[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
  COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2022

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021

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

    The subcommittee met at 2:01 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne Shaheen (Chair) presiding.
    Present: Senators Shaheen, Leahy, Feinstein, Reed, Coons, 
Manchin, Van Hollen, Moran, Murkowski, Collins, Graham, 
Boozman, Capito, Hagerty, and Braun.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

    Senator Shaheen. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
Science, and Related Agencies will come to order. Good 
afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. We are delighted to have you 
back. And I want to begin by congratulating you and the 
Department on the recovery of much of the ransomware from the 
attack on the Colonial Pipeline. That was excellent work and I 
know everybody in the country really appreciates it. And 
hopefully it sends a message to those groups out there that 
would continue to hack our industries and our Government.
    The complex and often difficult work of the Department is 
vast. It ranges from National Security investigations to 
operating a national prison system, management of billions in 
grants to State and local entities, and this year, the 
President's fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Department 
of Justice is $36 billion, which is nearly 7 percent increase 
compared to fiscal year 2021. As enacted, this budget provides 
a renewed focus in critically important areas like the request 
for increased funding at the Civil Rights Division and 
Community Relations Service to provide for more attorneys and 
mediators. It also requests more funding and grant programs 
that will greatly assist our communities.
    I was particularly pleased personally to see nearly double 
the resources for the Office on Violence Against Women and 
appreciate the steady support for grant programs that address 
substance abuse. While I was pleased to see healthy increases 
nearly across the board for the Department's agencies and 
programs, I did have some concerns and I appreciated our 
conversation yesterday, Mr. Attorney General, and I shared some 
of these with you.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has affected everyone, but this has 
also been a dangerous time for those who have been locked at 
home with their abusers away from their jobs, friends and 
family, schools, and other outside assistance like child 
services visits. Survivors experienced increased levels of 
violence, including increased threat of lethality. Agencies 
providing support to domestic violence, sexual assault, and 
child abuse victims had to quickly pivot to online or 
telephonic only services as we halted in-person meetings. As 
pandemic restrictions are being lifted, it is expected that 
there will be even more of a demand for services like 
counseling and housing.
    And the Crime Victims Fund is often the primary source of 
Federal funding for thousands of victims service providers 
across the Nation, including programs serving victims of 
domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and human 
trafficking. But due to decreasing receipts in the fund, this 
funding stream, which provides critical services to survivors, 
is really in jeopardy. And while I appreciate the increases 
proposed in your budget request for discretionary grant 
programs, the $1 billion for the Office on Violence Against 
Women grants in particular, this budget also proposes a release 
of nearly $2.7 billion from the fund without recognizing the 
reality of the dramatic drop in receipts to the fund.
    I am hoping to hear your thoughts on the Department's 
rationale for the spending level and the plan for bolstering 
the fund in the future. This budget request proposes modest 
increases to the Department's law enforcement components, with 
one exception, again something we talked about, the Bureau of 
Prisons. I understand that there is a drop in the inmate 
population, but there is still a need for both specialized 
staffing, like counselors and special education teachers, to 
meet the needs of the First Step Act, as well as the unique 
medical needs of an aging prison population. The Department 
also needs to keep safety in mind.
    This subcommittee has continually requested that the Bureau 
of Prisons work toward curtailing the reliance of augmentation 
and overtime, and we need reassurance that this request will 
allow continued hiring of corrections officers. Senator Moran 
and I both have Federal prisons in our States, and we hear very 
directly concerns from the corrections officers and employees 
there about staffing. In closing, I want to let the 115,000 
career employees of the Department of Justice, including law 
enforcement personnel and attorneys, know how much their work 
to keep Americans safe from crime and terrorism is appreciated, 
especially during this last year through the COVID pandemic and 
here in the Capitol in response to the attack on January 6.
    In particular, I appreciate the ongoing investigations by 
the FBI into this event and the peer counseling services that 
the Marshal Service provided for the Capitol Police. Mr. 
Attorney General, I look forward to your testimony and to the 
discussion today. I am sure you will have a lot of interest 
from the Members of this subcommittee. And with that, I will 
turn it over to my Ranking Member, Senator Moran.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JERRY MORAN

    Senator Moran. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. Thank 
you for convening this hearing. This continues our practice of 
having the Attorney General before our subcommittee. And I 
appreciate the General Garland accepting our invitation. And I 
thank you for your outreach to me and my team since you became 
the General. Welcome to CJS subcommittee.
    I am pleased to hear and discuss with you today the 
President's budget request and the activities of the Department 
of Justice. Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity 
to meet many special agents, correctional officers, 
intelligence analysts, and attorneys that make up those 115,000 
employees that Senator Shaheen referenced. I am impressed by 
their professionalism, their integrity, their commitment to the 
Department's mission, and to our Nation.
    The Department of Justice is requesting $35.3 billion in 
fiscal year 2022. This is an increase of $1.9 billion or a 5.6 
percent increase above fiscal Year 2021 enacted levels. The 
overwhelming bulk of this increase is dedicated to DOJ grant 
programs, while DOJ law enforcement agencies, the FBI, the DEA, 
the U.S. Marshal Service, and ATF will only receive 2 percent 
increase overall. In a year in which the administration allowed 
agencies to request expansive budgets, the increase at the Drug 
Enforcement Agency is barely enough to cover inflation. I 
request--the request will do nothing to reverse the 13 percent 
decline in the number of special agents since 2010.
    The DEA is on the front lines against sophisticated and 
ruthless drug traffickers and cartels, and the methamphetamine 
and opioid crisis continues to wreak havoc and terrible damage 
on communities in Kansas and across the country. I am troubled 
by the lack of attention given to DEA in this budget request. 
Similarly, the Department requests an increase of only $40 
million to bolster the FBI's cyber capabilities. This is less 
than one half of 1 percent of the FBI's budget.
    As recently observed by Chris Krebs, the former--formerly 
the Government's top cybersecurity watchdog, we are in the 
midst of a ransomware pandemic, one that threatens our food 
supply and one that threatens our energy infrastructure. I 
question whether the Department is sufficiently investing in 
efforts to address these threats. Finally, I am disturbed by 
the proposals to dramatically expand the Department's authority 
to regulate the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens. 
The administration has proposed repealing numerous provisions 
that were enacted in previous CJS bills that passed with 
overwhelming bipartisan votes.
    In the context of other recent actions by the White House 
and the ATF, it is difficult to see these proposals as anything 
but a broad assault on the Americans' second right amendment--
excuse me, the Americans' Second Amendment rights--citizens 
more clearly. In the context of other recent actions by the 
White House and the ATF, it is difficult to see these proposals 
as anything but a broad assault on Americans Second Amendment 
rights. With that said, there are many areas of this budget 
request in which I believe we find agreement.
    I am pleased to see the Department has endorsed the new 
grant programs dedicated to improving police community 
relations that Senator Shaheen and I worked together to create 
last year. These programs include support for de-escalation 
training, training on responding to individuals facing mental 
health crisis, and support for local agencies to secure 
accreditation. Attorney General Garland, I look forward to 
working with you and with Senator Shaheen and my colleagues on 
this subcommittee as we work to craft the fiscal year 2022 
appropriations for the Department of Justice. And again, I 
thank you for your presence.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Moran. I will 
now turn it over to you, Mr. Attorney General, for your opening 
statement. And I don't think your mike is on.
STATEMENT OF HON. MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 
            DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    Attorney General Garland. Good. Okay. Good afternoon, 
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Moran, and distinguished 
Members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you on behalf of the Department of Justice to 
discuss the President's budget for fiscal year 2022. Exactly 90 
days ago, I took the oath of office as Attorney General. On 
that day, I spoke to all the Justice Department employees, and 
I told them that all of us, ``are united by our commitment to 
protecting our country, as our oath says, from all enemies, 
foreign and domestic, and by our commitment to enforcing our 
country's laws and to ensuring the civil rights and the civil 
liberties of our people.''
    These commitments reflect the Justice Department's mission, 
and the Department's mission is reflected in our fiscal year 
2022 budget request. Our two top funding priorities are as 
follows. The first is keeping our country and our communities 
safe. This priority has three main elements. The first element 
is countering foreign and domestic terrorism. The Justice 
Department remains acutely aware of the threat posed by foreign 
terrorist organizations. This requires that we never take our 
eyes off the risk of another devastating attack on our country. 
At the same time, the United States has seen a troubling rise 
in domestic violent extremism. As a country's lead law 
enforcement agency, the Department of Justice is devoted to a 
broad scale approach to countering the threat of both foreign 
and domestic terrorism. The fiscal year 2022 budget request 
includes $9.4 billion--I am sorry, skipped a page.
    Our budget request includes more than $1.5 billion for our 
foreign and domestic counterterrorism efforts, an increase of 
more than 12 percent above the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. 
Keeping our country and communities safe also requires 
countering cyber threats from foreign and domestic actors, 
whether nation states, terrorists, or criminals, something that 
each of the two of you have already mentioned in your opening.
    The budget request for $1.1 billion would be the largest 
increase in cyber resources for the Justice Department in more 
than a decade. Finally, keeping our country and communities 
safe requires protecting them from the recent increase in major 
violent crimes and gun violence. The Department's recently 
announced violent crime reduction strategy harnesses all our 
relevant Departmental components to that end.
    The fiscal year 2022 budget request includes $9.4 billion, 
an increase of nearly 9 percent to support the Justice 
Department's law enforcement resources and grant programs. This 
includes law enforcement efforts to fight violent crime and 
grants that fund community violence intervention programs, 
improve background checks, and red flag laws. The Department's 
other top priority is reflecting--is protecting civil rights 
and civil liberties. The President's fiscal year 2022 budget 
requests more than $300 million for the Department's civil 
rights efforts. This includes the largest investment in a 
decade to reinvigorate the Justice Department's civil rights 
components and the largest ever increase in our civil rights 
division, totaling more than 15 percent.
    Our request reflects the reality that almost 65 years after 
its creation, the division's work remains vital to protecting 
the American dream by safeguarding voting rights, prosecuting 
hate crimes, and addressing unlawful discrimination. This 
additional support for our civil rights work would also allow 
us to reestablish the office for access to justice and would 
provide a much needed lifeline for our community relations 
service, which helps local communities mediate conflicts 
peacefully.
    The budget request also provides new funding for the 
Environment and Natural Resources Division to advance 
environmental justice and to tackle climate change. Promoting 
public trust between communities and law enforcement is 
critical both to making our communities safe and to ensuring 
the protection of civil rights. Our budget request for $1.3 
billion, an increase of $379.8 million, would provide grants to 
support reforms necessary for promoting that trust. The fiscal 
year 2022 budget also provides funding for other 
extraordinarily important grant programs. It proposes an 
investment of $1 billion to support Violence Against Women Act 
programs at DOJ, nearly twice the fiscal year 2021 level. It 
proposes to almost double the programs that provide training 
and technical assistance for State, local, Tribal, and 
territorial law enforcement in responding to hate and bias 
motivated crimes.
    And we are also focused on reducing the immigration court 
backlog. A 21 percent budget increase to the Executive Office 
for Immigration Review will help us on board 100 new 
immigration judges to reduce the nearly 1.3 million cases that 
were pending before the immigration courts when we took office. 
I ask for your support for our budget, as the Justice 
Department continues its commitment to adhering to the rule of 
law, to keeping our country and communities safe, and to 
protecting civil rights and civil liberties. Thank you.

    [The statement follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Hon. Merrick B. Garland
    Good afternoon Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Moran, and 
distinguished Members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear on behalf of the Department of Justice to discuss 
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2022.
    Exactly 90 days ago, I took the oath of office as Attorney General. 
In remarks to all Justice Department employees on my first day in 
office, I explained how I would approach my job:

        ``All of us are united by our commitment to the rule of law and 
        to seeking equal justice under law. We are united by our 
        commitment to protecting our country, as our oath says, `from 
        all enemies foreign and domestic,' and by our commitment to 
        enforcing our country's laws and to ensuring the civil rights 
        and the civil liberties of our people.''

    This approach reflects the Justice Department's mission, and the 
Department's mission is reflected in our $35.3 billion fiscal year 2022 
budget request. Our top funding priorities are:
1. Keeping our Country and Communities Safe.--This includes funds for:
          Countering Foreign and Domestic Terrorism.--The budget 
        contains more than $1.5 billion to counter foreign and domestic 
        terrorism--an increase of more than 12 percent above the fiscal 
        year 2021 budget--which includes an additional $101.2 million 
        to address domestic terrorism with a broadscale approach across 
        the Department.

          Enhancing Cybersecurity and Fighting Cybercrime.--The budget 
        includes $1.1 billion, a $150.7 million increase, for 
        protecting our Nation from cyberattacks and cybercrime. This is 
        the largest increase in cyber resources for the Justice 
        Department in more than a decade.

          Combating Violent Crime and Gun Violence.--The budget also 
        contains $9.4 billion, an increase of more than 8 percent, to 
        combat violent crime and gun violence. This includes more than 
        $1 billion in grants to support local, State, and Tribal law 
        enforcement agencies and community organizations in their 
        efforts to achieve safer communities.
2. Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.--Another top Department 
        priority is protecting civil rights and civil liberties. This 
        includes:
          Reinvigorating the Department's Civil Rights Components.--The 
        budget contains a total of more than $300 million to 
        reinvigorate civil rights efforts across the Justice 
        Department, including in the Civil Rights Division and the 
        Community Relations Service, and to reestablish and expand the 
        Justice Department's Office for Access to Justice. This budget 
        marks the largest investment in civil rights in at least a 
        decade and the largest-ever increase for the Department's Civil 
        Rights Division, totaling more than 15 percent.

          Investing in Community Policing.--The budget contains a total 
        of nearly $1.3 billion, with program increases of $379.8 
        million, to support reforms designed to further strengthen 
        relationships between law enforcement and the communities they 
        serve. This investment is important both for keeping our 
        communities safe and for protecting civil rights and civil 
        liberties.

          Ending Gender-Based Violence.--The budget contains a total of 
        $1.0 billion, an increase of $486.5 million, to address gender-
        based violence through the Office on Violence Against Women, 
        nearly twice the fiscal year 2021 investment in this effort.

          Addressing Inequities in the Criminal Justice System.--A 
        total of nearly $1.6 billion is requested to support reform in 
        the criminal justice system and to continue critical investment 
        in implementing the First Step Act of 2018. This request 
        includes an increase of more than $550 million in grants that 
        support efforts to reform State and local justice systems.

          Advancing Environmental Justice.The budget also contains new 
        resources to advance environmental justice initiatives.

Other areas of Departmental focus include:
3. Ensuring Economic Opportunity and Fairness
          Reinvigorating Antitrust Enforcement.--This budget requests 
        more than $200 million, an increase of 9 percent, for the 
        Antitrust Division to reinvigorate antitrust enforcement.

          Combating Fraud and Protecting Consumers.--The Justice 
        Department is committed to using every available Federal tool--
        including criminal, civil, and administrative actions--to 
        protect consumers and combat and prevent fraud. As part of this 
        budget request, additional funds would be available for three 
        DOJ components--our United States Attorneys, the Criminal 
        Division, and the Civil Division--to combat COVID-19 related 
        fraud and bring to justice those who seek to profit unlawfully 
        from the pandemic.

          Revitalizing Tax Enforcement.--An increase of nearly 5 
        percent above fiscal year 2021 is requested for the 
        Department's Tax Division to support its vital mission of 
        enforcing our tax laws fully, fairly, and consistently. The 
        integrity of our tax system is vital to maintaining public 
        confidence and requires ensuring that all Americans pay the 
        taxes they owe.
4. Reducing the Immigration Court Backlog
          The budget also requests a total of $891 million, an increase 
        of more than 20 percent, to reduce the immigration court 
        backlog. This funding would strengthen our ability to apply the 
        immigration laws justly, consistently, and in a timely fashion, 
        while ensuring due process under the law.

                                *  *  *

Greater detail on all of these priorities is provided below:
1. Keeping our Country and Communities Safe
          Countering Foreign and Domestic Terrorism.--Our budget 
        supports the Justice Department's steadfast commitment to 
        protecting our national security, while also protecting our 
        civil liberties.
          As I testified before the full Senate Appropriations 
        Committee last month, the United States has seen an 
        unprecedented and troubling rise in domestic violent extremism. 
        At the same time, the Justice Department and its law 
        enforcement agencies remain acutely aware of the threat posed 
        by foreign terrorist organizations. This requires that we never 
        take our eyes off the risk of another devastating attack on our 
        country by foreign terrorists. It also requires that we counter 
        threats from foreign actors who conduct espionage, target 
        Americans, including our service members and diplomats 
        overseas, and violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity 
        of our allies.
          As the country's lead law enforcement agency, the Department 
        of Justice is devoted to a broadscale approach to counter the 
        threat of both foreign and domestic terrorism. The request 
        includes more than $1.5 billion for our foreign and domestic 
        counterterrorism efforts, which represents an increase of more 
        than 12 percent above the fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
          Alongside our request for resources to counter the threats 
        posed to our security by foreign terrorism, the budget seeks an 
        additional $101.2 million to address domestic violent extremism 
        and terrorism. Our request includes increased funding for the 
        Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct domestic 
        violent extremism and terrorism investigations, and for the 
        United States Attorneys to manage increasing caseloads in this 
        area. The budget request supports additional response 
        capabilities at the U.S. Marshals Service and research 
        regarding the root causes of domestic radicalization at the 
        National Institute of Justice.

          Enhancing Cybersecurity and Fighting Cybercrime.--Protecting 
        our national security also requires countering cyber threats 
        from foreign and domestic actors--whether nation states, 
        terrorists, or criminals--who seek to conduct espionage, invade 
        our privacy, attack our elections, steal our intellectual 
        property, damage our critical financial and physical 
        infrastructure, or extort ransom payments.
          These threats are grave and escalating, and we must keep pace 
        with an ever-evolving threat landscape. A complete review of 
        the Department's cybersecurity strategy is currently underway, 
        and this budget--which would provide more than $1 billion to 
        support cyber investigations and cybersecurity, including more 
        than $150 million in cyber program enhancements--would help us 
        to meet these threats. This is the largest increase in cyber 
        resources for the Department in more than 10 years.

          Combating Violent Crime and Gun Violence.--Protecting our 
        communities from the recent increase in major violent crimes 
        and from the national epidemic of gun violence is among the 
        most pressing challenges facing the Department of Justice. The 
        Department's recently announced violent crime reduction 
        strategy harnesses all our relevant components to that end, 
        including the Department's U.S. Attorneys' offices, litigating 
        divisions (including the Criminal Division), law enforcement 
        agencies, and grantmaking offices. The fiscal year 2022 budget 
        request includes $9.4 billion, an increase of more than 8 
        percent above the 2021 enacted level, to support the Justice 
        Department's law enforcement resources as well as grants that 
        fund community violence intervention programs, improved 
        background checks, and red-flag laws.
          A total of nearly $1.6 billion in base funding is requested 
        for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 
        (ATF), an increase of $70 million or nearly 5 percent over 
        fiscal year 2021, to oversee the safe sale, storage, and 
        ownership of firearms and to support the Agency's other work to 
        fight violent crime. A portion of this increase would both 
        expand ATF's Crime Gun Intelligence through the National 
        Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBN) and would 
        nearly double ATF's capacity to investigate theft from Federal 
        Firearms Licensees (FFLs). Every firearm stolen from an FFL 
        poses a threat to community safety, as well as to our law 
        enforcement partners.
          In addition, a total of $690 million is requested for the 
        Drug Enforcement Administration to support the fight against 
        violent drug gangs and cartels.
          This request would enable the Department's Office of Justice 
        Programs to distribute more than $1 billion in grants to 
        support local, State, and Tribal law enforcement agencies and 
        community organizations in their efforts to achieve safer 
        communities and combat the gun violence epidemic. Part of this 
        requested funding would strengthen existing funding programs, 
        including grants for States, local communities, and Tribes to 
        improve criminal history record information and ensure 
        effective nationwide implementation of background check 
        systems.

          New programs are also proposed.--A highlight is $100 million 
        for the Community Violence Intervention Initiative, to assist 
        local communities in developing comprehensive violence 
        prevention and reduction programs, through partnerships between 
        community residents, law enforcement, local government 
        agencies, and other community stakeholders. Using evidence-
        based solutions such as street outreach, violence interrupters, 
        and hospital-based violence intervention services, the 
        Community Violence Intervention Initiative invests directly in 
        communities to address gang and gun violence.
          The budget request also includes funding that would allow the 
        Department to establish innovative new grants for States that 
        want to craft gun licensing and red-flag laws, which 
        temporarily restrict access to firearms by individuals who are 
        in crisis. A new pilot promotes the development, adoption, and 
        use of programs designed to help communities address situations 
        where people become legally prohibited from possessing firearms 
        they own.
2. Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
          Reinvigorating the Department's Civil Rights Components.--
        Protecting civil rights and civil liberties was a founding 
        purpose of the Justice Department and is a top budgetary 
        priority. Far too many still face discrimination in housing, 
        education, employment, and the criminal justice system; and 
        bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and 
        climate change.
          The President's fiscal year 2022 budget requests an increase 
        of more than $300 million to reinvigorate the Department's 
        civil rights efforts. The Department requests a total of $183.2 
        million, an increase of 15.8 percent, for the Civil Rights 
        Division (CRT). This would fund 85 new positions--including 60 
        attorneys--to increase CRT's capacity to protect voting and 
        other statutory and constitutional rights, and to hold those 
        who commit hate crimes accountable.
          Among other things, this request would also fund $90 million 
        in grants to support the development, expansion, and 
        improvement of services for victims of human trafficking and 
        for the investigation and prosecution of trafficking offenses 
        as part of a multidisciplinary approach.
          The President has called for, and the Justice Department is 
        developing plans for, reconstituting the Department's Office 
        for Access to Justice. The budget requests $6 million dollars 
        for this purpose. One role of the Office will be to leverage 
        grant opportunities throughout the Department aimed at 
        increasing access to justice. The fiscal year 2022 request 
        includes several grant programs that would improve access to 
        justice for underserved groups, including grant programs to 
        strengthen the vital work of public defenders, improve juvenile 
        indigent defense, and ensure legal services for victims of 
        domestic violence and sexual assault.
          For decades the Department's Community Relations Service 
        (CRS) has been ``America's Peacemaker'' for communities in 
        conflict. Its staff are trained to mediate disputes and enhance 
        community capacity to prevent and resolve future conflicts 
        independently. When I arrived at the Department, CRS had only a 
        fraction of the conciliators needed at a time of heightened 
        racial tensions and increased hate-based incidents. We are 
        reviving CRS's capacity to improve police-community relations 
        and support communities across the United States that are 
        working to prevent and respond to bias incidents and hate 
        crimes.
          In addition, a new grant program to advance civil rights 
        would provide $20 million for law enforcement agency training 
        on racial profiling, the duty to intervene, and de-escalation.

          Investing in Community Policing.--Creating strong, positive 
        ties between law enforcement agencies and the communities they 
        serve is critical both to making our communities safe and to 
        rooting out inequities in the justice system. Providing 
        resources to police departments to help them reform and gain 
        the trust of communities is a priority of this Department and 
        this administration. The budget total for programs that support 
        community-oriented policing and address systemic inequities is 
        nearly $1.3 billion, with program increases totaling $379.8 
        million.
          This includes more than $513 million for the Edward Byrne 
        Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program and a total of 
        $651 million for the Department's Office of Community Oriented 
        Policing Services (COPS). Among other things, the budget 
        requests a total of $537 million--an increase of $300 million--
        for a critical hiring program administered by COPS. New 
        priority preferences would ensure that resources are used to 
        further policing reform efforts. The Department's budget 
        addresses the need to further strengthen relationships between 
        communities and police officers by providing grants for hiring 
        local police officers and investing in racial sensitivity, hate 
        crime, and implicit bias training.
          The fiscal year 2022 budget request includes a total of 
        nearly $50 million to support the use of body worn cameras by 
        law enforcement officers across America. For the first time, 
        the budget requests $13.6 million to support the use of body-
        worn cameras by federally deputized task force officers. And an 
        additional $35 million in grants for State and local body-worn 
        camera systems included in this budget request would support 
        the purchase and deployment of these important systems, assist 
        in the development of infrastructure to support them, and scale 
        up training and technical assistance to ensure their proper 
        use.
          The fiscal year 2022 budget request also recognizes the 
        pressing need for capacity-building within State, local, 
        Tribal, and Territorial law enforcement to address hate crimes 
        and violence against women. The budget proposes to almost 
        double programs that provide training and technical assistance 
        in responding to and investigating hate and bias-motivated 
        crimes. And it would invest $80 million in programming aimed at 
        treating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 
        and stalking as serious violations of criminal law, through 
        increased coordination between law enforcement, victim services 
        providers, and non-governmental organizations.

          Ending Gender-Based Violence.--The President's budget request 
        includes an historic investment to support the work of the 
        Justice Department's Office of Violence Against Women (OVW). 
        The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated gender-based violence and 
        sexual assault for many women and girls who have been largely 
        confined to their homes with their abusers. The fiscal year 
        2022 request proposes an investment of $1 billion to support 
        Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs at DOJ, nearly twice 
        the $486.5 million enacted level for fiscal year 2021.
          The budget request includes substantial increases for 
        longstanding VAWA formula programs that have shown success, 
        including programs aimed at enhancing States' and territories' 
        ability to finance coordinated community responses to domestic 
        violence and sexual assault and enable rape crisis centers and 
        other supporting nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations to 
        serve tens of thousands additional victims each year.
          The budget also requests double the amount allocated for the 
        Transitional Housing Program last year to meet the overwhelming 
        demand, which has increased dramatically over the past year as 
        a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
          The request includes two new programs that meet special 
        needs. The first would enable OVW to develop and maintain a 
        National Deaf Services Line, which would provide virtual 
        services to Deaf victims of all VAWA crimes, provide technical 
        assistance to victim service providers working with Deaf 
        victims, and pilot strategies to expand ``for Deaf, by Deaf'' 
        in-person services. The second program would address violence 
        against women in Indian Country, by providing funding to cross-
        designate Tribal prosecutors as Tribal Special Assistant United 
        States Attorneys.
          The fiscal year 2022 request would fund several other 
        innovative new programs as well. Highlights among the funding 
        requested for innovative new programs includes: $20 million to 
        support underserved colleges and institutions to strengthen 
        their responses to domestic and sexual violence and stalking; 
        $2 million to support greater outreach to, and services for, 
        transgender victims of domestic/dating violence, sexual 
        assault, and stalking; and $25 million to enable OVW to study 
        the efficacy of restorative justice programs in addressing 
        underreporting of sexual assault, domestic violence, and dating 
        violence by offering victims an option for accountability while 
        responding to their concerns about how they will be treated by 
        the criminal justice systems.
          Often, small community-based organizations miss out on 
        Federal grants that could increase their effectiveness and 
        reach. The fiscal year 2022 request designates $5 million to 
        provide capacity-building training and technical assistance 
        that would help community-based organizations apply for and 
        successfully implement Federal grant awards in order to 
        directly address this problem.
          In addition to expanded funding for OVW programs, the budget 
        request also includes $120 million for the Sexual Assault Kit 
        Initiative and a new Regional Sexual Assault Investigative 
        Training Academies program to support efforts to eliminate the 
        rape kit backlog. And an additional $112 million has been 
        requested for the DNA Analysis and Capacity Enhancement 
        Program, which assists with the processing of DNA samples in 
        laboratories and law enforcement agencies across the country 
        and would reduce the backlog in the processing of sexual 
        assault kits.

          Addressing Inequities in the Criminal Justice System.--The 
        Department's fiscal year 2022 budget invests nearly $1.6 
        billion to support criminal justice reform, an increase of 
        $669.3 million over fiscal year 2021 levels.
          Our budget request takes several additional steps to support 
        criminal justice reform in the Federal system. It continues the 
        historic investment of $409.5 million by the Federal Bureau of 
        Prisons for First Step Act implementation. The Office of the 
        Pardon Attorney is also seeking an increase to address the 
        backlog of cases and better support the clemency program. And 
        the Department is requesting additional funding to implement 
        Executive Order 14006 and eliminate the use of privately-
        operated Federal criminal detention facilities by transferring 
        those individuals who are in privately-operated Federal 
        facilities to alternative Federal, State, and local facilities.
          The budget request also includes several reform-oriented 
        grants for State, local, Tribal and Territorial entities 
        distributed by the Office of Justice Programs. More than $450 
        million increase in funding would be directed to programs 
        focused on youth. Among other things, these grants would assist 
        local communities in developing comprehensive youth-focused 
        violence prevention and reduction programs, as well as 
        effective alternatives to incarceration. To assist young people 
        who are involved in the justice system, the Juvenile Justice 
        Prosecution and Defense Process Improvement Program would grow 
        to $40 million in fiscal year 2022, up from $2.5 million in 
        fiscal year 2021. This funding would support training and 
        technical assistance for public and appointed juvenile 
        defenders. At the same time, this budget request includes a 
        significant boost in the Department's Part B: Formula Grants 
        program to increase prevention and intervention programs for 
        youth, ensure appropriate accountability for delinquent 
        behavior, and improve the juvenile justice system.
          Increases for programs targeted at adults, including programs 
        under the Second Chance Act, would help State, local, and 
        Tribal corrections and public safety agencies to implement and 
        improve a variety of critical reentry services. The fiscal year 
        2022 budget also requests an increase for the Justice 
        Reinvestment Initiative, which would assist State and local 
        justice stakeholders in developing and implementing innovative 
        and research-based responses that address a range of criminal 
        justice system programs.
          Our request also funds programs designed to divert 
        individuals with drug addiction out of the criminal justice 
        system, including through increased support for drug courts, 
        mental health collaborations, and residential substance abuse 
        treatment. The funding request includes a total of $418 million 
        in grants under the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 
        (CARA), which would, among other things, support system-wide 
        initiatives that expand locally-driven responses to identify, 
        treat and support those impacted by substance abuse.

          Advancing Environmental Justice.--The Department is committed 
        to advancing environmental justice and supports the President's 
        Executive Order 14008, ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home 
        and Abroad.'' The Executive Order establishes a ``whole-of-
        government'' approach to addressing the climate crisis and 
        formalizes the government's commitment to environmental 
        justice.
          The fiscal year 2022 budget requests $44.0 million to advance 
        environmental justice, tackle climate change, and enhance 
        environmental sustainability. This includes increased funding 
        for the Environment and Natural Resources Division to expand 
        its affirmative authorities to advance environmental justice 
        and to address the impact of climate change by reducing 
        greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. It also provides 
        funds for continuing defensive and other work related to 
        climate change. In addition, with this support would allow the 
        Bureau of Prisons to invest an additional $39 million energy-
        saving modernization and repair projects to replace aging 
        equipment with energy efficient models.
3. Ensuring Economic Opportunity and Fairness
          Reinvigorating Antitrust Enforcement.--America's antitrust 
        laws are our country's charter of economic liberty. For more 
        than a century, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division has 
        been entrusted with their enforcement. The President's request 
        to increase the Antitrust Division's budget by 9 percent to a 
        total of more than $200 million reflects our commitment to that 
        vital mission. Every year, the Justice Department's enforcement 
        of our antitrust laws saves consumers millions and perhaps 
        billions of dollars. The fiscal year 2022 budget request would 
        allow the Department to onboard 90 additional personnel, 
        including 49 attorneys, to advance these efforts to ensure 
        economic opportunity, protect American consumers, and safeguard 
        taxpayer dollars from collusion.

          Combating Fraud and Protecting Consumers.--The Justice 
        Department is committed to using every available Federal tool--
        including criminal, civil, and administrative actions--to 
        protect consumers and combat and prevent fraud. As part of this 
        budget request, the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorneys' 
        Offices would receive an additional $36.4 million to bolster 
        efforts to prevent COVID-19 related fraud and bring to justice 
        those who seek to profit unlawfully from the pandemic. And an 
        additional $4.8 million is requested for the Civil Division to 
        address increased workload associated with the COVID-19 
        pandemic, including the pursuit of those who exploit this 
        pandemic to take advantage of the government of their fellow 
        Americans.

          Revitalizing Tax Enforcement.--The integrity of our tax 
        system is vital to maintaining public confidence and requires 
        ensuring that all taxes that are owed are paid. Honest 
        taxpayers must be able to trust that they will not bear an 
        undue share of the Federal tax burden. An increase of nearly 5 
        percent is requested for the Department's Tax Division to fully 
        fund its vital mission of enforcing our tax laws fully, fairly, 
        and consistently with all available tools.
4. Reducing the Immigration Court Backlog
          The fiscal year 2022 budget strengthens the ability of the 
        Justice Department to apply the immigration laws justly, 
        consistently, and in a timely fashion, while ensuring due 
        process under the law. The $891 million budget request for the 
        Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review includes 
        more than $177 million in much-needed immigration-related 
        program enhancements.
          At the beginning of this administration, there were nearly 
        1.3 million outstanding cases before the immigration courts--
        the largest ever pending caseload. This budget would allow the 
        Executive Office for Immigration Review to onboard a total of 
        600 new staff, including 100 new immigration judges. This would 
        bring the total number of immigration judges to 734, an 
        increase of 16 percent. New modernization and efficiency 
        measures would also help reduce the backlog.
          To help ensure due process in immigration proceedings, the 
        Department's Office of Justice Programs would administer a $15 
        million pilot program to provide access to legal representation 
        for immigrant children and families who seek asylum and other 
        forms of legal protection in the United States after entering 
        at the borders.

                                *  *  *

    I ask for your support for our budget as the Justice Department 
works to ensure adherence to the rule of law, to keep our country and 
communities safe, and to protect civil rights and civil liberties.

            Thank you.

    Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. We will have 5 minute 
rounds for questions, and we will take senators in order of 
arrival. So I will begin, followed by the Ranking Member. As I 
said in my opening statement, Attorney General, I am very 
concerned about what happens to the level of support in the 
Crime Victims Fund.
    Senator Leahy and I sent you a letter in March on this 
issue after your confirmation as Attorney General. And I know 
we are both, as is the subcommittee, very interested in the 
steps that the Department has taken to address the level of 
funding in the Crime Victims Fund and how you see that moving 
forward.
    Attorney General Garland. So I appreciate both the letter 
and the questions that you and I were able to discuss 
yesterday. I have a personal commitment to that fund. That is 
the fund that provided the money for Oklahoma City victims, so 
I know full well how important it is to everyone who is a 
victim of this kind of crime or any crime. So I have looked 
into it, and I have been given to understand that given the 
receipts we expect to bring in this year and through fiscal 
year 2022, at the end of 2022, we should have about a $400 
million balance.
    That is, we do not expect the fund to run out and we expect 
to have a balance. Now, I also agree with you, we ought to 
build up that fund further. So we are going to be looking in 
the Department of Justice and the ways to do that. I understand 
there are some legislation pending, possibly adding additional 
crimes that would feed into the fund.
    And of course, we will look into also other issues that you 
raised about taking certain kinds of pleas and taking certain 
kinds of delayed pleas that might have not resulted in 
restitution. The most important thing in these matters is for 
there to be sufficient restitution for the victims.
    Senator Shaheen. And as the result of the pandemic, have 
there been more requests for assistance from the fund over the 
last year? Do you know the answer to that?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer. All I do 
know is that we expect that the receipts that we have received 
already to be sufficient to provide the $400 million. But I 
don't I don't know the answer. That is a very good question.
    Senator Shaheen. Perhaps you could find that out and share 
that with the subcommittee. That would be interesting to know.
    Attorney General Garland. Sure. My staff will get back to 
yours.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you. The other question we discussed 
in our phone conversation was the request for the Bureau of 
Prisons. And as you know, the question--the practice known as 
augmentation is something that this subcommittee has been 
concerned about for a while. It is certainly something I hear 
about from prison employees in New Hampshire. And so can you 
tell us what the Department is doing to address and curtail 
augmentation?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, I will have to admit that 
that was a word I had never heard of before I became Attorney 
General.
    Senator Shaheen. Yes, me either.
    Attorney General Garland. Okay, fair enough. So I have 
looked at this and I am, of course, concerned about this. It is 
protection of both the staff and the inmates that require that 
we have the right number of staff in the Bureau of Prisons. So 
what I understand is that we are currently at 95 percent of 
authorized positions filled. So there will always be a 
percentage because of attrition, etcetera, but they have made 
dramatic increases in the number of hires, to the point that 
BOP hired 900 net new staff, accounting for attrition, since 
last May and since the previous May, and 281 net new hires in 
this past month alone.
    Now, it will likely always be the case that we won't get up 
to the full numbers. But the idea with augmentation is that 
people who switch into guard work or protective work have 
already been trained in that. We are not going to be sending 
people who are without the training. We also expect, of course, 
that with the number of inmates reduced, that we will have less 
of a problem of the kind that you describe.
    Senator Shaheen. I certainly hope so. Can you--I know that 
vaccinations have been a concern and with some of the employees 
and corrections officers in our prison in New Hampshire. Do you 
have any idea if that has been an issue in other prisons around 
the country?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, so it certainly was an issue 
everywhere around the country, and not only in prisons, but 
with--in the community as a whole. And I have looked into that 
as well. So with respect to inmates, 95 percent have been 
offered vaccines. Now, unfortunately, as with the community as 
a whole, not everyone accepts. But as of right now, at least 52 
percent have received at least one vaccine dose.
    With respect to the Bureau of Prisons staff, 100 percent 
have been offered vaccines. 51 percent are fully vaccinated. 
And another 661 have received--in addition to that, have 
received their first vaccine dose. So we are in the right 
direction here but there is the same problem that there is in 
the community at large, some resistance to this, which frankly, 
I do not understand. I rushed out to get my vaccine as soon as 
it was available. But right now we have enough vaccines for 
everybody who is willing to take it.
    Senator Shaheen. And is there any consideration around 
trying to better engage with staff and I assume inmates, but 
particularly staff around why this is important and the 
difference that it can make for them?
    Attorney General Garland. Absolutely. Education on this 
issue, as with the CDC's general effort to educate the general 
population, is ongoing and we don't want this to be a problem, 
obviously, for the protection of our staff and for our inmates. 
And so we are going to do everything we can to induce people, 
incentivize people to take the vaccines.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. Senator Moran.
    Senator Moran. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. General, shortly 
after the President's inauguration, the President issued an 
executive order on the renewal of DOJ contracts with privately 
operated criminal detention facilities. I believe that applying 
this executive order to the U.S. Marshals Service is a serious 
mistake. Unlike the Bureau of Prisons, which I assume the 
administration really was directing their attention to, I am 
not sure of that of course, the Marshals don't own any of their 
own facilities. They exclusively contract with the Bureau of 
Prisons, State and local prisons, and jails and private 
facilities. Closing private facilities will inevitably require 
Federal prisoners to be housed at facilities further from 
courthouses in which their cases are being considered. There 
are ethical and constitutional concerns with moving prisoners 
potentially far distances from their families and legal 
counsel.
    However, we are now also learning that this policy will 
cost hundreds of millions of dollars for U.S. taxpayers. The 
Department's budget request estimates that implementation of 
the executive order will cost the U.S. Marshal Service $75 
million in additional transportation housing costs, and that is 
just for fiscal year 2020. So my question, General, is, has the 
Department consulted with the White House about those costs, 
and what I think is unintended consequences of applying the 
executive order to the U.S. Marshal Service?
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you. Thank you for your 
question. There is a principle involved here, leaving aside the 
specifics of the issue you are raising about the Marshals. The 
administration's policy, and I believe to be the correct 
policy, is that prison is Government work. It is a Government 
function, and it contravenes sometimes the due process clause 
to be keeping people in privately owned areas which are not 
responsive to all of the requirements of Federal law, and which 
are not as easy for us to supervise as they would be if they 
were Federal employees. Now, that said, you put your finger on 
the correct distinction, which is relatively easy for us to 
have done this with respect to the Bureau of Prisons, because 
there was already a Bureau of Prisons space.
    With respect to Marshals, as you point out, this was 
contracted space. So we have a plan of phasing the Marshals 
part of this in over a somewhat longer period. The money is to 
move them from private space to State or local Government space 
so that we still are satisfying our concern that this be a 
Government function. You are right about the amount, but this 
is the amount necessary to transfer the people from one to the 
other. I don't think this will be a problem in the longer run.
    I also completely agree with you that it is important to 
have particularly detention areas near where somebody lives. It 
is important from the point of view of family connections and 
continuing connections to the community. And it is also 
important from the point of view of having appropriate legal 
representation and lawyers, defense lawyers not having to 
travel so far that they are unable to do that. So your concerns 
are my concerns.
    Senator Moran. I appreciate hearing that. And I would ask 
if you could share with me the outline of the plan for moving 
forward as it regards--in regard to the Marshals.
    Attorney General Garland. My staff will get back yours.
    Senator Moran. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The tragic death 
of Judge Esther Salas last July impressed on me and others the 
extraordinary threats that our Federal judges face. Last year, 
I worked to provide additional funding to the U.S. Marshal 
Service for judicial security operations. The Department's 
budget this year, it is for fiscal year 2022, includes a 
program increase of thirty $33.4 million to further enhance 
Marsha judicial security programs.
    I would expect you to be very knowledgeable of the 
circumstances that judges face in regard to their security. And 
I would expect you to have a well-informed perspective on this. 
General Garland, what can you tell us the subcommittee about 
the proposed program increases and the need for additional 
investment in Federal judge security?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, you have pointed your 
finger at the right person. I was on the Judicial Security 
Committee for many years when I was a judge, and I was also 
chair of the Executive Committee, which oversees the other 
committees, including the Security Committee. So I have dealt 
very deeply into this problem with respect to judicial 
security. And it is a big problem and there is a dangerous 
problem. And as we have a rise in domestic violent extremism, 
it is a serious threat. We are--this amount of money we believe 
will enable us to upgrade the home security systems and to 
provide Marshals intelligence for better tracking threats 
against judges. And you can be assured I take this one also 
quite personal.
    Senator Moran. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for 
recognizing the importance of security. From my perspective, it 
certainly security for the judges and their families, but it is 
also a threat against our system of Government. Judges need to 
be safe and secure, and the threats need to be addressed 
seriously, both protection and ultimate prosecution of 
perpetrators.
    Attorney General Garland. This is exactly right. You can't 
have a democracy with due process of law if judges are afraid 
to make the decisions.
    Senator Moran. I almost said democracy General, but every 
time I start to see democracy, I remember a republic and it 
confuses me as to how I am supposed to phrase these questions. 
So thank you for saying that we live in a democracy.
    Attorney General Garland. Republic is a representative 
democracy. I think that is what Hamilton meant.
    Senator Moran. Thank you for the clarification. My time has 
expired. I would indicate to you both to the Chairman and to 
you, General, that I also am the Ranking Member of the Senate 
Committee on Veterans Affairs that is meeting this afternoon. 
You will see me here intermittently. It is not by lack of 
interest in what you have to say.
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Moran. I 
should have announced at the beginning that the witness has 
requested a brief recess, about 3:15 p.m. So we will take a 
short recess at 3:15 p.m. at his request. And when I said we 
were going to take people in order of arrival, I lied. I am 
actually going to take the Chairman of the Committee next, 
Senator Leahy, as is our custom. Senator.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you. I appreciate that and you may 
recall I did the same thing before as chairman but with others. 
It is good to see you, Attorney General. And I agree, Senator 
Moran that we want to have security for our courts and judicial 
personnel, just as I hope that we will finally get all the 
answers of what happened January 6. So we will have security of 
our, really the symbol of our democracy, the U.S. Capitol, the 
thousands of people who work here, the men and women, tourists 
and everybody else, and I hope that we will finally get the 
answers to everything behind that.
    Attorney General, in the past few weeks, your Department 
has endured some highly controversial positions taken by the 
former President's Justice Department. Many have expressed 
concerns about that. For example, the Trump DOJ removed from 
the State Court and the Federal court a defamation charge 
involving an assault allegation against Donald Trump by a 
woman.
    The release of the OLC memo on obstruction of justice 
conclusions and so on. How is this coming about? Are these 
criticisms valid or--what do you say about them?
    Attorney General Garland. Senator, I am grateful for you 
asking me the question, and I know about the criticisms. Look, 
the job of the Justice Department in making decisions of law is 
not to back any administration, previous or present. Our job is 
to represent the American people. And our job in doing so is to 
ensure adherence to the rule of law, which is the fundamental 
requirement of a democracy or a republic or a representative 
democracy. And the essence of the rule of law is what I said 
when I accepted the nomination for Attorney General, it is that 
like cases be treated like, that there not be one rule for 
Democrats and another for Republicans, that there not be one 
rule for friends and another for foes.
    Now, it is not always easy to apply that rule. Sometimes it 
means that we have to make a decision about the law that we 
would never have made and that we strongly disagree with as a 
matter of policy. But in every case, the job of the Justice 
Department is to make the best judgment it can as to what the 
law requires.
    Now, matters of policy, of course, are completely 
different, and that explains why we have reversed these 
policies of the previous administration many times over the 
last 3 months, and why we have initiated our own policies that 
are distinctly different from those of the previous 
administration. But this is an important issue, the distinction 
between law and policy, and it is at the center of ensuring 
adherence to the rule of law for which the Justice Department 
stands.
    Senator Leahy. Well, as you know, and you and I have had 
discussions on other matters. I think I have been first to say 
that there may be areas we agree or disagree with you, but 
follow the law, which is basically what I have said to every 
Attorney General, Republican or Democratic administrations 
since I was here. I am worried about another area.
    Our right to vote is under assault in dozens of States. You 
would think you are back in the old Jim Crow era to see some of 
the bills that come up. And trying to find a path to 
reintroduce an act, a bipartisan John Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act. I want to restore the Department's 
preclearance powers, but that could take time. In the meantime, 
you now have Kristen Clarke at the helm of the Civil Rights 
Division. What is the Justice Department doing today to combat 
voter suppression schemes across the country?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, as I said, with respect to 
our budget request, we are asking for a considerable expansion 
in the number of--in the amount of money for the civil rights 
division and which will allow us to hire more attorneys. But on 
the specific question we are reviewing, as you would expect, 
allegations that come in with respect to voting. Voting is a 
fundamental element of our democracy.
    In fact, without it, without the right to vote, none of the 
other rights follow. And it was the founding purpose of the 
Justice Department during Reconstruction to ensure the right to 
vote of newly freed African-Americans who were under militant 
attack to prevent them from voting. And the Voting Rights Act 
in the 60s reaffirmed that concern and that is very much 
present on our mind now.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you. And I think you expect that 
Senator Shaheen, and I will continue to work with you on the 
Crime Victims Fund. You should also feel free if things come up 
in there, do not appear that the funds are coming the way you 
thought, let the two of us know.
    Attorney General Garland. We will. Thank you.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Leahy. Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. 
Attorney General, for being with us today. I am the Ranking 
Member on the Senate Appropriations Committee for Homeland 
Security, and I followed closely CISA's work to respond to and 
mitigate cyber breaches and the ransomware attacks.
    FBI Director Wray recently compares current ransomware 
threat to the threats of 9/11. And there is some debate from 
both Congress and the White House as to whether or not to ban 
outright--to ban private companies from paying ransom when they 
become victims of cyber-attacks. As you know, this is an issue 
that we not just face here in the United States, but globally.
    So I asked the same question yesterday, wondering from the 
Secretary of State, and I would like to hear your perspective. 
Are you working with our allies diplomatically to try in, you 
know, in your--as chief law enforcement officer in other 
countries to try to figure out how we may stop this, be 
prevented from happening again, and where you see this going in 
the next near future?
    Attorney General Garland. I will start with the bottom 
question, which is not a happy answer, which is this is getting 
worse and worse, and we have to do everything we possibly can 
here. This is a very, very serious threat. You know, we saw 
what can happen with respect to a pipeline, with respect to a 
food processing company. You can imagine what could happen if 
we had multiple attacks at the same time on more--even more 
fundamental infrastructure.
    So I am very worried about it. And so is the 
administration. And that is why we have asked for such a large 
increase in our cyber budget. That is also why the 
administration has stood up a full process on this question in 
the National Security Council. And that is why the Justice 
Department has put up its own cyber security task force and 
particularly focusing on ransomware. And as you acknowledge, we 
have already had one pretty significant success. One 
significant success is not really going to be enough.
    This has to be a constant, you know, just the constant 
focus. And in each future year, it is going to be require more 
money. I think we have the right amount of money now, but fair 
warning, we are going to be coming back for more money after 
this. And the other question, specific question you asked about 
diplomatic, yes. So one advantage or one advantage of a sad 
situation of the pandemic is that I am able to meet with 
Attorneys General and home secretaries without having to travel 
to many different countries. And in my first few weeks, that is 
what I did. And I met with our four closest allies, and I also 
met with the E.U., each of the EU members. And I also 
communicated by telephone separately with a number of our 
allies on this question among others. So this is top of mind, I 
assure you.
    Senator Capito. Well, we certainly want to be extremely 
supportive of you and your efforts of Homeland Security as well 
and the Department of State, because I think what you have told 
us is what we all feel, that we are very, very concerned about 
this. I am going to switch topics here. Since the passage of 
the Fix NICS Act, which I was a proud co-sponsor of, we have 
seen continuous increases in the number of background checks 
run through the NICS system. In fact, this year we have seen 
record breaking numbers of checks run with some months reaching 
over 4 million.
    Those background checks were done, and Senator Manchin and 
I, in our home State of West Virginia. We are very proud of the 
effort that we are doing there and the way we are contributing. 
What steps will your Department take to support the NICS system 
and ensure that we are enforcing background check laws that are 
already on the books? And what are the funding needs--from time 
to time, we have really up the funding. Here is that--I looked 
through your things to see if there was something about that in 
your budget request. And I would invite you to visit the 
facility in West Virginia. It is quite something to see.
    Attorney General Garland. Just trying to get the number for 
the NICS system. So first of all, you are absolutely right, 
this is essential to the fight against violent crime and 
against gun violence. We have to keep guns away from people who 
are legally not permitted to have guns, which is the purpose of 
this system. And also, of course, it helps us to, when a bad 
event occurs, find if somebody has violated the law in 
obtaining a gun.
    So included in the anti-gun violence programs are State and 
local grants of $421 million, including NICS, which is an 
increase in 62 percent. So your concern about this is the same 
as our concern. Couldn't be more in line.
    Senator Capito. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator 
Manchin. We are going to West Virginia, all at the same time 
here.
    Senator Manchin. All the way. Thank you. Thank you, Madam 
Chairman. And thank you, Attorney General, for your service. 
Intelligence reports prior to January 6 warned Capitol Police 
that supporters of President Trump were actively promoting 
violence and targeting Congress itself. The Department of 
Homeland Security specifically notifying Capitol Police that 
they had identified a map of the Capitol Tunnel system and 
online messages between stopped Stop The Steal supporters and 
the FBI field office. And Norfolk also warned the Capitol 
Police.
    But however, the Capitol Police Inspector General also 
found a lack of consensus among key officials about whether 
these reports indicate a specific known threats. As you both 
know, it is impossible to prepare to respond unless--without 
much reliable information as possible. So my question would be, 
in your position so far, do you feel both your Departments have 
been sufficiently receiving and relaying threat information 
with each of the other Federal Departments?
    We seem to have a disconnect and sometimes that is very 
costly, as we have seen. And then a follow up would be, how do 
we increase the coordination within the Federal Government to 
respond more quickly?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I can imagine, since I 
think I was nominated on January 7, that January 6 is very 
sharply engraved on my mind. I think the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Department of Justice, which are the two 
principal Departments for this purpose, are very well lashed up 
now. We have joint task forces along this whole area, and the 
National Security Council has engaged both of us in the 
involvement in the assessment of the domestic violent extremist 
threat. So, you know, there will always be problems, but I am 
reasonably confident that we won't have a problem like that 
again.
    Now, with respect to the Capitol Police and our 
relationship with them, to be honest, I am not--I don't know 
enough to know about that. This has certainly raised that 
issue. And I will go back again and speak with the FBI Director 
on exactly how that has been done. But I think there is no 
excuse at this point for that kind of clear connection not to 
be made.
    Senator Manchin. Do you know how many people have been 
arrested to date?
    Attorney General Garland. Do I know how many you have?
    Senator Manchin. Do you have a figure on that?
    Attorney General Garland. Like off the top of my head, 
within some margin of error it is about 456, something like 
that.
    Senator Manchin. And how--do you----
    Attorney General Garland. And there will be many. There 
will be more. I don't want--I was about to say many. I want to 
say that. You know, we have a very good method of finding the 
additional people who are inside the Capitol, and I would call 
it crowdsourcing, thanks to the omnipresent videos that 
everybody took. And even private citizens have posted.
    Senator Manchin. How many prosecutions we had so far?
    Attorney General Garland. We have charged 400.
    Senator Manchin. Has anyone been sentenced?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't think anybody has been 
sentenced. I think there has been one or two pleas so far and 
the other ones are all pending.
    Senator Manchin. On March 29, 2020, coronavirus aid, 
relief, and economic security, or the CARES Act was signed into 
law and provided $2 trillion economic relief to help Americans 
cope with the economic impact. Among other things, the CARES 
Act originally authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable 
loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other 
expenses to PPP payroll protection program.
    While the loans help millions of struggling businesses stay 
afloat during the pandemic, it also provide a unique 
opportunity for creative fraudsters to take advantage of 
Federal Government's generous terms. So I would go down quickly 
to say I think you know where I am going with this. And if you 
can explain to me how we are doing on that, because I have--
some of the numbers I have seen has been unbelievable.
    That $250 million in taxpayer subsidized loans, funds to 
give to potentially ineligible recipients, then we had, 
according to a report there were $1.9 million in pending SBA 
transactions made to accounts outside the United States, 
another 3,000 suspicious transactions were $73 million that 
were flagged by financial institutions. Can you give me an 
update of where we are on that?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. So this is a circumstance 
that I saw even coming in, even before the reports. Seemed 
obvious that, you know, my last go around in the Justice 
Department had to do with health care fraud being one of the 
top issues. And we stood up a task force which was very good at 
integrating information from all the relevant inspectors 
general and from the agencies together with our law enforcement 
and our prosecutors. At that time, we didn't have big data to 
make these evaluations. Now we do.
    And so we have stood up and I have issued a memorandum on 
standing up a COVID fraud task force, which has been stood up. 
It involves all of the relevant inspector generals from the 
different agencies cooperating with each other. It involves all 
of our relevant law enforcement agencies on both the Federal 
side components, on both the Federal side and the civil side, 
and our U.S. attorneys offices. And in our request, there is a 
$41.3 million request for new funding for the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the Criminal Division and for the Civil Division, 
for specifically for COVID fraud.
    So I would say, maybe this is a bad metaphor, but this is a 
target rich environment. There is a lot of that fraud that 
happened in the past that we are going to go after. You have 
already probably seen our reports of major takedowns with 
respect. And we are hoping that this will be a deterrent of 
future fraud.
    Senator Manchin. The money--let me just finish up real 
quick. The money that you all received, retracked back for the 
United States, does that go to the Treasury or does it go back 
into circulation so we can get it to the people who need it the 
most?
    Attorney General Garland. That is--my question is, I guess 
following up with Senator Shaheen's question is does that go 
really into the Crime Victims Fund, might be a good way to ask 
that question. Do you we have the answer?
    Senator Manchin. Can you maybe--that is okay if you don't 
have it.
    Attorney General Garland. We will look into that. But the 
bottom line is, before it even goes into that fund, the first 
thing is restitution, and restitution to the specific companies 
or individuals who were defrauded as a private fraud. Yes.
    Senator Manchin. Right. Okay. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Manchin. And Mr. 
Attorney General, we are having a little trouble hearing you. 
Maybe you can pull the mic closer. You have to really speak 
directly into the mic.
    Attorney General Garland. Oh, I am sorry. Do you want me to 
start all over?
    Senator Shaheen. Maybe not. Alright. Thank you, Senator 
Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 
Attorney General. The website Pro Publica has indicated that it 
has, ``obtained a vast trove of IRS data on the tax returns of 
thousands of the Nation's wealthiest people.'' The publication 
is not disclosing how it obtained the data. So we don't know 
whether the source for these materials was outside of the 
Federal Government or within the Federal Government. But we can 
be certain of one thing.
    These highly confidential personal documents were obtained 
illegally. Any taxpayers should be guaranteed that their 
privacy will be protected when they provide information and 
file their returns with the IRS. As we saw during Watergate, 
there is an incredible danger to private citizens and the 
credibility of the Federal Government if information is used 
for political or other purposes. Anything short of the highest 
degree of privacy protection for taxpayers' information could 
cause them to be far less willing to provide the information 
that is required by the IRS for full compliance.
    Does the Department of Justice have any information about 
the origin of this breach and what steps is the Department 
taking to investigate, identify, and apprehend those 
responsible?
    Attorney General Garland. Senator, I take this as seriously 
as you do. I very well remember what President Nixon did in the 
Watergate period, the creation of enemies lists and the 
punishment of people through reviewing their tax returns. This 
is an extremely serious matter. People are entitled, obviously, 
to the greatest privacy with respect to their tax returns. To 
be honest, I know nothing more than about this than what I read 
in the Pro Publica piece, which I also read and was astonished.
    Now, what I did read in that piece was that the Director of 
the IRS is on it. And he said that their inspectors were 
working on it. And I am sure that that means it will be 
referred to the Justice Department. And when I--this was on my 
list of things to raise after I finished preparing for this 
hearing, and I promise you will be at the top of my list.
    Senator Collins. Thank you. I am glad to hear that. The 
second issue that I want to raise with you are reports that I 
am hearing from police departments all over the country that 
they are having great difficulties in retaining and recruiting 
police officers. And in every single case where I have talked 
to police officers and police chiefs, they say that it is due 
to the fact that there has been this vilification of law 
enforcement rather than trying to strengthen and improve 
practices of police departments and that the ill-conceived 
defund the police movement has also led to significant 
problems. And this isn't just in our largest cities.
    We are seeing difficulties with recruitment and retention 
in rural Maine. For example, Van Buren, Maine, a small 
community in Northern Maine, has completely disbanded its 
police department because they can't hire officers. The town of 
Fort Kent, Maine, which has about 4,000 people and last year 
responded to 5,000 different calls, can't get enough officers 
and is considering disbanding its department as well.
    And at the same time in large cities, not fortunately in 
Maine, we are seeing an increase in crime, a substantial 
increase. Do you personally believe that efforts to vilify 
rather than improve our police departments, including the 
defund the police movement, have contributed to these 
recruitment and retention problems?
    Attorney General Garland. Senator, no one could look at the 
Justice Department budget that we put in front of you and think 
the Justice Department supports defunding the police. We have 
asked for, with respect to our grant programs, $651 million for 
the COPS program, which is a $265 million increase. This 
includes $537 million specifically for cops hiring, which is a 
$300 million increase. Likewise for the Byrne JAG grants, we 
have asked for $513.5 million, which is a $29.5 million 
increase. So no, as President Biden has made absolutely clear, 
we are not asking to defund the police.
    Now, a lot of what we are doing in addition to supporting 
hiring, is trying to support trust building between communities 
and police departments. Not to vilify anyone, but as I said in 
previous testimony, for police to do their work well and 
safely, they need to have the trust of the community and the 
community needs to have trust in the police department that 
their civil rights will be protected. This includes 
accountability for police officers who violate constitutional 
rights, but it does not have anything to do with vilifying 
whole departments or anything like that.
    The Justice Department has a responsibility under the 
statutes provided by Congress to pursue investigations where we 
believe constitutional rights have been violated. And we have 
announced, I think, two of those. And we also have 
responsibility to do pattern or practice investigations to 
determine whether there are police departments that have a 
pattern or practice of unconstitutional behavior. But that is a 
completely different question than where we are--than you are 
asking about.
    Senator Collins. Right.
    Attorney General Garland. These are two--you can hold both 
of these in your hands at the same time and not be inconsistent 
with each other.
    Senator Collins. But let me be very clear, I was not 
suggesting that the administration or the President or you were 
part of this effort. But the fact is it exists. And I know your 
efforts are to improve policing. And I am a strong supporter of 
the COPS program. In fact, I worked on it with the President 
years ago and the Byrne Justice Department grants. But I was 
trying to get your personal opinion on whether this effort, 
which you are not a part of, is contributing to the recruitment 
and the retention problems that are being experienced all over 
the country.
    Attorney General Garland. I have to say the answer to that 
question requires data that I just don't have. Requires all 
kinds of survey data, and I really don't--anecdotally, I have 
heard some things like you are saying, but I really don't have 
any data that I can confidently give you an answer to.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Collins. Before we go 
to Senator Reid, Senator Moran has--would like to make a 
correction for the record.
    Senator Moran. I think--thank you, Chairman. I think in my 
question to the Attorney General, I indicated the death of 
Judge Esther Salas rather than the death of her son. And if I 
did that, I want to make clear that I would like the record to 
reflect the tragedy that has occurred and have that stated in 
the factual basis.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator. We will make 
sure that that correction is made. Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank your 
Attorney General for not only being here, but for your service. 
Recently, we have observed an alarming increase of incidents on 
aircraft regulated--commercial aircraft regulated by the FAA. 
In fact, 2,500 reports this year about 20 times the average 
number, some of them involving very violent attacks on flight 
attendants and also indications that TSA agents are also being 
subject to abuse, to insult, and to worse. Can you discuss what 
DOJ's involvement may be in these cases? Are you prioritizing 
what incidents should be taken directly into the Federal 
attorney for prosecution, or are you allowing them to remain 
with the FAA?
    Attorney General Garland. So this is a good question as to 
which I don't know the complete answer. So assaults on these--I 
read the same about the assaults on those planes. They are 
extraordinarily dangerous, even if not intended to bring the 
plane down. You can imagine the kind of pandemonium on planes 
that we have seen in some of these videos that people have 
taken that can cause an incredibly dangerous accident. So we 
take them extremely seriously. The States have authority over 
these matters.
    To be honest, I am not sure whether it is the State they 
fly over or the State they land on. There is a conflicts of law 
question, which I think I may have skipped that course in law 
school, but there is clearly a State authority here. And I 
think most of these cases end up that way. But it is also a 
Federal crime to commit an assault like that on interstate 
commerce of the kind that we are talking about.
    I will go back and look more carefully to see whether TSA 
or FAA has referred any--what they referred us to here. But 
these strike me not as things for the FAA. These are not 
administrative matters, these are criminal matters.
    Senator Reed. Thank you. You indicated quite accurately 
that there are major threats of domestic violent extremist, 
homegrown violent extremists, and international extremists, and 
they are all using to coordinate social media encrypted 
transmissions. What tools and authorities and resources do you 
need to combat these terrorist groups and their use of social 
media and other forms of encrypted coordination?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, this also a very also a 
very hard question. You are very good at asking me very hard 
questions. The problem is severe because people talking on 
social media can incite people up to radicalization. This is 
what we all fear. And we have we have seen this in the in the 
foreign terrorist circumstance where people are, you know, 
watching jihadist websites that eventually move them and much 
more swiftly than ever before from mere involvement and 
interest to radicalization to action.
    We expect that the same is likely to occur with respect to 
domestic violent extremism, although likely different websites. 
But maybe not even. And this is a matter of serious concern. So 
where there is a threat of violence, where we have predication, 
a reasonable articulation, the bureau can go in and look at 
what is happening and find out what it can find out. And of 
course, as this escalates, the bureau has other mechanisms of 
doing the same. The reason I say it is a hard question as one I 
am sure you know, it is the First Amendment. And the question 
is, what do we do in earlier stages of this where there isn't 
yet violence, there is the kind of talk that maybe could lead 
to it.
    And this is a very hard problem. And I know that the 
Judiciary Committee and this subcommittee have asked us to 
think about what more tools we might need. And we are thinking 
about that. And certainly our experience on the January 6 
investigation will help us make those decisions. But in every 
case, we have to worry about the First Amendment issue on the 
other side and not making it difficult for people to say 
things, even hateful things, because even that kind of speech 
is protected.
    Senator Reed. Just as a suggestion. You don't have to 
comment on this. There might be an opportunity for Information 
Literacy Commission that could design programs where people 
become more aware of the disinformation rather than what they 
believe is true information. And that could be an effective way 
to counter some of these problems. But thank you very much, 
Jim.
    Attorney General Garland. I appreciate the suggestion.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you so 
much for being here. We do appreciate your work. I am like 
Senator Moran, I have got to run in a second and go to Veterans 
Affairs. But I did want to follow up on Senator Collins 
question in regard to the seriousness of the breach of the IRS. 
And we have had other breaches there in the past. You know, it 
could have been somebody there. It could have been a hack. We 
don't know what has happened at all. They are talking about 
significantly lowering the reporting threshold, $10,000, 
significantly lower than that.
    Based on the fact that we have had problems in the past 
regarding hacking, other issues, and then two, the pipeline 
issue, the packing plant issue. Does it seem like a good idea 
to centralize that much information in an agency? Right now if 
you have an interest or the IRS has an interest, they can 
contact the local bank.
    But to pour through so much data and then be responsible 
for that data and be able to secure that, that is a huge job 
for the Federal Government and one that we don't do a very good 
job of. So could you comment on that?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Just particularly to respond 
on the suspicious transaction reports, I believe, and I will 
come back if I am wrong about this, I think we have a recent 
prosecution of somebody who leaked the information with respect 
to that matter. So it gives you an idea of how seriously we 
take this. On the bigger question, look this is the conundrum 
that the digital age has brought us to. We can distribute 
information and keep it on paper.
    And that is the perfect solution to hacking, if there is 
never a connection to the Internet. But it also means we can't 
use the information in a way that is useful for tracking 
terrorist behavior, for tracking child exploitation, for 
tracking espionage, for tracking bribery. And that is why we 
have the special transaction reports, so that it makes it 
easier for us, maybe even possible for us to do that.
    And I know that, I think I saw that the Treasury Department 
is suggesting something like that for cryptocurrency, which may 
also be essential as an ability to continue this particular 
instance we saw with the ransomware circumstance that is the 
way in which it is being paid.
    So, you know, my view would be we need to strengthen our 
cyber security, maybe keep systems separate. But the idea of 
distributing them in a way that we can't access them in some 
central way, that means it would be very difficult for us to 
make the kind of use that you want to, you know, to put to this 
very important information. So it is--the subcommittee here is 
filled with hard questions. This is a really hard question, and 
it puts two different principles which are dear to us in 
conflict sometimes.
    Senator Boozman. Right. Well, thank you very much. Thank 
you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Boozman. Senator 
Feinstein.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am very 
interested in hate crimes and there has been a very sharp 
increase in violence committed against Asian-Americans since 
the pandemic began. One database included over 2,800 reports of 
anti-Asian discrimination in the last 9 months of 2020.
    And the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at 
California State University, San Bernardino found that Asian 
hate crimes increased by approximately 150 percent last year. 
So the question is, what is the Department doing to address 
these hate crimes against Asian-Americans and how can we help 
support your efforts?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I appreciate the question. 
One of the very first acts I took after becoming Attorney 
General--I am sorry, after becoming Attorney General was to ask 
for a 30 day review of this problem with respect to Asian-
Americans and Pacific Islanders. And that that report has come 
back to me. And we have announced the establishment of a hate 
crime task force. As that report was coming back, the Congress 
passed the Hate Crimes Act, the two Hate Crimes Act, which were 
combined, which had a number of requests for the Department to 
do. We have accomplished all of the things that Congress asked 
us to do. And we put out an announcement.
    We have established a hate crimes coordinator in the 
Associate Attorney General's office, Deputy Associate Attorney 
General whose job will be to coordinate civil and criminal side 
law enforcement in this area, because most of the hate crime 
law enforcement comes from the Civil Rights Division, which is 
on under the supervision of the associate Attorney General. We 
have established in the civil rights division the chief of the 
criminal civil rights section, as the, I would say, expediters 
the best word.
    This was a requirement of the Hate Crimes Act to make sure 
that the U.S. Attorney's Offices and the Department as a whole 
are expediting our response to hate crimes. We are 
establishing--we have established a language service in the 
Department because this is obviously a very important part of 
that. And we have in this particular, in this request for hate 
crimes response training grants, at $9 million, which is an 
increase of $4 million over fiscal year 2022. So we take this 
very seriously. And you are absolutely right. There is a 
serious increase in hate crimes across the board.
    Senator Feinstein. Good. As you probably know, the Center 
for the Study of Hate and Extremist at California State 
University, San Bernardino, found that Asian hate crimes have 
increased by 150 in this country. And I believe we can't 
tolerate this. So whatever we can do to be helpful to you, I 
would be most happy to participate in. Let me move to the next 
question.
    Justice introduced model legislation for extreme risk laws. 
The model is very similar to legislation that I have 
introduced, which is called the Extreme Risk Protection Order 
Act, which would give grants to States to help them create and 
implement extreme risk laws. I think these are really important 
tools that empower family members and law enforcement to ask 
courts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people found 
to be dangerous. We have 19 States and the District of Columbia 
that have extreme risk laws now on the books.
    Can you explain why the Department, I agree with this, 
believes extreme risk laws can help reduce gun violence? And 
what would you tell us today about the need to pass legislation 
on this issue?
    Attorney General Garland. Right. So this--actually we just 
did this. What you are referring to, I think, was just maybe 2 
days ago or 3 days ago, I signed a memorandum in connection 
with the other rulemaking with respect to stabilizing armed 
braces at the beginning of this week. These are model extreme 
risk laws the States can adopt. We have in this budget $40 
million of grants which can be used by States for this purpose. 
The idea is, as you eloquently put it, is to make sure that 
people who are in extreme risk, either to themselves or to 
their loved ones, have the guns taken away temporarily while 
the matter is adjudicated.
    And if a judge concludes that is a risk, to keep the gun 
away for some specific amount of time specified in the State 
statutes. There are--you know, as we sadly know, gun deaths can 
occur when people and extremists--mental issues for themselves 
or personal crises put the gun on themselves or put the gun on 
somebody else. And we want to alleviate that cause of a 
terrible tragedy by both protecting the gun owners' due process 
rights but protecting the potential community victims from the 
risk of death.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much. I am very 
concerned about this. I come from a big State, and it is many 
different people. I have seen a database included over 2,800 
reports of anti-Asian discrimination in the last 9 months of 
2020. So I would hope that your Department of Justice would be 
particularly sensitive right now about anti-Asian hate crimes, 
because I think the increase of 150 percent has been quite 
dramatic.
    Attorney General Garland. I quite agree with you and that 
is why I have spoken to a number of Pacific Islanders and 
Asian-American groups already.
    Senator Feinstein. Good. And if there is anything we can do 
to be helpful, very--oh, my time is up.
    Senator Shaheen. Yes. Thank you very much, Senator 
Feinstein. We will take Senator Coons, then we will take a 
brief break because we think we have a couple of Members on 
their way back. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Great. Thank you, Chairwoman Shaheen. Thank 
you, Attorney General Garland, for joining us again and for 
your regular engagement with the Senate. In Delaware, the New 
Castle County Police Department and the Christiana Care Health 
System have jointly stood up a behavioral health unit that 
pairs mental health professionals with local law enforcement to 
respond to individuals going through a mental health crisis. 
And I have heard from elected officials, community advocates, 
and law enforcement leaders across the country, they would 
welcome these kind of correspondent models that allow for a 
more appropriately trained and equipped response to individuals 
going through mental health crises.
    Can you speak to the value of these models, the impact they 
have in benefitting communities and improving police community 
relations, and what sorts of investments you see making in 
providing better access to these kinds of models going forward?
    Attorney General Garland. You are exactly right. You know, 
sometimes we have crises that arise because the wrong people 
are responding. Police officers often are not equipped in terms 
of their experience and even their equipment to deal with a 
person who is having a problem--it is really not a criminal or 
violence problem, but a question of instability.
    And these can get out of hand. And police officers would 
like to have the assistance of mental health professionals in 
the co-responder circumstance that you are talking about, and 
this is better for the community and in the end, for the person 
in crisis. So we couldn't agree more.
    Our funding includes requests for grants, $40 million, 
which is $5 million increase for mental health collaborations, 
and $10 million, which is a $2.5 million increase for training 
to improve police based responses to people with mental 
illness.
    Senator Coons. So do you think that is a sufficient 
investment given the scope of the need? Has there been a 
thorough assessment of how many different communities and how 
many different public health serving agencies and law 
enforcement agencies might benefit from this kind of model?
    Attorney General Garland. So I think this, like, you know, 
many others of these kind of innovative interventions are works 
in progress and we have to evaluate them to see how they work. 
We want an evidence based approach that does work. And so this 
is, I think, a sufficient amount for us to get seriously 
involved in this, and then next year maybe I will come back and 
ask for more money.
    Senator Coons. My hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, and 
many other cities, both large and small across the country, has 
seen a significant rise in violent crime in recent years. I 
note the proposal of $100 million for a new community violence 
intervention initiative. We have a group violence intervention 
program to try and interrupt violence before it accelerates in 
Wilmington. I am wondering if you can describe in any more 
detail how you intend to implement this program and what sort 
of coordination it might include with other Federal agencies.
    Attorney General Garland. So this is a new program, and it 
has several possible approaches. I think that the Office of 
Justice Programs will have to figure out exactly what the best 
way, what kind of incentives to give and what kind of programs 
to give grants to. It is everything from proven violence 
interrupters, people who have been out on the street trying to 
get gangs to conciliate, to put down their guns, to hospital 
based intervention, where the interrupters go to visit somebody 
who has been shot and is in the hospital and try to conciliate 
and persuade them not to take vengeance and persuade their 
relatives not to take vengeance.
    So there are a series of these different methods of 
interruption, and many have been very successful. So, you know, 
as with all of our programs, we are going to try and give 
grants to those that have been shown successful and then to use 
those as examples to hold out for others to fulfill, and when 
they meet those requirements, they get the grants as well.
    Senator Coons. Thank you. I look forward to following up 
with you and with the Office of Justice Programs around these 
initiatives, as well as initiatives to expand access to body 
worn cameras in State and local law enforcement. I was 
encouraged to see the announcement you would mandate Federal 
law enforcement to wear body worn cameras. And I was encouraged 
to see a significant increase in the request for the Victims of 
Child Abuse Act programing and a new task force to combat 
trafficking and corruption in the Northern Triangle and Mexico. 
And look forward to working with you on all these different 
aspects of your budget proposal.
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you. We appreciate that. 
Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Coons. As I announced, 
we will have a 10 minute break. But if I could just ask, 
Senator Murkowski has requested a clarification on an earlier 
question before we break because she is not able to stay. So, 
Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Madam Chairman, thank you. And, Mr. 
Attorney General, thank you for the work that you are doing and 
your responses today. When Senator Shaheen had led her 
questioning with regards to the VOCA funds and a concern that 
we are seeing additional demand on those funds, certainly in 
Alaska we are. The increase to calls to the sexual assault 
hotlines have increased by 52 percent since the beginning of 
the pandemic. Shelters are experiencing overwhelming amounts of 
strain.
    And that 30 some odd organizations that we have in our 
State are facing this 35 percent cut to their VOCA funds, which 
is absolutely frightening everybody. But, as we look at the 
President's budget with a $2.65 billion cap for the funds, in 
2019, fiscal year 2019, Congress put the VOCA cap at $3.5 
billion. We have talked--we understand the structural issues 
relating to the deposit fund. We are going to--we are trying to 
address this through legislation.
    That is absolutely what has to happen. But in any case, 
what we have is this decreasing cap is going to impact the 
effect on the ground for victim services, if not for this year 
then absolutely for next year. So you have said to the chairman 
that there was $400 million surplus that you anticipate at the 
end of the year. The way I understand----
    Attorney General Garland. At the end of 2022.
    Senator Murkowski. At the end of 2022. Excuse me. Yes. At 
the end of 2022. But if I understand what we have coming into 
the fund versus the outlays, that will result in decreases, if 
again, not necessarily this year, next year, the next fiscal 
year. So I just want to make sure that we are not operating 
under the assumption that, in fact, we are going to be okay in 
this next fiscal year. Because right now, I think all the 
victim services in my State, and I think Senator Shaheen in 
yours are just desperately afraid of these cuts that are 
coming.
    And so I want to understand whether or not we are--whether 
there is any flexibility with additional funding that could be 
used to supplement so we don't have this hit again at a really 
difficult time for so many that are providing these important 
and vital services to victims of domestic violence, sexual 
assault, and the like.
    Attorney General Garland. I completely agree that the 
bigger this fund, the better, because there is in many ways an 
unending demand and appropriately so. Just to clarify what I 
said about the money, as of April, we have collected sufficient 
receipts to cover all the way through fiscal year 2022, fiscal 
year 2021 and 2022. We expect to end this fiscal year with $3 
billion, which will cover the $2.6 billion request. That is 
where my $400 million net at the end of that time comes from. 
Obviously, we would like to have a higher amount at the end, 
but the way we are now, that would require taking less money 
out of the fund, which is the opposite of what you want.
    Senator Murkowski. Right, that is not where we want to go. 
Yes.
    Attorney General Garland. Right. So I think that I am not 
an expert budgeteer, but it seems to me that what we need is to 
be able to put more money into this fund, which means 
expanding, the maybe in expanding the kind of crimes that flow 
into it, but also you know the prosecutors in the Justice 
Department need to take more attention to getting restitution 
that goes into this fund and not to be satisfied with other 
kinds of, you know, pleas, for example. So I don't know--it is 
hard to say that as an across the board question, but that is 
the best I can do at this point.
    Senator Murkowski. I think we are all trying to get to the 
same place, which is we don't want to see these significant 
cuts to our victims services. We have got to address 
legislatively, I think the construct of the VOCA funds. We will 
work on that but----
    Attorney General Garland. Let me ask my team to work with 
you.
    Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
    Attorney General Garland. I think this is very important.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 
attention. And thank you for letting me jump in before the 
break.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Senator Murkowski. As we 
promised, the witness will now take a 10 minute break.
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. I will now call the CJS hearing back to 
order, and call on Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Can 
you hear me?
    Attorney General Garland. I can. Thank you.
    Senator Graham. Welcome, Mr. General. I think Senator Coons 
was mentioning some ideas about having some resources outside 
of traditional policing to deal with mental health issues. 
Didn't you all have a discussion about that, I think?
    Attorney General Garland. We did.
    Senator Graham. Count me in. I would like to help in that 
regard. So last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was the 
Chairman, reported a bill out of the Committee, 13 to 9, that 
waived sovereign immunity, allowing Americans to sue China in 
Federal court. You have to prove causation and all the normal 
rules have to be followed for damage done by the coronavirus. 
Do you support that idea?
    Attorney General Garland. I have to say, I am not familiar 
with the bill, I am sorry.
    Senator Graham. I am going to send it to you. I would urge 
you to get back with me sooner rather than later. Do you agree 
with me if, in fact, this was a lab leak, the source of the 
virus came out of a Chinese lab because of negligence, China 
should pay somebody?
    Attorney General Garland. I really don't--I don't know 
enough about this. I know that the Government is beginning to 
evaluate that--reevaluate that----
    Senator Graham. I am just giving you a hypothetical. If the 
Chinese government, lied about the origins of the coronavirus 
and it, in fact, came from a lab leak in Wuhan, which they 
denied, do you agree that they should be held accountable and 
compensate the world in some fashion for the damage they have 
done?
    Attorney General Garland. I think this is a diplomatic 
issue and an issue for the State Department and the Executive 
branch. I don't think----
    Senator Graham. But you don't see a legal----
    Attorney General Garland. The way you put it, which you 
asked whether they should compensate the world in some manner, 
I think that doesn't fit in my----
    Senator Graham. Okay. That can be diplomatic, but we 
allowed victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia and other countries 
for their part, any part they may have played in 9/11. Do you 
think that model should be allowed for China?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I think this is a policy 
question for the diplomats. I am just a poor lawyer.
    Senator Graham. Okay, alright. So I do believe there is a 
crime wave in the United States regarding violent crime.
    Attorney General Garland. I think there is a serious, 
significant rise in major violent crime beginning last year. 
Yes, I do.
    Senator Graham. Thank you. That shortened up these 
questions. You are dead right. Atlanta is 59 percent increase 
in homicides, Chicago, 56, Houston, 42, Portland, 800 percent, 
L.A. County, 127 percent--Atlanta, 63 percent. The numbers are 
pretty staggering. What do you think has caused that?
    Attorney General Garland. I know better, having lived 
through several crime waves, as both of us have, and both of us 
know that figuring out exactly what has caused a particularly 
a----
    Senator Graham. Is it possible that some of the rhetoric 
about defunding the police and actually reducing police 
capability has created some of the problems?
    Attorney General Garland. Just don't know. There are a lot 
of factors here, of course, the biggest one being the pandemic 
and I just don't know at this point how to----
    Senator Graham. So you think the pandemics is more of a 
root cause than declaring war on the police?
    Attorney General Garland. No, sir, I don't know. I honestly 
don't know.
    Senator Graham. Do you think that is a possibility that we 
have gone too far in reducing police capability? Is that a 
possibility?
    Attorney General Garland. I think I gave the answer to 
Senator Collins, and I give the same one, which I think it is, 
this Justice Department, this administration does not believe 
in defunding the police. We believe in supporting the police. 
We also believe that community policing is very important. And 
developing trust between the community and the police 
Department is essential to stop violent crime. And we also 
think that includes holding police accountable who violate----
    Senator Graham. I agree with all that.
    Attorney General Garland. I know you do.
    Senator Graham. I do want to work with you on police 
reform. But I guess, it is pretty obvious to me that there has 
been a push back to this defunding the police. It hasn't 
worked. That the effort to marginalize police forces has gone 
too far. And I think we are seeing the results of that. And if 
we don't change our rhetoric, in some parts of the country it 
is going to get worse. Let's talk a little bit about 
immigration. In the end of 2020, we had an historic 45 year low 
of illegal crossings into this country. Now we have historic 
highs of illegal crossings in this country. What do you think 
has happened in the last 6 months?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, once again, you are asking 
me a question I am no expert on. But there was a pandemic, and 
that makes a difference in this area. I am not willing to 
ascribe the difference to the pandemic, and I don't know the 
answer. There are a lot of factors going on here.
    Senator Graham. How many asylum claim backlogs do we have?
    Attorney General Garland. We have 1.5 million backlogs in 
the immigration courts as of the day I took office.
    Senator Graham. Would you agree with me that the asylum 
system in this country is completely broken?
    Attorney General Garland. I would agree that the 
immigration system as a whole is broken.
    Senator Graham. I am talking about asylum in general.
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know. We are evaluating 
how we deal with asylum now.
    Senator Graham. Well, how can you have a system where you 
have 1.5 million backlog in cases--you now have a catch and 
release program regarding asylum. It seems to me that it is 
beyond broken. Do you agree that we should revisit our asylum 
policies?
    Attorney General Garland. I think we need to get the 
backlog down. The backlog is from the preceding years, not from 
the new administration. I totally agree we need to get the 
backlog down. We need to streamline our processes.
    Senator Graham. And I don't mean to belabor the point, but 
the backlog is not the only problem. You are going to have a 
million and a half more if you don't change catch and release. 
Thank you very much.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Graham. I have--I would 
like to do a second round, and I know Senator Moran is 
interested in that as well. It has recently been disclosed that 
the previous administration's Justice Department seized phone 
records of reporters with The New York Times and The Washington 
Post, and the phone and email logs for a CNN reporter.
    This is particularly salient for me, having just returned 
from Ukraine and Georgia, where I met with reporters from Radio 
Free Europe and Radio Liberty who talked about the challenges 
they are facing in Belarus and Russia because of efforts to 
threaten reporters so that they won't do their jobs and 
actually provide information to the public. So I understand 
that the Department is no longer going to cease journalist's 
records when conducting leak investigations.
    And I would just ask, do you commit to ensuring freedom of 
the press and can you tell us what policies are in place or you 
expect to be in place to ensure that there are no additional 
efforts to seize phone and email records of journalists unless 
they are involved in legitimate criminal concern?
    Attorney General Garland. So this is a very important 
issue. The President has made clear his view about the First 
Amendment, and it coincides with mine. It is vital to the 
functioning of our democracy and that extends to the need for 
journalists to be able to go about their work disclosing 
wrongdoing in the Government. That is part of how you get faith 
in a democracy, is by having that level of transparency. What 
you were talking about, these were decisions that were made 
under a set of policies that have lasted.
    I don't--I am not casting blame when I want to be clear, as 
these were under a set of policies that have existed for 
decades that continuously with each new administration, 
ratcheted up greater protections. But going forward, we have 
adopted a policy which is the most protective of journalist's 
ability to do their jobs in history. And it is, as you 
describe, that we will not use compulsory process in leak 
investigations to require reporters to provide information 
about their sources when they are doing their job as reporters. 
That is going to be our policy. I am meeting with people within 
the Department.
    It has been reported that I will be meeting with people 
outside the Department, so I will leave that aside for right 
now, in order to figure out--but that is the basic policy that 
will be issued in some kind of memorandum, obviously, from me. 
You have a good point, which is in developing this policy, we 
have to distinguish between reporters doing their jobs and 
reporters committing crimes unrelated to the leaking--unrelated 
to the leaking. So there are some definitional questions, but I 
think they are quite resolvable and that is going to be our 
task over the next few weeks.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much. I want to 
follow up on Senator Graham's questions about the backlog in 
our immigration courts. And I have a question first, which is 
more a clarification, because I was surprised there wasn't a 
budget request for the Legal Orientation Program. As you know, 
this is a program that provides basic legal information and 
explanations of court proceedings to those who are going 
through immigration courts. Can you tell me if the Department 
plans to continue this program and what the funding level will 
be?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Included in our request for 
the Executive Office of Immigration Review, $22.5 million would 
continue to support that Office's legal orientation program, 
which LOPS which thinks is what you are referring to. And in 
addition, we have requested $15 million--there will be $15 
million for a new pilot to provide access to legal 
representation for immigrant children. So you have our 
commitment that we are going to be continuing this process up 
to the--obviously up to the amount of money that is provided by 
the Congress.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much. Having worked 
with Senator Moran several years ago when there was an effort 
within the Department of Justice to eliminate that program, I 
think it is very important that it continue. Given that the 
immigration courts are not independent, like the Federal court 
system, there are a lot of organizations like the Federal Bar 
Association who have argued that they should become Article 1 
courts. Do you support leaving them the way they are or would 
you advocate to make them a separate system?
    Attorney General Garland. This is an issue that I haven't 
thought about, with respect to the sort of the way in which to 
structure this. I do think that the court should be as 
independent as possible. I understand that was the reason in 
All Land Security Act that they were taken away from INS, 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, which went to Homeland 
Security, and the courts were left with the Justice Department.
    At one point they were all together at the Justice 
Department. And that was an effort for security--for 
independence. And I believe that immigration judges should be 
left alone to do their work. And they are, of course, subject 
to review. The question of whether they should be Article 1 
courts and completely independent is really a question for the 
Congress. I would be happy to think more about this, but 
obviously that would create even more independence. And so I 
just leave it at that. It is an issue of congressional policy.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, as you and Senator Graham in your 
back and forth, it is very clear that we have a backlog in our 
immigration courts. And even though Congress has provided more 
money in the last few years, at least since I have been on the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, we still have seen that 
backlog grow, not diminish. So I am not sure what the answer 
is, but I do wonder if we need a fundamentally different 
approach. We also need immigration reform, as you pointed out. 
So thank you very much. Senator Moran.
    Attorney General Garland. As long as we are making 
corrections, I have been advised that I kept saying at 1.5 
million person--case backlog is actually 1.3 million.
    Senator Shaheen. Yes, that is the number I have too. Thank 
you for that clarification. Senator Moran.
    Senator Moran. Attorney General, you are very good at 
making me feel comfortable having----
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I will give you another 
correction. I think as soon as I said Hamilton, I think it was 
probably Madison, but I will check the Federalist paper that I 
was thinking about and get back to you on that.
    Senator Moran. That is okay. Nobody is going to know the 
answer to that.
    Attorney General Garland. Unfortunately, I feel bad about 
this. I should know the answer to that.
    Senator Moran. General, just a couple more questions, and I 
think Senator Shaheen and I will conclude this hearing. I was 
on the border--this is perhaps a bit of an immigration issue, 
but more drugs, crime, cartels issue. So I was in McAllen, 
Texas, not too many weeks ago to see the nature of what is 
going on at the border, including the detention of juveniles 
and listening to Border Patrol agents. But I also met with law 
enforcement officials, Federal law enforcement officials to 
talk about the aspect of our borders and the necessity of them 
being secure for purposes of avoiding crime, criminal activity, 
drug trafficking, narcotics, sexual abuse.
    And I just am really concerned about the Mexican cartels. I 
think they are probably our greatest drug trafficking threat. 
They continue to supply most of the cocaine, methamphetamines, 
heroin, fentanyl. I am particularly concerned by the flood of 
methamphetamines. We have--this Senate spends lots of time on a 
variety of drugs, and I sometimes think methamphetamines is 
overlooked as we have moved on to others, other drugs.
    But 74 percent of all the drug seizures in Kansas are 
methamphetamine. And my question is, can you describe the 
threat that you see posed by Mexican cartels, in particular the 
cross-border trafficking of drugs? But I also would expand that 
question to see if you have any comments that can provide any 
knowledge about the terrorism aspect or the espionage aspect of 
crossing the border is related to the cartels.
    My understanding is the Chinese come to the United States 
really at every opportunity to steal our secrets, to ingrain 
themselves into our economy, our science, our universities. Is 
there knowledge about cartels and relationship with Chinese who 
come to infiltrate and steal our secrets and work at NASA and 
SpaceX and universities? Are you aware of that?
    Attorney General Garland. So I am not aware of, and I don't 
mean in any way to suggest that it is not true. I just don't 
have any information. I think this is the kind of thing I will 
have to get staffed and possibly from the FBI to come back to 
you. The connection that I do know about is that precursor 
chemicals coming from China are shipped to Mexico and then made 
into the narcotics that are then shipped into the United 
States. So there is that connection and I think that is pretty 
well known. But the question you are asking, I just don't know 
the answer.
    Senator Moran. Well, perhaps my question, which was overly 
wordy, but is really a statement about the need for the 
Department of Justice, Federal law enforcement in all arenas to 
increase the efforts at the border, to diminish the role that 
the cartels, Mexican cartels play in the United States.
    Attorney General Garland. I think they are extraordinarily 
dangerous. They have lethal weaponry, sometimes exceeds what 
the Mexican military has, as we have seen in some of the 
shootouts in Mexico.
    Senator Moran. Have you had--I can't remember you--I think 
you talked about visiting with Attorney Generals from other 
countries
    Attorney General Garland. With Mexico----
    Senator Moran. Including Mexico.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Yes. And----
    Senator Moran. A sense of cooperation.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, I agreed on the need for 
cooperation. We had a very good talk. Yes.
    Senator Moran. My second, I think final question, Madam 
Chair, is before your confirmation, you and I spoke just a few 
days before, we spoke about the need to ensure that small and 
rural law enforcement agencies have a fair shot at DOJ grants. 
And in Kansas, a smaller--I just want to highlight this for 
you. In Kansas, a smaller rural Department may only have a 
handful, two or three or four sworn officers. They don't have 
the resources to hire a professional grant writer. They can't 
simply take one fifth of their force off the beat without 
putting public safety at risk.
    I would continue to believe it is essential that the 
Department consider ways to ensure that small and rural law 
enforcement agencies have access to the funding opportunities 
that the Department of Justice provides. And so, General 
Garland, I expect you would answer this question yes, but will 
you commit to making it a priority within the Office of Justice 
Programs and the COPS office to promote access for small, rural 
agencies?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, and as I told you in our 
conversation, obvious to me, the problem that you point out. If 
you have five officers, you don't have anybody who runs the 
grant making Department or the grant application Department. We 
also have the same problem with respect to small community 
organizations that don't have the ability to do funding. And I 
think some of the funds we have available now for OJP is to 
make it more easy access to applications online. And it seems 
to me obvious that we should be able to transfer that kind of 
ability for police Departments as well, if that is not already 
in the train. But I will look into it for you.
    Senator Moran. Thank you. I think when we met on that day, 
I asked you if you would agree to come to Kansas and you said 
yes. But if I say yes to you, I have to say yes to every other 
Senator who asked me. So when no one is listening, I am going 
to ask you again.
    Attorney General Garland. That is fair. I--the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Office of--for the Justice Management 
Division pointed out that the money, I was thinking of $7 
million for rural law enforcement for this purpose.
    Senator Moran. Thank you for that. Thank you very much.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Moran. Senator Van 
Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking 
Member Moran. And Mr. Attorney General, great to see you. First 
of all, I support many of the provisions in your budget and 
appreciate its overall framework. I especially want to mention 
the Community Violence Intervention Initiative. I look forward 
to working with you and the Department as you implement that. 
As you know, there are some programs that have been more 
successful than others. And I think you would agree, we want to 
focus on best practices. And I would like to share with you in 
the Department some that have been successful in Baltimore, if 
you would agree to that.
    Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
    Senator Van Hollen. You have also talked about some funding 
to help States and local jurisdictions that want to move 
forward with red flag provisions or gun licensing laws, permit 
to purchase. Johns Hopkins University has studied this area 
carefully, especially with respect to permit to purchase 
requirements. And I hope you will consider putting out a model 
proposal for local jurisdictions that are interested for a 
permit to purchase, as I think you are suggesting you are going 
to do for the red flag laws. Is that something that you would 
consider doing?
    Attorney General Garland. Definitely. We did put out the 
red flag laws just this week or earlier this week, but that is 
definitely something to consider. And I hadn't thought about 
it.
    Senator Van Hollen. In terms of a model permit purchase--in 
fact, I have introduced legislation here. We would love to work 
with you to see if that is something that would be a good model 
going forward. You have probably seen some of the recent 
stories regarding accountability in Federal law enforcement 
officers. And a little over a year ago, I wrote to the FBI 
regarding implementation of the Use of Force database. The 
Washington Post reported that in 2019, only 27 percent of law 
enforcement agencies contributed information through that 
process, covering about 41 percent of officers. You know, in my 
discussions with law enforcement, they all agree that more 
transparency and more accountability is good for everybody.
    And I am assuming you agree with that premise. So we did 
recently see that while we encourage local jurisdictions to 
provide this information and it is voluntary, that not all 
Federal law enforcement agencies provide this information. I 
hope you would agree that we should lead by example. And I 
would just like to get your commitment here today that all 
Federal law enforcement agencies that come under your 
jurisdiction will report this data.
    Attorney General Garland. I didn't know we weren't 
reporting. This follows the same problem with respect to body 
worn cameras when I first got in and learned that we were not 
wearing them. I asked why not? And I directed our Deputy 
Attorney General to resolve that issue, and very prompt, and 
this week we did resolve that issue. So let me put that to her 
as well. And this will require a meeting of the various law 
enforcement agencies and we will get on that.
    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. And it may not--it 
may also include Federal law enforcement agencies under the 
jurisdiction of other Departments. But as the Attorney General, 
if you could just agree that you will reach out to your other 
agents----
    Attorney General Garland. You want to authorize me to 
demand----
    Senator Van Hollen. I would like to deputize you to do 
that.
    Attorney General Garland [continuing]: As a statute you can 
add, that would be great.
    Senator Van Hollen. But I do think, you know, I think many 
of us clearly wrongly assume that since the Federal Government 
was asking State and local jurisdictions just that, we already 
were doing it within the Federal Government. So I think it is 
really important we do. You mentioned the body cameras. Let's 
make sure we do it with the data as well. The other thing I do 
want to mention, we are we are having ongoing discussions 
between the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans about 
the George Foy Justice and Policing Act. But one of the things 
that I think is we have seen on a bipartisan basis is there are 
many times when somebody calls 911, one where a law enforcement 
response is neither justified or appropriate.
    In many cases, as you begin to look at 911 calls, involve 
mental health situations where there is no crime involved, 
substance use situations. And, you know, I know you have 
proposed better training for police in terms of behavioral 
health. That is fine. But a number of us have proposed creating 
alternative responses to those many, many cases that involve 
mental health situations and allow law enforcement, therefore, 
to focus on those situations where, you know, a use of force 
may be required. Could you work with us to create those 
alternative response mechanisms?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, the answer is yes. I 
completely agree with you that alternative response mechanisms 
can decrease the risk of a violent confrontation when none is 
necessary and lead to death. We do have $40 million in this 
budget for the purpose of mental health collaborations and 
another $10 million for training a police based response to 
people with mental illness. So we have a basis for grants for 
this kind of program.
    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. Congresswoman Karen 
Bass and I have introduced legislation last Congress and we are 
going to reintroduce it shortly. So we look forward to working 
with you on that. Thank you. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. We will go 
to Senator Braun next. I am sorry, Senator Hagerty, he beat you 
here.
    Senator Hagerty. I will stay long enough, don't worry.
    Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Attorney 
General, over the past 3 months, I think the FBI has done a 
diligent job in pursuing those that breached the Capitol, 
including to the extent of, I think, visiting their homes, 
tracking phone records, and all of that. Curious, we had that 
incident occur that was horrific to anybody but what has been 
done in a similar light where you look at Antifa, BLM activists 
that were, you know, active in so many places across the 
country this past summer. Has that same diligence and effort 
been applied there? And I think when you add up the number of 
individuals involved, it would be a lot. I am just curious to 
see what your approach is there and what you are thinking is 
there.
    Attorney General Garland. I think that is a perfectly fair 
question. The events that you are talking about all took place 
long before I was at the Justice Department. So I was not there 
for the purpose of organizing the response, supervising the 
response, figuring out how many people should be involved in 
the response. As far as I understand, in terms of the arrests 
and the investigations, they are largely completed. And long 
before I got--before I got here. The January 6 event occurred 
the day I think before my nomination. And as you can imagine, 
it is burned on my mind. And I promised that I would focus on 
that.
    And I have and so I can account for my behavior. With 
respect to the way we organize the January 6 response, I am 
sure that the Justice Department last summer was equally 
diligent with respect to the response to the civil unrest. At 
that time, I am advised that we have spent $48 million in FBI, 
DOP, Marshals, and ATF during that period, not counting the 
January 6 expenditure.
    Senator Braun. In other words, related to the riots and so 
forth across the country----
    Attorney General Garland. I am going to describe it as 
civil unrest because it has a legal connotation, but yes.
    Senator Braun. And how many arrests were made?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer----
    Senator Braun. If you could get back to our office.
    Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
    Senator Braun. I think many would want to make sure a fair 
response in both endeavors.
    Attorney General Garland. Not a problem. Would be happy to 
get back to you.
    Senator Braun. I am Ranking Member on the Ledge Branch 
subcommittee, where we have got to figure out resources that we 
are going to devote to securing the capital, making sure that 
Capitol Police are getting the resources they need. On the 
building itself, we spoke to the Architect of the Capitol that 
said they were close to $30 million in damages done. That seems 
like a lot because especially in relation to something that 
came out of the Justice Department. In an article at The 
Washington Post, they tabbed it $1.5 million. Are you aware of 
that?
    Attorney General Garland. I saw that number. I was also 
surprised. I don't know what they were calculating that as a 
basis of. I guess this had something to do with what the 
restitution for our individuals might be. But I don't know--I 
don't have any reason to doubt the larger number that that you 
mentioned.
    Senator Braun. Those are two very large figures.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes they are and I will when I 
get back to the office, see if we can figure out----
    Senator Braun. I appreciate finding out what your official 
version is and then we will compare it to that.
    Attorney General Garland. Very good.
    Senator Braun. The declassified intelligence report on the 
domestic violence extremism released by the DNI in March 
identified abortion related violent extremists as a principal 
threat. To me, this seemed like kind of a wild attack on the 
pro-life community, did not list groups like BLM and Antifa who 
have had a clear recent record of violent acts. So can you 
explain what that was about, why there would have been focus on 
that? And has there been a rash of incidents related to it?
    Attorney General Garland. So I am going to have to refresh 
my recollection about the report. It wasn't, you know--what the 
report described as the leading threats were racially 
motivated, ethnically motivated violent extremists. That was, 
and particularly white supremacists, that was the number one 
threat. I think that the anti-abortion is, you know, an area I 
don't have any, to be honest, I don't know what the, you know, 
where that fits in a threat matrix as to how high it is at this 
point. It is not my understanding that it is one of the ones 
that was listed at the high end of threat. But we can get back 
to you on where that----
    Senator Braun. If you would, please. And I think the point 
being that if it seems like there is a disproportionate 
interest or emphasis on one category and not the other, it is 
going to raise some eyebrows. And then also bring into the 
question of is that effort being applied fairly across the----
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. And so in addition to the 
category of racially or ethnically motivated violent 
extremists, there is a separate category of anti-Government or 
anti authority violent extremists. And this would be where some 
of the anarchists that you were just talking about would fall 
into that bucket. And that is another--an area of focus of the 
FBI.
    Senator Braun. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Braun. Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Chair Shaheen, thank you, and looks like 
Ranking Member Moran has left, but General Garland, I 
appreciate your staying for a little bit longer. And thank you 
for being here to testify today. I would like to follow up on 
just a bit of your discourse with Senator Moran for a moment. I 
would like to follow up on something that you discussed with 
Senator Shaheen. But with respect to Senator Moran and your 
conversation about working with your counterparts, the 
Attorneys General in Mexico, I was last month with the foreign 
minister of Mexico.
    I went there to examine the situation on the ground. He was 
very clear as well that they would like to cooperate with us on 
law enforcement, sharing technology. They need help 
interdicting the fentanyl and fentanyl precursors that are 
coming in from China. They have real problems there. And I 
applaud any efforts that you might undertake to work with their 
law enforcement to help them and in particular in border 
security.
    We went through that as well, and I think our technology 
and our capabilities could be helpful there. I would like to 
turn to a different subject, though, and that was that gets 
back to the backlog that you are experiencing and perhaps the 
need for a new approach. And as Attorney General, your 
Executive Office for Immigration Review is charged with 
adjudicating claims for asylum. Human smugglers in Central 
America and Mexico, known as coyotes, are using our country's 
generous asylum laws as advertisements to draw people into a 
very dangerous journey, a journey that often results in them 
losing their lives or becoming victims of crime.
    To this end, a recent Los Angeles Times report states that, 
``Mexican coyotes deposit migrants at the Rio Grande and 
instruct them to give themselves up to U.S. Border Patrol 
agents to claim asylum.'' This is what the coyotes are 
marketing, go across the border, claim asylum. That is the 
secret password to get in, asylum, fear. That seems to be the 
key to enter our country. General Garland, do you agree that 
human smugglers are taking advantage of our asylum system?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I think there is no doubt 
that human smugglers and human traffickers are taking advantage 
of the people who they are smuggling. That is the reason we 
have just stood up a new task force, anti-human smuggling and 
anti-human trafficking. It will involve all the main agencies 
of we call it Task Force Alpha, which just announced this week, 
includes cooperation with homeland security. We are also 
putting people into the Northern Triangle countries where the 
smuggling originates to try to interdict it there. We are also 
introducing anti-corruption units to assist those countries in 
ending the corruption that often leads to people going to these 
smuggling entities.
    Senator Hagerty. And no doubt the coyotes are taking 
advantage of the people there. But are they taking advantage of 
our system, our generous system of asylum?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't--there are a lot of 
motivations for people coming out of the Northern Triangle, 
some of which we can fix and some of which we can't and which 
we are trying very hard to fix. You know, we have an obligation 
under our law and under international law to provide refuge 
under the categories that Congress has set forth for us. And 
people are entitled to process, to seek asylum under what 
Congress has authorized and required.
    Senator Hagerty. Well, the problems with our asylum laws 
that you are acknowledging, I think are clear. I applaud you 
are acknowledging that because we do need to address that. And 
I look forward to working to do that. But let's come back to 
the messaging that the coyotes are using to attract people into 
this dangerous process. Just this week in Guatemala, Vice 
President Harris sent a message to those that were perhaps 
contemplating coming to our country illegally, ``do not come.'' 
Is that a message that you can deliver, the Attorney General 
sitting right there, a message to these people, do not come to 
our country?
    Attorney General Garland. Look, I think that Vice President 
Harris has been very deeply involved in the kind of law 
enforcement and other requirements that we are looking to set 
up. She was instrumental in moving us to establish part of this 
joint task force to de-incentivize and to reduce traffic from 
the Northern Triangle countries down through Mexico and into 
the United States. So there are a lot of different messaging 
kind of issues involved. And some of them involve getting at 
the root causes of why people are leaving in those countries.
    Senator Hagerty. Well, messaging is one of these root 
causes. And I think it would be incredibly important to hear 
from our top law enforcement officer in America that these 
people should not come.
    Attorney General Garland. I don't want people to make that 
very difficult and dangerous trip with coyotes that you are 
talking about. There is no doubt about that. This leads to 
human tragedy.
    Senator Hagerty. Well, if these people enter our country 
illegally, are you willing to say that they will be deported?
    Attorney General Garland. So the question of asylum is one 
that our law permits them to make claims of asylum and to have 
an opportunity to show whether they have the grounds for it or 
not. If they are not entitled to asylum, then they are 
deported. I want to be clear that element is for the Department 
of Homeland Security. It is not for the Justice Department. 
What we do is adjudicate the asylum claim.
    Senator Hagerty. Well, I will come back and say this. 
According to the data on the Justice Department website, 90 
percent plus of the people that come here under the claim of 
asylum are found to be invalid claims. And in that 
circumstance, would you be willing to say if a person comes 
here, goes through the asylum process and it is found that 
their claim is invalid and they should be removed, that they 
will be deported?
    Attorney General Garland. The Department of Homeland 
Security is responsible for that issue. They have--because of 
the large numbers that you are talking about, they, I 
understand, have a series of priorities. First and most 
important are deportation of people who are at risk for 
National Security to the United States and for public safety. I 
think--and lastly, they are trying to deport recent arrivals in 
order to send the message that you are talking about that 
people not come.
    Senator Hagerty. So I was with you and Secretary Mayorkas 
when we went through this prioritization before. I am shocked 
at what he said, because the number of people coming across our 
border illegally has massively increased yet the number of 
deportations has gone way down. So I am not buying that 
argument.
    What I would love to hear you say is our Nation's top law 
enforcement official in a way that would instruct the 
Department of Homeland Security is that it is illegal to cross 
the border into this country. That if somebody is found to have 
failed in their claim for asylum, which 90 percent of the 
people do, that they will be deported. That is the message that 
people in these countries need to hear. Not that ``well, don't 
come,'' but if you do, there is nothing going to happen to you.
    Attorney General Garland. It is a misdemeanor to cross the 
border without the appropriate documentation. That is correct. 
And the question of rights to apply for asylum is also correct. 
That is an element of our law. The determination of how to 
deport and what priorities, that is up to the Department of 
Homeland Security. And I don't think it useful for me to get 
into their business with respect to their--any more than I 
would expect them to get into our business with respect to our 
law enforcement priority.
    Senator Hagerty. Well, I would hope for a clear 
determination that when someone is found to be applying for 
asylum here in an invalid fashion, that they should leave this 
country and that they will be deported. The fact you are not 
able to say that clearly today and send that message to the 
Department of Homeland Security is shocking.
    Attorney General Garland. If they have been adjudicated to 
not be entitled to asylum, then they should be deported, yes.
    Senator Hagerty. I appreciate you saying that. I applaud 
that because that is the message that needs to be conveyed.
    Attorney General Garland. Right. I am sorry. Maybe I didn't 
understand the question, but of course, once they have been 
adjudicated, then, of course, there--they should be deported.
    Senator Hagerty. And I think we need to be very clear about 
that. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Chair.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Shaheen. Your time has expired. If there are any 
further questions for the record, senators have until June 16 
to submit those, and we would request that the Department 
respond within 30 days. Thank you very much, Attorney General 
Garland, for appearing today and for your willingness to take 
all of our questions. Let me also announce that we will stand 
in recess until Tuesday, June 15, when we will hold a hearing 
on NASA's budget request.
    [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. Merrick B. Garland
              Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy
    Question 1. The Crime Victims Fund is an essential component of our 
Federal Government's support for victims of crime. This Fund provides 
compensation and support for victims of crime through grant awards to 
States, local governments, individuals, and other entities. The Fund is 
projected to reach a 10-year low by the end of this year. I am a proud 
original cosponsor of the bipartisan VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) 
deposits fix legislation, which would help to sustain the Fund. You 
recently responded to a letter from Senator Shaheen and myself about 
this issue.

    1a.  Your budget requests that $2.65 billion be released from the 
Fund this year, which you estimate will have a balance of only $1.4 
billion at the end of fiscal year 2022. What can the Department do now, 
without congressional action, to help ensure the Fund will exist beyond 
this fiscal year?

    Answer. The Crime Victims Fund has collected $457 million in 
receipts this year as of June 21, 2021. The Department's Justice 
Management Division has assessed both that these receipts, when 
combined with the end of year fund balance, will provide enough funding 
to pay for the obligation caps for through fiscal year 2022 and that 
the Fund's balance at the end of fiscal year 2022 will be $1.448 
billion to support future programs beyond this fiscal year.
    The Justice Department is committed to ensuring that the 
Department's policies and practices promote victim assistance and 
compensation. This commitment is reflected in Departmental guidance and 
policies, including the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and 
Witness Assistance and key sections of the Justice Manual, including 
Sections 9-27.230(8) and 9-27.620(4).

    1b.  Your budget is silent on the issue of expanding the types of 
deposits going into the Crime Victims Fund. Would you support Congress' 
effort to enact reforms that would expand the deposits going into the 
Fund?

    Answer. The Justice Department strongly supports efforts to further 
strengthen the Crime Victims Fund. I would very much like to work with 
you on this effort and would welcome the opportunity to talk with you 
about ways that Congress could expand the types of deposits that go 
into the Fund.

    1c.  Your budget request estimates nearly $1 billion from fines, 
penalties and forfeitures will be deposited into the Fund during fiscal 
year 2022, nearly double the amount that was deposited in fiscal year 
2020. How does your Department account for this increase in deposits?

    Answer. The President's fiscal year 2022 budget estimates that $1 
billion from fines, penalties and forfeitures will be deposited into 
the Crime Victims Fund during fiscal year 2022 on the basis of an 
average-based analysis of monthly deposits into the Fund across a 5-
year period. The Department's Justice Management Division advises that 
the amount was then rounded down in order to offer a more conservative 
projection in light of recent trends in receipts and that the analysis 
excluded certain outlier months with exceptionally high or low receipt 
levels.

    Question 2. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives (ATF) remains at the forefront of protecting our communities 
from violent criminals and the illegal use and trafficking of firearms. 
One critical role the ATF plays in solving crimes and preventing gun 
violence is through effective crime gun tracing. The ATF's National 
Tracing Center is currently home to millions of gun sales records.

    2a.  How important is it for the ATF to be able to quickly trace 
crime guns in order to reduce gun violence in our country?

    Answer. The ability to quickly trace crime firearms is vital to 
reducing gun violence for a number of reasons, including because quick 
firearms tracing is critical to law enforcement in their efforts to 
link suspects to firearms in criminal investigations and to detect 
illegal firearms traffickers.
    ATF is the only Federal agency that can trace firearms used in 
crimes. ATF's National Tracing Center (NTC) traces firearms used or 
suspected to have been used in crimes in order to provide investigative 
leads to law enforcement. The NTC traces firearms annually for more 
than 8,500 Federal, State, local, and international law enforcement 
agencies. In fiscal year 2019, the NTC processed 452,047 firearms trace 
requests. In fiscal year 2020, the NTC increased the number of trace 
requests by 8.6 percent to a total of 490,844 trace requests.
    The demand for timely and accurate trace data will continue to grow 
as a key investigative tool to quickly identify and apprehend the most 
violent firearms offenders.

    Question 3. At your confirmation hearing before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, you expressed concern about the death penalty, and 
particularly the disparate impact it has on Black Americans and 
communities of color.

    3a.  When do you expect the Justice Department to reinstate its 
previous policy, under which the Federal Bureau of Prisons would not be 
ordered to schedule any Federal executions?

    Answer. On July 1, 2021, I issued a memorandum imposing a 
moratorium on all Federal executions while a review of the Department's 
policies and procedures is pending.

    Question 4. Earlier this year, I joined Senator Durbin in 
reintroducing the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act of 2021, 
bicameral legislation to prohibit the use of the death penalty at the 
Federal level and require re-sentencing of those currently on death 
row.

    4a.  Will you commit to working with Congress to ensure this 
legislation is passed and enacted into law?

    Answer. The serious concerns that have been raised about the 
continued use of the death penalty across the country--including the 
apparent arbitrariness in its application, its disparate impact on 
people of color, and the number of innocent people wrongfully convicted 
and sentenced to death--deserve careful study and evaluation by both 
the Justice Department and Congress. I would welcome the opportunity to 
work with you and other Members of Congress to ensure that everyone in 
the Federal criminal justice system is treated fairly, humanely, and 
afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the 
United States.

    Question 5. In 2018, the Supreme Court held that tracking 
individuals' movements using cell phone data requires a warrant. 
However, many government agencies purchase location information from 
data brokers to circumvent that requirement.

    5a.  To what extent does the Justice Department purchase location 
information from data brokers? Please provide a detailed explanation--
including any governing memoranda or guidance--outlining when, and 
under what circumstances, the Justice Department purchases location 
information.
    5b.  How much has the Justice Department spent over the fiscal 
years following the Supreme Court's 2018 decision purchasing cellphone 
location data? Please provide as much detail as possible about amounts 
expended.

    Answer. Consistent with the Supreme Court's 2018 Carpenter decision 
and Justice Department guidance, as a general matter, the Department's 
law enforcement components advise that they do not purchase location 
information from third party vendors or data brokers without a warrant.
    ATF advises that the Bureau acquired the use of Fog Data Science 
(FOG), a company that tracks location information via user Advertiser 
ID information without identifying the person associated with the user 
Advertiser ID. FOG is a commercial service generally used by companies 
for direct marketing purposes. ATF first used the service in late May 
2020 to assist with a high-profile arson investigation and acquired a 
contract for a portal in July 2020. During 6 months of use, FOG was 
used in less than 20 investigations, and ATF allowed the contract to 
expire in December 2020 because the information provided was ultimately 
not useful in our investigations. While FOG was initially used for 
approximately 30 days without seeking a warrant because the data was 
publicly available, out of an abundance of caution ATF developed and 
used guidelines requiring a warrant for its use.

    Question 6. At your confirmation hearing, you spoke about the need 
for agencies to ``generously'' interpret the text of the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA). The Justice Department is responsible for 
enforcing FOIA compliance across the Federal Government.

    6a.  How does the Department plan to ``generously'' interpret the 
Freedom of Information Act with respect to FOIA requests made to the 
Justice Department? Does it have adequate resources to meet that goal?
    6b.  How will the Department ensure that other Federal agencies 
will also ``generously'' interpret the text of FOIA in responding to 
FOIA requests and generally complying with the statute?

    Answer. Without accountability, democracy is impossible. And 
democratic accountability requires the kind of transparency that FOIA 
makes possible.
    That is why the Justice Department takes its special role in 
overseeing and encouraging government-wide compliance with FOIA very 
seriously and will continue to build on our efforts to ensure the 
faithful and effective implementation of the law both within the 
Department and across the Federal Government.
    To these ends, the Justice Department's Office of Information 
Policy (OIP) develops policy guidance for Executive Branch agencies on 
FOIA, provides legal counsel and training to agency personnel on the 
procedural and substantive aspects of the Act, and oversees agency 
compliance with the law.
    The Department works hard to ensure that all agencies apply the law 
with the presumption of openness that is at the core of our FOIA 
Guidelines and that has since been codified in FOIA itself. OIP assists 
agencies with implementation of the requirements of the through the 
guidance, training, and legal counsel it provides, including its a 
comprehensive legal treatise on FOIA entitled The United States 
Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information Act. The 
Guide includes detailed discussions of FOIA's procedural requirements, 
nine exemptions, litigation considerations, and detailed analysis of 
the key judicial opinions issued on the FOIA. OIP updates each chapter 
of the Guide on a rolling basis as significant new developments in FOIA 
occur.
    In addition, OIP has sponsored a series of ``best practices'' 
training so that agencies can learn from one another what FOIA 
strategies are the most successful. In addition, the Department will 
continue to keep agencies accountable in their administration of FOIA 
by requiring agency Chief FOIA Officers to report on five key areas of 
FOIA administration: (1) applying a presumption of openness, (2) having 
effective systems in place for processing requests, (3) increasing 
proactive disclosures, (4) using technology, and (5) improving 
timeliness and reducing backlogs. In addition to the above efforts, OIP 
will continue to work with agencies both directly and as part of the 
Chief FOIA Officers Council to promote best practices and leverage 
resources for the benefit of governmentwide FOA administration.
    Both within the Department and government-wide, the demands FOIA 
imposes on government offices is significant. In fiscal year 2020 
alone, the Department received 86,729 requests and overall, the 
government received 790,688 requests. FOIA requests require careful 
time and attention so that appropriate information is released while 
exempt information is withheld. OIP is currently undertaking efforts to 
leverage technological advances to increase the efficiency of FOIA 
processing.
    I believe the President's fiscal year 2022 budget request will 
enable us to maintain our commitments under FOIA.

    Question 7. When using cell site simulators in foreign intelligence 
matters in the United States, does the Justice Department always do so 
pursuant to a warrant from a FISA judge, absent an emergency? Please 
provide a detailed explanation for when, and under what circumstances, 
the Justice Department uses cell cite simulators without a warrant from 
a FISA judge in the absence of an emergency.

    Answer. The Department of Justice uses cell-site simulator 
technology to help fulfill its mission to ensure public safety, 
including by apprehending fugitives, locating kidnapping victims, and 
assisting in drug investigations. The Department has put into place a 
number of procedural safeguard to ensure this technology is used 
responsibly and consistent with the all of the requirements and 
protections of the Constitution and applicable statutory authorities.
    On September 3, 2015, the Department announced a policy (the 
``Policy'') regarding its use of cell-site simulator technology 
designed to enhance transparency and accountability, improve training 
and supervision, establish a higher and more consistent legal standard, 
and increase privacy protections. The Policy covers all four DOJ law 
enforcement components that use CSS technology--namely, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and 
the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). Each of DOJ's law enforcement 
components has instituted standard operating procedures and/or 
protocols to fully implement the Policy.
    As the Policy states, ``When acting pursuant to the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, Department of Justice components will 
make a probable-cause based showing and appropriate disclosures to the 
court in a manner that is consistent with the guidance set forth in 
this policy.'' And as the Policy makes clear, the general requirement 
is that ``law enforcement agencies must now obtain a search warrant 
supported by probable cause and issued pursuant to Rule 41 of the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or the applicable state 
equivalent).''
    In accordance with this Policy, to the extent that the Department 
has sought, or will seek, to use cell-site simulator technology to 
acquire foreign intelligence information, absent an emergency, the use 
of that CSS must be authorized pursuant to a showing of probable cause.
    Since the issuance of the Policy in 2015, the Department's National 
Security Division advises that the Department has not used cell-site 
simulator technology to acquire foreign intelligence information 
without a warrant issued by a judge of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
    Question 1. The City of Portland has been party to a settlement 
agreement since 2014 for excessive use of force. The Department of 
Justice evaluated more than 6,000 use of force incidents related to 
demonstration activity in the summer of 2020 just for the Portland 
Police Bureau alone. This use of force to engage with civilians is 
commonplace across the country, what more can the Department of Justice 
do to curb excessive use of force in police bureaus, particularly when 
engaging with crowds?

    Answer. With regard to the Justice Department's settlement 
agreement with the City of Portland, we have filed periodic reports 
assessing the City's compliance with the agreement and providing 
guidance for achieving full compliance. The Department's most recent 
compliance report, filed in February 2021, found that the City had 
regressed in a number of significant areas, including use of force, 
training, accountability, and community engagement. The Department is 
currently negotiating with the City to determine how to resolve our 
compliance concerns.
    On April 21, 2021, the Department of Justice opened a civil pattern 
or practice investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department and 
the City of Minneapolis. On April 26, 2021, the Department announced a 
pattern or practice investigation into the Louisville/Jefferson County 
Metro Government and the Louisville Metro Police Department. The 
Department opened both investigations under the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. Sec. 12601 (Section 12601). 
This statute prohibits law enforcement agencies from engaging in 
patterns or practices of conduct that deprive people of their rights 
under the Constitution or Federal law. In both investigations, the 
Department will investigate whether police officers in Minneapolis and 
Louisville are engaging in a pattern or practice of excessive force, 
among other things. The Department is also investigating whether police 
officers in each city are using excessive force against people engaged 
in activities protected by the First Amendment, including protests or 
demonstrations. If the Department determines that police in either city 
are engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force, including 
excessive force during demonstrations or protests, Section 12601 
authorizes the Attorney General to file a lawsuit to obtain equitable 
or declaratory relief to address the pattern or practice. Since the 
passage of Section 12601 in 1994, the Department has investigated more 
than 70 law enforcement agencies to ensure that constitutional and 
Federal rights, including the right to be free from excessive force, 
are upheld.
    Additionally, through the Department's grant programs, the Office 
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the 
Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) promote de-escalation 
principles. BJA recently developed a new training series for State, 
local, and Tribal officers entitled ``Crisis to C.A.L.M.'' The training 
emphasizes how to remain calm in difficult or stressful situations 
while protecting the constitutional rights of all. A summary of some of 
the other training and technical assistance that BJA and COPS offers to 
support agencies in developing effective practices and policies with 
regard to engaging with civilians, including large-scale events 
involving crowds, include:

    Additional Departmental efforts and resources include:

  --The COPS Office Collaborative Reform Initiative Technical 
        Assistance Center (CRI-TAC) program provides critical and 
        tailored technical assistance resources to State, local, 
        territorial, and Tribal law enforcement agencies on a wide 
        variety of topics. It features a ``by the field, for the 
        field'' approach while delivering individualized technical 
        assistance using leading experts in a range of public safety, 
        crime reduction, and community policing topics. CRI-TAC is a 
        public service and offered at no-cost to agencies. CRI-TAC 
        brings together the 10 leading law enforcement stakeholder 
        associations to the table to assist in implementing this 
        technical assistance. The program provides assistance in a wide 
        variety of areas including de-escalation, community engagement 
        and use of force. Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical 
        Assistance Center | COPS OFFICE (usdoj.gov)

  --The COPS Office has produced guidance documents for agencies on 
        responding to mass protest events. These include an after 
        action assessment of Ferguson Police Department's COPS Office: 
        Grants and Resources for Community Policing (usdoj.gov) and 
        Minneapolis Police Departments COPS Office: Grants and 
        Resources for Community Policing (usdoj.gov) handling of 
        protests in the wake of high profile incidents. These resources 
        offer lessons learned and recommendations for best practices in 
        protest policing and mass demonstration responses.

  --The COPS Office is currently soliciting for applications for 
        funding to support agencies in their de-escalation training and 
        implementation efforts Community Policing Development: De-
        escalation Training Solicitation | COPS OFFICE (usdoj.gov). 
        Funding will be provided to national training providers and 
        directly to agencies in order to develop and implement 
        comprehensive de-escalation training and programs for law 
        enforcement agencies.

  --De-escalation efforts and programs should not be viewed in 
        isolation from efforts to build community trust in law 
        enforcement. The wide variety of COPS Office programs, 
        services, and resources are oriented towards building that 
        trust. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS | COPS OFFICE (usdoj.gov) and 
        BUILDING TRUST | COPS OFFICE (usdoj.gov) among other programs 
        and materials.

    Question 2. In the course of the Department of Justice's work on 
pattern and practice investigations that occasionally arrive at consent 
decrees or settlement agreements for civil rights violations, is it 
standard practice to investigate ties between that law enforcement 
jurisdiction and extremist groups? What training does the Department of 
Justice currently offer to State, local, Tribal, or territorial law 
enforcement entities to identify extremist groups that attempt to 
infiltrate law enforcement ranks?

    Answer. If facts came to light during any of the Department's 
investigations of law enforcement agencies that officers were working 
in concert with criminal extremist groups, or that such groups had 
infiltrated a law enforcement agency, the Department would use all of 
the tools at its disposal to address this serious problem. Such conduct 
may contribute to a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives 
individuals of their constitutional or Federal statutory rights.
    The Department is authorized by statute to address such patterns or 
practices through its enforcement of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. Sec. 12601. Depending on the 
circumstances, officers working in concert with criminal extremist 
groups may also run afoul of numerous Federal criminal laws, including: 
the deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242; 
conspiracy to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the exercise 
or enjoyment of their rights, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241; or Federal hate crime 
laws, such as 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 245, 247, and 249, and 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 3631.
    In addition, the Department of Justice is currently enforcing 16 
settlements with law enforcement agencies, including 12 consent 
decrees, as well as two post-judgment orders, related to findings by 
the Department that these agencies were engaged in a pattern or 
practice of conduct that deprived individuals of their rights under the 
Constitution or Federal law. These law enforcement agencies typically 
have policies that prohibit officers from discriminating against 
protected groups, associating with known criminals, or engaging in on- 
or off-duty conduct that would tend to bring disrepute to the law 
enforcement agency. These policies prohibit officers from working, on- 
or off-duty, in concert with criminal extremist groups. Through its 
consent decrees, settlements, and post-judgment orders, the Department 
ensures that law enforcement agencies enforce these policies.
    The BJA State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training (SLATT) courses 
educate State, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers 
with regard to domestic terrorism and address ``extremist groups'' 
consistent with the Director of National Intelligence's (DNI) 
unclassified summary assessment of Domestic Violent Extremism. 
Attendees are provided definitions, oversight, signs of these types of 
groups and possible behaviors of their members. Having this basic 
information assists law enforcement, at all levels, to identify 
attempts at agency infiltration by extremists.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
    Question 1. What are the ATF and DOJ doing to strengthen the 
oversight of gun dealers and prevent stolen guns from being trafficked 
into the illegal market?

    Answer. The goal of ATF's illegal firearms trafficking enforcement 
efforts is to reduce violent crime by stemming the flow of firearms to 
violent criminals. ATF identifies, investigates, and arrests 
individuals and organizations that illegally supply firearms to 
prohibited individuals. This effort includes ATF's oversight of Federal 
Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and its investigation of burglaries and 
robberies of FFLs, which is why the fiscal year 2022 budget proposes a 
significant program increase of $12,736,000 and 84 new positions 
(including 79 Industry Operations Investigators).
    On June 23, 2021, the Department announced further steps that ATF 
would take to address the illegal trafficking of firearms and to keep 
guns out of the wrong hands. For example, absent extraordinary 
circumstances, ATF will initiate proceedings to revoke the license of 
dealers that willfully violate the law by failing to conduct required 
background checks, falsifying records, failing to respond to trace 
requests, refusing to permit ATF to conduct inspections, or 
transferring firearms to persons who are prohibited from owning them. 
ATF is also taking steps to formalize a data-driven approach to 
prioritizing inspection resources; improve information sharing with 
State, local, Tribal, and Territorial partners; and crack down on gun 
traffickers through five new cross-jurisdictional strike forces that 
will focus on addressing significant trafficking corridors that fuel 
violence.

    Question 2. Is the Department developing a concrete plan to ensure 
that prosecutors and the Department reflect our nation's diversity?

    Answer. The Department maintains comprehensive outreach efforts to 
support the recruitment of attorneys who reflect our Nation's rich 
diversity.
    Those efforts include broad dissemination of available attorney 
vacancies to diversity organizations and law schools across the 
country, and regular participation in events and programs sponsored by 
public interest organizations and national diversity bar associations 
including, but not limited to, the Hispanic National Bar Association, 
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Bar 
Association, National Black Prosecutors Association, National LGBT Bar 
Association, and the South Asian Bar Association of North America.
    The Department's recruitment strategy also includes fostering 
relationships with all law schools, including regular presentations to 
law students encouraging them to intern at the Department and 
connecting students with current Department Attorneys through the 
Attorney Ambassador Program that provides law students with the 
opportunity to learn more about the Department or a particular 
component by talking one-on-one with a DOJ attorney. Department 
components may engage in additional outreach efforts beyond those 
undertaken by the Department's Office of Attorney Recruitment and 
Management (OARM).
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
    Question 1. Our country is experiencing a drug overdose crisis. 
Indeed, Maine had 502 overdose deaths in 2020, an increase of 32 
percent over the 380 Mainers who died from a drug overdose in 2019. In 
a statistic that shocked and saddened me, Maine saw more drug-related 
deaths in 2020 than deaths from COVID-19. The average age of those who 
died was just 43 years old.
    The preliminary data for this year looks even worse. In my opinion, 
that is a tragedy, and the Maine Attorney General has noted that this 
is at least in part due to ``alterations in the illicit drug supply.'' 
In Maine and nationally, the high number of fatal overdoses continues 
to be driven by illicit, non-pharmaceutical fentanyl and fentanyl 
analogs, and the majority of fatalities in Maine involved two or more 
drugs.

    1a.  According to a fact sheet released by the Department of 
Justice, the President's budget requests $480.9 million in resources to 
bolster drug enforcement and related efforts. How would these funds 
help address the drug overdose crisis in this country?

    Answer. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will continue to 
use all of the tools at its disposal--administrative, civil, and 
criminal--to help reduce the number of overdoses in the United States. 
In addition, DEA will expand education, outreach, and prevention 
efforts to counter our Nation's drug threats.
    Operation Engage is one of DEA's hallmark drug prevention 
initiatives and is an example of what can be accomplished when law 
enforcement and our community outreach partners join forces. This 
prevention program builds upon the DEA 360 Strategy by allowing DEA 
Field Divisions to address the top illicit drug that presents the 
greatest threat to a community, even if it is not opioids. Operation 
Engage is currently deployed to 11 of DEA's 23 field divisions, 
including the New England Division. In fiscal year 2022, DEA is 
requesting $3.75M to expand Operation Engage to all DEA Field 
Divisions. These resources will fund a Community Outreach Specialist 
for each DEA Field Division as well as operational funding to support 
travel and other outreach expenses. Having Community Outreach 
Specialists across the country will increase DEA's ability to 
collaborate with local community stakeholders and implement tailored 
education and prevention strategies. Through Operation Engage, DEA will 
expand partnerships with local law enforcement and community-based 
groups to combat the supply and demand sides of specific drug threats 
and combat the Nation's overdose crisis.
    Many problems associated with drug abuse are the result of 
legitimately made controlled substances being diverted from their 
lawful purpose into illicit drug traffic. According to the 2019 
National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 9.7 million people misused 
prescription pain relievers, 4.9 million people misused prescription 
stimulants, and 5.9 million people misused prescription tranquilizers 
or sedatives in 2019. The survey also showed that a majority of misused 
prescription drugs were obtained from family and friends, often from 
the home medicine cabinet. Under Federal law, all businesses that 
import, export, manufacture, or distribute controlled substances; all 
health professionals licensed to dispense, administer, or prescribe 
them; and all pharmacies authorized to fill prescriptions must register 
with the DEA. There are over 1.9 million DEA Registrants across the 
country. Training and outreach programs, supported by the Diversion 
Control Program, play an important role in educating Registrants and 
the public about the growing problem of diversion of pharmaceutical 
controlled substances throughout the U.S. Funding for the Diversion 
Control Fee Account will be used to help address the overdose crisis by 
improving education and outreach to the public and to DEA Registrants, 
and by supporting efforts to destroy prescription drugs outside of the 
existing National Take-Back Initiative framework.
    The President's budget request also seeks a total of $190 million 
to support system-wide initiatives that expand comprehensive, locally 
driven responses to opioids, stimulants, and other substances through 
the Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program 
(COSSAP), which was developed as part of the Comprehensive Addiction 
and Recovery Act (CARA) legislation. COSSAP's purpose is to provide 
financial and technical assistance to States, units of local 
government, and Indian Tribal governments to develop, implement, or 
expand comprehensive efforts to identify, respond to, treat, and 
support those impacted by illicit opioids, stimulates, and other drugs 
of abuse. COSSAP aims to reduce the impact of opioids, stimulants, and 
other substances on individuals and communities, including a reduction 
in the number of overdose fatalities, as well as mitigate the impacts 
on crime victims by supporting comprehensive, collaborative 
initiatives.
    Our efforts described above are just part of the Department's 
broader $480.9M request to address the opioid crisis.

    Question 2. During your May 12, 2021, appearance before the full 
Appropriations Committee, I commended you and the Department of Justice 
for seeking to identify and prosecute the individuals responsible for 
the events of January 6, 2021. I also asked you about the Department of 
Justice resources being committed to identify and prosecute the 
individuals responsible for the violence last summer that was aimed at 
government institutions like courthouses and police stations. You 
agreed during the hearing to provide me with additional information, 
but I have yet to receive that information.

    2a.  Since that hearing, have you been briefed on the Department's 
efforts to identify and prosecute the individuals responsible for the 
violence last summer?

    Answer. As I explained in written responses that I submitted to you 
on June 24, 2021 answering your Questions for the Record, the Justice 
Department has dedicated substantial investigative and prosecutorial 
resources from components across the Department and in dozens of 
jurisdictions nationwide to bring charges in numerous cases in 
connection with violence during the summer and fall of 2020 that was 
aimed at government institutions. In particular, the Department's 
Justice Management Division advises that Investigative resources 
totaling more than $48 million, including thousands of DOJ personnel, 
have been deployed from the Department's law enforcement components, 
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States 
Marshals Service (USMS), the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA).
    The Justice Department has and will continue to aggressively pursue 
those who engage in violent criminal activity such as the destruction 
of property and violent assaults on law enforcement. The Department is 
committed to working with Congress regarding its ongoing reviews of 
these events and identifying areas for improvement and greater 
cooperation in law enforcement responses.

    2b.  What is the status of the Department's efforts to identify and 
prosecute these individuals?

    Answer. Justice Department investigations and cases to identify and 
prosecute individuals in connection with violence aimed at government 
institutions during the summer and fall of 2020 are ongoing. The 
Department continues to review information and hold accountable those 
who violated the law.
    In order to protect the integrity of all investigations, as a 
general practice, the Department does not comment on the details of 
particular investigations beyond the charging and other public 
documents, and does not comment on the existence or status of any 
potential investigative matter.

    2c.  Has the Department's approach to investigating and prosecuting 
crimes associated with this violent activity changed in any way since 
last summer?

    Answer. I am not aware of any Departmental guidance that has been 
issued since I became Attorney General on March 11, 2021 addressing the 
Justice Department's approach to investigations and prosecutions 
stemming from violence that occurred during the summer and fall of 
2020.
    On January 29, 2021, on the subject of the Justice Department's 
general charging and sentencing policy, the Department rescinded a 
directive entitled Department Charging and Sentencing Policy (May 10, 
2017) and reinstated the guidance articulated in Department Policy on 
Charging and Sentencing (May 19, 2010) to ensure that decisions about 
charging, plea agreements, and advocacy at sentencing are based on the 
merits of each case and reflect an individualized assessment of 
relevant facts.
    In addition, the Department issued guidance to all Federal 
prosecutors on March 8, 2021 emphasizing the need for coordination and 
consistency in prosecutions involving domestic violent extremism and 
imposing new requirements for identifying and tracking such matters.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
    Question 1. Project HOPE/HOPE Institute: In fiscal year 2020, how 
many entities were awarded funding through BJA's Project HOPE 
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) model replication 
program--the Swift, Certain, and Fair (SFC) Supervision Program?

    1a.  Of the awardees, how many entities asked for and received 
grants intended for States with multiple sites of implementation?
    1b.  How many asked for and received funding for local 
implementation only? Have any Federal funds gone to State or local 
agencies that seek to expand HOPE principles beyond community 
corrections--e.g., into prisons? If not, does the Department plan to 
expand funding for such projects in the future?

    Answer. BJA received seven applications in fiscal year 2020, of 
which six were for local implementation at the county or city level.
    Up to and including the fiscal year 2021 solicitation, BJA has 
funded the application of the HOPE principles to community supervision 
systems and populations only.
    BJA is open to expanding the application of the HOPE principles to 
prison systems and populations.

    1c.  Please provide an update on the HOPE Institute, and 
specifically the Department's transition of the SCF Resource Center 
into the HOPE Institute.

    Answer. BJA solicited applications for the HOPE Institute seeking a 
training and technical assistance (TTA) provider to provide 
information, resources, and TTA to State, local, and Tribal community 
supervision agencies seeking to develop and test new or enhanced 
applications of the SCF principles using a data-driven, collaborative 
process that is informed by research and responsive to local 
circumstances. The competitive solicitation was posted online on May 
14, 2021 and applications were due on July 13, 2021.

    1d.  Will the HOPE Institute also compile and share research, in 
addition to training and best practices?

    Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 2021 solicitation, entitled Applying 
the Principles of Swiftness, Certainty, and Fairness, states that the 
selected applicant will ``[a]dvance the state of knowledge regarding 
best practices and lessons learned from SCF implementations and 
evaluations,'' including by ``[m]aintain[ing] and update[ing] a website 
to serve as a clearinghouse of information and resources on relevant 
best practices and lessons learned'' and reviewing the results of any 
new research and disseminating key findings for the field.

    1e.  If a designated funding mechanism were to be created for 
research and evaluation of HOPE/SCF programs, what agency would be 
best-positioned to manage related grants?

    Answer. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) would be best 
positioned within the Office of Justice Programs to manage HOPE/SCF 
research and evaluation grants, as they have done in the past.
    More information is available online about NIJ's evaluation of the 
HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment.

    1f.  What effort has been made to collect and disseminate research 
on HOPE/SCF programs that have not received Federal funding?

    Answer. The SCF Resource Center is currently responsible for 
scanning, synthesizing, and making publicly available any new research 
on this model including research on non-federally funded efforts.

    Question 2. Prison Rape Elimination Act: The Prison Rape 
Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 mandates that the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (BJS) ``shall carry out, for each calendar year, a 
comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and 
effects of prison rape.'' BJS reports are key to efforts to address 
sexual abuse in our juvenile facilities, jails and prisons. In a recent 
mandated report on sexual abuse in detention, BJS withheld critical 
data about characteristics of perpetrators and victims and about 
dynamics surrounding abuse in detention. Failing to release this 
critical information severely limits efforts to prevent, detect, and 
respond to sexual abuse in detention.

    2a.  Will you ensure that BJS timely releases all data collected 
from all mandated data collections and reports regarding sexual abuse 
in detention?

    Answer. Since 2009, BJS has released a formal annual report by the 
end of June each year that describes BJS's activities to collect data 
on prison rape as required in the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The most 
recent report, PREA Data Collection Activities, 2021 was released June 
29, 2021. These reports summarize BJS's data collection, analysis 
activities, and release of substantive reports each year.
    Currently, BJS has three data collections for PREA: the National 
Survey of Youth in Custody, the National Inmate Survey, and the Survey 
of Sexual Victimization.
    Each of these collections is an independent effort and follow the 
standard statistical procedures for collecting reliable and high-
quality data. BJS is committed to releasing publications and datasets 
from these programs, while ensuring data quality, timeliness, and 
confidentiality. BJS limits access to PREA data only as necessary to 
protect confidentiality of respondents.
    In general, BJS has experienced delays in releasing publications 
due to limited resources. BJS plans to publish additional analysis from 
the PREA datasets going forward.

    2b.  One recent BJS report reveals that, although prisoners have 
more effective methods for reporting sexual abuse inside corrections 
facilities, meaningful investigations are not regularly occurring. How 
will the Department improve investigations of sexual abuse reported by 
incarcerated people?

    Answer. The Justice Department recognizes the significant 
challenges associated with investigations of sexual abuse and sexual 
harassment in confinement facilities.
    In response to these challenges, the Department is currently 
working with its partners at the National PREA Resource Center to 
develop a practical, user-friendly training that targets practitioners 
across the country who are responsible for these types of 
investigations. A primary goal of this unique training is to develop 
skills necessary to conduct these investigations effectively, as 
required by the PREA standards. To increase the reach and impact of 
this resource, it will be offered virtually. And after a pilot of the 
training in 2022, it will be made widely available across the country.

    2c.  PREA also requires the Department to establish a Review Panel 
on Prison Rape that shall hold public hearings every year with selected 
corrections officials to understand and identify ``common 
characteristics of prisons and prison systems with a high incidence of 
prison rape, and the identification of common characteristics of 
prisons and prison systems that appear to have been successful in 
deterring prison rape.'' Will the Department ensure that the required 
public hearings occur every year?

    Answer. Last year, the Justice Department appointed all new members 
to the Review Panel on Prison Rape (Panel). The duty of the Panel is to 
hold annual public hearings concerning the operations of the three 
prisons with the highest incidence of sexual victimization and the two 
prisons with the lowest incidence of sexual victimization in each 
category of facilities identified in data gathered by the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics (BJS). The new Panel plans to hold hearings this 
year based on BJS's National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2018.

    The BJS has published the following three products based on this 
survey:

  --Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth in 
        Juvenile Facilities, 2018 (December 11, 2019)
  --Sexual Victimization Reported by Youth in Juvenile Facilities, 
        2018--Supplemental Tables (June 2020)
  --Sexual Victimization Reported by Youth in Juvenile Facilities, 
        2018--Supplemental Tables (November 2020).

    2d.  Congress amended PREA in late 2018 by enacting significant 
protections to ensure the quality of PREA audits and PREA auditors. The 
amendment tasks the PREA Management Office of the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance with additional, robust oversight functions, including 
evaluating all auditors and audits for adherence to quality standards 
and decertifying auditors who fall short. The PREA Management Office 
has not yet complied with its new audit oversight duties to establish 
and administer a system for assigning auditors to all Federal, State, 
and local correctional facilities due to insufficient funding. Will you 
review the resource and staffing needs of the PREA Management Office 
and commit to ensuring that they have the support they need to fulfill 
their congressionally mandated duties, in addition to their existing 
functions? Will you commit to continuing grant funding for support to 
States and local jurisdictions for PREA implementation work?

    Answer. The Department remains steadfastly committed to preventing, 
detecting, and responding to sexual abuse and sexual harassment in 
confinement facilities nationwide.
    DOJ and its PREA Management Office continue to work hard to 
leverage the annual PREA appropriation to successfully carry out DOJ's 
many legal requirements, as defined in the PREA statute and the 
national PREA Standards.
    The PREA Management Office advises that it has seen a strong 
commitment from Governors to move their States towards PREA compliance. 
In 2020, twenty-one governors submitted certifications of full 
compliance with the PREA standards for State-operated facilities, 
including prisons. Twenty-nine governors submitted assurances to DOJ 
indicating that they will use portions of certain DOJ grants to come 
into compliance in the future. In addition, the Department will commit 
to reviewing the resource and staffing needs of the PREA Management 
Office.

    2e.  Incarcerated survivors of sexual abuse are some of the most 
isolated and underserved survivors of interpersonal violence. They are 
also a population that mainstream service providers struggle to serve. 
The PREA standards require that survivors of sexual abuse in detention 
have access to many of the same kinds of services to which all victims 
of crime are entitled. A national hotline--one number that a person in 
a prison or jail could call from every State and territory--would both 
ensure that incarcerated survivors have the most basic of services and 
signal that we, as a nation, affirm that rape is not part of the 
penalty. I introduced bipartisan legislation on this issue, the Sexual 
Abuse Services in Detention Act. Would the Department support such a 
national hotline? Do I have your commitment to work with me on my bill?

    Answer. The Department of Justice welcomes the opportunity to work 
with Congress on legislation to create a national sexual abuse hotline 
and supports the overarching goal of providing increased resources to 
victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment in detention for 
counseling, healing, and incident reporting. The Bureau of Justice 
Assistance and the Office on Violence Against Women are partnering to 
determine how best to create and implement a national service line for 
incarcerated victims of sexual abuse. This includes an in-depth 
planning process to identify the scope of services to be provided, 
training requirements for service line staff, and security constraints 
for correctional facilities, should a service line be authorized and 
appropriated.
    Since March 2021, Justice Department staff have engaged with your 
and Senator Cornyn's offices to discuss the pending legislation. The 
Department looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure 
that proposed legislation is informed by efforts already underway.

    Question 3. BOP Transgender Guidance: In 2018, I sent a letter to 
then-BOP Director Hugh Hurwitz regarding the agency's decision to 
change their Transgender Offender Manual. Under these changes, BOP 
would use a person's ``biological sex'' to determine initially where a 
person will be housed. The revised manual also states that assigning a 
person to a facility based on the person's identified gender is 
appropriate ``only in rare cases.'' I expressed concerns that these 
changes put transgender people in Federal prison at a higher risk of 
sexual abuse, and was in contravention of PREA. Transgender people in 
prison are already more likely to experience sexual abuse than the 
cisgender prison population. In my letter, I urged Director Hurwitz to 
reverse this policy. Unfortunately, he did not. Do I have your 
commitment to reverse this harmful policy and ensure the safety of 
transgender people in prison, including PREA's requirement that housing 
decisions for transgender people be made on a case-by-case basis?

    Answer. Executive Order 13988, signed by the President on January 
20, 2021, calls for every person to be treated with respect and dignity 
without being subject to discrimination based on their gender identity 
or sexual orientation. \1\ Department of Justice components are 
reviewing currently all existing orders, regulations, guidance 
documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions for compliance 
and consistency with the Executive Order. As part of this effort, the 
Bureau of Prisons is in the process of reviewing the Transgender 
Offender Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Exec. Order. No. 13988, 86 Fed. Reg. 7023 (January 25, 2021).

    Question 4. Correctional Education: In 2016, the Department began 
its ``Roadmap to Reentry'' effort to enhance Federal reentry practices. 
This, in part, led to the proposed creation of a unified school 
district within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). While the previous 
administration scrapped these plans, I introduced legislation to ensure 
that adequate access to education programming can be found in all BOP 
facilities, and to collect and share the research and best practices on 
correctional education. Do I have you commitment to work with me on my 
bill, the Promoting Reentry through Education in Prisons Act, to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
support efforts to improve prison education programming within BOP?

    Answer. The Justice Department strongly supports efforts to improve 
educational opportunities for inmates in Federal custody, and I would 
welcome the opportunity to talk with you about the Promoting Reentry 
through Education in Prisons Act.

    Question 5. Marijuana Research: In a 2019 response to me, National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins and Acting Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Norman Sharpless supported 
efforts to approve additional entities to supply marijuana for 
research. In addition, NIH and FDA supported ``enabling researchers 
holding Schedule I licenses for marijuana to obtain products from State 
authorized dispensaries.'' While I am pleased that the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) has announced efforts to approve new manufacturers 
for marijuana research, more can be done by the agency.

    5a.  Do I have your commitment to work with Senators Feinstein and 
Grassley, and me on our marijuana research bill--the Cannabidiol and 
Marihuana Research Expansion Act (S. 253)?

    Answer. Yes. The Justice Department welcomes the opportunity to 
work with you and Senators Feinstein and Grassley on this and any other 
legislation.

    5b.  Does the Department plan to approve the estimated full number 
of licensed manufacturers of marijuana for research--15, as noted in 
DEA's final rule, ``Controls To Enhance the Cultivation of Marihuana 
for Research in the United States''--to provide an adequate and 
uninterrupted supply?

    Answer. DEA has approved five licenses to date. DEA evaluates 
registrants on a case-by-case basis subject to the requirements of the 
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and is currently reviewing several 
additional pending applications.

    5c.  Does the Department support efforts to enable researchers 
holding Schedule I licenses for marijuana to obtain products from State 
authorized dispensaries?

    Answer. The Justice Department continues to prioritize efforts to 
expand access to marijuana for research purposes. To this end, on May 
14, 2021, DEA announced that it expects it will soon register 
additional manufacturers to cultivate marijuana for research purposes. 
The Justice Department stands ready to work with you and other Members 
of Congress to increase opportunities for medical and scientific 
research.

    5d.  Will the Department work across the administration to restart 
interagency coordination efforts to address issues of marijuana control 
and research?

    Answer. Yes. The Department is currently engaged in interagency 
discussions on this subject and would welcome the opportunity to 
discuss these matters further with you and your colleagues.

    Question 6. State Courts: State courts handle the vast majority of 
all cases in our justice system--over 83 million cases per year. As 
such, they are often the laboratories of innovation when it comes to 
issues such as mental health and substance abuse diversion, eviction 
diversion, fines and fee alternatives, juvenile delinquency and child 
welfare, and the development of other innovative ways to improve the 
delivery of justice nationwide. State courts have traditionally not 
received programmatic support or been given a seat at the table on 
criminal justice reform issues that will largely be dealt by State 
courts across the country.

    6a.  Will the Department work with State court leaders and leverage 
Federal investments to assist in the development of innovative and 
supportive programs to assist in the administration of Justice across 
the States and the Nation?

    Answer. Yes, the Department is committed to working with State 
court leaders to address these critical issues. First, we can ensure 
our State court leaders are aware of what funding opportunities they 
are eligible for and conduct targeted outreach to State court leaders 
when these opportunities become available.
    Examples of eligible funding opportunities include the 
Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP), 
the Adult Drug Court Program, and the Justice and Mental Health 
Collaboration Program (JMHCP).
    In addition, in coordination with the State Administering Agencies, 
the Office of Justice Programs will ensure that State court leaders are 
aware of funding opportunities at the State level under the Justice 
Assistance Grant program.
    Moreover, through many of our training and technical assistance 
programs, we provide assistance to State leaders to conduct criminal 
justice strategic planning. We can ensure State court leaders are at 
the table during these critical priority discussions.

    Examples of how BJA has supported innovative approaches to support 
State and local criminal courts include the following:

  --BJA offers technical assistance and support for strategic planning 
        related for State Administering Agencies (SAA) that oversee 
        BJA's Justice Assistance Grants, which give States autonomy to 
        identify and nurture innovation. This year, BJA began a 
        coordination meeting to identify and support the needs to 
        States, especially courts, to address the requirements of the 
        Sixth Amendment in pandemic, exploring innovative approaches 
        that States can use to support courts and to prepare for 
        reopening.
  --In COSSAP, States can develop State led approaches to enhance 
        treatment, support overdose response and deflection from the 
        system to treatment and diversion by law enforcement and courts 
        & prosecutors, and deepening treatment and recovery support 
        services to courts across the States.
  --Under the Adult Drug Court program, BJA meets regularly with State 
        drug court coordinators to identify issues and needs, to 
        partner and leverage training capacity of States and support 
        fidelity audits and collection and analysis of data about 
        program activity and efficacy.

    6b.  Do I have your commitment to work more closely with State 
court leadership on the development and implementation of many of the 
criminal justice reforms and improvements that this administration 
seeks to advance?

    Answer. Yes, you have my commitment to work with State court 
leaders on the development and implementation of the criminal justice 
reforms and improvements we are working to advance. For example, OJP 
intends to invite State court leaders to listening sessions and conduct 
other open sessions to gather information and insight from the field.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Shaheen. The hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:14 p.m., Wednesday, June 9, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]