[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.]