[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 9262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM AFFECTED BY SEQUESTER

  (Mr. MAFFEI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MAFFEI. On March 14, Lori Bresnahan, a school librarian who lived 
in my district, and a 10-year-old child were attacked in a shopping 
center parking lot.
  The attacker was facing Federal child pornography charges and was out 
on bail and ordered to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. He 
disabled the bracelet, stabbed Ms. Bresnahan to death and sexually 
assaulted the young girl.
  It was later found that he had tampered with the bracelet 47 times, 
and each time, the Federal probation office in Syracuse did not 
respond. I wrote to the administrative office of the United States 
Courts, asking them to investigate this gross negligence. This is their 
response:
  The Director says, ``Nothing can excuse the deficiencies in the 
supervision of this case,'' but he also says, ``Reduced resources due 
to the sequester is harming the efforts to keep it from happening 
again.'' He continued, ``We are bracing for even larger reductions next 
year.''
  An innocent woman was stabbed to death, an innocent child was 
sexually assaulted, and the answer from the courts is that their 
ability to keep it from happening again is limited because their 
funding was cut. This is unacceptable. To Lori Bresnahan and that young 
girl, we owe a full investigation, not excuses.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe them the guarantee that this cannot happen again. 
We owe them an end to the sequester cuts, which are affecting our 
Federal probation system.

                                      Administrative Office of the


                                         United States Courts,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 2013.
     Hon. Dan Maffei,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC 20515.
       Dear Representative Maffei: I write in response to your 
     letters to the Judicial Conference of the United States and 
     to me as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. 
     Courts (AO). We share your grave concern with the crimes 
     attributed to David Renz, a defendant under pretrial 
     supervision and electronic monitoring by the federal 
     probation office in Syracuse, New York.
       While nothing can diminish the severity of crimes 
     attributed to David Renz or excuse the deficiencies in 
     supervision of his case, our view--based on our knowledge 
     from regular program reviews in the field and other ongoing 
     communication with field offices from around the country--is 
     that David Renz was not supervised in a manner typical of 
     federal probation and pretrial services practices. The vast 
     majority of the 200,000 defendants and offenders supervised 
     every year remain arrest-free and comply with the conditions 
     imposed by their supervising court. In instances where they 
     are returned to prison, it is most often for technical 
     violations (such as refusing to participate in treatment or 
     associating with a known felon) rather than for new crimes. 
     Such success does not come easily when dealing with high-risk 
     defendants and offenders, and reflects the hard work of many 
     dedicated employees of the Judiciary.
       Probation officers carry out their duties pursuant to 
     statutes enacted by Congress and policies approved by the 
     Judicial Conference. The AO is responsible for, among other 
     things, investigating the work of probation and pretrial 
     services offices and advising courts about Judicial 
     Conference policies and best practices. As you know, the AO 
     initiated an investigation into the handling of the Renz case 
     shortly after learning of his rearrest. On April 9, 2013, a 
     report based on that investigation--which included a number 
     of findings that you cited in your letters--was submitted to 
     the chief judge of the Northern District of New York, who 
     directly supervises the probation office in that district. 
     The chief judge has the authority to take personnel action 
     and make other changes. We also re-submitted to the chief 
     judge an earlier ``program review'' report, describing the 
     work of the probation office in 2010. In the interest of 
     transparency and public awareness, the court posted the 
     report on their website.
       We reported to the chief judge that the probation office 
     failed to make desired changes following the 2010 program 
     review but, in consultation with the chief judge and the AO, 
     the probation office has made substantial changes in response 
     to our findings and recommendations in the 2013 report. Those 
     changes have included dismissing and demoting certain 
     probation office personnel, reorganizing the office's 
     location monitoring unit, retraining staff, and inviting in a 
     technical assistance team from the AO for consultation and 
     training. In addition, the probation office indicated that it 
     will cooperate fully with cyclical reinvestigations to be 
     conducted (as funding permits) by the AO.
       Nonetheless, the AO is in the process of reexamining policy 
     for and reviewing the operations of probation and pretrial 
     services offices with respect to location monitoring. We 
     appreciate your offer to introduce supportive legislation. At 
     this time, the Judicial Conference does not have legislative 
     recommendations related to the location monitoring program. 
     After we complete our policy review, we may seek assistance 
     from Congress. Of note, we will need to work within available 
     funding. Funding for salaries and operations in the probation 
     and pretrial services system has been reduced 14 percent this 
     fiscal year, and resources for location monitoring, mental 
     health and substance abuse treatment have been cut 20 
     percent. We are bracing for even larger reductions next year, 
     and the vacancy rate in probation and pretrial services 
     offices now stands at 25 percent. Your continued support of 
     our appropriation request is much appreciated.
       The AO remains committed to public safety, and we 
     appreciate your interest in our federal probation and 
     pretrial services functions. If we may be of additional 
     assistance, please do not hesitate to call our Office of 
     Legislative Affairs at 202-502-1700.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Thomas F. Hogan,
     Director.

                          ____________________