective, marijuana is an unlawful drug. It
is properly scheduled under Schedule I, and, therefore, we have
this conflict.
Jim Cole tried to deal with it in that memorandum. And, at
the moment, that memorandum is still in effect. Maybe there
will be changes to it in the future, but we are still operating
under that policy, which is an effort to balance the
conflicting interests with regard to marijuana.
So I can assure you that is going to be a high priority for
me as the new U.S. Attorneys come on board, to talk with them
about how to deal with that challenge in the States that have
legalized or decriminalized marijuana, whether it be for
recreational or medical use. But we are still, in the
Department of Justice--Attorney General Lynch actually
mentioned this at her hearing, her confirmation hearing in
January 2015, and she explained that we are responsible for
enforcing the law. It is illegal, and that is the Federal
policy with regard to marijuana.
Senator Murkowski. Confusing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to say that I associate myself with the
remarks of Senator Shaheen and Senator Collins.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
Yesterday, Mr. Rosenstein, I was in New York, and a
distinguished lawyer came up to me after I finished speaking
and said, beware, this President is going to act to terminate
the Special Counsel. And I said, he could not possibly do that.
It would be catastrophic. And he said, just wait.
I came home and turned on the television this morning, and
that is what I heard. So it is very hard to know what to
believe.
I do believe it would be catastrophic, and I do believe it
would destroy any shred of trust in the President's judgment
that remains over here. I do not know with specifics what the
procedure is if that were to happen.
But as I understand what you said, that could not be done
without your assent. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is correct, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. And what you have said is you would not
assent under the present situation----
Mr. Rosenstein. Correct.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Because there is no cause.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Feinstein. So is it fair to put that to rest?
Mr. Rosenstein. As far as I am concerned, yes, Senator. I
appointed him. I stand by that decision. I think it was the
right thing to do under those circumstances, and I am going to
defend the integrity of that investigation.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
DOJ GRANTS
Let me go on to the COPS anti-methamphetamine grants. That
is a program that I helped establish in 2014.
If I understand what you said, very quickly, the cut is $7
million in meth and $10 million in heroin. But the addition is
$40.4 million for DEA. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. That is my understanding, Senator. I have
been briefed by our career officials. Actually, they are
whispering in my ear that, yes that is correct.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Mr. Rosenstein. We are going to commit more resources to
combating heroin and opioid drugs over the next year.
Senator Feinstein. Good. So the COPS Anti-Methamphetamine
Program will remain intact?
Mr. Rosenstein. I think, Senator, the answer to that is
that what we intend to do is to fund task forces in a different
way. I think that funding went directly to State and local law
enforcement.
Senator Feinstein. That is correct.
Mr. Rosenstein. Our proposal is to fund it through DEA. So
there will be task forces, but they will be DEA task forces as
opposed to State and local task forces.
Senator Feinstein. So you are canceling the funding that
goes to local police organizations.
Mr. Rosenstein. The direct funding to establish those, the
grants to establish those local task forces are proposed to be
eliminated, but there is additional funding to DEA, which will
be used to fund State and local officers who work with DEA.
Senator Feinstein. So the answer is, yes, you are defunding
community police departments that participate.
Mr. Rosenstein. I believe the answer is that we are
proposing to defund that $7 million that went directly to local
task forces.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I just want you to know that, in
California alone, in the past few months, there have been 61
arrests, 428 kilograms of meth seized, 242 kilograms of heroin,
1,728 kilograms of marijuana, and 11 firearms. So it is a very
busy task force, and it, no doubt, if the money is not there,
could likely be eliminated.
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
Secondly, there is a growing concern that the Russia
investigation is taking too long. I heard a Congressman this
morning expressing that point of view.
Mr. Comey briefed Senator Grassley and myself, as the
chairman and ranking of Judiciary, 3 months ago, and it was a
very full and good brief. Do you have any estimate as to the
time this investigation will take or when we might be expected
to have some conclusion?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I regret that I do not. The way
our investigations are conducted, it depends upon a lot of
factors. So it is generally very difficult for us to predict in
advance how long an investigation is going to take. I can
assure you it is important to me that it be done expeditiously.
And I communicated that to Director Mueller. And I am sure he
also appreciates the importance of moving as quickly as we can.
How we move it expeditiously, well, it requires having
appropriate resources, which I believe we do have and always
have had to conduct the investigation, and making good
decisions about how to go about conducting the investigation.
And I believe we can rely on Director Mueller to do that.
Senator Feinstein. So there is no estimate as to when we
might expect some resolution.
Mr. Rosenstein. Correct.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
SOUTHWEST U.S. BORDER WALL--DOJ ENRD
Let's go to the wall. It is my understanding that, for the
600 miles of wall, there are 400 lawsuits pending. Is that
correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I do not believe that I have a
number for you. I regret we do not--I can try to get back to
you on that. I do not have a number.
[The information follows:]
Currently, there are approximately 90 cases pending, out of the
over 400 cases filed, related to the most recent border security
projects from 2007 to the present.
Senator Feinstein. Now, my understanding is you have put
additional attorneys in the budget to handle these. Is that
correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. And how many are there?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, we have proposed a total of 27
additional attorneys in the Civil and Environmental Divisions,
and $4 million will be available to defend the government and
meet litigation requirements associated with increased
immigration enforcement. That is not just about the wall. It is
about immigration enforcement, but it would include any
litigation that arose.
Senator Feinstein. And that would be the 400 cases that are
now pending. What is your estimate of lawsuits on the remainder
of the wall?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I am not familiar with that. I can
look into it and try to get back to you. But I do not--
Senator Feinstein. Well, I really would like you to,
because I think it is going to be extraordinary. I think as you
get into the Rio Grande Valley, you are going to find the
property owners, as I hear, are not very pleased. And I think
we ought to know about it----
Mr. Rosenstein. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. As we budget. So could I
ask that you get back to me prior to the time we mark this bill
up?
Mr. Rosenstein. I can try to give you the information we
have. I can give you whatever information we have. It is
important to keep in mind, though, that we are the lawyers on
these issues, but it is actually Homeland Security that would
have the primary responsibility for operational decisions. So I
will give you whatever we can, but I think Homeland Security
might be in a better position to comment on that.
[The information follows:]
The Department cannot estimate accurately the number of prospective
lawsuits to construct the remainder of the wall along the entire
Southern border because much work needs to be done on survey, title,
valuation and negotiations for direct purchase--by the Department of
Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol and the Army Corps of
Engineers--before an acquisition would ever be referred to the
Department of Justice.
Senator Feinstein. We will approach that. Thank you very
much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Senator Boozman for his courtesy.
Mr. Rosenstein, welcome. Mr. Rosenstein.
Mr. Rosenstein. Just like Feinstein.
Senator Alexander. That is easy for me to remember. We work
together all the time.
FEDERAL CONSENT DECREES--MUSIC INDUSTRY
I am going to ask you about something a little different.
It may be refreshing for you. Probably not the top of your
agenda, but I hope it will be on your agenda as time goes on:
Outdated Federal consent decrees and, specifically, how such
things affect songwriters in Nashville.
Outdated Federal consent decrees. In 2006, I introduced
legislation based upon a book called, ``Democracy by Decree:
What Happens When Courts Run Government.'' It was by Professors
Sandler and Schoenbrod, who were attorneys for the National
Resources Defense Council. It was about the growing number of
Federal consent decrees that seem to manage everything. A lot
of it had to do with education, some with the environment, some
with clean air litigation, a variety of other things. It took
these issues out of the hands of legislators, and courts were
running the government.
So, in general, the legislation would have allowed newly
elected Governors, mayors, and legislators to file motions to
vacate the consent decrees and put those issues back out in the
democratic process.
Let me talk about one example of that, it has to do with
songwriters. It might not seem very important in Washington,
DC, but we have thousands of them in Nashville. It is the
center of songwriting. Most of them are waiters and bus drivers
and teachers in the meantime, hoping to make a big hit.
Seventy-six years ago, the Justice Department noted some
antitrust implications on the two organizations that ensure
songwriters are paid for their work.
Let me give you an example. A few years ago, I was with
some songwriters, and I had gone outside a pharmacy, and I saw
an old couple there. I said, how are you all doing? And the
lady said, we are just falling apart together. So I mentioned
that to the songwriters Lee Brice, Billy Montana, and another
songwriter. He said, I think we can do something with that. And
they wrote a song called ``Falling Apart Together.''
Lee Brice put it on one of his albums, and I get a fourth
of the royalties for that, because that is the way Nashville
works. If the four of us write a song, we each split it up.
Last year, I got $110 for my royalty, even though it is on Lee
Brice's album, and he is a pretty well known singer.
That is the first problem. Under the consent decree that is
76 years old, you have a rate court that sets what the
songwriters are paid that does not reflect the market value.
The second is more immediate. Your Department issues
regulations and interpretations of regulations based upon the
consent decrees. One recent interpretation said that if Lee
Brice and I and Billy Montana and another writer are sitting
around writing, that we have to check to see who represents us,
and that any one of us can go out and find that person and make
a deal with a bar or a restaurant that affects all the others
of us. And it would turn the common, ordinary, everyday
practice of songwriting in Nashville upside down.
And I am not surprised that someone in the Department of
Justice would not know that you cowrite songs. You just sit
down informally. You might spend a weekend and write six songs.
But what this would do is just tear that all apart, because
these songwriters, not wealthy people, would have to consult
lawyers, make agreements, do all this kind of thing.
The songwriters have appealed the Justice Department
interpretation. The Federal district court agreed with that.
Now you are appealing it further to a higher court.
So my request of you is not for you to answer me today on
how to solve that problem. But, one, would you put on your
agenda somewhere the general issue of democracy by decree,
outdated Federal consent decrees, and consider whether it is
not time to give Governors and mayors and legislators an
opportunity to file motions to vacate those consent decrees and
get them back in the hands of the democratic process?
And second, will you consider the Department of Justice
interpretation that is now on appeal to a Federal district
court that, if you are successful, will turn the everyday
business of songwriting in Nashville upside down? I am sure it
is not what is intended by the Department of Justice, but that
would be the practical effect.
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I happen to be a country music
fan. It is something I passed on to my daughter, so I am
tempted to comment.
Senator Alexander. It is all right with me if you do.
Mr. Rosenstein. As you recognize, there is pending
litigation. I am not at liberty to comment on the pending
litigation. But I do want to comment on the general issue with
regard to consent decrees.
I think there are some questions that we should ask with
regard to proposed consent decrees. Will it help solve a
problem? How do we evaluate success? How do we know if it is
working? How much is it going to cost? And when will it end?
I think those are appropriate questions, to the extent that
we are considering imposing consent decrees. And as I see you
recognize, a consent decree is consent between the parties, so
there are always opportunities to revisit if there is agreement
between--among the parties. If there is not, then there may be
litigation, as you mentioned.
But I regret I do not have an opinion to offer on the
proposed legislation. But I can assure you that we will, when
there are consent decree issues in the Department, we will
think very seriously about all those and other issues.
Senator Alexander. I thank you for your answer. And the
consent decree under which the lawsuit and the rate court are
established was put in place in 1941. That seems to me to be
too long to keep something out of the hands of the democracy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Mr. Rosenstein, it is good to have you
here. One of the pressing questions I have right now is did the
couple who was falling apart together get anything?
Senator Alexander. There wasn't anything left after each of
the four songwriters got $110 for the year.
Senator Manchin. I understand.
First of all, it is reassuring, sir, to hear the system
that you put in place, as far as special prosecutor and Mr.
Mueller, the confidence that you have in him to do his job. It
is quite assuring and comforting to all of us.
SPECIAL COUNSEL--RESOURCES
Did you talk with Robert Mueller about his investigation
and the resources he might need to do his job the proper way?
And do you feel he has sufficiently been supported in that
effort?
Mr. Rosenstein. I have not. Under the regulation, it
actually tasks the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice
Management Division to consult with Mr. Mueller about resources
and budget. That gentleman happens to be sitting behind me, and
he has talked to Mr. Mueller, but I have not. But I can assure
you he is going to get the resources he needs to conduct that
investigation.
Senator Manchin. So there is not a concern there, where he
will be able to do the job the way it is intended to be done?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, he will.
Senator Manchin. Okay.
Mr. Rosenstein, could you be terminated without cause?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes.
Senator Manchin. And who would appoint your replacement as
your position now, Deputy Attorney General?
Mr. Rosenstein. The President.
Senator Manchin. So that is a possibility.
Mr. Rosenstein. Anything is possible, Senator.
Senator Manchin. I understand. That is what we know.
There is great concern in all this, as you can tell. I am
going to get another opportunity to talk to Attorney General
Sessions in the Intel meeting. I know a lot of my colleagues
here do not have the same opportunity, so they were little bit
concerned about him not being here. But I want to thank you for
being here.
HEROIN AND OPIOID EPIDEMIC
In West Virginia, we have a devastating epidemic. We have a
State that has got hit harder than any other State. We have
lost more people per capita than any other State. We are doing
everything humanly possible. We cannot do it without the help
of the Attorney General's Office, the Department of Justice,
everybody else who is involved.
I guess I would ask, what is your main approach to fighting
the war on opioid addiction?
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you, Senator.
This is an extremely high priority for me, and I am very
familiar with the opioid challenges in West Virginia. In fact,
U.S. Attorneys in the Obama administration worked very closely
with me on these issues and participated with us in meetings
that we held in Baltimore and the Capital Region about the
opioid challenge, because some of the drugs that are in West
Virginia are sourced to Baltimore, so we had cases in common.
And I am aware of just how serious a problem this is in West
Virginia.
I have talked with the potential candidates for U.S.
Attorney in your State and in others, and this is one of the
issues that I talk about. This is going to be one of the high
priorities of this administration.
I know you are aware that Attorney General Sessions
actually traveled to Charleston in May. He gave opening remarks
at the DEA 360 Heroin and Opioid Response Summit. As I
mentioned earlier, this 360-Degree strategy recognizes the need
to work in coordination with State and local officials, and it
recognizes it is not just about law enforcement. It is about
engaging all the community resources that we need to deter
people from becoming drug addicts.
Senator Manchin. If I could just, because of our time, but
I want you to comment on this. In Kermit, West Virginia, a
little town in Mingo County, Kermit, West Virginia, population
392 people, out-of-state drug companies, basically which are
supply houses, legitimate businesses, sent 9 million highly
addictive hydrocodone over 2 years to a town of 392 people.
I mean, it is just unbelievable what is being sent. Of
course, you know we have an awful lot of suits, ongoing suits,
going on right now against the drug suppliers.
Are you all involved in those?
Mr. Rosenstein. I am not certain, Senator, whether we are
involved in that particular litigation, but DEA does have a
diversion strategy. We have a group that focuses on drug
diversion, and we are certainly aware that a significant
proportion of our opioid drug problem is a prescription drug
problem. That is drugs that are diverted from legitimate uses
or are overprescribed to addicts. And that is a significant
portion of the problem.
So I believe we need to work with the pharmaceutical
manufacturers, distributors, pharmacists, and doctors, and
identify folks who are overprescribing to make sure we hold
them accountable.
DRUG COURTS
Senator Manchin. And my final one, because my time is
running out, drug courts have had a tremendous impact on us,
and we think it has been very positive. We are concerned about
the drug courts, the funding for drug courts in our State and
all over this country. If you could tell me what your
administration is supporting on drug courts or expansion of
drug courts, continuing support for drug courts?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Senator. We are proposing funding for
State, local, and Tribal drug courts. There is $40 million
proposed in the 2018 budget. That funding will enable them to
develop and implement drug courts. That includes substance
abuse treatment along with mandatory drug testing, sanctions,
and incentives, the goal being to transition people off of
drugs.
That is part of a larger $100 million request for funding
programs that support the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery
Act, what some people refer to as CARA, or CARA.
Senator Manchin. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. I think Senator Boozman is in front of me.
He is just yielding right and left.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Deputy Attorney General, for being here.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
Mr. Rosenstein, I want to follow up on something my
colleague from West Virginia began, which are the resources for
the Special Counsel. You said, and you said more than once,
that you anticipate and that you know that the resources that
will be needed to do a full investigation will be there in full
measure for the Special Counsel. Correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes.
Senator Capito. What kind of oversight do you--because we
know, as appropriators and as folks who are looking over
budgets, that one way to squeeze or change the direction is to
have tighter oversight or to squeeze down on the resources
available. Do you have the ability to do that? Or do you tell
Director Mueller that he can basically have whatever resources
he needs to have? Who has the oversight over his budget? Or is
there such a thing?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I think, within limits, he has
oversight of his budget. Our administrative officers Justice
Management Division, I am sure if they felt there was something
inappropriate, they would bring it to my attention. But I do
not expect that to happen. I think that the resources will be
reasonable and that there will be no dispute as to what he
needs.
DEA--FENTANYL
Senator Capito. I would anticipate that as well, but thank
you for that answer.
I was going to go to drugs because that is a big issue. We
just had Attorney General Sessions in the State of West
Virginia to talk about the DEA 360. It seems to be a good
program that has gotten off to a great start in our State,
which we have, as you are well aware, much needed assistance.
After the addiction, unfortunately, to painkillers, many
people are moving to heroin. Much of this heroin is laced with
fentanyl. Fentanyl is coming in, and it is believed to be
coming in also through the U.S. mail from China.
What is your Department doing on that particular aspect?
Mr. Rosenstein. You are correct, Senator. There are really
two challenges read regard to fentanyl, which is many people
are not aware of fentanyl. They are going to become
increasingly aware of it, unfortunately, over the coming year
because it is an emerging threat.
Small quantities of fentanyl can be very dangerous, and it
can be sent in the mail. We are aware that fentanyl is coming
into the United States primarily in two ways. It is coming in
through the Mexican border, and it is coming in by mail from
China.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Rosenstein. So we are going to need to work with DEA
and the Postal Inspection Service to try to find a way to cut
down on that, and I think also with foreign authorities. We are
going to need help from authorities in China and Mexico to deal
with that challenges well.
So that is at the top of my agenda. As you know, I have
been in this job only 6 weeks, but I have already talked with a
number of folks, including Chuck Rosenberg, the Administrator
of DEA, and we are going to find a way to combat that threat.
Senator Capito. Well, as you know, it is a killer, but it
also affects our first responders. I read a story of a first
responder, I believe they were in Ohio, who had been at a
cleanup scene. Everything was sterilized and cleaned, but then
at some point, something came off his glove, and he ended up
having to be revived from an overdose with just a minuscule
exposure to something extremely dangerous.
FBI--CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES (CJIS)
You also, I am sure, are aware that the background check
FBI facility is proudly located in West Virginia, and it is
processing millions of background checks. I am concerned that
in this year's budget a rescission was implemented from the
fees collected by CJIS that they have previously used update
their IT. We know how important IT infrastructure is to get it
right in this very important issue.
What can you say about that, in terms of the support from
your Department for CJIS? And do those rescissions that are
occurring this year, what kind of impact will that have? I have
some concerns over that.
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I am not certain that I know about
the rescission. I am happy to look into that for you. I know
our request includes $17 million in program increases for CJIS,
so I think there is an overall increase. I do not have any
information about the rescission.
[The information follows:]
Thanks to your continual support of the CJIS programs, in the
fiscal year 2017 Appropriations, the FBI received $35 million for the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which provides critical data
for law enforcement officers. The previous CJIS rescissions, along with
potential rescission of $195 million in fiscal year 2018, have resulted
in some reductions and cuts in certain CJIS activities and programs.
While the potential $195 million rescission does present challenges in
planning for future upgrades and enhancements to existing criminal
justice information systems, the Department will continue to work with
the FBI and its CJIS Division to ensure that no services will be
impacted by the rescissions and no critical upgrades and enhancements
are forgone.
DNA BACKLOG--SEXUAL ASSAULT/RAPE KITS
Senator Capito. Okay. Let me ask you another question. Over
the years, we have been hearing about a backlog, sexual assault
kit backlog. Will the Department of Justice reverse this trend
and mirror the sentiment expressed by this subcommittee report
affirming a stronger commitment to increasing the necessary
resources for this particular purpose, under your direction?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I know that that is a very
important challenge nationwide. I recall the district attorney,
I believe, in Manhattan, actually, made a priority of that last
year. And we are committed to working with our State, local,
and tribal partners to improve DNA and other forensic testing.
This proposed budget includes $105 million for DNA-related
and other forensic programs. And specifically, with regard to
your question, it includes $45 million for a national sexual
assault kit initiative. I think that will address your
concerns.
Senator Capito. I would encourage you to move in that
direction. I am glad to see the Department is doing that.
Thank you so much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Rosenstein, welcome.
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you.
SANCTUARY CITIES
Senator Kennedy. The Justice Department sent letters to
nine jurisdictions alleged to be so-called sanctuary cities
under 18 U.S.C. Section 1373. Where are we on that?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I believe we actually sent letters
to 10 jurisdictions, and these were jurisdictions that had been
identified by the inspector general last year as jurisdictions
that the inspector general believed may have been in violation
of Section 1373 and thereby potentially in violation of their
obligation under grants to comply with Federal law.
So we notified all 10 localities that they needed to
certify to us they were, in fact, complying with Section 1373.
I believe we gave them until June 30. As of yesterday, we heard
back from three that certified that they were in compliance. So
there are seven that have not yet responded. I anticipate--I
hope that we will have those responses by the end of the month.
Senator Kennedy. Which three have you heard back from?
Mr. Rosenstein. I do not know that personally, Senator. I
can check into it and get back to you. I do not know which
three have already responded.
Senator Kennedy. Have you heard from New Orleans?
Mr. Rosenstein. I do not know the answer to that.
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
What if a jurisdiction--what if New Orleans comes back to
you and says they are in compliance, take my word for it?
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, as with all of our grants, Senator,
particularly when we are dealing with governments, our primary
check is the certification is the self-certification they
provide that they are in compliance with all the grant
requirements. But there is an auditing capacity within the
government.
So, in some cases, there may be reviews that are done by
the granting authority, the Office of Justice Programs, or, as
happened last year, by our inspector general. And if they found
violations, we would have to deal with the implications, as we
do in ordinary grants.
As U.S. Attorney, I dealt with matters in which grant
recipients had violated provisions of the grants and then the
question arises of, what is the appropriate remedy? So there is
a potential for auditing and oversight of those certifications.
But, primarily, we expect people, when they certify they are in
compliance with the law, we expect them to be truthful about
that.
And I do want to let you know, Senator, that I do have, I
just received from my staff, a report that New Orleans is one
of the three that has responded and has certified that it is
complying. The other two are Clark County, Nevada, and the
State of Connecticut.
Senator Kennedy. May I call you general? I do not want to
call you assistant general.
General, I want to be sure I understand. The Department
sent letters to 10 jurisdictions that have alleged to be
sanctuary cities and said, are you a sanctuary city? And you
really expect them to write you back and say, yes?
Mr. Rosenstein. No. Let me clarify for you, Senator.
The request is, are you complying with Section 1373?
Whether it is defined as a sanctuary city is really a different
issue. Our requirement, as identified by the inspector general,
or the question is, are you complying with 1373? It is not
whether or not you are a sanctuary city.
Senator Kennedy. Well, to me, this issue is not--it is, of
course, about immigration and legal immigration versus illegal
immigration. But it is also about respect for law. And our
mayor in New Orleans, who is a friend of mine, on the one hand
says, ``I am in complete compliance with Section 1373. I am not
a sanctuary city.'' But on the other hand says publicly to the
people in Louisiana, ``I refuse to be a part of Trump's
deportation force.''
Now, that is his--and this is America. You can believe what
you want to believe. But we are a Nation of laws, and we have
laws that have to be followed. And if New Orleans disagrees
with the law, it should petition Congress to change it, but it
cannot just unilaterally say, ``I do not like it. I am the
mayor. I do not like the President. I do not agree with this
policy, so I am not going to follow it,'' and make his comments
personal in the process of doing that. That bothered me.
So what is going to be done to follow up? I mean, let me
make a prediction. All 10 cities are going to say they are in
compliance.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, thank you, Senator. I want to make
sure I clarify this.
If somebody certifies to the Department of Justice that
they are in compliance, we expect them to be in compliance. And
so it would be a very serious matter if somebody sends a
certification--it has to be signed by a person, and that person
needs to be confident that they are right. If somebody signs a
certification that they are in compliance, we are going to
vigorously review those, particularly those 10 because they
have already been identified for us by our inspector general as
jurisdictions where there was some concern. So we are going to
vigorously review those submissions, and if they are not in
compliance and, therefore, they are in violation of the grant
contract, we will pursue appropriate remedies. Those could
include suspending an award. It could include terminating a
grant contract. And it could include requiring repayment of
grant funds.
So this is a very serious matter, Senator. If somebody
sends a certification, we expect it to be accurate.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I have gone over, but over what
period of time are you going to check their compliance?
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, in the ordinary grant making process,
obviously, there are a lot of conditions on Federal grants, and
there is a review process within the Department, the Office of
Justice Programs and other grantmaking components of the
Department. There is a potential for investigations by the
inspector general. And so we do review those in the ordinary
course.
And on a prospective basis, Senator, we are going to
require these certifications that the jurisdictions are in
compliance with 1373. And I am hopeful that people will, if
they were not following the law in the first place, that they
will truthfully certify and make sure they change their
practice so that they are following the law in the future.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
your indulgence in allowing me to go over.
Thank you, Mr. General.
Senator Shelby. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you for yielding to Senator
Alexander.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. You lost a little time.
Senator Boozman. No, it is fine. He had a good excuse. He
was going to visit with the President.
DRUG COURTS
Thank you so much for being here. I just want to echo,
first, what my colleagues have said about drug courts, on both
sides of the aisle. That is something that really does reduce
recidivism. They are doing a great job in Arkansas, both the
regular drug court and then also the veteran drug courts
working with the VA, using resources that they have. That is
just a great partnership that really is making a big
difference.
DOJ VIOLENT CRIME TASK FORCE
I am pleased that the DOJ is reinvesting in a strategy that
targets violent crime. I understand that you have created a
violent crimes strategy task force.
Can you elaborate on the details, including what agencies
are playing what roles? And do you have the necessary resources
that you need to carry out the mission, which is so very
important?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, thank you, Senator.
With regard to violent crime, which I know you are aware,
in 2015, violent crime increased by more than 3 percent, which
to just put that in context, is the largest 1-year increase we
have experienced since 1991 nationwide. The number of murders
in 2015 increased by 11 percent, which was the largest 1-year
increase since 1971.
So we consider this to be an urgent problem for us. The
Attorney General established a task force on violent crime
reduction in public safety. That task force is drawing on
expertise from throughout the Department to come up with
strategies. And we have a number of proposals, some of which
are in this budget, that will help us to reinvigorate our fight
against violent crime, including, I am hopeful, that we will be
able to reinstitute what was referred to as Project Safe
Neighborhoods. It was a program that I was involved in back
when I first became U.S. Attorney. And we hope to reinvigorate
that program where we work together with other State and local
partners to identify what are the violent crime problems in
their communities and how can Federal resources best be used to
solve them.
I think that the issue you opened with Senator is
particularly important to me because these drug courts are
primarily an issue for our State and local partners. They deal
with, on a daily basis, a large volume of offenders, people who
have committed crimes who are drug addicts. In the Federal
system, typically, when we are prosecuting drug cases, they are
distributors, not addicts, so we deal with a different type of
defendant. But for State and local partners, if they are able
to help those folks overcome their drug addiction, they are
going to be able to reduce crime. So I think it is critically
important for us to support those efforts.
EOIR--IMMIGRATION CASE BACKLOG
Senator Boozman. Very good. I am chairing the Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee. One of our concerns is
the number of immigration judges. We have, I believe, about a
500,000 backlog. I think there is $75 million to put more
resources in there, more judges.
Can you talk a little bit about that, the efforts that you
are making in that regard, and kind of what the plan is to
eliminate the backlog, how you are going to resource those
judges?
Mr. Rosenstein. There are really two ways Senator that we
are acting immediately to try to deal with that backlog. The
first is by filling existing vacancies, because there was a
delay in filling immigration judge vacancies as they arose, so
we had a lot of judicial slots that were already funded but
were vacant, and we are now moving quickly to fill those
positions.
In addition to that, our 2018 budget requests $500 million
for the office and the Department. It is called the Executive
Office of Immigration Review. That is the office that handles
those cases. That will include $75 million for new judges, 75
new judges and a total of 450 staff, which includes the folks
to support those judges.
So once we get all those folks out into the field, we
anticipate we are going to make a big impact on that backlog.
It will represent a 21 percent increase in our overall staff,
and we will be able to adjudicate those immigration cases, I
believe, much more fairly and expeditiously.
And in addition to that, we are working to fill those 36
vacancies that already exist. We already hired 38 immigration
judges this year, and we hope to have a full complement, to
have all of the 345 additional slots filled by the end of the
year.
Senator Boozman. Are you going to realign or are you in the
process of realigning where they are at? And teleconferencing
and things like that, do we use those kinds of technologies?
Mr. Rosenstein. We are looking at alignment as in where we
need the judges, and we are going to put them in the places we
think they are the most valuable. I do hope to look at ways
that we can operate more efficiently.
You mentioned teleconferencing, to use technology to move
these cases quicker. I do not think there is any--it is not
good for anybody to have these cases pending for so long. The
director of our Executive Office of Immigration Review recently
left the Department. We now have an acting director, and I plan
to work closely with him and with his successor when we appoint
a permanent director. And the challenge I have given to him is
let's fill the vacancies, but let's also figure out whether
there are efficiencies that we can implement, ways we can move
these cases through the system more quickly, because I think
that is in everybody's interest.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
I have several questions, and then I will go to Senator
Shaheen.
MADOFF VICTIMS FUND (MVF)
The Justice Department, it is my understanding, currently
holds over $4 billion in forfeited and seized assets in a fund
set up to compensate victims of the Bernie Madoff fraud. The
Department is now in year 6 of the fund and, to date, to my
knowledge, no assets have been disbursed to victims. In
addition, news reports indicate that the special master of this
fund has collected over $40 million in fees.
Questions have been raised about the methodology of making
distributions and determining the validity of claims--that
these methodologies are unorthodox and unworkable. Obviously,
they are not working, if there has been no distribution.
Would the Department be inclined to review this matter? In
other words, look at this--there is something wrong here--and
see if there is a manner in which these distributions can be
made more quickly and efficiently, because the fund was set up
to compensate the victims.
You have been a prosecutor. You still are. Do you have a
comment on that?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, sir. I agree with you.
I think, from the perspective of our prosecutors and
agents, one of the most important things we can do is to
reimburse victims----
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. Rosenstein [continuing]. Able to do it.
Senator Shelby. That was the purpose of the fund, wasn't
it?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is correct. And we should do it
as quickly as possible.
As I understand--I just learned about this issue this week,
Senator, so I need to look into it a bit more. But my
understanding is, the problem here was the volume of claims
that we received. I understand 65,000 claims, so it is a
process of making sure that each one of those is dealt with
individually. And we do not distribute the money until we are
confident about the pool of people who ought to receive it.
So I do appreciate your concern, and I can commit to you I
am going to look into that and figure out why it is taking so
long.
Senator Shelby. Will you get back to the subcommittee on
this?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. It has been raised by a number of people
with us. Will you do that?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes. My understanding is that we have
recently begun to notify claimants about decisions, so there
are some people who are getting answers from us. But I will
report back to you on that.
[The information follows:]
The Madoff Victims Fund (MVF) was created in 2013. The deadline for
filing petitions was in April of 2014. Since that time, the Special
Master and Department personnel have been hard at work evaluating more
than 65,400 petitions claiming approximately $78 billion in losses on
Madoff-related investments. Petitions came from individuals and
entities in 136 countries. The Special Master and his team have
reviewed more than 403,000 individual Madoff transactions in 13
currencies. Approximately 4.5 million pages of backup documentation
also needed to be evaluated. The Special Master identified almost
31,000 petitions (for losses totaling approximately $27 billion) that
were incomplete. In order to capture all eligible victims, each of
those petitioners was notified of the deficiencies and given an
opportunity to cure the deficiency and file an eligible claim.
This process is necessary to confirm which petitions are eligible
and that the amount claimed is accurate. The total amount available to
compensate victims is approximately $4 billion. Ineligible or
overstated petitions would dilute the potential recoveries of real
victims. If the Department had begun making payments before potential
victims had been given an opportunity to cure deficiencies, we would
have risked denying the claims of otherwise eligible victims.
The Department has now largely completed its review. The Department
has issued rulings on approximately 60,000 petitions. In early June,
over 35,000 petitions were approved, and individuals and entities have
begun receiving notifications that their claims have been approved or
denied. As a result of these decisions, the Department is poised to
make initial payments by the end of the year.
Additional information regarding the ongoing MVF review, including
an update from June 2017 specifically addressing the recent decisions
and anticipated payment timeline, can be found at
www.madoffvictimfund.com.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
U.S./U.K. BILATERAL AGREEMENT
Regarding counterterrorism, how does the Department's 2018
budget, particularly funding for the FBI, improve its
partnership, say with the United Kingdom and other Five Eye
Partners in the global war on terror? And what benefits do you
feel will come from the new bilateral agreement between the
U.S. and the U.K. to expand data-sharing in this area?
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you, Senator.
National security is our highest priority, and the key to
effectively combating terrorism is to work with our partners in
foreign countries, so that is critically important to us.
With regard to this issue of the bilateral agreement
between the U.S. and the U.K., I think that that is critical to
allow us to lawfully and efficiently access electronic data.
Data-sharing is critical and, of course, one of the challenges
is we share data. We also need to maintain the confidentiality
of data.
What we introduced last month was a legislative proposal to
enable bilateral agreements. Those key benefits would include
helping our allies investigate and fight serious crime,
reducing and eliminating conflicts of laws that put our
technology companies in a difficult position. This is a
challenge for American companies that have information. It may
be lawful in one country but not in another country to share
it.
So this bilateral agreement process will allow us to bring
our laws into harmony. And it will also accomplish other goals,
such as reducing the incentive to localize data by companies.
So we look forward to working with the Congress, and we
look forward to addressing any of the concerns that you may
have about it.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
CYBERSECURITY
In the area of cybersecurity, over the past couple of
years, we have all witnessed serious data breaches occur in the
U.S. Government and also the private sector, including at some
of the Nation's largest companies and financial institutions.
The Department is requesting additional funding in the fiscal
year 2018 budget to combat cybercrime across several agencies,
including the FBI, the National Security Division, the Criminal
Division, and many U.S. Attorneys offices.
My question is, what is the Department proposing to do
differently or additionally in 2018 to combat cybercrime that
it is currently unable to accomplish with existing funds?
Mr. Rosenstein. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
Senator, cybercrime is an area of emerging challenges. Changes
in technology constantly create new challenges for us. Some
changes in technology actually are developed in an effort to
defeat enforcement efforts.
So our enhancements include $41.5 million to enhance the
FBI cyber efforts. That will include improving technological
tools and expanding high-speed networks. It includes $20
million to address threats posed by foreign intelligence and
insiders, and $22 million to address this ``Going Dark''
problem, which I think is our most significant law enforcement
challenge.
Senator Shelby. But you have a heck of a challenge here, do
you not?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, we do. We have extraordinarily
talented agents and prosecutors and support personnel, but this
technology, Senator, is a tremendous challenge for us because
they are always trying to stay a step ahead of us.
Senator Shelby. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rosenstein, I very much appreciate the statements that
you made here this morning about your commitment to addressing
the heroin and opioid epidemic.
HEROIN AND OPIOID EPIDEMIC
As you may be aware, in New Hampshire, we are second only
to West Virginia in terms of the percentage of overdose deaths.
And this year, sadly, we have seen carfentanil arrive in New
Hampshire and have had six people die in the State from that
substance.
I understand that the Department is looking at
reprioritizing efforts to address drug enforcement, but I just
disagree with your decisions in a couple of areas. One is the
elimination of the COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force grant program.
Senator Feinstein spoke about her efforts to focus on
methamphetamine, which have been successful. It was looking at
that successful model that Senator Leahy and I tried to direct
some support to local law enforcement. While I think our DEA
agents and our Federal law enforcement officials do a great
job, we just do not have as many of them in New Hampshire as we
do local law enforcement, and we need to provide some resources
for local law enforcement because they are the people who, day
in and day out, are actually on the frontlines.
So I would urge you to rethink whether eliminating the
Anti-Heroin Task Force grant program is really in the interest
of what we are all trying to accomplish.
You also spoke about meeting with Chinese officials to
discuss mail order drugs that are coming into the United
States. There was a story this weekend by the New York Times
reporting on the dark web that is being used to sell synthetic
drugs and opioids like fentanyl. Can you tell me what you are
doing to shut down those sites?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Senator.
First of all, with regard to the task forces, I completely
respect your view on that. The point I would simply like to
make is we have different ways of addressing the same issue,
but we are committed to spending more resources on heroin and
opioid drugs.
DRUG COURTS
Senator Shaheen. Can I just interrupt you, because the
other issue that has been brought up by several of my
colleagues has been drug courts, which we have found to be very
effective in New Hampshire. Yet you have reduced funding for
drug courts in the 2018 budget.
Mr. Rosenstein. I had the number. I am not certain about
the reduction.
Senator Shaheen. From $43 million to $40 million.
Mr. Rosenstein. Okay, right.
Senator Shaheen. While it may not seem like a lot of money,
in New Hampshire, that is a lot of money.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, I understand. It is a lot of money to
me, too, Senator.
But I think it does reflect, nonetheless, a commitment.
That $40 million does reflect our confidence that that program
can be effective. And I am sure that if that program is funded,
I will work with the Office of Justice Programs--I know I will
work with the Office of Justice Programs to make sure it is
spent effectively.
To address your question about China, I have been in this
job for 6 weeks. I have not met with China, but I do hope to
talk with DEA and with the Postal Inspection Service and any
other Federal agencies that have a stake in this to figure out
what we can do.
The problem with the dark web, and I am familiar with the
story you are referring to, is that it is a very effective tool
for criminals to commit crime----
Senator Shaheen. It is.
Mr. Rosenstein [continuing]. With limited ability to be
detected. But we do have ways to catch those criminals.
We had a case just a couple years ago involving a dark web
site in which the defendant was caught and successfully
prosecuted in New York and will no longer be in position to use
the Internet as a tool to distribute drugs and to facilitate
other crimes. So we do have the ability to catch these
offenders, but it is challenging because of the technological
burdens.
But I will work with FBI, DEA, Secret Service, and other
agencies to do everything that we can to get ahead of that
problem.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. And if there are legal changes
in policy that need to be made, I hope you will share that with
us, so we can try to support your efforts.
U.S. MARSHALS--PROTECTIVE DETAILS
Let me go to another topic very quickly. In April, the
Marshals Service estimated that the round-the-clock protective
detail for Education Secretary DeVos Cost $1 million per month.
By the end of September, this is going to total $8 million.
I just wonder if you can tell me why the Marshals Service
is playing this role in her protective detail. I understand
that there are four to eight deputy marshals at a time on the
detail when the Department of Education has their own security
team. Can you tell me who made this determination about why
this was necessary?
My understanding is the only time that this has ever been
done before was for the ONDCP drug czar in the 1990s.
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, I do not know. That decision was
made before I was confirmed. What I would like to do is look
into it and get back to you.
[The information follows:
By order of the Attorney General, based on statutory authority, the
U.S. Marshals Service started providing a protective detail for U.S.
Secretary of Education Elisabeth ``Betsy'' DeVos on Feb. 13, 2017. USMS
conducted a threat assessment on Ms. DeVos and determined that a threat
to the secretary's safety exists. A Memorandum of Understanding between
the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Marshals Service for
protective services for Ms. DeVos was signed March 28, retroactive to
Feb. 14.
Senator Shaheen. I would appreciate that. I was a Governor.
I have had credible threats against me. I have never had four
to eight people on my detail 24 hours per day.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Shelby.
DOJ FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST
Thank you, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. I appreciate
the chance to talk with you about some of the budgetary details
relating to the Department of Justice.
First, just to follow up on a number of Senators who have
talked to you about fentanyl and the heroin crisis, I just
commend to you the STOP Act, a bipartisan bill led by Senators
Portman and Klobuchar. Many of us are cosponsors, myself
included. It tries to deal with some of the issues around the
shipment of fentanyl into the United States and strengthen some
of our postal inspection abilities.
On an appropriations subcommittee where I am the ranking,
we have responsibility for the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. It is not the subject of this hearing today, but I do
intend to push back on the elimination of funding, because I
think their HIDTA program has been particularly helpful.
The bulletproof vest partnership is a program I have long
supported, and it has given roughly 13,000 jurisdictions
bulletproof vests that are anatomically appropriate, and
represent the current best technology. The Federal role is
making sure that they are high-performing bulletproof vests.
They have literally saved the lives of law enforcement
officials, some of whom I know personally from my home State.
I am pleased the request maintains funding for this
important program, but the request makes it a carveout in the
Justice Assistance Grants rather than being funded separately,
as has been the case in the past. Similarly, the body-worn
camera partnership is a carveout of the Justice Assistance
Grant programs.
So, effectively, these two programs would cut Justice
Assistance Grants by $45 million by carving them out rather
than having them separately funded, on top of the $71 million
cut that is clearly shown in the request. In a budget focused
on addressing violent crime and supporting law enforcement, why
did the administration slash resources for State and local law
enforcement by making the bulletproof vest partnership and the
body-worn camera partnership a carveout of the larger JAG
program rather than funding them separately?
Mr. Rosenstein. Senator, my understanding is that we have
recommended $22.5 million for that bulletproof vest program,
which I agree with you is important and, as you pointed out, is
actually consistent with the amount that was allocated over the
last 2 fiscal years. My understanding is it is set aside--it is
set aside within the Byrne JAG program.
So I do not know the technical reasons for that, but I can
tell you that I think it is an important program. And the
budget does propose to spend $22.5 million on those vests. And,
if approved, I am sure we will.
Senator Coons. I look forward to working with you to ensure
those resources are available in a long-term and predictable
way. I was pointing out that the reduction in Byrne JAG, which
I think 50 Senators joined a letter opposing a reduction in
that, is even greater because these are programs that were
previously separately funded.
My hometown of Wilmington is one of a number of cities
where we have seen a significant spike in violent crime. The
Violence Reduction Network was an effective high-impact
partnership between Federal law enforcement and local law
enforcement.
Just to give one example, we saw homicide clearance rates
jump from below 20 percent to about 50 percent. And I want to
specifically thank again OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance and
their hardworking team for their efforts that made possible
John Skinner, who is a Baltimore PD leader, coming to
Wilmington and coordinating a whole series of different Federal
law enforcement interventions that were cumulatively very
powerful.
In your response to my questions for the record in your
confirmation hearing, you said reducing violent crime would be
a top priority for you and you would review the funding
mechanisms and available resources. Will you commit to ensuring
Federal resources continue to assist cities like Wilmington who
have partnered, who have made progress, have shown themselves
to be good partners with Federal law enforcement through
programs like VRN in the past?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Senator. In fact, John Skinner, I knew
John from Baltimore, and I worked with the Department in the
VRN rollout. I am very pleased that the program was effective
in Wilmington.
DOJ GRANTS--VIOLENCE REDUCTION NETWORK (VRN)
We are requesting funding of $5 million for the National
Crime Reduction Assistance Network, which is the formal name of
VRN, or Violence Reduction Network. I think that is really a
very important opportunity for cities to consult directly with
the Department and with international and national
practitioners and researchers, people with proven track records
that can bring best practices to local jurisdictions. Because
we have a lot of extraordinarily committed law enforcement
officers out there, police chiefs and sheriffs, who welcome the
assistance, the insights that can be provided from somebody who
comes in and takes a fresh look and brings ideas that may be
working in other places.
So I strongly support that program. We have a symposium--I
believe it may even be next week--a symposium that is part of
our violent crime initiative, and I do intend to make that a
priority.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Anything we can do to
appropriately partner between Federal law enforcement and some
of the municipalities in my home State to continue to see
sustained, elevated, stubbornly difficult levels of crime. If
anything, they have gotten worse in the past year.
We have new leadership in the city and police department.
We have dedicated law enforcement officers, and our previous
chief was also quite responsive, as the VRN success shows. We
need to continue to engage on this, and I appreciate the
investment in learning from and carrying forward what VRN was
able to do.
Thank you.
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, sir, for appearing here today.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If there are no further questions this afternoon, Senators
will have the opportunity to submit additional questions for
the record, which will be part of the hearing record. We would
request the Department of Justice answer those questions,
because some Senators were in other committees today.
[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. Rod J. Rosenstein
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
guantanamo bay detention facility
Question 1. Mr. Deputy Attorney General, since 2009 Congress has
consistently--on a bipartisan basis--prohibited the closure of the
terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. This Subcommittee once
again included two prohibitions in the fiscal year 2017 spending bill
restricting the transfer and housing of these terrorist detainees on
U.S. soil. And yet, in a statement issued by the President upon signing
the 2017 Omnibus into law, he raised concerns about these specific
provisions and, in doing so, raised questions about his future
direction on Guantanamo Bay detainees. The Attorney General has
previously supported Federal laws that prohibit the transfer of
terrorist detainees from Guantanamo to U.S. soil.
How would you and the Attorney General advise the President if his
administration explored closing the Guantanamo prison and transferring
terrorist detainees to American soil?
Answer. Congress has barred the transfer of Guantanamo Bay
detainees to the United States for any purpose in each National Defense
Authorization Act since 2012. Unless those transfer restrictions were
lifted, Guantanamo detainees could be not brought to the United States.
internal cybersecurity at justice
Question 2(a). The recent ``WannaCry'' virus was a challenge for
many foreign government agencies. I have heard that there are variants
of the ``WannaCry'' virus that will now infect devices, which means IP-
connected devices, or ``endpoints,'' that are separate from desktops
and laptops. I am concerned that the Department may have a great deal
of this equipment on its networks, especially those agencies that rely
on connected equipment to conduct their operations.
a. Did you find instances of ``WannaCry'' on Department of Justice
computers? If you did not, then what do you think was key to preventing
the attack from compromising Department computers?
Answer. The Department did not find any instance of WannaCry, and
subsequently did not experience any system compromise related to the
WannaCry and follow-on NotPetya malware on any of our more than 225,000
computers. At the onset of the outbreak, the Department took any
remaining vulnerable systems offline until they were remediated. The
keys to preventing compromise were the Department's threat intelligence
and aggressive patch management program which allowed us to remediate
the vulnerabilities exploited by WannaCry and NotPetya malware in
advance of the attack. Furthermore, the Department's modern e-mail/web
countermeasure systems blocked the vast majority of the phishing e-
mails containing the WannaCry and NotPetya malware.
Question 2(b). Do you have a way to inventory all this connected
equipment and to profile it to determine whether it has been
compromised? If you do not, then isn't detecting and profiling
connected devices one of the key Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation
requirements? Will DOJ meet those requirements?
Answer. Yes, we do. The Department has had an automated enterprise
asset inventory, configuration and vulnerability management solution
that gives us near real-time insight to the Department's cybersecurity
posture, ahead of the Department of Homeland Security's Continuous
Diagnostics Migration program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
combatting heroin and abuse of prescription opioids
Question 1(a). How can the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program be
more effective in the fight against over prescription and unscrupulous
doctors? What more can DOJ do to strengthen compliance and ensure
pharmacies and doctors submit data?
Answer. OJP's Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
(PDMP) is designed to promote a number of goals related to improving
the Nation's PDMP systems, including:
1. Preventing prescription drug misuse through interagency
collaboration and analysis of PDMP data;
2. Reducing the variations that exist in the type of information
collected, who is allowed to access the data, and the requirements for
use and reporting;
3. Promoting interstate PDMP information sharing and the
development of inter-operable PDMP systems; and
4. Assisting states in developing the capacity to work across
systems to leverage various data sets (such as PDMP data, naloxone
administrations, fatal and non-fatal overdose data, and drug arrests)
to develop data-driven interventions.
PDMPs are State-run electronic database systems used by
practitioners, pharmacists, medical and pharmacy boards, and law
enforcement. However, access varies according to State law. These
programs are established through State legislation and are tailored to
the specific needs of individual states. DEA strongly supports PDMPs
and encourages the use of these programs by medical professionals in
detecting and preventing doctor shopping and other diversion. However,
because PDMPs are established under State law, DEA has no authority to
manage or enhance the programs. At this time, 49 states, the District
of Columbia, and the U.S. territory of Guam are operating statewide
PDMP systems. In July 2017, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens announced
an executive order to create a statewide PDMP system for the state--the
last remaining State without a PDMP.
While PDMPs are valuable tools for prescribers, pharmacists, and
law enforcement agencies to identify, detect, and prevent nonmedical
prescription drug use and diversion, PDMPs do have some limits in
detecting retail-level diversion. For example, the use of PDMPs is
limited across State lines because interconnectivity remains a
challenge. Often, crossing State lines allows subjects to evade
detection. Many drug traffickers and drug seekers willingly travel
hundreds of miles to gain easy access from unscrupulous clinics and
physicians.
The Department of Justice, along with other Federal partners, works
to address these problems. Several Federal entities, including the
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and the Bureau of
Justice Assistance support efforts to improve interoperability among
PDMPs through grants and other assistance. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention support work to enhance and maximize PDMPs as
public health and clinical tools in its Prevention for States
program.\1\ Further, the Alliance of States with Prescription Drug
Monitoring Programs, Brandeis University's PDMP Center of Excellence,
and the Indian Health Service (IHS) are also partnering to improve
interoperability between the IHS, its pharmacies, and PDMPs. The
National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) hosts NABP
Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) InterConnect. The program allows
authorized users of participating PDMPs to securely exchange
prescription data between certain states. As of July 2017, 43 states
have executed Memoranda of Understanding to participate in NABP's
InterConnect program, and 42 of these states are currently live.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control Division of Unintentional Injury
Prevention website, available at http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/
states/state_prevention.html. Retrieved on September 21, 2016.
\2\ National Association of Boards of Pharmacy website, available
at http://www.nabp.net/
programs/pmp-interconnect/nabp-pmp-interconnect. Retrieved on July 17,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These programs, however, are only as good as the data inputted into
each system and the willingness of practitioners and pharmacists to use
such systems on a consistent basis. As of April 2017, a total of 35
states and territories require controlled substance prescribers to use
the State's PDMP.\3\ DEA encourages all practitioners and pharmacists
to use their State PDMP program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Training and Technical
Assistance Center at Brandeis University website, available at: http://
www.pdmpassist.org/pdf/Mandatory_Query_7.pdf. Retrieved on July 17,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater adoption of PDMP best practices would improve the
usefulness of prescription drug monitoring programs and expand the
number of healthcare providers using them. These best practices have
been widely documented and are outlined in a recent publication by the
Pew Charitable Trusts, Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: Evidence-
based Practices to Optimize Prescriber Use. These practices include:
--Requiring a prescriber to view a patient's PDMP data under certain
circumstances, such as before writing an initial prescription
for a controlled substance.
--Allowing prescribers to designate someone on staff, such as a
nurse, to access the PDMP on their behalf to help manage
workflow.
--Proactively sending communications from PDMP staff to prescribers,
dispensers, law enforcement, and regulators to flag potentially
harmful drug use or prescribing activity based on PDMP data.
--Uploading information into the database at set intervals, whether
in real time, daily, weekly, or monthly.
--Simplifying processes, such as instituting automatic PDMP
registration triggered by State controlled-substance
registration, to more easily enable prescribers to enroll in a
PDMP.
--Making efforts to promote the program, including prescriber
training (via formats that include online videos and
instructional materials) on how to access and use PDMP data.
--Combining PDMP data with other clinical data through technologies
that are used to store, communicate, and analyze health
information, such as electronic health records.
--Implementing user-friendly technologies, such as dashboards and
mobile applications that provide PDMP data in easily
understandable formats.
Question 1(b). What is being done at a collaborative level with
DOJ's counterparts in China and Mexico in relation to the production
and distribution of fentanyl and the even deadlier carfentanil?
Answer. DEA has maintained an ongoing relationship with officials
of the People's Republic of China Government for years, and it has
leveraged this relationship to help combat the rising threat from
fentanyl and its analogues. Engagement occurs at the leadership level
through interagency working groups that operate under the U.S.-China
Joint Liaison Group framework, the Counternarcotics Working Group led
by the Department of Justice, and the Bilateral Intelligence Working
Group led by DEA.
On March 1, 2017, China's National Narcotics Control Commission
announced scheduling controls against four fentanyl-class substances:
carfentanil, furanyl fentanyl, valeryl fentanyl, and acryl fentanyl.
This announcement was the culmination of ongoing collaboration between
DEA and the Chinese Government, and reaffirms the shared commitment to
countering illicit fentanyl. On June 19, 2017, China announced that it
also placed under control U-47700, a synthetic opioid responsible for
many overdose deaths in the United States.
Over the past year, DEA and Chinese officials have met regularly to
discuss mutual interests and shared responsibilities in countering the
threat from fentanyl class substances. Representatives from the China
National Narcotics Laboratory, the Narcotics Control Bureau, and the
Ministry of Public Security met with DEA (along with Department of
Justice and Department of Homeland Security) officials to exchange
information on emerging substances' scientific data, trafficking
trends, and sample exchanges. This continued dialogue is anticipated to
foster a bilateral information exchange related, but not limited to,
the identification of new substances of abuse that may then be
considered for national control. The meeting also deepened professional
contacts between relevant technical and legal experts.
DEA is working with the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) and the Department of State to enhance coordination with Canada
and Mexico to combat the opioid crisis through the North American
Dialogue on Drug Policy (NADD). Through the inaugural trilateral
meeting in October 2016 and March 2017 technical workshops, DEA has
shared best practices and methodology on identifying the sources of
heroin and fentanyl in North America and combatting criminal
distribution networks. DEA will continue to work with Canada and Mexico
to convene experts in these fields so that our three countries can
better prevent the production and movement of drugs in and through our
countries.
Question 1(c). Are all international law enforcement members
participating in DEA Sensitive Investigation Units fully vetted? If
not, why? What steps does DEA take to ensure international partners do
not leak information?
Answer. Membership in a Sensitive Investigative Unit (SIU) is
contingent upon successful completion of a background investigation,
drug urinalysis, and polygraph examination. Members that have not
successfully adjudicated each requirement may not participate in SIU
units or investigations nor gain access to the SIU facilities. This
also applies to support personnel such as accountants, attorneys,
maintenance personnel, translators, and security guards. Additionally,
in order to maximize control and safeguard sensitive information, DEA
Special Agent Advisors (SAAs) must be assigned at a minimum ratio of
one SAA to every 15 SIU members. The SAAs, working side-by-side with
the SIU members, reduce the risk of compromise. Furthermore, all SIU
facilities are controlled access and monitored 24 hours a day by SIU
officers. All guests must be logged in and out of the facility and
escorted at all times while on the premises.
After the initial polygraph exam, SIU members and support personnel
are subject to random polygraph examinations at any point during their
tenure. They must also successfully pass a mandatory polygraph test
every 36 months. Failed polygraph exams result in the immediate
expulsion of the SIU member from the unit.
department of justice hiring
Question 2(a). How many positions that had conditional offers of
employment by February 21 across the entire Department were ultimately
cancelled? What is the breakout by DOJ component? What was the cost to
the taxpayer to initiate background investigations and other testing
that went towards these cancelled, but ultimately unfilled, positions?
Answer. As of February 21, 596 positions that had conditional
offers of employment were cancelled across the entire Department. The
breakout of these cancelled offers by the Department component is
included in the table below. The approximate cost to initiate
background investigations and other testing for the cancelled positions
was $864,000. It should be noted that the Department's hiring freeze
did not apply to national security or public safety positions (for the
Bureau of Prisons, public safety positions were exempt up to the
Bureau's January 23, 2017 hiring level).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated # of Conditional
DOJ Component Offers Cancelled
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antitrust Division......................... 18
Bureau of Prisons.......................... 450
Community Relations Service................ 8
Executive Office for United States 45
Attorneys.
Justice Management Division................ 10
National Security Division................. 2
Office of Justice Programs................. 52
Tax Division............................... 11
----------------------------
Total................................ 596
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2(b). I understand that expansion of the medication
assisted treatment program into Bureau of Prisons (BOP) New England
Region is on hold as 2 positions needed to manage the program cannot be
hired due to the freeze. This program provides drug treatment--an anti-
heroin drug called Vivitrol--for Federal inmates entering BOP managed
halfway houses. How can we ensure these positions are filled to expand
this critical program to New England?
Answer. Medical staff are a priority for BOP and we appreciate your
concern for the care of inmates. BOP Health Services Division has been
working with the Human Resource Division to finalize crediting plans
for the transitional care social worker and the transitional care
pharmacist positions. The crediting plan for the social worker position
was approved on July 12, 2017, and the Pharmacist position was approved
on July 13, 2017.
Question 2(c). Does DOJ consider BOP a component of public safety?
Why is the BOP not exempt from the DOJ hiring freeze?
Answer. In accordance with the administration's hiring directive,
the Department has limited its hiring exemptions to the positions
required to accomplish our national security and public safety
responsibilities. In the case of BOP, the Department is permitting
hiring at BOP field sites, to the overall staffing level existing on
January 22, 2017. Within that limitation, BOP has flexibility to hire
the positions it deems most critical and at the field locations it
deems most critical. BOP will continue to closely monitor its staffing
levels to ensure the continued safety and security of BOP employees,
inmates, and the public.
Question 2(d). What is the expected attrition rate for ATF, DEA,
FBI, USMS, BOP and USAO for fiscal year 17 and fiscal year 18 broken
out by each agency? What is the hiring cost to onboard and outfit new
agents, deputy marshals and correctional officers?
Answer. See chart below for estimated attrition for certain
Department components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Personnel Estimated Attrition
Component Staff Category * -------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2017 Fiscal Year 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
............. All ATF Employees 295 (6%)......... 237 (5%)
*.
--------------------------------------------------------
ATF............
Special Agents... [165] (6%)....... [104] (5%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
............. All BOP Employees 2,500 (6%)....... 2,900 (8.1%)
*.
--------------------------------------------------------
BOP............
Correctional [1,000] (5.5%)... [715] (4.0%)
Officers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
............. All DEA Employees 496 (5.5%)....... 502 (5.6%)
*.
--------------------------------------------------------
DEA............
Special Agents... [218] (4.8%)..... [250] (5.6%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
............. All FBI Employees 1,610 (4.4%)..... 1,675 (4.5%)
*.
--------------------------------------------------------
FBI............
Special Agents... [635] (4.6%)..... [675] (4.9%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
............. All USAO 960 (10%)........ 950 (10%)
Employees *.
--------------------------------------------------------
USAO...........
Attorneys........ [445] (9%)....... [460] (9%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
............. All USMS 311 (9%)......... 328 (9%)
Employees *.
--------------------------------------------------------
USMS...........
Marshals......... [184] (5%)....... [196] (5%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The lines for all employees, include agents, correctional officers,
attorneys, and Marshals.
DOJ New Position Cost
Law Enforcement and Corrections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification \1\ Full Performance Level (FPL)
------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Annual Cost
Initial Full Year 2018 2019 Second 2020 Third ---------------------------------
Component GS GS First Year Year Year
Series Grade/ Grade/ Title Initial Annualization Annualization Compensation Non-Pay Total
Step Step Costs \2\ (ATB) \3\ (ATB) \4\ and Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF 1811 9/1 13/5 Special Agent 305,202 7,694 69,514 195,016 187,394 382,410
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOP \5\ 0007 5/1 8/6 Correctional Officer 58,000 42,000 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA 1811 9/1 13/5 Special Agent 248,785 4,325 75,986 199,858 129,238 329,096
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI 1811 10/3 13/10 Special Agent 281,000 -51,000 88,000 212,907 105,093 318,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0082 7/1
(Traine
e)
USMS 13/5 Deputy U.S. Marshal 218,346 -22,099 94,313 202,451 88,109 290,560
1811 9/1
(Deputy
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
------
\1\ Cost information shown is for domestic positions. New international positions incur additional costs not shown.
\2\ Some first year costs (such as pay and benefits) are calculated at 50% of actual. Assuming that new positions will be filled throughout the year,
the average on-board time for all new positions would be six months.
\3\ During the second year, some costs decrease (such as equipment, vehicles, and recruitment) because they do not recur. Recurring costs (such as pay
and benefits) increase from the 50% used in year 1 to full-year cost.
\4\ The third year annualization represents the cost adjustment necessary to fund pay and benefits for the new position at the full performance level.
\5\ BOP does not use the same methodology as law enforcement components to estimate new position costs.
Category Detail: Full Performance Level Annual Cost
------------------------------------------
Compensation and Benefits: basic salary, overtime, personnel benefits, awards, and Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP).
Non-Pay: total show summarizes several cost categories--
Contract Services and Supplies (operational): fuel, ammunition, safety/protective equipment, uniforms, travel, rent, utilities, cell phone, office
supplies.
Contract Services and Supplies (support): payroll services, security investigation/reinvestigation, drug testing, physical exam, medical care.
Equipment: firearms, technical and investigative equipment, vehicles, radios, computer (desktop/laptop), furniture.
Other: training (basic, advanced, miscellaneous), operational expenses, regularly scheduled PCS, IT enterprise costs, and DEA linguists.
executive office for immigration review
Question 3(a). Since February 1, 2017, how many immigration judges
(IJs) have been ``surged'' to handle Southwest Border cases? What
courts were these IJs moved from and where were they newly assigned?
How long will this surge last? When will these judges return to their
home courts?
Answer. Immigration Judges (IJs) were mobilized to commence detail
assignments to several DHS immigration detention facilities starting
the week of March 6th. These details have included both in-person and
video teleconference (VTC) docket assignments.
Detail assignments were made after consultations with the IJ union
and included volunteer and non-volunteer judges. Non-volunteer judges
were selected on a variety of factors, including prior availability and
reverse seniority. Most detail assignments were for two-week periods.
For locations in close proximity to an IJ's home duty station, detail
assignments have been up to 1 month.
To date, IJs have been detailed from 17 immigration courts:
Arlington, Baltimore, Chicago, Harlingen, Houston, Kansas City, Las
Vegas, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, Newark, New York City, Orlando,
Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, and San Francisco.
Question 3(b). What is being done to protect human trafficking
victims in immigration court? What additional services, if any, are
they provided? What is the average length of time a trafficking victim
has to wait before his/her case is heard?
Answer. Pursuant to several statutes, including the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and subsequent Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Acts (TVPRAs), EOIR has provided all current
IJs mandatory training, including updates and refreshers, on human
trafficking issues. Additionally, all new immigration judges receive
in-person training on human trafficking before they begin hearing
cases. EOIR has also instituted a protocol that provides immigration
court staff information about the indicators of trafficking and how to
refer potential trafficking cases to the Department's Trafficking
Intake Coordinator. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1232(c)(4), EOIR also
operates the Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied
Alien Children (LOPC), which addresses an adult caregiver's
responsibility to protect an unaccompanied alien child from
mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking. LOPC providers are also
provided guidance and training on identifying potential victims of
trafficking and abuse and referring such cases to the appropriate
social services and law enforcement authorities.
Question 3(c). We heard about a streamlined process for onboarding
IJs at the hearing. What is the new policy for expediting the hiring of
IJs?
Answer. The Department of Justice is actively implementing a new
streamlined hiring plan that was announced by the Attorney General
during a speech on April 11, 2017. The new hiring plan aims to reduce
the overall hiring timeline, reflecting the need to decrease the
pending caseload in our immigration courts, while maintaining the same
amount of IJ applicant vetting as the previous plan. The revised plan
sets clear deadlines for assessing applicants in the various stages of
the process and for making decisions on moving applicants to the next
stage. In order to decrease processing times, it eliminates steps that
did not aid the selection process. It also permits the Attorney General
to temporarily appoint selected candidates while the full background
investigation is pending (which can often take up to a year to
complete). The Department has estimated that, if implemented as
intended, the new hiring process should reduce the amount of time that
it takes to recommend applicants for hire to 6 months or less. The
Department will utilize this revised process going forward to increase
the speed of hiring and to fill new vacancies as soon as possible.
national incident-based reporting system (nibrs)
Question 4(a). How many law enforcement agencies currently submit
NIBRS data?
Answer. As of June 2017, there are 6,910 law enforcement agencies
reporting National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data.
Question 4(b). Is NIBRS still slated to become the Uniform Crime
Reporting data standard by January 1, 2021? If not, why?
Answer. Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) is in the process of
transitioning all law enforcement agencies (LEAs) from a summary
reporting system, which provides an aggregate monthly tally of crimes,
to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which provides
circumstances and context of each crime incident, by January 1, 2021.
Reporting via NIBRS will improve the quality, reliability, and accuracy
of the data received from participating LEAs. NIBRS will also make it
easier for LEAs to report hate crime data.
In December 2015, the Criminal Justice Information Services
Advisory Policy Board recommended that the UCR Program transition to a
NIBRS-only data collection by January 1, 2021 and the FBI concurred.
The FBI identified 400 strategically targeted agencies through the
National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) Program in need of funding
to transition to NIBRS. Over the course of the past few years, the FBI
worked with the Office of Justice Programs on a plan to transfer $135
million (cumulatively) in Criminal Justice Information Service (CJIS)
surcharge fee balances in fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018 to ensure
NIBRS becomes the UCR data standard by January 1, 2021. The cutoff date
for solicitation of funding, through OJP, is December 2018, which
ensures recipients will have adequate time to make the necessary
technical and programmatic changes prior to January 2021. Recognizing
the proposed CJIS rescission could have an impact on the FBI's ability
to support the NIBRS transition efforts, the Department will continue
to work with the FBI to mitigate any impact the rescission may have
towards future projects.
Question 4(c). What is the current status of the NCS-X Initiative?
How many State and local law enforcement agencies have been supported
through the Initiative to become compliant broken out by fiscal year?
Answer. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) kicked off the
National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) Initiative in 2013,
originally designed as a feasibility study to determine if the
Department could expand its collection of incident-based crime data
from law enforcement agencies. Since the Initiative started, BJS has
made steady progress toward NCS-X implementation. Specific to funding
announcements:
--Fiscal Year 2015.--The first NCS-X solicitation was released; using
BJS funds, awards were made to 14 State Uniform Crime Report
(UCR) Programs as the first step in NCS-X implementation.
--Fiscal Year 2016.--Two NCS-X solicitations were released; using
both FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
automation funds and BJS funds, awards were made to seven
additional State UCR Programs and to 17 large local law
enforcement agencies.
--Fiscal Year 2017.--Three NCS-X solicitations were released; using
both FBI CJIS automation funds and BJS funds, awards were made
to three additional State UCR Programs and to 14 local police
departments.
L2,i1,s50,r50,r50,r50,r50
National Crime Statistics Exchange Implementation Milestones
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--BJS begins NCS-X project, --Chicago Police --Major law --FBI Director --FBI CJIS and BJS
holds kick-off meeting with NCS- Department agrees enforcement accepts the participate in a
X Implementation Team. to participate in associations sign recommendation series of 5
--BJS and FBI CJIS sign Joint NCS-X and letter supporting from the CJIS regional NIBRS
Statement in Support of NCS-X. partners with BJS the national Advisory Policy trainings for NCS-
--IACP CJIS Committee issues to become the transition to Board to retire X states and
resolution in support of NCS-X. first NCS-X pilot NIBRS and NCS-X. the Summary agencies.
agency. --BJS issues first Reporting System --Montgomery
--BJS establishes NCS-X funding and move to an County, MD Police
the Crime opportunity and all-NIBRS data Department, and
Indicators makes NCS-X collection; sets NCS-X agency,
Working Group, awards to 14 transition begins reporting
comprised of law state UCR deadline of NIBRS data to the
enforcement Programs for January 2012. FBI.
leaders who NIBRS expansion. --FBI CJIS agrees --FBI CJIS
provide input to --BJS and FBI CJIS to provide indicates that
BJS on the types sign Charter funding to BJS use of automation
of crime establishing the for NCS-X funding is
information most NCS-X Steering implementation restricted;
useful to the Committee and through their cannot fund
police. hold inaugural automation funds. agency personnel
--BJS and the NCS- meeting; meetings --BJS and FBI CJIS or certain
X Implementation continue to be sign Memorandum equipment for NCS-
Team begin held quarterly of Agreement X grants.
conducting thereafter. governing the use --BJS issues 3 NCS-
readiness of the FBI X funding
assessments with automation funds opportunities and
NCS-X sample for NCS-X. makes NCS-X
agencies. --BJS issues 2 NCS- awards to 3 state
X funding UCR Programs, 4
opportunities and large local law
makes NCS-X enforcement
awards to 7 state agencies, and 10
UCR Programs and small and medium
17 large local sized agencies
law enforcement for NIBRS
agencies for expansion.
NIBRS expansion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of October 1, 2017, BJS has awarded $44.4 million to State UCR
Programs and to local law enforcement agencies through the NCS-X
Initiative for the implementation of NIBRS. This includes $34.8 million
funded through the FBI automation funds and $9.6 million funded through
BJS. The table below reflects funding provided across the 3 years of
implementation from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2017. Funding was
available to State UCR Programs in all 3 years, to large law
enforcement agencies in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017, and to
small and medium law enforcement agencies in fiscal year 2017. In
addition, State UCR Programs were eligible for supplemental funding in
years following their initial award, to cover costs associated with
additional NIBRS implementation activities.
National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X): Activities to Support State and Local Agency NIBRS Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
NCS-X Initiative Implementation Activity Direct Total Funding CJIS Automation BJS Funding
Awards Awarded Funding *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCS-X Pilot Project Funding.................. 5 $629,217 $0 $629,217
Fiscal Year 2015 Phase I Support for State 14 $7,395,000 $0 $7,395,000
UCR Programs................................
Fiscal Year 2016 Phase II Support for State 7 $5,462,758 $5,062,758 $400,000
UCR Programs................................
Fiscal Year 2016 Phase III Support for Large 16 $18,766,177 $18,766,177 $0
Local Law Enforcement Agencies..............
Fiscal Year 2016 State Supplemental Funding 3 $520,523 $520,523 $0
to Existing State Grantees..................
Fiscal Year 2017 Phase IV Support for State 3 $2,302,825 $1,950,153 $352,672
UCR Programs
Fiscal Year 2017 Phase V Support for Large 4 $2,761,543 $2,579,474 $182,069
Local Law Enforcement Agencies..............
Fiscal Year 2017 Phase VI Support for Small- 10 $2,480,662 $2,040,790 $439,872
Medium Law Enforcement Agencies.............
Fiscal Year 2017 State Supplemental Funding 3 $4,103,180 $3,864,644 $238,536
to Existing State Grantees..................
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Funding Awarded.................. $44,421,885 $34,784,519 $9,637,366
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In 2017, FBI CJIS indicated that use of the automation funds was restricted and generally cannot be used to
fund applicant requests for agency personnel or most equipment, including desktop computers or handheld mobile
field reporting devices.
Of the 400 sample law enforcement agencies chosen to participate in
the NCS-X program, nearly two-thirds have received grant funding, have
transitioned to NIBRS, or are actively working with BJS, FBI CJIS, and
their respective State UCR Program to receive NCS-X funding through the
State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
NCS-X Funding Status Agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received NCS-X funding................................. 97
Transitioned to NIBRS.................................. 36
NCS-X funding to be provided through State UCR Program 116
or State Administering Agency.
Not yet supported...................................... 151
----------------
Total agencies................................... 400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCS-X partnership between BJS and FBI CJIS has resulted in
funding for 25 State UCR Programs and 97 NCS-X law enforcement
agencies. In addition, BJS is establishing partnerships with State
agencies in five states to provide funding and technical assistance to
another 116 NCS-X agencies in fiscal year 2018. BJS will also issue
funding opportunities in fiscal year 2018 for the remaining 151
agencies not yet supported with NCS-X grant awards.
marshals service protective details
Question 5(a). Who determined that the protective detail for
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was necessary? Why was it deemed
necessary?
Answer. The United States Marshals Service (USMS) received an order
from the Attorney General, dated February 14, 2017, that directed the
USMS Director to coordinate, assess, and provide appropriate protective
measures for the Secretary of Education. The USMS has conducted risk
assessments on Secretary DeVos that have shown a high level of risk.
Question 5(b). Please provide a detailed cost assessment on this
assignment to Secretary DeVos. How long will this detail continue?
Answer. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
Department of Education and the U.S. Marshals Service, signed on March
28, 2017, shall remain in effect for 4 years, subject to the
availability of funds. The Department of Education initially agreed to
reimburse the USMS up to $7,784,000 to fund the salaries, benefits,
travel, and equipment of 24 positions (22 Deputy U.S. Marshals and 2
intelligence analysts) through September 30, 2017. In mid-August 2017,
the agreement was modified (reduced by $2,000,000) based on actual and
projected expenses through the end of the fiscal year.
Question 5(c). What is the average cost to provide a protective
detail for a Federal judge? How many details for the Federal judiciary
were provided in fiscal year 2016? How many have been provided for
fiscal year 2017?
Answer. The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) does not calculate an
average cost for Federal judiciary protection details. Protective
requirements such as the number of personnel needed, location, travel,
and detail duration can vary greatly from detail to detail.
Set forth in the table below are a few examples of the costs of
details. These amounts include regular payroll plus overtime, travel,
lodging, and per diem for the Deputy U.S. Marshals who execute our
threat-based protective details.
In fiscal year 2016, the USMS provided 14 threat-based protection
details and 556 risk-based protection details. As of June 30, 2017, the
USMS has provided 10 threat-based protection details and 334 risk-based
protection details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2017
Detail Fiscal Year 2016 YTD (as of June
30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAG................................. $1,030,430 $1,557,292
Special Assignments................. $8,764,986 $5,627,628
Secretary of Education.............. $2,809,275
W/WA Judicial Security.............. $131,280
SC Nominee.......................... $583,497
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5(d). What other Cabinet heads are being provided
protective details by the Marshals Service?
Answer. No other Cabinet heads are being provided protective
details by the U.S. Marshals Service at this time.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James Lankford
Question 1. On May 4, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive
Order to direct the Attorney General to issue guidance interpreting
religious liberty protections in Federal law. What are some of the
religious freedom issues you see that the Federal Government should
address? What is the timeframe for when this guidance will be issued?
Answer. In accordance with President Trump's Executive Order, the
Attorney General issued guidance interpreting religious liberty
protections in Federal law on October 6, 2017. The guidance identifies
20 high-level principles that administrative agencies and executive
departments can put to use to protect religious liberty of all
Americans, along with an appendix that provides legal support for each
principle. While not intended to be exhaustive, the guidance discusses
protections that apply across a wide variety of government activity,
including in employment, contracting, and programming.
Question 2. In August 2016, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced
plans to end its use of private prisons. However, Attorney General
Sessions rescinded this policy and directed BOP ``to return to its
previous approach.'' Are all private facilities that were previously in
use being used again? Do you believe that all such facilities are
proper for housing our Federal inmates?
Answer. Eleven of the thirteen privately operated adult facilities
under contract with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in August 2016 are
still used to house sentenced Federal offenders. All eleven privately
operated adult contract facilities have received and maintain their
American Correctional Association (ACA) accreditation, PREA
certification, and accreditation by the Joint Commission, a non-profit
organization that provides accreditation for healthcare programs. In
addition, the BOP has oversight staff at each location to ensure that
daily operations are in compliance with the contract terms and
requirements.
For decades, the BOP has relied on privately-operated prisons to
house low-security criminal aliens. The private prison industry helped
the BOP manage the unprecedented growth in the inmate population that
began in the 1980s. While the Federal prison population has decreased
in recent years, the BOP needs the flexibility of private prison
contracts to avoid the need for costly, new BOP facility construction.
Question 3. In fiscal year 2018, the Department of Justice is
requesting $19 million in enhancements to target transnational criminal
organizations. Please detail for the Subcommittee the role that
interdiction will play in this effort and in particular, how the
Department will work with the Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security to intercept illicit drugs before they enter our borders.
Answer. The Department of Justice works with many interagency
partners and develops innovative and flexible approaches to the
constantly evolving threats associated with transnational criminal
organizations (TCOs), including those involved in drug trafficking. The
Department's overall efforts to target TCOs are led and coordinated by
the multi-agency Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF)
and its components--the Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and U.S. Marshals Service
(USMS); the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and U.S. Secret Service
(USSS); the Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service Criminal
Investigation Division (IRS-CID); the Department of State's Diplomatic
Security Service (DSS); the Department of Labor's Office of the
Inspector General (DOL-OIG); the U.S. Postal Inspection Service
(USPIS); the 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices; and the Department's Criminal
Division--in conjunction with the International Organized Crime
Intelligence and Operational Center (IOC-2) and the DEA-led Special
Operations Division (SOD).
Additionally, DEA and FBI, through their domestic and foreign
offices, routinely work with DHS, specifically U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol (CBP), HSI, and USCG, as well as the Department of Defense (DoD)
to intercept illicit drugs from entering the United States across our
land and maritime borders.
The majority of illegal drugs destined for distribution and
consumption in the United States are transported to and across the
Southwest Border. The Department's OCDETF components work in
partnership with the DHS components to stop drugs from crossing the
border through interdictions at and between the Ports of Entry, as well
as through complex investigations that are often developed from border
interdictions to identify and target the TCOs that manufacture,
transport, and distribute the drug loads. Many of the most hard-hitting
blows against these TCOs have been struck by OCDETF's Co-located Strike
Forces, located in key cities along the Southwest Border, where
Department of Justice agencies work side-by-side with their DHS
partners on a daily basis.
A significant volume of illegal drugs destined for the continental
United States is also transported over air and maritime routes from
South and Central America to Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands for staging and forwarding along land and additional maritime
routes. OCDETF Strike Forces in Florida and Puerto Rico are also
central to this effort. Department of Justice agencies in these and
other Strike Forces work in partnership with DHS and DoD entities to
identify and target the command structure of the major air and maritime
transporters and interdict multi-hundred kilogram loads destined for
the United States. The conveyances used to transport the drugs include:
go-fast vessels, fishing vessels, merchant vessels, low-profile
vessels, self-propelled semi-submersible vessels, fully submersible
vessels, various pleasure craft, cargo containers, and personal
aircraft.
In fiscal year 2016, Department of Justice components, primarily
DEA and FBI, issued thousands of Critical Movement Alerts (CMAs)
regarding maritime narcotic transportation events. These CMAs were sent
to the Joint Interagency Task Force South in Key West, Florida, for
detection and monitoring to assist in targeting the illicit drug
movements in international waters for interdiction by USCG vessels and/
or allied partner nations with USCG Law Enforcement Detachment Teams on
board. Additionally, Department of Justice agencies, DHS, and DoD enjoy
a long-standing history of counter-narcotics cooperation with the
Bahamas under Operation Bahamas, Turks and Caicos (OPBAT), which has
been in existence since 1982. This DEA-led, multi-agency mission
thwarts the flow of illegal drugs transiting through the Bahamas,
dismantles drug trafficking organizations, and strengthens partner
nation law enforcement capabilities to enhance Bahamian law enforcement
in combating drug trafficking and drug money laundering. OPBAT has a
two-pronged effect: as an enforcement operation and as a deterrent
against TCOs smuggling illicit drugs through the Northern Caribbean.
Moreover, interdiction is an important facet of enforcement
operations that requires coordination with interagency partners
positioned throughout the source and transit zones. OCDETF's Department
of Justice and DHS components conduct investigations to identify all
members of an organization, with the goal of disrupting and dismantling
entire criminal networks, not just those involved in the smuggling of
drugs, both domestically and internationally. Drug enforcement agencies
prioritize their resources by targeting the multi-agency Consolidated
Priority Organization Targets (CPOTs) and other individual agency
priority target organizations, which are the most significant
international and domestic drug trafficking and drug money laundering
organizations. Department works with its partners in DHS and DoD to use
all available resources to combat these threats by identifying,
targeting, disrupting, and dismantling organizations responsible for
the manufacture and distribution of illicit substances before they
enter the United States.
The Department is also engaged in international efforts to reduce
the production, trafficking, distribution, sale, and overall
availability and impact of illicit drugs. DEA's Sensitive Investigative
Units (SIU) are a significant component of DEA's international
enforcement program. DEA's SIU program helps build effective and vetted
host nation units capable of conducting complex investigations
targeting major TCOs. Bilateral Investigations Units (BIUs) are an
important tool for targeting, disrupting, and dismantling significant
TCOs. The BIUs have used extraterritorial authorities to infiltrate,
indict, arrest, and extradite previously untouchable TCO leaders
involved in drug trafficking.
Finally, SOD is a DEA-led multi-agency operations coordination
center with participation from Federal law enforcement agencies, DoD,
the Intelligence Community, and international law enforcement partners.
Established in 1994, SOD's mission is to establish strategies and
operations to dismantle national and international trafficking
organizations by attacking their command and control communications.
Special emphasis is placed on major drug trafficking and narco-
terrorism organizations that operate across jurisdictional boundaries
on a regional, national, and international level.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
cops anti-heroin task force program
Question 1. The Drug Enforcement Administration's 2016 National
Drug Threat Assessment findings note that over the last 10 years, the
drug landscape in the United States has shifted, with the opioid threat
having risen to epidemic levels, impacting significant portions of the
Nation. Our Nation's law enforcement is in dire need of additional
resources to help fight this epidemic. Local police have increasingly
cited lack of resources as their primary shortcoming in the fight
against opioid trafficking and the resulting addiction. In my home
State of Vermont, opioid overdoses reported to emergency responders
rose from 1.2 daily in 2015 to 2.2 in 2016. State and local law
enforcement agencies need resources to respond to the opioid crisis.
The Vermont Drug Task Force has demonstrated that by investing in
heroin task forces we can achieve results. Vermont's heroin
investigations increased by 32 percent thanks to this program. Just
last month 650 bags of heroin were seized through one search warrant in
Montpelier. The Anti-Heroin Task Force program is working. It is making
a real difference in Vermont.
What commitments will the Department make to help State and local
law enforcement agencies that are in dire need of resources to combat
the opioid epidemic?
Answer. The fiscal year 2018 budget request includes $40.4 million
in additional funding for DEA prescription opioid and heroin
enforcement programs. This will allow DEA to expand funding for its
``360 Strategy,'' enhance operations against the domestic cartels
responsible for drug distribution in our communities, enhance and
establish regulatory and enforcement groups in the Diversion Control
Program, and increase funding for its prescription drug disposal
programs.
To ensure a streamlined effort throughout the Federal Government to
combat this epidemic and to avoid duplicative efforts, no funding is
requested in fiscal year 2018 by the COPS Office for this program. By
redirecting this funding, the Department will be able to increase
resources to support other critical initiatives.
office of legal counsel memo
Question 2. On May 1, the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion asserting that the Department is under
no legal obligation to respond to oversight requests from minority
members of Congress. The opinion indicates that responding to requests
from individual members of Congress, including Ranking Minority
members, is discretionary. This is a flawed opinion and falls grossly
short of the Departments responsibilities to Congress. Senator Grassley
aptly described the memo as ``nonsense.'' Will you rescind the May 1,
2017, OLC memo?
Answer. In a July 12 letter to Senator Grassley, the nominee for
the position of the Assistant Attorney General for OLC stated that, if
confirmed, he will review the May 1 opinion.163 Cong. Rec S4079 (daily
ed. July 19, 2017). The letter opinion does not purport to state the
administration's policy about responding to requests for information
from individual members of Congress. That policy is stated in a July 20
letter to Senator Grassley from the White House Director of Legislative
Affairs, which explains: ``The administration's policy is to respect
the rights of all individual Members, regardless of party affiliation,
to request information about Executive Branch policies and programs.
The administration will use its best efforts to be as timely and
responsive as possible in answering such requests consistent with the
need to prioritize requests from congressional Committees, with
applicable resource constraints, and with any legitimate
confidentiality or other institutional interest of the Executive
Branch.'' See http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/white-house-to-
grassley_-oversight-requests.
forensics
Question 3. I have long been concerned about the state of forensic
science in the United States, and am eager to ensure that our criminal
justice system--our courts, law enforcement, forensic laboratories,
prosecutors, defendants, and all other stakeholders--have the strongest
and most reliable tools to use in the pursuit of justice. This is an
area where the Department of Justice has a critical role to play. I
hope this issue will be a priority, despite the Attorney General not
renewing the charter of the National Commission on Forensic Science.
The Attorney General has indicated he will appoint a Senior Forensic
Advisor.
a. Have you determined who will be appointed to lead the
Department's forensic science work?
b. Is there a timeline?
c. If no individual has been appointed, will the Department
commit to seek meaningful input on the selection from relevant
stakeholders in the forensic science community, including scientists,
crime lab leaders, law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, and defense
lawyers?
Answer. Forensic science is an important issue, and the Department
remains committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system has the
strongest and most reliable tools to use in the pursuit of justice. The
Department recently announced the selection of Ted Hunt as Senior
Advisor on Forensics. On forensic issues, the Department continues to
seek input from a variety of stakeholders in the forensic science
community, including scientists, crime laboratory leaders, law
enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. The
Department recently published a Federal Register Notice seeking public
comment on moving forward to advance forensic science. That notice
closed on June 9, and the Department received more than 250 comments
from a wide range of individuals and organizations. The Department is
currently in the process of reviewing these comments. In addition, in
August, the Department will hold the first of several ``listening
sessions'' as part of its effort to assess the needs of the forensic
science community.
bureau of prisons
Staffing
Question 4(a). The President's proposed budget calls for
eliminating nearly 1,848 prison guards (a 9 percent reduction) and more
than 6,000 program and administrative staff (a 14 percent reduction) at
the BOP. Yet high-security prisons today are filled to 125 percent of
capacity, and medium-security facilities are at 120 percent of
capacity. This overcrowding presents dangers to guards and inmates
alike and limits BOP's ability to provide rehabilitative programming to
prisoners, increasing the likelihood of recidivism and endangering the
public.
a. How much do you anticipate that the proposed BOP staff cuts
would increase the guard to prisoner ratio?
Answer. BOP will reduce staffing levels in fiscal year 2018 and
anticipates a modest increase in the inmate population, but BOP does
not expect any real impact on the inmate-to-officer ratio. The majority
of the FTE reduction (5,156 positions) represent unfunded, hollow FTE
and therefore do not have a direct impact on BOP's workforce.
Question 4(b). How much do you anticipate such cuts would decrease
programming and increase recidivism rates?
Answer. BOP is not projecting a decrease in programming and
continues to focus on re-entry efforts to combat recidivism rates.
Question 4(c). How do you justify these staffing cuts and their
consequences, and what precautions is the Justice Department prepared
to put in place to ensure that the safety of staff, prisoners, and the
public is preserved?
Answer. The administration's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget for
BOP would eliminate 6,241 positions from BOP, of which 5,156 are
currently vacant and have been unfunded for many years. The proposal to
cut an additional 1,085 positions was made to promote efficiency in
light of the declining inmate population and consequent decline in
institution overcrowding from 36 percent at the end of fiscal year 2013
to the current level of 14 percent.
Population Increase
Question 5(a). The President's budget projects a 4,000-person
growth in population at the BOP in fiscal year 2018. Furthermore,
Attorney General Sessions' May 10, 2017, memo that directing Federal
prosecutors to pursue the most severe penalties possible, including
mandatory minimum sentences, will only serve to drive up the Federal
prison population. Yet high-security prisons today are filled to 125
percent of capacity, and medium-security facilities are at 120 percent
of capacity. DOJ's Office of the Inspector General consistently lists
in its annual report, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing
the Department of Justice, the management of an overcrowded Federal
Prison System in an era of limited budgets and continuing security
concerns in its annual report.
a. How is BOP going to handle the growth in the prison population
and the increase in overcrowding that it is likely to produce?
Answer. The Federal prison population has declined since the end of
fiscal year 2013, and this decline is projected to continue into fiscal
year 2017. At the end of fiscal year 2013, the BOP population was
219,298 inmates and as of July 6, 2017 the population stands at
187,373--a decline of 31,925 inmates, or nearly 15 percent. Also, BOP's
institution overcrowding level has decreased from 36 percent system-
wide at the end of fiscal year 2013 to the current level of 14 percent.
The population is projected to increase by 2.2 percent in fiscal year
2018 to 191,493 inmates; however, BOP will have enough capacity to
absorb this population increase.
Question 5(b). What will this prison population growth cost the
Justice Department and taxpayers?
Answer. BOP's overall per capita cost to incarcerate an inmate is
$34,704 annually. The Bureau is projecting an increase of 4,171 inmates
in fiscal year 2018. This would cost $144.8 million annually.
Question 5(c). What is the Justice Department doing to cover those
increased costs?
Answer. Most of these costs in fiscal year 2018 would be absorbed
through attrition and administrative savings.
Second Chance Act
Question 6(a). The administration's proposal reduces Second Chance
Act grants that help government agencies and nonprofit groups provide
employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, housing, and family
counseling for those who have been released from prison by 25 percent.
These programs reduce recidivism rates and thus help to lower prison
populations.
a. Do you believe reducing the prison population in the United
States is a worthy goal for the Department of Justice?
Answer. The Department recognizes the important role of prevention
and reentry efforts in curbing crime and reducing recidivism. Many
programs within the Bureau of Prisons, Community Oriented Policing
Services, Office of Justice Programs, and Office of Violence Against
Women are dedicated to those goals. By supporting these efforts, the
Department seeks to promote the rule of law, advance public safety, and
help keep people from entering the criminal justice system.
Question 6(b). What is the justification for reducing Second Chance
Act grants by $20 million, from $68 million to $48 million?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2018 Budget request needed to
balance its support for reentry programs with the need to increase
investment in initiatives to reduce violent crime and improve law
enforcement officer safety. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) will
work with its Second Chance Act program grantees to focus investment on
proven reentry approaches and seek greater cost efficiencies to help
them make the most of the grant funding available to them. The
Department recognizes the value of reentry programs as a component of
successful violent crime reduction strategies and remains committed to
funding proven reentry programs that improve public safety by reducing
recidivism.
Question 6(c). Does the Justice Department plan to allocate any
other resources to reducing the prison population? If so, through what
programs? If not, why?
Answer. The Department supports a number of crime prevention and
reentry strategies through its grant funding at the Office of Justice
Programs, the Community Oriented Policing Services office, and Office
of Violence Against Women and reentry programs at BOP facilities.
Whether striving to keep kids from joining gangs or helping support
prisoner reentry, these programs aim to keep target populations out of
the criminal justice system.
Question 6(d). What resources (both in total and comparisons to
fiscal year 2017 enacted levels) does the budget include for the Bureau
of Prisons to continue implementing the Second Chance Act?
Answer. The Department of Justice failed to provide the Committee
with a response to this question by the time the record was closed,
which was 125 days after the Department originally received the
question and 95 days after the Committee's requested deadline for a
response.
Compassionate Release
Question 7(a). The Bureau of Prisons expanded the grounds for and
streamlined the process of considering requests for compassionate
release in 2013. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) recommended additional reforms to the compassionate
release program in a review of the program in 2013. In 2016, the U.S.
Sentencing Commission (USSC) amended the criteria for compassionate
release and encouraged the BOP to file a motion for those prisoners who
meet the criteria the USSC identified.
a. What if any steps has BOP taken to implement the OIG and USSC
recommendations?
Answer. In response to the Office of the Inspector General's
recommendations, BOP implemented Program Statement 5050.49,
Compassionate Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures for
Implementation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3582(c)(1)(A) and 4205(g), which
sets forth the criteria by which inmates would be considered for
compassionate release or reduction in sentence (RIS). BOP educates its
inmate population on RIS policy and criteria. BOP makes available
information about RIS to inmates through the electronic law libraries,
electronic bulletin boards and the Admission and Orientation handbook,
which they receive upon admission to correctional facilities. In
addition, BOP provides regular staff training on RIS to ensure that the
policy is being properly applied and staff understand how to assist
inmates with their RIS requests. The Bureau reviewed the U.S.
Sentencing Commission's amendments to the U.S.S.C. Guideline and is
still considering amendments to its RIS policy.
Question 7(b). For those recommendations not met, what is BOP's
plan for meeting them and/or reasons why they cannot be implemented?
Answer. BOP has met the Office of the Inspector General's
recommendations.
Question 7(c). How many prisoners have applied for compassionate
release and how many have been granted and denied during each of the
last 5 years?
Answer. Prior to the implementation of an electronic tracking
system in August 2013 for compassionate release/reduction in sentence
requests, requests that were initiated and denied by the inmate's
institution were not tracked. Since January 2014, the electronic
tracking system shows that BOP has received 3,454 compassionate
release/RIS requests.\1\ During this period of time, BOP has denied
2,190 requests and approved 298 requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This number includes duplicate requests, withdrawn requests,
and requests that were administratively closed due to inmate deaths or
releases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2014............................ 101 approvals
CY 2015............................ 99 approvals
CY 2016............................ 73 approvals
CY 2017............................ 25 approvals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 7(d). For each year for the last 5 years, how many
prisoners have died while their compassionate release requests were
pending, and for each, how much time elapsed between the date the
request was received by the warden and the date of the prisoner's
death?
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2013 Date Received Date of Death Days Elapsed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ 10/7/2013........ 10/9/2013....... 2
2................ 11/6/2013........ 11/15/2013...... 9
3................ 11/15/2013....... 11/29/2013...... 14
4................ 10/9/2013........ 10/25/2013...... 16
5................ 9/19/2013........ 10/12/2013...... 23
6................ 9/16/2013........ 10/11/2013...... 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2014 Date Received Date of Death Days Elapsed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ 12/29/2014....... 12/30/2014...... 1
2................ 2/19/2014........ 2/20/2014....... 1
3................ 4/21/2014........ 4/24/2014....... 3
4................ 6/20/2014........ 6/24/2014....... 4
5................ 2/23/2014........ 3/1/2014........ 6
6................ 3/26/2014........ 4/2/2014........ 7
7................ 8/7/2014......... 8/14/2014....... 7
8................ 11/7/2014........ 11/17/2014...... 10
9................ 2/25/2014........ 3/9/2014........ 12
10............... 8/18/2014........ 9/2/2014........ 15
11............... 2/10/2014........ 2/25/2014....... 15
12............... 3/25/2014........ 4/16/2014....... 22
13............... 2/18/2014........ 3/15/2014....... 25
14............... 11/20/2014....... 12/18/2014...... 28
15............... 4/3/2014......... 5/5/2014........ 32
16............... 3/19/2014........ 4/22/2014....... 34
17............... 7/14/2014........ 9/8/2014........ 56
18............... 7/30/2014........ 10/1/2014....... 63
19............... 8/4/2014......... 11/24/2014...... 112
20............... 4/30/2014........ 9/29/2014....... 152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2015 Date Received Date of Death Days Elapsed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ 12/15/2015....... 12/16/2015...... 1
2................ 12/15/2015....... 12/18/2015...... 3
3................ 6/11/2015........ 7/21/2015....... 40
4................ 9/13/2013........ 10/16/2015...... 763
5................ 1/21/2015........ 3/25/2015....... 63
6................ 1/13/2015........ 2/7/2015........ 25
7................ 3/13/2015........ 6/28/2015....... 107
8................ 5/11/2015........ 6/8/2015........ 28
9................ 9/24/2015........ 10/9/2015....... 15
10............... 2/6/2015......... 3/3/2015........ 25
11............... 7/24/2015........ 10/22/2015...... 90
12............... 9/8/2015......... 9/25/2015....... 17
13............... 9/9/2015......... 11/19/2015...... 71
14............... 7/9/2014......... 1/2/2015........ 177
15............... 7/2/2015......... 7/29/2015....... 27
16............... 1/8/2015......... 3/18/2015....... 69
17............... 5/8/2015......... 9/20/2015....... 135
18............... 8/7/2015......... 10/16/2015...... 70
19............... 11/12/2013....... 1/15/2015....... 429
20............... 8/18/2014........ 1/9/2015........ 144
21............... 12/8/2014........ 4/2/2015........ 115
22............... 12/2/2014........ 9/27/2015....... 299
23............... 8/4/2014......... 1/18/2015....... 167
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2016 Date Received Date of Death Days Elapsed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ 12/12/2016....... 12/14/2016...... 2
2................ 11/29/2016....... 12/2/2016....... 3
3................ 3/1/2016......... 3/7/2016........ 6
4................ 7/8/2016......... 7/17/2016....... 9
5................ 6/8/2016......... 6/18/2016....... 10
6................ 3/8/2016......... 3/29/2016....... 21
7................ 7/12/2016........ 8/2/2016........ 21
8................ 3/14/2016........ 4/7/2016........ 24
9................ 1/8/2016......... 2/5/2016........ 28
10............... 3/8/2016......... 4/7/2016........ 30
11............... 11/29/2016....... 12/31/2016...... 32
12............... 9/13/2016........ 10/17/2016...... 34
13............... 8/19/2016........ 9/25/2016....... 37
14............... 2/18/2016........ 3/30/2016....... 41
15............... 11/14/2016....... 12/31/2016...... 47
16............... 6/21/2016........ 8/7/2016........ 47
17............... 9/16/2016........ 11/18/2016...... 63
18............... 9/9/2016......... 12/3/2016....... 85
19............... 7/25/2016........ 10/20/2016...... 87
20............... 3/8/2016......... 6/24/2016....... 108
21............... 1/28/2016........ 10/17/2016...... 263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2017 Date Received Date of Death Days Elapsed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ 1/6/2017......... 1/7/2017........ 1
2................ 6/15/2017........ 6/18/2017....... 3
3................ 4/18/2017........ 4/24/2017....... 6
4................ 3/5/2017......... 3/12/2017....... 7
5................ 4/5/2017......... 4/15/2017....... 10
6................ 1/20/2017........ 2/1/2017........ 12
7................ 2/2/2017......... 2/17/2017....... 15
8................ 5/26/2017........ 6/14/2017....... 19
9................ 5/4/2017......... 6/1/2017........ 28
10............... 11/16/2016....... 1/23/2017....... 68
11............... 10/18/2016....... 1/5/2017........ 79
12............... 4/15/2016........ 7/7/2017........ 448
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 7(e). How many Federal prisoners are currently
incarcerated who might be eligible for compassionate release?
Answer. Under BOP policy, Program Statement 5050.49, Compassionate
Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures for Implementation of 18
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3582(c)(1)(A) and 4205(g), inmates may seek a
compassionate release/RIS under one of the following criteria: Terminal
Medical Condition, Debilitated Medical Condition, Elderly Inmates with
Medical Conditions, ``New Law'' Elderly Inmates, Other Elderly Inmates,
Death or Incapacitation of the Family Member Caregiver, and
Incapacitation of a Spouse or Registered Partner. An inmate may be
eligible for consideration based on several of the criteria, or may
become eligible due to a currently unknown change in personal
circumstances. As such, BOP is unable to speculate on the number of
inmates who may be eligible for a compassionate release/reduction in
sentence.
Question 7(f). How much money could BOP save if it released them
all?
Answer. BOP is unable to speculate on the number of inmates who may
be eligible for a compassionate release/reduction in sentence;
therefore, this calculation cannot be determined.
Private Prisons
Question 8(a). On April 14, 2017, BOP released a pre-solicitation
notice for the management and operation of a contractor-owned,
contractor-leased correctional facility.
a. How many private facilities does BOP use currently and is there
no space available to house additional inmates at these existing
facilities?
Answer. BOP currently contracts with four providers to manage and
operate eleven secure adult contract facilities. The current capacity
utilization in the private prisons is 94.3 percent.
Question 8(b). What is the estimated cost of a project like this?
Answer. The estimated cost of a solicitation will depend on the
number of beds contracted. For example, a 1,800-bed contract can
average approximately $445 million for a ten-year period. For a 9,540-
bed contract, the cost can average approximately $2.4 billion for a
ten-year period and involve multiple vendors.
Question 8(c). How many more beds does the BOP need?
Answer. BOP is not seeking to increase the number of contract beds
in privately managed secure facilities. However, BOP is seeking to
replace existing contracts that are expiring. The net number of
contract beds, however, will not change.
Question 8(d). Are private prisons that contract with the Federal
Government required to operate under the same laws, rules, and
regulations as federally-owned and operated prisons? If not, how are
they regulated differently and why are they regulated differently?
Answer. Both BOP-owned facilities and private prisons with whom BOP
contracts are required to maintain accreditation by the American
Correctional Association (ACA), maintain PREA certification, and be
certified by an accredited Health Care Organization. In addition, both
BOP facilities and private prisons with whom the BOP contracts are
required to adhere to all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations governing a correctional environment.
Question 8(e). How does the Department justify its belief that
contract prisons offer appropriate health and correctional services and
are safe and secure places to house Federal inmates?
Answer. BOP has taken steps to enhance safety, security, and
programming at private contract prisons by significantly strengthening
its Oversight Checklist and other tools used to monitor, track, and
evaluate contractor performance. This includes enhanced reviews in
staffing requirements, food service, transfer requests, inmate appeal
rights, correctional services, and safety. In addition, BOP has
heightened reporting procedures to require that contractors provide
greater detail regarding safety and security information in a manner
conducive to trend analysis and comparative reviews. BOP has also
improved monitoring of healthcare programming by adding an additional
subject-matter expert to the monitoring team, which has developed a
system for enhanced tracking of routine medical services. Going
forward, the BOP will carefully review this enhanced information and
its updated inspection tools on a regular basis to ensure the contract
prisons' ongoing effectiveness.
fighting violent crime
Question 9(a). The Department of Justice requests $19 million to
implement the recommendations of the Attorney General's Task Force on
Crime Reduction and Public Safety. From what I understand, the Task
Force has met only once for an introductory meeting.
a. What, if any, recommendations has the Task Force put forward?
Answer. The internal Department of Justice Task Force has been
providing initial recommendations to the Attorney General on a rolling
basis. The Attorney General has been acting on the Task Force's
recommendations to set the policies of the Department, and I expect he
will continue to do so and will take additional steps to ensure safer
communities for all Americans. Some of the directives issued by the
Attorney General with Task Force input include: the March 8th Attorney
General memorandum directing all Federal prosecutors to investigate,
prosecute, and deter the most violent offenders that wreak havoc in our
communities; the series of announcements in April regarding forensic
science initiatives--including the appointment of a senior forensic
science advisor; and the series of initiatives also announced in April
to support law enforcement and maintain public safety in Indian
Country, including expansion of a program that gives Tribes access to
national crime information databases.
Question 9(b). If the recommendations are not yet finalized, how
did the Department or administration arrive at the $19 million figure?
Answer. The Department's Budget request includes $19 million for
230 additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys to address violent crime across
the country. The Department reviewed historical violent crime data as
well as FBI crime report statistics to prepare the budget. The
Department of Justice is committed to reducing violent crime and making
America safe. Accordingly, the additional Assistant United States
Attorneys will prosecute all types of violent crime, including hate
crimes. The specific types of cases they will focus on will depend on
numerous factors, including the unique public safety issues in the
individual districts in which they work. The Department is committed to
the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, which is a very
important part of addressing public safety and crime reduction.
Question 9(c). How will the Task Force move forward on these
recommendations, and when can we expect those final recommendations?
Answer. The Task Force has provided the Attorney General with
initial recommendations on a rolling basis. The Attorney General has
been acting on the Task Force's recommendations to set the policy of
the Department, and I expect he will continue to do so and take
additional steps to ensure safer communities for all Americans.
Question 9(d). The Attorney General has already made decisions that
will have a significant impact on our criminal justice system and
prison population without input from the Task Force, such as rescinding
the Obama administration's Smart on Crime policy. What role will the
Task Force play in the Department's decisionmaking?
Answer. See response to question 9(c).
fbi headquarters
Question 10(a). The fiscal year 2017 Consolidated Appropriations
Act included $323 million, which is half of what the FBI requested in
fiscal year 2017 to consolidate the FBI headquarters. It also provided
$200 million to GSA for the project. However, the Trump
administration's budget proposal neither funds the other half of the
FBI's or GSA's request nor rescinds the fiscal year 2017 headquarter
funding. With the lack of full funding in fiscal year 2017 and no
requested funds in fiscal year 2018, no contract may be awarded for the
project and the FBI and GSA cannot announce a location. The project
could be stalled until fiscal year 2019 or even cancelled without
sufficient resources. Not only could this cost American taxpayers
upwards of $150 million in total, preventable damages if the bidders
file protest lawsuits, but would also leave the FBI workforce currently
dispersed throughout the National Capital region without the
operational work environment necessary for the FBI to be successful in
performing its national security, intelligence, and criminal
investigative missions.
a. Is the new FBI headquarters project still a priority for the
Department of Justice in fiscal year 2018?
Answer. Yes, the need for a facility that meets FBI mission
requirements has not abated. While the procurement was canceled by GSA,
the project itself has not been canceled.
Question 10(b). If the new FBI headquarters remains a priority for
the Department, does the President intend to submit a budget amendment
to Congress to request those funds in fiscal year 2018?
Answer. The Department is not aware of whether the President
intends to submit a budget amendment to Congress to request additional
funds for a new FBI Headquarters in fiscal year 2018.
youth mentoring
Question 11(a). Creating and maintaining safe and healthy
communities cannot be achieved by law enforcement alone. Outreach,
engagement, training and technical assistance, and prevention efforts
are critical components of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency
Prevention's (OJJDP) important work. The Youth Mentoring Grants
program, for example, funds quality direct-service mentoring grantees
serving at-risk and high-risk youth across the country. Through quality
practice, mentoring can transform the trajectory of a young person's
life by leading them away from negative behaviors like missing school,
drug use or joining gangs and toward positive outcomes like increased
academic achievement, leadership and investment in their communities.
The President's budget includes $58 million for youth mentoring.
Effective and well-known nonprofits, like Boys & Girls Clubs of
America, National 4-H Council, YMCA of the USA and others have been
recent grantees of the OJJDP youth mentoring grant. These organizations
are serving at-risk and high-risk young people in their communities,
including Tribal communities and other underrepresented youth,
supporting and guiding them to lead successful and productive lives.
The data around quality mentoring's effectiveness is compelling. At-
risk youth with mentors are 55 percent more likely to enroll in college
and 46 percent less likely to use drugs.
a. Can you speak to the importance of this work and how the
Department of Justice will continue prevention and intervention
activities for young people given the reduction in youth mentoring
grants?
Answer. Mentoring is one of Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) most significant initiatives. Youth
mentoring is a process in which consistent, positive relationships
between a youth and an adult (or older peer) support the development of
the youth. Research indicates that well-implemented mentoring can be a
useful strategy in reducing delinquent behaviors in at-risk youth and
promoting positive outcomes across social, emotional, behavioral and
academic areas of youth development. Mentoring minimizes the likelihood
that youth will participate in criminal activity and helps youth
succeed in school, work, and life. OJJDP's Youth Mentoring Program
works to improve academic performance, reduce juvenile delinquency and
gang participation, and reduce school dropout rates.
In addition to mentoring, OJJDP also supports prevention and early
interventions in addition to mentoring, and many of these activities
also work directly with at-risk and high risk youth. The focus of these
programs is to reduce negative behaviors (such as drug involvement,
gang participation, and school truancy), while strengthening and
positive behaviors (improvements in school attendance and achievement).
The long-term goal is to prevent youth from becoming involved in
criminal activity or, for those who may already be involved, to prevent
further involvement. The modest decrease in mentoring funding will not
hinder OJJDP's ability to continue supporting prevention and early
intervention activities in communities nationwide. Examples of OJJDP
prevention and early intervention programs that have increases in the
budget proposal include the Part B: Formula Grant program (increase of
$3 million over fiscal year 17 enacted levels), Title V: Delinquency
Prevention, which includes incentive grants for states ($2.5 million
increase), and the carve-out for the Gang and Youth Violence Prevention
and Intervention Program ($1 million increase). It should be noted that
both the Part B: Formula Grant program and Title V State Incentive
Grant Program include a purpose area entitled ``Mentoring, Counseling,
and Training Programs (Purpose Area 13).''
Question 11(b). How is the prevention work through OJJDP supporting
the goals of the Department? How will the Department continue its
important work in this area if the proposed reduction in resources is
implemented?
Answer. OJJDP's prevention activities--including youth mentoring--
support the Department's goal of reducing violence and crime.
Accordingly, the Department remains committed to providing funding to
State, local, community, and national organizations to enhance and
expand quality mentoring services for at-risk and high-risk
populations.
While the Department remains committed to the goals of its Youth
Mentoring program, this commitment must be balanced with the need to
fund a variety of other State, local, and Tribal justice assistance
priorities. The modest proposed decrease in the Youth Mentoring program
will enable the Office of Justice Programs to redirect funding to other
important priorities such as addressing violent crime, improving
officer safety, and combating illegal immigration. OJJDP will work with
its grantees to seek greater cost efficiencies and coordination to
ensure that all of its juvenile justice programs operate more cost-
effectively.
voting rights
Question 12(a). The President's May 11, 2017, Executive Order
created a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.
Rather than protecting the right to vote in this country this
commission seems directed at finding cases of voter fraud and
impersonation which are very rare and much less common than voter
disenfranchisement through strict voter ID laws.
a. What role did you and other Justice Department employees play
in writing the May 11 Executive Order?
Answer. I understand that the proposed Executive Order was prepared
by the Office of the Vice President. As with other proposed Executive
Orders, it was referred to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel for review concerning form and legality, which approved it for
form and legality on May 9, 2017.
Question 12(b). Were career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division
consulted? If not, why?
Answer. Consistent with its usual practice, OLC consulted with
other components of the Department of Justice, including the Civil
Rights Division, during the course of its form-and-legality review.
Question 12(c). The Executive Order says the commission ``shall
have staff to provide support for its functions.'' Has the Justice
Department provided any staff to work full- or part-time for the
commission?
Answer. The Department has not, to my knowledge, provided staff
members to support the commission. Section 7(a) of the Executive Order
charges the General Services Administration with providing the
commission with staff.
Question 12(d). Will the commission need congressional
appropriations and if so how much has the administration sought in
funding, whether at DOJ or elsewhere in the executive branch?
Answer. The Department is unaware of whether the Presidential
Advisory Commission on Election Integrity will need congressional
appropriations.
Question 12(e). How much has been spent so far on the commission
and what is its expected budget?
Answer. The Department does not know the answer to this question.
Question 12(f). Do you think the rare incidences of voter fraud and
impersonation merit the creation of this commission?
Answer. Fraudulent voter registration and fraudulent voting are
only a subset of what the commission was established to study. It is
also charged with reporting more broadly about the ``laws, rules,
policies, activities, strategies, and practices'' that either
``enhance'' or ``undermine'' the confidence that the American people
have in ``the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal
elections.''
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
white house contacts
Question 1(a). Former FBI Director Comey testified on June 8, 2017
before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that on at least
four occasions, President Trump contacted the former FBI Director to
ask him about the Russia investigation.
a. Were you aware of President Trump's calls to Director Comey
before Director Comey testified about them? (If so, how and when did
you learn about any of these conversations? What did you know about
each discussion?)
Answer. On May 17, 2017, I appointed Robert S. Mueller III to serve
as Special Counsel to oversee the previously confirmed FBI
investigation of Russian Government efforts to influence the 2016
presidential election and related matters. I am not in a position to
respond further to your question.
Question 1(b). Has President Trump ever contacted you regarding the
Russia investigation? (If so, when and what was discussed?)
Answer. See response to question 1(a).
Question 1(c). Are you aware of any other Justice Department
officials whom the President has contacted regarding the Russia
investigation? (If so, who did the President contact and when did that
occur?)
Answer. See response to question 1(a).
responding to congressional (minority) requests
Question 2(a). On May 1, 2017, the Justice Department's Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a letter opinion for the counsel to the
president titled ``Authority of Individual Members of Congress to
Conduct Oversight of the Executive Branch.'' In that letter opinion,
the OLC took the position that ``individual members of Congress,
including ranking minority members, do not have the authority to
conduct oversight in the absence of a specific delegation by a full
house, committee, or subcommittee.''
According to the Office of Legal Counsel, the executive branch is
not obligated to answer my requests or those of my Democratic
colleagues. This is unacceptable. As elected officials of a co-equal
branch of government, we have constitutional authority to conduct
oversight of the executive branch.
a. Is it your view that the administration has no legal obligation
to respond to requests that do not come from a committee chairman?
Answer. The letter opinion does not purport to state the
administration's policy about responding to requests for information
from individual members of Congress. That policy is stated in a July
20, 2017, letter to Senator Grassley from the White House Director of
Legislative Affairs, which explains: ``The administration's policy is
to respect the rights of all individual Members, regardless of party
affiliation, to request information about Executive Branch policies and
programs. The administration will use its best efforts to be as timely
and responsive as possible in answering such requests consistent with
the need to prioritize requests from congressional Committees, with
applicable resource constraints, and with any legitimate
confidentiality or other institutional interest of the Executive
Branch.'' See http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/white-house-to-
grassley-oversight-requests. The legal analysis in the OLC letter
opinion is consistent with the discussions of these issues by the
Congressional Research Service in the Congressional Oversight Manual
(at pages 56 and 65 of the December 19, 2014 edition).
Question 2(b). During your confirmation process, you said that you
would ``make every effort to answer [our] questions fully and
quickly.'' Do you still intend to do so? If not, why not? What changed?
Answer. Yes, I intend to respond consistently with the policy
quoted in the response to question 2(a).
Question 2(c). Will you make sure that all components of the
Justice Department are instructed to answer requests from Congress,
even those that are not from a committee chairman? (If not, why not?)
Answer. Yes. The Department will follow the policy quoted in the
response to question 2(a).
emoluments lawsuits
Question 3(a). President Trump has been sued for possible violation
of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which prohibits Federal
officeholders from accepting gifts or payments from foreign and U.S.
governments. (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v.
Donald J. Trump, No. 17 Civ. 458, SDNY (2017).) The Justice Department
is defending the President in this suit.
This case raises a number of novel questions, including how to
interpret and apply the emoluments clauses of the Constitution and the
import of the President's refusal to divest his business holdings prior
to taking office. The Department of Justice represents the United
States--not any single person or party--and it is important to ensure
that the Department is not elevating President Trump's personal
interests over those of the country.
a. Is there an independent team of career lawyers within the
Department who have been assigned to determine and present the position
of the United States, apart from that of the President? If not, why
not? If so, who does this team report to and how is their view being
presented to the court?
Answer. The CREW v. Trump case, as well as two other cases raising
similar challenges under the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the
Constitution, are assigned to career attorneys in the Federal Programs
Branch of the Civil Division. These attorneys have primary
responsibility for presenting the Government's position in court
filings. The career attorneys report to and are subject to the
supervision of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Federal
Programs Branch, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Division, and ultimately the Attorney General.
Question 3(b). What has been done to determine whether there are
conflicts between the best interests of President Trump and those of
the United States? How are any conflicts being resolved?
Answer. Pursuant to its statutory obligation set forth in 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 516, the Department of Justice represents the President in his
official capacity and defends the Office of the President in the
interest of the United States. The Department does not represent the
private business interests of President Trump in the lawsuits
challenging the President's compliance with the Foreign Emoluments
Clause.
Question 3(c). The foreign emoluments clause prohibits the
acceptance of presents, emoluments, offices or titles ``without the
consent of Congress.'' How is the Justice Department accounting for the
interests of Congress in these lawsuits?
Answer. The Congress is not a defendant in this litigation.
Nevertheless, in representing the interests of the President of the
United States, the Department advances arguments that it believes are
consistent with a faithful interpretation of the Constitution,
including the Foreign Emoluments Clause at issue in these cases.
Question 3(d). Please explain why this suit is not being handled by
President Trump's private lawyers.
Answer. By statute, the Department of Justice is responsible for
the conduct of litigation in which an officer of the United States is a
party. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 516 provides: ``Except as otherwise authorized by
law, the conduct of litigation in which the United States, an agency,
or officer thereof is a party . . . is reserved to officers of the
Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General.''
That is, unless otherwise authorized by law, ``only attorneys of the
Department of Justice under the supervision of the Attorney General may
represent the United States or its agencies or officers in
litigation.'' United States Attorneys' Manual 4-1.100. The various
suits filed against the President concerning his alleged violation of
the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution are brought against
him in his official capacity as President. Although the suit implicates
the President's private business interests, the lawsuit puts at issue
whether the President, as a holder of an ``Office of Profit or Trust,''
is in compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The Department of
Justice therefore is properly representing the President in his
official capacity in this litigation.
Question 3(e). Have you recused yourself from this lawsuit? (If
not, why not--and have you obtained the opinion of Department ethics
experts?)
Answer. No. I know of no basis to recuse myself from participation
in representing the President in his official capacity, which is the
Department's responsibility in every administration.
Question 3(f). Has Attorney General Sessions recused himself from
the lawsuit (If not, why not and has he obtained the opinion of
Department ethics experts?)
Answer. The Attorney General has not recused himself from the
Emoluments Clause litigation.
role in comey firing
Question 4(a). You acknowledged when you briefed the Senate on May
18, 2017 (and the House on May 19) that you knew the President was
going to fire Director Comey when you wrote your May 9 memo about
Director Comey's public mishandling of the Clinton email investigation.
a. Did you tell the President to fire Director Comey?
Answer. It is the prerogative of the President to decide which
political appointees to retain and which to remove. The memorandum I
wrote speaks for itself.
Question 4(b). Why did you agree to write the memo knowing that the
President had already made the decision to fire Director Comey?
Answer. On May 17, 2017, I appointed Robert S. Mueller III to serve
as Special Counsel to oversee the previously confirmed FBI
investigation of Russian Government efforts to influence the 2016
presidential election and related matters. I am not in a position to
respond further to your question.
Question 4(c). Did you ever discuss Director Comey's handling of
the Russia investigation, including investigation of Michael Flynn,
with the President? With White House Counsel Don McGahn? If so, when
did these conversations take place?
Answer. See response to question 4(b).
appointment of special counsel mueller
Question 5(a). On May 17, 2017, you appointed Robert S. Mueller III
to serve as Special Counsel to conduct the investigation into Russian
interference in the 2016 election, including any links/and or
coordination between the Russian Government and Trump campaign as well
as ``any matters that arose or may arise directly from the
investigation.'' (Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Order No.
3915-2017, May 17, 2017) The order that you signed appointing Mr.
Mueller makes him subject to 28 CFR Sec. Sec. 600.4 through 600.10.
28 CFR 600.7(b) makes clear that Mr. Mueller ``shall not be subject
to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department.'' It
does not otherwise explain, however, who, when, and under what
circumstances Mr. Mueller will report to or discuss the investigation
with Department officials.
a. Who does Mr. Mueller report to and under what circumstances?
Answer. Please see the Department's Special Counsel regulations at
28 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 600.6 (Powers and Authority) and 600.7 (Conduct and
Accountability).
Question 5(b). What is your role with regard to the Special
Counsel? For example, Section 600.7(b) authorizes you--because of the
Attorney General's recusal--to request an explanation of ``any
investigative or prosecutorial step.'' What is the process for
requesting these explanations, and how are the requests and
explanations documented?
Answer. I have an appropriate level of interaction with the Special
Counsel's Office consistent with the regulations and will maintain
sufficient documentation to ensure the ability to comply with the
reporting requirement in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600.9(a)(3) if that provision
is implicated.
Question 5(c). 28 CFR 600.9(a)(3) requires notification to Congress
of ``instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a
proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or
unwarranted under established Department practices that it should not
be pursued.'' The regulations require this notification at the
conclusion of the Special Counsel's investigation.
If Special Counsel Muller does not object on the grounds that
earlier disclosure would adversely affect legitimate investigative or
privacy concerns, will you commit to notifying Congress within 30 days
(rather than only at the close of the overall investigation) of any
instances that trigger this reporting requirement?
Answer. It would not be appropriate for me to make such a
commitment.
unsustainable prison costs
Question 6(a). Mr. Rosenstein, your Department's Budget requests
$8.2 billion for Prisons and Detention Operations, which represents 30
percent of the Department's total budget, up from 29 percent in the
fiscal year 2017 enacted bill.
The Attorney General recently issued a charging memorandum to all
Federal prosecutors, directing them to charge all of their cases with
the most punitive chargeable offense. This change in policy takes
discretion away from prosecutors, and I worry that it could lead to
even higher prison costs in the future.
a. Do you believe that the continued growth of prison and
detention operations is sustainable going forward?
Answer. Maintaining public safety and reducing crime are at the
core of the Department's mission and the facilities of the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) are critical to that mission. This budget ensures that
BOP will have the resources it needs to safely and securely manage our
Federal inmate population while the Department continues its work to
reduce violent crime and keep our communities safe.
Question 6(b). How do you expect that this recent policy change
will affect future resource requirements for the Bureau of Prisons and
Marshals Service?
Answer. BOP has projected an increase in its prison population for
fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 and does not anticipate a
significant impact on resources due to increased enforcement efforts at
this time. BOP will continue to monitor the inmate population level and
work with the Department to ensure adequate resources for the safe and
secure operations of its facilities.
The United States Marshals Service (USMS) and the Department will
continue to analyze the impact of these policies. At the beginning of
May 2017, the overall number of prisoners in USMS custody was 48,213,
the lowest population since January 2004. Since May 2017, the USMS has
seen a slight increase in offenders. However, it is too early to know
for certain how the policy changes will affect future resource
requirements.
the dark web and drug trafficking
Question 7. Last weekend, the New York Times ran a tragic piece
about the use of the dark web by drug traffickers and other criminal
enterprises to secretly do business with users.
The problem of criminals using the ``dark web'' to conceal their
tracks and traffic their goods is a problem that is only going to grow
in the coming years.
How does the Department plan to address the use of the dark web to
apprehend and stop those who are engaged in criminal activity?
Answer. The New York Times article illustrated one aspect of how
criminals across the world have abused the dark web to traffic in
dangerous contraband and sell services that threaten public safety. In
addition to selling fentanyl and other deadly opioids, criminals are
exploiting the dark web to offer illegal goods from child exploitation
materials to weapons of mass destruction and to offer illegal services
ranging from computer hacking services to murder for hire. Criminal
activity on or enabled by the dark web is increasing in sophistication.
As part of this maturation, the dark web now offers professionalized
hacking services and products that are reliable, tailored to cyber
criminals' specific needs, and even supported by demonstration sites
and online support.
The widespread availability of easy-to-use anonymizing technologies
has allowed less sophisticated criminals to conceal their identity and
conduct from law enforcement. Dark markets operating on such networks
have made it too easy to commit a crime and too hard to investigate
such crime. At the same time, the increasing use of virtual currencies,
along with potential benefits, gives criminals sophisticated, and
anonymity-protecting, financial tools to buy and sell illicit goods and
services, as well as to receive payments extorted from ransomware
victims, without the direct attribution that comes with using
traditional financial systems.
To combat criminals' use of the dark web, the Department
aggressively pursues multiple lines of effort. Investigators with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, and
numerous other Federal law enforcement agencies work tirelessly to
locate the servers hosting criminal marketplaces that operate on the
dark web, the administrators who operate those marketplaces, and the
vendors who sell narcotics, other contraband, and illegal services.
Likewise, investigators are working with interagency partners to share
information about and disrupt dark web-enabled criminal operations. We
also collaborate heavily with cybersecurity firms and other private-
sector entities to better understand the infrastructure and technology
that criminals exploit. This includes gaining a better understanding of
how to track their use of virtual currencies and how to counter
malicious software used in ransomware schemes. The Department also
researches technological solutions that would enable investigators to
identify and locate criminals who abuse anonymizing technologies. In
addition, we work closely with Congress to identify legislative
solutions that would provide investigators with the most up-to-date
legal authorities and resources to overcome the substantial technical
challenges they face in tracking down and arresting cyber criminals.
A global problem like criminals' exploitation of the dark web
requires a global response. Accordingly, the Department partners
closely with law enforcement agencies in countries around the world, as
well as regional entities including Europol, Eurojust, and the European
Cybercrime Center. We are stationing prosecutors and agents called
Cyber Resident Legal Advisors (RLAs) and Cyber Assistant Legal Attaches
(ALATs) to foreign countries to collaborate with key partner
governments on operations, to provide training to regional law
enforcement authorities, and to help facilitate information sharing.
Despite the challenges we face, law enforcement authorities have
achieved numerous successes in our efforts to combat dark web criminal
activity. These include:
--AlphaBay: On July 20, 2017, the Department announced the seizure of
AlphaBay, the largest criminal marketplace on the Internet.
Vendors on AlphaBay sold illegal drugs, stolen and fraudulent
identification documents and access devices, counterfeit goods,
malware and other computer hacking tools, firearms, and toxic
chemicals to buyers throughout the world. At the time of
takedown, there were over 250,000 listings for illegal drugs
and toxic chemicals on AlphaBay, and over 100,000 listings for
stolen and fraudulent identification documents and access
devices, counterfeit goods, malware and other computer hacking
tools, firearms and fraudulent services. Authorities also
believe the site was used to launder hundreds of millions of
dollars deriving from illegal transactions on the website. The
United States led the international effort to take down
AlphaBay, working in cooperation with law enforcement
authorities in Thailand, the Netherlands, Canada, Lithuania,
the United Kingdom and Romania. The takedown of AlphaBay,
combined with the Dutch National Police's takeover and eventual
closure of Hansa Market at the same time was the most recent
strike by international law enforcement to the dark market
community.
--The recent indictment of BTC-e and its operator, Alexander Vinnik,
is an example of the Department's efforts to shut down dark web
criminals' ability to monetize their crimes through entities
that facilitate money laundering. Payments on the dark web are
made through digital currencies, such as Bitcoin. Criminals
rely on money-laundering exchanges to convert those digital
currencies into U.S. dollars. On July 26, 2017, the Department
announced an indictment against BTC-e and Vinnik for operating
an unlicensed money-service business, money laundering, and
related crimes.
--Operation Torpedo: This precedent-setting investigation, which
began in late 2011, used first-of-their-kind techniques to
infiltrate the dark web and identify individuals who secretly
congregated to trade unspeakable images of children being
sexually abused and to celebrate the sexual abuse of children.
Acting on lead information from the National High Tech Crime
Unit of the Dutch National Police, FBI investigators were able
to identify for the first time members of three websites
devoted to child pornography that were operating on the Tor
anonymity network, by developing and deploying a Network
Investigative Technique with appropriate legal authority.
Ultimately, twenty users of those three websites, including the
sites' Omaha-based administrator, were charged with child
pornography offenses in the U.S. District Court in Omaha,
Nebraska, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from
42 months to 25 years of incarceration.
--Through a sweeping multinational effort under an investigation that
began in 2012--in which the Department pooled resources, ran
parallel investigations and shared information in real time
with numerous foreign partners--the Justice Department and EC3
were able to take more than 200 child sexual exploitation
websites offline, derail the activities of tens of thousands of
online producers and traffickers of child pornography, and
prosecute offenders across the world. It was a criminal
investigative effort of unprecedented complexity and technical
sophistication, and it is now a model of operational
coordination for all cross-border investigations.
--Silk Road: In October 2013, Federal law enforcement agents arrested
Ross Ulbricht, the creator and owner of Silk Road, a
sophisticated and sprawling online bazaar, which enabled users
to buy and sell illegal drugs and other contraband and services
anonymously and supposedly beyond the reach of law enforcement.
--Operation Onymous: In November 2014, the Department led a coalition
of international law enforcement agencies in a coordinated
action that seized control of dozens of illicit marketplaces
operating on the dark web, including Silk Road 2.0, a successor
site to Silk Road. The Administrator of Silk Road 2.0 was
arrested and more than 400 web addresses for hidden services
operating using the Tor anonymizing software were seized. This
action disrupted illicit operations that sold illegal
narcotics, stolen credit card data and other personally
identifiable information, counterfeit currency, and hacking
tools and services.
--In early 2015, the Department launched ``Operation Pacifier'',
which involved seizing a particularly notorious child
exploitation site called Playpen, and deploying with lawful
authority a Network Investigative Technique to pierce the
anonymity provided by the Tor network and obtain the IP
addresses of Playpen users. Agents used this information to
arrest at least 350 U.S.-based individuals, which has led to
the prosecution of 25 alleged producers of child pornography
and 51 alleged hands-on abusers of children, as well as the
identification or rescue of 55 American children who were
subjected to sexual abuse. Information shared with our European
partners at EC3 and other foreign partners has led to the
identification or rescue of approximately 300 children
worldwide and nearly 550 international arrests.
--Darkode: In July 2015, an international coalition of 20 nations'
law enforcement forces co-led by the Department and the
European Cybercrime Center (EC3) took down Darkode--an online
underground marketplace where hackers convened to arrange the
purchase, sale, and trade of malicious software, botnets and
other tools designed to facilitate computer intrusions, as well
as stolen personal information obtained through illegal
hacking. This concerted, coordinated effort led to the
charging, arrest, or search of 70 Darkode members and
associates around the world.
--Operation Hyperion: In October 2016, an international coalition of
law enforcement agencies from the United States, the United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand simultaneously took
various actions against criminals who use the dark web. Law
enforcement around the world contacted and interviewed hundreds
of individuals who were identified as sellers or customers
during the Silk Road takeover in 2013 and Operation Onymous in
2014, in an attempt to generate awareness that purchasing
contraband on the dark web is not as anonymous or consequence-
free as some may think.
The successes in combating the dark web are vital. These efforts
enable law enforcement to disrupt illicit commerce in dangerous
contraband and sexual exploitation of children, work to apprehend those
responsible for these sites, and develop information on other websites,
criminals, and criminal organizations. The knowledge we gain from these
investigations helps us create more sophisticated investigative tools
to shine a brighter light into criminal activity on the dark web.
Notwithstanding these successes, it is critical that Congress and
the Department work together to ensure that Federal law enforcement
agencies have sufficient and modern resources and authorities to combat
criminal activity on the dark web.
hate crimes prioritization
Question 8(a). Last month, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing
regarding religious hate crimes. The hearing highlighted the alarming
spike in hate crime incidents since the election last year, including
the notable increase in white supremacist hate groups. The Justice
Department attorney who testified at that hearing committed to taking
Federal action to aggressively prosecute hate crimes. Your Department's
Budget requests $19 million for 230 additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys
to address violent crime across the country.
a. Will these additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys be focusing on
prosecuting hate crimes, particularly since we are seeing an alarming
spike in hate crimes?
Answer. The Department is committed to reducing violent crime and
making America safe. Accordingly, the additional Assistant United
States Attorneys will prosecute all types of violent crime, including
hate crimes. The specific types of cases on which they will focus will
depend on a number of factors, including the unique public safety
issues in the individual districts in which they work. The Department
is committed to the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, which
is an important part of addressing public safety and crime reduction.
Question 8(b). I have heard concerns that witnesses, and victims
themselves, are reluctant to come forward to assist in hate crimes
investigations because of some of the rhetoric that the President and
this administration have used. What is your strategy to make sure that
all witnesses and victims feel safe in reporting hate crimes and other
crimes that DOJ is in charge of investigating and prosecuting?
Answer. The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that all
victims of hate crime feel safe in reporting their offenses to law
enforcement. In April 2017, the Attorney General highlighted the
importance of combating hate crimes by creating a Hate Crimes
Subcommittee as part of the Department's Task Force on Crime Reduction
and Public Safety. The Hate Crimes Subcommittee is composed of subject-
matter experts from the Civil Rights Division, United States Attorney's
Offices, the Criminal Division, FBI, the Community Relations Service,
the Office of Justice Programs, and the Community Oriented Policing
Service office. The Subcommittee is developing recommendations for the
Attorney General on ways to improve reporting, investigation, and
prosecution of hate crimes. As part of this mission, the Subcommittee
held a Hate Crimes Summit on June 29, 2017, where relevant stakeholders
from across the community gathered to develop suggestions for the
Department about ways that the Department might better investigate,
prosecute, and prevent hate crimes before the Subcommittee makes its
recommendation to the Attorney General. At the summit, the Attorney
General said, ``No person should have to fear being violently attacked
because of who they are, what they believe, or how they worship. So I
pledge to you: As long as I am Attorney General, the Department of
Justice will continue to protect the civil rights of all Americans--and
we will not tolerate the targeting of any community in our country.''
This engagement with community leaders and stakeholders on a national
level assures groups that interact with hate crime victims that the
Department is committed to investigating and prosecuting hate crime.
The effort to ensure victims feel safe in reporting hate crime also
involves Federal, State, and local law enforcement organizations as
well as local community groups. To that end, various Department
components engage in educational and outreach efforts throughout the
year for diverse community groups to promote cooperation and reduce
civil rights violations. The United States Attorney's Offices and the
Civil Rights Division regularly engage with community organizations
through national, regional, and local conferences, forums, town halls
and similar events to ensure that communities are aware of the risks
they face, the laws that protect them, and how to report possible hate
crimes. For example, in March 2017, the United States Attorney's Office
in South Dakota--in cooperation with the FBI, the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, and the local sheriff and prosecutor--held a public forum
on hate and bias crimes targeting Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian
communities. The forum featured leaders of the diverse community,
faith-based, and non-profit organizations who participated in
discussions led by a representative from the Department's Community
Relations Service. Further, in May 2017, representatives from the ATF,
United States Attorney's Office, and the Civil Rights Division hosted
an interfaith community forum in Pittsburgh for representatives from
seven houses of worship and the communities they represent. In
addition, currently, approximately one-third of the United States
Attorney's Offices participate in hate crime working groups in their
districts, many of which hold similar events. These local events, where
Department representatives engage with community members, help
strengthen important relationships, encouraging more reporting of a
crime.
Further, in order to support relations between police and
communities, the Department's Community Relations Service facilitates
Hate Crime Prevention and Know Your Rights Forums around the country to
bring community members together with local, State, and Federal law
enforcement partners, as well as with human rights commissions and
organizations that offer resources and services. The forums are
designed to be informative, enable community members to share concerns
and perceptions, and strengthen police-community relations, which can
aid in the investigation of hate crimes when they occur and lead to
more hate crime reporting. In addition, as part of its National
Training Initiative, the FBI conducts hundreds of seminars, workshops,
and training sessions for local law enforcement, minority and religious
organizations, and community groups to promote cooperation, reduce
civil rights abuses, and provide education about civil rights statutes.
The majority of FBI field offices currently participate in local hate
crimes working groups that involve State and local authorities as well.
Addressing hate crimes is a very important part of addressing
public safety, and crime reduction and the Department is working on
various fronts to improve hate crime reporting, investigation, and
prosecution.
Question 8(c). The FBI has collected data on hate crimes since 1990
when Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act. However, it's
becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's tally is incomplete, which
prevents us from understanding the scope and scale of the problem.
While the FBI typically reports 7,000 to 10,000 hate crimes, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that the true number may
approach 300,000, which is approximately 30 times the FBI estimation.
As the Bureau of Justice Statistics report also indicates, the
percentage of religiously motivated hate crimes nearly tripled between
2004 and 2012.
How is DOJ working to account for these discrepancies so that there
is more accurate reporting?
Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) Program's Hate Crime (HC) data collection and the
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) use different methodologies for collecting
hate crime data.
UCR HC collects data on hate crimes reported to law enforcement
(LE). NCVS collects data on hate crime offenses, which are reported and
not reported to LE. Each collection uses different standards for
classifying an incident as a hate crime. The use of hate crime language
reported during an NCVS interview is a qualifying bias indicator. The
same hate crime language used during a UCR HC incident may not show
enough sufficient evidence for a LE investigator to classify the
incident as a hate crime. Additionally, UCR HC incident data are based
on the offender's perception, while NCVS crimes are based on the
victim's perceptions of the offender's motivations.
Throughout 2015, the UCR Program participated in five regional
training sessions sponsored by a United States Attorney's Office
(USAO). Training locations were chosen based on the low number of law
enforcement agencies (LEAs) reporting hate crime statistics to the UCR
Program. The training focused on increasing the understanding of how
State and Federal entities can work together to prosecute hate crime
incidents and emphasized the benefits of reporting hate crime
statistics to the local law enforcement personnel in attendance.
Proceeding this effort, in November 2016, the UCR Program provided each
USAO with a list of LEAs, broken down by district, which either did not
participate or reported zero hate crime incidents to the UCR Program in
2015. In an effort to improve reporting, United States Attorneys were
encouraged to contact the LEAs in their districts to emphasize the
importance of hate crime reporting and offer assistance if necessary.
In fiscal year of 2016, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division provided 49 training sessions to participants
from a combined 1,414 local and State agencies. During these training
sessions, hate crime information was provided to over 2,500 attendees.
The FBI will continue to provide training to local LEAs and will
emphasize hate crime collection to the attendees.
The FBI UCR Program is actively participating on the Subcommittee
on Hate Crimes of the Attorney General's Task Force on Crime Reduction
and Public Safety. This group is focused on developing strategies for
improving hate crime data collection.
Question 8(d). The number of law enforcement agencies reporting
their hate crimes statistics to the FBI seems to be decreasing. In
2015, more than 3,000 law enforcement agencies did not provide hate
crimes data to the FBI, an increase of 500 non-reporting agencies from
2014.
What do you intend to do to make it easier for local agencies to
report this crucial data to the FBI?
Answer. The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is in the
process of transitioning all law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to the
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) by January 1, 2021.
Reporting via the NIBRS will improve the quality, reliability, and
accuracy of the data received from participating LEAs. It will also
make it easier for LEAs to report hate crime data because it will be
collected within the NIBRS record layout.
Question 8(e). What do you think would foster more accurate and
complete reporting from local police to the FBI?
Answer. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
transition will improve the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the
data received from participating LEAs and will make it easier for LEAs
to report hate crime data. In addition, the FBI UCR Program is actively
participating in the Subcommittee on Hate Crimes of the Attorney
General's Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety. This group
is focused on developing strategies for improving hate crime data
collection.
In November 2016, the FBI UCR Program provided each U.S. Attorney's
Office with a list of LEAs broken down by district, which either did
not participate or reported zero hate crime incidents to the FBI UCR
Program in 2015.
In an effort to improve reporting, U.S. Attorneys have been
encouraged to contact the LEAs in their districts to emphasize the
importance of hate crime reporting and offer assistance if necessary.
The FBI UCR Program is currently working with the FBI Civil Rights Unit
to provide this same information by FBI Field Office for the 2016 data.
With the support of the Department and the FBI's Civil Rights Unit, the
UCR Program conducts outreach to the local law enforcement agencies and
educates their officers on how to investigate bias-motivated crimes.
The FBI will continue to emphasize the benefits of reporting hate crime
statistics to all local law enforcement participants.
The FBI also believes that obtaining the commitment of the local
agency administrators to provide hate crime investigative training
opportunities to their law enforcement officers would foster more
accurate and complete hate crime reporting. Many officers may not be
aware of the signs to look for when investigating a bias-motivated
crime. Often times, a hate crime incident requires additional
investigation in order to ascertain if the offense was or was not
motivated by the offender's bias against the victim. Investigative hate
crime training would provide law enforcement officers with the ability
to establish whether an incident was motivated by bias. Additionally,
instituting a hate crime point of contact or unit within the individual
agencies could also improve the reporting of hate crime incidents.
Question 8(f). What do you think would foster more accurate and
complete reporting of hate crimes by victims?
Answer. Developing strong relationships between local law
enforcement and the advocacy/community groups within their
jurisdictions is key to improving hate crime reporting by victims
because it establishes trust between the two groups. Providing a hate
crime point of contact within local agencies could also foster positive
relationships between law enforcement and hate crime victims to
ultimately increase levels of victim reporting.
state criminal alien assistance program
Question 9. Mr. Rosenstein, the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program (SCAAP) is a critical source of reimbursements for county
sheriffs in California who incur costs due to detaining convicted
criminal aliens.
Given the rhetoric from this administration related to immigration,
I was particularly surprised to see that your budget proposed
eliminating this critical program--and that you're asking already
stretched local jurisdictions to pay to house individuals charged with
immigration violations--which is the responsibility of the Federal
Government.
Given the administration's prioritization of combatting immigration
crimes, why does your budget propose to eliminate Federal support for
local communities through the SCAAP program and essentially create a
new unfunded mandate?
Answer. The Department has not requested funding for SCAAP since
fiscal year 2002 and continues to propose elimination of the SCAAP so
that the administration can increase Federal investments in border
enforcement and border security initiatives that will address more
effectively the public safety threats posed by criminal aliens. The
SCAAP does not require recipients to use their awards solely for the
purpose of addressing the cost of detaining illegal aliens in State,
local and Tribal detention facilities and cannot provide sufficient
reimbursement to fully address State and local concerns. In 2016, the
reimbursement rate was about 17 cents on the dollar, with just four
States--California, Florida, New York, and Texas--receiving over two-
thirds of available funds. Further, the program has no performance
metrics or programmatic requirements associated with the funds to
improve public safety.
human trafficking and injunction authority
Question 10(a). While significant attention has been paid to the
supply side of human trafficking (breaking up trafficking rings,
monitoring websites like Backpage, and rescuing girls), I am concerned
that we are still not doing enough to reduce the demand, and address
the problem of trafficking over the Internet.
a. What is your strategy to address human trafficking over the
Internet?
Answer. The Department of Justice deploys all available tools to
address human trafficking over the Internet and related criminal
activity including, where appropriate, prosecution of the website for
its role in the criminal activity. For example, the Department
successfully prosecuted the owner and operator of myredbook.com for
using a facility of interstate commerce with the intent to facilitate
prostitution. The defendant was sentenced to 13 months in prison and
ordered to forfeit almost $1.3 million in cash and property. Evidence
presented at sentencing established that over 50 children appeared in
ads for prostitution on the site. With respect to demand, we refer to
you to this link: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/06-
2816%20Steinberg%20Testimony.PDF. Starting on PDF page 6 is a
collection of cases that the Department has brought against individuals
who pay to have sex with children. These cases utilize multiple
statutes, including those that prohibit sex trafficking, production of
child pornography, and online enticement and coercion. The Department
also routinely addresses the demand side of the equation in its
training and guidance, including at the National Law Enforcement
Training on Child Exploitation, held in early June and attended by
1,400 Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officers and
prosecutors. The Department's National Strategy to Combat Human
Trafficking is available at: https://www.justice.gov/humantrafficking/
page/file/922791/download. As part of the National Strategy, each
Federal district was required to develop a district-specific plan to
address human trafficking in its region.
Question 10(b). If trafficking laws were updated to include civil
injunction authority to allow DOJ to bring civil cases against
traffickers to prevent them from trafficking young victims, will you
commit to using such authority?
Answer. The Department will use all available legal tools to combat
human trafficking, including civil injunctive relief if a provision
authorizing such relief were enacted. Whether we would pursue a
criminal or a civil remedy in a particular case would depend on a
variety of factors, including the available evidence, the needs of the
victim, and the interests of justice. On May 10, 2017, Attorney General
Sessions issued a new charging and sentencing policy to the Department.
The Attorney General instructed Federal prosecutors to charge
defendants with the most serious, readily provable offense. Consistent
with that policy, Federal prosecutors should charge sex traffickers
with violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591 when that is the most serious
and readily provable offense and unless strict application of the new
charging policy is not appropriate.
human trafficking and restitution for victims
Question 11. In a 2015 law review article, the Human Trafficking
Pro Bono Legal Center reported on the low rates of restitution orders
in human trafficking prosecutions. In a study of Federal human
trafficking cases brought over a four period, Federal courts failed to
order restitution in nearly two-thirds of cases involving sex
trafficking offenses.
They also found that the victims least likely to obtain restitution
orders were children trafficked in the sex industry. Less than one-in-
three defendants who commit sex trafficking offenses against children
were ordered to pay restitution to their victims.
Can you discuss your efforts to ensure that prosecutors are trained
to ensure that trafficking victims' receive restitution?
Answer. The Department of Justice is committed to seeking
restitution for victims of trafficking, and has been actively training
Federal prosecutors nationwide on best practices in securing
restitution orders, including strategies for meeting the government's
burden of proving the victim's actual losses as defined under
applicable statutes. If restitution was not ordered in a particular
case, it could be for any number of reasons, including insufficient
evidence to pursue a claim, the court's rejection of the restitution
request, or because the victim did not wish to seek restitution.
Regarding training, the following are examples of training and
other guidance the Department is or will be offering to address
restitution in human trafficking cases:
--In January 2017, the Department provided advanced human trafficking
training to Federal investigators, prosecutors and law
enforcement victim assistance professionals from two Anti-
Trafficking Coordination Teams (ACTeams). The training included
a session on financial investigations, restitution, and
remission and restoration.
--In February 2017, at the Human Trafficking in Indian Country course
at the National Advocacy Center, Department representatives
gave a presentation focused on mandatory restitution for
victims.
--In March 2017, the Department presented a two-part webinar series
for United States Attorney's Offices and litigating components
entitled, ``Mandatory Restitution in Human Trafficking Cases.''
This two-part series included an overview of the law regarding
restitution for victims of human trafficking and specific case
examples of successful recovery of restitution in human
trafficking cases.
--In June 2017, the Department sponsored the National Law Enforcement
Training on Child Exploitation in Atlanta. The conference had
over 1,400 attendees, including over 100 Federal prosecutors. A
large number of the course offerings related to the commercial
sexual exploitation of minors, including the lecture: Providing
Restitution for Victims and Forfeiting Offenders Assets:
Commercial Sex Trafficking.
--In August 2017, at the Department's National Advocacy Center, the
Department conducted training for Federal prosecutors who
specialize in child exploitation offenses. These prosecutors
were trained on the importance of seeking restitution in sex
trafficking cases and the mandatory nature of this restitution.
--In September 2017, in Fargo, North Dakota, the Department is
participating in training of Federal, State, local, and Tribal
prosecutors and law enforcement agents. This training includes
the necessity of seeking restitution in human trafficking cases
and mechanisms for successfully obtaining a restitution order.
--In the Fall of 2017, the Department will publish a USA Bulletin
dedicated to human trafficking prosecutions. That bulletin will
contain two articles regarding restitution in Human Trafficking
cases: Follow the Money: Financial Crimes and Forfeiture in
Human Trafficking Prosecutions, and Mandatory Restitution:
Complying with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
--In November 2017, at the Department's National Advocacy Center, the
Department will provide training to Federal prosecutors on
investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases. Part of
this training will include instruction on obtaining restitution
and the best practices for successfully obtaining restitution.
litigating the border wall
Question 12(a). Your budget requests $1.8 million to fund 20
positions, including 12 lawyers, to file lawsuits for the Federal
Government to take property from private landowners for the President's
proposed ``border wall.'' I understand the $1.8 million request only
covers the cost of the personnel required.
a. How many such lawsuits does the Department expect to file in
fiscal year 2018?
Answer. ENRD cannot predict the number of condemnations that will
occur in 2018. Cases are referred to the Department from the requesting
agency, which, with respect to the Border Wall, would be the Department
of Homeland Security. ENRD will negotiate with landowners and seek to
settle cases in order to mitigate the amount of litigation necessary
for construction of the Border Wall.
Question 12(b). How much private land would need to be taken by the
Federal Government in order to complete the President's wall, and which
State do you expect to be affected most?
Answer. ENRD cannot predict the amount of land that will be taken
to complete the Border Wall. Condemnation cases are referred to the
Department of Justice from the requesting agency, which, in this
instance, would be the Department of Homeland Security.
Question 12(c). How much do you anticipate some of these contested
lawsuits to cost the American taxpayer?
Answer. ENRD is unable to answer the question until the cases are
referred to the Department of Justice. ENRD will negotiate with
landowners and seek to settle cases in order to mitigate the amount of
litigation necessary for construction of the Border Wall.
Question 12(d). CNN reported earlier this year that more than 400
Federal lawsuits were filed challenging the loss of private land when
the government previously sought to build barriers along the Southern
Border. In fact, it is my understanding that there is still ongoing
litigation between the Federal Government and private land owners.
It's important to note, these lawsuits were the result of the
government building only 650 miles of barriers along the Southern
Border. In contrast, President Trump has indicated he would like 2000
miles worth of Border wall.
If previous litigation remains ongoing from the 2006 Fence
expansion, and we're now in 2017, how many years do you anticipate the
Federal Government will be litigating President Trump's border wall?
Answer. ENRD cannot predict the number of years the Division will
be litigating condemnation cases relating to the Border Wall, much as
it cannot predict the number of condemnations that will occur in 2018.
ENRD will negotiate with landowners and seek to settle cases in order
to mitigate the amount of litigation necessary for construction of the
Border Wall.
appropriations gun riders
Question 13(a). Year after year, the bills produced by this
Subcommittee and its House counterpart include a number of policy
riders that limit the Federal Government's ability to enforce existing
gun laws. These provisions do everything from limiting ATF's ability to
make commonsense updates to its definitions, to requiring sellers to
report suspicious transactions, to properly classifying dangerous
ammunition.
a. Can you describe how these appropriations riders impact your
Department's ability to protect public safety?
Answer. The Department seeks to manage its resources to achieve
maximum value for taxpayers in carrying out its mission. ATF and other
Department agencies are most effective when they have maximum
flexibility to allocate resources to achieve mission objectives. In
light of its critical mission to reduce violent firearm crimes, ATF
must continually adjust resource allocations to respond effectively to
changes in threats to public safety. In the exercise of its
constitutional authority to appropriate funds for the necessary and
proper operations of government, Congress has chosen to use
appropriations riders to restrict the manner in which ATF may use
appropriated funds in the enforcement of Federal firearms laws and
regulations. These uncodified restrictions pose a challenge to the
Department and ATF, as they must often be interpreted without the
benefit of legislative history based on hearing testimony, floor
debates, or a well-established record of Congressional intent.
The Department believes that the best approach is for Congress to
amend or repeal provisions in statutes that it determines should no
longer be enforced, and allow the Department and ATF to allocate their
limited resources in a manner that best protects public safety.
Question 13(b). How can you actually enforce existing laws when
Congress puts all of these obstacles in your way?
Answer. The Department and ATF continually strive to achieve their
mission objectives within the limitations imposed by appropriations
riders.
marijuana enforcement
Question 14(a). Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia
have legalized medical or recreational marijuana.
I sent a letter on March 2, 2017 to Attorney General Sessions
requesting clarification on whether the Department intends to continue
the policies contained in the Cole Memorandum, which outlines eight
Federal enforcement areas related to marijuana. Unfortunately, I have
yet to receive a response to this letter.
a. Does the Department intend to revise policies related to
Federal marijuana enforcement? If so, how and when?
Answer. As the Attorney General has made clear, the Department of
Justice is currently reviewing the existing policies of the Department
to determine whether they are consistent with the Attorney General's
priorities.
Question 14(b). When can I expect to receive a response to the
letter I sent to the Department in March?
Answer. We will be in a position to respond to the interrogatories
in the letter after the Attorney General has received and considered
all appropriate recommendations.
federal support for rural communities
Question 15. Mr. Rosenstein, I have heard from numerous rural
communities in California's Central Valley, such as the City of
Mendota, about increasing gang violence related to foreign gangs like
MS-13.
According to law enforcement in California, gang members are being
directed by their leaders to escape large cities like Los Angeles and
lie low in small, rural communities that are scarcely equipped to
handle the resulting increase in crime.
I ask that you look into this situation and see if your Department
can better assist these small rural communities, particularly in the
form of additional grants and support from Federal law enforcement
agencies.
Answer. The Department is committed to working with Congress and
our State, local, and Tribal partners to improve public safety and
uphold the rule of law in all of America's communities. To accomplish
this goal, the Attorney General's Task Force on Crime Reduction and
Public Safety examined the changing public safety needs of America's
communities, including our rural communities, and made recommendations
to the Attorney General on new policies or legislation needed to
strengthen the Department's crime-fighting efforts.
At this time, the Department's Office of Justice Programs does not
have any programs that specifically target gang violence in rural
areas. However, many small towns and rural areas benefit from the Byrne
Justice Assistance Grants (JAG), as well as the Community Oriented
Policing Services Hiring Program. Areas experiencing significant
increases in violent or gang-related crime may also want to consider
participating in the Department's proposed Project Safe Neighborhoods
Block Grants program.
illegal marijuana grows and public lands
Question 16. Mr. Rosenstein, I have heard from numerous rural
counties and tribes about increasing incidents of illegal marijuana
grows on public and Tribal lands that are attracting criminal activity
and creating environmental hazards.
The problem is particularly acute for California communities that
border National Parks and Forests as well as for tribes with limited
law enforcement capabilities. I am particularly concerned by reports
that much of this activity is driven by foreign drug cartels,
particularly from Mexico.
I ask that you direct the DEA to work more closely with local
communities and tribes in order to crack down on illegal marijuana
grows on public lands, particularly in rural areas of states that have
legalized recreational marijuana, like California.
Answer. DEA continues to work with Federal, State, Tribal, and
local law enforcement on illegal marijuana grows on public lands. In
fact, DEA administers a Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression
Program, which is a nationwide law enforcement program that exclusively
targets marijuana. The program receives funding from the Department of
Justice's Asset Forfeiture Fund through reimbursable agreements. The
majority of this funding is then allocated to more than 120 State and
local agencies for eradication campaigns and suppression programs.
DEA's current performance measure for the program is the number of
marijuana plants eradicated (including plants cultivated indoors and
outdoors). In CY 2016, 1,832,947 marijuana plants were seized and
destroyed.
cuts in byrne jag funding
Question 17. DOJ's fiscal year 18 budget proposes a $75 million, or
22 percent cut, in the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG)
formula grant program (representing a cut of about $3.5 million to
California). This despite strong rhetoric from President Trump about
his unwavering support for State and local law enforcement.
Does this approximately 20 percent cut to Byrne JAG represent this
administration's policy going forward?
Answer. The Department understands the importance of JAG grants to
State, local, and Tribal governments. In fiscal year 2016, this program
made more than 1,060 grant awards totaling more than $263.7 million.
State, local, and Tribal jurisdictions use JAG funds to cover a wide
variety of expenses, such as overtime pay for officers, vehicles and
equipment, technology upgrades, and interagency task force operations.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is continuing its effort to
develop performance measures for this program to help grantees
determine the most effective uses for their JAG funding.
The Department must balance the need for broad, multi-purpose
programs like the JAG program with other Department priorities, such as
programs specifically designed to target violent crime or opioid drug
abuse. The Department carefully balances its funding requests every
year based on a variety of factors, including performance data, program
evaluation findings, the Department's goals, and the Department's
assessment of the most important threats facing our State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement partners.
This requested decrease--which will reduce overall Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) funding by approximately 11 percent from 2017
funding levels--reflects the Department's view that it can more
effectively reduce violent crime through the newly proposed Project
Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant program. This redirection of resources
will ultimately benefit State, local, and Tribal jurisdictions by
reducing the amount of violence and crime they must address.
sanctuary cities/byrne jag as penalty
Question 18. Since the transition, President Trump has threatened
to withhold a State or city's entire Byrne JAG and COPS Hiring Grants
allocation as penalty for sanctuary policies that go beyond what the
law requires.
Indeed, the fiscal year 18 budget request proposes punitive
penalties to law enforcement funding if State and local law enforcement
do not comply with policies that go beyond even what the law requires
with respect to immigration laws.
How does the Department reconcile its support for State and local
law enforcement with its proposal to withhold Byrne JAG and COPS funds
in penalty?
Answer. As Attorney General Sessions has said, ``[s]o-called
`sanctuary' policies make all of us less safe because they
intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have
committed crimes.'' The purpose of these Department programs generally
is to support law enforcement and improve the functioning of the
criminal justice system. The Department has long required grant
recipients to provide certain ``standard assurances'' in which the
recipient certifies compliance with ``all applicable Federal statutes
[and] regulations . . . ''. This year, the Department is also imposing
special conditions on grant recipients, which would require grant
recipients to: (1) certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373; (2)
permit personnel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
access any detention or correctional facility in order to meet with an
alien and inquire as to his or her right to be or remain in the United
States; and (3) provide at least 48 hours' advance notice, where
possible, to DHS regarding the release date and time of an alien in the
grant recipient's custody when DHS requests such notice in order to
take custody of the alien. Rather than being punitive in character,
these special conditions are designed to further, through Federal
programming, the Byrne JAG statute's requirement that recipients comply
with Federal law and coordinate with other criminal justice agencies in
order to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system. This
approach is consistent with long-established principles of cooperation
among law enforcement agencies.
domestic violence crimes and guns
Question 19(a). Many domestic abusers who have been convicted of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or who are subject to a
protection order are able to stockpile an arsenal of firearms and
ammunition despite being prohibited from possessing firearms or
ammunition under Federal firearms law.
Local domestic violence programs often attempt to help victims by
seeking enforcement of Federal law and removal of the firearms, but
they are unable to get assistance from the ATF and other Federal
agencies. Similarly, local law enforcement is often overwhelmed by the
sheer numbers of firearms in the possession of domestic violence
offenders.
a. How will ATF improve their response to cases like these, which
are likely to lead to homicides?
Answer. One of ATF's mission priorities is the enforcement of 18
U.S.C Sec. Sec. 922(g)(8) and 922(g)(9), which prohibit persons subject
to domestic violence restraining or protection orders and persons who
have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from
possessing or receiving firearms. ATF works closely with our State and
local law enforcement partners, local prosecutors and United States
Attorney's Offices (USAOs), to identify for investigation and
prosecution domestic violence offenders who possess or attempt to
obtain firearms. For example, in Spartanburg, South Carolina, ATF has
partnered with the USAO, the Spartanburg County Solicitor's Office, and
local law enforcement to implement ``Operation Homefront,'' an
initiative focused on identifying for Federal prosecution domestic
violence offenders who use and unlawfully possess firearms.
Question 19(b). What kind of resources will you pledge to devote to
make sure that guns are not accessible to prohibited domestic abusers
who pose a dangerous risk to those around them?
Answer. The enforcement of Federal prohibitions on firearm
possession by domestic abusers is an ATF priority, and the Bureau will
continue to work with all public safety partners to identify,
investigate and prosecute these offenders. In addition, Industry
Operations Investigators will continue to work with members of the
firearms industry to provide education and training on the Federal
prohibitions on the possession and receipt of firearms by these
individuals.
Question 19(c). What commitment can you make to have more ATF
agents and ATF victim assistants trained and ready to respond to
dangerous situations like this?
Answer. All ATF agents receive extensive training on how to deal
with violent offenders, including those who engage in domestic abuse.
This training includes specific instruction on de-escalation
techniques, which emphasizes the tactical and communication skills
particularly applicable to investigations involving domestic violence
incidents. ATF also requires all agents to complete annual victim-
witness training, and it has a robust victim-witness coordination
program that includes placement of a highly trained victim-witness
coordinator in every ATF field division. These victim-witness
specialists provide support and assistance to the victims of domestic
violence in cases investigated by ATF, and they work closely with other
resources in the community to enhance awareness of ATF's commitment to
the prevention of domestic violence involving firearms.
Question 19(d). Despite the well-documented danger domestic abusers
with firearms pose to their victims, their communities, and law
enforcement, only a very small proportion of protective order and
misdemeanor domestic violence records are being submitted to NCIC's
Protection Order Files and NICS.
In what ways can the DOJ take action to improve entry of these
records, and what report language can the committee include to
facilitate such improvements?
Answer. Entries into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
Protection Order File are strictly voluntary. Actions the Department of
Justice can take to improve entry of Protection Order File include
increasing education and training on the NCIC Protection Order File to
the criminal justice community and increasing partnerships with
Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies to determine their specific
needs and develop meaningful plans to increase protection order
entries.
Obtaining missing dispositions within the criminal history record
is a significant priority. The Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) Division consistently utilizes the CJIS Advisory Policy Board
Process to discuss the critical need for improved reporting of records
to ensure the criminal history records and criminal dispositions are
up-to-date and accurate. The FBI continues strategic outreach efforts
with local, State, Tribal, and Federal partners via conferences,
teleconferences, presentations, and training events regarding the
importance of disposition reporting.
The FBI supports report language that includes a commitment to
increase funding to Federal, State, local, and Tribal criminal justice
agencies to provide additional training.
grants for organizations that assist missing children
Question 20. According to Section 5775 of Title 42, OJJDP is
allowed to provide grants to applicants who have demonstrated or
demonstrate ability in ``locating missing children or locating and
reuniting missing children with their legal custodians.''
I wrote to DOJ last year, requesting DOJ to consider issuing such
grant opportunities so that organizations like the Polly Klaas
Foundation, which has helped families and loved ones reunite with
missing children, can pursue Federal funding to assist in their
mission. I received a response indicating that for fiscal year 2017, no
such further grants would be issued.
Will you commit to issuing such grants for fiscal year 2018?
Answer. The Department's Missing and Exploited Children funding
supports child sexual exploitation and missing and abducted children
investigations, as well as training for law enforcement personnel and
the community to increase their awareness on these issues. More
specifically, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) provides funding to organizations to implement programs whose
purpose is to increase the capacity of communities nationwide to
respond to incidents of missing and exploited children. These programs
include:
--Missing and Exploited Children's Training and Technical Assistance
program
--National AMBER Alert Training and Technical Assistance Program
--National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
--Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program
At this time, OJJDP does not anticipate offering additional
competitive funding opportunities in fiscal year 2018 specifically
related to comprehensive search and rescue efforts for missing
children. In fiscal year 2018, OJJDP will continue to support the above
programs, which continue to work diligently to respond to such
incidents and provide critical recovery services for child victims.
Furthermore, OJJDP will continue to engage in program planning annually
and will consider your recommendation to issue a funding opportunity to
enhance recovery efforts of missing and abducted children.
voting rights and voter suppression
Question 21(a). After your nomination hearing in March, I submitted
a number of questions to you about voting rights and voter fraud.
Specifically, I asked if you believe there is credible evidence that
over 2.5 million people voted illegally in the last election, and I
asked what steps you would take to ensure strong voting rights
enforcement continues. You responded to the first question that you
were ``not aware of the context or basis for the [President's] remarks
and therefore [you were] not in a position to comment.'' You also
pledged to ``fairly, effectively and appropriately enforce voting
rights laws and other laws within the Department's jurisdiction.''
a. Are you now in a position to comment on whether there is
credible evidence that over 2.5 million people voted illegally in the
last election?
Answer. I am not aware of the basis for the remarks and therefore
am not in a position to comment.
The Department has a process for receiving and reviewing
allegations of any potential violations of Federal laws related to
voting, including in years in which a Federal general election occurs.
This process considers all allegations that implicate Federal criminal
laws, including those that prohibit election fraud, and Federal civil
laws that protect voting rights, among other allegations of potential
violations of Federal election laws. The Department has maintained this
process for many years and will continue to do so. The Department will
review and consider all allegations of Federal law violations for the
2016 elections and all other elections according to its usual process.
It will make decisions based solely on the facts and the law.
Question 21(b). If not, will you commit to obtaining the
information that you need to answer this question and to doing so by
July 31, 2017?
Answer. Please see the response to question 21(a).
Question 21(c). Since becoming Deputy Attorney General, what steps
have you taken to ensure that strong voting rights enforcement has
continued?
Answer. The Department remains committed to enforcement of the
Voting Rights Act and the other Federal voting rights laws. This work
has been a critical law enforcement function of the Department for
decades and continues to be a priority. The Department will continue to
use every tool available to it to ensure that all Americans can
exercise their right to vote free from discrimination.
Question 21(d). In the time since you submitted your responses to
my questions on voting rights, President Trump has established a
Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The
administration claims the purpose of this Commission is ``to promote
fair and honest Federal elections.'' The Department also released a
Fiscal Year 2018 Budget and Performance Summary. The ``fiscal year 2018
Strategy'' for the Civil Rights Division states the following with
respect to voting rights: ``The Department will continue to protect
voting rights through efforts to detect and investigate voting
practices that violate Federal laws, through affirmative litigation to
enjoin such practices, and through the monitoring of elections all
throughout the country each year.'' The fiscal year 2018 Strategy makes
no reference to investigating allegations of voter suppression or to
ensuring that all of those eligible to vote are not disenfranchised.
Were you consulted by President Trump or anyone in the Trump
administration about the establishment of the Presidential Advisory
Commission on Election Integrity?
Answer. No.
Question 21(e). In light of the Justice Department's resources and
expertise, do you believe that this Commission is necessary ``to
promote fair and honest Federal elections''?
Answer. The Department of Justice is committed to enforcing all
Federal voting rights laws, including the Voting Rights Act, and to
ensuring that the rights of every American are respected.
Question 21(f). What role did you play in drafting the fiscal year
2018 Strategy for the Civil Rights Division?
Answer. The Fiscal Year 2018 Strategy for the Civil Rights Division
was developed through the Department's usual budget formulation
process. The Department's Fiscal Year 2018 Strategy for the Civil
Rights Division and the Department's enforcement priorities have not
excluded any violations of the Federal voting rights laws from the
scope of its enforcement. Whenever warranted by the facts and the law,
we will use all legal authorities at the Department's disposal to stand
against disenfranchisement and to safeguard the right of every American
to register to vote and to cast a ballot.
Question 21(g). What role did Rachel Brand play in drafting the
fiscal year 2018 Strategy for the Civil Rights Division?
Answer. As noted above, the fiscal year 2018 Strategy for the Civil
Rights Division was developed through the Department's usual budget
formulation process.
Question 21(h). What will the Civil Rights Division do to
investigate allegations of voter suppression?
Answer. The Department will continue to investigate all credible
allegations it receives of violations of the Federal voting rights
laws, and will continue to undertake its own efforts to identify and
resolve violations of the Federal voting rights laws around the
country.
Question 21(i). What will the Civil Rights Division do to ensure
that all of those eligible to vote are not disenfranchised?
Answer. The Department will continue to use every tool available to
it to ensure that all Americans can exercise their right to vote free
from discrimination. Whenever warranted by the facts and the law, the
Department will continue to use all legal authorities at its disposal
to stand against disenfranchisement and to safeguard the right of every
American to register to vote and to cast a ballot.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question 1. During his January 10 confirmation hearing, Attorney
General Jeff Sessions stated that he would recuse himself from any
matters involving the investigation into Secretary Clinton's email
server. A transcript of the hearing is available at http://www.cq.com/
doc/congressionaltranscripts-5017061?1&search=VDHx
VWc4.
a. Are you aware of Attorney General Sessions' recusal regarding
any matters involving the investigation into former Secretary Clinton's
email server?
b. When did that recusal become effective?
c. What is the scope of Attorney General Sessions' recusal
regarding any matters involving the investigation into former Secretary
Clinton's email server?
Answer. On March 2, 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced that
he had decided to recuse himself from any existing or future
investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for
President of the United States.
Question 2. The Trump administration's original stated reason for
removing Director Comey was his conduct relating to the Clinton email
investigation. Why did Attorney General Sessions participate in this
matter when he told Congress he would recuse himself?
Answer. Attorney General Sessions did not recuse himself from
removing the FBI Director.
Question 3. Are you aware of any actions by the Attorney General
that would suggest participation in matters from which he is recused?
Answer. No.
Question 4. Has the Department of Justice assessed the longer-term
budgetary impacts of forcing prosecutors to charge even low-level
offenders with the most serious offense possible?
Answer. The Department of Justice (Department) regularly assesses
the budgetary impacts of its activities and funding resources,
including the budgets of its litigating divisions, U.S. Attorney's
Offices and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I support the enforcement of
all Federal criminal statutes in a manner that efficiently utilizes the
Department's resources to address the most significant threats to
public health and safety.
Question 5. How does the Department of Justice's fiscal year 2018
budget address the new charging policy's increased burdens on the
courts, prisons, staffing, and reentry?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 2018 budget proposal totals
$27.7 billion to support the Federal law enforcement and criminal
justice priorities of our State, local and Tribal law enforcement
partners. The request represents a comprehensive investment in the
Justice mission. The Department is dedicated to advancing the safety,
the security, and the rights of all Americans.
Question 6. During your time as United States Attorney for
Maryland, how many times did you directly speak with the President of
the United States? If conversations occurred, what did you discuss
during those conversations?
Answer. I met President Bush and President Obama several times at
public events and at gatherings of government officials.
Question 7. Since being confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, how
many times have you had private, one-on-one conversations with
President Trump, in person or over the phone? If conversations
occurred, what did you discuss during those conversations?
Answer. It would not be appropriate for me to disclose or describe
any communications I may have had with the President.
Question 8. In my questions for the record during your confirmation
hearing, I asked if it was ever appropriate for the President or
another White House official to contact the Department of Justice or
the FBI with instructions on how to conduct an ongoing criminal
investigation. You answered,
``Any contacts from the President or the White House must
comply with Department policies, including a 2009 memorandum by
Attorney General Eric Holder. It would be my responsibility to
ensure that investigations comply with Department policies, and
that partisan considerations do not influence the handling of
particular cases.''
Director Comey testified before the Intelligence Committee that he
believed President Trump directed him to stop the FBI's ongoing
investigation into General Michael Flynn. What have you done to ensure
that the President's actions do not influence ongoing cases?
Answer. I am not aware of any such improper influence during my
tenure as Deputy Attorney General.
Question 9. In my questions for the record during your confirmation
hearing, I asked how you would ensure that there is no political
interference with regard to any investigation into Russian
interference. You answered, ``I will follow and enforce applicable
policies and procedures prohibiting political interference.'' Please
detail what procedures you are following and enforcing.
Answer. On May 17, 2017, I appointed Robert S. Mueller III to serve
as Special Counsel to oversee the previously confirmed FBI
investigation of Russian Government efforts to influence the 2016
presidential election and related matters. In addition, the Department
continues to abide by the referenced policy regarding contacts with the
White House.
Question 10. How has the Department of Justice implemented and
enforced the Death in Custody Reporting Act and the FBI National Use of
Force database?
Answer. Following the enactment of the Death in Custody Reporting
Act (DCRA) in 2000, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) developed
three programs to collect data on deaths in prisons, jails, and local
law enforcement agencies using its base budget:
1. Deaths in Custody Reporting Program--Jails (DCRP-Jails) in
2000;
2. Deaths in Custody Reporting Program--Prisons (DCRP-Prisons) in
2001; and
3. Arrest-Related Deaths (ARD) in 2001.
Likewise, BJS has collected data for publication from State
Statistical Analysis Centers (for ARD data), local jails, and State
departments of corrections; however, BJS collections are voluntary.
When DCRA was reauthorized in 2014 and connected to Byrne Justice
Assistance Grants (JAG), the reauthorization added:
--Discretionary penalties for States' non-compliance;
--Requirements for Federal law enforcement agencies to report on
deaths in custody; and a
--Requirement for the Attorney General to report to Congress.
The enforcement of the DCRA JAG penalty provision is discretionary,
but if the Department of Justice did enforce it to encourage reporting
at the State level, it would require the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA) to take over full DCRA data collections (ARD, State prisons, and
local jails) after the 2017 calendar year, because, as a Federal
statistical agency, BJS cannot enforce any penalty for non-compliance.
The Department is still assessing the most appropriate way forward to
enforce both the spirit and letter of DCRA.
The National Use-of-Force Data Collection is managed by the FBI's
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR Program collects
information regarding law enforcement's use of force resulting in the
death or serious bodily injury of a person, or when law enforcement
discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a person. The UCR
Program does not collect information on deaths in custody attributable
to suicide, accidents, or natural causes. In addition, the National
Use-of-Force Data Collection does not obtain information from
correctional facilities. Due to these two factors, the National Use-of-
Force Data Collection cannot be used for complete reporting of
information as required under DCRA.
As an FBI Director's Priority Initiative (DPI) focused on crime
data modernization, the FBI worked with the Department, representatives
from major law enforcement organizations, and local, State, Tribal, and
Federal agency representatives to develop the content of this new data
collection initiative. The DPI developed a solution, which allows law
enforcement agencies to participate in the data collection with minimal
costs, as agencies only require a computer and an Internet connection
to report data to an FBI portal.
On June 7, 2017, the National Use-of-Force Data Collection pilot
project was authorized by the Department and the Office of Management
and Budget. The pilot project officially commenced on July 1, 2017, and
will end on December 31, 2017. The focus of the pilot project will be
on data completeness and data quality. By collecting statistical
information and obtaining feedback from a targeted group of law
enforcement agencies, the FBI will be able to strengthen the guidance
and instructions provided on the questionnaire, as well as make
adjustments to the questionnaire itself before an anticipated full
deployment in early 2018.
Question 11(a). Then-President-elect Trump claimed that millions of
people voted illegally in the presidential election.
a. Do you believe there should be an investigation into alleged
instances of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election?
Answer. The Department has a process for receiving and reviewing
allegations of any potential violations of Federal laws related to
voting. The process considers all allegations that implicate Federal
criminal laws, including those that prohibit election fraud, and
Federal civil laws that protect voting rights, among other allegations
of potential violations of Federal election laws. The Department has
maintained this process for many years and will continue to do so. The
Department will review and consider all allegations of Federal law
violations for the 2016 election and all other elections according to
its usual process. It will make decisions based solely on the facts and
the law.
Question 11(b). If so, on what information do you base that belief?
Answer. As noted above, the Department will continue to review any
election-related allegations according to its usual process.
Question 11(c). Has the Department of Justice fiscal year 2018
budget requested additional resources, above the fiscal year 2017
budget for the enforcement of election laws?
Answer. The Department of Justice failed to provide the Committee
with a response to this question by the time the record was closed,
which was 125 days after the Department originally received the
question and 95 days after the Committee's requested deadline for a
response.
Question 12. The FBI reported that hate crimes targeting Muslims
increased by 67 percent in 2015. What resources has the Department of
Justice relied upon to address rapid, documented increases in crimes?
Answer. The Department is committed to making communities safe for
all Americans. During the Hate Crimes Summit in June, the Attorney
General told those gathered: ``As long as I am Attorney General, the
Department of Justice will continue to protect the civil rights of all
Americans--and we will not tolerate the targeting of any community in
our country.'' To carry out this commitment to combat violent crime and
restore public safety, in February the Department established the Task
Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety. In March, the Attorney
General issued a memo to all Federal prosecutors, making clear that
prosecuting violent criminals is a high priority, and directing them to
work closely with their Federal, State, local and Tribal law
enforcement partners to target the most violent offenders in each
district. Since the summer of 2017, the Civil Rights Division has
assigned 12 additional attorneys to its Criminal Section, which handles
hate crimes. And in fiscal year 2017, the Department indicted 23
defendants involved in committing hate crimes, and obtained (either
through plea or after trial) convictions of 21 defendants involved in
committing hate crimes. Thus, hate crimes are a priority.
With regard to combating hate crimes against the Muslim community
in particular, the Civil Rights Division has undertaken a number of
steps. Its Criminal Section has a dedicated prosecutor who serves as a
contact point with the Department to identify, collect, and track
possible hate crimes against Muslim-Americans, as well as against Arab,
Sikh, South Asian, and Hindu-Americans. The Civil Rights Division
engages in regular outreach to Muslim communities to encourage
reporting of hate crimes, educate communities about hate crimes, and
address other civil rights issues. Recent cases include charges against
two men on September 28, 2017, for allegedly vandalizing a mosque in
Tennessee, a guilty plea on October 19, 2017, by a Florida man for
making a telephonic threat to members of a mosque, and an indictment of
a man on June 22, 2017, for the alleged arson of a mosque in Texas.
Question 13. As you know, the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) at
the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) provides services to
individuals detained in removal proceedings to educate them about the
immigration process and their rights and responsibilities. A 2012 EOIR
report to the Senate Appropriations Committee shows that LOP
participants moved through immigration court 12 days faster on average
than detained persons who did not participate in the program.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement saved an average of $677 in
detention costs for each LOP participant. Given the increases sought by
the administration for expanding deportation and immigration
enforcement, the Department must ensure that LOP is adequately
resourced to handle the additional numbers of detained individuals so
that their cases are handled as fairly and efficiently as possible.
What is the Department's plan to ensure the projected additional
detainees have adequate access to legal services, or at least as much
access as they currently have?
Answer. Since 2003, the Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR) has maintained a Legal Orientation Program (LOP). Under the LOP,
EOIR contracts with nonprofit organizations to provide group and
individual orientations, self-help workshops, and pro bono referral
services for detained individuals in removal proceedings. LOP's primary
focus is on detention centers; the Program is operational in 39
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers (including
three ICE family residential centers).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
Question 1. What is the scope of Attorney General (AG) Sessions'
recusal? What matters is he allowed to be involved in? Please be as
specific as possible.
Answer. On March 2, 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced that
he had decided to recuse himself from any existing or future
investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for
President of the United States.
Question 2. Who determines what matters the AG is allowed to be
involved in?
Answer. I and the Department components that might have relevant
information pertaining to those matters that are within the scope of
the Attorney General's recusal are aware of the scope of the recusal
and will not involve the Attorney General in a matter from which he is
recused.
Question 3. What procedures are in place to ensure that the AG is
excluded from matters within the scope of his recusal?
Answer. Contemporaneously with the Attorney General's recusal, his
Chief of Staff sent an e-mail to relevant Department components
directing them not to brief or otherwise involve the Attorney General
or other officials in the Office of the Attorney General about the
matters from which the Attorney General recused himself.
Question 4. In the event that a matter were to reach the AG that
falls within the scope of his recusal, what are the procedures for
correcting the issue and maintaining the independence of the
investigation?
Answer. It is unlikely that a matter from which the AG is recused
would reach him, but he and his staff are aware of the scope of his
recusal, and I am confident the AG would take no action on the matter.
Question 5. What are the procedures for monitoring the AG's
compliance with his recusal for matters that may reach him outside the
proper channels at the Department of Justice (DOJ)?
Answer. The AG is assisted in complying with his recusal
requirements by consulting with career officials, including career
ethics officials.
Question 6. Is the AG recused from all matters that are currently
or will be under investigation by the special counsel?
Answer. The Special Counsel reports to me as the Acting Attorney
General.
Question 7. Do you commit to informing Congress in the event that
the recusal is breached?
Answer. It is generally not appropriate to make commitments based
on hypothetical scenarios.
Question 8. Are there staff that work for AG Sessions who are also
recused from any investigation related to the presidential election?
Answer. See response to question 3.
Question 9. How will their recusal be overseen and enforced?
Answer. See response to question 3.
Question 10. Will AG Sessions continue to have managerial
responsibilities over attorneys, staff, or other officials within DOJ
who are or will work on investigations from which the AG has recused?
Answer. I am the Acting Attorney General for purposes of the
matters from which the Attorney General has recused.
Question 11. Has anyone from DOJ informed the president and his
staff about proper procedures for their communications with the AG and
his staff to ensure compliance with the recusal?
Answer. The Attorney General issued a press release
contemporaneously with his recusal and held a press conference
regarding it.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin, III
alcohol, tobacco and firearms facility
Question 1(a). In my State of West Virginia, we have facilities in
Martinsburg at which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
conducts most of its firearms licensing and tracing work. The facility
is currently understaffed, and once-routine operations can currently
take several months to complete because the demand far exceeds the
manpower of the staff.
We are concerned that the administration's budget will not provide
the staffing that ATF needs to succeed. This isn't good for the agency
and it isn't good for gun owners, who have an expectation that their
requests will be processed reasonably quickly.
a. Is the Department committed to giving the ATF the tools and
funding it needs to process the requests of law abiding gun owners?
Answer. Yes, the Department is committed to ATF's mission and its
needs at the National Firearms Act (NFA) Division. ATF's fiscal year
2018 budget request included additional funding to assist in expediting
the processing of NFA applications. For NFA operations beyond fiscal
year 2018, ATF has identified information technology and space resource
requirements necessary for timely and efficient processing of NFA
applications.
Question 1(b). How does the Department plan to cut down on the
unreasonable wait time for license processing?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2018 Budget includes an ATF
program increase of $4,000,000 to expedite the processing of NFA
applications. In the interim, ATF has taken several steps to address
the high volume of pending NFA applications and elevated processing
times. ATF has redirected resources from other program areas to support
critical staffing needs of NFA. It realigned financial resources to
support both government employees' and contract staff overtime efforts
in the processing of NFA applications. It temporarily redirected
resources to support the processing of NFA applications, and initiated
a business process re-engineering effort to further evaluate and
identify workflow efficiencies and needed technological improvements.
second chance act/offender reentry programs
Question 2(a). I've introduced a bill called the Clean Start Act
that seeks to help former addicts with criminal records seal those
records if they complete a comprehensive addiction treatment program
and show that they have turned their lives around. While I believe that
the Federal Government must lead the way in helping low level,
nonviolent offenders get back to work, the bulk of these addicts are
prosecuted at the State level, which is why funding for State Second
Chance programs is so important.
Just this year, West Virginia enacted its own version of the Second
Chance Act and I look forward to seeing it implemented. As the opioid
epidemic continues to take its toll in my State and others, we have an
ever-increasing number of men and women who face severely limited job
opportunities after serving their time for crimes committed as a result
of addiction.
a. What can you tell us about the administration's commitment to
helping former offenders re-join the workforce and once again become
responsible taxpayers?
Answer. The Second Chance Act program improves public safety by
helping individuals returning from prison or jail successfully
reintegrate into the community, thus reducing rates of criminal
recidivism. It provides grants to help State, local, and Tribal
corrections and public safety agencies implement and improve a variety
of reentry services including housing, educational and employment
assistance, mentoring relationships, mental health services, substance
abuse treatment services, and family-support services.
Question 2(b). What programs and initiatives does the Department
believe will be most effective in preventing recidivism among first
time offenders?
Answer. The Department supports an evidence-based approach to
corrections and reentry. Through Second Chance grant funding and
technical assistance, the Department emphasizes the use of risk and
needs assessments to determine appropriate supervision levels for each
released offender. The Department also promotes reentry programming
that assesses the risk posed by each offender and addresses his or her
behavioral needs.
gangs
Question 3(a). Gangs, including the notorious MS-13, have increased
their activity in recent months and are now operating out of almost
every State, including rural states such as West Virginia.
a. What can Congress do to best support the Department in its
efforts to crack down on gang activity and street crime?
Answer. Congress can support these efforts by fully funding our
budget requests for additional prosecutors, programming, and resources.
Question 3(b). What can you tell us about how your FBI agents and
prosecutors intend to identify, catch, and prosecute violent gang
members and prevent gangs from gaining resources and territory?
Answer. For decades, the FBI has successfully investigated violent
criminal groups by focusing on intelligence-driven investigations and
using the Enterprise Theory of Investigation (ETI). There are several
components the FBI utilizes to make this strategy work, including:
--Safe Streets Gang Task Forces/Transnational Anti-Gang Teams
(TAG).--These teams seek to reduce violent and gang-related
crime by identifying, prioritizing, targeting, investigating
and deterring the most violent and dangerous criminal
offenders.
--National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC).--The NGIC is a multi-
agency information sharing entity that provides intelligence
support to law enforcement agencies through timely and accurate
information sharing on gang migration, criminal activity, and
associations. A primary focus of the NGIC is to prioritize
gangs that pose a significant threat to communities throughout
the United States.
--OCDETF Fusion Center (OFC).--The OFC is a multi-agency operational
intelligence center that provides law enforcement with
analytical resources, case de-confliction, and information
sharing to develop the most complete intelligence picture of
targeted drug trafficking organizations and other complex
criminal organizations.
--Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) Watchlist.--The TOC Watchlist
is an actor centered database operated in conjunction with the
Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). Known MS-13 members can be
entered into the Watchlist to assist investigators in tracking
travel patterns of their known subjects in and out of the
United States.
--Violent Incident Crime Reduction Strategy (VIC-Red).--The VIC-Red
is a new initiative to leverage intelligence, operations, law
enforcement partnerships and community resources in an effort
to reduce violent crime.
While these are only a few of the initiatives the FBI utilizes in
addressing the threat posed by gangs, these programs have proven
successful. In the past year (June 2016--June 2017), the FBI arrested
over 15,000 individuals related to violent crime and gangs, took part
in 215 dismantlements, disrupted almost 1,600 gangs, and recovered
almost 5,000 weapons.
Question 3(c). Do you believe that existing DOJ programs and
prosecution tools will be sufficient to push back the increase in gang
activity or are new programs and tools required?
Answer. In its fiscal year 2018 budget request, the Department has
requested an overall $198.5M enhancement to further the priority of
combating violent crime, which includes an additional $19 million for
230 AUSA positions. This request will meet the Department's resource
needs to thwart gang activity by increasing the number of violent crime
prosecutors needed to target and prosecute gang members who drive much
of the violence menacing communities. The additional positions will
also help leverage the United States Attorneys' ability to convene
Federal, State, and local law enforcement to improve public safety.
These prosecutors will combat all types of violent crime, including
gang violence, through comprehensive strategies involving vigorous
prosecution and prevention efforts. Resources will be provided to the
offices with the highest demonstrated need in areas that are necessary
to accomplish the objectives of reducing violent crime and gang
activity.
In addition, the Department's budget request seeks to reinvigorate
Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) by asking for $70 million for a new
Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) block grant program. Since 2001, PSN
has been the Department's primary initiative to combat gun and gang
violence. Initially, PSN focused on Federal firearms offenders, but the
Department expanded the program in 2006 to address violent street
gangs. The current PSN strategy focuses on both the eradication of
illegal firearms and the interdiction of violent gang activity. Each
United States Attorney's Office (USAO) is responsible for appointing a
PSN Coordinator (usually a seasoned violent-crime Assistant United
States Attorney) and developing a PSN/anti-violence strategy that
addresses PSN's five objectives: (1) increased Federal and local
partnerships; (2) strategic planning, including proactive plans for
crime prevention and using research partners; (3) training for local
law enforcement; (4) increased local outreach; and (5) accountability,
as measured by a reduction in violent crime. PSN grants provide support
to local law enforcement authorities, outreach-and-prevention
providers, and researchers to implement the USAO-led district PSN
strategy. A 2009 Michigan State University study showed that when the
PSN strategy was faithfully implemented in a target jurisdiction, it
resulted in significant violent-crime decreases. While PSN has remained
an operative national strategy, annual funding for the PSN program
declined substantially over the last 8 years, resulting in many
districts not receiving any funding and in inconsistent implementation
among the 94 Federal districts. The requested increased budget support
for PSN--a proven violence-reduction strategy--would set the Department
on a course to roll back recent increases in violent crime and gang
activity.
The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) is
another Department component that plays a significant role in reducing
gang activity. OCDETF targets major street gangs and transnational
criminal gangs through multi-agency/multi-jurisdictional partnership
and coordination among prosecutors and Federal, State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement agencies to effectively target each gang as a
criminal enterprise. As a matter of course, OCDETF investigations
target gangs that engage in violence or weapons trafficking in the
course of producing or distributing illegal drugs in multiple judicial
districts or localities. Even if a violent gang distributes only small
amounts of illegal drugs in a single judicial district or locality,
OCDETF designation is appropriate if the investigation intends to work
up the chain to the gang's source of supply. OCDETF designation is also
appropriate for investigations against violent criminal organizations
or gangs that may not yet have a demonstrated potential to link to
components and/or facilitators of regional, nationwide, or
transnational criminal organizations, but are actively engaged in
violence and produce or distribute large amounts of illegal drugs in
multiple judicial districts or localities.
Since its inception in 1982, OCDETF has targeted more than 1,000
gangs nationwide. OCDETF also keeps a single, interagency list of the
most significant criminal organizations operating in or impacting each
of OCDETF's nine Regions. These are designated as Regional Priority
Organization Targets (RPOTs). More than 12 percent of the RPOTs on the
fiscal year 2017 OCDETF RPOT List are well-known national and
transnational gangs, such as the Black Mafia Family, Bloods, Gangster
Disciples, Hells Angels, Insane Spanish Cobras, Latin Kings, Mexican
Mafia, Nuestra Familia, Surenos, and Vice Lords.
In the last two and one-half fiscal years, OCDETF initiated 535
gang cases, or 22.3 percent of the cases initiated during that time
period. In the first 6 months of fiscal year 2017, OCDETF initiated 138
gang cases, or 28.6 percent of the total new caseload for the year.
Currently OCDETF reporting shows that 19.2 percent of its active
caseload (877 cases) involves gangs. After a review conducted in April
2017, 43 OCDETF cases were identified as involving MS-13 specifically.
Three of the nine OCDETF Regions--Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and
New York/New Jersey--have had Regional Gang Strategic Initiatives for a
number of years. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2017, these
three Regional Gang Strategic Initiatives yielded 40 new OCDETF gang
cases, along with 223 defendants indicted and 226 defendants convicted
in cases initiated in previous years. Further, on July 6, 2017, the
OCDETF Director signed a new OCDETF National Gang Strategic Initiative
to support OCDETF field components in their efforts to address criminal
gangs. This National Gang Strategic Initiative provides programmatic
support and seed money for OCDETF components to exploit the
vulnerabilities of violent gangs through targeted initiatives designed
to develop information and evidence on gang criminal activity in
investigations that are intended to reach the OCDETF level but have not
yet done so. By learning and developing best practices, sharing
information, and linking and de-conflicting lower level investigations,
participants are more likely to develop new investigations suitable for
OCDETF designation. Additionally, the increased agency focus on
criminal gangs, and the resulting OCDETF and non-OCDETF investigations,
will have a greater impact in disrupting and dismantling gang-related
violence and other criminal activity throughout the country.
the fbi/cjis facility in clarksburg
Question 4. In my State of West Virginia, we have facilities in
Clarksburg at which the FBI conducts much of its work in running
background checks, evaluating evidence, and identifying leads in
criminal investigations. These facilities are part of the FBI's
Criminal Justice Information Services division, known as CJIS.
CJIS supports its work primarily through user fee collections. In
this year's budget, a rescission was implemented regarding CJIS's
ability to access these user fees to fund improvements to their
technology (per the GAO definition, a rescission cancels the
availability of budget authority previously enacted before the
authority would otherwise expire.). CJIS facilities have not kept up
with advances in technology, and we are concerned that this rescission
will hamper the FBI's ability to conduct searches of its databases and
more quickly identify dangerous suspects.
We'd be interested in learning more about the Department's plan for
modernizing the CJIS system, specifically the purpose behind diverting
user fees away from CJIS system modernization.
Answer. The Department will continue to work with the FBI and its
CJIS Division to ensure that no services will be impacted by the
cancellation of unobligated balances and that no critical upgrades and
enhancements are forgone. Some of the planned IT modernization
activities include (1) the enhancement of Combined DNS Index System
(CODIS) to handle rapid DNA and other new capabilities, (2) development
of tools to process large volumes of video and photographic evidence;
and (3) modernization of crime data reporting through the National
Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
prison rape elimination act (prea) implementation
Question 5. In the Senate, Attorney General Sessions was
instrumental in the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003,
and the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request proposes a $5
million increase for grants to support PREA implementation. In the
Department's budget documents, it mentions continuing Federal research
into prison rape, funding the great work of the National PREA Resource
Center, and providing grants to local agencies to work toward
compliance. I'm proud of the fact that the West Virginia statewide
Regional Jail Authority fully implemented PREA, and did so with the
support of a Federal demonstration grant.
Can you tell us whether some of the PREA funding should be used to
restart these PREA Demonstration Grants to states, which had been
suspended for the last 2 years due to insufficient funds?
Answer. The $15.5 million requested for the Prison Rape Elimination
Act (PREA) program in fiscal year 2018 will provide vital support for
all of the Department's ongoing obligations related to PREA
implementation. The request will support new PREA requirements
established in the Justice For All Reauthorization Act (JFARA) of 2016,
such as a requirement for the Department to collect all past and
current PREA audit reports from the Nation's governors and make them
publicly available online. This funding will also support data
collection and statistical analysis on sexual assault in detention
facilities; the work of the National PREA Resource Center; and
continuing implementation and enhancement of the PREA audit process.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) recognizes the need to provide
adequate funding to support all aspects of the Department's PREA-
related responsibilities. OJP is prioritizing support for the PREA
Demonstration Grants program, which supports local PREA implementation
efforts, in fiscal year 2018. The additional resources requested for
the PREA Program as part of the fiscal year 2018 budget request are an
essential part of OJP's efforts to ensure that implementation efforts
are appropriately funded.
comprehensive school safety initiative
Question 6. We created the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative
(CSSI) a few years ago as a response to the Sandy Hook Promise
Elementary school shooting tragedy. The purpose of this initiative is
to research and implement innovative school safety programs to increase
the safety of our children within their schools.
The initiative has resulted in an FBI and Secret Service-based
school threat assessment and intervention program that trains schools
to regularly identify threats, investigate and determine if a threat is
serious, and intervene to prevent future tragedies. This program has
already prevented school shootings and suicides within schools across
the Nation, preventing a school shooting as recently as this past
January.
Given that the President's budget cuts funding for CSSI in half,
what other programs will the Department of Justice fund and implement
to increase safety in our schools, including the use of school threat
assessment?
Answer. The Department is proud of the work that has been done
under the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI), which is
administered by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Since its
inception in fiscal year 2014, the program has launched 72 competitive
grant-funded projects in 33 states (plus the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico). All projects are research-focused and 85 percent of CSSI
funding supports projects that rigorously evaluate school safety
interventions such as the threat assessment efforts mentioned. CSSI-
funded school safety interventions are being tested in over 2,700
schools nationwide.
While these research-focused projects are promising, they have
project periods that range from three to 5 years, and as such, have not
yet produced their final results. Close to $300 million is actively
invested in this program to date to increase the safety of children in
schools. The President's fiscal year 2018 Budget acknowledges this
considerable investment and recognizes that, to make the best use of
Federal resources, we should wait for the results of current projects
to determine the best use of future funds.
bureau of prisons staffing and correctional officer safety
Question 7(a). West Virginia houses several Federal prisons,
including FCI Beckley, FCI Gilmer, FCI Hazelton, FCI McDowell, FCI
Morgantown, and USP Hazelton. Correctional officers who work at these
prisons place their lives on the line to protect public safety, and I
am proud of the work that they do.
Over the past year, I have heard disturbing reports of
understaffing at Federal prisons in West Virginia and across the
country that have left correctional officers vulnerable to attack by
the inmates in their charge. My concern was heightened when I learned
that the Department of Justice plans to maintain a hiring freeze for
the Bureau of Prisons--even though the administration has specifically
exempted from the scope of the hiring freeze all positions that protect
the public safety.
a. Can you tell us why the Department does not believe that the
positions of Bureau of Prisons correctional officers are positions that
protect the public safety? Does the Department plan to revisit this
determination at any time?
Answer. In accordance with the President's Hiring Freeze memorandum
and Attorney General's guidance, the Department has limited its hiring
exemptions to the positions required to accomplish our national
security and public safety responsibilities. In the case of the Bureau
of Prisons, the Department is permitting hiring capped at the staffing
level existing on January 22, 2017. Within that overall level of
staffing, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has flexibility to hire the
positions it deems most critical and at the locations it deems most
critical. BOP will continue to closely monitor its staffing levels to
ensure the continued safety and security of BOP employees, inmates, and
the public.
Question 7(b). Can you tell us about the Department's position on
the use of augmentation? Does the Department believe that the use of
augmentation is in line with its own goals for public safety and the
safety of its correctional officers?
Answer. All BOP staff assigned to correctional facilities are law
enforcement officers and are considered correctional workers first,
regardless of their occupation. Staff, including non-custody staff, are
all trained accordingly and are expected to perform law enforcement
functions as necessary. While augmentation is not a common practice
because it is important for non-custody staff to perform the jobs for
which they were hired, it is an option BOP employs as needed to ensure
safety and security.
Question 7(c). Does the Department have any immediate plans to
nominate a permanent Director to oversee the Bureau of Prisons?
Answer. On August 1, 2017, the Attorney General announced the
selection of General Mark S. Inch as the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
special counsel
Question 1(a). 28 CFR Part 600.7, Conduct and Accountability,
states that ``The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for
misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or
for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.''
a. Do you believe that an order from the President to fire the
Special Counsel constitutes ``good cause''?
Answer. If there is not good cause, I would not fire the Special
Counsel.
Question 1(b). Do you believe that the Constitution implicitly
grants sitting presidents immunity from criminal prosecution?
Answer. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel reached
that conclusion in a published opinion in 2000. See A Sitting
President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op.
O.L.C. 222 (2000). As that opinion explained, its conclusion was
consistent with a 1973 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel and with
a brief that the Solicitor General filed in 1973 taking the position
that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not be subjected
to indictment and criminal prosecution while in office. I have no
reason to disagree with this long-standing position of the Department.
Question 1(c). Department of Justice regulations authorize the
Attorney General to ``request that the Special Counsel provide an
explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step.'' How
frequently will you ask the special counsel to report to you on his
investigation? To what extent will you require the special counsel to
coordinate with the Justice Department's National Security Division?
Answer. I have an appropriate level of interaction with the Special
Counsel's Office consistent with the regulations and will maintain
sufficient documentation to ensure the ability to comply with the
reporting requirement in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600.9(a)(3) if that provision
is implicated.
Question 1(d). What will be the process for reporting the progress
and results of the Special Counsel's investigation to Congress?
Answer. See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600.9.
Question 1(e). Will you report to the Special Counsel any efforts
by any member of the Trump administration to impede the investigation
of the Special Counsel?
Answer. I would notify the Special Counsel about any information
relevant to his investigation.
Question 1(f). Did you get any pressure from AG Sessions, McGahn,
or anyone else not to appoint a special counsel?
Answer. I did not discuss that issue with the Attorney General or
Mr. McGahn.
Question 1(g). Has President Trump--or any of his agents--asked you
to fire Special Counsel Mueller?
Answer. No.
james comey
Question 2. In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence
Committee last week, James Comey said he spoke to you and Attorney
General Sessions about his ``serious concern about the way the
president is interacting, especially with the FBI.'' Can you describe
this conversation?
Answer. Consistent with the Department's long-standing policy
regarding the confidentiality of information relating to pending
matters, I am not in a position to respond to your question.
justice department policy re: conversations with the president
Question 3. Attorney General Sessions has said that it is
Department of Justice policy to not disclose to Congress private
conversations with the President.
a. Can you provide this Committee a copy of this policy?
b. When was this policy adopted?
c. Who crafted this policy?
d. What were the factors considered when this policy was adopted
by the Department of Justice?
Answer. The Attorney General relied on longstanding executive
branch policy and practice in declining to disclose the content of
confidential communications with the President in response to questions
during a voluntary appearance before a congressional committee. As the
New York Times recognized after the Attorney General's testimony:
``Previous Executive Branch officials of both parties have withheld
information requested by Congress in the same manner.'' Charlie Savage,
``On Executive Privilege and Sessions' Refusal to Answer Questions,''
N.Y. Times, June 16, 2017, at A18. That policy and practice has not
been reduced to writing in a single Department of Justice policy
document, but key underlying principles are stated in several executive
branch policy and legal documents. President Reagan's 1982 memorandum
about ``Procedures Governing Responses to Congressional Requests for
Information'' said that ``executive privilege shall not be invoked
without specific Presidential authorization,'' that ``[l]egitimate and
appropriate claims of privilege should not thoughtlessly be waived,''
that executive privilege should be ``asserted only in the most
compelling circumstances,'' and that a ``tradition of accommodation''
involving ``good faith negotiations between Congress and the Executive
Branch'' should be ``the primary means of resolving conflicts between
the Branches.'' A published opinion of the Department's Office of Legal
Counsel from 1982 discusses the ``presumption of confidentiality
accorded presidential communications'' and notes that ``[t]he President
customarily reserves exclusively to himself the power to assert the
claim of executive privilege against Congress.'' Confidentiality of the
Attorney General's Communications in Counseling the President, 6 Op.
O.L.C. 481, 483, 485 (1982). A subsequent published opinion explains
that a dispute between the branches involving ``information of a
sensitive nature'' typically begins ``with an informal oral or written
request from a congressional committee,'' which may be followed by
negotiations between the executive branch agency and the committee
staff, and, if the dispute is not settled, by a subpoena, at which
point, ``if further negotiation is unavailing, it is necessary to
consider asking the President to assert executive privilege.''
Congressional Requests for Confidential Executive Branch Information,
13 Op. O.L.C. 153, 161-162 (1989). As the Supreme Court has explained,
the presidential communications privilege is ``fundamental to the
operation of Government'' and ``necess[ary] for protection of the
public interest'' because it ensures that the ``President and those who
assist him'' are ``free to explore alternatives in the process of
shaping policies and making decisions.'' United States v. Nixon, 418
U.S. 683, 708 (1974). As a result, ``[t]he President can invoke the
[presidential communications] privilege when asked to produce documents
or other materials that reflect presidential decisionmaking and
deliberations and that the President believes should remain
confidential.'' In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
your statement on june 15
Question 4(a). On Thursday, June 15, 2017 you released a statement
urging Americans to exercise caution regarding news stories and
anonymous officials. This statement was released hours after a
Washington Post article alleged that President Trump is now a target of
Mueller's investigation.
a. Why did you release this statement?
Answer. I released the statement because it is important to remind
citizens that they should be cautious about accepting the veracity of
statements attributed to anonymous ``officials'' whose credibility
cannot possibly be evaluated by the reader.
Question 4(b). Did you release this statement in reaction to and to
counter the claims within the Washington Post article?
Answer. I released the statement in reaction to the multitude of
claims attributed to anonymous ``officials'' and persons allegedly
``close to'' or ``familiar with'' Federal investigations. Such stories
often are written to make it appear that the source is a Department of
Justice employee, and without alerting readers that the story may be
false, and the source may not even be an executive branch employee.
Question 4(c). Did anyone from the Trump administration ask you to
make this public statement?
Answer. No.
Question 4(d). Did you consult with anyone, including, Attorney
General Sessions, before you released the statement?
Answer. This statement, like all statements released by the Office
of the Deputy Attorney General, was reviewed by appropriate personnel
in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and in the Office of
Public Affairs before its release.
Question 4(e). Why did you include the phrase ``they do not
identify the country'' within the statement?
Answer. The credibility of any source of information normally is
assessed based on what details we know about the individual in order to
evaluate, among other things, whether the individual is in a position
to know the information attributed to the individual, whether the
individual is usually truthful, and whether the individual is biased.
When considering whether to believe what a person says--even when
testifying under oath in court--factfinders consider detail relevant to
credibility. Reporters are free to use any source they want, and they
are free to obscure a source's true affiliation and degree of personal
knowledge. There is no legal requirement that a reporter verify the
background or credibility of a ``source,'' nor is there any legal
requirement that a reporter truthfully describe the source so that
readers can assess the credibility of the story for themselves. Absent
details, a reader cannot know whether or not there is a credible and
reliable source.
Question 4(f). Do you have evidence that foreign actors are in
fact, acting as anonymous sources?
Answer. See response to question 4(e). My point is that when we do
not know the source, we do not know the source.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. This subcommittee stands in recess until
Thursday, June 29, at 10 a.m., when we will take the testimony
of Acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., Tuesday, June 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
June 29.]