[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2023
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne Shaheen, (Chair) presiding.
Present: Senators Shaheen, Leahy, Schatz, Manchin, Van
Hollen, Moran, Murkowski, Collins, Graham, Capito, Kennedy,
Hagerty, and Braun.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
opening statement of hon. jeanne shaheen
Senator Shaheen. I am delighted to call to order the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, and welcome the Attorney General, Merrick Garland,
who is today's witness for the hearing to Review the
President's fiscal year 2023 funding request. It's very good to
see you again and I'm sure, as you know, we will have lots of
senators coming in and out, as the first real hearing day back
after a 2-week break. There's a lot going on. So, I hope you
will be patient.
This year, the President's fiscal year 2023 budget request
for the Department of Justice is $39 billion. That's an 11
percent increase compared to the fiscal year 2022 enacted level
for the Department.
This budget provides a new focus in critically important
areas, like protecting civil rights, including a request for
increased resources for the Civil Rights Division and Community
Relations Service, to provide for more attorneys and mediators,
as well as supporting grant programs that address hate crime
prevention.
Funding increases are also requested for agencies and
programs that strengthen national security, including
additional resources to investigate domestic terrorism, combat
foreign threats, and prevent gun violence.
It was also good to see the Department's request for
increased funding for many grant programs, including nearly
double the resources for the Office on Violence Against Women
programs.
Funding requested for newer programs, including those in
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, seem
to be much needed in order to help youth and families,
especially after this pandemic. I hope to receive an allocation
that allows us to fund longstanding, as well as newer,
programs, at as high a level as possible.
Increased grant funding also means increased support for
our police departments. This budget request does include that,
particularly for Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS,
grants. But I would like to note that this Subcommittee has
included strong funding for law enforcement grants over the
past several years, and I think that is a commitment of this
Committee.
One area that Senator Moran and I have worked closely on is
to ensure that Byrne JAG funding receives steady increases
annually. For my State of New Hampshire, the majority of Byrne
JAG funding supports our State's drug task force, which works
to keep illegal narcotics, including fentanyl, out of our
communities. And as we know, that epidemic of opioid misuse has
dramatically increased during the pandemic.
We've also worked together, on a bipartisan basis, to
increase funding for programs and improve relations and
strengthen trust between police and the communities they serve.
Last year, we provided a total of $201 million for these
programs. This also includes overhauling the COPS development
program to have dedicated funding for mobile crisis teams,
police department accreditation, and officer training.
I'm pleased to see that the Department seems to also like
the way we restructured this COPS program and repackaged it as
the Just Policing program in your budget request this year.
Now, before I close, I want to thank the 120,000 career
employees of the Department of Justice, including law
enforcement personnel and attorneys, for their work to keep
Americans safe. I know it's been a challenging year with our
country facing unprecedented threats from those that are newer
and rapidly changing, like cybercrime, and those that are sadly
familiar, like terrorism. Your employees are meeting these
challenges while continuing to work through a global pandemic,
and we all very much appreciate their work.
I also want to thank all of those at the Department who
investigated and prosecuted the ISIS terrorists known as The
Beatles, including El Shafee Elsheikh, who murdered four
Americans, James Foley, Kayla Mueller, Steven Sotloff, and
Peter Kassig. The hard work of the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Eastern District of Virginia recently resulted in a guilty
verdict for Elsheikh, and I think that not only sends a message
to terrorists around the world that those who commit heinous
crimes against Americans are going to be prosecuted, but it
provides some level of closure and justice for the families of
those murdered.
So, Mr. Attorney General, I look forward to our discussion
today. And with that, I'd like to recognize our Subcommittee
Vice Chair, my colleague, Senator Moran.
opening statement of senator jerry moran
Senator Moran. Senator Shaheen, thank you for convening
this hearing. Before turning to the subject matter of the
hearing, I want to express my sincere appreciation for your
stewardship of our fiscal year 2022 appropriations process and
thank my colleagues who are Members of this Subcommittee. This
Subcommittee held seven hearings, including a broadband hearing
in January that, I believe, was one of the best we've had in
our tenure.
Senator Shaheen. Absolutely.
Senator Moran. We produced a strong, bipartisan bill in the
Senate, even with complicated dynamics that were outside of our
control. And in conference, despite a very tough allocation,
Senator Leahy, a very tough allocation, we secured a final bill
that makes critical investments in scientific research, law
enforcement, space exploration, economic development, and U.S.
competitiveness. It is a bill this subcommittee can be proud
of.
Senator Shaheen, thank you for your leadership. I am
excited to continue to work with you and my colleagues as we
kick off the 2023 appropriation process.
General Garland, welcome to this hearing. This budget that
is being presented supports DOJ grant programs under the newly
reauthorized Violence Against Women Act, which I was a proud--
which I was proud to co-sponsor, and for programs that support
local police and sheriff's departments. I want to highlight
these programs as a critical tool to address the shocking
increase in violent crime, including a 30 percent surge in U.S.
murder rate, the largest single year increase in 50.
Unfortunately, violent crime continues to lack the
attention it requires. It is absolutely critical the Department
of Justice support State and local law enforcement, both
through grant programs and through joint law enforcement
operations. The budget includes an increase for fiscal year
2022 enacted--to fiscal year 2022 enacted levels for DOJ.
However, rhetoric and behavior from the administration too
often send a different signal. If law enforcement officers are
not respected, or shown respect, from our leaders, they will
not be respected within the community.
We've also seen an appalling increase in attack on police
officers. It is no surprise that the police departments and
sheriff's offices are short-staffed and having issues
recruiting new police officers.
The budget request would undermine the Board of Prison--
excuse me, the Bureau of Prisons' ability to maintain suitable,
modern facilities that are capable of delivering educational,
vocational, and fellowship programming.
In addition, request proposes new, unauthorized grant
programs intended to inhibit America's exercise of their Second
Amendment rights.
A budget request is, ultimately, a proposed allocation of
scarce resources, and it's disappointing that these messaging
programs were prioritized over the budget's critical missions
in fully addressing the surge in violent crime.
The budget request is a first step in the appropriations
process, and I look forward to working with you, Attorney
General, and with Senator Shaheen, as we craft the fiscal year
2023 Appropriations Bill. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Moran. And I realize
that the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Leahy,
is here. And I forgot to ask if he would like to offer some
opening remarks.
Senator Leahy. No, I just appreciate you and Senator Moran
holding this. I'm delighted that the Attorney General is here.
I'm delighted the country has the Attorney General. And I'll
leave it to everybody else.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Leahy. I will now turn
it over to you, Attorney General Garland.
STATEMENT OF HON. MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attorney General Garland. I'm on? Is this working? Yes.
Good morning.
Senator Shaheen. Maybe you can pull it closer.
Attorney General Garland. Yes. Better.
Senator Shaheen. Much.
Attorney General Garland. Okay. Good morning, Chairwoman
Shaheen, Ranking Member Moran, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
Over the past 411 days that I have been Attorney General,
three co-equal priorities have guided the work of the Justice
Department--keeping our country safe, protecting civil rights,
and upholding the rule of law. These priorities reflect the
Justice Department's mission, and our mission is reflected in
the President's fiscal year 2023 budget.
Our first funding priority is keeping our country safe from
all threats, foreign and domestic, whether from hostile nation
States, terrorists, or common criminals. As our country's chief
law enforcement officer, I am committed to supporting members
of law enforcement at all levels of government as they work to
protect our country, while also safeguarding civil liberties
and ensuring our own accountability to the American people.
To these ends, the President's fiscal year 2023 budget
requests more than $20.2 billion to support the work of the
Justice Department's law enforcement components and U.S.
Attorney's offices nationwide as they carry out their complex
mission sets. These resources will strengthen the Justice
Department's efforts to reduce violent crime and gun violence,
to counter the multitude of serious and evolving threats to our
country from terrorists, cyber criminals, and hostile nation
States, to combat the violent drug trafficking networks that
are fueling our Nation's overdose epidemic, and to protect our
Nation's democratic institutions, including the one we sit in
today, from violent attack.
In addition, the President has proposed a total of more
than $30 billion in new investments over the next decade, to
support law enforcement by funding the police, preventing
crime, and accelerating criminal justice reform. In fiscal year
2023 alone, the President's budget requests more than $8
billion in grants for States and localities nationwide to fund
the police, including by putting more police officers on the
beat, and to implement community-based strategies to prevent
crime and gun violence.
The President's fiscal year 2023 budget also prioritizes
the protection of civil rights. We are seeking a 32 percent
increase in funding for the Civil Rights Division, as well as
additional resources for our U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the
Community Relations Service, and our Office for Access to
Justice. Our Civil Rights work remains vital to safeguarding
voting rights, prosecuting hate crimes, ensuring constitutional
policing, and addressing unlawful discrimination.
Another area of departmental focus is safeguarding economic
security, fairness, and opportunity. This is reflected in our
request for resources to protect the American people from
intellectual property crimes, to reinvigorate antitrust
enforcement and consumer protection, to combat corporate crime,
and to bring to justice those who seek to profit unlawfully
from the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the Department
requests a total of $273 million, an increase of 41.6 percent,
for the Antitrust Division to carry out its critical mission of
promoting competition in the American economy and protecting
workers, consumers, and businesses alike.
Finally, we are requesting $11.7 billion to ensure the just
administration of our Nation's immigration courts and Federal
correctional systems. This includes $1.35 billion for the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, which I'll be
referring to as EOIR, to reduce the immigration court backlog
by hiring more than 1,200 new staff, including approximately
200 immigration judge teams over the fiscal year 2022 enacted
level.
Our request for $8.18 billion for the Bureau of Prisons
will help ensure the health, safety, and well-being of more
than 150,000 individuals in Federal custody, as well as the
officers who protect them. This request will allow BOP to hire
1,300 new correctional officers and First Step Act staff and
would be used to support rehabilitative programming and improve
conditions of confinement.
I respectfully ask for your support for our budget, as the
Justice Department works to uphold the rule of law, to keep our
country safe, and to protect civil rights for all. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak with you today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United
States
Good morning, Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Moran, and
distinguished Members of this subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the United States
Department of Justice to discuss the President's funding request for
fiscal year 2023.
In the face of a range of evolving and complex challenges, the
Justice Department remains committed to its mission of upholding the
rule of law, keeping our country safe, and protecting civil rights. I
am pleased with the progress the Department has made on each of these
fronts since I appeared before you last June.
The Justice Department's success depends upon the trust of the
people we serve. That trust must be earned every day. Over the past
year, we have worked every day to uphold the norms and principles that
are essential to the rule of law and upon which that trust depends. We
have worked to counter the foreign-based threats from nation states,
terrorist groups, radicalized individuals, and cyber criminals that
seek to undermine our democratic and economic institutions and to sow
fear among our people. And we have worked to counter persistent
domestic-based threats. Those include domestic violent extremist acts
aimed at undermining our democratic institutions, violent crime and gun
violence that undermines our communities' trust in the rule of law, and
corporate crime that threatens our economic institutions. We have
worked to protect civil rights, stepping up efforts to deter, prevent,
and prosecute hate crimes, and to foster trust between law enforcement
and the communities we serve.
To continue and expand this important work in fiscal year 2023, the
Justice Department requests a total of $37.65 billion in discretionary
resources. Our top funding priorities are:
I. Keeping our Country Safe. Every person living in this country
expects and deserves that their government protect them from a wide
range of threats--from international and domestic terrorism to
cybercrime and violent crime. As our country's chief law enforcement
officer, I am committed to supporting members of law enforcement at all
levels as they work to protect our country from these threats, while
also safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring our own accountability
to the American people. In total, the President's fiscal year 2023
Budget requests more than $20.2 billion to expand the capacities of our
law enforcement components and U.S. Attorneys' Offices to keep our
country safe. This includes:
--A total of $10.80 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to carry out its complex mission sets, including keeping
our country safe from a multitude of serious and evolving
threats, ranging from foreign terrorism to espionage and cyber
threats and from violent crime to the proliferation and
potential use of weapons of mass destruction.
--A total of $2.77 billion for the United States. Attorneys' offices,
including resources to prioritize the prosecution of violent
crime.
--A total of $3.10 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) to prevent the flow of deadly drugs into our communities.
--A total of $1.81 billion for the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to
assist local law enforcement in apprehending violent fugitives
from our neighborhoods and to protect our nation's judges and
courts.
--A total of $1.73 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to enhance the National
Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), modernize the
National Tracing Center, and expand multijurisdictional gun
trafficking strike forces with additional personnel.
In addition, to keep our country safe, the President's fiscal year
2023 Budget requests a total of $133.5 million for the National
Security Division, an increase of 10.6 percent above the fiscal year
2022 enacted level.
II. Protecting Civil Rights. The President's fiscal year 2023
Budget requests robust support for the Justice Department's core civil
rights components. This includes:
--A total of $215.2 million for the Civil Rights Division--an
increase of $52.7 million or 32.4 percent above the fiscal year
2022 enacted level--to expand its efforts to deter and
prosecute hate crimes, safeguard fair elections, and combat
discrimination.
--A total of $81.4 million to bolster the civil rights work of the
FBI and a total of $42.4 million to bolster the civil rights
work of the United States Attorneys' offices.
--A total of $25 million for the Community Relations Service--an
increase of 19.2 percent above the fiscal year 2022 enacted
level--to provide mediation and conciliation services to
communities impacted by conflict.
--A total of $10 million for the Office for Access to Justice to
expand equal access to justice for all.
--A total of $106.3 million in new funding to strengthen trust and
accountability in law enforcement by expanding, formalizing,
and managing Body Worn Camera programs for the FBI, DEA, USMS,
and ATF, and $7.9 million in new funding for the Environment
and Natural Resources Division's efforts to advance
environmental justice and combat the climate crisis.
The Justice Department's fiscal year 2023 request also prioritizes
significant investments in grants for state, local, Tribal and
territorial law enforcement partners nationwide. The President has
proposed a total of more than $30 billion in new investments over the
next decade to support law enforcement by funding the police,
preventing crime, and accelerating justice system reform. In fiscal
year 2023, the President's Budget includes the following resources for
our law enforcement and community partners nationwide:
--A total of $6.24 billion in discretionary and mandatory resources
for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to support critical
longstanding Justice Department grant programs, including Byrne
Justice Assistance Grants and Project Safe Neighborhoods, as
well as new programming that will provide state, local, Tribal,
and territorial governments with additional resources to
prevent crime, reduce gun violence, and accelerate criminal
justice system reform.
--A total of $2.83 billion in discretionary and mandatory resources
for the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) to support
the hiring of police and sworn law enforcement personnel
nationwide and the implementation of community-based strategies
to combat violent crime. Specifically, the Department is
seeking a total of $537 million in discretionary resources for
the COPS Hiring Program--an increase of 118 percent above the
fiscal year 2022 enacted level.
--A total of $1 billion--an increase of $425 million or 74 percent
above the fiscal year 2022 enacted level--for the Office on
Violence Against Women (OVW) to support longstanding Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) programs, including programs that
provide critical resources to local, state, Tribal, and
territorial partners across the country to fund police,
prosecutors, courts, and victim services as well as resources
to provide legal assistance for victims, transitional housing,
and homicide and domestic violence reduction initiatives.
III. Safeguarding Economic Security, Fairness, and Opportunity. A
fair economy is foundational to the American dream. To safeguard
economic security, fairness, and opportunity for all, the President's
fiscal year 2023 Budget requests a total of $273 million, an increase
of 41.6 percent, for the Antitrust Division to carry out its critical
mission of promoting competition in the American economy and protecting
workers, consumers, and businesses alike. In addition, the Department
is committed to using every available Federal tool--including criminal,
civil, and administrative actions--to combat and prevent fraud. The
President's fiscal year 2023 Budget request renews the Department's
request for critical funds for our United States Attorneys, the
Criminal Division, and the Civil Division to protect consumers and
combat and prevent fraud, including by bringing to justice those who
seek to profit unlawfully from the COVID-19 pandemic.
IV. Administering Just Immigration Court and Correctional Systems.
The Department's fiscal year 2023 budget requests critical resources
that will allow us to carry out our responsibilities for administering
our nation's immigration court system and the Federal detention and
correctional systems. The requested funds for the Executive Office of
Immigration Review (EOIR) will increase the number of immigration
judges and broaden the availability of legal representation in
immigration court. And the requested resources for the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (BOP) will help improve staffing levels in BOP's 122
facilities nationwide while also maintaining an investment of $409.5
million for First Step Act implementation.
Greater detail on each of these priorities is provided below.
i. keeping our country safe
The Justice Department is committed to doing everything in its
power to protect the American people from all threats, foreign and
domestic, while also protecting our civil liberties. Our country
continues to face a multitude of serious and evolving threats, ranging
from foreign terrorism to domestic extremism and from cybercrime to
violent crime. These threats are as complex as at any time in our
history. And the consequences of not responding to them have never been
greater.
In the recently enacted fiscal year 2022 Omnibus, Congress provided
critical resources for the Department to strengthen its national
security and law enforcement capacities, to focus our efforts on
disrupting threats to our country, and to build deeper and even more
effective partnerships, both here at home and around the world. Moving
forward, enhancements are needed in order to keep apace of current and
emerging case demands and public safety priorities in the 94 U.S.
Attorneys' offices. The Department's fiscal year 2023 request
reiterates the need for these resource enhancements.
Today I would like to highlight five significant areas of focus to
keep our country safe: (A) reducing violent crime and gun violence; (B)
protecting national security, including by countering terrorism and
fighting cybercrime; (C) combating drug trafficking and preventing
overdose deaths; (D) protecting vulnerable communities; and (E)
protecting our democratic institutions.
A. Reducing Violent Crime and Gun Violence
Last May, the Justice Department launched a comprehensive strategy
aimed at mobilizing our Federal prosecutors, agents, investigators, and
criminal justice experts to disrupt and prosecute violent crime. To
these ends, we directed all 94 United States Attorneys' offices across
the country to work with our state and local partners to address the
violent crime problems specific to their districts. We strengthened
Project Safe Neighborhoods, our cornerstone initiative to reduce
violent crime at the community level. We launched five cross-
jurisdictional strike forces to disrupt illegal firearms trafficking in
key corridors across the country. We finalized a new rule to curb the
proliferation of unserialized ghost guns. We published model gun safety
legislation for states. We established a new policy to hold rogue gun
dealers accountable for willful violations of the law. And the
Department's law enforcement components--including ATF, DEA, FBI, and
the U.S. Marshals Service--continue to operate force-multiplying task
forces with state and local law enforcement agencies.
The Department's fiscal year 2023 funding request includes more
resources for our law enforcement components to embed agents in
homicide units in departments across the country, trace crime guns,
recover illegal firearms, pursue violent fugitives, and disrupt violent
drug trafficking. The Department's request also includes critical
resources for our U.S. Attorneys' offices to prosecute those who commit
violent crimes. In addition, the Department's request includes a
variety of increases to address the problem of violent crime and
murdered and missing indigenous persons in Indian Country. These
enhancements include additional resources for the Department's law
enforcement components and U.S. Attorneys' offices in light of the
Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020).
In addition to expanding the capacity of Federal law enforcement to
make our communities safer, the President has proposed a total of $30
billion in new mandatory investments to support law enforcement and
crime prevention over the next decade. In fiscal year 2023, the
President's Budget includes significant investments in grants for state
and local law enforcement partners nationwide. A total of $6.24 billion
is requested in discretionary and mandatory resources for OJP to
support critical longstanding Justice Department grant programs,
including Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and Project Safe
Neighborhoods, as well as new programs that will provide state, local,
Tribal, and territorial governments with additional resources to
prevent crime, reduce gun violence, and accelerate justice system
reform. In addition, a total of $2.83 billion in discretionary and
mandatory resources is requested for the COPS Office to support the
hiring of police and sworn law enforcement personnel nationwide and the
implementation of community-based strategies to combat violent crime.
Specifically, the Department is seeking a total of $537 million in
discretionary resources for the COPS Hiring Program--an increase of 118
percent above the fiscal year 2022 enacted level.
B. Protecting National Security
Countering Foreign and Domestic Terrorism. The Justice Department
remains committed to countering terrorism and keeping pace with
emerging terrorist threats while protecting civil rights and civil
liberties. Our whole-of-Department commitment to countering terrorism
is reflected in our request for more resources for our 94 U.S.
Attorneys' offices; our law enforcement components, including the FBI;
our grant-making offices; and our litigating divisions, including the
National Security Division, the Civil Rights Division, and the Criminal
Division. This request also includes resources to sustain and
strengthen the FBI's counterterrorism efforts, including its Joint
Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), the essential hubs for both
international and domestic counterterrorism cooperation across all
levels of government nationwide.
Enhancing Cybersecurity and Fighting Cybercrime. Keeping our
country safe also requires countering cyber threats--whether from
nation states, terrorists, or common criminals. One year ago, the
Justice Department launched a comprehensive strategic cyber review
aimed at improving our ability to investigate and prosecute state-
sponsored cyber threats, transnational criminal groups, infrastructure
and ransomware attacks, and the use of cryptocurrency and money
laundering to finance and profit from cyber-based crimes. Over the past
12 months, the Justice Department has developed and implemented
improvements on several fronts, including with respect to ransomware
attacks and the criminal misuse of cryptocurrency. The President's
fiscal year 2023 Budget requests nearly $150 million in critical
enhancements to support the Department's cyber efforts, including
investments that support efforts to build cyber investigative
capabilities at FBI field divisions and U.S. Attorneys' offices
nationwide. These investments also further enhance the cybersecurity
posture of the FBI, DEA, and Department more broadly. The Justice
Department requires these significant investments to protect its own
data and cyber infrastructure and to build on its efforts to combat the
latest cyber threats.
Countering Nation-State Threats. The Justice Department is
committed to taking a comprehensive approach that draws on the full
extent of our tools and authorities to address the alarming rise in
illegal and nefarious activities from hostile nations. The Department
places a high priority on countering threats to our country posed by
the governments of the People's Republic of China (PRC), Russia, Iran,
and North Korea. Nefarious activities from hostile nation-states are
increasingly brazen and threaten to undermine core American values and
institutions--from unlawful and malicious cyber campaigns to the theft
of technology and intellectual property to the use of espionage tools
and tactics against American companies and workers alike.
To address these threats, the Justice Department is taking a
variety of actions, including aggressively prosecuting state agents for
espionage; preventing hacking campaigns; preventing the repression of
dissidents; addressing efforts to manipulate public discourse in the
United States; and fully enforcing violations of economic sanctions and
export restrictions. The Department appreciates the $59.4 million in
supplemental funding for our efforts to respond to Russia's military
invasion of Ukraine, which, among other things, is supporting the work
of the Department's KleptoCapture Task Force. And we ask for your
support for the President's fiscal year 2023 funding request, which
seeks critical resources for Justice Department attorneys, agents, and
intelligence analysts to continue the vital work of countering threats
from hostile nation- states.
C. Combating Drug Trafficking and Preventing Overdose Deaths
The Justice Department is committed to keeping our country safe
from violent drug trafficking gangs and cartels. These criminal
networks are fueling the overdose epidemic in our country. In the
twelve months between September 2020 and September 2021, more than
104,000 Americans died due to drug overdose. The overwhelming majority
of these deaths involved opioids.
In 2021, DEA seized more than 15,000 pounds of fentanyl and more
than 20.4 million counterfeit pills, many of which contained lethal
amounts of fentanyl, marketed by criminal drug networks. The Department
remains vigilant in addressing the evolving nature of the illicit drug
threat and continues its work to dismantle illicit online drug
marketplaces and to detect, limit, and deter illegal prescriptions,
distribution, and diversion offenses that result in patient harm. We
are committed to using all available resources to combat drug
trafficking and prevent overdose deaths in the United States.
The President's fiscal year 2023 budget requests critical resources
to combat dangerous drug trafficking gangs and cartels and to prevent
the flow of deadly drugs into our communities. This includes our
request for a total of $3.10 billion for DEA's investigations,
counterdrug efforts across 241 domestic offices and 92 foreign offices
in 69 countries around the world, and diversion control. The
Department's funding request also includes more than a half a billion
dollars in opioid-related grants, including increased funding for drug
courts and locally driven responses to opioids and substance use.
D. Protecting Vulnerable Populations
The Department is committed to protecting and supporting all
communities, including the most vulnerable among us. That includes our
special obligation to protect children from crime and exploitation.
Likewise, elder abuse, fraud, and neglect remain urgent problems in our
country, particularly as the COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a new wave of
exploitative practices targeted at seniors. The Department also has a
unique legal relationship with, and responsibility to, federally
recognized Tribes. Gender-based violence, including domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, cuts across
socioeconomic, racial, and geographic lines. In addition, low-income
communities, LGBTQ communities, communities of color, people with
disabilities, non-citizens, and victims of human trafficking face
disproportionately high rates of victimization. The Justice Department
is dedicated to protecting these communities.
The President's fiscal year 2023 requests seeks to make investments
in all of these areas. For example, the Department seeks an additional
$21 million for OJP's Missing and Exploited Children Program and
requests additional funds for the Criminal Division's Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section. The Department seeks to invest a
total of $1 billion in the Office on Violence Against Women, an
increase of $425 million or 74 percent above the fiscal year 2022
enacted level. This funding request supports longstanding Violence
Against Women Act programs, including programs that provide critical
resources to all states and territories to fund police, prosecutors,
and courts, as well as resources to provide legal assistance for
victims, transitional housing, and homicide and domestic violence
reduction initiatives.
E. Protecting Our Democratic Institutions
Finally, keeping our country safe requires protecting its
democratic institutions, including the one we sit in today, from
violent attack. The Department will continue to work closely with
state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement to protect public
servants--from local election officials to Members of Congress--from
violence and threats of violence. Among other things, the President's
fiscal year 2023 Budget seeks critical resources for the U.S. Attorneys
as well as the U.S. Marshals Service to safeguard the security of
Federal judges nationwide, including an increase of more than $32
million to support judicial and Federal courthouse security.
ii. protecting civil rights
Protecting civil rights was a founding purpose of the Justice
Department in 1870. We began our work during Reconstruction to enforce
the rights promised by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth
Amendments. This required confronting the racist conduct of the Ku Klux
Klan and others who used terror and violence to keep Black Americans
from exercising their civil rights. Today, nearly 152 years after the
Department's founding, far too many still face discrimination in
voting, housing, and the criminal justice system; and
disproportionately bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic,
pollution, and climate change. Among a variety of investments, the
Department's top civil rights funding priorities include:
A. Reinvigorating Civil Rights Enforcement
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the Justice Department's Civil
Rights Division with the mission of upholding the civil and
constitutional rights of all Americans. Today, the Division's work
remains vital, including bringing cases to safeguard voting rights,
prosecute hate crimes, and end unlawful discrimination. The
Department's request seeks a total of $215.2 million for the Civil
Rights Division, an increase of $52.7 million, or 32.4 percent, over
the fiscal year 2022 enacted level.
The Department's dedication to civil rights enforcement is not
limited to the Civil Rights Division, and the fiscal year 2023 request
reflects this broader commitment. The Department seeks a total of $81.4
million--an increase of 28 percent--for the FBI's investigations into
alleged violations of the Federal civil rights laws, and a total of
$42.4 million--an increase of 24 percent--for the civil rights work of
the U.S. Attorneys' offices.
B. Fostering Trust and Accountability in Law Enforcement
The Justice Department's budget request seeks $106.3 million in new
funding to strengthen trust and accountability in law enforcement by
expanding, formalizing, and managing Body Worn Camera programs for the
FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF. These cameras would be used not only by our
state and local law enforcement and task force partners, but also by
Federal agents.
The Department's budget request also includes a total of $25
million for the Community Relations Service to provide mediation and
conciliation services to communities impacted by conflict. The
Department's requested grant funding also supports these efforts and
includes $23 million for the COPS Just Policing Program, which will
expand upon current, effective approaches within law enforcement
agencies that can reform organizational culture, practices, and
recruitment.
C. Expanding Access to Justice and Reforming Criminal and Juvenile
Justice Systems
The Department's fiscal year 2023 request includes $10 million to
fund the newly re-established Office for Access to Justice to broaden
the scope of its programs and activities, including through improving
language access coordination and improving pro bono services.
The Department's request also seeks to leverage the capacity of the
Federal justice system to advance innovative criminal justice reform
initiatives and serve as a model for reform that is not only
comprehensive in scope, but evidence-informed and high-impact. For
example, the Department's fiscal year 2023 request seeks a total of
$760 million for juvenile justice grants. The Department also requests
a total of $409.5 million for First Step Act implementation, including
$100 million for a collaboration between the Justice Department and the
Department of Labor for a national initiative to provide comprehensive
workforce development services to people in the Federal prison system,
both during their time in BOP facilities and after they are transferred
to community placement.
D. Advancing Environmental Justice and Tackling the Climate Crisis
The Justice Department is committed to implementing Executive Order
14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (January 27,
2021), which establishes a whole-of- government approach to addressing
the climate crisis and formalizes the Federal government's commitment
to environmental justice. To these ends, the Department's request
includes a total of $142 million--an increase of $22 million or 18.2
percent above the fiscal year 2022 enacted level--for the Environment
and Natural Resources Division. Among other things, this funding would
support the Division's efforts to combat the climate crisis, launch an
Office for Environmental Justice, and execute a comprehensive
environmental enforcement strategy.
iii. safeguarding economic security, fairness, and opportunity
A fair economy is foundational to the American dream. Fraud, theft,
corruption, bribery, and anticompetitive agreements threaten the free
and fair markets upon which our economy is based. They decimate the
assets of individuals, organizations, and governments alike, and they
increase costs for every American. Corporate crime also weakens our
economic institutions by undermining public trust in the fairness of
those institutions. In its pursuit of fair markets, the Justice
Department will ensure that everyone in our economy competes by the
same rules; that tax dollars flow to their intended recipients; and
that corporate crime is deterred, detected, and prosecuted.
A. Preventing the Theft of Technology and Intellectual Property
Protecting the American people from intellectual property crimes is
a priority for the Department of Justice. These crimes threaten our
national security and economic security as well as public health and
safety. The Justice Department is committed to deploying a whole-of-
Department approach to enforcing intellectual property rights and the
President's fiscal year 2023 Budget seeks critical resources for the
Criminal and the National Security Divisions, as well as the FBI and
our United States Attorneys, to pursue complex intellectual property
crime investigations around the world.
B. Reinvigorating Antitrust Enforcement and Consumer Protection
Antitrust and consumer protection laws are the charter of our
economic liberty. The Justice Department is committed to the vigorous
enforcement of these laws. Anticompetitive practices hurt the American
people--producers, consumers, and workers alike. And they hurt the
American economy. Too many industries have become too consolidated over
time. Too many companies have pursued corporate conduct and more
aggressive mergers that have made all of us vulnerable. Against this
background, our antitrust enforcement efforts cannot and will not slow
down. No matter the industry and no matter the company, the Justice
Department will vigorously enforce our antitrust laws. We will
aggressively protect consumers, safeguard competition, and work to
ensure economic fairness and opportunity for all.
The Department's Antitrust Division has been underfunded for too
long and has nearly 400 fewer staff today than it had in 1979. That is
why we are seeking critical resources to reinvigorate our enforcement
efforts and ensure a competitive economy for all Americans. In
particular, the President's fiscal year 2023 Budget seeks a total of
$273 million, an increase of $80.2 million or 41.6 percent over the
fiscal year 2022 enacted level, for the Antitrust Division. These
additional funds will allow the Antitrust Division to meet the
challenges of its growing civil and criminal enforcement programs,
including by hiring additional attorneys and support staff, and by
modernizing the Antitrust Division's information technology
infrastructure to support litigation against sophisticated defendants.
In addition, the Justice Department is committed to using criminal,
civil, and administrative actions to protect consumers. The Department
will work to ensure the safety of food, medicines, and consumer
products, and will safeguard consumer information from unlawful
acquisition and use. Using our full array of civil and criminal
enforcement tools, we will hold accountable those who make fraudulent
or misleading representations in the marketing of goods, especially
where such conduct risks consumer harm.
C. Combating Corruption and Financial Crime
Another critical focus of the Department's budget request is
investing in combating corruption and financial crime that weakens our
economic institutions. The Department's request seeks significant
investments in the Consumer Protection Branch, our U.S. Attorneys'
offices, the FBI, and the Criminal Division to promote economic
competition and prevent the theft of intellectual property, deter and
prosecute corporate crime, protect the government against fraud, and
combat corruption. The Department is specifically focused on
prioritizing the prosecution of COVID-19 related fraud through its
COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force.
D. Promoting the Integrity and Efficiency of the Bankruptcy System
Congress established the United States Trustee Program in 1977 to
serve as the ``watchdog'' of our nation's bankruptcy system. In that
role, United States Trustees oversee nearly one million ongoing
bankruptcy cases annually, undertake tens of thousands of civil
enforcement actions, and refer thousands of criminal matters to U.S.
Attorneys' offices for investigation and prosecution each year. The
President's fiscal year 2023 Budget requests a total of $260 million
for this important program to protect the interests of all stakeholders
in the bankruptcy process by advocating for strict, equitable
compliance with the law and addressing violations by debtors,
creditors, and professionals alike.
E. Revitalizing Tax Enforcement
The integrity of our tax system is vital to maintaining public
confidence. Honest taxpayers must be able to trust that they will not
bear an undue share of the Federal tax burden. The President's fiscal
year 2023 Budget requests $121.3 million, an increase of 4.4 percent
above the fiscal year 2022 level, for the Department's Tax Division to
support its vital mission of enforcing our tax laws fully, fairly, and
consistently.
iv. administering just immigrationcourt and correctional systems
The President's fiscal year 2023 Budget requests a total of $11.7
billion for the Department to carry out its responsibilities for
administering both our nation's immigration court system and our
Federal correctional system.
A. Administering an Equitable and Efficient Immigration Court System
The Justice Department is responsible for equitably and efficiently
administering our nation's immigration court system. The Department's
fiscal year 2023 request would strengthen our ability to apply the
immigration laws justly, consistently, and in a timely fashion, while
ensuring due process under the law. The Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) needs more resources to address the case
backlog, which has been growing for over a decade. For fiscal year
2023, the Department requests a total of $1.35 billion for EOIR to
reduce the backlog of immigration cases. This request will allow EOIR
to hire more than 1,200 new staff, including approximately 200 new
immigration judges above the fiscal year 2022 enacted level. The
President's fiscal year 2023 Budget also expands EOIR's virtual court
initiative and invests new resources in legal access programming.
B. Maintaining a Safe and Humane Correctional System
Administering the Federal detention and prison systems are also
critical parts of the Justice Department's responsibilities. The fiscal
year 2023 funding request seeks a total of $2.13 billion for the U.S.
Marshals Service for Federal prisoner detention. In addition, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is currently responsible for the
custody and care of more than 150,000 Federal inmates. It is critical
that prisons, detention centers, and community-based facilities are
safe, humane, cost-efficient, and secure.
Adequate staffing is a prerequisite to safe and secure facilities,
and we must ensure that even facilities in hard-to-recruit areas are
fully staffed. To this end, the Department requests a total of $8.18
billion for BOP to ensure the health, safety, and wellbeing of
incarcerated individuals and correctional staff, and to ensure
transparency, accountability, and effective oversight of all Federal
prisons and detention centers. This request would allow BOP to hire
more than 700 new correctional officers and nearly 600 new First Step
Act staff. These funds would also be used to support rehabilitative
programming and improve conditions of confinement.
I respectfully ask for your support for the President's fiscal year
2023 funding request as the Justice Department works to uphold the rule
of law, keep our country safe, and protect civil rights for all.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. For those who came in
a little later, let me just point out, we will have a 5-minute
questioning period and senators will be called on in order of
arrival rather than seniority, because we are no longer doing
any virtual hearings in this Committee. So, I will begin.
Last month you announced the establishment of Task Force
KleptoCapture, which was described as an interagency effort
dedicated to enforcing sanctions, export restrictions, and
economic countermeasures against Russia. As I understand, this
includes targeting the crimes committed by Russian officials,
oligarchs, and others, who aid or conceal unlawful conduct. I
know that the country is watching very closely what's happening
in the war--the unprovoked war of Russia against Ukraine, and
that one huge element in that is being able to reduce the
amount of funding for that war that Russia has. So, can you
talk a little bit about where you are, in terms of the
interagency effort and the kind of cooperation you're getting
internationally?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. And I second what you said
about what we're all seeing on the news, almost everyday--
incredibly graphic videos of horrible atrocities that are going
on in Ukraine. It's not just the war, it's the way in which the
war is being prosecuted by the Russian government. Pictures of
dead bodies of civilians in the streets, some bound with their
hands behind their backs, intentional bombing of civilian
residential apartments, of a theater in Mariupol. All of those
pictures are just horrific and are the kind of things anybody
growing up in the 20th century never expected to see in the
21st again--a land war in Europe.
So, every part of this government is doing its part. The
Justice Department's role, right now, is to investigate and
prosecute sanctions violations. So, we have, as you said, the
KleptoCapture Task Force. Its purpose is to go after the assets
that the Treasury Department has sanctioned, as well as to go
off--to go after assets that have been laundered against the
money laundering statute for criminal behavior by the Russian
oligarchs.
So, in addition, we are participating in the Treasury
Department's REPO task force, which is the international task
force, where I have met with, unfortunately virtually, the Home
Secretaries, Attorneys General, and Treasury Secretaries of the
participating countries. The international cooperation has been
superb, really superb, and heartwarming for law enforcement
officers who often have to twist arms and beg for extraditions
and other sorts of cooperation abroad. There is no resistance
at all, now.
Senator Shaheen. Can you talk about how the Department is
going to be dealing with the proceeds from any recovered
assets?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, the money would go into
the Asset Forfeiture Fund. First thing we have to do is freeze
the assets. Second thing is we have to get a forfeiture. Third
is it has to go in the Asset Forfeiture Fund. The gov--we would
support legislation that would allow some of that money to go
directly to Ukraine. That's not the current circumstance, with
respect to the Fund. But under the current circumstances, like
all forfeited assets, these assets would go into the Asset
Forfeiture Fund.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. We will take that under
advisement in the committee.
Let me also just editorialize a minute and say, I hope that
these efforts will allow for future follow up that will take a
look at how corrupt money is being laundered in the West, and
produce a real effort to shut that down, not just in Russia but
anywhere it's occurring.
One of the issues that you and I discussed on the phone, in
advance of this hearing, was my concern about how long it's
taking to get some of the nominees approved, for U.S. Attorney,
for U.S. Marshals. And I understand that there are two
problems. One had been the challenge of getting the background
checks done on those nominees. And I guess I would be
interested in hearing whether there are more resources that
need to be put toward that. We need to take a look at that
process and see if there are changes that need to be made. And
then, of course, the other challenge is here in the Senate,
with individuals who are holding up those nominees.
So, can you speak, first, to what happens when we have U.S.
Attorneys--in New Hampshire, our U.S. Attorney nominee, it's
been over a year--almost, I think, over a year now that she has
been forwarded to the White House and is on hold. Can you just
speak to the challenge with addressing crime around the country
when we have U.S. Attorneys who are taking that long to get
approved?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, the United States
Attorneys, as well as the United States Marshals, are the tip
of spear of our effort to fight violent crime. They are the
ones who convene the task forces in every one of the 94 U.S.
Attorney office districts. The task forces are combinations of
all of our Federal law enforcement, the four law enforcement
agencies of the Justice Department, as well as the law
enforcement agencies of the Department of Homeland Security and
other Federal agencies, combined with State, local,
territorial, and Tribal law enforcement. These cooperative task
forces then, also, cooperate with the local communities.
And that is the way in which the best attack on violent
crime is possible. To look at what's needed in the local area,
to identify the primary drivers, that is, particularly, the
repeat shooters, to get them off the streets and to get them in
jail. And to organize those things, we need confirmed United
States Attorneys. The work of the actings is excellent but, as
everyone knows, in order to establish policies and programs in
any office, it's important to have a permanent head.
So, I couldn't--I couldn't urge more strongly for the
Senate to approve, as swiftly as possible, the U.S. Attorney
nominees and the Marshals nominees.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much. Is it fair to
say that the hold up in--when people are holding these
individuals up for other purposes, that that has a negative
impact on our ability to fight crime?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I don't want to get into the
inner workings of the Senate, but what I will say is that any
time we're not getting confirmed law enforcement officers it
does have a negative effect on our ability to fight violent
crime, cybercrime, all the responsibilities that the United
States Attorneys and Marshals have.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I won't quote you at
that. I will say it myself. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. General Garland, thank you. You're aware,
and we've talked about even yet this morning, the tremendous
increase in levels of violent crime. The murder rate has surged
30 percent in 2020. It's the largest increase in over 50 years,
in any single year. But overall violent crime, which includes
assaults, robberies, and rapes increase by 5 percent.
Joint operations between Federal law enforcement and local
and State law enforcement seem to be successful. We've had
Operation Legend and Operation Triple Beam in our State.
Director Wrasy joined me in Kansas earlier this year. We met
with our local State law enforcement officials. During that
conversation, the Chief Karl Oakman, of the Kansas City, Kansas
Police Department, expressed his desire--first of all, how
valuable those joint operations were and his desire to see more
of them. And of course, that's not unique to the Kansas City
region of our State.
To what extent are joint law enforcement operations a part
of the DOJ's plan to combat violent crimes?
Attorney General Garland. Well, they are the center of our
strategy. In May of 2021, after I'd been in office just a
couple of months, I saw the same statistics that you're
referring to now about the rise in violent crime--the startling
rise in 2020, which continued into 2021. And so, I launched our
first violent crime strategy for the Department. That really
includes three pillars, all of which are the ones you're
talking about, which is joint task forces among Federal law
enforcement, joint task forces between Federal and the State
and local law enforcement, and involvement of the community
because it is essential that the community let us know where
the bad guys are and who the bad guys are. So, it is the core
of what we do.
So, the money that we're asking for comes in, I would say,
two buckets here. We're asking for more than $20 billion--
that's an increase of 8.2 percent--for our Federal law
enforcement in the Justice Department, all of whom participate
in these task forces. So, that includes the U.S. Attorney's
offices, the FBI, the ATF, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service.
Then, we're asking for $8.2 billion, which is an increase
in $5.48 billion, for grants for State and local law
enforcement, for the sheriffs you're talking about, for the
police you mentioned in your opening, as well. This includes
money for COPS hiring, for the Byrne JAG grant that the Chair
spoke of, which are used for these task forces, for OVW grants,
some of which are also used for investigative task forces.
That's the way we are able to create these joint task forces.
And so, that's--I completely agree with your assessment.
Senator Moran. General, thank you. I--you mentioned the
U.S. Marshals. I, too, would mention the U.S. Marshals
Service's Regional Fugitive Task Force as another valuable
combination of local and Federal law services.
Let me turn to--in 2021, the DOJ Office of the Inspector
General released a report that revealed multiple agents at the
FBI had mishandled the investigation into former U.S.A.
gymnastics physician, Larry Nasser, and subsequently, lied
about their misconduct. I want to take this moment, in your
presence, to again raise my strong concerns with the fact that
it seems these agents have not been held fully accountable for,
what you described as, an institutional failure.
I understand that DOJ is reviewing its earlier decision.
This is an issue that Senator Blumenthal and I pursued in the
Commerce Committee. But you are reviewing the decision not to
criminally charge these agents. Could you provide me a status
update as to where this issue lies?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, you are right. This is a
horrible institutional failure. I--it's almost unspeakable--it
is unspeakable, what happened to those gymnasts, and also
unspeakable, the way in which the investigation failed to
proceed. We have created institutional changes, in that regard,
to make sure it doesn't happen again. The FBI has revised its
procedures and the Deputy Attorney General has issued memoranda
to the field so that, whenever a U.S. Attorney's office or
Federal law enforcement decides not to follow up, that they
immediately advise State and local law enforcement, so that
they can continue.
Your description of--so, the question of the
investigation--so, the FBI's internal disciplinary work is
still in progress. The question of reopening the earlier
declination is in the hands of the Assistant Attorney General
for the Criminal Division, Kenneth Polite, who is continuing to
review the matter.
Senator Moran. Does that mean that the FBI made a report to
the--to that official who is now reviewing that report?
Attorney General Garland. I think--it is the--the referral
came from the Inspector General's report. So, it's the report
that you are aware of that was given to the Criminal Division
to review the earlier decision to decline.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Moran. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Chair. Attorney General, as I
mentioned earlier, I'm glad you're here this morning. Time is
short, so I'll get right to the questions.
I'd like to start with the VOCA Fix Act, VOCA, signed into
law last year. We passed this legislation to give a much
needed, steady stream of deposits into the Crime Victims Fund.
As you know, that fund helps crime victims all over the
country. A major piece of the legislation requires funds
collected under deferred and non-prosecution agreements to be
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund.
Now, I understand that there was a sizable deposit in the
first month of implementation, but the collection's been
deferred, and non-prosecution agreements have actually been
quite low. Across October and November, for example, the actual
total deposited in the Crime Victims Fund was around $1
million. What accounts for such starkly low deposits from what
it used to be? Is the Department concerned that this may end up
with a zero balance in the Crime Victims Fund?
Attorney General Garland. So, this is going to be a
complicated answer. I'm going to do the best I can. I may have
to refer to Assistant Attorney General Loftus, who knows the
details of the numbers far better than I. But I'll see if I can
walk you through where we are here.
The VOCA Fix, which we greatly supported and are greatly
appreciative, allowed the money to include the deferred
prosecution agreements, which were not available before. The
Deputy Attorney General sent a memorandum to all United States
Attorneys' offices and to the FBI and law enforcement, to
ensure that the money that comes from deferred prosecution
agreements is tagged for the Victims of Crime Fund. So, we are
making those changes.
Senator Leahy. Is it making clear that's a priority?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. That--the money there must
be put in and it's a priority to make sure that that happens.
And you are right that, in September--my figure is $254 million
was deposited, which was the largest monthly deposit in the
last 4 fiscal years. That was immediately after the VOCA Fix
came into effect. In fiscal year 22 the numbers I have for the
first 6 months are $409 million in the fund.
You know, these are cyclical. They go up and down. It
depends on whether there was a deferred prosecution agreement,
whether there were forfeitures and other seizures during that
time. So, I don't think we have enough information, yet, to
know what the numbers--
Senator Leahy. I would ask only the Department make it
clear that it is a priority that it goes there. And because of
time, let me mention another thing. There's been a lot of
bipartisan support in the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act. But what we, the Appropriations Committee,
determined to do was put it as part of the fiscal year 2022
Omnibus Appropriations Package because we're concerned, in the
normal course of events, it might not have gotten up for a
vote. But the President's fiscal year 2023 budget doesn't
account for some of the new programs that were included in
Violence Against Women Act.
Many of us had worked across the aisle to improve that Act,
to enlarge it. I know that, when I was Chair of Judiciary, we
added Native Americans, the LGBTQ community, sexual
exploitation of minors. So, is the Department going to support
the new programs enacted by VAWA, and will you make sure that
your budget shows that?
Attorney General Garland. The answer is yes. I'm not sure
which programs, I'd like to have our staffs talk about them,
didn't make it in.
Senator Leahy. Okay, I will, because we came together to
get VAWA through the way we did. But I also want to make sure
that we have the funding and that you have what you need there.
And lastly, and I'll just submit this for the record,
because I see my time is up, you recently issued Freedom of
Information Act guidelines. And I'm pleased with that. But I'm
concerned about the enforcement of it. So, I will also submit a
letter for the record on that and appreciate your answer,
Attorney General.
[The information follows:]
Clerk's Note: A question for the record on FOIA was submitted
rather than an actual letter.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Leahy. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Mr.
Attorney General. The administration has taken conflicting
positions on whether or not the COVID pandemic constitutes a
public health emergency. Could you please explain to the
subcommittee how the Department can justify arguing in court
that the pandemic has subsided enough to warrant the
termination of Title 42, which will worsen the problem of tens
of thousands of unvaccinated migrants illegally entering the
county, while at the same time arguing in a separate case that
the public health consequences are dire enough to warrant
compelled mask usage by Americans on public transportation?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. Thank you, Senator. It's
just, I think, important to--for me to explain the role of the
Justice Department, which is not to make judgments about the
public health and, really, not to make judgments about policy
in either of the two areas that you're--that you're raising,
but rather to make determinations of whether the programs and
requests of the agencies that are responsible for those are
lawful.
So, with respect to the mask mandate on the planes, I think
this is quite transparent. The CDC announced its assessment
that this was a program that continued to be necessary in the
confines of airplanes and public transportation. The only
question for us is, is that a lawful--and they asked us to
appeal. The Solicitor General concluded it was lawful and so we
have appealed.
With respect to Title 42, it's the same analysis from our
side, from the Justice Department's side. The only question
here is the CDC's program. It's the--CDC's announcement and its
assessment and we defend that program as long as it's lawful.
We don't make the public health determinations that you're
speaking of.
Senator Collins. And I understand that. I think that the
CDC has put the Justice Department in an untenable position of
arguing one position in one case, and a completely conflicting
position in another case. But I understand that you don't make
the public health determination.
Let me switch to another consequence of the uncontrolled
southern border. In the year between September 2020 and
September 2021, more than 104,000 Americans died from drug
overdoses. In Maine, we set a horrific new record, 636 people
died from drug overdoses. That was a 23 percent increase from
the previous year. In 2021, the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency
seized more than 10,000 grams of fentanyl. That's a 67 percent
increase from the previous year. Just 3 months into this year,
agents tell me that they have already seized half of last
year's total.
Law enforcement officials in Maine and elsewhere, tell me
that these drugs are largely entering the United States through
the southern border, where resources that could be targeting
drug interdiction are instead being diverted to help with the
influx of migrants illegally crossing the border. Do you agree
that the government's inability to secure the southern border
has lead to more drugs coming into our country?
Attorney General Garland. Look, I--the opioid epidemic, and
particularly the influx of fentanyl, is just horrifying and
extraordinarily sad for the large numbers of Americans who are
becoming addicted and who have become addicted. We--the job of
the Justice Department is to fight the large-scale drug
trafficking organizations that are bringing this money--these
drugs into the country.
And that's the reason we have asked for large increases for
all of our anti-drug programs. The DEA has asked for a $102
million increase, which is for a total of $3.1 billion, to
fight the very issues that you're speaking of. The U.S.
Marshal's Service has asked for $1 billion for drug trafficking
fugitive capture. The U.S. Attorney's offices $106 million, the
FBI $161 million, the Criminal Division $446.9 million,
including regional opioid task forces, and the COPS grants. The
money that we're giving includes the money for the anti-heroin
and anti-meth task forces.
So, we are doing--we are asking for all the money we can
get, and we are not stopping here. As you no doubt know, I
announced the indictment and extradition of the former
President of Honduras to the United States to face justice for
organizing drug trafficking coming out of the Northern
Triangle. We will be persistent in that effort.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Moran. Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Honorable Merrick Garland. I want to thank you for your
continued support of public service. It's been wonderful and we
appreciate very much your position.
Let's start on voting rights. I've always believed that
healthy democracy depends on a voting system that is
accessible, free, fair, and secure. While history is going to
tell us that we've come a long way in ensuring all individuals,
regardless of their race, sex, or political affiliation have
the ability to cast their vote, we can all agree that we still
have a lot of work to do.
I'm particularly concerned about the recent opinions and
rulings that seem to undercut decades of established legal
precedent under the Voting Rights Act. Specifically in
February, a Federal district court in Arkansas ruled that only
the U.S. Attorney General has standing to enforce Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act. The court found that it would be
inappropriate to imply a private right of action to enforce
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
So, your opinion on that, sir, with that interpretation?
You agree, disagree, and what impact, if any, could this ruling
have on voting rights, if this was adopted across the country.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, very good question, Senator.
On the first question, normally I don't, sort of, opine.
Senator Manchin. I understand.
Attorney General Garland. In this case, I've already
opined, so I don't think it hurts any to do that. We have
filed--across the country, in a number of these cases, we
believe there is a private right of action to enforce the
Voting Rights Act. It has always been assumed that that was the
case, since the Act was passed in the mid-60s. No one has ever
questioned it, I think, until this year.
To the second point, the consequences of the Justice
Department being the only one who can bring voting rights
cases, I'm going to be blunt. You're going to have to give us a
lot more money. If the Justice Department has to bring every
single case to enforce voting rights, we're going to have--
Senator Manchin. You know, the argument about that, sir--
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the argument about that--you
hear the pros and cons on that. They're saying, well, there'd
be too much litigation. That, you know--and if you had
everybody being able to declare that they've been infringed
upon. And we don't see that going any further than that. We're
having all these discussions in our committees, but we're
trying to get a clarity on that. But it seems like, to me, that
the person has that right, but it hasn't been exercised if it's
been frivolous. I haven't seen it go any further, so I don't
know how it's been a strain on the court system.
Attorney General Garland. So, I--you know, I haven't done
an analysis of the court system, but this has been the rule
that we've had all the way since the mid-60s. I've never heard
any complaints that it is taxing the court system in any--
Senator Manchin. Yes, we haven't either.
Attorney General Garland. Any way.
Senator Manchin. Sir, if I could switch a little bit on
that, and that's very helpful. We're working on that. On the
price gouging--we hear a lot about price gouging right now. And
we saw that with a--when we first had the--when we first had
COVID brought to our attention, horrible epidemic, back in May
of 2020--March of 2020. We saw that with N95 masks, Clorox
wipes, toilet paper at the beginning of the pandemic, and now,
we're going to--we're seeing it again, this time with fuel
prices and food prices and things of that sort. Should there be
a criminal price gouging statute?
Attorney General Garland. Well, this is a matter of huge
debate and antitrust and economics. I'd like to hold off on
that, but our staff would be happy to work with--
Senator Manchin. Right now, what constitutes you all,
basically, taking it under your surveillance, if you will,
acceptable prices for scarce products? What constitutes the
acceptable prices for scarce--
Attorney General Garland. So--right--
Senator Manchin. Market demands, things of this sort,
global pricing.
Attorney General Garland. So, for us, the questions are
unlawful agreements to fix prices and exclusionary behavior by
monopolists and near monopolists. So, if we're in either of
those circumstances, if they exclude competition, that falls
under the antitrust laws and, likewise, agreements on prices
between competitors.
Senator Manchin. And I want to follow up, also, on Senator
Collins' concerns on the opioid epidemic. Myself and Senator
Capito, in the State of West Virginia, we've been number one as
far as getting slammed with this. Can you speak to the status
of DOJ's current efforts to curtail the opioid crisis,
including the Appalachian Regional Prescription Opioid, or what
we call the ARPO Strikeforce?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, so I think that's a--and I
hope you agree, I think that's a very effective task force.
That money is included in our request for funds. I think it--
I'm not sure whether that's the one that comes under the Office
of Justice programs or under the Criminal Division, but those
task forces, both the meth and heroin ones that Senator Collins
was concerned about the last time we spoke, and the opioid one
that you're talking about--
Senator Manchin. We need your support for that, sir.
Attorney General Garland. We support, and we support
expanding those and, if we get the money requested in the
budget--
Senator Manchin. Very quickly, I want to follow up with, I
introduced the DEA Enforcement and Authority Act that would
amend the immediate suspension order standard of review from a
substantial likelihood of an immediate threat standard to a
probable cause standard. That's, again, order standard of a
review from a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat to
a probable cause standard. So, what additional authorities do
you believe DOJ or FBI need in order to effectively stop the
flow of prescription opiates and other illegal drugs? Because
the substantial likelihood is pretty darn broad and probable
cause, we know exactly what their intent are.
Attorney General Garland. So, I haven't been directly
involved in the question of the standard here. Our Consumer
Protection branch does the work on--
Senator Manchin. If you could look--we have that piece of
legislation. I think all of us have been--our States have been
ravaged by this--
Attorney General Garland. Yes.
Senator Manchin. Horrible addiction that we have, and drugs
continue to flow. It might give us a better chance to fight
this opioid onslaught or drug onslaught. But if you could look
into the language, if you all could support, that's the DEA--
it's the Enforcement and Authority Act.
Attorney General Garland. All right.
Senator Moran. Senator Manchin, thank you.
Attorney General Garland. We'll be happy to do that,
Senator.
Senator Moran. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
General, for being here. Could you pull that mic closer to you,
please, sir.
Attorney General Garland. Oh, I'm sorry. Is that better?
Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Yes, sir. General, I think the Justice
Department is losing. I think you're losing on crime. I think
you're losing on drugs. I think you're losing on immigration. I
think you're losing on Chinese espionage.
Let me start with crime. What percentage of cops in America
do you think are bad cops?
Attorney General Garland. A very small percentage.
Senator Kennedy. Like, how small?
Attorney General Garland. I don't have a number. I think
most police--
Senator Kennedy. Well, you're the country's chief--one of
the country's chief law enforcement officers.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, but--
Senator Kennedy. Is it less than 10 percent?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. Let me just be clear. We
believe that most police officers follow the Constitution in
their practices. Most police departments do. And all police
officers, I believe, want to work in police departments that
follow constitutional policing requirements.
Senator Kennedy. Is it less than 5 percent?
Attorney General Garland. I don't have the numbers. I think
it probably is, but again, I don't have any numbers for you.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you think most cops are racist?
Attorney General Garland. No, I do not.
Senator Kennedy. What percentage of cops do you think, in
your judgment--I know you can't give me an exact figure--do you
think are racist?
Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. I'm not resisting
because I have a number that I can't give you. I just really--I
don't have any way of making that valuation.
Senator Kennedy. What's your gut tell you, less than 5
percent?
Attorney General Garland. One thing I've learned is to not
give answers from my gut.
Senator Kennedy. Right. Well, you think it's less than 5
percent?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer. I'm
sorry.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. You don't know?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know, no.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Why doesn't the Justice Department
support ``Stop, Question, and Frisk''?
Attorney General Garland. I'm not sure what--you mean,
``Stop and Frisk''? Is that what you mean?
Senator Kennedy. Some call it ``Stop and Frisk''
(indiscernible).
Attorney General Garland. Yes, yes, look--yes, we--I don't
know that the Justice Department has a position. This is a
State and local role, normally. Look--
Senator Kennedy. Do you think it works?
Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry.
Senator Kennedy. Do you think ``Stop, Question, and Frisk''
works?
Attorney General Garland. I think, in some circumstances it
can work but, of course, it can be abused.
Senator Kennedy. Right.
Attorney General Garland. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. What--but why doesn't the Justice
Department aggressively encourage law enforcement officials to
use that technique? It's been declared constitutional, as you
know.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, the Supreme Court has
affirmed the constitutionality of ``Stop and Frisk''. That's--
in the Terry case. That's exactly right. But we don't do--
that--Federal Government doesn't do patrolling. This is work
for patrol.
Senator Kennedy. I know you don't, but this you're one of
the country's chief law enforcement officials--maybe the
chief--and what you say matters. And suppose--here's what I'm
asking. Let's take Chicago, where you haven't--we haven't made
any end roads in stopping the killing. I mean, Chicago is now
the world's largest outdoor shooting range. We know that a lot
of the shootings come from gangs. Why wouldn't you want to call
the police chief and the mayor in Chicago and say, ``Look, you
know who these gang members are. When you have reasonable
suspicion, under Terry v. Ohio, an objective standard, more
than just a hunch, why don't you aggressively stop, question,
and frisk these gang members?'' You'll get guns off the street.
You'll get drugs off the street. And you'll get a lot of gang
members off the street, and you'll stop people killing each
other. Why won't you do that?
Attorney General Garland. The best way for the Federal
Government to stop violent crime is to work at each local level
and determine--and let the State and locals determine what the
best use of their own resources is.
Senator Kennedy. Judge, I'm sorry for interrupting you but
I'm trying to get some answers.
Attorney General Garland. You're--I'm sorry--
Senator Kennedy. Why won't you do that? Just tell me why
you won't do that.
Attorney General Garland. Because--
Senator Kennedy. Your opinion matters.
Attorney General Garland. Because there is no one solution
fits all that the Federal Government can suggest to State and
local law enforcement. We believe State and local law
enforcement knows best as to what to do there. We provide--
Senator Kennedy. Well, it's not working.
Attorney General Garland. We provide our technical
expertise. We put lots of resources into joint task forces. We
pick up--
Senator Kennedy. Well, General, it's--I know I've got to
shut this down. I've only got 15 seconds. Is that why you're
asking, in the middle of a raging inflation, for 7 percent more
money, $2.36 billion to provide technical increase--or
technical advice? I mean, we're going backwards here on crime,
General. You're the State's--or the country's chief law
enforcement officer and you won't even answer my question about
how you feel about ``Stop, Question, and Frisk''.
Attorney General Garland. I think it--
Senator Kennedy. Why should we give you more money?
Attorney General Garland. I think it's a resource
allocation issue for each local police department. I believe
that the Justice Department does the best by putting the money
that we're asking for as an increase in law enforcement that
can assist the State and locals in the best way.
Senator Kennedy. But, General, is that what we're supposed
to tell the mothers of those kids getting killed in Chicago?
``You don't understand. It's a resource allocation issue.''
Attorney General Garland. No, what you're supposed to tell
the mothers in Chicago, and what I told them when I was there,
was the Justice Department was there to provide all the
resources that this subcommittee will give us, to stop violent
crime.
Senator Kennedy. But yet, you won't try--
Attorney General Garland. The more resources you can give--
Senator Kennedy. ``Stop, Question, and Frisk''.
Attorney General Garland. That is a question for the State
and the local--I'm sorry, for the State and local law
enforcement.
Senator Kennedy. I didn't go over as much as Manchin did,
Madam Chair.
Senator Moran. That's not the standard by which we judge
behavior.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, General.
Attorney General Garland. You're welcome.
Senator Moran. Now, Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Senator Moran, and welcome,
Mr. Attorney General.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen. I want to start with some thanks to you
and President Biden and your team at the Justice Department for
implementing something that many of us have pushed for a long
time, which is a final rule with respect to ghost guns. These
are, of course, are weapons. You can buy them over the Internet
in pieces, quickly assemble them, and they shoot and kill
people just like a regular firearm. But one major difference,
they do not have serial numbers, which is why they're becoming
more the weapon of choice by criminals in my State of Maryland,
places like Baltimore City, and around the country.
So, I want to applaud you for moving forward on that effort
and, also, applaud the President for nominating a Director of
ATF, Steven Dettelbach, a good candidate. I hope the Senate
will confirm that nomination expeditiously. The ATF has gone
headless for way too long, as you know. And we need a strong
ATF to crack down on illegal gun trafficking, among other
issues.
As you know, you know, Congress has brought back
congressionally-directed spending, so that we can try to target
resources where our communities say they're needed the most.
And Senator Cardin and I worked with this Committee to channel
important resources to address the really serious violent crime
problem in Baltimore City. And there's no one solution, but we
provided a series of resources for community-based crime
violent prevention programs, community policing.
So, my question to you, Mr. Attorney General, Baltimore
City's waiting on those funds. How quickly can we get them? Can
you give us your commitment that you can get those out the door
quickly?
Attorney General Garland. If you give us the money, we can
get them out the door quickly. You know, an important part of
our ability to fight violent crime in Baltimore and other
locations, where it is a very serious problem, is having more
Assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute these cases. The Federal
Government has stronger--
Senator Van Hollen. So, Mr. Attorney General, just one
clarification here. So, I'm talking about, in this question,
monies we've already have appropriated. These are monies that
we've provided. They're in the custody of either the Department
of Justice or Treasure, and we'd just--
Attorney General Garland. I see. I see.
Senator Van Hollen. Like to get the money out the door.
Attorney General Garland. What we will do--as far as I
know, that--our priority is to get the money out the door. It
doesn't do us any good to keep it in main Justice, I assure
you.
Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
Attorney General Garland. So, if--
Senator Van Hollen. Well, we'd like--we'd like to encourage
your team to get it out because it is a serious situation
there.
Now, to the broader issue you're raising, with respect to
resources for the U.S. Attorney in Maryland, for the ATF in
Maryland, for U.S. Marshal Service in Maryland, we have seen
some increases over the last couple years. And I want to thank
you and your Deputy Attorney General Monaco, who's had a
serious of phone calls with Senator Cardin and myself. But can
you--we do need more resources. I mean, we have a very serious
problem in Baltimore City. And we do have good cooperation
between the Federal Government, State and local jurisdictions.
But can you talk about, specifically, how resources you're
requesting here can strengthen our ability to get more
resources to Baltimore City?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, so, through no fault of this
Subcommittee, we did not get the amount of money for the United
States Attorneys that was in the budget request, and it was in
the marks of the Subcommittee as a consequence of the omnibus.
We received $120 million less than the fiscal year 2022
request. So, for that reason, we're asking for increases for
the U.S. Attorney's offices, to allow us to hire 157 more
Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Obviously, the more Assistant U.S.
Attorneys we have, the easier it is to allocate them around the
country to the places that are in need.
Same is true with respect to ATF. We're asking for an
increase of 122 agents. Again, the more that we have, the more
we're able to expand the locations in which we can put people.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr.--I look forward to
supporting that budget request for the reasons you've laid out.
I hope the Committee will as well.
My final--I just have a statement here, Mr. Attorney
General. The Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has recognized
that the FBI needs a new consolidated headquarters that meets
its security requirements. And before the previous
administration, three sites had been located. And in the last
bill passed by the Congress, Appropriations Bill, we directed
the General Services Administration to select one of those
three earlier identified sites for the new fully consolidated
FBI Headquarters. So, as the chief law enforcement officer, we
expect you to work with us to make sure that the law is
followed, and I'm confident that you will do that.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. Senator
Hagerty.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, and thank you,
Ranking Member Moran, for holding this hearing. Thank you,
Attorney General, for being back with us today.
I want to touch on something that's a great concern to my
constituents and I think, frankly, to the confidence of many
people in our system that you control, through the Department
of Justice, and that's the matter of the Hunter Biden
investigation. It received a great deal of press, but I want to
ask you a bit about how the communications have worked, within
your Department, with the White House, on this.
First, have you been briefed on the Hunter Biden
investigation yourself, General Garland.
Attorney General Garland. So, the Hunter Biden
investigation, as I said even in my own nomination confirmation
hearing, is being run by and supervised by the United States
Attorney for the District of Delaware. He's--
Senator Hagerty. I'm aware of that, but he reports to you.
Attorney General Garland. He is supervising the
investigation and I'm--you know, I'm not at liberty to talk
about internal Justice Department deliberations. But he is in
charge of that investigation. There will not be interference of
any political or improper kind.
Senator Hagerty. And are any senior officials in your
Department being briefed or--
Attorney General Garland. Again, he is the supervisor of
this investigation and, you know, the normal processes of the
Department occur. But he is the supervisor of this
investigation.
Senator Hagerty. Well, if you won't be able to say whether
there have been communications there, I'd like for you to tell
me--or answer this question, if you would. Would you think it
would be appropriate for the President of the United States to
call you into the Oval Office and tell you that his son didn't
break the law regarding this matter?
Attorney General Garland. Absolutely not. And the President
has not done that, and the President has committed not to
interfere, not only in that investigation, but any other kind
of--
Senator Hagerty. Well, I agree with you, but--
Attorney General Garland. Investigation.
Senator Hagerty. But--but I do wonder this, then, why the
President is resorting to TV and having his surrogates go on TV
to say just that message. Earlier this month, White House Chief
Of Staff Ron Klain stated on national television that, ``The
President is confident that his son didn't break the law''. And
the White House Communications Director said that, ``President
Biden maintains his position that his son did nothing that was
unethical''. This was on national television.
The President's already told his subordinates, clearly,
these are people that he can fire at will, that he and his
family did nothing wrong. How can the American people be
confident that his administration is conducting a serious
investigation?
Attorney General Garland. Because we put the investigation
in the hands of a Trump appointee, from the previous
administration, who's the United States Attorney for the
District of Delaware. And because you have me as the Attorney
General, who is committed to the independence of the Justice
Department, from any influence from the White House, in
criminal matters.
Senator Hagerty. Well, I think the observation here is
terribly critical because there's an obvious conflict of
interest here, because of those who are investigating the Biden
family and their enterprise can be fired by the head of the
family who's being investigated. That is Joe Biden can fire the
attorney general in Delaware. He can have an impact on all of
your staffing.
And I want to ask you this. Under what circumstances do you
consider, or how do you evaluate whether you would appoint a
special counsel?
Attorney General Garland. I think this is a fact and law
question in each case, determining--depending upon how cases go
forward and a question of whether the Justice Department, with
its normal processes, should continue. I want to be clear,
though, special counsels are also employees of the Justice
Department. We don't have an independent counsel statute
anymore. Both the Democrats and the Republicans experimented
with this, and I think, probably in the end, neither side liked
it. And that's why we ended with the law not being
reauthorized. But in any event, the special counsel is also an
employee of the Justice Department.
Senator Hagerty. Have you had any consideration about
whether to do this, or--
Attorney General Garland. Again, I think our internal
deliberations have to stay within the Department.
Senator Hagerty. Again, I'll just restate that there's an
obvious conflict there that raises concerns amongst my
constituents.
I'd like to turn to some public evidence, though. There are
emails and photographs that show that President Biden, while he
was Vice President, met several of Hunter Biden's business
associates, including a Burisma executive--that's the energy
company that paid Hunter Biden $1 million per year to sit on
its Board--and a Russian billionaire, who paid Hunter's firm
$3.5 million, around the same time. All of this is while
President Biden was running portions of the United States
Foreign Policy, including Ukraine.
There's evidence that Hunter Biden paid for Joe Biden's
living expenses while he was Vice President. A Hunter Biden
email from 2010, entitled ``JRB Bills'', Joe R. Biden Bills,
discusses paying for the upkeep of Joe Biden's large lakefront
home.
There's another 2010 email from a Biden confidante to
Hunter Biden saying, ``Your dad just called me. He could use
some positive news about his future earnings potential.'' To
me, this suggests that Joe Biden's $231,000--his taxpayer
funded salary--and lifestyle as Vice President of the United
States weren't enough to support his lifestyle. That same
confidante of--and, also, Hunter Biden's business partner, made
nine visits to the White House between 2009 and 2013, and met
with Joe Biden in the West Wing, while Joe Biden was Vice
President.
And we have a text message from Hunter Biden to his
daughter, stating that, ``Don't worry. Unlike Pop--'', meaning
Joe Biden, ``I won't make you give me half your salary''.
So, it seems President Biden was serving as Vice President
and running U.S. Foreign Policy, at the same time that his son,
Hunter Biden, was raking in money from shady foreign business
deals. And this was money that was being diverted to benefit
Vice President Biden.
So, General Garland, do you have any reason to dispute the
evidence that indicates that President Biden was involved with,
and using money from, Hunter Biden's business deals?
Attorney General Garland. Senator, following the long-
standing rule of the Justice Department, we don't discuss
investigations or evidence that may or may not be relevant to
investigations. That's a matter for the United States
Attorney's office that's investigating the case.
Senator Hagerty. Well that's great--thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Shaheen. Attorney General Garland has requested a
break at 11:15. So, what we are going to try and do is to get
Senator Schatz and Senator Capito in and then, we will break--
have a 10-minute break, and then, we will take up the rest of
the questions. Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much, Chair Shaheen, and
Vice Chair Moran. Attorney General, thank you for being here.
I have--I'm going to try to get through five questions. So,
if I can have quick answers, that'd be great.
What, if any--
Attorney General Garland. I'll try to talk fast.
Senator Schatz. Are the DOJ's plans to reinstate Federal
prosecutorial discretion for non-interference in States,
territories, and tribes where marijuana is legal?
Attorney General Garland. So, as I understand our role,
with respect there, it's really the same as it is with respect
to States. You're talking about marijuana prosecutions--
Senator Schatz. Yes.
Attorney General Garland. Right. And I think I--you know, I
laid this out, actually, also, in my confirmation hearing and
my view hasn't really changed since then. And that is that the
Justice Department has almost never prosecuted use of marijuana
and it's not going to be--it's not--that's not an efficient use
of the resources given the opioid and methamphetamine epidemic
that we have.
Senator Schatz. That's good enough for me. Let's move on.
Attorney General Garland. Okay.
Senator Schatz. I want to talk a little bit about PREA
oversight. There have been a number of recent sexual abuses
case at FCI Dublin and other Federal prisons across the
country. What's the Department going to do to address these
PREA violations?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, so, this is a, you know,
another really terrible set of events. We have prosecuted a
number of the individuals responsible now, at Dublin, for this.
We have put into place a new warden at Dublin, I think, within
the last three weeks. We've--the Deputy Attorney General has
set up a task force to investigate and determine what the
procedural failures here were, and how these kind of failures
can be prevented in the future. And the matter's been referred
to the Inspector General for an internal investigation.
Senator Schatz. Thank you. Will the DOJ at least consider--
I don't want you to commit to it now, but consider supporting
the reestablishment of an interagency law enforcement equipment
working group to oversee and provide recommendations for
Federal programs, that include the transfers or sales of
controlled equipment to law enforcement? We know this issue
comes up periodically. This is a space where this can be done
intelligently. I think we've seen the various--1033 and other
programs, where equipment is transferred to local departments,
and it can be very useful, or it can be overkill. And the point
of a working group like this is to, sort of, sus out what
departments need and what seems to be over arming local police
forces.
Attorney General Garland. I appreciate your not asking for
a commitment, but of course, any consideration of that issue
requires interagency discussion, because some of the equipment
you're talking about is Defense Department equipment. So,
certainly, I would be happy to consider that.
Senator Schatz. This is a Hawaii-specific question. We
don't have a halfway house in Hawaii, since October of 2019.
So, does the Department have an interim or emergency set of
measures to ensure that Hawaii's halfway house eligible
individuals still have access to services?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, so, as you know, Senator, I
think we have discussed this before. We've had--the Bureau of
Prisons has had problems expanding a residential re-entry
center in Hawaii, for a number of reasons, not the least of
which is the providers are very scarce. BOP, I understand, has
made progress on a day reporting center contract and hopes to
make an award within the next few months.
Senator Schatz. Great. Final question, easy one. What is
your position on clemency for Leonard Peltier?
Attorney General Garland. So, this is a matter that goes
into--applications go to the Pardon Attorney. The Pardon
Attorney makes recommendations through the Deputy Attorney
General to the President. And so, I'm not going to comment on
that, now.
Senator Schatz. Can you comment on where we are in the
process?
Attorney General Garland. I don't--I assume, but don't
know, that an application has been made. I actually don't even
know whether--I mean, I've read about this in the press, so I
don't know anything more about it than what I've read in the
press.
Senator Schatz. And this doesn't cross your desk?
Attorney General Garland. Certainly not as an initial, or
even secondary, matter. This goes to the Pardon Attorney and
then, the Deputy Attorney General. I'm not saying I wouldn't be
involved, but it certainly has not crossed my desk.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Schatz. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and
thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being with us today.
I'm not going to ask you a question on this. I just wanted
to begin with expressing my deep concern about the flow of
fentanyl into the country, from the southern border. Senator
Manchin mentioned West Virginia's at the tip of the spear, as
you know. Senator Collins brought this up as a big issue. We've
had meetings over the last two weeks, being at home, and
fentanyl is the killer. I mean, it is what's coming up through
the southern border. So, I would impress upon you how
absolutely critical it is that the situation at the southern
border has got to get better. I understand the demand side is
what's driving this, in a lot of ways. But if we can cut the
supply, I think we can cut a lot of tragedy out of a lot of
people's lives. And I know you understand that, as well.
Let me ask a question. According to--over the pandemic,
we've seen a significant increase in first-time gun owners,
with almost 60 percent increase in African-American gun owners,
50 percent increase in Hispanic gun owners, 43 percent in
Asian-American gun owners. I guess I would ask you if you have
a perception as to why this is. But the reason I'm asking the
question, and I'm interested in it, of course I want to see our
Second Amendment rights protected, but also, the NICS system,
which runs the background checks, goes through West Virginia,
as you know.
So, do you have a--any kind of perception as to why gun
ownership is up among different groups and, during the
pandemic? I know it's been bigger in all groups. What would you
attribute that to? And what kind of strain is this having on
our NICS system?
Attorney General Garland. So, I don't know the answer, I'm
sorry, to the first question. This is the kind of analysis that
I, you know, can't make up and I can't even guess at. I don't
know what the causes are.
The second question I can answer. You know, the more gun
sales, the more difficult it is for the NICS system, but that's
the job of the NICS system. So, that's why we're asking for an
increase in $6.2 million for the NICS system, in the
President's budget here, to take into account the increase in
the number of sales.
Senator Capito. Right. And they can certainly use it. And
we know we want accurate records, we want good records, and, I
mean, they're working 24/7, as you know.
Recently, FBI Director Christopher Wray stated, during an
interview, that there is a 59 percent increase in police
officer killings. That is, officers being killed at a rate of
almost one every five days. This is alarming to me. We had one
of these incidences in our hometown. It's occurring at ambushes
and attacks. You're asking for more money in $30 billion in
mandatory spending for law enforcement help. What are you
looking at, in this area, to protect--I know hiring is an
issue, but protecting our force? And this is very concerning to
me.
Attorney General Garland. Well, it's extraordinarily
concerning to me and to all of the 120,000 members of the
Justice Department, most of whom are involved in law
enforcement. So, these are our brothers and sisters who are,
sometimes being targeted directly, sometimes being killed in
the line of duty, and sometimes, as a consequence of suicide.
So, we have an overall task force involved in investigating
threats, which includes, in particular, threats against law
enforcement and local police.
Senator Capito. Are you seeing the threats go up?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, extraordinarily so. And
you're right about--I think what--I don't know the number that
Director Wray cited, but I'm--it sounds exactly right to me.
The number is extremely worrying.
Senator Capito. Well, I'd like to see the focus of some of
this new funding go into this precise issue. The suicide issue,
obviously, is something that's deeply troubling, as well. I
think a lot of it is the lack of respect for law enforcement in
certain areas of the country, around the country. We're having
trouble hiring in. We tried to do--we tried to do reform,
couldn't get it across the finish line to try to help our local
law enforcement recruit, train, you know, do bias training, and
all kinds of things that we see are issues within our police
department. But I'm very, very concerned about this.
Let me ask you another question. I noticed in your
statement that you're going to create a division to combat
climate crisis. The reason I'm interested in this is, I'm on
the EPW Committee. I'm the Ranking Member there. There is a lot
of enforcement at EPA and other places on environmental
justice. You're going to create a new Office for Environmental
Justice. I mean, are these directives coming from the White
House? Why now, and why, with all of the other efforts that are
going on, throughout all the different Cabinet positions in the
government, is this something that you're putting a high
priority on, right now?
Attorney General Garland. So, I think you rightly noted,
it's not a division. It's an office within an already existing
Environment Division. The reason is that there are
responsibilities, both in the Environment and Natural Resources
Division and in the Civil Rights Division, and so, coordination
on the environmental justice issue is required.
Senator Capito. Is that not being handled in other areas?
Like, for instance, in the EPA Enforcement, in their
Environmental Justice Office.
Attorney General Garland. Well, to be honest, I don't know
about their Environmental Justice Office. But we have a Civil
Rights Division, which does prosecutions for civil rights
violations. We have the Environment and Natural Resources
Division, which does the affirmative cases. And we wanted to
have some coordination between the two, that's the reason for
having this office.
Senator Capito. Well, thank you. I think I've mentioned
about three things I would put in front of this. And thank you
so much.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Capito. We will now
take a break. We will reconvene at 11:30.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
[Recess]
Senator Shaheen. This hearing will come back to order, and
I will call on Senator Murkowski who is next.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Attorney
General, welcome. Before I begin asking my questions, I wanted
to note that, when Senator Leahy was asking you about the VOCA
Fix, know that that's something that we're monitoring very,
very, very carefully. We worked hard to make sure that we had
$5 million for the Victim's Service Organizations in Alaska, to
help. That was a real panic cry that we heard from the State.
And I am concerned--Senator Leahy has emphasized making this a
priority, but I want to make sure that we're not in a situation
where we're looking again, realizing we're not measuring up
here. There's a gap. So, if there is any kind of alternative
funding line items to ensure that our victims' organizations
are able to receive this, I certainly hope that the Department
is looking at that.
And he also raised an issue with regard to some of the new
grant programs in VAWA that, for reasons known or unknown, have
not been reflected in the President's budget. And you
indicated, you know, you weren't sure that those might be. Some
of the ones that we have looked at are those grant programs,
the new grant programs focused on expanding access to SANEs, as
well as to medical forensic examinations. So, my hope is that--
is that this was just a matter of timing, not a deliberate
choice to overlook those very important programs, certainly in
rural States like Alaska. So, I just underscore that when
Senator Leahy raises these issues, I am right there with him.
So, to the issue of VAWA. And as you know, this was
something that I've been working on for a long period of time
and was very pleased that we were able to advance this, get it
signed into law, contained within the VAWA reauthorization is
the Tribal title, the Alaska Public Safety Empowerment Pilot.
What we're really trying to do here, is to be able to provide a
level of justice in areas in my State, where they simply have
none. We want to get to these remote, rural villages, not
necessarily those on the road system.
What we want to do is supplement, basically, the work that
the State is doing, with regard to public safety. We're not
creating Indian country. We're not taking jurisdiction away
from the State. But as you know, the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary of Interior, is directed to
establish a process to designate those Indian Tribes that can
participate in the pilot. So, the question to you this morning
is, what do you anticipate, in terms of the Department of
Justice plan to begin this process? How do you see this moving
forward?
We also direct the creation of an Alaska Tribal Public
Safety Advisory Committee, not later than a year. So, I'm just
asking this morning, if you can share how the President's
budget will support the Alaska Public Safety Empowerment Pilot,
as well as the Public Safety Advisory Committee.
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, I'm very grateful for
everything that you did, with respect to getting VAWA
reauthorized. Of course, the Justice Department has been full
on in support of this all along. So, we are a lock step on
this. We support the pilot program. We think it's an important
ability of authority to bring these and to prosecute these and
investigate these matters. We can't just leave them undone.
So, I'm very eager to get the pilot going, to get the
villages decided. Likewise with the commission. So, I don't see
any reason why we won't be able to be on time on our marks for
this.
Senator Murkowski. Well, know that we would like to be
working with you to understand what those timelines are to help
with the expectations of folks back home.
Last question for you relates to the Bureau of Prisons.
Currently, Alaska does not have any Federal facilities to house
our Federal inmate population within the State. We have seen
considerable growth over the years. The number of Federal
inmates has grown from just a few hundred to over 1,000. And
what happens then, is many of these individuals are sent to
serve their sentences at facilities outside the State,
sometimes 2 to 5,000 miles away from their homes.
I have sent you a letter--sent it back in March of this
year, asking that you consider working with the Bureau of
Prisons to conduct a new feasibility study. It hasn't been done
for a period of time. It was, apparently, about two decades
ago. A lot has changed in Alaska since then. But I would ask
that you look at this. We've not heard a response back, so if
you can take a look at this and, again, try to work with us on
a new feasibility study. But also, working with the Bureau of
Prisons to obtain additional halfway house bed space in Alaska.
Currently, we have only 39 beds for the entire State of Alaska.
All of them are located in Anchorage. So, if you could,
perhaps, follow up with me on those two asks, it would be
greatly appreciated.
Attorney General Garland. I would be happy to have our team
speak to yours, or the two of us speak directly. I'd be very
happy to.
Senator Murkowski. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Senator
Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was going to
another Committee hearing, and I just talked to Madam Chair--we
had three of them at the same time today. Seems like we could
organize ourselves a little better.
I was listening to your conversation with Senator Hagerty,
and I did not hear the end result. And I'm assuming he probably
asked, do we need a special prosecutor to look into the Hunter
Biden, you know, affair. Do you think we need to, and I would
then have one follow up question to that? So, do we need a
special prosecutor to look into that?
Attorney General Garland. So, as you know, the
investigation is being run and supervised by the United States
Attorney in Delaware, who is an appointee of the previous
administration, and continues on as the United States Attorney.
The question of whether to have a special counsel is one that--
it's an internal decision making in the Department, so I don't
want to make any judgments one way or the other. But I'm quite
comfortable with the United States Attorney for that district
continuing in the role that he's playing.
Senator Braun. So, a follow up question to that would be,
of course Special Prosecutor Counsel Mueller, you know, was
assigned in that whole Steele dossier issue, which now has been
debunked. If you had been in that capacity then, do you think a
special counsel was needed there, as well?
Attorney General Garland. It's hard to put myself back into
that circumstances. And then, of course, there would be a
different--for me to be in that position, there would've been a
different president. So, I'm not sure I can answer that
hypothetical.
Senator Braun. Well, it's obvious that that would be a
question that many would wonder about, in terms of what that
standard is, what that consistency is. And it seems like it
would be the same from one administration to the next.
Got a question that really is probably more pertinent, in
the sense that what's happening on our southern border is
confusing, in the sense that the administration says we don't
have enough resources. It's done things, from the beginning,
that has--I was down there with 17 other senators, roughly a
year ago. And to give you a description of the immensity, it
had gone from record low illegal crossings--and I'm one that
believes we need to secure the border and roll our sleeves up
and fix all the issues associated with it. We were--had risen
from, I think, 40,000 to 70,000. This last month, it was
212,000. I think 60-some thousand got away. I mean, it has
exploded beyond anybody's imagination. I think self-induced.
And then, there are conflicting statements that part of
it's due to not having enough resources. Are we resourced at
the border, properly? And that would be how we address any
illegal crossings. That seems to be delegated to lower levels
of authority. Isn't that confusing? And in light of the issue,
in terms of where it's at, do we to do something differently?
And does your office need to be outspoken about trying to fix
it?
Attorney General Garland. So, I want to be careful about
explaining what our role is, because we do need more resources.
I think most of the resources you're referring to are
Department of Homeland Security resources. So, I'll leave that
for that Secretary to express what they need. But we have asked
for $1.35 billion for our immigration courts, $1 billion of
which is to reduce the immigration court backlog. So, the thing
that's our job is to run the immigration courts after we get
referrals from DHS.
So, we have already onboarded everyone we can, as
immigration judges. We asked, in fiscal year 2022, for 100
more. Again, no fault of this Committee, because you gave us
the right mark. But as a consequence of the Omnibus, that was
not funded. So, we're asking for 200 new immigration judge
teams, a total of 1,200 new staff for that purpose. That's
the--we've also asked for money for a virtual court initiative,
so that we can run these court proceedings more efficiently and
more effectively and from whatever area. If we get the
additional immigration judges, we will move them to the border.
We're already going to be moving them to the border, as it is.
Senator Braun. And can you describe what your request is,
compared to what it was in prior years? What magnitude of
difference?
Attorney General Garland. So, yes. It's an additional 1,200
staff for--
Senator Braun. In addition to how much before, so we can--
Attorney General Garland. It will bring us to a total of
834 IJs. The staff includes all their clerks, etc. So, with 200
more we'll get to 834. So, 834 minus 200 is 634 was what we had
before.
Senator Braun. And just with the arithmetic I put out there
earlier, the problem has quadrupled--
Attorney General Garland. Yes.
Senator Braun. Or quintupled. So, it would beg the
question, are we putting enough resources to it, or is it, kind
of, lip service because we know it's become a big issue? I
would advise, maybe, that might not be adequate, given the
magnitude of the current problem, it's still predicted to go up
by even 50 percent more.
Attorney General Garland. So, that's a fair question,
Senator. Of course, we didn't get what we asked for the last
time, so we're trying to be realistic about what we can ask
for. But resources are not the only thing we're doing. We've
also adopted a new asylum officer rule with DHS, so that asylum
decisions are made by the asylum officers, not by the IJs. So,
they--IJ is immigration judges. So, they won't have to do that.
And then, if there are denials, there will be a streamlined
process, which should reduce the amount of time from current 4
years to 6 months. We also have a dedicated dockets, in order
to be able to better distribute the work among our IJs.
So, it's a combination of things. We want more resources
and we're trying to streamline the whole process and put more
of the work--
Senator Braun. I don't think in the--
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Okay, thank you.
Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry.
Senator Shaheen. I know that Senator Moran and I both have
a second round of questions that we would like to do. It's not
clear that anyone else is interested. I don't know, Senator
Braun, if you also have another round. But mine are relatively
brief, so I will go ahead.
You were discussing with Senator Capito the horrific issue
of police being targeted and, also, suicides. As I'm sure
you're aware, there's no comprehensive national data collection
regarding police suicides. So, in fiscal year 2020, we directed
the Bureau of Justice Statistics to maintain a data set and
report on police suicides for Federal, State, and local law
enforcement. Unfortunately, BJS has not moved forward on
collecting this data. We've provided stronger directives, as
well as $3 million for that data collection effort, in the
fiscal year 2021 bill, but still nothing.
So, were you aware of the delays with this project? And
what can we do to try and collect this data? Because it's, as
you know, it's really critical to figuring out how we respond.
We need to have information so we can think about what we can
do to address what is becoming more and more of a challenge
nationwide.
Attorney General Garland. I am aware. I understand that BJS
will be submitting its report within the next couple of months.
I'm not sure exactly how many months is it? In about 8 weeks
I'll have an update for you on this--on where they are on this.
Senator Shaheen. Good. Well, I look forward to getting
that. And we've had--sadly, we've had some high-profile
suicides in New Hampshire. And I also look forward to working
with the Department on what we can do to address the challenge
of suicide within our law enforcement agencies. So, thank you.
I'm pleased to hear that we should expect something soon.
Unfortunately, I missed a couple of the discussions around
what's happening with fentanyl, because I had to step out. But
I know that on Thursday, the administration released their
National Drug Control Strategy. Like so many States, New
Hampshire is one that has had way too many overdose deaths
because of fentanyl. And I wondered if you could give us a
little insight into how resources are being shifted within the
Department to respond to that strategy and how that might
impact small States, like New Hampshire, which are struggling
with this challenge?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, so of course--there--we have
been involved in the development of the strategy in its most
simple form. There's two sides to this. There's the enforcement
against the drug trafficking organizations and there's the
health challenges for those who are addicted, to try to get
them off of the addiction and to take care of them.
So, on the drug trafficking side, you know, we're asking
for $9.8 billion across DOJ, to counter drug trafficking. The
principal agency for us, of course, is the DEA, for $3.1
billion, which is a $102 million increase for countering drugs.
Fentanyl's at the very top of the list of the concerns. When I
was at the border, I saw the same problems that everybody else
is reporting of. These are very tiny pills, and as the DEA
administrator makes clear, one pill can kill. And the odds--you
know, it's like playing Russian Roulette because some of these
pills are overdose pills. So, that's an extraordinary part of
what we're doing.
We've asked for money for Marshals and for the U.S.
Attorneys and for the FBI. The FBI is particularly targeting
fentanyl and opioid trafficking on the dark web. And as we
announced within the last two weeks, we took down the largest
dark web drug marketplace, to prevent the way in which some
people are getting it, which is online, at this point.
So, there's a number of different things here. Criminal
Division has money in the budget for the Regional Opioid Strike
Forces. And then, there are COPS grants, under the COPS
program, for anti-heroin and anti-meth task forces. So, that's
on the enforcement side.
On the overdose/addiction side, we've asked for $418
million for the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery, the CARA
Act grants. We've asked for $190 million for the COSSAP
program. That's Comprehensive Opioid Stimulant and Substance
Abuse grants. And another $75 million for mental health and
substance use grants. Money for drug courts, $95 million for
veterans' treatment courts, and for our Consumer Protection
Branch, which tries to stop those who are oversubscribing and
improperly overdispensing opioids.
So, it's a--you know, it's a two-pillar issue here for us.
I can't think of anything more important or anything more
tragic than what fentanyl is doing to the American people.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I certainly agree with
that and hope that, as the strategy is rolled out that,
considerable thought will be given to rural parts of the
country and small States, like New Hampshire, which may appear
positively on lots of scales, with respect to income level and
resources, but in fact, have been very hard hit and really need
help.
Thank you very much. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Chairwoman, thank you. General, thank you
for your presence today.
Just a couple more questions, perhaps a follow-up to a
couple of my colleagues questions. But first of all, I'd like
to start with Title 42 and your conversation with Senator
Braun. I think your answer to him was more prospectively might
transpire and the need for additional resources in the future.
I would like to highlight or focus on this year, your
budget request that's in front of us now. I know there's some
uncertainty with a Federal judge in New Orleans and a decision,
but it seems to me that--my view, this is a pretty reckless
decision because the estimates are about 14,000 migrants could
begin crossing the border per day, after Title 42 ends on May
the 23rd. That has to have enormous resource consequences for
the Federal Government. I think Homeland Security is already
talking about additional--running out of money and needing
additional dollars. ICE and Border Patrol, it's estimated,
could be out of funds by July of this year.
What about the impact on DOJ components, Marshals,
immigration courts, U.S. Attorney's offices? Have you prepared
any estimates, has the Department prepared estimates, as to
what the increasing expenditures may be this year, unaccounted
for in your budget request?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know that we have. I
don't think we have those numbers now, but we can--I think our
staff can work with yours. There's no question that there will
be an increase in U.S. Attorney resources needed along the
southern border. We've hired, with respect to the IJs, as I was
telling Senator Braun, we've hired all the way up, under the
current appropriations. So, without more we won't be able to
increase the numbers. We are doing everything we can to
streamline the system and to move people, the IJs, to the
borders to assist there. But look, we're always happy for more
money and I'll be happy to have our staff speak with the
subcommittee's staff about that.
Senator Moran. Well, General, I mean, the crux of my
conversation with you earlier in today's hearing, generally
revolved around violent crime. And my view is that consequence
of what the administration is determined to do, with Section
42, can't be compensated for by removing resources going to
fight violent crime. The border and violent crime are clearly
related, significantly related, but you--
I remember visiting the border and what stood out to me is
that, when we were housing the juveniles on the border, 40
percent of the border patrol agents were then in the housing
business, not in the border patrol business. And I think
there's an analogy there of something the Department of Justice
must avoid, which is to take resources away from something that
is a crisis already, to address the crisis that is going to
occur with the removal of 42. Does that make sense?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, and I assure you we don't
want to remove the money that we need to fight violent crime to
put it anywhere else.
Senator Moran. Has the Department either volunteered or
been tasked with providing DOJ personnel to support DHS during
this crisis?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know what the--
Senator Moran. U.S. Marshals.
Attorney General Garland. Well, yes. But to be clear, we
don't do border patrolling. None of our law enforcement is able
to do--is trained for that, or anything else. The Bureau of
Prisons is going to make buses available and--for the transfers
that the Border Patrol needs assistance for. And the Marshal
Service is going to be providing additional Deputy U.S.
Marshals to assist CBP at the border. But I don't want to
overstate how much that is, because our ability to make those
contributions is not large.
Senator Moran. Thank you. Senator Shaheen visited with you
about drugs, in particular, rural and small States. You and I
had a conversation, probably as you were being confirmed, about
rural law enforcement departments. And I asked you, and you
agreed, and I think you've pursued making certain that rural
agencies, small agencies in particular, have a fair shot at
getting the Federal resources. Anything that you can do to
update, or anything that you would request of me to make that
more--less ownersome and more likely?
Attorney General Garland. I think we have been doing that.
We've made it easier to make--for small law enforcement
agencies, in particular the rural ones that you're speaking of,
to make the applications for the grants.
I will tell you that on my recent trip to U.S. Attorney's
offices to talk to joint law enforcement task forces, in
Colorado and Louisiana, in particular, I met with the rural
sheriffs and, you know, I wanted to make sure that these task
forces were not only focused on the cities, but were focused on
helping the rural sheriffs, as well. And in both of those
circumstances, at least, we got considerable affirmation that
that is working well.
That--you know, this is--the rural law enforcement provides
the boots on the ground who know the people in the community.
And the Federal law enforcement, DEA, FBI, ATF, Marshals, are
able to provide the technology and the skill sets necessary to,
you know, find people who cross the border from one
jurisdiction into another and to bring them back. So, this is
anecdotal, but my anecdotal work suggest very good cooperation
in these joint task forces.
Senator Moran. Thank you. My time is more than expired. I
just would mention one other thing and, perhaps there could be
a follow up by you or your staff. I'm surprised that the DOJ is
only requesting--your budget request is only an additional
$68.6 million to investigate and prosecute cybercrime,
including $52 million at the FBI and $15 million at the U.S.
Attorney's office. The magnitude of the problem is--I can't
imagine can be addressed with that--with that minimal or modest
amount.
Attorney General Garland. My numbers are--look at little
different than yours.
Senator Moran. All right.
Attorney General Garland. Mine show more than $1.2 billion
to address cybersecurity and cybercrime across the country. The
increases are $15 million for 50 more U.S. Attorneys to bring
these cases. Another $88 million for additional 75 FBI
personnel to bring these cases. And then, for our own
cybersecurity for the Justice Department and all the law
enforcement agencies, $115 million. So, I'm not sure why the
numbers are different.
Senator Moran. No, I may have--I may have misspoken or,
certainly at minimum, was confusing. Those are the increases,
not the total amount--
Attorney General Garland. We did get--
Senator Moran. Over enacted levels.
Attorney General Garland. No, we did get more money in the
recent supplemental because of Ukraine. I can promise you, we
expect to ask for more money and part of the money we're going
to ask for is cyber defense, because we're quite worried,
obviously, about that. Other money in there will be for--I'm
trying to decide whether to call it KleptoCapture or just our
Sanctions task force. But it's the KleptoCapture Task Force.
So, we'll be asking for additional money, but you did give us
more money in the supplemental on this, as well.
Senator Moran. General, thank you. Thank you for joining
us. And I did agree with Senator Shaheen to help her, or work
together with her, to see that we get the U.S. Attorney process
back under a fashion in which we get some confirmations
concluded.
Attorney General Garland. That would be great. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Moran, on both counts.
Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Thank you. Good morning. So, on the Russia
front, we had lunch and I really--I appreciate what you and
your team are doing. There's a lot on your plate. You know, you
wanted money in the supplemental. Is there any additional
authority you need from Congress to be more aggressive, in
terms of going after the oligarchs and kleptocracy? Do you need
any legal changes?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, so--thank you for asking
about that. We have been very carefully examining that question
and I expect that there will be requests for legislative
changes. These could go, particularly, in the way in which we
do the forfeitures, to make is easier for us to do the
forfeitures. I think I mentioned earlier, also the possibility
of taking money out of the Forfeiture Fund that we collect this
way and sending it to Ukraine. So, the answer is yes--
Senator Graham. Okay.
Attorney General Garland. And we are hard at work on it.
And I expect, very soon, within days, probably, that the
administration will be able to present some requests.
Senator Graham. Well, good. Mr. Attorney General, I think
there will be a receptive audience to give you more money, if
that's what it needs to go after the people who've profited
from destroying the Russian economy.
Along that line, there's articles in the paper about family
members that have been used by Putin to, sort of, launder
money, and talk of a girlfriend in Sweden. Do you know anything
about an effort to bring sanctions against her?
Attorney General Garland. First answer is no and the second
answer, I guess is, if I did know I wouldn't be able to discuss
it.
Senator Graham. Okay, fair enough.
Attorney General Garland. This is a Treasury Department
issue--
Senator Graham. Yes, I just--right. I just--I would
encourage you to put everything on the table.
When it comes to Afghanistan, have you been briefed,
recently, about the possibility of terrorism emanating from
Afghanistan, into the United States? Has that threat level gone
up or down or do you know?
Attorney General Garland. We are--the details of that I'd
have to defer to a classified briefing.
Senator Graham. Okay, all right. That's fair.
Attorney General Garland. But I think it is fair to say
that we are constantly concerned about the risk that ISIS-K
will try to mount something in the United States, likewise,
continuing with respect to Al-Qaeda. But the FBI is putting all
its enormous amount of resources into preventing that, as are--
as is the intelligence community outside the United States.
Senator Graham. Okay. Well, let's stay in touch on that.
Sort of, back to the border. This idea of taking Title 42
out of the toolbox, in terms of a way to deal with illegal
immigrant crossings, do you believe that if Title 42 is
repealed, there would be a surge at the border?
Attorney General Garland. I think it's important for me to
explain our role in this, and the Justice Department's only
role is, when the CDC makes its assessment, as it did, and asks
us to appeal, for us to determine whether that would be lawful.
And the Department concluded that the CDC's--
Senator Graham. But you--but you're in charge--I'm sorry,
go ahead. Finish your thought.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, and so, that was so. I
think--to answer the other part of your question, I think that
all intelligence suggests that there will be a large increase
in the border, yes--
Senator Graham. Now, when it comes to drugs--
Attorney General Garland. Migrants, yes.
Senator Graham. Right. When it comes to drugs coming into
the United States from the southern border, in the last year,
has that problem gotten better or worse?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know what the numbers
are. I mean, it is obviously the case that the transportation
of fentanyl, particularly, has increased. Fentanyl is much
easier--it's much more compact, much smaller, goes a longer
way. The smugglers, particularly in the trucks, have developed
ways to hide it, even from our x-rays.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Attorney General Garland. So, that problem, of fentanyl
crossing the border, has definitely increased, in a way that
makes all of us very worried.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, when it comes to your role in all
this, if Title 42's repealed and we get a surge, there's an
increase in fentanyl coming across the border, and the leading
cause of death for Americans from 18 to 45, they tell me, is
fentanyl overdose, do you think this budget and the game plan
for the Biden Administration is--will be effective against this
increase?
Attorney General Garland. I think that the budget we've
asked for for drug trafficking and drug interdiction, which is
$9.8 billion, is a huge amount and an enormous allocation of
America's resources, in this respect. But again, our job is
different than the Department of Homeland Security's job.
Senator Graham. No, I got you.
Attorney General Garland. And I can't speak to their
resources.
Senator Graham. And I'll try to wrap up here. But drug
interdictions are dramatically less than they were in fiscal
year 2021. We had 913,000. That's how much drugs were
interdicted. Now we're at 340,000. It seems to be that
interdiction's going down. So, my basic question is, do you
consider the border in a state of crisis?
Attorney General Garland. I think, as you rightly pointed
out, there's going to be a lot--and intelligence suggests,
there will be a lot of people--a lot more people migrating over
the border.
Senator Graham. Well, the reason I mention that, as I
believe it is. I believe the amount of drugs coming across are
unprecedented. The amount of people coming across the border
illegally is unprecedented. Seems to be every train line is
getting worse. And to be honest with you, Mr. Attorney General,
I think we need to go all in, all hands-on deck, of controlling
our border. And do you believe that what we have in place,
through this budget and the system as a whole, that we can
expect to turn this around?
Attorney General Garland. I think that the money--with
respect to the Justice Department, which is the only thing I
can speak to, I think that if you give us the increased
resources that we're asking for, we can do our job.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, 6 months from now we'll see.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General,
and to all of your staff.
Attorney General Garland. And thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Shaheen. If there are no further questions, this
afternoon, senators can submit additional questions for the
official hearing record. We request the Department's responses
within 30 days of receiving those. And the Subcommittee stands
in recess until Tuesday, May 3rd, when we will hold a hearing
on the budget requests of NASA and the National Science
Foundation.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
Questions Submitted to Hon. Merrick Garland, Attorney General,
Department of Justice
Question 1. Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fix Act of 2021
Implementation: I would like to follow up on our discussion during your
live testimony regarding the VOCA Fix Act. I mentioned to you that
despite a sizeable deposit in the first month of implementation, the
deposits into the Crime Victims Fund from deferred and non-prosecution
agreements have actually been quite low. Across October and November,
for example, the total deposited from those two new categories was only
$1 million.
A. What do you think accounts for such starkly low deposits
resulting from deferred and non-prosecution agreements?
Answer. Signed into law on July 22, 2021, the VOCA Fix Act requires
monetary penalties from Federal deferred prosecution and non-
prosecution agreements to be deposited into the Crime Victims Fund. The
Office for Victims of Crime reports that the Fund received $262.3
million from deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements from
July 22, 2021, to December 31, 2021, and $227.2 million from deferred
prosecution and non- prosecution agreements from January 1, 2022,
through April 30, 2022.
Because this Act has been in effect for less than a year, the
Department does not yet have sufficient information to make long-term
projections on future deposits from deferred and non-prosecution
agreements. The Department will continue to monitor receipts closely
and educate US Attorneys' offices and Department litigating components
about the importance of the Fund.
B. Is the Department concerned such low deposits may soon result in
a zero dollar balance in the Crime Victims Fund?
Answer. The balance of the Fund as of April 2022 is $2.934 billion.
The Department is hopeful that the VOCA Fix Act will generate
substantial increases in receipts to keep the Crime Victims Fund
solvent and offset the fall-off in receipts in recent years. Receipts
will continue to be monitored closely. The Department will work with
Congress to ensure the Fund remains solvent.
C. What more can the Department be doing to educate its attorneys
and other litigating components about the impacts of their
prosecutorial decisions on the Crime Victims Fund?
Answer. The Department has issued a memorandum to U.S. Attorneys'
offices, Department litigating components, and the Office of Justice
Programs regarding the purpose of the Crime Victims Fund; how the Fund
supports and benefits hundreds of thousands of survivors every year;
and how criminal fines, and not Federal taxpayer dollars, are what
sustains the Fund. In addition, the Office for Victims of Crime reports
that it will brief attorneys in the Antitrust Division about the VOCA
Fix Act and the Fund later this summer.
Question 2. Freedom of Information Act: I am pleased that you
recently issued Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines directing
all agencies to comply with the requirements of FOIA. During a FOIA
hearing I chaired in March, however, I was disappointed by the
Department's answers regarding its willingness to enforce these
guidelines. I did not come away from the hearing with a clear sense of
what the Department is ready to do if agencies ignore or violate the
guidelines you issued.
A. Will you commit to utilizing the full powers of your office to
enforce the Department's FOIA guidelines and ensure
compliance with FOIA?
B. Will you commit to working with the Director of the Justice
Department's Office of Information Policy to establish
remedial or enforcement actions for the Department to take
should other agencies fail to comply with the recently
issued FOIA guidelines?
Answer to Questions 2A and 2B:
As the new FOIA guidelines I issued on March 15, 2022, make clear,
``[t]ransparency in government operations is a priority of this
Administration and this Department.'' The Justice Department takes very
seriously our government-wide role to encourage compliance with FOIA,
and we are fully committed to utilizing all of the tools available to
us to ensure agencies are faithfully and effectively applying the law
with a presumption of openness.
Question 3. Voting Rights: The wave of efforts across the country
to suppress access to the ballot box is alarming. Legislation like the
John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act are essential to ensuring that
Americans can fulfill their constitutional right to vote. I am alarmed
that the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act continues to be
blocked from even debate in the Senate.
A. Do you agree that voter suppression poses a fundamental threat to
our democracy?
Answer. Yes. As I described in speeches I delivered on May 29, 2022
and June 11, 2021 and in a Washington Post op-ed I wrote on August 5,
2021, the right of all eligible citizens to vote is the cornerstone of
our democracy and the source from which all other rights ultimately
flow. Since the Shelby County decision in 2013, there has been a
dramatic rise in legislative efforts that make it harder for millions
of citizens to cast a vote that counts.
B. While the Department waits for Congress to act, what steps are
you taking to ensure that Americans' access to the ballot
box is protected, everywhere in the country?
Answer. The Department is taking a wide range of steps to protect
the right to vote, including:
--The Department has doubled the Civil Rights Division's Voting
Section's enforcement staff.
--The Department has issued guidance on Federal voting rights laws as
they relate to redistricting and methods of election for
governmental bodies, methods of voting, and post-election
audits.
--The Department has brought lawsuits against Georgia and Texas
regarding recently enacted measures that impact the right to
vote.
--The Department has undertaken a number of steps to protect the
right to vote of deployed servicemembers and Americans residing
overseas, including entering into an agreement with Ohio.
--The Department has brought a lawsuit and reached an agreement under
the National Voter Registration Act with New Jersey.
--The Department has brought a lawsuit and reached an agreement under
the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote
Act with Oneida County, New York.
--The Department has set up a task force to address threats against
election workers and officials.
--The Department has also filed numerous amicus briefs and statements
of interest regarding issues under the Federal voting rights
laws.
C. What additional resources would be helpful for the Justice
Department to improve and expand its efforts to protect
Americans' access to the ballot box?
Answer. The Department has supported Congress' efforts to enact new
legislation to protect the right to vote, including but not limited to
the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the For the People
Act, and the Freedom to Vote Act. The Department has also sought
increased funding for the Civil Rights Division's enforcement work in
its fiscal year 2023 budget request, including to support its voting
rights work.
Question 4. Preventing Gun Violence (Need for Permanent ATF
Director): I was pleased that President Biden nominated Steve
Dettelbach to be the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF). The ATF remains at the forefront of protecting our
communities from violent criminals and the preventing the illegal use
and trafficking of firearms. Unfortunately, the ATF has had only one
permanent director since 2006; this must change. Steve would make an
effective and fair-minded ATF Director.
A. Why is it so important that the ATF have a permanent director?
What ATF actions are inhibited in the absence of a Senate-
confirmed director?
Answer. As your question notes, in March 2006, Congress passed and
President Bush signed into law the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act (Public Law No. 109-177, 120 Stat. 247), which
requires the ATF Director to be appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate. This statutory requirement reflects
the importance of ATF's crucial public safety mission. That mission is
all the more critical today given the unacceptable level of firearms
violence in our communities.
The confirmation of an ATF Director will reinforce that the Federal
government is committed to reducing firearms violence; signal to the
dedicated professionals of ATF and ATF's local, state, Federal, Tribal,
and territorial law enforcement partners that both Congress and the
Administration support ATF's vital mission; and enhance continuity and
stability at ATF. A Senate-confirmed Director is also uniquely
positioned to respond to congressional inquiries and to advocate for
the agency during the budget formulation and enactment process.
Question 5. Vermont Office (Importance of Confirming U.S. Marshal/
Attorney Nominees): I would like to thank your hardworking Federal
agents, especially those in Vermont, for their dedication to fighting
criminal activity and protecting our communities. The U.S. Marshals
working out of Burlington arrested 90 fugitives last year, and even
more in the year prior. The Vermont U.S. Attorney's Office aided in the
criminal investigations of Purdue Pharma's role in the opioid epidemic
that has ravaged the New England area. Given the critical role that the
Department's Federal law enforcement officials play in keeping us all
safe, it deeply concerns me that a single Senator has arbitrarily held
up two U.S. Marshal and six U.S. Attorney nominees.
A. When politicians hold U.S. Marshal and U.S. Attorney nominees
hostage for political grandstanding, how does that impact the
Department's ability to investigate crimes and prosecute criminals?
What kind of impact does that have on the local communities depending
upon these law enforcement officials?
Answer. It is vitally important to have Senate-confirmed U.S.
Marshals and U.S. Attorneys in each Federal district. The U.S. Marshals
protect the rule of law by apprehending the nation's most violent
fugitives and help ensure the safety of the Federal judiciary. The U.S.
Attorney serves as the chief Federal law enforcement officer in each
district. Despite delays in the confirmation process, the committed
public servants who work in these districts have ensured that their
important work and mission continue without interruption.
Question 6. DOJ Review of FBI Nassar Investigation Declination
Decision: Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to
examine the Justice Department Inspector General's report on the FBI's
unacceptable handling of the Larry Nassar investigation. During that
hearing, we heard from some of the nation's most elite gymnasts who
spoke bravely about their traumatic experiences and their long search
for justice and accountability.
While the Justice Department initially declined to bring charges
against the disgraced FBI agents involved in this investigation, the
Department announced in October that it was reviewing that declination
decision based on ``new information that has come to light.'' However,
we have not heard from the Department on the status of that decision.
A. Do you have any updates with regard to that review and its
timeline?
Answer. As the Deputy Attorney General testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on October 5, 2021, the Assistant Attorney General
for the Criminal Division, Kenneth Polite, undertook a review of the
September 2020 decision not to bring Federal criminal charges against
two former FBI special agents in connection with their involvement in
the FBI's investigation of Lawrence Nassar. The Criminal Division's
review was led by experienced prosecutors who carefully reviewed and
analyzed the evidence gathered in the investigation. On May 26, 2022,
the Criminal Division's decision to adhere to its prior decision not to
bring Federal criminal charges was made public.
The Criminal Division's decision does not in any way reflect a view
that the Justice Department condones the conduct of the former agents;
nor does it reflect a view that the investigation of Lawrence Nassar
was handled as it should have been. As I testified before this
Committee on April 26, 2022, the institutional failures here are
unspeakable and quite apparent.
Question 7. January 6th Investigation: Less than a year and a half
ago, a violet mob of insurrections stormed the Capitol, the first time
in 244 years that our country was almost prevented from carrying out a
peaceful transfer of power. According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the violent attack was an act of domestic terrorism.
Five people died during or soon after the attack, and nearly 140 law
enforcement officers suffered injuries, ranging from brain damage to
cracked ribs, to smashed spinal cord discs.
Although I am encouraged more than 800 people have been charged
with crimes stemming from the assault on the Capitol, the Justice
Department estimates between 2,000 and 5,000 people entered the Capitol
on January 6. Investigators have a long way to go before everyone who
participated in the attack is held accountable.
A. Why is it important these individuals are held accountable for
their failed attempt to overthrow the will of the American
people? What resources or tools would DOJ need to improve
its efforts to hold these perpetrators accountable?
Answer. The commitment to the peaceful transfer of power must be
respected by every American. Our democracy depends upon it. The
preservation of American democracy also requires our willingness to
tell the truth. That is why it is essential for us to ensure that the
magnitude of an event like the January 6, 2021, assault on the United
States Capitol is not downplayed or understated. That attack disrupted
proceedings in both chambers of Congress and interfered with the
peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.
In response, the Department began work on what has become one of
the largest, most complex, and most resource-intensive investigations
in its history. The prosecution efforts, which are being led by the
United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, are
ongoing. Accordingly, the President's fiscal year 2023 Budget requests
$34.1 million and 130 term positions (80 term attorneys) to support the
Justice Department's efforts to investigate and prosecute defendants
charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021.
B. Do you have any updates about DOJ's investigation of the funders,
organizers, and ringleaders who may have not been present
at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, but nonetheless were
responsible for the terrible events of that day?
Answer. Longstanding policy and practice of the Justice Department
generally prevents us from commenting on or confirming the existence of
any investigation.
Question 8. DOJ IP Enforcement Office: It is imperative that
American innovation is protected, especially against bad actors in
foreign countries. The Justice Department's Intellectual Property Task
Force has indicted Chinese citizens and companies attempting to steal
trade secrets from companies like Motorola and General Electric. I
believe this work is critical in protecting our public safety and
economic wellbeing. I thank you for that work on behalf of American
innovators and inventors.
A. How is the IP enforcement task force equipped to investigate and
prosecute trade secret violations in a complex digital
world? What kind of resources or tools would the DOJ need
to improve its enforcement of the Defend Trade Secrets Act?
Answer. The Department of Justice remains committed to the
protection of intellectual property rights and to vigorously combating
intellectual property crime, particularly when it threatens public
health and safety, national security, and the U.S. economy. This
includes combating economic espionage and other thefts of trade secrets
that pose a significant threat to U.S. companies and competitiveness.
The Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996 provides criminal
penalties for economic espionage as well as other thefts of commercial
trade secrets. Within the Justice Department, the National Security
Division's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) is
responsible for review and approval of economic espionage charges.
Together with CES, the Criminal Division's Computer Crime and
Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) coordinate on economic espionage
and other trade secret prosecutions involving foreign actors and
provide substantial guidance and support to United States Attorneys'
offices in prosecuting a range of trade secret theft cases and in
meeting the investigative, evidentiary, and technological challenges
these cases pose. While the threat of foreign governments and business
competitors stealing U.S. trade secrets remains high, the coordination
within the Department--including with the FBI's counterintelligence,
criminal, and cyber agents--results in strong cases with a deterrent
impact.
In addition, the 2016 enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act
(DTSA) created a Federal civil cause of action for trade secret theft,
including thefts for which the EEA provides criminal penalties. As a
result, many trade secret owners have been able to pursue civil
remedies for trade secret theft in Federal courts. While the Justice
Department does not specifically track the number of Federal civil
trade secret actions brought, the opportunity to protect trade secrets
through private action in Federal courts has clearly been a powerful
tool for victim companies.
Question 9. Death Penalty: Last summer you imposed a moratorium on
Federal executions pending a review of the Justice Department's
policies and procedures.
A. Do you have any updates about the status and timeline of that
review?
Answer. On July 1, 2021, I asked the Deputy Attorney General and
Office of Legal Policy to engage in a series of reviews pertaining to
Federal execution protocols, the Manner of Execution regulations, and
related Justice Manual provisions. These are complex issues, and the
various perspectives on these matters all deserve to be heard and given
due consideration. The Department has therefore engaged in
comprehensive and ongoing outreach to solicit input and inform policy
decisions. That engagement continues with urgency and deliberation.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BRIAN SCHATZ
Question 1. Prosecutorial discretion for state-approved marijuana:
Following up on my question at your hearing, the Obama Administration
issued guidance on prosecutorial discretion for noninterference in
states, territories, and tribes where marijuana is legal. These memos--
known as the Cole and Wilkinson memos--provided states, territories,
and tribes with clarity as they implemented approved marijuana
programs. Given the increased number of approved programs in the years
since the Cole and Wilkinson memos, as well as the utility of the
guidance provided by the memos, does the Justice Department's plan to
update and reissue the Cole and Wilkinson memos? If yes, what is your
expected timeline?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony on April 26, 2022, the Justice
Department's enforcement resources are not put to their best use
prosecuting nonviolent, low-level marijuana offenses, even in
jurisdictions where marijuana use remains illegal. With respect to
those jurisdictions where marijuana use and sales are lawfully
regulated, there is even greater reason to conserve prosecutorial
resources so that we can focus our attention on violent crimes and
other crimes that cause societal harm and endanger our communities. The
Department is examining a range of issues that relate to marijuana and
its production, sale, and use, and we intend to address these issues in
the days ahead.
Question 2. Project HOPE Institute: The explanatory statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-
103) included language directing the OJP to establish a Project HOPE
Institute to provide training, technical assistance, and best practices
for jurisdictions replicating the HOPE model. What is the status of the
Project HOPE Institute?
Answer. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) reports that it is
administering competitive grant funds and managing training and
technical assistance to state, county, and Tribal agencies to
operationalize the principles behind Project HOPE--swiftness,
certainty, and fairness--in their supervision strategies. BJA works
closely with the Swift Certain and Fair (SCF) Resource Center, which
provides content expertise and project management support to those
grantees to design, implement, and adjust their strategies to local
needs and contexts.
In fiscal year 2021, BJA made an award of $500,000 to support the
Hope Institute, via competitive solicitation, to the Marron Center at
New York University, which operates the SCF Resource Center, to expand
guidance to the field at large.
The fiscal year 2022 solicitation opened March 23, 2022 and closed
on May 25, 2022. The award to support the Hope Institute remains on
track for implementation in 2022.
Question 3. Correctional Education Evaluation: The explanatory
statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(Public Law 116-260)--also included in the explanatory statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-
103)--included language directing the NIJ to establish a public-private
partnership with research and correctional institutions to collect and
evaluate data and continue to advance the research on the impact of
correctional education on recidivism. What is the status of the public-
private partnership?
Answer. The National Institute of Justice reports that it awarded a
competitive grant of $585,726 to the University of Chicago to examine
whether re-orienting the prison experience towards rehabilitation--by
investing in education, mental health, and physical health while
individuals are incarcerated--can reduce prison recidivism,
specifically reincarceration rates. The project involves a
collaboration with the Illinois Department of Corrections. This project
performance period is 3 years, from January 1, 2022, through December
31, 2024. Should you wish a more detailed briefing of the project
design and expected outcomes, my staff would be happy to put your staff
in contact with the relevant experts within the Department.
Question 4. Science Advisory Board: The explanatory statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
260)--also included in the explanatory statement accompanying the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-103)--included
language directing OJP to reestablish a Science Advisory Board to
provide extra-agency review of, and recommendations for, OJP's
research, statistics, and grants program. The re-established Board
should be comprised of scholars and practitioners in criminology,
statistics, sociology, and practitioners in the criminal and juvenile
justice fields and should be tasked with ensuring the programs and
activities of OJP are scientifically sound and pertinent to
policymakers and practitioners. What is the status of the Science
Advisory Board?
Answer. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) reports that it is
assessing the re-establishment of the OJP Science Advisory Board. OJP
has discussed this issue and reengaged with multiple external
scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Science's
Committee on Law and Justice and the Consortium of Social Science
Organizations. Dr. Nancy La Vigne, whom the President appointed
Director of OJP's National Institute of Justice, began her tenure on
May 9, 2022. OJP anticipates that Dr. La Vigne will play an important
leadership role in advancing the consideration and re-establishment of
the Science Advisory Board.
Question 5. ICACCOPS Training: The explanatory statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-
103) included language directing the Justice Department to prioritize
expanded training on and use of ICACCOPS across Federal, State, local,
Tribal, and military law enforcement agencies. The language also
directed the Justice Department to coordinate with the Department of
Defense on the implementation of section 5500 of Public Law 116-92.
What is the status of the expanded training and the coordination with
the Department of Defense?
Answer. In accordance with the joint explanatory statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Public Law 117-
103), the Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) reports that it is actively working together with
Fox Valley's National Criminal Justice Training Center (NCJTC) to
expand capacity, training, and coordination with entities across the
Department of Defense (DoD). Those efforts build on ongoing programs
and efforts that provide DoD entities with ICACCOPS training and
resources. For example, NCJTC reports that its ongoing management of
the ICACCOPS investigative system, the ICAC Task Force website, and the
ICAC listserve, provides valuable resources to many members of DoD
investigative entities. In addition, NCJTC reports that it provides
core and specialized training and technical assistance to DoD
investigators, including training on ICACCOPS supported tools.
Question 6. Sexual Abuse Services in Detention Hotline: The
explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2022 (Public Law 117-103) included language directing the Justice
Department to explore opportunities for releasing existing grant
funding, including through OVC's discretionary grant program, for
efforts that would create a hotline to provide sexual abuse and rape
crisis counseling services to incarcerated individuals across the
country. What is the status of the efforts to create a national hotline
to provide sexual abuse and rape crisis counseling services to
incarcerated individuals?
Answer. In fiscal year 2021, the Office on Violence Against Women
(OVW) partnered with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to issue
the National Service Line for Incarcerated Survivors of Sexual Abuse
solicitation, supported with funds from BJA's Prison Rape Prevention
and Prosecution Grants appropriation. The Urban Institute, in
partnership with the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, was
selected as the recipient and has begun work.
The Service Line Initiative is being administered as a two-phase
project beginning with a planning phase followed by an implementation
phase.
This current project is for Phase One--the planning phase. Phase
One will include a national scan of practices related to efforts to
comply with PREA Standards, identification of common service gaps and
needs, and guidance from subject matter experts on what a national
service line would require to be responsive to both the PREA Standards
and the unique needs of incarcerated victims. The goal of Phase One is
to develop a comprehensive plan for the design and implementation of a
Service Line for incarcerated victims of sexual abuse.
Phase Two, the implementation phase, will focus on using the
comprehensive plan developed in the first phase to guide the Service
Line's implementation. It is anticipated that Phase Two will be
directed and administered by OVW and BJA, and that it will be funded
competitively. Phase Two is dependent upon the availability of
sufficient PREA appropriations in future fiscal years.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOE MANCHIN, III
Question 1. As the Chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee on
the Armed Services Committee I am acutely aware of the various risks
posed to the U.S. Government and our critical infrastructure operators,
which is why I was pleased to see streamlined cyber intrusion reporting
standards included in the previous appropriations omnibus.
The FBI's 2022 Internet Crime Report details more than 800,000
complaints of suspected Internet crime were filed and nearly $7 billion
dollars lost last year. That's nearly doubled from 2019. This makes
clear to me that cyber threats are only growing in number and
sophistication. In my opinion, one of the largest issues we're facing
is a continued lack of interagency cooperation in tracking and
responding to these cyber threats due to perceived jurisdiction limits.
While the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community can only
operate outside of the United States, DHS and DOJ are the main entities
responsible for operating within the U.S.--and lack of cooperation
among the agencies means cyber-attacks are more likely to slip through.
A. In order to combat this lack of cooperation and communication why
are interagency taskforces not more prominent between
interagency organizations?
Answer. The Justice Department has worked together with partners
across government to establish and strengthen mechanisms that
facilitate strong interagency cooperation and communication to address
cyber threats:
--The Justice Department's National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team,
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and
Counterintelligence and Export Control Section lead our efforts
to coordinate with domestic law enforcement, regulatory, and
other partner agencies across government to combat the criminal
use of digital assets, criminal cyber threats, and state-
sponsored cyber threats, respectively.
--Regular interagency cooperation has been essential to the Justice
Department's successful cyber enforcement efforts to date. For
example, our successful operation in March 2022 to disrupt
malware known as ``Cyclops Blink'' that was controlled by the
Russian Federation's Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), began
with collaboration between the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the
National Security Agency, and the United Kingdom's National
Cyber Security Centre. Additionally, the March 2022 unsealing
of criminal charges against four Russian government employees
for their role in two historical hacking campaigns targeting
critical infrastructure was paired with a related FBI, CISA,
and Department of Energy cybersecurity advisory, sanctions by
the Department of the Treasury, and a Department of State
Rewards for Justice announcement.
--The National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF) is a
multi-agency cyber center with the responsibility of
coordinating, integrating, and sharing information to support
cyber threat investigations and synchronizing joint efforts
that focus on identifying, pursuing, and defeating bad actors
seeking to exploit our nation's systems. The NCIJTF is a
frequent venue for collaboration and coordination among 30
partnering agencies from across the Federal government,
including the Justice Department, the Intelligence Community,
and the Department of Defense (DoD). Task Force representatives
are co-located and work jointly to leverage collective
authorities and capabilities.
--The FBI also works closely with CISA, NSA, and international
partners to release advisories identifying malware and
mitigation measures to assist those with compromised devices.
As a recent example of this coordination, in February 2022, the
FBI, CISA, and NSA published a joint Cybersecurity Advisory
regarding the ongoing efforts of Russian state-sponsored cyber
actors to target U.S. cleared defense contractors.
--In addition, the National Security Council convenes weekly Cyber
Response Group meetings and regular Interagency Policy
Committee and sub-IPC meetings to share threat updates and
discuss and implement cyber policy. Further, on some occasions,
the interagency has convened Cyber Unified Coordination Groups
to coordinate the government's response to significant cyber
incidents. These meetings include, among others,
representatives from the Justice Department, the Intelligence
Community, DoD, the State Department, the Department of the
Treasury, and DHS.
--When significant cyber incidents occur within the United States,
such as the ransomware attacks in the last year against
Colonial Pipeline and Kaseya, officials from the FBI and CISA
work in lockstep coordinating the response. In addition, CISA's
Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative, which established in August
2021 to unify defensive actions and drive down risk in advance
of cyber incidents, includes the public and private sector as
well as Federal and state, local, Tribal, and territorial
governments.
B. How often do you meet with the other Cabinet Secretaries to
discuss cyber threats and improving our response efforts
during and after attack?
Answer. Cyber threats and incident response are a frequent topic of
conversation at all levels of leadership. Along with other senior
Department officials, I regularly discuss these issues with principals
and deputies across government in both NSC-led meetings and direct
conversations with colleagues.
Question 2. Recently, a district court judge in Louisiana indicated
that he would grant a temporary restraining order blocking the end of
Title 42. At the time that the Administration announced its decision to
end the Title 42 policy on May 23, I made clear my concern about ending
Title 42 without a plan in place to deal with the anticipated influx of
migrants at our southern border. Specifically, I pointed out that
encounters at the southern border reached an all- time high level of
1.734 million people during fiscal year 21. And that through the first
5 months of fiscal year 22, encounters were on place to match or exceed
those numbers.
A. Is DOJ planning to appeal any TRO issued by the district judge?
Answer. On April 27, the District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana issued a temporary restraining order in Louisiana, et al. v.
Centers for Diseases Control & Prevention, et al. The temporary
restraining order prevented the government from implementing the
termination of the Title 42 order before May 23, 2022. The Department
did not appeal that order. On May 20, the district court issued a
preliminary injunction preventing CDC from enforcing the termination of
the Title 42 order. The Department has appealed that decision. Because
this matter is in active litigation, it would not be appropriate for me
to comment further.
B. What is the Administration's plan for addressing the anticipated
influx of immigrants at the southern border?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible
for border processing, enforcement, and security. While the United
States Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons have provided
DHS limited support upon request in appropriate circumstances, the
Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is
responsible for equitably and efficiently administering our nation's
immigration court system. While EOIR will work to assign sufficient
immigration judges to minimize the impact on EOIR's existing docket,
EOIR needs more resources to address the case backlog, which has been
growing for over a decade, and the Justice Department's fiscal year
2023 budget request would strengthen EOIR's ability to apply the
immigration laws justly, consistently, and in a timely fashion, while
ensuring due process under the law. The Department requests a total of
$1.35 billion for EOIR to reduce the backlog of immigration cases,
which would allow EOIR to hire more than 1,200 new staff, including
approximately 200 new immigration judges above the fiscal year 2022
enacted level.
Question 3. It is undeniable that the opioid epidemic has taken a
serious toll on all Americans-- not just in my state, but across the
country. As I am sure you are aware, last year, the CDC reported that
more than 100,000 Americans died from drug related overdoses, making
2021 the deadliest year on record for overdoses. It is estimated that
more than two-thirds of those overdoses likely involved an opioid or a
synthetic opioid, such as fentanyl. And for those men and women who are
fortunate enough to escape death and get clean, they often face
severely limited job opportunities after serving their time for crimes
committed as a result of their drug addiction. To help fix this
problem, I introduced a bill called the Clean Start Act last Congress
and again this Congress, which seeks to help individuals working to
recover from substance use disorder with criminal records seal those
records if they complete a comprehensive addiction treatment program
and show that they have turned their lives around.
A. How do you plan on helping former offenders re-join the workforce
and once again become responsible taxpayers?
Answer. Eliminating barriers to successful reentry is a priority
for the Justice Department. To advance this important goal, the
Department plans to continue employing a broad set of policy tools and
strategic partnerships with Federal, state, and grantee partners.
For example, in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, DOJ and the Department
of Labor (DOL) will partner to provide intensive job training in select
Bureau of Prisons' facilities followed by intensive, individualized
reentry support during halfway house or home confinement. This includes
$100 million in the President's fiscal year 2023 budget for DOJ and DOL
to develop a national initiative to provide comprehensive workforce
development services to those in Federal prison, both during their time
in Federal custody and after they are transferred to community
placement. DOL and DOJ would also oversee evaluation to assess these
programmatic efforts on recidivism, labor market outcomes, and other
key metrics.
The Justice Department also supports reentry through the broad
array of programming, policy initiatives, and grantmaking undertaken by
the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). This includes OJP's work with
state and local systems to better equip formerly incarcerated persons
for re-entry by facilitating the attainment of state IDs prior to
release; helping build successful prison/college partnerships to
improve educational outcomes; and implementing vocational and
employment skills training programs that result in apprenticeships and
meaningful employment post-release. OJP (through the BJA), also
supports, and will continue to support, grantees who are implementing
programs specifically designed to help populations recovering from
substance use disorders be ready to reenter the workforce.
OJP's work will be further advanced through its recently announced
partnership with the Council of State Governments Justice Center.
Through that partnership, OJP will help launch the national Reentry
2030 campaign, a national initiative to achieve better and more
equitable reentry and reintegration outcomes by engaging states to
adopt public, ambitious goals that drive system change.
This is just a high-level description of some of the many varied
ways the Department is engaging on this critical issue. Should you
desire a more detailed briefing on the Department's efforts, my staff
would be happy to put you in touch with the relevant experts within the
Department.
B. What programs and initiatives, in your experience, are the most
effective in preventing recidivism for first time
offenders?
Answer. Across institutions, the Department offers and supports a
variety of programs to address reentry needs related to education,
employment, substance use, and mental health to assist individuals'
successful transition back to the community. My staff would be happy to
put you in touch with the relevant experts within the Department--
including staff within the Office of Access to Justice and OJP--to
provide your staff with a detailed briefing regarding the relative
advantages of various programs, policies, and approaches.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Question 1. Accessing DOJ Grants. In October of 2020, the
Department of Justice launched JustGrants, an online grant management
system to streamline the grant process for applicants and grantees and
to simplify the payment process. I have heard from several Alaskans
that there were some issues with the system when it was first launched
a few years ago, which I understand the Department has been working to
resolve.
A. How has the Department been working with stakeholders and
internally to bring JustGrants up to full performance?
Answer. In October 2020, the Justice Department transitioned to a
single consolidated grants management system to eliminate duplication
of effort across DOJ's grantmaking components, improve our ability to
manage, track, and monitor DOJ grants, and provide applicants and
grantees with an improved user experience across the entire grants
lifecycle. JustGrants replaced multiple legacy DOJ systems and
integrated them into one unified system, which was a complex, resource
intensive effort. JustGrants launched in October 2020 with basic
functionality to support operations necessary to move applications
through the essential stages of the grant management lifecycle, from
solicitation posting, application review, and award making, through
post-award management, monitoring, and closeouts of all open and active
awards. JustGrants is currently supporting 40,000 users and
approximately 15,000 active grants totaling $17.6 billion. As of May
10, 2022, $7.2 billion has been drawn down by grantees since JustGrants
went live.
Over the course of the transition to JustGrants, many users
experienced instances in which JustGrants did not perform as they
expected. It is a priority for the Department to improve the
functionality of JustGrants. Current emphasis is on ensuring a
successful fiscal year 2022 award making season, which includes
improvements in application submission, application review,
transmitting commitments, and obligations to DOJ's Financial Management
System. This fiscal year we have increased the number of development
teams from six to eight, which has allowed us to release more updates
into the system in less time to improve the user experience. OJP
reports that a recent examination of service desk tickets in April of
this year compared to the same time last year indicated a 52 percent
reduction in calls. The types of calls have also shifted significantly
from system issues and walking users through actions in the system to
assisting grantees with password re-sets and making role assignments.
OJP reports that it provides significant outreach and support to
users on how to apply for funding opportunities in the new system and
manage grants once awarded. Similar to last year, the JustGrants team
is hosting ``Application Mechanics'' webinars for applicants and
continues to provide four weekly sessions for users to receive live on-
the-spot technical assistance to carry out actions within the grants
management system. To respond to the peak periods of the application
season, the JustGrants Service Desk is extending hours and will add
staff to meet demand.
DOJ obtains internal and external user feedback through a variety
of means such as weekly office hours for users and training and webinar
feedback forms. DOJ uses this information to improve system
functionality, usability, training resources, and support services. It
is and will remain a priority of DOJ to continue to evolve and improve
the system over time to bring more benefits to applicants, grant
recipients, and Department personnel across the grants lifecycle.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN M. COLLINS
Question. Rapid disbursements, generous benefits, and suspensions
of traditional verification requirements during the pandemic rendered
unemployment insurance (UI) programs ripe for fraud. According to the
Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General, at least $163
billion of the estimated $872.5 billion in pandemic-related UI payments
could have been paid improperly, with a significant portion
attributable to fraud. While state and Federal law enforcement have
recovered some funds, much more must be done.
A. DOJ's budget request recognizes combating pandemic fraud as a
``Priority Goal.'' How will this designation help DOJ
combat pandemic fraud?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2023 Budget requests an
additional $41.2 million to combat pandemic fraud. These additional
resources will allow the Department to fund analysts tasked with
identifying connections between irregularities in the large volume of
pandemic benefit data collected and under collection, which will result
in potential criminal leads. These additional resources will also
permit the staffing of strike teams to pursue the leads that analysts
develop, transforming the raw data into actionable criminal
investigative matters. And these additional resources will fund agents,
analysts, and prosecutors in the field who will open criminal matters
and use the powerful tools of legal process to investigate the networks
of fraudsters who stole billions in pandemic relief funds. In sum,
these resources will increase the likelihood that we identify fraud
proceeds and restore them to the Treasury, in amounts far greater than
the funds provided for this effort.
B. During its investigations, has DOJ or any of its partners
identified any international criminal organizations
responsible for this fraud?
C. Do any such organizations have ties to the Russian government?
Answer. Questions 1B and 1C: With respect to investigations and
resolutions that have been made public, the Department's Director for
COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement advises that several cases have involved
foreign actors seeking to exploit pandemic relief packages for personal
gain. For example, last month Federal prosecutors in the Western
District of Washington secured a guilty plea from a Nigerian citizen
who used the stolen identities of more than 20,000 Americans to file
for more than $2 million in government benefits, including from
multiple state unemployment insurance benefit systems during the
pandemic. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/nigerian-citizen-
pleads-guilty-covid-19-unemployment-fraud-washington-and-17-other.
In addition, as a general matter, our law enforcement partners
advise that stolen personally identifiable information (PII) is the
fuel that drives much of the pandemic relief fraud, and a vast amount
of PII has been stolen by international criminal cyber actors and is
sold online. In the coming days, the Department will be announcing the
launch of specialized pandemic fraud Strike Force Teams in key
districts across the country. These Strike Force Teams will supplement
the hard work underway throughout the Department, including by
targeting fraud committed by overseas actors who steal the identities
of American workers to further their criminal ends and who have
victimized other Americans by tricking them into moving money from our
shores to foreign countries.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY
Question 1. Federal Correctional Complex Oakdale and Federal
Correctional Complex Pollock are Federal prisons facilities in
Louisiana. FCC Oakdale and FCC Pollock are experiencing twin crises
that many other Federal prisons across the nation face: correctional
officers are overworked and understaffed. The dangers faced by these
correctional officers cannot be overstated. My constituents back home
in Louisiana are concerned about this issue--and so am I.
In 2017, the Department of Justice eliminated all existing
vacancies within the BOP-- approximately 5,000 positions nationwide--in
an effort to downsize the agency. This decision lowered the total
number of approved positions at facilities like FCC Oakdale and FCC
Pollock. Nearly 5 years later, this has led to chronic staffing
shortages. Congress attempted to correct this issue in 2021 and again
in 2022 when it provided funding to the BOP in the respective Omnibus
bills directing BOP to hire staff across the Federal prison system so
that levels would equal those from before the position elimination.
BOP has failed to carry out Congress's instruction, and it is
instead lowering the total amount of positions. For example, in January
2016, FCC Oakdale had 501 positions filled out of 550 total positions
authorized (46 vacancies). As of April 2022, FCC Oakdale has only 416
positions filled out of 467 total positions authorized (46 vacancies).
In 2018, FCC Pollock had 365 positions filled with 426 total positions
authorized. Now there are only 313 positions filled with 368 total
positions authorized. BOP pretends that it has met the January 2016
staffing levels as directed by Congress, but the reality is that there
are fewer total positions authorized across both Federal prison
complexes. This has led to augmentation--forcing non-correctional
officers, such as teachers and counselors, to perform the duties of
correctional officers--and mandatory overtime for correctional officers
already facing exhaustion and fatigue.
Per the Joint Explanatory Statement to the 2021 Omnibus, the BOP
was instructed ``to improve hiring policies to ensure that, within the
funding provided, it can promptly fill existing and future vacancies in
order to staff its 122 Federal facilities at January 2016 levels, and
forgo further position eliminations.'' The Joint Explanatory Statement
to the 2022 Omnibus stated ``BOP is expected to hire additional full-
time correctional officers in order to reduce the overreliance on
augmentation and improve staffing beyond mission-critical levels in
custodial and all other departments, including medical, counseling, and
educational positions.''
Since the BOP has ignored congressional instruction, the situation
has grown dire. Prison housing units at the low security facility at
FCC Oakdale often only have one correctional officer to monitor inmates
within that housing unit. Correctional officers at FCC Oakdale are
often forced to work double shifts in order to make up for staff
shortages, which leads to exhaustion and fatigue. Non- correctional
officers, such as teachers and counselors, are being forced to work as
correctional officers in order to make up for staff shortage.
Correctional officers at FCC Pollock are frequently mandated to work
16-hour days, apparently with no breaks between 8-hour shifts.
Augmentation occurs there, too. This is unacceptable. Recently a member
of my staff visited the Federal prisons in Oakdale and Pollock,
Louisiana. He observed staffing shortages at these facilities
firsthand. During his visit to the United States Penitentiary at FCC
Pollock, two inmates attacked and stabbed another inmate with hand-made
metal shanks. As a result, a housing unit was placed on lockdown and an
ambulance was called, with the ambulance operator ultimately requesting
a medivac helicopter.
A. Can you commit in writing that the Department of Justice will
faithfully ensure that all 122 Federal prisons in this
country, including those in Oakdale and Pollock, Louisiana,
will receive the appropriate level of funding pursuant to
the instructions from this Committee?
Answer. As I made clear in my testimony before this Committee on
April 26, 2022, maintaining a safe and humane correctional system is a
critical responsibility of the Justice Department. In particular,
ensuring that all 122 BOP facilities are fully staffed by professionals
with the necessary skills and expertise to ensure a safe and humane
prison system is a priority for the Justice Department. That is why in
fiscal year 2023, the President's Budget requests a total of $8.18
billion for BOP to ensure the health, safety, and wellbeing of
correctional staff and incarcerated individuals. The Justice
Department's fiscal year 2023 request would allow BOP to hire more than
700 new correctional officers and nearly 600 new First Step Act staff.
B. What steps are the Department of Justice taking to reduce
augmentation of positions within BOP and mandatory overtime
of correctional officers?
Answer. BOP reports that through the first half of fiscal year
2022, documented augmentation hours have decreased compared to each of
the past two fiscal years. BOP further reports that it has contracted
with an outside consultant, NTT Data Services, to create a new tool
that will help BOP make real-time staffing calculations and predictive
forecasting for staffing needs, which will help BOP better understand
and address the overuse of augmentation and overtime. Currently, BOP is
working closely with the vendor and the study is moving along. BOP
anticipates that, as soon as this summer, it will be able to start
testing a new tool for making staffing projections.
C. When will the staffing numbers at FCC Oakdale and FCC Pollock be
adjusted to reflect the staffing positions of January 2016
as directed by Congress?
Answer. BOP reports that it has contracted with a consultant to
assist it in determining the appropriate staffing level at all
institutions. BOP further advises that any adjustments to BOP's
staffing levels are contingent upon affordable FTE levels determined by
receiving adequate funding from Congress. BOP's affordable FTE level in
2016 was 37,565. In fiscal year 2021, BOP's affordable FTE level was
35,161. This reflects a reduction of over 2,000 FTE.
According to BOP, any adjustments to return to the 2016 staffing
levels will require additional FTEs and adjustments to ensure adequate
positions at all institutions.
D. Have non-correctional officers tasked with correctional officer
responsibilities been adequately trained to meet
departmental standards?
Answer. BOP reports that employees working in institutions,
regardless of their position, receive the same basic law enforcement
training in correctional duties and are required to successfully
complete this training as a condition of their employment. As a result,
they all receive Law Enforcement Officers pay, are covered under the
LEO retirement system, and are expected to perform correctional duties
and functions as needed.
E. How much overtime has been used at FCC Oakdale and FCC Pollock
between April 1, 2021, and April 1, 2022?
Answer. BOP advises that overtime costs during this time period
were approximately $3.2 million for FCC Oakdale and approximately $6.2
million for FCC Pollock.
Question 2. Over a year ago now, I submitted Questions for the
Record (QFRs) to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which operates under
the Justice Department, after Director Michael Carvajal testified
before the Senate Judiciary Committee's April 2021 hearing titled
``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.'' Director Carvajal never
responded to my questions. I sent two additional oversight letters
regarding BOP funding to Director Carvajal on July 15, 2021 and
December 14, 2021, respectively, without response.
A. As the country's chief law enforcement officer, will you ensure
that I receive substantive responses to Questions for the
Record and oversight letters?
Answer. Yes. BOP reports that its responses both to your oversight
letters dated December 14, 2021 and July 15, 2021 as well as all
outstanding Questions for the Record that Director Carvajal has
received will be substantive and submitted to Congress in short order.
Under the previous administration, the Justice Department's China
Initiative ``reflect[ed] the strategic priority of countering Chinese
national security threats'' by prosecuting individuals who committed
espionage to benefit the Chinese government. In 2022, the Justice
Department ended the program.
A. Are you aware that FBI Director Christopher Wray concluded that
the espionage threat posed by China is the most
``unprecedented in history''? Is the FBI wrong?
Answer. Director Wray and I are fully aligned in both our
assessment of the threats posed by the government of the People's
Republic of China (PRC) and the Justice Department's response to those
threats. The Department--including the FBI--is committed to taking a
comprehensive approach that draws on the full extent of our tools and
authorities to address the alarming rise in illegal and nefarious
activities from the PRC government.
B. Do laboratories and businesses continue to face threats of
economic espionage and intellectual property theft by the
Chinese?
Answer. Yes, laboratories and businesses continue to face
significant threats of economic espionage, intellectual property theft,
and threats to research integrity and security by the Chinese
government and its policies. The Department is committed to using all
available legal tools to prevent and address that activity, including
partnership with research funding agencies and appropriate criminal
investigations and prosecutions.
C. What Departmental programs or tools remain in place to protect
the country against Chinese counterterrorism, espionage,
and intellectual property theft?
Answer. The Department continues to employ a rigorous, all-tools
approach. In addition to opening criminal cases, where appropriate, the
Department is actively engaging with and sharing information with the
companies, universities, and international and local governments whose
technology, innovations, research, and information may be at risk. The
Department also chairs the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign
Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector,
which advises the Federal Communications Commission on national
security and law enforcement concerns associated with applications for
telecommunications licenses meeting certain thresholds of foreign
ownership or control.
We are committed to protecting the country against the threats
posed by the government of the PRC--in particular, espionage, cyber
intrusions, and theft of intellectual property. As the Assistant
Attorney General for the National Security Division said in February,
the Department ``will be relentless in defending our country from
China,'' and will ``continue to prioritize and aggressively counter the
actions of the PRC government that harm our people and our
institutions.'' There has been no change in tools or resources
allocated to address threats from PRC government policies, including
espionage and intellectual property theft.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BILL HAGERTY
Question 1. Despite the fact that marijuana is illegal at the
Federal level, some states do not prohibit its usage under state law.
How do drug usage rates, the number of drug prosecutions, and other
drug abuse and addiction metrics compare among states that allow or
prohibit marijuana usage under state law?
Answer. The Department does not have the data to undertake the
comparison requested in the question. For example, DEA reports that it
does not track drug usage rates, the number of drug prosecutions, or
other drug abuse and addiction metrics. Nor has the Department--as far
as I am aware--conducted any analysis or research along the lines
contemplated by the question.
Last year, President Biden issued Executive Order 14006, which
directed the Attorney General not to renew U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)
contracts for contractor-operated criminal detention facilities.
This executive action was poorly conceived and short-sighted.
Specifically, the Administration did not consider its significant
consequences for the USMS and the American people. This executive order
is harming detainees by forcing their relocation to less-safe and less-
humane facilities that are often hours away from their families and
counsel.
This decision seems to have been driven by politics, rather than
internal or external analysis or budget or logistical justifications
regarding the impact of this decision on the justice system. In light
of this misguided executive action, the USMS did not renew contracts
with a facility in West Tennessee and a facility in Kansas and is in
the process of declining to renew others.
The USMS should have the flexibility to contract with private
facilities for pretrial criminal detention when doing so best
accomplishes its mission and is in detainees' interests.
The fiscal year 2022 Omnibus Appropriations Act gave your
Department the discretion to take appropriate action where necessary to
account for a lack of suitable government-operated detention space. So
far, though, your Department has not used this discretion.
Question 2. Have there been any internal or external reviews or
analyses regarding the implementation of Executive Order 14006? If so,
please describe these reviews and analyses.
Question 3. Has your Department or its Inspector General evaluated
the impact of Executive Order 14006 on the justice system?
Answer. Questions 2-3: With respect to Justice Department reviews
and evaluations regarding the implementation of Executive Order 14006,
including the impact on the justice system, the United States Marshals
Service (USMS) reports that its Prisoner Operations Division conducted
an assessment of all Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) with state and
local agencies within proximity of the private facilities under direct
contract with USMS. The USMS assessment examined IGA bedspace
availability within 150 miles of the affected Federal courthouses to
determine whether private facility populations could be absorbed. The
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reports that it conducted a
simultaneous review of its facilities proximate to USMS private
detention facilities to determine bedspace suitability and availability
for USMS needs. BOP has provided over 1,800 beds (over and above
bedspace already provided for USMS use) to assist USMS in complying
with EO 14006.
In addition, USMS and the Justice Management Division report that
they have developed an initial analysis of implementation costs based
on rough estimates of the average IGA population, the number of
facilities required to accommodate the displaced detainees, and
transportation requirements to support the distance and dispersion of
detainees among many facilities. Since completion of the initial
assessments, USMS reports that it has continued to review options for
safe, secure housing of detainees being relocated as a result of EO
14006, including whether contract extension clauses are necessary.
With respect to any evaluation of the impact of Executive Order
14006 on the justice system conducted by the Inspector General, we
would respectfully refer you to the Justice Department's Office of the
Inspector General.
Question 4. Have the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals
Service been efficient and cost- effective with respect to sharing
facilities and services in the past?
Answer. USMS and BOP have a history of working closely together on
matters involving the detention and transportation of Federal inmates,
and routinely collaborate to maximize USMS bedspace usage at Federal
facilities. USMS and the BOP have an ongoing Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) under which the BOP makes more than 11,000 beds
available at 26 facilities in major metropolitan areas such as Los
Angeles, San Diego, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Houston. In some of
these locations--Miami, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and San Diego--
USMS maximizes nearly every bed the BOP has allocated for USMS use.
As part of the USMS-BOP coordination on EO 14006, the BOP has
helped provide solutions to critical USMS detention requirements due to
a facility closure in the District of Kansas (Leavenworth). In
addition, BOP has made facilities available to USMS in Pennsylvania and
North Carolina to assist with pre-sentencing detention housing
shortages unrelated to EO 14006.
Question 5. Do you believe that a decision of this magnitude with
wide-ranging impacts on the criminal justice system merited an analysis
regarding its likely and potential effects prior to implementation?
Answer. As noted, the Department has conducted assessments and
reviews. With respect to the impact on the criminal justice system, the
executive order explains that the Federal government ``has a
responsibility to ensure the safe and humane treatment of those in the
Federal criminal justice system,'' and that ``privately operated
criminal detention facilities do not maintain the same levels of safety
and security'' for incarcerated individuals and correctional staff. We
will continue working to implement the executive order in responsible
fashion.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKE BRAUN
Question 1. Nearly 1 month ago, on March 29, Senator Lankford and
I, alongside six other colleagues, sent a letter to you regarding the
Department of Justice's October 4, 2021, memorandum directing the FBI
to target parents expressing concerns at school board meetings.
During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in October,
you admitted that the National School Boards Association's September
29, 2021 letter, proven by emails obtained through FOIA requests to
have been solicited by Secretary Cardona, was the foundation for your
memorandum--not data.
You have not responded to our letter and provided data proving the
need for such allocation of finite Department resources nor have you
rescinded this offensive memo even after the National School Boards
Association publicly apologized for the September 29 letter.
A. What data do you have that this is an issue that warrants Federal
intervention and why does it take a month to reply?
B. Do parents have a right to express concerns to their local school
board?
C. Who is the primary stakeholder in children's education?
Answer. 1A, 1B, 1C: As I said in my congressional testimony last
October, it is the job of parents to be involved in the education of
their children, and it is ``the role [of] the First Amendment to
protect their ability to be involved.'' That is why the October 4,
2021, memorandum makes absolutely clear in the first paragraph that
``spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our
Constitution.'' These protections clearly and importantly cover debate
concerning school board policies.
Question 2. As of the date your response, what is the number of
Firearms Technology Industry Services evaluation requests still pending
a final determination response from ATF to the requesting party?
Answer. ATF reports that, as of May 13, 2022, Firearms Technology
Industry Services (FTISB) has 222 evaluation requests pending final
determination. These 222 cases are comprised of 105 stabilizing brace
and frame or receiver determinations submitted over 1 year ago; 20
receiver determinations submitted under 1 year ago; 80 import
evaluations less than 60 days old; and 17 domestic evaluations of
various types submitted recently. ATF further reports that frame or
receiver determinations and stabilizing brace determinations have been
delayed because of Department rulemaking on these subjects.
A. Of the pending evaluation requests disclosed in response to
question 1, how many of them have been pending for over 1
year?
Answer. ATF reports that 105 evaluation requests are pending for
longer than 1 year.
B. How many of them have been pending for over 2 years?
Answer. ATF reports that 76 evaluation requests have been pending
longer than over 2 years.
C. What is ATF's current processing time for ATF Form 6 Import
Permits, and Forms 4, respectively?
Answer. ATF reports that processing the ATF Form 6 Import Permit
currently takes an average of 45 days. ATF reports that processing the
ATF Form 4 currently takes an average of 10 months for a paper form and
90 days for an e-Form.
Question 3. Can the regulated public rely on the guidance posted on
ATF's website as the current position of the agency?
Answer. Yes. ATF routinely checks its website in an effort to
ensure instructional information is current, within prevailing policy,
and authorized by the associated statutes and regulations.
Question 4. When ATF determines that guidance posted on their
website is ``wrong'' or represents a misinterpretation of law, does the
ATF take steps to clarify this with the public and how long does that
process take? Is there currently any guidance that the agency considers
incorrect or contrary to law?
Answer. ATF reports that guidance it posts is carefully reviewed
prior to issuance and that posted guidance reflects the most complete
analysis of the law and facts at the time the guidance is made
available to the public. ATF reports that it is unaware of any current
guidance that is incorrect or contrary to law.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shaheen. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Tuesday, April 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]