[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:01 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne Shaheen (Chair) presiding.
Present: Senators Shaheen, Leahy, Feinstein, Reed, Coons,
Manchin, Van Hollen, Moran, Murkowski, Collins, Graham,
Boozman, Capito, Hagerty, and Braun.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN
Senator Shaheen. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies will come to order. Good
afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. We are delighted to have you
back. And I want to begin by congratulating you and the
Department on the recovery of much of the ransomware from the
attack on the Colonial Pipeline. That was excellent work and I
know everybody in the country really appreciates it. And
hopefully it sends a message to those groups out there that
would continue to hack our industries and our Government.
The complex and often difficult work of the Department is
vast. It ranges from National Security investigations to
operating a national prison system, management of billions in
grants to State and local entities, and this year, the
President's fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Department
of Justice is $36 billion, which is nearly 7 percent increase
compared to fiscal year 2021. As enacted, this budget provides
a renewed focus in critically important areas like the request
for increased funding at the Civil Rights Division and
Community Relations Service to provide for more attorneys and
mediators. It also requests more funding and grant programs
that will greatly assist our communities.
I was particularly pleased personally to see nearly double
the resources for the Office on Violence Against Women and
appreciate the steady support for grant programs that address
substance abuse. While I was pleased to see healthy increases
nearly across the board for the Department's agencies and
programs, I did have some concerns and I appreciated our
conversation yesterday, Mr. Attorney General, and I shared some
of these with you.
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected everyone, but this has
also been a dangerous time for those who have been locked at
home with their abusers away from their jobs, friends and
family, schools, and other outside assistance like child
services visits. Survivors experienced increased levels of
violence, including increased threat of lethality. Agencies
providing support to domestic violence, sexual assault, and
child abuse victims had to quickly pivot to online or
telephonic only services as we halted in-person meetings. As
pandemic restrictions are being lifted, it is expected that
there will be even more of a demand for services like
counseling and housing.
And the Crime Victims Fund is often the primary source of
Federal funding for thousands of victims service providers
across the Nation, including programs serving victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and human
trafficking. But due to decreasing receipts in the fund, this
funding stream, which provides critical services to survivors,
is really in jeopardy. And while I appreciate the increases
proposed in your budget request for discretionary grant
programs, the $1 billion for the Office on Violence Against
Women grants in particular, this budget also proposes a release
of nearly $2.7 billion from the fund without recognizing the
reality of the dramatic drop in receipts to the fund.
I am hoping to hear your thoughts on the Department's
rationale for the spending level and the plan for bolstering
the fund in the future. This budget request proposes modest
increases to the Department's law enforcement components, with
one exception, again something we talked about, the Bureau of
Prisons. I understand that there is a drop in the inmate
population, but there is still a need for both specialized
staffing, like counselors and special education teachers, to
meet the needs of the First Step Act, as well as the unique
medical needs of an aging prison population. The Department
also needs to keep safety in mind.
This subcommittee has continually requested that the Bureau
of Prisons work toward curtailing the reliance of augmentation
and overtime, and we need reassurance that this request will
allow continued hiring of corrections officers. Senator Moran
and I both have Federal prisons in our States, and we hear very
directly concerns from the corrections officers and employees
there about staffing. In closing, I want to let the 115,000
career employees of the Department of Justice, including law
enforcement personnel and attorneys, know how much their work
to keep Americans safe from crime and terrorism is appreciated,
especially during this last year through the COVID pandemic and
here in the Capitol in response to the attack on January 6.
In particular, I appreciate the ongoing investigations by
the FBI into this event and the peer counseling services that
the Marshal Service provided for the Capitol Police. Mr.
Attorney General, I look forward to your testimony and to the
discussion today. I am sure you will have a lot of interest
from the Members of this subcommittee. And with that, I will
turn it over to my Ranking Member, Senator Moran.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JERRY MORAN
Senator Moran. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. Thank
you for convening this hearing. This continues our practice of
having the Attorney General before our subcommittee. And I
appreciate the General Garland accepting our invitation. And I
thank you for your outreach to me and my team since you became
the General. Welcome to CJS subcommittee.
I am pleased to hear and discuss with you today the
President's budget request and the activities of the Department
of Justice. Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity
to meet many special agents, correctional officers,
intelligence analysts, and attorneys that make up those 115,000
employees that Senator Shaheen referenced. I am impressed by
their professionalism, their integrity, their commitment to the
Department's mission, and to our Nation.
The Department of Justice is requesting $35.3 billion in
fiscal year 2022. This is an increase of $1.9 billion or a 5.6
percent increase above fiscal Year 2021 enacted levels. The
overwhelming bulk of this increase is dedicated to DOJ grant
programs, while DOJ law enforcement agencies, the FBI, the DEA,
the U.S. Marshal Service, and ATF will only receive 2 percent
increase overall. In a year in which the administration allowed
agencies to request expansive budgets, the increase at the Drug
Enforcement Agency is barely enough to cover inflation. I
request--the request will do nothing to reverse the 13 percent
decline in the number of special agents since 2010.
The DEA is on the front lines against sophisticated and
ruthless drug traffickers and cartels, and the methamphetamine
and opioid crisis continues to wreak havoc and terrible damage
on communities in Kansas and across the country. I am troubled
by the lack of attention given to DEA in this budget request.
Similarly, the Department requests an increase of only $40
million to bolster the FBI's cyber capabilities. This is less
than one half of 1 percent of the FBI's budget.
As recently observed by Chris Krebs, the former--formerly
the Government's top cybersecurity watchdog, we are in the
midst of a ransomware pandemic, one that threatens our food
supply and one that threatens our energy infrastructure. I
question whether the Department is sufficiently investing in
efforts to address these threats. Finally, I am disturbed by
the proposals to dramatically expand the Department's authority
to regulate the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.
The administration has proposed repealing numerous provisions
that were enacted in previous CJS bills that passed with
overwhelming bipartisan votes.
In the context of other recent actions by the White House
and the ATF, it is difficult to see these proposals as anything
but a broad assault on the Americans' second right amendment--
excuse me, the Americans' Second Amendment rights--citizens
more clearly. In the context of other recent actions by the
White House and the ATF, it is difficult to see these proposals
as anything but a broad assault on Americans Second Amendment
rights. With that said, there are many areas of this budget
request in which I believe we find agreement.
I am pleased to see the Department has endorsed the new
grant programs dedicated to improving police community
relations that Senator Shaheen and I worked together to create
last year. These programs include support for de-escalation
training, training on responding to individuals facing mental
health crisis, and support for local agencies to secure
accreditation. Attorney General Garland, I look forward to
working with you and with Senator Shaheen and my colleagues on
this subcommittee as we work to craft the fiscal year 2022
appropriations for the Department of Justice. And again, I
thank you for your presence.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Moran. I will
now turn it over to you, Mr. Attorney General, for your opening
statement. And I don't think your mike is on.
STATEMENT OF HON. MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attorney General Garland. Good. Okay. Good afternoon,
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Moran, and distinguished
Members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you on behalf of the Department of Justice to
discuss the President's budget for fiscal year 2022. Exactly 90
days ago, I took the oath of office as Attorney General. On
that day, I spoke to all the Justice Department employees, and
I told them that all of us, ``are united by our commitment to
protecting our country, as our oath says, from all enemies,
foreign and domestic, and by our commitment to enforcing our
country's laws and to ensuring the civil rights and the civil
liberties of our people.''
These commitments reflect the Justice Department's mission,
and the Department's mission is reflected in our fiscal year
2022 budget request. Our two top funding priorities are as
follows. The first is keeping our country and our communities
safe. This priority has three main elements. The first element
is countering foreign and domestic terrorism. The Justice
Department remains acutely aware of the threat posed by foreign
terrorist organizations. This requires that we never take our
eyes off the risk of another devastating attack on our country.
At the same time, the United States has seen a troubling rise
in domestic violent extremism. As a country's lead law
enforcement agency, the Department of Justice is devoted to a
broad scale approach to countering the threat of both foreign
and domestic terrorism. The fiscal year 2022 budget request
includes $9.4 billion--I am sorry, skipped a page.
Our budget request includes more than $1.5 billion for our
foreign and domestic counterterrorism efforts, an increase of
more than 12 percent above the fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
Keeping our country and communities safe also requires
countering cyber threats from foreign and domestic actors,
whether nation states, terrorists, or criminals, something that
each of the two of you have already mentioned in your opening.
The budget request for $1.1 billion would be the largest
increase in cyber resources for the Justice Department in more
than a decade. Finally, keeping our country and communities
safe requires protecting them from the recent increase in major
violent crimes and gun violence. The Department's recently
announced violent crime reduction strategy harnesses all our
relevant Departmental components to that end.
The fiscal year 2022 budget request includes $9.4 billion,
an increase of nearly 9 percent to support the Justice
Department's law enforcement resources and grant programs. This
includes law enforcement efforts to fight violent crime and
grants that fund community violence intervention programs,
improve background checks, and red flag laws. The Department's
other top priority is reflecting--is protecting civil rights
and civil liberties. The President's fiscal year 2022 budget
requests more than $300 million for the Department's civil
rights efforts. This includes the largest investment in a
decade to reinvigorate the Justice Department's civil rights
components and the largest ever increase in our civil rights
division, totaling more than 15 percent.
Our request reflects the reality that almost 65 years after
its creation, the division's work remains vital to protecting
the American dream by safeguarding voting rights, prosecuting
hate crimes, and addressing unlawful discrimination. This
additional support for our civil rights work would also allow
us to reestablish the office for access to justice and would
provide a much needed lifeline for our community relations
service, which helps local communities mediate conflicts
peacefully.
The budget request also provides new funding for the
Environment and Natural Resources Division to advance
environmental justice and to tackle climate change. Promoting
public trust between communities and law enforcement is
critical both to making our communities safe and to ensuring
the protection of civil rights. Our budget request for $1.3
billion, an increase of $379.8 million, would provide grants to
support reforms necessary for promoting that trust. The fiscal
year 2022 budget also provides funding for other
extraordinarily important grant programs. It proposes an
investment of $1 billion to support Violence Against Women Act
programs at DOJ, nearly twice the fiscal year 2021 level. It
proposes to almost double the programs that provide training
and technical assistance for State, local, Tribal, and
territorial law enforcement in responding to hate and bias
motivated crimes.
And we are also focused on reducing the immigration court
backlog. A 21 percent budget increase to the Executive Office
for Immigration Review will help us on board 100 new
immigration judges to reduce the nearly 1.3 million cases that
were pending before the immigration courts when we took office.
I ask for your support for our budget, as the Justice
Department continues its commitment to adhering to the rule of
law, to keeping our country and communities safe, and to
protecting civil rights and civil liberties. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Merrick B. Garland
Good afternoon Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Moran, and
distinguished Members of this subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear on behalf of the Department of Justice to discuss
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2022.
Exactly 90 days ago, I took the oath of office as Attorney General.
In remarks to all Justice Department employees on my first day in
office, I explained how I would approach my job:
``All of us are united by our commitment to the rule of law and
to seeking equal justice under law. We are united by our
commitment to protecting our country, as our oath says, `from
all enemies foreign and domestic,' and by our commitment to
enforcing our country's laws and to ensuring the civil rights
and the civil liberties of our people.''
This approach reflects the Justice Department's mission, and the
Department's mission is reflected in our $35.3 billion fiscal year 2022
budget request. Our top funding priorities are:
1. Keeping our Country and Communities Safe.--This includes funds for:
Countering Foreign and Domestic Terrorism.--The budget
contains more than $1.5 billion to counter foreign and domestic
terrorism--an increase of more than 12 percent above the fiscal
year 2021 budget--which includes an additional $101.2 million
to address domestic terrorism with a broadscale approach across
the Department.
Enhancing Cybersecurity and Fighting Cybercrime.--The budget
includes $1.1 billion, a $150.7 million increase, for
protecting our Nation from cyberattacks and cybercrime. This is
the largest increase in cyber resources for the Justice
Department in more than a decade.
Combating Violent Crime and Gun Violence.--The budget also
contains $9.4 billion, an increase of more than 8 percent, to
combat violent crime and gun violence. This includes more than
$1 billion in grants to support local, State, and Tribal law
enforcement agencies and community organizations in their
efforts to achieve safer communities.
2. Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.--Another top Department
priority is protecting civil rights and civil liberties. This
includes:
Reinvigorating the Department's Civil Rights Components.--The
budget contains a total of more than $300 million to
reinvigorate civil rights efforts across the Justice
Department, including in the Civil Rights Division and the
Community Relations Service, and to reestablish and expand the
Justice Department's Office for Access to Justice. This budget
marks the largest investment in civil rights in at least a
decade and the largest-ever increase for the Department's Civil
Rights Division, totaling more than 15 percent.
Investing in Community Policing.--The budget contains a total
of nearly $1.3 billion, with program increases of $379.8
million, to support reforms designed to further strengthen
relationships between law enforcement and the communities they
serve. This investment is important both for keeping our
communities safe and for protecting civil rights and civil
liberties.
Ending Gender-Based Violence.--The budget contains a total of
$1.0 billion, an increase of $486.5 million, to address gender-
based violence through the Office on Violence Against Women,
nearly twice the fiscal year 2021 investment in this effort.
Addressing Inequities in the Criminal Justice System.--A
total of nearly $1.6 billion is requested to support reform in
the criminal justice system and to continue critical investment
in implementing the First Step Act of 2018. This request
includes an increase of more than $550 million in grants that
support efforts to reform State and local justice systems.
Advancing Environmental Justice.The budget also contains new
resources to advance environmental justice initiatives.
Other areas of Departmental focus include:
3. Ensuring Economic Opportunity and Fairness
Reinvigorating Antitrust Enforcement.--This budget requests
more than $200 million, an increase of 9 percent, for the
Antitrust Division to reinvigorate antitrust enforcement.
Combating Fraud and Protecting Consumers.--The Justice
Department is committed to using every available Federal tool--
including criminal, civil, and administrative actions--to
protect consumers and combat and prevent fraud. As part of this
budget request, additional funds would be available for three
DOJ components--our United States Attorneys, the Criminal
Division, and the Civil Division--to combat COVID-19 related
fraud and bring to justice those who seek to profit unlawfully
from the pandemic.
Revitalizing Tax Enforcement.--An increase of nearly 5
percent above fiscal year 2021 is requested for the
Department's Tax Division to support its vital mission of
enforcing our tax laws fully, fairly, and consistently. The
integrity of our tax system is vital to maintaining public
confidence and requires ensuring that all Americans pay the
taxes they owe.
4. Reducing the Immigration Court Backlog
The budget also requests a total of $891 million, an increase
of more than 20 percent, to reduce the immigration court
backlog. This funding would strengthen our ability to apply the
immigration laws justly, consistently, and in a timely fashion,
while ensuring due process under the law.
* * *
Greater detail on all of these priorities is provided below:
1. Keeping our Country and Communities Safe
Countering Foreign and Domestic Terrorism.--Our budget
supports the Justice Department's steadfast commitment to
protecting our national security, while also protecting our
civil liberties.
As I testified before the full Senate Appropriations
Committee last month, the United States has seen an
unprecedented and troubling rise in domestic violent extremism.
At the same time, the Justice Department and its law
enforcement agencies remain acutely aware of the threat posed
by foreign terrorist organizations. This requires that we never
take our eyes off the risk of another devastating attack on our
country by foreign terrorists. It also requires that we counter
threats from foreign actors who conduct espionage, target
Americans, including our service members and diplomats
overseas, and violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of our allies.
As the country's lead law enforcement agency, the Department
of Justice is devoted to a broadscale approach to counter the
threat of both foreign and domestic terrorism. The request
includes more than $1.5 billion for our foreign and domestic
counterterrorism efforts, which represents an increase of more
than 12 percent above the fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
Alongside our request for resources to counter the threats
posed to our security by foreign terrorism, the budget seeks an
additional $101.2 million to address domestic violent extremism
and terrorism. Our request includes increased funding for the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct domestic
violent extremism and terrorism investigations, and for the
United States Attorneys to manage increasing caseloads in this
area. The budget request supports additional response
capabilities at the U.S. Marshals Service and research
regarding the root causes of domestic radicalization at the
National Institute of Justice.
Enhancing Cybersecurity and Fighting Cybercrime.--Protecting
our national security also requires countering cyber threats
from foreign and domestic actors--whether nation states,
terrorists, or criminals--who seek to conduct espionage, invade
our privacy, attack our elections, steal our intellectual
property, damage our critical financial and physical
infrastructure, or extort ransom payments.
These threats are grave and escalating, and we must keep pace
with an ever-evolving threat landscape. A complete review of
the Department's cybersecurity strategy is currently underway,
and this budget--which would provide more than $1 billion to
support cyber investigations and cybersecurity, including more
than $150 million in cyber program enhancements--would help us
to meet these threats. This is the largest increase in cyber
resources for the Department in more than 10 years.
Combating Violent Crime and Gun Violence.--Protecting our
communities from the recent increase in major violent crimes
and from the national epidemic of gun violence is among the
most pressing challenges facing the Department of Justice. The
Department's recently announced violent crime reduction
strategy harnesses all our relevant components to that end,
including the Department's U.S. Attorneys' offices, litigating
divisions (including the Criminal Division), law enforcement
agencies, and grantmaking offices. The fiscal year 2022 budget
request includes $9.4 billion, an increase of more than 8
percent above the 2021 enacted level, to support the Justice
Department's law enforcement resources as well as grants that
fund community violence intervention programs, improved
background checks, and red-flag laws.
A total of nearly $1.6 billion in base funding is requested
for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(ATF), an increase of $70 million or nearly 5 percent over
fiscal year 2021, to oversee the safe sale, storage, and
ownership of firearms and to support the Agency's other work to
fight violent crime. A portion of this increase would both
expand ATF's Crime Gun Intelligence through the National
Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBN) and would
nearly double ATF's capacity to investigate theft from Federal
Firearms Licensees (FFLs). Every firearm stolen from an FFL
poses a threat to community safety, as well as to our law
enforcement partners.
In addition, a total of $690 million is requested for the
Drug Enforcement Administration to support the fight against
violent drug gangs and cartels.
This request would enable the Department's Office of Justice
Programs to distribute more than $1 billion in grants to
support local, State, and Tribal law enforcement agencies and
community organizations in their efforts to achieve safer
communities and combat the gun violence epidemic. Part of this
requested funding would strengthen existing funding programs,
including grants for States, local communities, and Tribes to
improve criminal history record information and ensure
effective nationwide implementation of background check
systems.
New programs are also proposed.--A highlight is $100 million
for the Community Violence Intervention Initiative, to assist
local communities in developing comprehensive violence
prevention and reduction programs, through partnerships between
community residents, law enforcement, local government
agencies, and other community stakeholders. Using evidence-
based solutions such as street outreach, violence interrupters,
and hospital-based violence intervention services, the
Community Violence Intervention Initiative invests directly in
communities to address gang and gun violence.
The budget request also includes funding that would allow the
Department to establish innovative new grants for States that
want to craft gun licensing and red-flag laws, which
temporarily restrict access to firearms by individuals who are
in crisis. A new pilot promotes the development, adoption, and
use of programs designed to help communities address situations
where people become legally prohibited from possessing firearms
they own.
2. Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Reinvigorating the Department's Civil Rights Components.--
Protecting civil rights and civil liberties was a founding
purpose of the Justice Department and is a top budgetary
priority. Far too many still face discrimination in housing,
education, employment, and the criminal justice system; and
bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and
climate change.
The President's fiscal year 2022 budget requests an increase
of more than $300 million to reinvigorate the Department's
civil rights efforts. The Department requests a total of $183.2
million, an increase of 15.8 percent, for the Civil Rights
Division (CRT). This would fund 85 new positions--including 60
attorneys--to increase CRT's capacity to protect voting and
other statutory and constitutional rights, and to hold those
who commit hate crimes accountable.
Among other things, this request would also fund $90 million
in grants to support the development, expansion, and
improvement of services for victims of human trafficking and
for the investigation and prosecution of trafficking offenses
as part of a multidisciplinary approach.
The President has called for, and the Justice Department is
developing plans for, reconstituting the Department's Office
for Access to Justice. The budget requests $6 million dollars
for this purpose. One role of the Office will be to leverage
grant opportunities throughout the Department aimed at
increasing access to justice. The fiscal year 2022 request
includes several grant programs that would improve access to
justice for underserved groups, including grant programs to
strengthen the vital work of public defenders, improve juvenile
indigent defense, and ensure legal services for victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault.
For decades the Department's Community Relations Service
(CRS) has been ``America's Peacemaker'' for communities in
conflict. Its staff are trained to mediate disputes and enhance
community capacity to prevent and resolve future conflicts
independently. When I arrived at the Department, CRS had only a
fraction of the conciliators needed at a time of heightened
racial tensions and increased hate-based incidents. We are
reviving CRS's capacity to improve police-community relations
and support communities across the United States that are
working to prevent and respond to bias incidents and hate
crimes.
In addition, a new grant program to advance civil rights
would provide $20 million for law enforcement agency training
on racial profiling, the duty to intervene, and de-escalation.
Investing in Community Policing.--Creating strong, positive
ties between law enforcement agencies and the communities they
serve is critical both to making our communities safe and to
rooting out inequities in the justice system. Providing
resources to police departments to help them reform and gain
the trust of communities is a priority of this Department and
this administration. The budget total for programs that support
community-oriented policing and address systemic inequities is
nearly $1.3 billion, with program increases totaling $379.8
million.
This includes more than $513 million for the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program and a total of
$651 million for the Department's Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS). Among other things, the budget
requests a total of $537 million--an increase of $300 million--
for a critical hiring program administered by COPS. New
priority preferences would ensure that resources are used to
further policing reform efforts. The Department's budget
addresses the need to further strengthen relationships between
communities and police officers by providing grants for hiring
local police officers and investing in racial sensitivity, hate
crime, and implicit bias training.
The fiscal year 2022 budget request includes a total of
nearly $50 million to support the use of body worn cameras by
law enforcement officers across America. For the first time,
the budget requests $13.6 million to support the use of body-
worn cameras by federally deputized task force officers. And an
additional $35 million in grants for State and local body-worn
camera systems included in this budget request would support
the purchase and deployment of these important systems, assist
in the development of infrastructure to support them, and scale
up training and technical assistance to ensure their proper
use.
The fiscal year 2022 budget request also recognizes the
pressing need for capacity-building within State, local,
Tribal, and Territorial law enforcement to address hate crimes
and violence against women. The budget proposes to almost
double programs that provide training and technical assistance
in responding to and investigating hate and bias-motivated
crimes. And it would invest $80 million in programming aimed at
treating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
and stalking as serious violations of criminal law, through
increased coordination between law enforcement, victim services
providers, and non-governmental organizations.
Ending Gender-Based Violence.--The President's budget request
includes an historic investment to support the work of the
Justice Department's Office of Violence Against Women (OVW).
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated gender-based violence and
sexual assault for many women and girls who have been largely
confined to their homes with their abusers. The fiscal year
2022 request proposes an investment of $1 billion to support
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs at DOJ, nearly twice
the $486.5 million enacted level for fiscal year 2021.
The budget request includes substantial increases for
longstanding VAWA formula programs that have shown success,
including programs aimed at enhancing States' and territories'
ability to finance coordinated community responses to domestic
violence and sexual assault and enable rape crisis centers and
other supporting nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations to
serve tens of thousands additional victims each year.
The budget also requests double the amount allocated for the
Transitional Housing Program last year to meet the overwhelming
demand, which has increased dramatically over the past year as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The request includes two new programs that meet special
needs. The first would enable OVW to develop and maintain a
National Deaf Services Line, which would provide virtual
services to Deaf victims of all VAWA crimes, provide technical
assistance to victim service providers working with Deaf
victims, and pilot strategies to expand ``for Deaf, by Deaf''
in-person services. The second program would address violence
against women in Indian Country, by providing funding to cross-
designate Tribal prosecutors as Tribal Special Assistant United
States Attorneys.
The fiscal year 2022 request would fund several other
innovative new programs as well. Highlights among the funding
requested for innovative new programs includes: $20 million to
support underserved colleges and institutions to strengthen
their responses to domestic and sexual violence and stalking;
$2 million to support greater outreach to, and services for,
transgender victims of domestic/dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking; and $25 million to enable OVW to study
the efficacy of restorative justice programs in addressing
underreporting of sexual assault, domestic violence, and dating
violence by offering victims an option for accountability while
responding to their concerns about how they will be treated by
the criminal justice systems.
Often, small community-based organizations miss out on
Federal grants that could increase their effectiveness and
reach. The fiscal year 2022 request designates $5 million to
provide capacity-building training and technical assistance
that would help community-based organizations apply for and
successfully implement Federal grant awards in order to
directly address this problem.
In addition to expanded funding for OVW programs, the budget
request also includes $120 million for the Sexual Assault Kit
Initiative and a new Regional Sexual Assault Investigative
Training Academies program to support efforts to eliminate the
rape kit backlog. And an additional $112 million has been
requested for the DNA Analysis and Capacity Enhancement
Program, which assists with the processing of DNA samples in
laboratories and law enforcement agencies across the country
and would reduce the backlog in the processing of sexual
assault kits.
Addressing Inequities in the Criminal Justice System.--The
Department's fiscal year 2022 budget invests nearly $1.6
billion to support criminal justice reform, an increase of
$669.3 million over fiscal year 2021 levels.
Our budget request takes several additional steps to support
criminal justice reform in the Federal system. It continues the
historic investment of $409.5 million by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons for First Step Act implementation. The Office of the
Pardon Attorney is also seeking an increase to address the
backlog of cases and better support the clemency program. And
the Department is requesting additional funding to implement
Executive Order 14006 and eliminate the use of privately-
operated Federal criminal detention facilities by transferring
those individuals who are in privately-operated Federal
facilities to alternative Federal, State, and local facilities.
The budget request also includes several reform-oriented
grants for State, local, Tribal and Territorial entities
distributed by the Office of Justice Programs. More than $450
million increase in funding would be directed to programs
focused on youth. Among other things, these grants would assist
local communities in developing comprehensive youth-focused
violence prevention and reduction programs, as well as
effective alternatives to incarceration. To assist young people
who are involved in the justice system, the Juvenile Justice
Prosecution and Defense Process Improvement Program would grow
to $40 million in fiscal year 2022, up from $2.5 million in
fiscal year 2021. This funding would support training and
technical assistance for public and appointed juvenile
defenders. At the same time, this budget request includes a
significant boost in the Department's Part B: Formula Grants
program to increase prevention and intervention programs for
youth, ensure appropriate accountability for delinquent
behavior, and improve the juvenile justice system.
Increases for programs targeted at adults, including programs
under the Second Chance Act, would help State, local, and
Tribal corrections and public safety agencies to implement and
improve a variety of critical reentry services. The fiscal year
2022 budget also requests an increase for the Justice
Reinvestment Initiative, which would assist State and local
justice stakeholders in developing and implementing innovative
and research-based responses that address a range of criminal
justice system programs.
Our request also funds programs designed to divert
individuals with drug addiction out of the criminal justice
system, including through increased support for drug courts,
mental health collaborations, and residential substance abuse
treatment. The funding request includes a total of $418 million
in grants under the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act
(CARA), which would, among other things, support system-wide
initiatives that expand locally-driven responses to identify,
treat and support those impacted by substance abuse.
Advancing Environmental Justice.--The Department is committed
to advancing environmental justice and supports the President's
Executive Order 14008, ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home
and Abroad.'' The Executive Order establishes a ``whole-of-
government'' approach to addressing the climate crisis and
formalizes the government's commitment to environmental
justice.
The fiscal year 2022 budget requests $44.0 million to advance
environmental justice, tackle climate change, and enhance
environmental sustainability. This includes increased funding
for the Environment and Natural Resources Division to expand
its affirmative authorities to advance environmental justice
and to address the impact of climate change by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. It also provides
funds for continuing defensive and other work related to
climate change. In addition, with this support would allow the
Bureau of Prisons to invest an additional $39 million energy-
saving modernization and repair projects to replace aging
equipment with energy efficient models.
3. Ensuring Economic Opportunity and Fairness
Reinvigorating Antitrust Enforcement.--America's antitrust
laws are our country's charter of economic liberty. For more
than a century, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division has
been entrusted with their enforcement. The President's request
to increase the Antitrust Division's budget by 9 percent to a
total of more than $200 million reflects our commitment to that
vital mission. Every year, the Justice Department's enforcement
of our antitrust laws saves consumers millions and perhaps
billions of dollars. The fiscal year 2022 budget request would
allow the Department to onboard 90 additional personnel,
including 49 attorneys, to advance these efforts to ensure
economic opportunity, protect American consumers, and safeguard
taxpayer dollars from collusion.
Combating Fraud and Protecting Consumers.--The Justice
Department is committed to using every available Federal tool--
including criminal, civil, and administrative actions--to
protect consumers and combat and prevent fraud. As part of this
budget request, the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorneys'
Offices would receive an additional $36.4 million to bolster
efforts to prevent COVID-19 related fraud and bring to justice
those who seek to profit unlawfully from the pandemic. And an
additional $4.8 million is requested for the Civil Division to
address increased workload associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, including the pursuit of those who exploit this
pandemic to take advantage of the government of their fellow
Americans.
Revitalizing Tax Enforcement.--The integrity of our tax
system is vital to maintaining public confidence and requires
ensuring that all taxes that are owed are paid. Honest
taxpayers must be able to trust that they will not bear an
undue share of the Federal tax burden. An increase of nearly 5
percent is requested for the Department's Tax Division to fully
fund its vital mission of enforcing our tax laws fully, fairly,
and consistently with all available tools.
4. Reducing the Immigration Court Backlog
The fiscal year 2022 budget strengthens the ability of the
Justice Department to apply the immigration laws justly,
consistently, and in a timely fashion, while ensuring due
process under the law. The $891 million budget request for the
Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review includes
more than $177 million in much-needed immigration-related
program enhancements.
At the beginning of this administration, there were nearly
1.3 million outstanding cases before the immigration courts--
the largest ever pending caseload. This budget would allow the
Executive Office for Immigration Review to onboard a total of
600 new staff, including 100 new immigration judges. This would
bring the total number of immigration judges to 734, an
increase of 16 percent. New modernization and efficiency
measures would also help reduce the backlog.
To help ensure due process in immigration proceedings, the
Department's Office of Justice Programs would administer a $15
million pilot program to provide access to legal representation
for immigrant children and families who seek asylum and other
forms of legal protection in the United States after entering
at the borders.
* * *
I ask for your support for our budget as the Justice Department
works to ensure adherence to the rule of law, to keep our country and
communities safe, and to protect civil rights and civil liberties.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. We will have 5 minute
rounds for questions, and we will take senators in order of
arrival. So I will begin, followed by the Ranking Member. As I
said in my opening statement, Attorney General, I am very
concerned about what happens to the level of support in the
Crime Victims Fund.
Senator Leahy and I sent you a letter in March on this
issue after your confirmation as Attorney General. And I know
we are both, as is the subcommittee, very interested in the
steps that the Department has taken to address the level of
funding in the Crime Victims Fund and how you see that moving
forward.
Attorney General Garland. So I appreciate both the letter
and the questions that you and I were able to discuss
yesterday. I have a personal commitment to that fund. That is
the fund that provided the money for Oklahoma City victims, so
I know full well how important it is to everyone who is a
victim of this kind of crime or any crime. So I have looked
into it, and I have been given to understand that given the
receipts we expect to bring in this year and through fiscal
year 2022, at the end of 2022, we should have about a $400
million balance.
That is, we do not expect the fund to run out and we expect
to have a balance. Now, I also agree with you, we ought to
build up that fund further. So we are going to be looking in
the Department of Justice and the ways to do that. I understand
there are some legislation pending, possibly adding additional
crimes that would feed into the fund.
And of course, we will look into also other issues that you
raised about taking certain kinds of pleas and taking certain
kinds of delayed pleas that might have not resulted in
restitution. The most important thing in these matters is for
there to be sufficient restitution for the victims.
Senator Shaheen. And as the result of the pandemic, have
there been more requests for assistance from the fund over the
last year? Do you know the answer to that?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer. All I do
know is that we expect that the receipts that we have received
already to be sufficient to provide the $400 million. But I
don't I don't know the answer. That is a very good question.
Senator Shaheen. Perhaps you could find that out and share
that with the subcommittee. That would be interesting to know.
Attorney General Garland. Sure. My staff will get back to
yours.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. The other question we discussed
in our phone conversation was the request for the Bureau of
Prisons. And as you know, the question--the practice known as
augmentation is something that this subcommittee has been
concerned about for a while. It is certainly something I hear
about from prison employees in New Hampshire. And so can you
tell us what the Department is doing to address and curtail
augmentation?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I will have to admit that
that was a word I had never heard of before I became Attorney
General.
Senator Shaheen. Yes, me either.
Attorney General Garland. Okay, fair enough. So I have
looked at this and I am, of course, concerned about this. It is
protection of both the staff and the inmates that require that
we have the right number of staff in the Bureau of Prisons. So
what I understand is that we are currently at 95 percent of
authorized positions filled. So there will always be a
percentage because of attrition, etcetera, but they have made
dramatic increases in the number of hires, to the point that
BOP hired 900 net new staff, accounting for attrition, since
last May and since the previous May, and 281 net new hires in
this past month alone.
Now, it will likely always be the case that we won't get up
to the full numbers. But the idea with augmentation is that
people who switch into guard work or protective work have
already been trained in that. We are not going to be sending
people who are without the training. We also expect, of course,
that with the number of inmates reduced, that we will have less
of a problem of the kind that you describe.
Senator Shaheen. I certainly hope so. Can you--I know that
vaccinations have been a concern and with some of the employees
and corrections officers in our prison in New Hampshire. Do you
have any idea if that has been an issue in other prisons around
the country?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, so it certainly was an issue
everywhere around the country, and not only in prisons, but
with--in the community as a whole. And I have looked into that
as well. So with respect to inmates, 95 percent have been
offered vaccines. Now, unfortunately, as with the community as
a whole, not everyone accepts. But as of right now, at least 52
percent have received at least one vaccine dose.
With respect to the Bureau of Prisons staff, 100 percent
have been offered vaccines. 51 percent are fully vaccinated.
And another 661 have received--in addition to that, have
received their first vaccine dose. So we are in the right
direction here but there is the same problem that there is in
the community at large, some resistance to this, which frankly,
I do not understand. I rushed out to get my vaccine as soon as
it was available. But right now we have enough vaccines for
everybody who is willing to take it.
Senator Shaheen. And is there any consideration around
trying to better engage with staff and I assume inmates, but
particularly staff around why this is important and the
difference that it can make for them?
Attorney General Garland. Absolutely. Education on this
issue, as with the CDC's general effort to educate the general
population, is ongoing and we don't want this to be a problem,
obviously, for the protection of our staff and for our inmates.
And so we are going to do everything we can to induce people,
incentivize people to take the vaccines.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. General, shortly
after the President's inauguration, the President issued an
executive order on the renewal of DOJ contracts with privately
operated criminal detention facilities. I believe that applying
this executive order to the U.S. Marshals Service is a serious
mistake. Unlike the Bureau of Prisons, which I assume the
administration really was directing their attention to, I am
not sure of that of course, the Marshals don't own any of their
own facilities. They exclusively contract with the Bureau of
Prisons, State and local prisons, and jails and private
facilities. Closing private facilities will inevitably require
Federal prisoners to be housed at facilities further from
courthouses in which their cases are being considered. There
are ethical and constitutional concerns with moving prisoners
potentially far distances from their families and legal
counsel.
However, we are now also learning that this policy will
cost hundreds of millions of dollars for U.S. taxpayers. The
Department's budget request estimates that implementation of
the executive order will cost the U.S. Marshal Service $75
million in additional transportation housing costs, and that is
just for fiscal year 2020. So my question, General, is, has the
Department consulted with the White House about those costs,
and what I think is unintended consequences of applying the
executive order to the U.S. Marshal Service?
Attorney General Garland. Thank you. Thank you for your
question. There is a principle involved here, leaving aside the
specifics of the issue you are raising about the Marshals. The
administration's policy, and I believe to be the correct
policy, is that prison is Government work. It is a Government
function, and it contravenes sometimes the due process clause
to be keeping people in privately owned areas which are not
responsive to all of the requirements of Federal law, and which
are not as easy for us to supervise as they would be if they
were Federal employees. Now, that said, you put your finger on
the correct distinction, which is relatively easy for us to
have done this with respect to the Bureau of Prisons, because
there was already a Bureau of Prisons space.
With respect to Marshals, as you point out, this was
contracted space. So we have a plan of phasing the Marshals
part of this in over a somewhat longer period. The money is to
move them from private space to State or local Government space
so that we still are satisfying our concern that this be a
Government function. You are right about the amount, but this
is the amount necessary to transfer the people from one to the
other. I don't think this will be a problem in the longer run.
I also completely agree with you that it is important to
have particularly detention areas near where somebody lives. It
is important from the point of view of family connections and
continuing connections to the community. And it is also
important from the point of view of having appropriate legal
representation and lawyers, defense lawyers not having to
travel so far that they are unable to do that. So your concerns
are my concerns.
Senator Moran. I appreciate hearing that. And I would ask
if you could share with me the outline of the plan for moving
forward as it regards--in regard to the Marshals.
Attorney General Garland. My staff will get back yours.
Senator Moran. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The tragic death
of Judge Esther Salas last July impressed on me and others the
extraordinary threats that our Federal judges face. Last year,
I worked to provide additional funding to the U.S. Marshal
Service for judicial security operations. The Department's
budget this year, it is for fiscal year 2022, includes a
program increase of thirty $33.4 million to further enhance
Marsha judicial security programs.
I would expect you to be very knowledgeable of the
circumstances that judges face in regard to their security. And
I would expect you to have a well-informed perspective on this.
General Garland, what can you tell us the subcommittee about
the proposed program increases and the need for additional
investment in Federal judge security?
Attorney General Garland. Well, you have pointed your
finger at the right person. I was on the Judicial Security
Committee for many years when I was a judge, and I was also
chair of the Executive Committee, which oversees the other
committees, including the Security Committee. So I have dealt
very deeply into this problem with respect to judicial
security. And it is a big problem and there is a dangerous
problem. And as we have a rise in domestic violent extremism,
it is a serious threat. We are--this amount of money we believe
will enable us to upgrade the home security systems and to
provide Marshals intelligence for better tracking threats
against judges. And you can be assured I take this one also
quite personal.
Senator Moran. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for
recognizing the importance of security. From my perspective, it
certainly security for the judges and their families, but it is
also a threat against our system of Government. Judges need to
be safe and secure, and the threats need to be addressed
seriously, both protection and ultimate prosecution of
perpetrators.
Attorney General Garland. This is exactly right. You can't
have a democracy with due process of law if judges are afraid
to make the decisions.
Senator Moran. I almost said democracy General, but every
time I start to see democracy, I remember a republic and it
confuses me as to how I am supposed to phrase these questions.
So thank you for saying that we live in a democracy.
Attorney General Garland. Republic is a representative
democracy. I think that is what Hamilton meant.
Senator Moran. Thank you for the clarification. My time has
expired. I would indicate to you both to the Chairman and to
you, General, that I also am the Ranking Member of the Senate
Committee on Veterans Affairs that is meeting this afternoon.
You will see me here intermittently. It is not by lack of
interest in what you have to say.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Moran. I
should have announced at the beginning that the witness has
requested a brief recess, about 3:15 p.m. So we will take a
short recess at 3:15 p.m. at his request. And when I said we
were going to take people in order of arrival, I lied. I am
actually going to take the Chairman of the Committee next,
Senator Leahy, as is our custom. Senator.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I appreciate that and you may
recall I did the same thing before as chairman but with others.
It is good to see you, Attorney General. And I agree, Senator
Moran that we want to have security for our courts and judicial
personnel, just as I hope that we will finally get all the
answers of what happened January 6. So we will have security of
our, really the symbol of our democracy, the U.S. Capitol, the
thousands of people who work here, the men and women, tourists
and everybody else, and I hope that we will finally get the
answers to everything behind that.
Attorney General, in the past few weeks, your Department
has endured some highly controversial positions taken by the
former President's Justice Department. Many have expressed
concerns about that. For example, the Trump DOJ removed from
the State Court and the Federal court a defamation charge
involving an assault allegation against Donald Trump by a
woman.
The release of the OLC memo on obstruction of justice
conclusions and so on. How is this coming about? Are these
criticisms valid or--what do you say about them?
Attorney General Garland. Senator, I am grateful for you
asking me the question, and I know about the criticisms. Look,
the job of the Justice Department in making decisions of law is
not to back any administration, previous or present. Our job is
to represent the American people. And our job in doing so is to
ensure adherence to the rule of law, which is the fundamental
requirement of a democracy or a republic or a representative
democracy. And the essence of the rule of law is what I said
when I accepted the nomination for Attorney General, it is that
like cases be treated like, that there not be one rule for
Democrats and another for Republicans, that there not be one
rule for friends and another for foes.
Now, it is not always easy to apply that rule. Sometimes it
means that we have to make a decision about the law that we
would never have made and that we strongly disagree with as a
matter of policy. But in every case, the job of the Justice
Department is to make the best judgment it can as to what the
law requires.
Now, matters of policy, of course, are completely
different, and that explains why we have reversed these
policies of the previous administration many times over the
last 3 months, and why we have initiated our own policies that
are distinctly different from those of the previous
administration. But this is an important issue, the distinction
between law and policy, and it is at the center of ensuring
adherence to the rule of law for which the Justice Department
stands.
Senator Leahy. Well, as you know, and you and I have had
discussions on other matters. I think I have been first to say
that there may be areas we agree or disagree with you, but
follow the law, which is basically what I have said to every
Attorney General, Republican or Democratic administrations
since I was here. I am worried about another area.
Our right to vote is under assault in dozens of States. You
would think you are back in the old Jim Crow era to see some of
the bills that come up. And trying to find a path to
reintroduce an act, a bipartisan John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act. I want to restore the Department's
preclearance powers, but that could take time. In the meantime,
you now have Kristen Clarke at the helm of the Civil Rights
Division. What is the Justice Department doing today to combat
voter suppression schemes across the country?
Attorney General Garland. Well, as I said, with respect to
our budget request, we are asking for a considerable expansion
in the number of--in the amount of money for the civil rights
division and which will allow us to hire more attorneys. But on
the specific question we are reviewing, as you would expect,
allegations that come in with respect to voting. Voting is a
fundamental element of our democracy.
In fact, without it, without the right to vote, none of the
other rights follow. And it was the founding purpose of the
Justice Department during Reconstruction to ensure the right to
vote of newly freed African-Americans who were under militant
attack to prevent them from voting. And the Voting Rights Act
in the 60s reaffirmed that concern and that is very much
present on our mind now.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. And I think you expect that
Senator Shaheen, and I will continue to work with you on the
Crime Victims Fund. You should also feel free if things come up
in there, do not appear that the funds are coming the way you
thought, let the two of us know.
Attorney General Garland. We will. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Leahy. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Attorney General, for being with us today. I am the Ranking
Member on the Senate Appropriations Committee for Homeland
Security, and I followed closely CISA's work to respond to and
mitigate cyber breaches and the ransomware attacks.
FBI Director Wray recently compares current ransomware
threat to the threats of 9/11. And there is some debate from
both Congress and the White House as to whether or not to ban
outright--to ban private companies from paying ransom when they
become victims of cyber-attacks. As you know, this is an issue
that we not just face here in the United States, but globally.
So I asked the same question yesterday, wondering from the
Secretary of State, and I would like to hear your perspective.
Are you working with our allies diplomatically to try in, you
know, in your--as chief law enforcement officer in other
countries to try to figure out how we may stop this, be
prevented from happening again, and where you see this going in
the next near future?
Attorney General Garland. I will start with the bottom
question, which is not a happy answer, which is this is getting
worse and worse, and we have to do everything we possibly can
here. This is a very, very serious threat. You know, we saw
what can happen with respect to a pipeline, with respect to a
food processing company. You can imagine what could happen if
we had multiple attacks at the same time on more--even more
fundamental infrastructure.
So I am very worried about it. And so is the
administration. And that is why we have asked for such a large
increase in our cyber budget. That is also why the
administration has stood up a full process on this question in
the National Security Council. And that is why the Justice
Department has put up its own cyber security task force and
particularly focusing on ransomware. And as you acknowledge, we
have already had one pretty significant success. One
significant success is not really going to be enough.
This has to be a constant, you know, just the constant
focus. And in each future year, it is going to be require more
money. I think we have the right amount of money now, but fair
warning, we are going to be coming back for more money after
this. And the other question, specific question you asked about
diplomatic, yes. So one advantage or one advantage of a sad
situation of the pandemic is that I am able to meet with
Attorneys General and home secretaries without having to travel
to many different countries. And in my first few weeks, that is
what I did. And I met with our four closest allies, and I also
met with the E.U., each of the EU members. And I also
communicated by telephone separately with a number of our
allies on this question among others. So this is top of mind, I
assure you.
Senator Capito. Well, we certainly want to be extremely
supportive of you and your efforts of Homeland Security as well
and the Department of State, because I think what you have told
us is what we all feel, that we are very, very concerned about
this. I am going to switch topics here. Since the passage of
the Fix NICS Act, which I was a proud co-sponsor of, we have
seen continuous increases in the number of background checks
run through the NICS system. In fact, this year we have seen
record breaking numbers of checks run with some months reaching
over 4 million.
Those background checks were done, and Senator Manchin and
I, in our home State of West Virginia. We are very proud of the
effort that we are doing there and the way we are contributing.
What steps will your Department take to support the NICS system
and ensure that we are enforcing background check laws that are
already on the books? And what are the funding needs--from time
to time, we have really up the funding. Here is that--I looked
through your things to see if there was something about that in
your budget request. And I would invite you to visit the
facility in West Virginia. It is quite something to see.
Attorney General Garland. Just trying to get the number for
the NICS system. So first of all, you are absolutely right,
this is essential to the fight against violent crime and
against gun violence. We have to keep guns away from people who
are legally not permitted to have guns, which is the purpose of
this system. And also, of course, it helps us to, when a bad
event occurs, find if somebody has violated the law in
obtaining a gun.
So included in the anti-gun violence programs are State and
local grants of $421 million, including NICS, which is an
increase in 62 percent. So your concern about this is the same
as our concern. Couldn't be more in line.
Senator Capito. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator
Manchin. We are going to West Virginia, all at the same time
here.
Senator Manchin. All the way. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chairman. And thank you, Attorney General, for your service.
Intelligence reports prior to January 6 warned Capitol Police
that supporters of President Trump were actively promoting
violence and targeting Congress itself. The Department of
Homeland Security specifically notifying Capitol Police that
they had identified a map of the Capitol Tunnel system and
online messages between stopped Stop The Steal supporters and
the FBI field office. And Norfolk also warned the Capitol
Police.
But however, the Capitol Police Inspector General also
found a lack of consensus among key officials about whether
these reports indicate a specific known threats. As you both
know, it is impossible to prepare to respond unless--without
much reliable information as possible. So my question would be,
in your position so far, do you feel both your Departments have
been sufficiently receiving and relaying threat information
with each of the other Federal Departments?
We seem to have a disconnect and sometimes that is very
costly, as we have seen. And then a follow up would be, how do
we increase the coordination within the Federal Government to
respond more quickly?
Attorney General Garland. Well, I can imagine, since I
think I was nominated on January 7, that January 6 is very
sharply engraved on my mind. I think the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Justice, which are the two
principal Departments for this purpose, are very well lashed up
now. We have joint task forces along this whole area, and the
National Security Council has engaged both of us in the
involvement in the assessment of the domestic violent extremist
threat. So, you know, there will always be problems, but I am
reasonably confident that we won't have a problem like that
again.
Now, with respect to the Capitol Police and our
relationship with them, to be honest, I am not--I don't know
enough to know about that. This has certainly raised that
issue. And I will go back again and speak with the FBI Director
on exactly how that has been done. But I think there is no
excuse at this point for that kind of clear connection not to
be made.
Senator Manchin. Do you know how many people have been
arrested to date?
Attorney General Garland. Do I know how many you have?
Senator Manchin. Do you have a figure on that?
Attorney General Garland. Like off the top of my head,
within some margin of error it is about 456, something like
that.
Senator Manchin. And how--do you----
Attorney General Garland. And there will be many. There
will be more. I don't want--I was about to say many. I want to
say that. You know, we have a very good method of finding the
additional people who are inside the Capitol, and I would call
it crowdsourcing, thanks to the omnipresent videos that
everybody took. And even private citizens have posted.
Senator Manchin. How many prosecutions we had so far?
Attorney General Garland. We have charged 400.
Senator Manchin. Has anyone been sentenced?
Attorney General Garland. I don't think anybody has been
sentenced. I think there has been one or two pleas so far and
the other ones are all pending.
Senator Manchin. On March 29, 2020, coronavirus aid,
relief, and economic security, or the CARES Act was signed into
law and provided $2 trillion economic relief to help Americans
cope with the economic impact. Among other things, the CARES
Act originally authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable
loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other
expenses to PPP payroll protection program.
While the loans help millions of struggling businesses stay
afloat during the pandemic, it also provide a unique
opportunity for creative fraudsters to take advantage of
Federal Government's generous terms. So I would go down quickly
to say I think you know where I am going with this. And if you
can explain to me how we are doing on that, because I have--
some of the numbers I have seen has been unbelievable.
That $250 million in taxpayer subsidized loans, funds to
give to potentially ineligible recipients, then we had,
according to a report there were $1.9 million in pending SBA
transactions made to accounts outside the United States,
another 3,000 suspicious transactions were $73 million that
were flagged by financial institutions. Can you give me an
update of where we are on that?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So this is a circumstance
that I saw even coming in, even before the reports. Seemed
obvious that, you know, my last go around in the Justice
Department had to do with health care fraud being one of the
top issues. And we stood up a task force which was very good at
integrating information from all the relevant inspectors
general and from the agencies together with our law enforcement
and our prosecutors. At that time, we didn't have big data to
make these evaluations. Now we do.
And so we have stood up and I have issued a memorandum on
standing up a COVID fraud task force, which has been stood up.
It involves all of the relevant inspector generals from the
different agencies cooperating with each other. It involves all
of our relevant law enforcement agencies on both the Federal
side components, on both the Federal side and the civil side,
and our U.S. attorneys offices. And in our request, there is a
$41.3 million request for new funding for the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Criminal Division and for the Civil Division,
for specifically for COVID fraud.
So I would say, maybe this is a bad metaphor, but this is a
target rich environment. There is a lot of that fraud that
happened in the past that we are going to go after. You have
already probably seen our reports of major takedowns with
respect. And we are hoping that this will be a deterrent of
future fraud.
Senator Manchin. The money--let me just finish up real
quick. The money that you all received, retracked back for the
United States, does that go to the Treasury or does it go back
into circulation so we can get it to the people who need it the
most?
Attorney General Garland. That is--my question is, I guess
following up with Senator Shaheen's question is does that go
really into the Crime Victims Fund, might be a good way to ask
that question. Do you we have the answer?
Senator Manchin. Can you maybe--that is okay if you don't
have it.
Attorney General Garland. We will look into that. But the
bottom line is, before it even goes into that fund, the first
thing is restitution, and restitution to the specific companies
or individuals who were defrauded as a private fraud. Yes.
Senator Manchin. Right. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Manchin. And Mr.
Attorney General, we are having a little trouble hearing you.
Maybe you can pull the mic closer. You have to really speak
directly into the mic.
Attorney General Garland. Oh, I am sorry. Do you want me to
start all over?
Senator Shaheen. Maybe not. Alright. Thank you, Senator
Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Attorney General. The website Pro Publica has indicated that it
has, ``obtained a vast trove of IRS data on the tax returns of
thousands of the Nation's wealthiest people.'' The publication
is not disclosing how it obtained the data. So we don't know
whether the source for these materials was outside of the
Federal Government or within the Federal Government. But we can
be certain of one thing.
These highly confidential personal documents were obtained
illegally. Any taxpayers should be guaranteed that their
privacy will be protected when they provide information and
file their returns with the IRS. As we saw during Watergate,
there is an incredible danger to private citizens and the
credibility of the Federal Government if information is used
for political or other purposes. Anything short of the highest
degree of privacy protection for taxpayers' information could
cause them to be far less willing to provide the information
that is required by the IRS for full compliance.
Does the Department of Justice have any information about
the origin of this breach and what steps is the Department
taking to investigate, identify, and apprehend those
responsible?
Attorney General Garland. Senator, I take this as seriously
as you do. I very well remember what President Nixon did in the
Watergate period, the creation of enemies lists and the
punishment of people through reviewing their tax returns. This
is an extremely serious matter. People are entitled, obviously,
to the greatest privacy with respect to their tax returns. To
be honest, I know nothing more than about this than what I read
in the Pro Publica piece, which I also read and was astonished.
Now, what I did read in that piece was that the Director of
the IRS is on it. And he said that their inspectors were
working on it. And I am sure that that means it will be
referred to the Justice Department. And when I--this was on my
list of things to raise after I finished preparing for this
hearing, and I promise you will be at the top of my list.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I am glad to hear that. The
second issue that I want to raise with you are reports that I
am hearing from police departments all over the country that
they are having great difficulties in retaining and recruiting
police officers. And in every single case where I have talked
to police officers and police chiefs, they say that it is due
to the fact that there has been this vilification of law
enforcement rather than trying to strengthen and improve
practices of police departments and that the ill-conceived
defund the police movement has also led to significant
problems. And this isn't just in our largest cities.
We are seeing difficulties with recruitment and retention
in rural Maine. For example, Van Buren, Maine, a small
community in Northern Maine, has completely disbanded its
police department because they can't hire officers. The town of
Fort Kent, Maine, which has about 4,000 people and last year
responded to 5,000 different calls, can't get enough officers
and is considering disbanding its department as well.
And at the same time in large cities, not fortunately in
Maine, we are seeing an increase in crime, a substantial
increase. Do you personally believe that efforts to vilify
rather than improve our police departments, including the
defund the police movement, have contributed to these
recruitment and retention problems?
Attorney General Garland. Senator, no one could look at the
Justice Department budget that we put in front of you and think
the Justice Department supports defunding the police. We have
asked for, with respect to our grant programs, $651 million for
the COPS program, which is a $265 million increase. This
includes $537 million specifically for cops hiring, which is a
$300 million increase. Likewise for the Byrne JAG grants, we
have asked for $513.5 million, which is a $29.5 million
increase. So no, as President Biden has made absolutely clear,
we are not asking to defund the police.
Now, a lot of what we are doing in addition to supporting
hiring, is trying to support trust building between communities
and police departments. Not to vilify anyone, but as I said in
previous testimony, for police to do their work well and
safely, they need to have the trust of the community and the
community needs to have trust in the police department that
their civil rights will be protected. This includes
accountability for police officers who violate constitutional
rights, but it does not have anything to do with vilifying
whole departments or anything like that.
The Justice Department has a responsibility under the
statutes provided by Congress to pursue investigations where we
believe constitutional rights have been violated. And we have
announced, I think, two of those. And we also have
responsibility to do pattern or practice investigations to
determine whether there are police departments that have a
pattern or practice of unconstitutional behavior. But that is a
completely different question than where we are--than you are
asking about.
Senator Collins. Right.
Attorney General Garland. These are two--you can hold both
of these in your hands at the same time and not be inconsistent
with each other.
Senator Collins. But let me be very clear, I was not
suggesting that the administration or the President or you were
part of this effort. But the fact is it exists. And I know your
efforts are to improve policing. And I am a strong supporter of
the COPS program. In fact, I worked on it with the President
years ago and the Byrne Justice Department grants. But I was
trying to get your personal opinion on whether this effort,
which you are not a part of, is contributing to the recruitment
and the retention problems that are being experienced all over
the country.
Attorney General Garland. I have to say the answer to that
question requires data that I just don't have. Requires all
kinds of survey data, and I really don't--anecdotally, I have
heard some things like you are saying, but I really don't have
any data that I can confidently give you an answer to.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Collins. Before we go
to Senator Reid, Senator Moran has--would like to make a
correction for the record.
Senator Moran. I think--thank you, Chairman. I think in my
question to the Attorney General, I indicated the death of
Judge Esther Salas rather than the death of her son. And if I
did that, I want to make clear that I would like the record to
reflect the tragedy that has occurred and have that stated in
the factual basis.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator. We will make
sure that that correction is made. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank your
Attorney General for not only being here, but for your service.
Recently, we have observed an alarming increase of incidents on
aircraft regulated--commercial aircraft regulated by the FAA.
In fact, 2,500 reports this year about 20 times the average
number, some of them involving very violent attacks on flight
attendants and also indications that TSA agents are also being
subject to abuse, to insult, and to worse. Can you discuss what
DOJ's involvement may be in these cases? Are you prioritizing
what incidents should be taken directly into the Federal
attorney for prosecution, or are you allowing them to remain
with the FAA?
Attorney General Garland. So this is a good question as to
which I don't know the complete answer. So assaults on these--I
read the same about the assaults on those planes. They are
extraordinarily dangerous, even if not intended to bring the
plane down. You can imagine the kind of pandemonium on planes
that we have seen in some of these videos that people have
taken that can cause an incredibly dangerous accident. So we
take them extremely seriously. The States have authority over
these matters.
To be honest, I am not sure whether it is the State they
fly over or the State they land on. There is a conflicts of law
question, which I think I may have skipped that course in law
school, but there is clearly a State authority here. And I
think most of these cases end up that way. But it is also a
Federal crime to commit an assault like that on interstate
commerce of the kind that we are talking about.
I will go back and look more carefully to see whether TSA
or FAA has referred any--what they referred us to here. But
these strike me not as things for the FAA. These are not
administrative matters, these are criminal matters.
Senator Reed. Thank you. You indicated quite accurately
that there are major threats of domestic violent extremist,
homegrown violent extremists, and international extremists, and
they are all using to coordinate social media encrypted
transmissions. What tools and authorities and resources do you
need to combat these terrorist groups and their use of social
media and other forms of encrypted coordination?
Attorney General Garland. Well, this also a very also a
very hard question. You are very good at asking me very hard
questions. The problem is severe because people talking on
social media can incite people up to radicalization. This is
what we all fear. And we have we have seen this in the in the
foreign terrorist circumstance where people are, you know,
watching jihadist websites that eventually move them and much
more swiftly than ever before from mere involvement and
interest to radicalization to action.
We expect that the same is likely to occur with respect to
domestic violent extremism, although likely different websites.
But maybe not even. And this is a matter of serious concern. So
where there is a threat of violence, where we have predication,
a reasonable articulation, the bureau can go in and look at
what is happening and find out what it can find out. And of
course, as this escalates, the bureau has other mechanisms of
doing the same. The reason I say it is a hard question as one I
am sure you know, it is the First Amendment. And the question
is, what do we do in earlier stages of this where there isn't
yet violence, there is the kind of talk that maybe could lead
to it.
And this is a very hard problem. And I know that the
Judiciary Committee and this subcommittee have asked us to
think about what more tools we might need. And we are thinking
about that. And certainly our experience on the January 6
investigation will help us make those decisions. But in every
case, we have to worry about the First Amendment issue on the
other side and not making it difficult for people to say
things, even hateful things, because even that kind of speech
is protected.
Senator Reed. Just as a suggestion. You don't have to
comment on this. There might be an opportunity for Information
Literacy Commission that could design programs where people
become more aware of the disinformation rather than what they
believe is true information. And that could be an effective way
to counter some of these problems. But thank you very much,
Jim.
Attorney General Garland. I appreciate the suggestion.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you so
much for being here. We do appreciate your work. I am like
Senator Moran, I have got to run in a second and go to Veterans
Affairs. But I did want to follow up on Senator Collins
question in regard to the seriousness of the breach of the IRS.
And we have had other breaches there in the past. You know, it
could have been somebody there. It could have been a hack. We
don't know what has happened at all. They are talking about
significantly lowering the reporting threshold, $10,000,
significantly lower than that.
Based on the fact that we have had problems in the past
regarding hacking, other issues, and then two, the pipeline
issue, the packing plant issue. Does it seem like a good idea
to centralize that much information in an agency? Right now if
you have an interest or the IRS has an interest, they can
contact the local bank.
But to pour through so much data and then be responsible
for that data and be able to secure that, that is a huge job
for the Federal Government and one that we don't do a very good
job of. So could you comment on that?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. Just particularly to respond
on the suspicious transaction reports, I believe, and I will
come back if I am wrong about this, I think we have a recent
prosecution of somebody who leaked the information with respect
to that matter. So it gives you an idea of how seriously we
take this. On the bigger question, look this is the conundrum
that the digital age has brought us to. We can distribute
information and keep it on paper.
And that is the perfect solution to hacking, if there is
never a connection to the Internet. But it also means we can't
use the information in a way that is useful for tracking
terrorist behavior, for tracking child exploitation, for
tracking espionage, for tracking bribery. And that is why we
have the special transaction reports, so that it makes it
easier for us, maybe even possible for us to do that.
And I know that, I think I saw that the Treasury Department
is suggesting something like that for cryptocurrency, which may
also be essential as an ability to continue this particular
instance we saw with the ransomware circumstance that is the
way in which it is being paid.
So, you know, my view would be we need to strengthen our
cyber security, maybe keep systems separate. But the idea of
distributing them in a way that we can't access them in some
central way, that means it would be very difficult for us to
make the kind of use that you want to, you know, to put to this
very important information. So it is--the subcommittee here is
filled with hard questions. This is a really hard question, and
it puts two different principles which are dear to us in
conflict sometimes.
Senator Boozman. Right. Well, thank you very much. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Boozman. Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am very
interested in hate crimes and there has been a very sharp
increase in violence committed against Asian-Americans since
the pandemic began. One database included over 2,800 reports of
anti-Asian discrimination in the last 9 months of 2020.
And the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at
California State University, San Bernardino found that Asian
hate crimes increased by approximately 150 percent last year.
So the question is, what is the Department doing to address
these hate crimes against Asian-Americans and how can we help
support your efforts?
Attorney General Garland. Well, I appreciate the question.
One of the very first acts I took after becoming Attorney
General--I am sorry, after becoming Attorney General was to ask
for a 30 day review of this problem with respect to Asian-
Americans and Pacific Islanders. And that that report has come
back to me. And we have announced the establishment of a hate
crime task force. As that report was coming back, the Congress
passed the Hate Crimes Act, the two Hate Crimes Act, which were
combined, which had a number of requests for the Department to
do. We have accomplished all of the things that Congress asked
us to do. And we put out an announcement.
We have established a hate crimes coordinator in the
Associate Attorney General's office, Deputy Associate Attorney
General whose job will be to coordinate civil and criminal side
law enforcement in this area, because most of the hate crime
law enforcement comes from the Civil Rights Division, which is
on under the supervision of the associate Attorney General. We
have established in the civil rights division the chief of the
criminal civil rights section, as the, I would say, expediters
the best word.
This was a requirement of the Hate Crimes Act to make sure
that the U.S. Attorney's Offices and the Department as a whole
are expediting our response to hate crimes. We are
establishing--we have established a language service in the
Department because this is obviously a very important part of
that. And we have in this particular, in this request for hate
crimes response training grants, at $9 million, which is an
increase of $4 million over fiscal year 2022. So we take this
very seriously. And you are absolutely right. There is a
serious increase in hate crimes across the board.
Senator Feinstein. Good. As you probably know, the Center
for the Study of Hate and Extremist at California State
University, San Bernardino, found that Asian hate crimes have
increased by 150 in this country. And I believe we can't
tolerate this. So whatever we can do to be helpful to you, I
would be most happy to participate in. Let me move to the next
question.
Justice introduced model legislation for extreme risk laws.
The model is very similar to legislation that I have
introduced, which is called the Extreme Risk Protection Order
Act, which would give grants to States to help them create and
implement extreme risk laws. I think these are really important
tools that empower family members and law enforcement to ask
courts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people found
to be dangerous. We have 19 States and the District of Columbia
that have extreme risk laws now on the books.
Can you explain why the Department, I agree with this,
believes extreme risk laws can help reduce gun violence? And
what would you tell us today about the need to pass legislation
on this issue?
Attorney General Garland. Right. So this--actually we just
did this. What you are referring to, I think, was just maybe 2
days ago or 3 days ago, I signed a memorandum in connection
with the other rulemaking with respect to stabilizing armed
braces at the beginning of this week. These are model extreme
risk laws the States can adopt. We have in this budget $40
million of grants which can be used by States for this purpose.
The idea is, as you eloquently put it, is to make sure that
people who are in extreme risk, either to themselves or to
their loved ones, have the guns taken away temporarily while
the matter is adjudicated.
And if a judge concludes that is a risk, to keep the gun
away for some specific amount of time specified in the State
statutes. There are--you know, as we sadly know, gun deaths can
occur when people and extremists--mental issues for themselves
or personal crises put the gun on themselves or put the gun on
somebody else. And we want to alleviate that cause of a
terrible tragedy by both protecting the gun owners' due process
rights but protecting the potential community victims from the
risk of death.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much. I am very
concerned about this. I come from a big State, and it is many
different people. I have seen a database included over 2,800
reports of anti-Asian discrimination in the last 9 months of
2020. So I would hope that your Department of Justice would be
particularly sensitive right now about anti-Asian hate crimes,
because I think the increase of 150 percent has been quite
dramatic.
Attorney General Garland. I quite agree with you and that
is why I have spoken to a number of Pacific Islanders and
Asian-American groups already.
Senator Feinstein. Good. And if there is anything we can do
to be helpful, very--oh, my time is up.
Senator Shaheen. Yes. Thank you very much, Senator
Feinstein. We will take Senator Coons, then we will take a
brief break because we think we have a couple of Members on
their way back. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Great. Thank you, Chairwoman Shaheen. Thank
you, Attorney General Garland, for joining us again and for
your regular engagement with the Senate. In Delaware, the New
Castle County Police Department and the Christiana Care Health
System have jointly stood up a behavioral health unit that
pairs mental health professionals with local law enforcement to
respond to individuals going through a mental health crisis.
And I have heard from elected officials, community advocates,
and law enforcement leaders across the country, they would
welcome these kind of correspondent models that allow for a
more appropriately trained and equipped response to individuals
going through mental health crises.
Can you speak to the value of these models, the impact they
have in benefitting communities and improving police community
relations, and what sorts of investments you see making in
providing better access to these kinds of models going forward?
Attorney General Garland. You are exactly right. You know,
sometimes we have crises that arise because the wrong people
are responding. Police officers often are not equipped in terms
of their experience and even their equipment to deal with a
person who is having a problem--it is really not a criminal or
violence problem, but a question of instability.
And these can get out of hand. And police officers would
like to have the assistance of mental health professionals in
the co-responder circumstance that you are talking about, and
this is better for the community and in the end, for the person
in crisis. So we couldn't agree more.
Our funding includes requests for grants, $40 million,
which is $5 million increase for mental health collaborations,
and $10 million, which is a $2.5 million increase for training
to improve police based responses to people with mental
illness.
Senator Coons. So do you think that is a sufficient
investment given the scope of the need? Has there been a
thorough assessment of how many different communities and how
many different public health serving agencies and law
enforcement agencies might benefit from this kind of model?
Attorney General Garland. So I think this, like, you know,
many others of these kind of innovative interventions are works
in progress and we have to evaluate them to see how they work.
We want an evidence based approach that does work. And so this
is, I think, a sufficient amount for us to get seriously
involved in this, and then next year maybe I will come back and
ask for more money.
Senator Coons. My hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, and
many other cities, both large and small across the country, has
seen a significant rise in violent crime in recent years. I
note the proposal of $100 million for a new community violence
intervention initiative. We have a group violence intervention
program to try and interrupt violence before it accelerates in
Wilmington. I am wondering if you can describe in any more
detail how you intend to implement this program and what sort
of coordination it might include with other Federal agencies.
Attorney General Garland. So this is a new program, and it
has several possible approaches. I think that the Office of
Justice Programs will have to figure out exactly what the best
way, what kind of incentives to give and what kind of programs
to give grants to. It is everything from proven violence
interrupters, people who have been out on the street trying to
get gangs to conciliate, to put down their guns, to hospital
based intervention, where the interrupters go to visit somebody
who has been shot and is in the hospital and try to conciliate
and persuade them not to take vengeance and persuade their
relatives not to take vengeance.
So there are a series of these different methods of
interruption, and many have been very successful. So, you know,
as with all of our programs, we are going to try and give
grants to those that have been shown successful and then to use
those as examples to hold out for others to fulfill, and when
they meet those requirements, they get the grants as well.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I look forward to following up
with you and with the Office of Justice Programs around these
initiatives, as well as initiatives to expand access to body
worn cameras in State and local law enforcement. I was
encouraged to see the announcement you would mandate Federal
law enforcement to wear body worn cameras. And I was encouraged
to see a significant increase in the request for the Victims of
Child Abuse Act programing and a new task force to combat
trafficking and corruption in the Northern Triangle and Mexico.
And look forward to working with you on all these different
aspects of your budget proposal.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you. We appreciate that.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Coons. As I announced,
we will have a 10 minute break. But if I could just ask,
Senator Murkowski has requested a clarification on an earlier
question before we break because she is not able to stay. So,
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Madam Chairman, thank you. And, Mr.
Attorney General, thank you for the work that you are doing and
your responses today. When Senator Shaheen had led her
questioning with regards to the VOCA funds and a concern that
we are seeing additional demand on those funds, certainly in
Alaska we are. The increase to calls to the sexual assault
hotlines have increased by 52 percent since the beginning of
the pandemic. Shelters are experiencing overwhelming amounts of
strain.
And that 30 some odd organizations that we have in our
State are facing this 35 percent cut to their VOCA funds, which
is absolutely frightening everybody. But, as we look at the
President's budget with a $2.65 billion cap for the funds, in
2019, fiscal year 2019, Congress put the VOCA cap at $3.5
billion. We have talked--we understand the structural issues
relating to the deposit fund. We are going to--we are trying to
address this through legislation.
That is absolutely what has to happen. But in any case,
what we have is this decreasing cap is going to impact the
effect on the ground for victim services, if not for this year
then absolutely for next year. So you have said to the chairman
that there was $400 million surplus that you anticipate at the
end of the year. The way I understand----
Attorney General Garland. At the end of 2022.
Senator Murkowski. At the end of 2022. Excuse me. Yes. At
the end of 2022. But if I understand what we have coming into
the fund versus the outlays, that will result in decreases, if
again, not necessarily this year, next year, the next fiscal
year. So I just want to make sure that we are not operating
under the assumption that, in fact, we are going to be okay in
this next fiscal year. Because right now, I think all the
victim services in my State, and I think Senator Shaheen in
yours are just desperately afraid of these cuts that are
coming.
And so I want to understand whether or not we are--whether
there is any flexibility with additional funding that could be
used to supplement so we don't have this hit again at a really
difficult time for so many that are providing these important
and vital services to victims of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and the like.
Attorney General Garland. I completely agree that the
bigger this fund, the better, because there is in many ways an
unending demand and appropriately so. Just to clarify what I
said about the money, as of April, we have collected sufficient
receipts to cover all the way through fiscal year 2022, fiscal
year 2021 and 2022. We expect to end this fiscal year with $3
billion, which will cover the $2.6 billion request. That is
where my $400 million net at the end of that time comes from.
Obviously, we would like to have a higher amount at the end,
but the way we are now, that would require taking less money
out of the fund, which is the opposite of what you want.
Senator Murkowski. Right, that is not where we want to go.
Yes.
Attorney General Garland. Right. So I think that I am not
an expert budgeteer, but it seems to me that what we need is to
be able to put more money into this fund, which means
expanding, the maybe in expanding the kind of crimes that flow
into it, but also you know the prosecutors in the Justice
Department need to take more attention to getting restitution
that goes into this fund and not to be satisfied with other
kinds of, you know, pleas, for example. So I don't know--it is
hard to say that as an across the board question, but that is
the best I can do at this point.
Senator Murkowski. I think we are all trying to get to the
same place, which is we don't want to see these significant
cuts to our victims services. We have got to address
legislatively, I think the construct of the VOCA funds. We will
work on that but----
Attorney General Garland. Let me ask my team to work with
you.
Senator Murkowski. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Attorney General Garland. I think this is very important.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
attention. And thank you for letting me jump in before the
break.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Senator Murkowski. As we
promised, the witness will now take a 10 minute break.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. I will now call the CJS hearing back to
order, and call on Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Can
you hear me?
Attorney General Garland. I can. Thank you.
Senator Graham. Welcome, Mr. General. I think Senator Coons
was mentioning some ideas about having some resources outside
of traditional policing to deal with mental health issues.
Didn't you all have a discussion about that, I think?
Attorney General Garland. We did.
Senator Graham. Count me in. I would like to help in that
regard. So last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was the
Chairman, reported a bill out of the Committee, 13 to 9, that
waived sovereign immunity, allowing Americans to sue China in
Federal court. You have to prove causation and all the normal
rules have to be followed for damage done by the coronavirus.
Do you support that idea?
Attorney General Garland. I have to say, I am not familiar
with the bill, I am sorry.
Senator Graham. I am going to send it to you. I would urge
you to get back with me sooner rather than later. Do you agree
with me if, in fact, this was a lab leak, the source of the
virus came out of a Chinese lab because of negligence, China
should pay somebody?
Attorney General Garland. I really don't--I don't know
enough about this. I know that the Government is beginning to
evaluate that--reevaluate that----
Senator Graham. I am just giving you a hypothetical. If the
Chinese government, lied about the origins of the coronavirus
and it, in fact, came from a lab leak in Wuhan, which they
denied, do you agree that they should be held accountable and
compensate the world in some fashion for the damage they have
done?
Attorney General Garland. I think this is a diplomatic
issue and an issue for the State Department and the Executive
branch. I don't think----
Senator Graham. But you don't see a legal----
Attorney General Garland. The way you put it, which you
asked whether they should compensate the world in some manner,
I think that doesn't fit in my----
Senator Graham. Okay. That can be diplomatic, but we
allowed victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia and other countries
for their part, any part they may have played in 9/11. Do you
think that model should be allowed for China?
Attorney General Garland. Again, I think this is a policy
question for the diplomats. I am just a poor lawyer.
Senator Graham. Okay, alright. So I do believe there is a
crime wave in the United States regarding violent crime.
Attorney General Garland. I think there is a serious,
significant rise in major violent crime beginning last year.
Yes, I do.
Senator Graham. Thank you. That shortened up these
questions. You are dead right. Atlanta is 59 percent increase
in homicides, Chicago, 56, Houston, 42, Portland, 800 percent,
L.A. County, 127 percent--Atlanta, 63 percent. The numbers are
pretty staggering. What do you think has caused that?
Attorney General Garland. I know better, having lived
through several crime waves, as both of us have, and both of us
know that figuring out exactly what has caused a particularly
a----
Senator Graham. Is it possible that some of the rhetoric
about defunding the police and actually reducing police
capability has created some of the problems?
Attorney General Garland. Just don't know. There are a lot
of factors here, of course, the biggest one being the pandemic
and I just don't know at this point how to----
Senator Graham. So you think the pandemics is more of a
root cause than declaring war on the police?
Attorney General Garland. No, sir, I don't know. I honestly
don't know.
Senator Graham. Do you think that is a possibility that we
have gone too far in reducing police capability? Is that a
possibility?
Attorney General Garland. I think I gave the answer to
Senator Collins, and I give the same one, which I think it is,
this Justice Department, this administration does not believe
in defunding the police. We believe in supporting the police.
We also believe that community policing is very important. And
developing trust between the community and the police
Department is essential to stop violent crime. And we also
think that includes holding police accountable who violate----
Senator Graham. I agree with all that.
Attorney General Garland. I know you do.
Senator Graham. I do want to work with you on police
reform. But I guess, it is pretty obvious to me that there has
been a push back to this defunding the police. It hasn't
worked. That the effort to marginalize police forces has gone
too far. And I think we are seeing the results of that. And if
we don't change our rhetoric, in some parts of the country it
is going to get worse. Let's talk a little bit about
immigration. In the end of 2020, we had an historic 45 year low
of illegal crossings into this country. Now we have historic
highs of illegal crossings in this country. What do you think
has happened in the last 6 months?
Attorney General Garland. Well, once again, you are asking
me a question I am no expert on. But there was a pandemic, and
that makes a difference in this area. I am not willing to
ascribe the difference to the pandemic, and I don't know the
answer. There are a lot of factors going on here.
Senator Graham. How many asylum claim backlogs do we have?
Attorney General Garland. We have 1.5 million backlogs in
the immigration courts as of the day I took office.
Senator Graham. Would you agree with me that the asylum
system in this country is completely broken?
Attorney General Garland. I would agree that the
immigration system as a whole is broken.
Senator Graham. I am talking about asylum in general.
Attorney General Garland. I don't know. We are evaluating
how we deal with asylum now.
Senator Graham. Well, how can you have a system where you
have 1.5 million backlog in cases--you now have a catch and
release program regarding asylum. It seems to me that it is
beyond broken. Do you agree that we should revisit our asylum
policies?
Attorney General Garland. I think we need to get the
backlog down. The backlog is from the preceding years, not from
the new administration. I totally agree we need to get the
backlog down. We need to streamline our processes.
Senator Graham. And I don't mean to belabor the point, but
the backlog is not the only problem. You are going to have a
million and a half more if you don't change catch and release.
Thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Graham. I have--I would
like to do a second round, and I know Senator Moran is
interested in that as well. It has recently been disclosed that
the previous administration's Justice Department seized phone
records of reporters with The New York Times and The Washington
Post, and the phone and email logs for a CNN reporter.
This is particularly salient for me, having just returned
from Ukraine and Georgia, where I met with reporters from Radio
Free Europe and Radio Liberty who talked about the challenges
they are facing in Belarus and Russia because of efforts to
threaten reporters so that they won't do their jobs and
actually provide information to the public. So I understand
that the Department is no longer going to cease journalist's
records when conducting leak investigations.
And I would just ask, do you commit to ensuring freedom of
the press and can you tell us what policies are in place or you
expect to be in place to ensure that there are no additional
efforts to seize phone and email records of journalists unless
they are involved in legitimate criminal concern?
Attorney General Garland. So this is a very important
issue. The President has made clear his view about the First
Amendment, and it coincides with mine. It is vital to the
functioning of our democracy and that extends to the need for
journalists to be able to go about their work disclosing
wrongdoing in the Government. That is part of how you get faith
in a democracy, is by having that level of transparency. What
you were talking about, these were decisions that were made
under a set of policies that have lasted.
I don't--I am not casting blame when I want to be clear, as
these were under a set of policies that have existed for
decades that continuously with each new administration,
ratcheted up greater protections. But going forward, we have
adopted a policy which is the most protective of journalist's
ability to do their jobs in history. And it is, as you
describe, that we will not use compulsory process in leak
investigations to require reporters to provide information
about their sources when they are doing their job as reporters.
That is going to be our policy. I am meeting with people within
the Department.
It has been reported that I will be meeting with people
outside the Department, so I will leave that aside for right
now, in order to figure out--but that is the basic policy that
will be issued in some kind of memorandum, obviously, from me.
You have a good point, which is in developing this policy, we
have to distinguish between reporters doing their jobs and
reporters committing crimes unrelated to the leaking--unrelated
to the leaking. So there are some definitional questions, but I
think they are quite resolvable and that is going to be our
task over the next few weeks.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much. I want to
follow up on Senator Graham's questions about the backlog in
our immigration courts. And I have a question first, which is
more a clarification, because I was surprised there wasn't a
budget request for the Legal Orientation Program. As you know,
this is a program that provides basic legal information and
explanations of court proceedings to those who are going
through immigration courts. Can you tell me if the Department
plans to continue this program and what the funding level will
be?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. Included in our request for
the Executive Office of Immigration Review, $22.5 million would
continue to support that Office's legal orientation program,
which LOPS which thinks is what you are referring to. And in
addition, we have requested $15 million--there will be $15
million for a new pilot to provide access to legal
representation for immigrant children. So you have our
commitment that we are going to be continuing this process up
to the--obviously up to the amount of money that is provided by
the Congress.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much. Having worked
with Senator Moran several years ago when there was an effort
within the Department of Justice to eliminate that program, I
think it is very important that it continue. Given that the
immigration courts are not independent, like the Federal court
system, there are a lot of organizations like the Federal Bar
Association who have argued that they should become Article 1
courts. Do you support leaving them the way they are or would
you advocate to make them a separate system?
Attorney General Garland. This is an issue that I haven't
thought about, with respect to the sort of the way in which to
structure this. I do think that the court should be as
independent as possible. I understand that was the reason in
All Land Security Act that they were taken away from INS,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, which went to Homeland
Security, and the courts were left with the Justice Department.
At one point they were all together at the Justice
Department. And that was an effort for security--for
independence. And I believe that immigration judges should be
left alone to do their work. And they are, of course, subject
to review. The question of whether they should be Article 1
courts and completely independent is really a question for the
Congress. I would be happy to think more about this, but
obviously that would create even more independence. And so I
just leave it at that. It is an issue of congressional policy.
Senator Shaheen. Well, as you and Senator Graham in your
back and forth, it is very clear that we have a backlog in our
immigration courts. And even though Congress has provided more
money in the last few years, at least since I have been on the
Senate Appropriations Committee, we still have seen that
backlog grow, not diminish. So I am not sure what the answer
is, but I do wonder if we need a fundamentally different
approach. We also need immigration reform, as you pointed out.
So thank you very much. Senator Moran.
Attorney General Garland. As long as we are making
corrections, I have been advised that I kept saying at 1.5
million person--case backlog is actually 1.3 million.
Senator Shaheen. Yes, that is the number I have too. Thank
you for that clarification. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Attorney General, you are very good at
making me feel comfortable having----
Attorney General Garland. Well, I will give you another
correction. I think as soon as I said Hamilton, I think it was
probably Madison, but I will check the Federalist paper that I
was thinking about and get back to you on that.
Senator Moran. That is okay. Nobody is going to know the
answer to that.
Attorney General Garland. Unfortunately, I feel bad about
this. I should know the answer to that.
Senator Moran. General, just a couple more questions, and I
think Senator Shaheen and I will conclude this hearing. I was
on the border--this is perhaps a bit of an immigration issue,
but more drugs, crime, cartels issue. So I was in McAllen,
Texas, not too many weeks ago to see the nature of what is
going on at the border, including the detention of juveniles
and listening to Border Patrol agents. But I also met with law
enforcement officials, Federal law enforcement officials to
talk about the aspect of our borders and the necessity of them
being secure for purposes of avoiding crime, criminal activity,
drug trafficking, narcotics, sexual abuse.
And I just am really concerned about the Mexican cartels. I
think they are probably our greatest drug trafficking threat.
They continue to supply most of the cocaine, methamphetamines,
heroin, fentanyl. I am particularly concerned by the flood of
methamphetamines. We have--this Senate spends lots of time on a
variety of drugs, and I sometimes think methamphetamines is
overlooked as we have moved on to others, other drugs.
But 74 percent of all the drug seizures in Kansas are
methamphetamine. And my question is, can you describe the
threat that you see posed by Mexican cartels, in particular the
cross-border trafficking of drugs? But I also would expand that
question to see if you have any comments that can provide any
knowledge about the terrorism aspect or the espionage aspect of
crossing the border is related to the cartels.
My understanding is the Chinese come to the United States
really at every opportunity to steal our secrets, to ingrain
themselves into our economy, our science, our universities. Is
there knowledge about cartels and relationship with Chinese who
come to infiltrate and steal our secrets and work at NASA and
SpaceX and universities? Are you aware of that?
Attorney General Garland. So I am not aware of, and I don't
mean in any way to suggest that it is not true. I just don't
have any information. I think this is the kind of thing I will
have to get staffed and possibly from the FBI to come back to
you. The connection that I do know about is that precursor
chemicals coming from China are shipped to Mexico and then made
into the narcotics that are then shipped into the United
States. So there is that connection and I think that is pretty
well known. But the question you are asking, I just don't know
the answer.
Senator Moran. Well, perhaps my question, which was overly
wordy, but is really a statement about the need for the
Department of Justice, Federal law enforcement in all arenas to
increase the efforts at the border, to diminish the role that
the cartels, Mexican cartels play in the United States.
Attorney General Garland. I think they are extraordinarily
dangerous. They have lethal weaponry, sometimes exceeds what
the Mexican military has, as we have seen in some of the
shootouts in Mexico.
Senator Moran. Have you had--I can't remember you--I think
you talked about visiting with Attorney Generals from other
countries
Attorney General Garland. With Mexico----
Senator Moran. Including Mexico.
Attorney General Garland. Yes. Yes. And----
Senator Moran. A sense of cooperation.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I agreed on the need for
cooperation. We had a very good talk. Yes.
Senator Moran. My second, I think final question, Madam
Chair, is before your confirmation, you and I spoke just a few
days before, we spoke about the need to ensure that small and
rural law enforcement agencies have a fair shot at DOJ grants.
And in Kansas, a smaller--I just want to highlight this for
you. In Kansas, a smaller rural Department may only have a
handful, two or three or four sworn officers. They don't have
the resources to hire a professional grant writer. They can't
simply take one fifth of their force off the beat without
putting public safety at risk.
I would continue to believe it is essential that the
Department consider ways to ensure that small and rural law
enforcement agencies have access to the funding opportunities
that the Department of Justice provides. And so, General
Garland, I expect you would answer this question yes, but will
you commit to making it a priority within the Office of Justice
Programs and the COPS office to promote access for small, rural
agencies?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, and as I told you in our
conversation, obvious to me, the problem that you point out. If
you have five officers, you don't have anybody who runs the
grant making Department or the grant application Department. We
also have the same problem with respect to small community
organizations that don't have the ability to do funding. And I
think some of the funds we have available now for OJP is to
make it more easy access to applications online. And it seems
to me obvious that we should be able to transfer that kind of
ability for police Departments as well, if that is not already
in the train. But I will look into it for you.
Senator Moran. Thank you. I think when we met on that day,
I asked you if you would agree to come to Kansas and you said
yes. But if I say yes to you, I have to say yes to every other
Senator who asked me. So when no one is listening, I am going
to ask you again.
Attorney General Garland. That is fair. I--the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of--for the Justice Management
Division pointed out that the money, I was thinking of $7
million for rural law enforcement for this purpose.
Senator Moran. Thank you for that. Thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Moran. Senator Van
Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking
Member Moran. And Mr. Attorney General, great to see you. First
of all, I support many of the provisions in your budget and
appreciate its overall framework. I especially want to mention
the Community Violence Intervention Initiative. I look forward
to working with you and the Department as you implement that.
As you know, there are some programs that have been more
successful than others. And I think you would agree, we want to
focus on best practices. And I would like to share with you in
the Department some that have been successful in Baltimore, if
you would agree to that.
Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
Senator Van Hollen. You have also talked about some funding
to help States and local jurisdictions that want to move
forward with red flag provisions or gun licensing laws, permit
to purchase. Johns Hopkins University has studied this area
carefully, especially with respect to permit to purchase
requirements. And I hope you will consider putting out a model
proposal for local jurisdictions that are interested for a
permit to purchase, as I think you are suggesting you are going
to do for the red flag laws. Is that something that you would
consider doing?
Attorney General Garland. Definitely. We did put out the
red flag laws just this week or earlier this week, but that is
definitely something to consider. And I hadn't thought about
it.
Senator Van Hollen. In terms of a model permit purchase--in
fact, I have introduced legislation here. We would love to work
with you to see if that is something that would be a good model
going forward. You have probably seen some of the recent
stories regarding accountability in Federal law enforcement
officers. And a little over a year ago, I wrote to the FBI
regarding implementation of the Use of Force database. The
Washington Post reported that in 2019, only 27 percent of law
enforcement agencies contributed information through that
process, covering about 41 percent of officers. You know, in my
discussions with law enforcement, they all agree that more
transparency and more accountability is good for everybody.
And I am assuming you agree with that premise. So we did
recently see that while we encourage local jurisdictions to
provide this information and it is voluntary, that not all
Federal law enforcement agencies provide this information. I
hope you would agree that we should lead by example. And I
would just like to get your commitment here today that all
Federal law enforcement agencies that come under your
jurisdiction will report this data.
Attorney General Garland. I didn't know we weren't
reporting. This follows the same problem with respect to body
worn cameras when I first got in and learned that we were not
wearing them. I asked why not? And I directed our Deputy
Attorney General to resolve that issue, and very prompt, and
this week we did resolve that issue. So let me put that to her
as well. And this will require a meeting of the various law
enforcement agencies and we will get on that.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. And it may not--it
may also include Federal law enforcement agencies under the
jurisdiction of other Departments. But as the Attorney General,
if you could just agree that you will reach out to your other
agents----
Attorney General Garland. You want to authorize me to
demand----
Senator Van Hollen. I would like to deputize you to do
that.
Attorney General Garland [continuing]: As a statute you can
add, that would be great.
Senator Van Hollen. But I do think, you know, I think many
of us clearly wrongly assume that since the Federal Government
was asking State and local jurisdictions just that, we already
were doing it within the Federal Government. So I think it is
really important we do. You mentioned the body cameras. Let's
make sure we do it with the data as well. The other thing I do
want to mention, we are we are having ongoing discussions
between the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans about
the George Foy Justice and Policing Act. But one of the things
that I think is we have seen on a bipartisan basis is there are
many times when somebody calls 911, one where a law enforcement
response is neither justified or appropriate.
In many cases, as you begin to look at 911 calls, involve
mental health situations where there is no crime involved,
substance use situations. And, you know, I know you have
proposed better training for police in terms of behavioral
health. That is fine. But a number of us have proposed creating
alternative responses to those many, many cases that involve
mental health situations and allow law enforcement, therefore,
to focus on those situations where, you know, a use of force
may be required. Could you work with us to create those
alternative response mechanisms?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, the answer is yes. I
completely agree with you that alternative response mechanisms
can decrease the risk of a violent confrontation when none is
necessary and lead to death. We do have $40 million in this
budget for the purpose of mental health collaborations and
another $10 million for training a police based response to
people with mental illness. So we have a basis for grants for
this kind of program.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. Congresswoman Karen
Bass and I have introduced legislation last Congress and we are
going to reintroduce it shortly. So we look forward to working
with you on that. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. We will go
to Senator Braun next. I am sorry, Senator Hagerty, he beat you
here.
Senator Hagerty. I will stay long enough, don't worry.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Attorney
General, over the past 3 months, I think the FBI has done a
diligent job in pursuing those that breached the Capitol,
including to the extent of, I think, visiting their homes,
tracking phone records, and all of that. Curious, we had that
incident occur that was horrific to anybody but what has been
done in a similar light where you look at Antifa, BLM activists
that were, you know, active in so many places across the
country this past summer. Has that same diligence and effort
been applied there? And I think when you add up the number of
individuals involved, it would be a lot. I am just curious to
see what your approach is there and what you are thinking is
there.
Attorney General Garland. I think that is a perfectly fair
question. The events that you are talking about all took place
long before I was at the Justice Department. So I was not there
for the purpose of organizing the response, supervising the
response, figuring out how many people should be involved in
the response. As far as I understand, in terms of the arrests
and the investigations, they are largely completed. And long
before I got--before I got here. The January 6 event occurred
the day I think before my nomination. And as you can imagine,
it is burned on my mind. And I promised that I would focus on
that.
And I have and so I can account for my behavior. With
respect to the way we organize the January 6 response, I am
sure that the Justice Department last summer was equally
diligent with respect to the response to the civil unrest. At
that time, I am advised that we have spent $48 million in FBI,
DOP, Marshals, and ATF during that period, not counting the
January 6 expenditure.
Senator Braun. In other words, related to the riots and so
forth across the country----
Attorney General Garland. I am going to describe it as
civil unrest because it has a legal connotation, but yes.
Senator Braun. And how many arrests were made?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer----
Senator Braun. If you could get back to our office.
Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
Senator Braun. I think many would want to make sure a fair
response in both endeavors.
Attorney General Garland. Not a problem. Would be happy to
get back to you.
Senator Braun. I am Ranking Member on the Ledge Branch
subcommittee, where we have got to figure out resources that we
are going to devote to securing the capital, making sure that
Capitol Police are getting the resources they need. On the
building itself, we spoke to the Architect of the Capitol that
said they were close to $30 million in damages done. That seems
like a lot because especially in relation to something that
came out of the Justice Department. In an article at The
Washington Post, they tabbed it $1.5 million. Are you aware of
that?
Attorney General Garland. I saw that number. I was also
surprised. I don't know what they were calculating that as a
basis of. I guess this had something to do with what the
restitution for our individuals might be. But I don't know--I
don't have any reason to doubt the larger number that that you
mentioned.
Senator Braun. Those are two very large figures.
Attorney General Garland. Yes they are and I will when I
get back to the office, see if we can figure out----
Senator Braun. I appreciate finding out what your official
version is and then we will compare it to that.
Attorney General Garland. Very good.
Senator Braun. The declassified intelligence report on the
domestic violence extremism released by the DNI in March
identified abortion related violent extremists as a principal
threat. To me, this seemed like kind of a wild attack on the
pro-life community, did not list groups like BLM and Antifa who
have had a clear recent record of violent acts. So can you
explain what that was about, why there would have been focus on
that? And has there been a rash of incidents related to it?
Attorney General Garland. So I am going to have to refresh
my recollection about the report. It wasn't, you know--what the
report described as the leading threats were racially
motivated, ethnically motivated violent extremists. That was,
and particularly white supremacists, that was the number one
threat. I think that the anti-abortion is, you know, an area I
don't have any, to be honest, I don't know what the, you know,
where that fits in a threat matrix as to how high it is at this
point. It is not my understanding that it is one of the ones
that was listed at the high end of threat. But we can get back
to you on where that----
Senator Braun. If you would, please. And I think the point
being that if it seems like there is a disproportionate
interest or emphasis on one category and not the other, it is
going to raise some eyebrows. And then also bring into the
question of is that effort being applied fairly across the----
Attorney General Garland. Yes. And so in addition to the
category of racially or ethnically motivated violent
extremists, there is a separate category of anti-Government or
anti authority violent extremists. And this would be where some
of the anarchists that you were just talking about would fall
into that bucket. And that is another--an area of focus of the
FBI.
Senator Braun. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Braun. Senator Hagerty.
Senator Hagerty. Chair Shaheen, thank you, and looks like
Ranking Member Moran has left, but General Garland, I
appreciate your staying for a little bit longer. And thank you
for being here to testify today. I would like to follow up on
just a bit of your discourse with Senator Moran for a moment. I
would like to follow up on something that you discussed with
Senator Shaheen. But with respect to Senator Moran and your
conversation about working with your counterparts, the
Attorneys General in Mexico, I was last month with the foreign
minister of Mexico.
I went there to examine the situation on the ground. He was
very clear as well that they would like to cooperate with us on
law enforcement, sharing technology. They need help
interdicting the fentanyl and fentanyl precursors that are
coming in from China. They have real problems there. And I
applaud any efforts that you might undertake to work with their
law enforcement to help them and in particular in border
security.
We went through that as well, and I think our technology
and our capabilities could be helpful there. I would like to
turn to a different subject, though, and that was that gets
back to the backlog that you are experiencing and perhaps the
need for a new approach. And as Attorney General, your
Executive Office for Immigration Review is charged with
adjudicating claims for asylum. Human smugglers in Central
America and Mexico, known as coyotes, are using our country's
generous asylum laws as advertisements to draw people into a
very dangerous journey, a journey that often results in them
losing their lives or becoming victims of crime.
To this end, a recent Los Angeles Times report states that,
``Mexican coyotes deposit migrants at the Rio Grande and
instruct them to give themselves up to U.S. Border Patrol
agents to claim asylum.'' This is what the coyotes are
marketing, go across the border, claim asylum. That is the
secret password to get in, asylum, fear. That seems to be the
key to enter our country. General Garland, do you agree that
human smugglers are taking advantage of our asylum system?
Attorney General Garland. Well, I think there is no doubt
that human smugglers and human traffickers are taking advantage
of the people who they are smuggling. That is the reason we
have just stood up a new task force, anti-human smuggling and
anti-human trafficking. It will involve all the main agencies
of we call it Task Force Alpha, which just announced this week,
includes cooperation with homeland security. We are also
putting people into the Northern Triangle countries where the
smuggling originates to try to interdict it there. We are also
introducing anti-corruption units to assist those countries in
ending the corruption that often leads to people going to these
smuggling entities.
Senator Hagerty. And no doubt the coyotes are taking
advantage of the people there. But are they taking advantage of
our system, our generous system of asylum?
Attorney General Garland. I don't--there are a lot of
motivations for people coming out of the Northern Triangle,
some of which we can fix and some of which we can't and which
we are trying very hard to fix. You know, we have an obligation
under our law and under international law to provide refuge
under the categories that Congress has set forth for us. And
people are entitled to process, to seek asylum under what
Congress has authorized and required.
Senator Hagerty. Well, the problems with our asylum laws
that you are acknowledging, I think are clear. I applaud you
are acknowledging that because we do need to address that. And
I look forward to working to do that. But let's come back to
the messaging that the coyotes are using to attract people into
this dangerous process. Just this week in Guatemala, Vice
President Harris sent a message to those that were perhaps
contemplating coming to our country illegally, ``do not come.''
Is that a message that you can deliver, the Attorney General
sitting right there, a message to these people, do not come to
our country?
Attorney General Garland. Look, I think that Vice President
Harris has been very deeply involved in the kind of law
enforcement and other requirements that we are looking to set
up. She was instrumental in moving us to establish part of this
joint task force to de-incentivize and to reduce traffic from
the Northern Triangle countries down through Mexico and into
the United States. So there are a lot of different messaging
kind of issues involved. And some of them involve getting at
the root causes of why people are leaving in those countries.
Senator Hagerty. Well, messaging is one of these root
causes. And I think it would be incredibly important to hear
from our top law enforcement officer in America that these
people should not come.
Attorney General Garland. I don't want people to make that
very difficult and dangerous trip with coyotes that you are
talking about. There is no doubt about that. This leads to
human tragedy.
Senator Hagerty. Well, if these people enter our country
illegally, are you willing to say that they will be deported?
Attorney General Garland. So the question of asylum is one
that our law permits them to make claims of asylum and to have
an opportunity to show whether they have the grounds for it or
not. If they are not entitled to asylum, then they are
deported. I want to be clear that element is for the Department
of Homeland Security. It is not for the Justice Department.
What we do is adjudicate the asylum claim.
Senator Hagerty. Well, I will come back and say this.
According to the data on the Justice Department website, 90
percent plus of the people that come here under the claim of
asylum are found to be invalid claims. And in that
circumstance, would you be willing to say if a person comes
here, goes through the asylum process and it is found that
their claim is invalid and they should be removed, that they
will be deported?
Attorney General Garland. The Department of Homeland
Security is responsible for that issue. They have--because of
the large numbers that you are talking about, they, I
understand, have a series of priorities. First and most
important are deportation of people who are at risk for
National Security to the United States and for public safety. I
think--and lastly, they are trying to deport recent arrivals in
order to send the message that you are talking about that
people not come.
Senator Hagerty. So I was with you and Secretary Mayorkas
when we went through this prioritization before. I am shocked
at what he said, because the number of people coming across our
border illegally has massively increased yet the number of
deportations has gone way down. So I am not buying that
argument.
What I would love to hear you say is our Nation's top law
enforcement official in a way that would instruct the
Department of Homeland Security is that it is illegal to cross
the border into this country. That if somebody is found to have
failed in their claim for asylum, which 90 percent of the
people do, that they will be deported. That is the message that
people in these countries need to hear. Not that ``well, don't
come,'' but if you do, there is nothing going to happen to you.
Attorney General Garland. It is a misdemeanor to cross the
border without the appropriate documentation. That is correct.
And the question of rights to apply for asylum is also correct.
That is an element of our law. The determination of how to
deport and what priorities, that is up to the Department of
Homeland Security. And I don't think it useful for me to get
into their business with respect to their--any more than I
would expect them to get into our business with respect to our
law enforcement priority.
Senator Hagerty. Well, I would hope for a clear
determination that when someone is found to be applying for
asylum here in an invalid fashion, that they should leave this
country and that they will be deported. The fact you are not
able to say that clearly today and send that message to the
Department of Homeland Security is shocking.
Attorney General Garland. If they have been adjudicated to
not be entitled to asylum, then they should be deported, yes.
Senator Hagerty. I appreciate you saying that. I applaud
that because that is the message that needs to be conveyed.
Attorney General Garland. Right. I am sorry. Maybe I didn't
understand the question, but of course, once they have been
adjudicated, then, of course, there--they should be deported.
Senator Hagerty. And I think we need to be very clear about
that. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Hagerty.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Chair.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Shaheen. Your time has expired. If there are any
further questions for the record, senators have until June 16
to submit those, and we would request that the Department
respond within 30 days. Thank you very much, Attorney General
Garland, for appearing today and for your willingness to take
all of our questions. Let me also announce that we will stand
in recess until Tuesday, June 15, when we will hold a hearing
on NASA's budget request.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Merrick B. Garland
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy
Question 1. The Crime Victims Fund is an essential component of our
Federal Government's support for victims of crime. This Fund provides
compensation and support for victims of crime through grant awards to
States, local governments, individuals, and other entities. The Fund is
projected to reach a 10-year low by the end of this year. I am a proud
original cosponsor of the bipartisan VOCA (Victims of Crime Act)
deposits fix legislation, which would help to sustain the Fund. You
recently responded to a letter from Senator Shaheen and myself about
this issue.
1a. Your budget requests that $2.65 billion be released from the
Fund this year, which you estimate will have a balance of only $1.4
billion at the end of fiscal year 2022. What can the Department do now,
without congressional action, to help ensure the Fund will exist beyond
this fiscal year?
Answer. The Crime Victims Fund has collected $457 million in
receipts this year as of June 21, 2021. The Department's Justice
Management Division has assessed both that these receipts, when
combined with the end of year fund balance, will provide enough funding
to pay for the obligation caps for through fiscal year 2022 and that
the Fund's balance at the end of fiscal year 2022 will be $1.448
billion to support future programs beyond this fiscal year.
The Justice Department is committed to ensuring that the
Department's policies and practices promote victim assistance and
compensation. This commitment is reflected in Departmental guidance and
policies, including the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and
Witness Assistance and key sections of the Justice Manual, including
Sections 9-27.230(8) and 9-27.620(4).
1b. Your budget is silent on the issue of expanding the types of
deposits going into the Crime Victims Fund. Would you support Congress'
effort to enact reforms that would expand the deposits going into the
Fund?
Answer. The Justice Department strongly supports efforts to further
strengthen the Crime Victims Fund. I would very much like to work with
you on this effort and would welcome the opportunity to talk with you
about ways that Congress could expand the types of deposits that go
into the Fund.
1c. Your budget request estimates nearly $1 billion from fines,
penalties and forfeitures will be deposited into the Fund during fiscal
year 2022, nearly double the amount that was deposited in fiscal year
2020. How does your Department account for this increase in deposits?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2022 budget estimates that $1
billion from fines, penalties and forfeitures will be deposited into
the Crime Victims Fund during fiscal year 2022 on the basis of an
average-based analysis of monthly deposits into the Fund across a 5-
year period. The Department's Justice Management Division advises that
the amount was then rounded down in order to offer a more conservative
projection in light of recent trends in receipts and that the analysis
excluded certain outlier months with exceptionally high or low receipt
levels.
Question 2. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF) remains at the forefront of protecting our communities
from violent criminals and the illegal use and trafficking of firearms.
One critical role the ATF plays in solving crimes and preventing gun
violence is through effective crime gun tracing. The ATF's National
Tracing Center is currently home to millions of gun sales records.
2a. How important is it for the ATF to be able to quickly trace
crime guns in order to reduce gun violence in our country?
Answer. The ability to quickly trace crime firearms is vital to
reducing gun violence for a number of reasons, including because quick
firearms tracing is critical to law enforcement in their efforts to
link suspects to firearms in criminal investigations and to detect
illegal firearms traffickers.
ATF is the only Federal agency that can trace firearms used in
crimes. ATF's National Tracing Center (NTC) traces firearms used or
suspected to have been used in crimes in order to provide investigative
leads to law enforcement. The NTC traces firearms annually for more
than 8,500 Federal, State, local, and international law enforcement
agencies. In fiscal year 2019, the NTC processed 452,047 firearms trace
requests. In fiscal year 2020, the NTC increased the number of trace
requests by 8.6 percent to a total of 490,844 trace requests.
The demand for timely and accurate trace data will continue to grow
as a key investigative tool to quickly identify and apprehend the most
violent firearms offenders.
Question 3. At your confirmation hearing before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, you expressed concern about the death penalty, and
particularly the disparate impact it has on Black Americans and
communities of color.
3a. When do you expect the Justice Department to reinstate its
previous policy, under which the Federal Bureau of Prisons would not be
ordered to schedule any Federal executions?
Answer. On July 1, 2021, I issued a memorandum imposing a
moratorium on all Federal executions while a review of the Department's
policies and procedures is pending.
Question 4. Earlier this year, I joined Senator Durbin in
reintroducing the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act of 2021,
bicameral legislation to prohibit the use of the death penalty at the
Federal level and require re-sentencing of those currently on death
row.
4a. Will you commit to working with Congress to ensure this
legislation is passed and enacted into law?
Answer. The serious concerns that have been raised about the
continued use of the death penalty across the country--including the
apparent arbitrariness in its application, its disparate impact on
people of color, and the number of innocent people wrongfully convicted
and sentenced to death--deserve careful study and evaluation by both
the Justice Department and Congress. I would welcome the opportunity to
work with you and other Members of Congress to ensure that everyone in
the Federal criminal justice system is treated fairly, humanely, and
afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the
United States.
Question 5. In 2018, the Supreme Court held that tracking
individuals' movements using cell phone data requires a warrant.
However, many government agencies purchase location information from
data brokers to circumvent that requirement.
5a. To what extent does the Justice Department purchase location
information from data brokers? Please provide a detailed explanation--
including any governing memoranda or guidance--outlining when, and
under what circumstances, the Justice Department purchases location
information.
5b. How much has the Justice Department spent over the fiscal
years following the Supreme Court's 2018 decision purchasing cellphone
location data? Please provide as much detail as possible about amounts
expended.
Answer. Consistent with the Supreme Court's 2018 Carpenter decision
and Justice Department guidance, as a general matter, the Department's
law enforcement components advise that they do not purchase location
information from third party vendors or data brokers without a warrant.
ATF advises that the Bureau acquired the use of Fog Data Science
(FOG), a company that tracks location information via user Advertiser
ID information without identifying the person associated with the user
Advertiser ID. FOG is a commercial service generally used by companies
for direct marketing purposes. ATF first used the service in late May
2020 to assist with a high-profile arson investigation and acquired a
contract for a portal in July 2020. During 6 months of use, FOG was
used in less than 20 investigations, and ATF allowed the contract to
expire in December 2020 because the information provided was ultimately
not useful in our investigations. While FOG was initially used for
approximately 30 days without seeking a warrant because the data was
publicly available, out of an abundance of caution ATF developed and
used guidelines requiring a warrant for its use.
Question 6. At your confirmation hearing, you spoke about the need
for agencies to ``generously'' interpret the text of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The Justice Department is responsible for
enforcing FOIA compliance across the Federal Government.
6a. How does the Department plan to ``generously'' interpret the
Freedom of Information Act with respect to FOIA requests made to the
Justice Department? Does it have adequate resources to meet that goal?
6b. How will the Department ensure that other Federal agencies
will also ``generously'' interpret the text of FOIA in responding to
FOIA requests and generally complying with the statute?
Answer. Without accountability, democracy is impossible. And
democratic accountability requires the kind of transparency that FOIA
makes possible.
That is why the Justice Department takes its special role in
overseeing and encouraging government-wide compliance with FOIA very
seriously and will continue to build on our efforts to ensure the
faithful and effective implementation of the law both within the
Department and across the Federal Government.
To these ends, the Justice Department's Office of Information
Policy (OIP) develops policy guidance for Executive Branch agencies on
FOIA, provides legal counsel and training to agency personnel on the
procedural and substantive aspects of the Act, and oversees agency
compliance with the law.
The Department works hard to ensure that all agencies apply the law
with the presumption of openness that is at the core of our FOIA
Guidelines and that has since been codified in FOIA itself. OIP assists
agencies with implementation of the requirements of the through the
guidance, training, and legal counsel it provides, including its a
comprehensive legal treatise on FOIA entitled The United States
Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information Act. The
Guide includes detailed discussions of FOIA's procedural requirements,
nine exemptions, litigation considerations, and detailed analysis of
the key judicial opinions issued on the FOIA. OIP updates each chapter
of the Guide on a rolling basis as significant new developments in FOIA
occur.
In addition, OIP has sponsored a series of ``best practices''
training so that agencies can learn from one another what FOIA
strategies are the most successful. In addition, the Department will
continue to keep agencies accountable in their administration of FOIA
by requiring agency Chief FOIA Officers to report on five key areas of
FOIA administration: (1) applying a presumption of openness, (2) having
effective systems in place for processing requests, (3) increasing
proactive disclosures, (4) using technology, and (5) improving
timeliness and reducing backlogs. In addition to the above efforts, OIP
will continue to work with agencies both directly and as part of the
Chief FOIA Officers Council to promote best practices and leverage
resources for the benefit of governmentwide FOA administration.
Both within the Department and government-wide, the demands FOIA
imposes on government offices is significant. In fiscal year 2020
alone, the Department received 86,729 requests and overall, the
government received 790,688 requests. FOIA requests require careful
time and attention so that appropriate information is released while
exempt information is withheld. OIP is currently undertaking efforts to
leverage technological advances to increase the efficiency of FOIA
processing.
I believe the President's fiscal year 2022 budget request will
enable us to maintain our commitments under FOIA.
Question 7. When using cell site simulators in foreign intelligence
matters in the United States, does the Justice Department always do so
pursuant to a warrant from a FISA judge, absent an emergency? Please
provide a detailed explanation for when, and under what circumstances,
the Justice Department uses cell cite simulators without a warrant from
a FISA judge in the absence of an emergency.
Answer. The Department of Justice uses cell-site simulator
technology to help fulfill its mission to ensure public safety,
including by apprehending fugitives, locating kidnapping victims, and
assisting in drug investigations. The Department has put into place a
number of procedural safeguard to ensure this technology is used
responsibly and consistent with the all of the requirements and
protections of the Constitution and applicable statutory authorities.
On September 3, 2015, the Department announced a policy (the
``Policy'') regarding its use of cell-site simulator technology
designed to enhance transparency and accountability, improve training
and supervision, establish a higher and more consistent legal standard,
and increase privacy protections. The Policy covers all four DOJ law
enforcement components that use CSS technology--namely, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and
the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). Each of DOJ's law enforcement
components has instituted standard operating procedures and/or
protocols to fully implement the Policy.
As the Policy states, ``When acting pursuant to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, Department of Justice components will
make a probable-cause based showing and appropriate disclosures to the
court in a manner that is consistent with the guidance set forth in
this policy.'' And as the Policy makes clear, the general requirement
is that ``law enforcement agencies must now obtain a search warrant
supported by probable cause and issued pursuant to Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or the applicable state
equivalent).''
In accordance with this Policy, to the extent that the Department
has sought, or will seek, to use cell-site simulator technology to
acquire foreign intelligence information, absent an emergency, the use
of that CSS must be authorized pursuant to a showing of probable cause.
Since the issuance of the Policy in 2015, the Department's National
Security Division advises that the Department has not used cell-site
simulator technology to acquire foreign intelligence information
without a warrant issued by a judge of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
Question 1. The City of Portland has been party to a settlement
agreement since 2014 for excessive use of force. The Department of
Justice evaluated more than 6,000 use of force incidents related to
demonstration activity in the summer of 2020 just for the Portland
Police Bureau alone. This use of force to engage with civilians is
commonplace across the country, what more can the Department of Justice
do to curb excessive use of force in police bureaus, particularly when
engaging with crowds?
Answer. With regard to the Justice Department's settlement
agreement with the City of Portland, we have filed periodic reports
assessing the City's compliance with the agreement and providing
guidance for achieving full compliance. The Department's most recent
compliance report, filed in February 2021, found that the City had
regressed in a number of significant areas, including use of force,
training, accountability, and community engagement. The Department is
currently negotiating with the City to determine how to resolve our
compliance concerns.
On April 21, 2021, the Department of Justice opened a civil pattern
or practice investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department and
the City of Minneapolis. On April 26, 2021, the Department announced a
pattern or practice investigation into the Louisville/Jefferson County
Metro Government and the Louisville Metro Police Department. The
Department opened both investigations under the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. Sec. 12601 (Section 12601).
This statute prohibits law enforcement agencies from engaging in
patterns or practices of conduct that deprive people of their rights
under the Constitution or Federal law. In both investigations, the
Department will investigate whether police officers in Minneapolis and
Louisville are engaging in a pattern or practice of excessive force,
among other things. The Department is also investigating whether police
officers in each city are using excessive force against people engaged
in activities protected by the First Amendment, including protests or
demonstrations. If the Department determines that police in either city
are engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force, including
excessive force during demonstrations or protests, Section 12601
authorizes the Attorney General to file a lawsuit to obtain equitable
or declaratory relief to address the pattern or practice. Since the
passage of Section 12601 in 1994, the Department has investigated more
than 70 law enforcement agencies to ensure that constitutional and
Federal rights, including the right to be free from excessive force,
are upheld.
Additionally, through the Department's grant programs, the Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the
Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) promote de-escalation
principles. BJA recently developed a new training series for State,
local, and Tribal officers entitled ``Crisis to C.A.L.M.'' The training
emphasizes how to remain calm in difficult or stressful situations
while protecting the constitutional rights of all. A summary of some of
the other training and technical assistance that BJA and COPS offers to
support agencies in developing effective practices and policies with
regard to engaging with civilians, including large-scale events
involving crowds, include:
Additional Departmental efforts and resources include:
--The COPS Office Collaborative Reform Initiative Technical
Assistance Center (CRI-TAC) program provides critical and
tailored technical assistance resources to State, local,
territorial, and Tribal law enforcement agencies on a wide
variety of topics. It features a ``by the field, for the
field'' approach while delivering individualized technical
assistance using leading experts in a range of public safety,
crime reduction, and community policing topics. CRI-TAC is a
public service and offered at no-cost to agencies. CRI-TAC
brings together the 10 leading law enforcement stakeholder
associations to the table to assist in implementing this
technical assistance. The program provides assistance in a wide
variety of areas including de-escalation, community engagement
and use of force. Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical
Assistance Center | COPS OFFICE (usdoj.gov)
--The COPS Office has produced guidance documents for agencies on
responding to mass protest events. These include an after
action assessment of Ferguson Police Department's COPS Office:
Grants and Resources for Community Policing (usdoj.gov) and
Minneapolis Police Departments COPS Office: Grants and
Resources for Community Policing (usdoj.gov) handling of
protests in the wake of high profile incidents. These resources
offer lessons learned and recommendations for best practices in
protest policing and mass demonstration responses.
--The COPS Office is currently soliciting for applications for
funding to support agencies in their de-escalation training and
implementation efforts Community Policing Development: De-
escalation Training Solicitation | COPS OFFICE (usdoj.gov).
Funding will be provided to national training providers and
directly to agencies in order to develop and implement
comprehensive de-escalation training and programs for law
enforcement agencies.
--De-escalation efforts and programs should not be viewed in
isolation from efforts to build community trust in law
enforcement. The wide variety of COPS Office programs,
services, and resources are oriented towards building that
trust. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS | COPS OFFICE (usdoj.gov) and
BUILDING TRUST | COPS OFFICE (usdoj.gov) among other programs
and materials.
Question 2. In the course of the Department of Justice's work on
pattern and practice investigations that occasionally arrive at consent
decrees or settlement agreements for civil rights violations, is it
standard practice to investigate ties between that law enforcement
jurisdiction and extremist groups? What training does the Department of
Justice currently offer to State, local, Tribal, or territorial law
enforcement entities to identify extremist groups that attempt to
infiltrate law enforcement ranks?
Answer. If facts came to light during any of the Department's
investigations of law enforcement agencies that officers were working
in concert with criminal extremist groups, or that such groups had
infiltrated a law enforcement agency, the Department would use all of
the tools at its disposal to address this serious problem. Such conduct
may contribute to a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives
individuals of their constitutional or Federal statutory rights.
The Department is authorized by statute to address such patterns or
practices through its enforcement of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. Sec. 12601. Depending on the
circumstances, officers working in concert with criminal extremist
groups may also run afoul of numerous Federal criminal laws, including:
the deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242;
conspiracy to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the exercise
or enjoyment of their rights, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241; or Federal hate crime
laws, such as 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 245, 247, and 249, and 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 3631.
In addition, the Department of Justice is currently enforcing 16
settlements with law enforcement agencies, including 12 consent
decrees, as well as two post-judgment orders, related to findings by
the Department that these agencies were engaged in a pattern or
practice of conduct that deprived individuals of their rights under the
Constitution or Federal law. These law enforcement agencies typically
have policies that prohibit officers from discriminating against
protected groups, associating with known criminals, or engaging in on-
or off-duty conduct that would tend to bring disrepute to the law
enforcement agency. These policies prohibit officers from working, on-
or off-duty, in concert with criminal extremist groups. Through its
consent decrees, settlements, and post-judgment orders, the Department
ensures that law enforcement agencies enforce these policies.
The BJA State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training (SLATT) courses
educate State, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers
with regard to domestic terrorism and address ``extremist groups''
consistent with the Director of National Intelligence's (DNI)
unclassified summary assessment of Domestic Violent Extremism.
Attendees are provided definitions, oversight, signs of these types of
groups and possible behaviors of their members. Having this basic
information assists law enforcement, at all levels, to identify
attempts at agency infiltration by extremists.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
Question 1. What are the ATF and DOJ doing to strengthen the
oversight of gun dealers and prevent stolen guns from being trafficked
into the illegal market?
Answer. The goal of ATF's illegal firearms trafficking enforcement
efforts is to reduce violent crime by stemming the flow of firearms to
violent criminals. ATF identifies, investigates, and arrests
individuals and organizations that illegally supply firearms to
prohibited individuals. This effort includes ATF's oversight of Federal
Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and its investigation of burglaries and
robberies of FFLs, which is why the fiscal year 2022 budget proposes a
significant program increase of $12,736,000 and 84 new positions
(including 79 Industry Operations Investigators).
On June 23, 2021, the Department announced further steps that ATF
would take to address the illegal trafficking of firearms and to keep
guns out of the wrong hands. For example, absent extraordinary
circumstances, ATF will initiate proceedings to revoke the license of
dealers that willfully violate the law by failing to conduct required
background checks, falsifying records, failing to respond to trace
requests, refusing to permit ATF to conduct inspections, or
transferring firearms to persons who are prohibited from owning them.
ATF is also taking steps to formalize a data-driven approach to
prioritizing inspection resources; improve information sharing with
State, local, Tribal, and Territorial partners; and crack down on gun
traffickers through five new cross-jurisdictional strike forces that
will focus on addressing significant trafficking corridors that fuel
violence.
Question 2. Is the Department developing a concrete plan to ensure
that prosecutors and the Department reflect our nation's diversity?
Answer. The Department maintains comprehensive outreach efforts to
support the recruitment of attorneys who reflect our Nation's rich
diversity.
Those efforts include broad dissemination of available attorney
vacancies to diversity organizations and law schools across the
country, and regular participation in events and programs sponsored by
public interest organizations and national diversity bar associations
including, but not limited to, the Hispanic National Bar Association,
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Bar
Association, National Black Prosecutors Association, National LGBT Bar
Association, and the South Asian Bar Association of North America.
The Department's recruitment strategy also includes fostering
relationships with all law schools, including regular presentations to
law students encouraging them to intern at the Department and
connecting students with current Department Attorneys through the
Attorney Ambassador Program that provides law students with the
opportunity to learn more about the Department or a particular
component by talking one-on-one with a DOJ attorney. Department
components may engage in additional outreach efforts beyond those
undertaken by the Department's Office of Attorney Recruitment and
Management (OARM).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
Question 1. Our country is experiencing a drug overdose crisis.
Indeed, Maine had 502 overdose deaths in 2020, an increase of 32
percent over the 380 Mainers who died from a drug overdose in 2019. In
a statistic that shocked and saddened me, Maine saw more drug-related
deaths in 2020 than deaths from COVID-19. The average age of those who
died was just 43 years old.
The preliminary data for this year looks even worse. In my opinion,
that is a tragedy, and the Maine Attorney General has noted that this
is at least in part due to ``alterations in the illicit drug supply.''
In Maine and nationally, the high number of fatal overdoses continues
to be driven by illicit, non-pharmaceutical fentanyl and fentanyl
analogs, and the majority of fatalities in Maine involved two or more
drugs.
1a. According to a fact sheet released by the Department of
Justice, the President's budget requests $480.9 million in resources to
bolster drug enforcement and related efforts. How would these funds
help address the drug overdose crisis in this country?
Answer. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will continue to
use all of the tools at its disposal--administrative, civil, and
criminal--to help reduce the number of overdoses in the United States.
In addition, DEA will expand education, outreach, and prevention
efforts to counter our Nation's drug threats.
Operation Engage is one of DEA's hallmark drug prevention
initiatives and is an example of what can be accomplished when law
enforcement and our community outreach partners join forces. This
prevention program builds upon the DEA 360 Strategy by allowing DEA
Field Divisions to address the top illicit drug that presents the
greatest threat to a community, even if it is not opioids. Operation
Engage is currently deployed to 11 of DEA's 23 field divisions,
including the New England Division. In fiscal year 2022, DEA is
requesting $3.75M to expand Operation Engage to all DEA Field
Divisions. These resources will fund a Community Outreach Specialist
for each DEA Field Division as well as operational funding to support
travel and other outreach expenses. Having Community Outreach
Specialists across the country will increase DEA's ability to
collaborate with local community stakeholders and implement tailored
education and prevention strategies. Through Operation Engage, DEA will
expand partnerships with local law enforcement and community-based
groups to combat the supply and demand sides of specific drug threats
and combat the Nation's overdose crisis.
Many problems associated with drug abuse are the result of
legitimately made controlled substances being diverted from their
lawful purpose into illicit drug traffic. According to the 2019
National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 9.7 million people misused
prescription pain relievers, 4.9 million people misused prescription
stimulants, and 5.9 million people misused prescription tranquilizers
or sedatives in 2019. The survey also showed that a majority of misused
prescription drugs were obtained from family and friends, often from
the home medicine cabinet. Under Federal law, all businesses that
import, export, manufacture, or distribute controlled substances; all
health professionals licensed to dispense, administer, or prescribe
them; and all pharmacies authorized to fill prescriptions must register
with the DEA. There are over 1.9 million DEA Registrants across the
country. Training and outreach programs, supported by the Diversion
Control Program, play an important role in educating Registrants and
the public about the growing problem of diversion of pharmaceutical
controlled substances throughout the U.S. Funding for the Diversion
Control Fee Account will be used to help address the overdose crisis by
improving education and outreach to the public and to DEA Registrants,
and by supporting efforts to destroy prescription drugs outside of the
existing National Take-Back Initiative framework.
The President's budget request also seeks a total of $190 million
to support system-wide initiatives that expand comprehensive, locally
driven responses to opioids, stimulants, and other substances through
the Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program
(COSSAP), which was developed as part of the Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act (CARA) legislation. COSSAP's purpose is to provide
financial and technical assistance to States, units of local
government, and Indian Tribal governments to develop, implement, or
expand comprehensive efforts to identify, respond to, treat, and
support those impacted by illicit opioids, stimulates, and other drugs
of abuse. COSSAP aims to reduce the impact of opioids, stimulants, and
other substances on individuals and communities, including a reduction
in the number of overdose fatalities, as well as mitigate the impacts
on crime victims by supporting comprehensive, collaborative
initiatives.
Our efforts described above are just part of the Department's
broader $480.9M request to address the opioid crisis.
Question 2. During your May 12, 2021, appearance before the full
Appropriations Committee, I commended you and the Department of Justice
for seeking to identify and prosecute the individuals responsible for
the events of January 6, 2021. I also asked you about the Department of
Justice resources being committed to identify and prosecute the
individuals responsible for the violence last summer that was aimed at
government institutions like courthouses and police stations. You
agreed during the hearing to provide me with additional information,
but I have yet to receive that information.
2a. Since that hearing, have you been briefed on the Department's
efforts to identify and prosecute the individuals responsible for the
violence last summer?
Answer. As I explained in written responses that I submitted to you
on June 24, 2021 answering your Questions for the Record, the Justice
Department has dedicated substantial investigative and prosecutorial
resources from components across the Department and in dozens of
jurisdictions nationwide to bring charges in numerous cases in
connection with violence during the summer and fall of 2020 that was
aimed at government institutions. In particular, the Department's
Justice Management Division advises that Investigative resources
totaling more than $48 million, including thousands of DOJ personnel,
have been deployed from the Department's law enforcement components,
including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States
Marshals Service (USMS), the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Justice Department has and will continue to aggressively pursue
those who engage in violent criminal activity such as the destruction
of property and violent assaults on law enforcement. The Department is
committed to working with Congress regarding its ongoing reviews of
these events and identifying areas for improvement and greater
cooperation in law enforcement responses.
2b. What is the status of the Department's efforts to identify and
prosecute these individuals?
Answer. Justice Department investigations and cases to identify and
prosecute individuals in connection with violence aimed at government
institutions during the summer and fall of 2020 are ongoing. The
Department continues to review information and hold accountable those
who violated the law.
In order to protect the integrity of all investigations, as a
general practice, the Department does not comment on the details of
particular investigations beyond the charging and other public
documents, and does not comment on the existence or status of any
potential investigative matter.
2c. Has the Department's approach to investigating and prosecuting
crimes associated with this violent activity changed in any way since
last summer?
Answer. I am not aware of any Departmental guidance that has been
issued since I became Attorney General on March 11, 2021 addressing the
Justice Department's approach to investigations and prosecutions
stemming from violence that occurred during the summer and fall of
2020.
On January 29, 2021, on the subject of the Justice Department's
general charging and sentencing policy, the Department rescinded a
directive entitled Department Charging and Sentencing Policy (May 10,
2017) and reinstated the guidance articulated in Department Policy on
Charging and Sentencing (May 19, 2010) to ensure that decisions about
charging, plea agreements, and advocacy at sentencing are based on the
merits of each case and reflect an individualized assessment of
relevant facts.
In addition, the Department issued guidance to all Federal
prosecutors on March 8, 2021 emphasizing the need for coordination and
consistency in prosecutions involving domestic violent extremism and
imposing new requirements for identifying and tracking such matters.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
Question 1. Project HOPE/HOPE Institute: In fiscal year 2020, how
many entities were awarded funding through BJA's Project HOPE
Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) model replication
program--the Swift, Certain, and Fair (SFC) Supervision Program?
1a. Of the awardees, how many entities asked for and received
grants intended for States with multiple sites of implementation?
1b. How many asked for and received funding for local
implementation only? Have any Federal funds gone to State or local
agencies that seek to expand HOPE principles beyond community
corrections--e.g., into prisons? If not, does the Department plan to
expand funding for such projects in the future?
Answer. BJA received seven applications in fiscal year 2020, of
which six were for local implementation at the county or city level.
Up to and including the fiscal year 2021 solicitation, BJA has
funded the application of the HOPE principles to community supervision
systems and populations only.
BJA is open to expanding the application of the HOPE principles to
prison systems and populations.
1c. Please provide an update on the HOPE Institute, and
specifically the Department's transition of the SCF Resource Center
into the HOPE Institute.
Answer. BJA solicited applications for the HOPE Institute seeking a
training and technical assistance (TTA) provider to provide
information, resources, and TTA to State, local, and Tribal community
supervision agencies seeking to develop and test new or enhanced
applications of the SCF principles using a data-driven, collaborative
process that is informed by research and responsive to local
circumstances. The competitive solicitation was posted online on May
14, 2021 and applications were due on July 13, 2021.
1d. Will the HOPE Institute also compile and share research, in
addition to training and best practices?
Answer. Yes. The fiscal year 2021 solicitation, entitled Applying
the Principles of Swiftness, Certainty, and Fairness, states that the
selected applicant will ``[a]dvance the state of knowledge regarding
best practices and lessons learned from SCF implementations and
evaluations,'' including by ``[m]aintain[ing] and update[ing] a website
to serve as a clearinghouse of information and resources on relevant
best practices and lessons learned'' and reviewing the results of any
new research and disseminating key findings for the field.
1e. If a designated funding mechanism were to be created for
research and evaluation of HOPE/SCF programs, what agency would be
best-positioned to manage related grants?
Answer. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) would be best
positioned within the Office of Justice Programs to manage HOPE/SCF
research and evaluation grants, as they have done in the past.
More information is available online about NIJ's evaluation of the
HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment.
1f. What effort has been made to collect and disseminate research
on HOPE/SCF programs that have not received Federal funding?
Answer. The SCF Resource Center is currently responsible for
scanning, synthesizing, and making publicly available any new research
on this model including research on non-federally funded efforts.
Question 2. Prison Rape Elimination Act: The Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 mandates that the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) ``shall carry out, for each calendar year, a
comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and
effects of prison rape.'' BJS reports are key to efforts to address
sexual abuse in our juvenile facilities, jails and prisons. In a recent
mandated report on sexual abuse in detention, BJS withheld critical
data about characteristics of perpetrators and victims and about
dynamics surrounding abuse in detention. Failing to release this
critical information severely limits efforts to prevent, detect, and
respond to sexual abuse in detention.
2a. Will you ensure that BJS timely releases all data collected
from all mandated data collections and reports regarding sexual abuse
in detention?
Answer. Since 2009, BJS has released a formal annual report by the
end of June each year that describes BJS's activities to collect data
on prison rape as required in the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The most
recent report, PREA Data Collection Activities, 2021 was released June
29, 2021. These reports summarize BJS's data collection, analysis
activities, and release of substantive reports each year.
Currently, BJS has three data collections for PREA: the National
Survey of Youth in Custody, the National Inmate Survey, and the Survey
of Sexual Victimization.
Each of these collections is an independent effort and follow the
standard statistical procedures for collecting reliable and high-
quality data. BJS is committed to releasing publications and datasets
from these programs, while ensuring data quality, timeliness, and
confidentiality. BJS limits access to PREA data only as necessary to
protect confidentiality of respondents.
In general, BJS has experienced delays in releasing publications
due to limited resources. BJS plans to publish additional analysis from
the PREA datasets going forward.
2b. One recent BJS report reveals that, although prisoners have
more effective methods for reporting sexual abuse inside corrections
facilities, meaningful investigations are not regularly occurring. How
will the Department improve investigations of sexual abuse reported by
incarcerated people?
Answer. The Justice Department recognizes the significant
challenges associated with investigations of sexual abuse and sexual
harassment in confinement facilities.
In response to these challenges, the Department is currently
working with its partners at the National PREA Resource Center to
develop a practical, user-friendly training that targets practitioners
across the country who are responsible for these types of
investigations. A primary goal of this unique training is to develop
skills necessary to conduct these investigations effectively, as
required by the PREA standards. To increase the reach and impact of
this resource, it will be offered virtually. And after a pilot of the
training in 2022, it will be made widely available across the country.
2c. PREA also requires the Department to establish a Review Panel
on Prison Rape that shall hold public hearings every year with selected
corrections officials to understand and identify ``common
characteristics of prisons and prison systems with a high incidence of
prison rape, and the identification of common characteristics of
prisons and prison systems that appear to have been successful in
deterring prison rape.'' Will the Department ensure that the required
public hearings occur every year?
Answer. Last year, the Justice Department appointed all new members
to the Review Panel on Prison Rape (Panel). The duty of the Panel is to
hold annual public hearings concerning the operations of the three
prisons with the highest incidence of sexual victimization and the two
prisons with the lowest incidence of sexual victimization in each
category of facilities identified in data gathered by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). The new Panel plans to hold hearings this
year based on BJS's National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2018.
The BJS has published the following three products based on this
survey:
--Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth in
Juvenile Facilities, 2018 (December 11, 2019)
--Sexual Victimization Reported by Youth in Juvenile Facilities,
2018--Supplemental Tables (June 2020)
--Sexual Victimization Reported by Youth in Juvenile Facilities,
2018--Supplemental Tables (November 2020).
2d. Congress amended PREA in late 2018 by enacting significant
protections to ensure the quality of PREA audits and PREA auditors. The
amendment tasks the PREA Management Office of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance with additional, robust oversight functions, including
evaluating all auditors and audits for adherence to quality standards
and decertifying auditors who fall short. The PREA Management Office
has not yet complied with its new audit oversight duties to establish
and administer a system for assigning auditors to all Federal, State,
and local correctional facilities due to insufficient funding. Will you
review the resource and staffing needs of the PREA Management Office
and commit to ensuring that they have the support they need to fulfill
their congressionally mandated duties, in addition to their existing
functions? Will you commit to continuing grant funding for support to
States and local jurisdictions for PREA implementation work?
Answer. The Department remains steadfastly committed to preventing,
detecting, and responding to sexual abuse and sexual harassment in
confinement facilities nationwide.
DOJ and its PREA Management Office continue to work hard to
leverage the annual PREA appropriation to successfully carry out DOJ's
many legal requirements, as defined in the PREA statute and the
national PREA Standards.
The PREA Management Office advises that it has seen a strong
commitment from Governors to move their States towards PREA compliance.
In 2020, twenty-one governors submitted certifications of full
compliance with the PREA standards for State-operated facilities,
including prisons. Twenty-nine governors submitted assurances to DOJ
indicating that they will use portions of certain DOJ grants to come
into compliance in the future. In addition, the Department will commit
to reviewing the resource and staffing needs of the PREA Management
Office.
2e. Incarcerated survivors of sexual abuse are some of the most
isolated and underserved survivors of interpersonal violence. They are
also a population that mainstream service providers struggle to serve.
The PREA standards require that survivors of sexual abuse in detention
have access to many of the same kinds of services to which all victims
of crime are entitled. A national hotline--one number that a person in
a prison or jail could call from every State and territory--would both
ensure that incarcerated survivors have the most basic of services and
signal that we, as a nation, affirm that rape is not part of the
penalty. I introduced bipartisan legislation on this issue, the Sexual
Abuse Services in Detention Act. Would the Department support such a
national hotline? Do I have your commitment to work with me on my bill?
Answer. The Department of Justice welcomes the opportunity to work
with Congress on legislation to create a national sexual abuse hotline
and supports the overarching goal of providing increased resources to
victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment in detention for
counseling, healing, and incident reporting. The Bureau of Justice
Assistance and the Office on Violence Against Women are partnering to
determine how best to create and implement a national service line for
incarcerated victims of sexual abuse. This includes an in-depth
planning process to identify the scope of services to be provided,
training requirements for service line staff, and security constraints
for correctional facilities, should a service line be authorized and
appropriated.
Since March 2021, Justice Department staff have engaged with your
and Senator Cornyn's offices to discuss the pending legislation. The
Department looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure
that proposed legislation is informed by efforts already underway.
Question 3. BOP Transgender Guidance: In 2018, I sent a letter to
then-BOP Director Hugh Hurwitz regarding the agency's decision to
change their Transgender Offender Manual. Under these changes, BOP
would use a person's ``biological sex'' to determine initially where a
person will be housed. The revised manual also states that assigning a
person to a facility based on the person's identified gender is
appropriate ``only in rare cases.'' I expressed concerns that these
changes put transgender people in Federal prison at a higher risk of
sexual abuse, and was in contravention of PREA. Transgender people in
prison are already more likely to experience sexual abuse than the
cisgender prison population. In my letter, I urged Director Hurwitz to
reverse this policy. Unfortunately, he did not. Do I have your
commitment to reverse this harmful policy and ensure the safety of
transgender people in prison, including PREA's requirement that housing
decisions for transgender people be made on a case-by-case basis?
Answer. Executive Order 13988, signed by the President on January
20, 2021, calls for every person to be treated with respect and dignity
without being subject to discrimination based on their gender identity
or sexual orientation. \1\ Department of Justice components are
reviewing currently all existing orders, regulations, guidance
documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions for compliance
and consistency with the Executive Order. As part of this effort, the
Bureau of Prisons is in the process of reviewing the Transgender
Offender Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exec. Order. No. 13988, 86 Fed. Reg. 7023 (January 25, 2021).
Question 4. Correctional Education: In 2016, the Department began
its ``Roadmap to Reentry'' effort to enhance Federal reentry practices.
This, in part, led to the proposed creation of a unified school
district within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). While the previous
administration scrapped these plans, I introduced legislation to ensure
that adequate access to education programming can be found in all BOP
facilities, and to collect and share the research and best practices on
correctional education. Do I have you commitment to work with me on my
bill, the Promoting Reentry through Education in Prisons Act, to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
support efforts to improve prison education programming within BOP?
Answer. The Justice Department strongly supports efforts to improve
educational opportunities for inmates in Federal custody, and I would
welcome the opportunity to talk with you about the Promoting Reentry
through Education in Prisons Act.
Question 5. Marijuana Research: In a 2019 response to me, National
Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins and Acting Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Norman Sharpless supported
efforts to approve additional entities to supply marijuana for
research. In addition, NIH and FDA supported ``enabling researchers
holding Schedule I licenses for marijuana to obtain products from State
authorized dispensaries.'' While I am pleased that the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) has announced efforts to approve new manufacturers
for marijuana research, more can be done by the agency.
5a. Do I have your commitment to work with Senators Feinstein and
Grassley, and me on our marijuana research bill--the Cannabidiol and
Marihuana Research Expansion Act (S. 253)?
Answer. Yes. The Justice Department welcomes the opportunity to
work with you and Senators Feinstein and Grassley on this and any other
legislation.
5b. Does the Department plan to approve the estimated full number
of licensed manufacturers of marijuana for research--15, as noted in
DEA's final rule, ``Controls To Enhance the Cultivation of Marihuana
for Research in the United States''--to provide an adequate and
uninterrupted supply?
Answer. DEA has approved five licenses to date. DEA evaluates
registrants on a case-by-case basis subject to the requirements of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and is currently reviewing several
additional pending applications.
5c. Does the Department support efforts to enable researchers
holding Schedule I licenses for marijuana to obtain products from State
authorized dispensaries?
Answer. The Justice Department continues to prioritize efforts to
expand access to marijuana for research purposes. To this end, on May
14, 2021, DEA announced that it expects it will soon register
additional manufacturers to cultivate marijuana for research purposes.
The Justice Department stands ready to work with you and other Members
of Congress to increase opportunities for medical and scientific
research.
5d. Will the Department work across the administration to restart
interagency coordination efforts to address issues of marijuana control
and research?
Answer. Yes. The Department is currently engaged in interagency
discussions on this subject and would welcome the opportunity to
discuss these matters further with you and your colleagues.
Question 6. State Courts: State courts handle the vast majority of
all cases in our justice system--over 83 million cases per year. As
such, they are often the laboratories of innovation when it comes to
issues such as mental health and substance abuse diversion, eviction
diversion, fines and fee alternatives, juvenile delinquency and child
welfare, and the development of other innovative ways to improve the
delivery of justice nationwide. State courts have traditionally not
received programmatic support or been given a seat at the table on
criminal justice reform issues that will largely be dealt by State
courts across the country.
6a. Will the Department work with State court leaders and leverage
Federal investments to assist in the development of innovative and
supportive programs to assist in the administration of Justice across
the States and the Nation?
Answer. Yes, the Department is committed to working with State
court leaders to address these critical issues. First, we can ensure
our State court leaders are aware of what funding opportunities they
are eligible for and conduct targeted outreach to State court leaders
when these opportunities become available.
Examples of eligible funding opportunities include the
Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP),
the Adult Drug Court Program, and the Justice and Mental Health
Collaboration Program (JMHCP).
In addition, in coordination with the State Administering Agencies,
the Office of Justice Programs will ensure that State court leaders are
aware of funding opportunities at the State level under the Justice
Assistance Grant program.
Moreover, through many of our training and technical assistance
programs, we provide assistance to State leaders to conduct criminal
justice strategic planning. We can ensure State court leaders are at
the table during these critical priority discussions.
Examples of how BJA has supported innovative approaches to support
State and local criminal courts include the following:
--BJA offers technical assistance and support for strategic planning
related for State Administering Agencies (SAA) that oversee
BJA's Justice Assistance Grants, which give States autonomy to
identify and nurture innovation. This year, BJA began a
coordination meeting to identify and support the needs to
States, especially courts, to address the requirements of the
Sixth Amendment in pandemic, exploring innovative approaches
that States can use to support courts and to prepare for
reopening.
--In COSSAP, States can develop State led approaches to enhance
treatment, support overdose response and deflection from the
system to treatment and diversion by law enforcement and courts
& prosecutors, and deepening treatment and recovery support
services to courts across the States.
--Under the Adult Drug Court program, BJA meets regularly with State
drug court coordinators to identify issues and needs, to
partner and leverage training capacity of States and support
fidelity audits and collection and analysis of data about
program activity and efficacy.
6b. Do I have your commitment to work more closely with State
court leadership on the development and implementation of many of the
criminal justice reforms and improvements that this administration
seeks to advance?
Answer. Yes, you have my commitment to work with State court
leaders on the development and implementation of the criminal justice
reforms and improvements we are working to advance. For example, OJP
intends to invite State court leaders to listening sessions and conduct
other open sessions to gather information and insight from the field.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shaheen. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:14 p.m., Wednesday, June 9, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]