write_parts.c-54 : failed to open = [/local/etc/httpd/cgi-lis/txt_templates/compr_reg_crumb.txt]

Committee Reports

107th Congress (2001-2002)

House Report 107-125

Committee Reports for the 107th Congress
House Report 107-125 1 of 1
Search Results  > House Report 107-125
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
This Report: To Accompany H.R.2215     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF


{link: 'http://www.congress.gov:80/cgi-bin/cpquery?',title: 'THOMAS - Committee Report - House Report 107-125' }

21ST CENTURY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

89-006

107TH CONGRESS

REPORT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1st Session

107-125
21st CENTURY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

JULY 10, 2001- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2215]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

CONTENTS Page
The Amendment 2
Purpose and Summary 13
Background and Need for the Legislation 15
Hearings 15
Committee Consideration 16
Vote of the Committee 16
Committee Oversight Findings 18
Performance Goals and Objectives 18
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 19
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 19
Constitutional Authority Statement 21
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion 21
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 29
Markup Transcript 53
Additional Views 141

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
Sec. 101. Specific sums authorized to be appropriated.
Sec. 102. Appointment of additional assistant United States attorneys; reduction of certain litigation positions.
TITLE II--PERMANENT ENABLING PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Permanent authority.
Sec. 202. Permanent authority relating to enforcement of laws.
Sec. 203. Notifications and reports to be provided simultaneously to committees.
Sec. 204. Miscellaneous uses of funds; technical amendments.
Sec. 205. Technical and miscellaneous amendments to Department of Justice authorities; authority to transfer property of marginal value; recordkeeping; protection of the Attorney General.
Sec. 206. Oversight; waste, fraud, and abuse of appropriations.
Sec. 207. Protection of the Attorney General.
Sec. 208. Enforcement of Federal criminal laws by Attorney General.
Sec. 209. Counterterrorism fund.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Repealers.
Sec. 302. Technical amendments to title 18 of the United States Code.
Sec. 303. Required submission of proposed authorization of appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2003.
Sec. 304. Review of the Department of Justice.
Sec. 305. Study of untested rape examination kits.
Sec. 306. Report on carnivore.
TITLE IV--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Establishment of Violence Against Women Office.
Sec. 403. Duties and functions of Director of Violence Against Women Office.
Sec. 404. Staff of Violence Against Women Office.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

SEC. 101. SPECIFIC SUMS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED.

SEC. 102. APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS; REDUCTION OF CERTAIN LITIGATION POSITIONS.

TITLE II--PERMANENT ENABLING PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. PERMANENT AUTHORITY.

`Sec. 530C. Authority to use available funds

`530C. Authority to use available funds.'.

SEC. 202. PERMANENT AUTHORITY RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS.

`Sec. 530D. Report on enforcement of laws

`530D. Report on enforcement of laws.'.

SEC. 203. NOTIFICATIONS AND REPORTS TO BE PROVIDED SIMULTANEOUSLY TO COMMITTEES.

SEC. 204. MISCELLANEOUS USES OF FUNDS; TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

SEC. 205. TECHNICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUTHORITIES; AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER PROPERTY OF MARGINAL VALUE; RECORDKEEPING; PROTECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SEC. 206. OVERSIGHT; WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 207. ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SEC. 208. COUNTERTERRORISM FUND.

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 301. REPEALERS.

SEC. 302. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.

SEC. 303. REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003.

SEC. 304. REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

SEC. 305. STUDY OF UNTESTED RAPE EXAMINATION KITS.

SEC. 306. REPORT ON DCS 1000 (`CARNIVORE').

TITLE IV--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 402. ESTABLISHMENT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

SEC. 403. DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

SEC. 404. STAFF OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 2215, the `21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act,' is a comprehensive authorization of the United States Department of Justice (`DOJ' or the `Department'). H.R. 2215 contains four titles which authorize appropriations for the Department for fiscal year 2002, provide permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department to efficiently carry out its mission, clarify and harmonize existing statutory authority, and repeal obsolete statutory authorities. The bill establishes certain reporting requirements and other mechanisms (such as a Deputy Inspector General for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)) intended to better enable the Congress and the Department to oversee the operations of the Department. Finally, the bill creates a separate Violence Against Women Office. H.R. 2215 is sponsored by Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and Ranking Minority Member John Conyers, Jr.

Title I authorizes appropriations for the major components of the Justice Department for fiscal year 2002. The authorization mirrors the President's request regarding the Department except in two respects. First, the Committee increased the President's request for the DOJ Inspector General by $10 million. This is necessary because the Committee is concerned about the severe downsizing of that office and the need for oversight, particularly of the FBI. Second, H.R. 2215 does not authorize appropriations for several unauthorized grant programs. The Committee has made a determination that it will review each of these expired programs and authorize them as needed. The Committee has already done this for the juvenile justice block grants program. 1

[Footnote] In addition, title I authorizes the Attorney General to transfer 200 lawyers from among the six litigating divisions at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. to the field.

[Footnote 1: See H.R. 863, 107th Cong., (2001); Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2001, H.R. Rept. No. 107-46 (April 20, 2001).]

Title II permanently establishes a clear set of authorities that the Department may rely on to use appropriated funds, including establishing permitted uses of appropriated funds by the Attorney General for Fees and Expenses of Witnesses, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the Federal Prison System, and the Detention Trustee. Title II also establishes new reporting requirements which are intended to enhance Congressional oversight of the Department, including new reporting requirements for information about the enforcement of existing laws, for information regarding the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and the submission of other reports, required by existing law, to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. Section 206(e) expands an existing reporting requirement regarding copyright infringement cases. Title II also makes several technical and miscellaneous amendments to various DOJ authorities.

Title III repeals outdated statutes, requires the submission of an annual authorization bill to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, and provides new oversight and reporting requirements for the FBI and other activities conducted by the Department. Title III repeals the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund and related cross references because this fund is no longer used to fund crime fighting programs and is therefore obsolete. It also repeals the open-ended authorization for the National Institute of Corrections and the U.S. Marshall's Service. Title III also contains a number of additional technical and minor amendments to title 18 of the United States Code.

Title III requires the Department to submit any fiscal year 2003 authorization bill to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. It establishes a Deputy Inspector General for the FBI and requires the Inspector General of the Justice Department to submit a timely oversight plan for the FBI and requires the Attorney General to submit a timely review of Attorney General order 1931-94 to the Congress. Finally, title III requires the Department to submit studies to Congress on untested rape examination kits and the use of DCS 1000, also known as Carnivore, and other similar Internet surveillance systems.

Title IV establishes a Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) within the Justice Department. The VAWO is headed by a Director, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In addition, title IV enumerates duties and responsibilities of the Director, and requires the Attorney General to ensure VAWO is adequately staffed.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Authorization is the process by which Congress creates, amends, and extends programs in response to national needs. Authorization is perhaps the most important oversight tool that a Committee can employ. Through authorization, legislative committees establish management objectives and provide expertise and guidance to the Appropriations Committee. Once a Federal program has been authorized, the Appropriations Committee provides the actual budget authority, which allows Federal agencies to enter into obligations and spend the money that is appropriated.

The Department of Justice has not been properly authorized since 1979. 2

[Footnote] Since that time, several attempts to authorize the Department have failed either because of poor timing or because the authorization bills were compromised by controversial amendments. H.R. 2215 will, for the first time in over 20 years, comprehensively authorize the Department of Justice and its various components.

[Footnote 2: Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-132, 93 Stat. 1040 (Nov. 30, 1979).]

HEARINGS

The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime conducted an oversight hearing on May 3, 2001 and received testimony from four witnesses: Louie McKinney, Acting Director for the United States Marshals Service; Donnie Marshall, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; Thomas Pickard, Deputy Director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Kathleen Sawyer, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

On May 9, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law conducted an oversight hearing and received testimony from five witnesses: Mark Calloway, Director of the Executive Office for the United States Attorneys; John Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division; Martha Davis, Acting Director of the Executive Office for United States Trustees; Stuart Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division; Barbara Underwood; Acting Solicitor General of the United States.

On May 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Crime conducted a second oversight hearing and received testimony from five witnesses: Michael Horowitz, Chief of Staff of the Criminal Division; Ralph Justus, Acting Director of the Community Oriented Policing Services; and Mary Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs.

Also on May 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims conducted an oversight hearing and received testimony from five witnesses: Roy Beck , Executive Director of Numbers USA.com; John Lacey, Chariman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission; Peggy Philbin, Acting Director for the Executive Office for Immigration Review; Kevin Rooney, Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); and Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, Auxiliary Bishop of Miami on behalf of National Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration.

In addition, Attorney General Ashcroft testified before the Full Committee during a June 6, 2001, oversight hearing.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, June 20, 2001, the full Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2215, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.

VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

1. Ms. Baldwin offered an amendment which permanently establishes a Violence Against Women Office to implement the Violence Against Women Act. The Office would be headed by a director appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 15 to 9. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------
                            Ayes Nays Present 
----------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde                                      
Mr. Gekas                           X         
Mr. Coble                           X         
Mr. Smith (Texas)                             
Mr. Gallegly                   X              
Mr. Goodlatte                       X         
Mr. Chabot                     X              
Mr. Barr                            X         
Mr. Jenkins                         X         
Mr. Hutchinson                 X              
Mr. Cannon                          X         
Mr. Graham                     X              
Mr. Bachus                                    
Mr. Scarborough                               
Mr. Hostettler                      X         
Mr. Green                                     
Mr. Keller                          X         
Mr. Issa                       X              
Ms. Hart                       X              
Mr. Flake                           X         
Mr. Conyers                    X              
Mr. Frank                                     
Mr. Berman                     X              
Mr. Boucher                                   
Mr. Nadler                                    
Mr. Scott                      X              
Mr. Watt                       X              
Ms. Lofgren                    X              
Ms. Jackson Lee                               
Ms. Waters                     X              
Mr. Meehan                                    
Mr. Delahunt                                  
Mr. Wexler                                    
Ms. Baldwin                    X              
Mr. Weiner                     X              
Mr. Schiff                                    
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman    X              
Total                         15    9         
----------------------------------------------

2. Mr. Flake offered a motion to reconsider the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) amendment offered by Mr. Weiner. The motion to reconsider was agreed to by a vote of 16 to 7. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------
                            Ayes Nays Present 
----------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde                                      
Mr. Gekas                      X              
Mr. Coble                      X              
Mr. Smith (Texas)              X              
Mr. Gallegly                   X              
Mr. Goodlatte                  X              
Mr. Chabot                     X              
Mr. Barr                       X              
Mr. Jenkins                    X              
Mr. Hutchinson                 X              
Mr. Cannon                     X              
Mr. Graham                     X              
Mr. Bachus                                    
Mr. Scarborough                               
Mr. Hostettler                 X              
Mr. Green                                     
Mr. Keller                          X         
Mr. Issa                       X              
Ms. Hart                       X              
Mr. Flake                      X              
Mr. Conyers                                   
Mr. Frank                                     
Mr. Berman                          X         
Mr. Boucher                                   
Mr. Nadler                                    
Mr. Scott                           X         
Mr. Watt                            X         
Ms. Lofgren                         X         
Ms. Jackson Lee                               
Ms. Waters                          X         
Mr. Meehan                                    
Mr. Delahunt                                  
Mr. Wexler                                    
Ms. Baldwin                         X         
Mr. Weiner                                    
Mr. Schiff                                    
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman    X              
Total                         16    7         
----------------------------------------------

3. Mr. Weiner offered an amendment which would have authorized $1,150,000,000 for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. It also would have authorized $600,000,000 for hiring and retention programs for people hired under the COPS program. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 9 to 16. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------
                            Ayes Nays Present 
----------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde                                      
Mr. Gekas                           X         
Mr. Coble                           X         
Mr. Smith (Texas)                   X         
Mr. Gallegly                        X         
Mr. Goodlatte                       X         
Mr. Chabot                          X         
Mr. Barr                            X         
Mr. Jenkins                         X         
Mr. Hutchinson                      X         
Mr. Cannon                          X         
Mr. Graham                          X         
Mr. Bachus                                    
Mr. Scarborough                               
Mr. Hostettler                      X         
Mr. Green                                     
Mr. Keller                     X              
Mr. Issa                            X         
Ms. Hart                            X         
Mr. Flake                           X         
Mr. Conyers                    X              
Mr. Frank                                     
Mr. Berman                     X              
Mr. Boucher                                   
Mr. Nadler                                    
Mr. Scott                      X              
Mr. Watt                       X              
Ms. Lofgren                    X              
Ms. Jackson Lee                               
Ms. Waters                     X              
Mr. Meehan                                    
Mr. Delahunt                                  
Mr. Wexler                                    
Ms. Baldwin                    X              
Mr. Weiner                     X              
Mr. Schiff                                    
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman         X         
Total                          9   16         
----------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H.R. 2215 is the first comprehensive authorization of the Department of Justice in over 20 years. This legislation streamlines, clarifies, and harmonizes the legal authority that the Department relies on to justify certain expenditures. These updated and streamlined authorities should enhance the performance of the Department. Furthermore, this legislation contains a number of provisions designed to enhance congressional oversight over the Department and its components. Specifically, section 304 of the bill is intended to supplement the Inspector General's oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation which should reduce incidence of waste and mismanagement at the Bureau. While this bill makes certain changes to improve the efficiency of the Department of Justice, the Committee anticipates management decisions by the Attorney General to provide a more effective and efficient Department of Justice for the American people.

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 2215, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, July 6, 2001.

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Grabowicz and Lanette J. Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860.

Sincerely,

Dan L. Crippen, Director.

H.R. 2215--21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.

H.R. 2215 would authorize the appropriation of funds in fiscal year 2002 for many programs and agencies in the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States Attorneys, and the Bureau of Prisons. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2215 would cost $17.6 billion over the 2002-2006 period. (The four agencies listed above would account for almost $13 billion of that total.) This legislation would not affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.

H.R. 2215 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Some of the funds authorized in the bill would be provided to state and local governments in the form of grants and reimbursements.

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2215 is shown in the following table. The cost of this legislation falls within budget functions 750 (administration of justice), 050 (national defense), and 150 (international affairs). 

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    2001   2002  2003  2004 2005 2006 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                     
Spending Under Current Law                                            
 Budget Authority 1               15,597      0     0     0    0    0 
 Estimated Outlays                15,089  3,023 1,315   292  131   79 
Proposed Changes                                                      
 Estimated Authorization Level         0 17,689     0     0    0    0 
 Estimated Outlays                     0 13,463 2,588 1,205  259   58 
Spending Under H.R. 2215                                              
 Estimated Authorization Level 1  15,597 17,689     0     0    0    0 
 Estimated Outlays                15,089 16,486 3,903 1,497  390  137 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized by the bill will be appropriated by the start of fiscal year 2002 and that spending would follow the historical spending rates for the authorized activities. We expect a few programs to spend additional funds more slowly than the historical rates because the bill would provide substantial increases in authorization amounts, relative to the amounts appropriated for 2001.

Under current law, the Antitrust Division of DOJ is authorized to collect pre-merger filing fees and spend such collections without further appropriation action. CBO assumes that amounts authorized to be appropriated in H.R. 2215 for the Antitrust Division are in addition to this current authority. Section 102 of the bill would authorize the transfer of 200 positions within DOJ to create additional assistant U.S. attorneys. Under the bill, the new positions would be filled by current litigation attorneys, and those positions would be eliminated. H.R. 2215 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary in 2002 to fund this action. Based on information from DOJ, we estimate that implementing this provision would cost $6 million in 2002 to pay for increases in salaries, benefits, and travel costs.

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

None.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 2215 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Some of the funds authorized in the bill would be provided to state and local governments in the form of grants and reimbursements.

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz and Lanette J. Walker (226-2860)

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Shelley Finlayson (225-3220)

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Section 1. Short Title and Table of Contents.

Section 1 provides that the short title of the act shall be the `21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.' It also contains a table of contents.

TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

Section 101. Specific Sums Authorized to be Appropriated

Section 101 authorizes appropriations to carry out the work of the various components of the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002. The structure of title I mirrors the organization of the annual Commerce-Justice-State (CJS) appropriations bill and the President's budget request. The bill authorizes the appropriations of amounts requested by the President except for one account. The account funding the Office of Inspector General is authorized at $10 million above the President's request. The accounts, and the activities and components that each would fund, are as follows:

General Administration--$93,433,000--For the leadership offices of the Department (including the offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General) and the Justice Management Division, Executive Support program, Intelligence Policy, Office of Professional Responsibility, and General Administration.

Administrative Review and Appeals--$178,499,000--For the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

Office of Inspector General--$55,000,000--For the investigation of allegations of violations of criminal and civil statutes, regulations, and ethical standards by Department employees, and for the new position of Deputy Inspector General to oversee the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This amount is $10 million above the President's Request. The IG's office has been severely downsized over the last several years from approximately 460 to 360 full-time equivalents. Oversight is a priority and this level of funding should get the IG back on the path of meeting the audit and oversight needs of the Department. The Committee expects that the OIG will substantially increase its oversight of the FBI, INS, and the Department's grant programs.

General Legal Activities--$566,822,000--For the conduct of the legal activities of the Department. This includes the office of Solicitor General, Tax Division, Criminal Division, 3

[Footnote] Civil Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Civil Rights Division, Office of Legal Counsel, Interpol, Legal Activities Office Automation, and Office of Dispute Resolution.

[Footnote 3: The Committee is concerned about the significant and growing problem of criminal piracy of copyrighted works and would like to see a greater emphasis placed on these problems. Because of this concern, the Committee urged the Committee on Appropriations to dedicate an additional $10,000,000 to augment the investigation and prosecution of intellectual property crimes. Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman), the Honorable Howard Coble (Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property), the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. (Ranking Minority Member), the Honorable Howard Berman (Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property), to the Honorable C.W. (Bill) Young (Chairman, House Appropriations Committee), the Honorable Frank R. Wolf (Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State Departments), the Honorable David R. Obey (Ranking Minority Member, House Appropriations Committee), the Honorable Jose Serrano, (Ranking Minority Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State Departments), May 24, 2001.]

Antitrust Division--$140,973,000--For decreasing anti-competitive behavior among U.S. businesses and increasing the competitiveness of the national and international business environment.

United States Attorneys--$1,346,289,000--For the 93 U.S. Attorneys and their offices and the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. The U.S. Attorneys represent the United States in the vast majority of criminal and civil cases handled by the Justice Department.

Federal Bureau of Investigation--$3,507,109,000--For the detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes against the United States. The FBI also plays a primary role in the protection of the United States from foreign intelligence activities and investigating and preventing acts of terrorism against the United States.

United States Marshals Service--$626,439,000--To protect the Federal courts and its personnel and to ensure the effective operation of the Federal judicial system, of which no more than $6,621,000 may be used for construction.

Federal Prison System--$4,662,710,000--For the administration, operation, and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional institutions.

Federal Prison Detention--$724,682,000--For the support of United States prisoners in non-federal institutions, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 4013(a).

Drug Enforcement Agency--$1,480,929,000--To enforce the controlled substance laws and regulations of the United States and to recommend and support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets.

Immigration and Naturalization Service--$3,516,411,000--For the administration and enforcement of the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, of which no more than $2,737,341,000 for salaries and expenses and border affairs, no more than $650,660,000 for salaries and expenses of citizenship and benefits, and no more than $128,410,000 for construction.

Fees and Expenses of Witnesses--$156,145,000--For fees and expenses associated with providing witness testimony on behalf of the United States, expert witnesses, and private counsel for government employees who have been sued, charged, or subpoenaed for actions taken while performing their official duties.

Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement--$338,106,000--For the detection, investigation, and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug trafficking.

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission--$1,130,000--To adjudicate claims of U.S. nationals against foreign governments under jurisdiction conferred by the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, and other authorizing legislation;

Community Relations Service (CRS)--$9,269,000--To assist communities in preventing violence and resolving conflicts arising from racial and ethnic tensions and to develop the capacity of such communities to address these conflicts without external assistance. CRS activities are conducted in accordance with title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Assets Forfeiture Fund--$22,949,000--To provide a stable source of resources to cover the costs of the asset seizure and forfeiture program, including the costs of seizing, evaluating, inventorying, maintaining, protecting, advertizing, forfeiting, and disposing of property.

United States Parole Commission--$10,862,000--For the activities of the U.S. Parole Commission. The Commission has jurisdiction over all Federal prisoners eligible for parole, wherever confined, and continuing jurisdiction over those who are released on parole or as if on parole.

Federal Detention Trustee--$1,718,000--For necessary expenses to exercise all power and functions authorized by law relating to the detention of Federal prisoners in non-federal institutions or otherwise in the custody of the United States Marshall Service; and the detention of aliens in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Joint Automated Booking System--$15,957,000--For expenses necessary for the nationwide deployment of a Joint Automated Booking System including automated capability to transmit fingerprint and image data.

Narrowband Communications--$104,606,000--For the costs of conversion to narrowband communications, including the cost for operation and maintenance of Land Mobile Radio legacy systems.

Radiation Exposure Compensation--$1,996,000--For necessary administrative expenses in accordance with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

Counterterrorism Fund--$4,989,000--For the reimbursement of: (1) the costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed as a result of any domestic or international terrorist incident and (2) the costs of providing support to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with these activities.

Office of Justice Programs--$116,369,000--For necessary administrative expenses of the Office of Justice Programs.

Section 102. Appointment of Additional Assistant United States Attorneys and Reduction of Certain Litigation Positions

This section authorizes the Attorney General to transfer 200 additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys from among the six litigating divisions at the Justice Department's headquarters (Main Justice) in Washington, D.C. to the various U.S. Attorneys offices around the country. Vacant positions resulting from transfers pursuant to this section will be terminated. This section is intended to raise the productivity of Washington-based lawyers, who litigate criminal and civil cases across the nation for the Justice Department, by moving them to the field. Litigating attorneys for the government are most effective in the Federal judicial district where their cases are pending. Section 102 was amended at markup, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, to make the transfer authorization discretionary with respect to specific litigating divisions to prevent ongoing litigation from being adversely effected.

TITLE II--PERMANENT ENABLING PROVISIONS

Section 201. Permanent Authority

Section 201 amends chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, by creating a new section, `530C'. This section details permitted uses of available funds by the Attorney General to carry out the activities of the Justice Department. General permitted uses of available funds include:

Specific permitted uses of available funds include:

The use of funds appropriated for Fees and Expenses of Witnesses is limited to certain expenses and the construction of witness safesites. The use of funds appropriated for the Federal Bureau of Investigation is limited to the detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes against the United States. The use of funds appropriated for the Immigration and Naturalization Service is limited to general Immigration and Naturalization Service activities. The use of appropriated funds for the Federal Prison System is limited to general function of the Federal Prison System. The use of appropriated funds for the Detention Trustee is limited to the functions authorized by law relating the detention of Federal prisoners in non-Federal institutions or otherwise in the custody of the United States Marshals Service and for the detention of aliens in the custody of the INS.

The Attorney General is prohibited from compensating employed attorneys who are not duly licensed and authorized to practice under the law of a State, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia. And reimbursement payments to governmental units of the Department of Justice, other Federal entities, or State or local governments are limited to uses permitted by the authority permitting such reimbursement payment.

Section 202. Permanent Authority Relating to the Enforcement of Laws

Section 202 amends chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, by creating a new section, `530D' relating to reporting on the enforcement of laws. This section directs the Attorney General to report to Congress in any case in which the Attorney General, the President, head of executive agency, or military department:

Each report, which is subject to certain time and content requirements, must be submitted to the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, House Majority Leader, House Minority Leader, and the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary, the Senate Legal Counsel and the General Counsel of the House of Representatives. Section 202 also includes a number of conforming amendments.

Section 203. Notifications and Reports to be Provided Simultaneously to Committees

Section 203 requires the Attorney General or other officer of the Department of Justice to simultaneously submit copies of any notice or report, which is required by law to be submitted to other Committees or Subcommittees of Congress, to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

Section 204. Miscellaneous Uses of Funds; Technical Amendments

Section 204 provides technical amendments to the Bureau of Justice Assistance grant programs in title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. It also makes minor amendments to the amount available to compensate attorneys specially retained by the Attorney General.

Section 205. Technical Amendment; Authority to Transfer Property of Marginal Value.

Section 205 makes technical amendments to section 524(c) of title 28, United States Codes, and clarifies the Attorney General's authority to transfer property of marginal value. It also requires the use of standard criteria for the purpose of categorizing offenders, victims, actors, and those acted upon in any data, records, or other information acquired, collected, classified, preserved, or published by the Attorney General for any statistical, research, or other aggregate reporting purpose. This section also makes several clerical and technical amendments to title 28, United States Code.

Section 206. Oversight; Waste, Fraud, and Abuse of Appropriations

Section 206 amends section 529 of title 28, United States Code, to require the Attorney General to submit an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary detailing:

In addition, section 206 provides a number of conforming amendments and establishes a new reporting requirement on the enforcement and prosecution of copyright infringements.

Section 207. Enforcement of the Federal Criminal Laws by Attorney General

Section 207 provides clarifying amendments to title 28, United States Code, relating to the enforcement of Federal criminal law.

Section 208. Counterterrorism Fund

Section 208 establishes a counterterrorism fund in the Treasury of the United States, without effecting prior appropriations, to reimburse Justice Department components for any costs incurred in connection with:

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

Section 301. Repealers.

Section 301 repeals open-ended authorizations of appropriations for the National Institute of Corrections and the United States Marshals Service. It repeals the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund which is no longer in use. It also repeals an unnecessary and burdensome reporting requirement contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1994. In addition, section 301 makes other technical and conforming changes.

Section 302. Technical Amendments to Title 18 of the United States Code

Section 302 makes several minor clarifying amendments to title 18, United States Code. Section 302(3) moves a comma that became the focus of a statutory construction question in Crandon v. United States. 4

[Footnote]

[Footnote 4: 494 U.S. 152 (1990) (J. Scalia concurring).]

Section 303. Required Submission of Proposed Authorization of Appropriations for the Department of Justice for Fiscal Year 2003.

Section 303 requires the Attorney General to submit a Department of Justice authorization bill for FY 2003 to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary when the President submits his FY 2003 budget. This authorization bill should contain any recommended additions, changes or modifications to existing authorities that may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Department. Any such addition, change, or modification should be accompanied by a description of the change and the justification for the change.

Section 304. Review of the Department of Justice.

Section 304 requires the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Justice to appoint a Deputy Inspector General for the Federal Bureau of Investigation whose sole job is to focus on the FBI's programs and operations. This section directs the IG to submit to Congress a report within 30 days of enactment of the bill so that Congress and the American people know what the plan will be for overseeing the FBI. The IG will consider several factors for his oversight plan, including:

Finally, the amendment directs the Attorney General to review Attorney General Reno's order 1931-94 signed November 8, 1994, which limited the ability of the IG to review FBI and DEA matters. Together with the funding increase for the IG contained in section 101, this signifies a major step forward in our effort to improve the operations of the FBI.

Section 305. Study of Untested Rape Examination Kits.

Section 305 requires the Attorney General to conduct a study and assessment of untested rape examination kits that currently exist nationwide, including information from all law enforcement jurisdictions. The Attorney General is required to submit a report of this study and assessment to the Congress.

Section 306. Report on DCS 1000 (`Carnivore')

Section 306 requires the Attorney General and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to submit a timely report to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary detailing:

Section 306 is intended to cover DCS 1000 and any other similar system or device.

TITLE IV--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Section 401. Short Title.

Section 401 establishes the `Violence Against Women Office Act' as the short title.

Section 402. Establishment of Violence Against Women Office.

Section 402 establishes a Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) within the Department of Justice, headed by a presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed Director. The Director is vested with authority for all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the VAWO. In addition, the Director is prohibited from other employment during service as Director or affiliation with organizations the may create a conflict of interest.

Section 403. Duties and Function of Director of Violence Against Women Office.

Section 403 enumerates the following duties of the Director:

Section 404. Staff of Violence Against Women Office.

Section 404 requires the Attorney General to ensure that VAWO receives adequate staff to support the Director in carrying out the responsibilities of this act.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART II - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 31 - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Sec.
501. Executive department.
* * * * * * *
530C. Authority to use available funds.
530D. Report on enforcement of laws.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 509. Functions of the Attorney General

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 515. Authority for legal proceedings; commission, oath, and salary for special attorneys

* * * * * * *

Sec. 522. Report of business and statistics

* * * * * * *

Sec. 524. Availability of appropriations

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 529. Annual report of Attorney General

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 530C. Authority to use available funds

Sec. 530D. Report on enforcement of laws

* * * * * * *

Sec. 533. Investigative and other officials; appointment

Sec. 534. Acquisition, preservation, and exchange of identification records and information; appointment of officials

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Sec. 535. Investigation of crimes involving Government officers and employees; limitations

* * * * * * *

Sec. 561. United States Marshals Service

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 712 OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978

(Public Law 95-521)

ATTORNEY GENERAL RELIEVED OF RESPONSIBILITY

-

OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

* * * * * * *

PART E--BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

Subpart 1--Drug Control and System Improvement Grant Program

* * * * * * *

GRANT LIMITATIONS

* * * * * * *

ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS UNDER FORMULA GRANTS

* * * * * * *

Subpart 2--Discretionary Grants

CHAPTER A--GRANTS TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTITIES

PURPOSES

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR GRANTS

* * * * * * *

-

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART I--CRIMES

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 11--BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

* * * * * * *

Sec. 209. Salary of Government officials and employees payable only by United States

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 73--OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1516. Obstruction of Federal audit

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 93--PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1913. Lobbying with appropriated moneys

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 113--STOLEN PROPERTY

* * * * * * *

Sec. 2320. Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

PART III--PRISONS AND PRISONERS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 301--GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Sec. 4013. Support of United States prisoners in non-Federal institutions

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 303--BUREAU OF PRISONS

* * * * * * *

Sec. 4041. Bureau of Prisons; director and employees

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 319--NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

-

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

(Public Law 105-277)

* * * * * * *

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

-

VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

(Public Law 103-322)

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXI--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F--Other State and Local Aid

* * * * * * *

SEC. 210603. AVAILABILITY OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND TO FUND ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY THE BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT AND THE NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1993.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXXI--VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ SEC. 310001. CREATION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND. ][<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ `SEC. 251A. SEQUESTRATION WITH RESPECT TO VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND. ][<-Struck out]

* * * * * * *

-

TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE II--THE BUDGET PROCESS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 11--THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1105. Budget contents and submission to Congress

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 13--APPROPRIATIONS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II--TRUST FUNDS AND REFUNDS

* * * * * * *

Sec. 1321. Trust funds

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 13 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1970

(Public Law 91-383)

SEC. 13. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM CRIME PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.

* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 6 OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 241 OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

DETENTION AND REMOVAL OF ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

-

ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996

TITLE VIII--ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A--Resources and Security

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ SEC. 808. COMPILATION OF STATISTICS RELATING TO INTIMIDATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. ][<-Struck out]

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B--Funding Authorizations for Law Enforcement

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->][ SEC. 823. FUNDING SOURCE. ][<-Struck out]

* * * * * * *

-

SECTION 118 OF THE DRUG-FREE PRISONS AND JAILS ACT OF 1998

[Struck out->][ SEC. 118. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. ][<-Struck out]

-

SECTION 401 OF THE ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1996

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHING BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS.

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2001

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

--Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:07 a.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Now, pursuant to notice, I call up the bill, H.R. 2215, the `21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act' for purposes of markup, and move its favorable recommendation to the House.

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the Chair recognizes himself to explain the bill.

[The bill, H.R. 2215, follows:]

A.eps

B.eps

C.eps

D.eps

E.eps

F.eps

G.eps

H.eps

I.eps

J.eps

K.eps

L.eps

M.eps

N.eps

O.eps

P.eps

Q.eps

R.eps

S.eps

T.eps

U.eps

V.eps

W.eps

X.eps

Y.eps

Z.eps

AA.eps

BB.eps

CC.eps

DD.eps

EE.eps

FF.eps

GG.eps

HH.eps

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I am pleased to bring before the Committee H.R. 2215, the DOJ Authorization Act. This bill is based on President Bush's proposal for the Justice Department's fiscal year 2002 budget. Three Subcommittees and the full Committee have reviewed the Department's budget at oversight hearings. Attorney General John Ashcroft testified for over 3 hours regarding various issues concerning the President's proposed budget. This bill is the product of several drafting sessions between the majority and minority staff and officials from the Justice Department, and from a number of Members who have provided input into this legislation. I wish to thank the chief co-sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his help and support in crafting this legislation.

It has been over 20 years since the 96th Congress last authorized appropriations for the Department of Justice. As a result, the Department is operated pursuant to laws that are in need of revision. H.R. 2215 establishes fundamental budgetary and administrative authorities that simplify, harmonize and clarify over two decades of statutory authorities that have been created by various enactments. These changes should enable the Justice Department to improve its efficiency which will ultimately benefit the American people.

The President's budget includes many promising initiatives, including new funding for the INS to help secure our borders, new funding for the FBI to combat terrorism and cyber crime, and new funding for the DEA to improve its efforts to fight the scourge of drugs and violence. Notwithstanding these priorities, I support the administration's decision to take a breather from the hefty budget increases that the Department has received in the last decade.

The Department of Justice's budget has dramatically increased from $11 billion in fiscal '93 to more than $21 billion this year. It is not clear that the Department has been able to manage these resources effectively and efficiently. The funding levels authorized in this bill reflect the request of the President with one exception. The Committee has increased the level authorized for the Office of Inspector General by $10 million. The IG's Office has been severely downsized over the last several years from approximately 460 to 360 full-time equivalents. Oversight is a priority and this level of funding should get the IG back on the path of meeting the audit and oversight needs of the Department. Also, together with the manager's amendment that I will offer, which will create a Deputy IG for FBI oversight whose sole job will be to coordinate and be responsible for overseeing the programs and operations of the Bureau, this funding level will help the Department improve its operations.

H.R. 2215 also stakes the Committee's claim to information so that it may conduct proper oversight over the Department. Several years ago the appropriators slipped in an amendment to their bill, denying this Committee the ability to receive reprogramming and transfer notices, notices which were routinely sent to the Committee previously. This has diminished our ability to conduct oversight over the Department. One example of this comes to mind. Several years ago when the FBI reorganized the National Security Division, the FBI came to the Hill to brief majority and minority staff on the reorganization. This was the first time our staffs had even heard of this reorganization, and the FBI informed the staff that the appropriators had approved the plan through a reprogramming request.

H.R. 2215 is a giant step in the right direction. However, this bill does not authorize a number of expired grant programs for several reasons. First, they need serious review. We're not about to rubber stamp a funding level without fully reviewing those programs which have grown exponentially over the last several years. The Committee has tried, with limited success over the years to authorize expired grant programs. Last year Congress authorized the Violence Against Women Act. This year again we have passed the Juvenile Justice bill, and I hope that will not get bogged down with extraneous matters as it did last Congress. I also expect during the remainder of this Congress, we will review and authorize as appropriate, those expired provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of '68, State and local block grants, the programs contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1994, and other similar expired authority. This will take great effort, but I realize before we authorize them, we need to vigorously review those programs to insure the billions that are spent on them are being spent wisely.

[The opening statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the State of Wisconsin

I am pleased to bring before the Committee H.R. 2215, the `21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.' H.R. 2215 is based on President Bush's proposal for the Justice Department's fiscal year 2002 budget. Three subcommittees and the full Committee reviewed the Department's budget at oversight hearings. Attorney General John Ashcroft testified for over three hours regarding various issues concerning the President's proposed budget.

This bill is the product of several drafting sessions between the majority and minority staff and officials from the Justice Department, and from a number of Members who have provided input into this legislation. I want to thank the chief cosponsor of this legislation, Rep. Conyers, for his help and support in crafting this legislation.

It has been over twenty years since the 96th Congress last authorized appropriations for the Department of Justice. As a result, the Department has operated pursuant to laws that are in need of revision. H.R. 2215 establishes fundamental budgetary and administrative authorities that simplify, harmonize, and clarify over two decades of statutory authorities that have been created by various enactments. These changes should enable the Justice Department to improve its efficiency which will ultimately benefit the American people.

The President's budget includes many promising initiatives, including: new funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to help secure our borders, new funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to combat terrorism and cybercrime, and new funding for the Drug Enforcement Agency to improve its efforts to fight the scourge of drugs and violence.

Notwithstanding these priorities, I support the Administration's decision to take a breather from the hefty budget increases that the Department has received in the last decade. The Department of Justice's budget has dramatically increased from $11 billion in Fiscal Year 1993 to more than $21 billion this year. It is not clear that the Department has been able to manage these resources effectively and efficiently.

The funding levels authorized in this bill reflect the request of the President with one exception. The Committee has increased the level authorized for the Office of Inspector General by 10 million dollars. The IG's office has been severely downsized over the last several years from approximately 460 to 360 full-time equivalents. Oversight is a priority and this level of funding should get the IG back on the path of meeting the audit and oversight needs of the Department. Also, together with the manager's amendment that I will offer, which will create a Deputy IG for FBI oversight whose sole job will be to coordinate and be responsible for overseeing the programs and operations of the Bureau, this funding level will help the Department improve its operations.

H.R. 2215 also stakes the Committee's claim to information to conduct proper oversight over the Department. Several years ago the Appropriations Committee slipped an amendment in their bill denying this Committee the ability to receive reprogramming and transfer notices--notices which routinely were sent to the Committee. This has diminished our ability to conduct oversight over the Department. One example of this comes to mind. Several years ago when the FBI reorganized the National Security Division, the FBI came to the Hill to brief majority and minority staff on the reorganization. It was the first time our staff's had even heard of the reorganization and the FBI informed the staff that the appropriators had approved the plan through a reprogramming request.

H.R. 2215 is a giant step in the right direction; however, this bill does not authorize a number of expired grant programs for several reasons. First, these programs need serious review. We were not about to rubber stamp any funding level without fully reviewing these programs which have grown exponentially over the last several years. This Committee has tried with limited success over the years to authorize expired grant programs. Last year, Congress authorized the Violence Against Women Act. This year, we have again passed the Juvenile Justice bill, and I am hopeful that it will not get bogged down with extraneous matters as it did last Congress. I also expect that during the remainder of this Congress, we will review and authorize, as appropriate, those expired provisions in the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, state and local block grants, the programs contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1994, and other similar expired authority. This will take great effort, but I believe we need to vigorously review these programs to ensure that the billions spent on them are being spent wisely before we reauthorize them. It is for these reasons that we have deferred action on the expired grant programs of the Department.

Again, let me thank the Members and officials of the Department for their efforts both at the hearing and at this markup. I nows recognize the gentleman from Michigan for five minutes for his statement.

And at this time I would recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to strike the last word, and to thank you for defending our Committee's jurisdiction and for the bipartisanship that was involved in constructing this measure.

We have not authorized the Department of Justice in more than 20 years, and instead of leaving the responsibility to the appropriators to decide which programs in Justice should be authorized and what their funding level should be, we are making that initial recommendation ourselves.

To remedy the past problems, the Chairman has worked with our staff, the Justice Department, to draft legislation. First we repeal archaic statutes and fixing errors in the law. The bill is the voice of the Committee on how the Department of Justice should be funded. Example, this bill tracks our requests that the Civil Rights Division receive $101 million for the fiscal year 2002. This is the amount that the Committee recommended earlier in its budget views. Significantly, our Committee's markup is occurring in advance of the Subcommittee on Appropriations of Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary. This puts our Committee on record when the record still matters.

The Chairman and I also initiated discussions with Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch on this matter, and hopefully when the bill passes the House, there will be a reasonable opportunity to work with the leaders in the other body to pass legislation similar to ours.

Now, this first authority is narrow in scope. It leaves uncommented upon other Department of Justice grant programs, for example, the COPS program, and local law enforcement block grants. But it is an excellent starting point nevertheless, and I hope a precursor to even more active Committee involvement in the running of the Justice Department.

Thank you very much. I return any unused time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, Members' opening statements will appear in the record at this point. The bill is open for amendment at any point, and I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

II.eps

JJ.eps

KK.eps

LL.eps

MM.eps

NN.eps

OO.eps

PP.eps

QQ.eps

RR.eps

SS.eps

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. This amendment is a bipartisan effort to improve the oversight of DOJ. The Department has in many ways lost its way, and I believe it needs to focus on fundamentals, fundamentals regarding core functions, fundamentals regarding the mission of the Department and its components, and fundamentals regarding the mundane, such as financial management, information technology and human resources. The FBI oversight provision in the amendment directs the DOJ Inspector General to appoint a deputy whose sole job is to focus on the FBI's programs and operations, something that is sorely needed in light of revelations in the press. The amendment directs the IG to submit to Congress a report within 30 days of enactment of the bill, so that Congress and the American people know what the plan will be for overseeing the FBI.

The IG will consider several other factors including first, auditing financial systems, information technology systems and computer security operations of the FBI. Second, auditing and evaluating programs and processes of the FBI to identify systemic weaknesses or implementation failures and to recommend corrective action. Third, reviewing the activities of Internal Affairs Offices at the FBI. And fourth, investigating allegations of misconduct by FBI personnel.

Finally, the amendment directs the Attorney General to review former Attorney General Reno's order 1931-94, signed November 8, 1994, which limited the ability of the IG to review FBI and DEA matters. Together with the funding increase for the IG already contained in the bill, this signifies a major step forward in our effort to improve the operations of the FBI.

The amendment also contains a provision that would promote accountability and integrity in the multibillion dollar grant program now administered by the DOJ, by requiring the Attorney General to provide Congress with annual reports and performance reviews of these programs. These reports would identify and describe the specific purpose of each grant, the recipients of the grant, the dollar amount of the grant, and the losing applicants. The performance reviews would inform the Congress of the effectiveness of completed grant projects in achieving the specified purposes for which the grants were made. These reports and performance reviews will establish a record of measurable results which will permit Congress to carry out its constitutional responsibility to authorize and fund these programs at appropriate levels.

The amendment contains a provision that directs the Department to be consistent when collecting statistical information. It does not help the Congress and others conducting oversight of the Department when the Department provides data and statistics that are not methodologically sound and consistent. This provision will insure consistency in their statistical reporting.

The amendment also contains a provision drafted by Mr. Berman, that would amend an existing reporting requirement by requiring specific information about criminal infringement of copyright cases.

I appreciate Mr. Berman and Mr. Coble's efforts in this area.

Finally, the amendment makes several technical and conforming changes to the underlying bill in a number of statutes.

I yield back the balance of my time. And is there further discussion of the amendment?

[The statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the State of Wisconsin

This amendment is a bipartisan effort to improve oversight of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has in many ways lost its way, and I believe it needs to focus on fundamentals. Fundamentals regarding core functions, fundamentals regarding the mission of the Department and its components, and fundamentals regarding the mundane such as financial management, information technology, and human resources.

The FBI oversight provision in the amendment directs the Department of Justice Inspector General to appoint a deputy whose sole job is to focus on the FBI's programs and operations. The amendment directs the IG to submit to Congress a report within 30 days of enactment of the bill so that Congress and the American people know what the plan will be for overseeing the FBI. The IG will consider several other factors:

Finally, the amendment directs the Attorney General to review Attorney General Reno's order 1931-94 signed November 8, 1994, which limited the ability of the IG to review FBI and DEA matters. Together with the funding increase for the IG already contained in the bill, this signifies a major step forward in our effort to improve the operations of the FBI.

The amendment also contains a provision which would promote accountability and integrity in the multibillion dollar grant programs now administered by the Department of Justice by requiring the Attorney General to provide Congress with annual reports and performance reviews of those programs. The reports would identify and describe the specific purpose of each grant, the recipients of the grant, the dollar amount of each grant, and the losing applicants. The performance reviews would inform the Congress of the effectiveness of completed grant projects in achieving the specified purposes for which the grants were made. These reports and performance reviews will establish a record of measurable results that will permit Congress to carry out its constitutional responsibility to authorize and fund these programs at appropriate levels.

The amendment contains a provision that directs the Department to be consistent when collecting statistical information. It does not help the Congress and others conducting oversight of the Department when the Department provides data and statistics that are not methodologically sound. This provision will ensure consistency in Justice Department statistical reporting.

The amendment also contains a provision drafted by Mr. Berman which would amend an existing reporting requirement by requiring specific information about criminal infringement of copyright cases. I appreciate Mr. Berman's and Mr. Coble's efforts on this matter.

Finally, the amendment makes several technical and conforming changes to the underlying bill and a number of statutes.

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strike the last word, and rise in support of the amendment, and ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.

[The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the State of Michigan

I must again commend the Chairman for defending this Committee's jurisdiction and for his bipartisanship. This Committee has not authorized the Department of Justice in more than 20 years, instead leaving the responsibility to the appropriators to decide what DOJ programs should be authorized and their maximum funding level. Needless to say, this puts a serious cramp in our Committee's critical oversight function.

To remedy this, the Chairman worked with our staff and the Justice Department to draft legislation. Aside from repealing archaic statutes and fixing errors in the law, the bill is the voice of the Committee on how the Justice Department should be funded. For example, this bill tracks our request that the Civil Rights Division receive $101.8 million for fiscal year 2002. This is the amount that the Committee recommended in its budget views.

Significantly, our Committee's markup is occurring in advance of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary markup by the Appropriations Committee. This put our Committee on record when the record still matters. The Chairman and I also initiated discussions with Senators Leahy and Hatch on this matter, and hopefully, when the bill passes the House, there will be a reasonable opportunity to pass this legislation in the other body.

This bill is not perfect. It is narrow in scope and does not touch all important DOJ grant programs such as COPS and local law enforcement block grants. But it is a useful starting point and I hope a precursor to more active Committee involvement in the running of the Justice Department.

Mr. CONYERS. And return the time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time is returned. The question is on the amendment offered by----

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer one small amendment that----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Is this an amendment to the amendment or an amendment to the bill?

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, no, it's a separate amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. The question again recurs on the amendment offered by the Chair. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And the amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. CONYERS. I have an amendment at the desk, and ask that it be reported.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, I don't have the Conyers amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Now you do.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215 offered by Mr. Conyers. At page 8, line 2, strike the period----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

TT.eps

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which addresses a small concern about the original bill that required the Attorney General not only to appoint 200 new Assistant United States Attorneys, but also, if necessary, to take them from Main Justice.

Now, that's fine because we've already made that appointment for Main Justice an option instead of a requirement, but I just want to make sure that the Attorney General doesn't decide to make appointments, even optionally, at the risk of important--two important areas. That is the civil rights area and the environmental prosecutions area.

I begin my discussion under the premise that no one in the room seriously contends that we need less civil rights oversight or less environmental enforcement, because taking attorneys away from these two parts of the Department of Justice would aggravate very serious problems.

And so my amendment merely states that the Attorney General has the option of appointing 200 new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and that they may come from Main Justice, but not from the Civil Rights Division and not from the Environmental and Natural Resources Division. This would--this is because the Civil Rights Division and the Environment Division are the two most, in my judgment, overworked Divisions in the Department. Discrimination, as we all readily are aware, continues to be a persistent problem in American society, and there is more than sufficient evidence supporting increasing funding to enforce the civil rights laws and oversight of them.

It would make no sense for us to authorize $101 million in funding for the Civil Rights Division on the one hand, but then permit the Attorney General to cherrypick civil rights attorneys and transfer them to other U.S. Attorney's Offices, no matter how much they may be needed.

And the same goes for the Environmental Division. It's so critical where the environment becomes more and more important a subject almost daily that we keep as strong an Environmental and Natural Resources Division as possible.

And so that is the simple and primary and only goal of this amendment, and I urge favorable consideration by my colleagues, and I return any unused time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself to strike the last word.

I believe that the gentleman from Michigan's heart is in the right place, and this legislation actually tracks the President's request in increasing the authorization for the Civil Rights Division because the Civil Rights Division is overworked, and with the additional money, I think that you will see additional personnel being assigned to the Civil Rights Division.

The concern that I have is to place this type of language in an authorization bill ties the Attorney General's hands in managing his Department. And I would be opposed to this type of legislation as well as legislation that would mandate the sending of 200 attorneys from Main Justice out to the U.S. Attorney's Offices.

Should the Attorney General decide to do this, we will give him a prompt invitation to come to this Committee to explain what he has done and to get input from Members of the Committee. And I think that since Mr. Ashcroft had such a good time when he was up here earlier, he would be delighted to come and explain that.

The fact is that without this legislation he can do it, ignoring this Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, simply with a reprogramming request it goes over to the appropriators. I think that getting reprogramming notices here is a much more important principle to establish and leave the management of the Justice Department to the man who was appointed to head the Justice Department.

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CONYERS. While I'm persuaded by the Chairman's bona fides in this area, I think this is a shot across the bow. I'm sure the Attorney General and his representatives can discern what import and I hope the sentiment of the full Committee are. And with an agreement that we would include this discussion in our report language, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman would yield, I believe that the report language should clearly indicate what the Committee's desire is, which I think is expressed by the gentleman from Michigan, and the amendment is withdrawn.

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman. Do you have an amendment?

Mr. CONYERS. He's empty-handed.

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California is not empty-handed, and the clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Berman, Mr. Gallegly----

Mr. BERMAN. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read.

The CLERK- Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Waters----

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

The CLERK- Mr. Issa, Mr- --

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A point of order is reserved, without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

UU.eps

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I understand the parliamentary problems with this amendment. But I did want to use this as an opportunity with some of my colleagues who are very much affected by it to raise the problem with the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, sometimes known as SCAAP, a program which we were led to believe the authorization had now expired. The amendment would reauthorize the program at a level up to $750 million. The Committee, when it made a recommendation to the House Budget Committee, we recommended it being funded at $685 million. Unfortunately, the administration's budget now includes only $265 million for SCAAP in fiscal year 2002. That's greater than a 50-percent cut.

The Committee also at the time supported a long-term reauthorization of SCAAP. The original authorization expired last year, and in many States this is not a program we can afford to lose. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program has brought much needed relief to the States most impacted by the expense of housing criminal aliens. What this is about, it's about the Federal Government's failure to enforce our laws and the States, and particularly the justice systems in the States, bearing the costs of that Federal failure.

At the present time in California, for instance, the cost to our State and county jurisdictions that applied for reimbursement in fiscal year 1999 was slightly more than $460 million. The SCAAP funds then appropriated, far greater than are now being proposed, allocated to California that same fiscal year was merely $178 million. This left nearly 60 percent of the burden of incarcerating this population solely on the shoulders of the State. California is not alone in shouldering this burden. Other border States like Arizona, Texas, and Florida are hit just as hard by this expense.

It's my understanding that the language that H.R. 2215 strikes from the current SCAAP authorization leaves an open-ended permanent authorization for the SCAAP. If that is the case, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment and----

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. I'd be happy to yield----

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Mr. BERMAN- to the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I also realize that there may be some question about the appropriateness of this, but there is no question that sooner or later, if we can't do it here today, this body has to address the requirement for the Federal Government to meet its obligation to the border States for the legitimate cost of incarceration that's been incurred as a result of our simply enforcing Federal laws or participating in incarcerating these people. And I would join my colleague, Mr. Berman, in saying that, you know, if we can do it here, great; if we can't do it, we have to readdress this.

Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. Just, Mr. Chairman, in what remaining time I have left, could I ask the Chair or counsel to the Committee through the Chair the question? Based on the way this authorization bill is written and the fact--and the language that is struck from the existing, now expired authorization, I understand that the, in effect, SCAAP authorization would be an open-ended authorization if the Justice Department authorization bill, H.R. 2215----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN- were to pass. I'd be happy to.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I am informed by staff that SCAAP has an open-ended permanent authorization, so that if you put your $750 million in there, you would be limiting it to $750 million. Do you really want to do that?

Mr. BERMAN. That's why I'm happy to withdraw the amendment. However----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. BERMAN. However, I would like then to just make sure I understand. The appropriators will not be bound in their decision to appropriate by any--the inadequate, arbitrary level of authorization.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are the appropriators ever bound by anything anybody else does? And with that the amendment is withdrawn. With that happy note, are there further amendments? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Weiner 4.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Weiner 4. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Weiner. At the end of the bill, add the following----

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I ask to waive the reading of the amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without amendment--or without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

VV.eps

Mr. GEKAS. I reserve a point of order.

Mr. WEINER. Am I recognized?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Yes, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the full 5 minutes. This is an effort to clarify a point of law and the intent of Congress as it relates to DNA evidence kits that have been collected at rape scenes all around the country. There are varying estimates about how many there are. This is evidence that is collected at sexual abuse, at rape scenes, that have been gathering dust in many cases and localities all around the country.

We in this Committee and in this Congress authorized some $30 million last year to begin the process of analyzing those rape kits, helping States and localities to do so.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER. Certainly.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. This is a good amendment. We're happy to support it.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner. Those in favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia seek recognition?

Mr. BARR. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman--this is the Carnivore amendment? The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215 offered by Mr. Barr. At the appropriate----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

WW.eps

Mr. BARR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It simply requires the Attorney General to report at the end of the current and the succeeding fiscal years on Project Carnivore, also known as DCS 1000.

As the Chairman knows, beginning in the last Congress, we on the Judiciary Committee began to take a very hard and close look at Government surveillance of the Internet generally and specifically on Project Carnivore. Many more questions about Project Carnivore remain than have been answered. Not a couple of weeks goes by that there are not more public reports on additional information that we find out about Project Carnivore. The Attorney General, as we know, is looking into this and studying the matter of Carnivore very carefully as well. I know on this Committee and our Subcommittee we intend to look into this.

What I believe is very appropriate, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this general authorizing legislation for the Department of Justice, though, is to go on record reflecting our concern about this type of electronic surveillance of the Internet and at least require the Department of Justice to report specifically to us on the details of this type of surveillance in the next couple of fiscal years. This will at least get us the information that we need, hopefully comprehensive and hopefully accurate, in order to make more informed and better oversight and legislative decisions.

So I would urge Members on both sides to adopt this and vote favorably on this amendment, again, which simply calls for the Department to report over the next 2 years on this very intrusive type of electronic monitoring.

[The statement of Mr. Barr follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Barr, a Representative in Congress From the State of Georgia

Mr. Chairman, government-operated systems that listen in on the private phone conversations, e-mails, faxes, and data transfers of American citizens without a court order or probable cause to believe the citizen has violated the law, is a major privacy issue of deep public concern.

With the rapid expansion of communications technology, more private conversations than ever before are open to government surveillance. A growing number of Americans are concerned about threats to their privacy by numerous government agencies conducting numerous wiretapping, data basing, and identification activities.

One such system is the FBI's DCS 1000 computer surveillance system, formerly known as `Carnivore.' This system employs technology that allows outside parties--in this case, the government--to conduct surreptitious surveillance on Internet communications. This eavesdropping mechanism works like a phone tap for computers by attaching directly to the Internet Service Provider (ISP), after which all incoming e-mails from a particular source are scanned in the hopes of tracking a particular `target.' However, of the 2.3 million communications intercepted in 1998 alone, only 20% of the material contained incriminating evidence, while 80% did not.

Over the past few years I have repeatedly expressed my concern over the FBI conducting such expansive surveillance. Under current Department of Justice interpretation of the law, the FBI is allowed to access virtually any e-mail, without probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment limits and narrows searches as to avoid intruding into the privacy of innocent individuals. The FBI's DCS 1000 system should be subjected to the same principal. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that amendatory language be included in the authorizing legislation, at least directing the Attorney General to provide a report at the end of Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 to the Congress, detailing: the scope of the program; how many times the use of surveillance--via the DCS 1000--has been approved during FY 2002; the Department of Justice officials who review requests for the program's use; and the criteria used by the Department when reviewing requests for the program's use, among other things.

This requirement would at least force the Department of Justice and the FBI to provide detailed and accurate information to us on its use of this technology. Unfortunately, recent public accounts of the government's use of its Carnivore capability shows the government has been less than fully accurate in statements regarding its Carnivore activities. The need for this report requirement is quite pronounced.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, let the record reflect that Congressman Conyers supports Congressman Barr's amendment. Yes, it's true.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield back the balance of his time before he talks himself out of it?

Mr. CONYERS. Not before I put my statement in the record with unanimous consent.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.

Mr. CONYERS. And I return my time.

[The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the State of Michigan

This is a good amendment. I have made some suggestions for improving an earlier draft of the amendment to Mr. Barr, and I'm happy to report that he has accepted my comments.

We don't want the age of electronic commerce and the Internet to turn into an excuse to grant the government new entitlements to update our privacy. Last Congress, this Committee approved a bipartisan bill to rein in the so-called `Carnivore' program, which allows law enforcement to tap into emails and other electronic messages. We ran out of time and could not get the bill on the floor. But the study set forth in this amendment is a very good start.

While the private sector has the responsibility to lead in computer and network security, it is up to the federal government to work in a partnership with the private sector to build security and trust in online activities.

The FBI's Carnivore system, however, does not meet this test. Among many concerns, I am troubled that Carnivore may enable the government to acquire more information than the law permits, not only about the person who was the target of the investigation, but also about hundreds--perhaps thousands--of other subscribers who had nothing to do with the investigation.

In addition, I am concerned about the FBI's apparent haste to install Carnivore machines on internet service providers, before the ISPs have had an ample opportunity to carry out the surveillance activities and provide the targetted information--and only that information--to the FBI themselves.

I have high regard for this Justice Department in the main; however, I worry greatly about the forces within the Bureau and the Department that can lead to law enforcement excesses.

For these reasons, I support the Barr Amendment that requires the Attorney General and the FBI to issue a report on different aspects of the use of Carnivore.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr. Those in favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman, Weiner 3.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Weiner. Page 7, after line 14----

Mr. WEINER. I request to waive the reading of the bill and to have it considered as read.

Mr. GEKAS. I reserve a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of order. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

XX.eps

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I--this is an amendment that restores the cuts that were in the program that prevented it from being fully funded. This amendment would fully fund the COPS program, a program that has put cops on the streets of every one of our districts, has broad support in the law enforcement community, and is something that even Secretary Ashcroft had expressed support for when he testified in the other body. And I would urge my colleagues to favorably consider it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania insist upon his point of order?

Mr. GEKAS. I do not.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The--okay. Is there further discussion on the Weiner amendment? Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the Weiner amendment is adopted.

Further amendments to the bill? The gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin.

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215----

Ms. BALDWIN. I ask that the amendment be considered as read.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

YY.eps

ZZ.eps

A3.eps

B3.eps

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we all know on this Committee, violence against women is a major problem in our Nation, and last year this Committee, on a strong bipartisan basis, reauthorized the landmark 1994 Violence Against Women Act that provides grants to help prosecutors, law enforcement, and victims, medical professionals, and sexual assault and domestic violence advocates.

What was not included in the VAWA reauthorization last year was a permanent VAWA Office within the Department of Justice. My amendment would create the permanent VAWA Office. This amendment is identical to H.R. 28, which was introduced this session by Congresswomen Louise Slaughter and Connie Morella, and now has well over 140 cosponsors, including a good bipartisan cluster from this Committee.

It's needed to ensure permanent presence of the VAWA Office within the Department of Justice. This office has been instrumental in heightening awareness within the Federal Government and in our States and local communities of the impact of sexual assault and domestic violence. The office works with the Attorney General and administers over $270 million in annual grants to our local communities.

I urge my colleagues to add this important authorization to the bill, and I yield back any remaining time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to vote against this, not because it's not a good idea but we don't--I really don't believe that if you look at the size of the Department of Justice, the budget of the Department of Justice, the bureaucracy at the Department of Justice, that what we need is more bureaucracy at the Department of Justice. There is nothing that I heard by the very eloquent advocate, the lady from Wisconsin, with regard to this amendment that tells us, that establishes, or that presents any evidence that any of what she is trying to get at here is not being done.

All of those matters that are reachable by this new office that she proposes are reachable by existing authorities, existing personnels within the existing table of organization at the Department of Justice. This would create a new bureaucracy and a Presidential appointment, additional monies, and I would just urge our colleagues to look beyond the PR aspect of this and ask, Do we really need an additional office at the Department of Justice? Is there truly any evidence, which I do not believe that there is, that these laws are not being properly reviewed by the Department of Justice? And if they aren't, creating another office is not going to guarantee that they will be.

If, in fact, Members on the other side believe there is evidence that establishes that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General are not properly enforcing these laws, then there are remedies that they can use through the legislative process, through the oversight process, to ensure that that happens. But simply creating another office is not going to do anything to get at the heart of the matter in this or other cases. And I do not believe that we need an additional bureaucracy, an additional office, additional money, additional bureaucrats, and another Presidential appointment----

Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARR. What?

Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARR. Oh, sure.

Mr. WEINER. I take note of the gentleman's point, but very little of the gentlewoman's amendment refers to the non-compliance of laws. It's a director to help administer the growing violence against women program. It provides liaison to other branches of Government, providing information and advice to the Attorney General and the Associate Attorney General. Very little of this is about the failure to enforce laws that you keep referring to. What it is intended to do is just like the COPS office and offices that have been set up to administer other programs and deal with specialties within the agency.

I mean, unlike some areas of the law, there are specific crimes that are crimes against women. For example, one of the index crimes, rape, is simply a crime--it's a crime that's done to women. And so I think the objective here is to take the focus that we in this Congress in a bipartisan sense have brought to violence against women and sought to have an office that had some jurisdiction over it. I don't think it's about non-compliance with laws that----

Mr. BARR. Reclaiming my time, then to me there is absolutely no reason to have it. I mean, I thought if the other side was making the point that these laws are not being properly enforced and they were going to present evidence to that effect, then at least some colorable argument could be made as to why we might need an additional office. But if it's simply----

Ms. BALDWIN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARR- to have an additional office to have another office----

Ms. BALDWIN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARR- then I really don't think that there's any point to it.

Ms. BALDWIN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARR. There are all sorts of specific categories of crimes that fall generally under the authority and the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. We don't need a separate office for every separate category of type of person for whom Federal laws are designed to protect. I mean----

Ms. BALDWIN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARR- if we did that, we'd have--we'd have a thousand different offices, I suppose, over there. I'd be happy to yield.

Ms. BALDWIN. I want to clarify this is not the creation of a new office. The office exists. But it exists by virtue of administrative order, not by statute. So the intent is not to create any new bureaucracy or hire any new people. The office exists. It is to give it the stability of the force of statute behind it, because from all of our perspectives, I don't think we're going to see the disappearance, unfortunately, of sexual assault and domestic violence overnight, and we need some continuity and stability under this office. But there's no bureaucracy that is new, that is being created through this amendment, and I thank the Members on the other side of the aisle on this Committee who have cosponsored legislation to make this permanent.

Mr. BARR. I would reclaim my time and simply state that if--whenever you create a new Presidential appointment, there will be additional people. The office will grow, and it is naive to think that there are not going to be additional expenses, additional people, additional bureaucracy, additional bureaucrats, when you raise an office to the level of a Presidential appointment. We have more than enough of those as it is.

I would yield back and urge our colleagues to, again, look beyond the PR and vote against this amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan may place extraneous material in the record at this point.

[The information follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the State of Michigan

I strongly support the amendment offered by Ms. Baldwin to statutorily authorize the Violence Against Women Office (`VAWO') within the Department of Justice.

The Clinton Administration created the Violence Against Women Office in 1995 to implement programs created by the Violence Against Women Act (`VAWA'). By giving the Office statutory authorization, this Amendment would give VAWO both stability and continuity.

Currently, VAWO administers grants to states, tribes, local communities, and domestic violence service providers to help transform the way in which civil and criminal justice systems respond to violent crimes against women.

In addition, the Office has served as a powerful voice within the Administration, ensuring that the safety of women and children is a top priority for the federal government.

VAWO is staffed by specialists who are trained to address the specific needs of domestic violence victims. We must ensure that DOJ retains this expertise, so that the VAWA programs that we authorized last year continue to work in the most effective manner.

Giving VAWO a statutory authorization also ensures that all Administrations continue to fully implement the Violence Against Women Act--in terms of funding, policy, programs, and public education initiatives.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, which protects the important work that is done in the Violence Against Women Office.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. The noes appear to have it----

Ms. BALDWIN. rollcall, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The rollcall is ordered. The question is on the Baldwin amendment. Those in favor will, as your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no; and the clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Coble?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Smith?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot?

Mr. CHABOT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Barr?

Mr. BARR. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins?

Mr. JENKINS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Hutchinson?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Graham?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Keller?

Mr. KELLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?

Mr. ISSA. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. Ms. Hart?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Flake?

Mr. FLAKE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Conyers?

Mr. CONYERS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Frank?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Berman?

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Scott?

Mr. SCOTT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?

Mr. WATT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Waters?

Ms. WATERS. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin?

Ms. BALDWIN. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?

Mr. WEINER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Additional Members in the room who wish to cast or change their vote? The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?

Mr. COBLE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas?

Mr. GEKAS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas, no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Graham?

Mr. GRAHAM. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Graham, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart?

Ms. HART. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Anybody else who wishes to cast or change their vote. If not, the clerk----

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I want to be recorded as an aye. Issa as an aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Off no, on aye for Issa.

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 8 noes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is agreed to.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, before you call it?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Yes? Does the gentleman from Virginia wish to be recorded as tardy or voting?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I vote no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No for the gentleman from Virginia.

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly? Mr. Gallegly?

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Anybody else? Have you found additional Members, gentleman from Virginia? Okay. The clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 9 noes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is agreed to a second time.

Are there further amendments?

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr?

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Barr. Page 8, after line 11, insert the following and make----

Mr. BARR. I ask for unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

C3.eps

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to press this amendment. I do believe it is important to note on the record the concern that many of us, and now apparently judging from recent press reports, including in today's printed media, concern over the burgeoning cost of the Government pursuing the so-called tobacco litigation.

As the Chairman knows, in 1999, the U.S. Government through the Department of Justice brought an action against certain cigarette manufacturers to recover health care expenses paid by the Federal Government under the Medicare Medical Care Recovery Act and the Medicare secondary payment provisions of the Social Security Act for various tobacco-related illnesses alleged to have been caused by the defendant's products. In addition, the U.S. sought disgorgement under the RICO Act.

In response to a question I posed to Attorney General Ashcroft at our oversight hearing recently, the Justice Department acknowledged it was planning to spend over $23 million in the pursuit of this litigation just in this fiscal year alone. Some have estimated the annual cost of funding this questionable litigation could range as high as $57 million.

Perhaps even more important, Mr. Chairman, than the cost to the taxpayers is the problematic precedent this litigation represents. We should not allow our legal system, especially under the auspices of the Justice Department, to be abused for political agendas. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Government cannot force private companies to pay for medical costs unless Congress has expressly authorized it. From my perspective, this is not the type of litigation that taxpayers should be funding.

I had anticipated offering this amendment that would effectively have terminated funding for the conduct of this litigation. However, as noted in press reports and based on communications I have had directly from the Department of Justice, they indicate that the Attorney General has authorized movement in that direction of ceasing this litigation, which would make such an amendment unnecessary. I do, however, Mr. Chairman, believe that language should be included in the Committee report, recognizing the problems that I have referred to, and encouraging the Department of Justice to continue efforts to terminate this misguided and costly litigation.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 1 offered by Mr. Scott and Mr. Watt.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Scott and Mr. Watt. Page 3, line 19, strike `and.' Page 3, line 21, strike the period at the end and insert paren, semi-colon, and, end paren. Page 3, after line 21, insert the following: `(C), within parens, not less than $100,000,000 for civil rights matters.'

[The amendment follows:]

D3.eps

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm offering this amendment to set a minimum amount that must be allocated for enforcement of civil rights laws by the Department of Justice. I believe that it is necessary to do so in order to ensure that the Department of Justice continues to enforce this Nation's civil rights laws and has the adequate financial support so to do.

My amendment does not limit the amount to be spent on civil rights enforcement other than to say that no less than $100 million must be devoted to this purpose. Now, the $100 million figure is roughly comparable to the FY 2002 budget request of slightly more than $100 million the President--for, quote, civil rights matters under the general legal activities line item. All we are asking then is to honor our commitment to civil rights enforcement and to set a minimum amount that can be spent on these efforts to ensure that that commitment will be kept.

I hope that the Members will support the amendment, and I yield----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT. I yield.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I would ask the gentleman to withdraw the amendment and to work with us as this bill proceeds to the floor. The Justice Department has indicated that this type of an amendment may actually hurt the Civil Rights Division, and in the appropriations process and what OMB has to sign off on which would end up depriving the Civil Rights Division of additional resources.

I will be the first to admit that I do not quite understand their logic, and--but I would like to have them explain to all of us in another forum why they think this would hurt the amount of money that would go to the Civil Rights Division. If their explanation is not adequate, I can give the gentleman from Virginia my commitment that I would support an amendment of this type when the bill comes to the floor. But I would just as soon give the Justice Department a chance to speak their piece to us and our staffs and would request that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I usually like for people to have significant time to study the amendment. Obviously they have had insufficient time, and I would comply with that request and withdraw the amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Are there further amendments?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, seek recognition?

Mr. FLAKE. I move to reconsider the vote on the amendment to H.R. 2215 offered by Mr. Weiner.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Under rule 19, clause 3 of the Rules of the House, any Member may move to reconsider a voice vote. So the question is: Shall the vote by which the Weiner amendment relative to the COPS program be reconsidered? Those in favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no? The noes appear to have it.

Mr. FLAKE. I call for a rollcall vote.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The rollcall will be ordered. The question is reconsideration of the vote by which the Weiner amendment on the COPS program was adopted. Those in favor of reconsideration will, as your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no; and the clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas?

Mr. GEKAS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas, aye. Mr. Coble?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Smith?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly?

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?

Mr. CHABOT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Barr?

Mr. BARR. Pass.

The CLERK. Mr. Barr, pass. Mr. Jenkins?

Mr. JENKINS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson, aye. Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Graham?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Keller?

Mr. KELLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?

Mr. ISSA. Pass.

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, pass. Ms. Hart?

Ms. HART. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, aye. Mr. Flake?

Mr. FLAKE. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Conyers?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Frank?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Berman?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Scott?

Mr. SCOTT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?

Mr. WATT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren?

Ms. LOFGREN. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Waters?

Ms. WATERS. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin?

Ms. BALDWIN. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin, no. Mr. Weiner?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there additional Members in the chamber who wish to cast or change their votes? The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?

Mr. COBLE. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I vote aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Graham?

Mr. GRAHAM. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Graham, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr?

Mr. BARR. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Barr, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Issa?

Mr. ISSA. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The other gentleman from California, Mr. Berman?

Mr. BERMAN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Anybody else who wishes to record or to change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 ayes and 7 noes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Weiner amendment was agreed to is agreed to. The question now is agreeing to the Weiner amendment. Those in favor will signify by saying aye. Oppose, no? The noes appear to have it. The noes have it and the Weiner amendment is not agreed to.

Are there further amendments to the bill? The gentleman from--okay. A recorded vote is requested agreeing to the Weiner amendment. Those in favor of the Weiner amendment will vote aye as your names are called; those opposed, no; and the clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas?

Mr. GEKAS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gekas, no. Mr. Coble?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?

Mr. GALLEGLY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?

Mr. GOODLATTE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?

Mr. CHABOT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Barr?

Mr. BARR. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Barr, no. Mr. Jenkins?

Mr. JENKINS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Hutchinson?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson, no. Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Graham?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Scarborough?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler?

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Keller?

Mr. KELLER. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?

Mr. ISSA. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. Ms. Hart?

Ms. HART. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?

Mr. FLAKE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Conyers?

Mr. CONYERS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Frank?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Berman?

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Scott?

Mr. SCOTT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?

Mr. WATT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Waters?

Ms. WATERS. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin?

Ms. BALDWIN. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?

Mr. WEINER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?

Mr. COBLE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Graham?

Mr. GRAHAM. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Graham, no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Any further Members in the chamber who wish to cast or to change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 9 yeas to 16 noes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed to.

Are there further amendments to the bill? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that will soon be at the desk.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A point of order is reserved by the gentleman from Virginia, and the clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Weiner. Please strike all after the enacting clause.

[The amendment follows:]

E3.eps

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. That is a preferential motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no? The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the preferential motion is rejected.

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A point of order is reserved. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Weiner. Strike all after the enacting clause.

[The amendment follows:]

F3.eps

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia wish to press his point of order?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York is attempting to amend the same section twice, and this amendment has already been defeated.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The point of order is sustained, and----

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. WEINER. I heard on the point of order that was made----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair has already sustained the point of order. That's quite clear.

Are there further amendments to the bill?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A point of order is reserved. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2215, offered by Mr. Weiner. Delete all after page 8, line 11.

[The amendment follows:]

G3.eps

Mr. WEINER. Is there a page 8, line 11?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for consideration of this amendment to express my chagrin at what had been----

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I don't think we have this amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk has read the amendment in its entirety, which is to strike everything in the bill after line 11 at page 8.

Mr. BARR. But we don't have copies of it to----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You don't need a copy. The rules don't provide copies if the reading is completed by the clerk. The clerk has read the entire amendment, and the Chair has reset the clock, and the gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I asked for recognition on this amendment and the other 71 that I plan to offer to express my concern and chagrin at the way the debate over the reauthorization of the COPS program was handled by this Committee. I think that in an effort to be on all sides of this issue, some of my colleagues have now voted in favor of it and voted against it, and who knows, maybe when given an opportunity in the future, will change their positions again.

That being said, there is--we had an opportunity under which I believe the amendment was debated, people had an opportunity to say their piece, and we generally had a rule of accommodation in this Committee that things that are considered are left considered. Not only was that not the case with the amendment to reauthorize the COPS program, a position that Candidate Bush took, a position that Candidate Ashcroft took, and a position that many in this chamber on both sides of the aisle have taken.

Rather than have a full and complete debate with all of the participants in the room, there was an effort to undo a previous vote without much debate, without much discussion, and without the sponsor of the amendment in the room. So since--since I had in the interest of time given only the briefest of remarks in support of the amendment, permit me now and for the duration of the other--70 or 71?--71 amendments speak to the importance that I believe this issue holds, and I believe it is a very important issue.

First of all, the COPS program is an extraordinarily important program. It has helped people from and police departments from all around this country. This isn't a big-city program. It's not a small-town program. It is the classic democratic with a small `d' program. It has helped agencies all around the country.

In fact, 82 percent of the grants have gone to towns and cities with populations of less than 50,000. More than 12,000 of the Nation's 18,000 law enforcement jurisdictions have hired new police through the COPS program. And this is not simply a Democratic program. Many Republican sponsors, including Mr. Keller of this Committee, and when the bill was offered in the Senate, it was cosponsored by people as widely divergent in their philosophies as Ted Kennedy and then-Senator Ashcroft.

Unfortunately, the program this year is not only not going to be fully funded, the proposal is to cut the COPS program by more than $182 million. And the guts of the program will be cut by not permitting police jurisdictions to use funds to retain and to hire additional police officers as they see fit.

There are other elements of the COPS program that are being eliminated as a result of these cuts. For example, the program that permits police departments to take COPS out from behind desks and put them out on the street, put them out on the beat, something we all talk about. That provision of the law, which was part of a 3-year grant program, has been stopped after the second--after the second year.

The COPS program that I'm offering as reauthorization with so many of my colleagues' cosponsorship and hopefully with the support of this Committee would reauthorize the program at a level of $1.15 billion beginning in FY 2002. Specifically, it would authorize $600 million to hire new police and retrain current officers. And as importantly, it provides the flexibility that so many police departments have said that they wanted. If hiring more officers is not exactly what the needs of your department are, then you have the ability to back-fill--to back-fill other officers. If you need technology, if you need computer terminals in the cars, if you need radios, if you need help with your evidence collection, if you need help with just about any element of policing, the reauthorized version of the bill does it.

Those provisions are in the new version because there were concerns that were raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and raised by some police departments. We listened to those concerns. We incorporated them into the bill, and we passed it in this Committee less than 45 minutes ago. And I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to take this issue a great deal more seriously.

And on a personal note, I have to say that I have the greatest admiration for the way the Chairman has run this Committee. I believe this bill was crafted in a way that was fair to both sides of the aisle and to individual Members. In every effort, he has been accommodating to try to win us jurisdiction over these important issues and see to it that when that jurisdiction is won it is carried out. And I want to express my great gratitude to him.

However, the idea of passing an amendment waiting for the room to clear of the sponsor of the amendment and so many of the supporters of the amendment, to ask for a reconsideration of the amendment when there was no opposition stated during the original debate is not something I believe the Chairman----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. WEINER- the Chairman or the colleagues on the other side----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. WEINER- should be proud of.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes.

First, there was a deliberate policy decision that was made on a bipartisan basis not to contain--or not to put any authorization for grant programs in this bill, irrespective of what those grant programs were, because it was decided that the grant programs have not had proper oversight, and if we reauthorize the grant programs, whether it's the COPS program or any of the other grant programs, we would not have the opportunity to do as effective oversight over the programs as we could have without an authorization. So the COPS program was not singled out. In fact it was on a bipartisan basis that we agreed not to do reauthorizations of grant programs in this bill, but to deal with it in individual and separate legislation.

Now, secondly, the Chair has been scrupulous in following the rules. At the time the motion for reconsideration was made by the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, the Chair referred to House rule 19, clause 3, which allows a motion to reconsider an amendment to be made any time during the markup by a Member on the prevailing side of the vote. And when there's a voice vote, any Member may move to reconsider a voice vote.

So there was no particular prejudice against the gentleman from New York at the time the gentleman from Arizona made his motion to reconsider. I would point out that the motion to reconsider is debatable, and should the motion to reconsider be approved, which it was, then the underlying amendment was debatable. And no Member chose to debate either of those motions.

Should the gentleman from New York or any other Members wish to leave the room during a markup, they do so at their peril because all the Chair can do is to enforce the rules as they have been approved by the House and approved by the Committee. And the motion that was made by the gentleman from Arizona was entirely regular and in conformity with the rules on its face, and there was no debate to slow things down either on the motion to reconsider or on the motion to adopt.

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I think the procedural objection I was making was purely one about our mutual effort, at least your and my mutual effort to accommodate the amendments in a way that we can reach agreement on as many things as possible and deal with things in an aboveboard fashion. I believe waiting--passing an amendment by voice vote, waiting for the sponsor to leave the room, is opposite of that and it leads to mistrust between Members who believe they're entering into good-faith understandings.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, we were just about to the end of the amendment process, and once we go to adopting an amendment in the nature of a substitute, that precludes any Members from making a motion to reconsider that is properly made under rule 19, clause 3. You know, so, again, adopting what the gentleman from New York is advocating, it would have cut off the rights of the gentleman from Arizona to make an entirely proper motion. So----

Mr. FLAKE. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield.

Mr. FLAKE. I offered the motion. I made no attempt to wait until people cleared out of the room. I offered it as quickly as I could get agreement that it could be offered. I made no attempt to wait until people left the room.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair yields back the balance of his time.

The question is on----

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, on the substantive issue about whether or not grants were going to be considered in this, whether or not we were going to be considered funding levels, you know, I have in my hand a flow chart of the Department of Justice with the highlighted boxes being the ones that are appropriated or are authorized under this. And included in it is the Office of Justice Programs, which administers about 75 percent of the COPS program. The Office of Inspector General, the general legal activities, Antitrust Division, U.S. Attorneys, Federal Bureau of Investigation, support for the States prisons and non-Federal institutions, Drug Enforcement Administration.

We are parsing to the nth degree to say, well, we're not going to do grants but we're going to do money, we're not going to do the agency but we're going to do divisions, we're not going to do departments but we're going to do secretaries. The fact of the matter is the amendment was considered and people are on record of being in favor of the amendment.

As far as the procedural effort, it is not whether or not someone has a right to offer an amendment. It's there's a certain common decency that goes with allowing for full debate of issues.

Now, I voluntarily, in the interest of time and dealing with this bill in an expeditious fashion, if you recall, reduced my debate on this issue to about 35 seconds, simply saying it's an amendment that is self-explanatory to reauthorize the COPS program.

I heard, as we say in Brooklyn, bupkis from the other side. Suddenly I leave the room and, miraculously, the gentleman from Arizona pops into his head that now is a good time to offer this amendment, changing his position theoretically, although he did not vote no the first time around, raising the question about whether he was in--where he was on the----

Mr. FLAKE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER- of the bill. Well, let me finish. I'm just--you're going to have 71 other amendments. You'll have plenty of chances to get your point across.

And I think that what happens here is, even on issues that we disagree on a great deal--and I have to tell you, I was prepared to have disagreements on the COPS program. I was prepared to debate the COPS program. I was prepared to point to areas of Arizona that have benefited from the COPS program. I was prepared to point to letters from people who voted no on this thing saying how great the COPS program is, like the gentleman from Georgia. I am prepared to have that debate. What I am not--which in my heart of hearts don't believe is a constructive way to run this Committee, is to have a certain level of comity, not comedy, comity in dealing with some of these issues, having the Chairman and his staff bend over backwards to be accommodating to requests from both sides, saying this one is going to give us problems, this one not. If you can go for this one, maybe we'll leave this one out. This one we're going to have problems with. This one we're going to have germaneness issues on. Have that type of debate, have the thing offered, have it considered, have it pass, have the sponsor leave the room, and then suddenly those agreements are thrown out the window.

This is not directed at the Chairman of the Committee. However, I can tell you what it does is it undermines the sense of confidence that when we have understandings about the way things are going to operate that they are not going to be adhered to. And that goes for both sides of the aisle, and it goes for all levels--the top tier and bottom tier of these meshuggeneh tables here.

The point is the same, is that there is a way of proceeding, and I don't believe that that way of proceeding was done in a constructive fashion. And you're saying, oh, I just--it was no effort to do it while you weren't in the room.

Ms. HART. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEINER. That was a dramatic pause, but, yes, I will yield.

[Laughter.]

Ms. HART. Thank you, just momentarily. I requested an opportunity to vote on this amendment as I was out of the room when the voice vote was taken and wanted the opportunity to vote on this amendment. I discussed it with my colleague for your information and asked if we could do a procedure such as reconsidering the vote, something I was familiar with as a State legislator. No harm was intended, no ill was intended. In fact, I was not aware you were out of the room when I requested that we reconsider. Mr. Flake asked the question for me. This proceeded to give us an opportunity to vote.

I believe it was an opportunity for us actually to have everyone have a recorded vote on this issue. I believe that we agree a lot on COPS, the COPS program to some degree. However, a lot of us were concerned about the large----

Mr. WEINER. Okay, let me--I only have a few minutes.

Ms. HART. I yield back.

Mr. WEINER. Okay. I think that the best way to accommodate all of these concerns is to have recorded votes on everything, for the motions on third reading, for the motions on engrossment, for the motions on whether we're going to have bills accepted as read. On every unanimous consent request perhaps what we should do is have a voice vote on it. I don't think that that's a way to run the way--to run this Committee the way the Chairman would--would like to run it. And if that is truly the interest of the gentlelady--and I respect her and I believe that it is--I request unanimous consent that we postpone further consideration of the bill until we can have another vote on the COPS amendment with all of my colleagues present.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Is there objection?

Mr. FLAKE. I object.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Objection is heard.

Mr. WEINER. As I thought. As I thought. You know, when the rubber hits the road, oh, yeah, I'm really sorry, oops, I forgot you weren't in the room, I----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman from----

Mr. WEINER- just noticed what was going on. The fact----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER- Massachusetts has----

Mr. WEINER- of the matter is the proof is in the pudding. You had an opportunity----

Chairman SENSENBRENNER- expired. For what purpose does----

Mr. WEINER- and you chose not to.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not use that amount of time.

I'd first like to say to the gentleman from New York that I've had amendments that I've offered in this Committee at various times, and they have been reconsidered and lost. I have great respect for anybody who has the passion the gentleman from New York has.

However, both he and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania left the room at various times during this markup. That happens to all of us. And it just happened that with the majority rule, a position that the majority of us did not get the opportunity to vote on the first time, was voted on later on, and that is simply a correct parliamentary procedure.

I would ask the gentleman if he thinks it is an appropriate thing to offer 71 non-meritorious amendments to effectively attempt to punish all the Members of the Committee by holding us here while we get harangued about his disappointment over----

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentleman yield for an answer to that question?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WEINER. Well, listen, here's--here's what my intention is, here's what my strategy is. And it's a parliamentary strategy. I'm going to empty out the room, maybe. Maybe if I empty out the room and I then reconsider elements of the bill or offer amendments to elements of the bill that I disagree with and have throughout this process, parts of the bill, provisions, sections, lines, pages that have as a result of hard work between Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers, have had worked out in a spirit of compromise that I am certainly prepared to support in total but have problems with individual ones, and then maybe 2, 3 o'clock in the morning maybe it'll be just me and Mr. Delahunt and----

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I think that's an entirely appropriate process, and as a result--and I do not like to do this and I do not do it lightly. As a result, I move the previous question on the amendment and on the bill.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on ordering the previous question, a non-debatable motion. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the previous question is ordered.

The question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. Weiner that strikes out everything after line 11 of page 8 of the bill. Those in favor of the Weiner amendment will say aye. Opposed, no? The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The Weiner amendment is not agreed to.

The question now occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 2215, favorably as amended. All those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no? The ayes have it, and the motion to report favorably is adopted. A reporting quorum is present. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted here today. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental, or minority views.

Let me thank the Committee for its cooperation. We have reported seven bills today. I think we deserve a rest, and the Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:53 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

I strongly support the Committee's effort to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice, which, amazingly, has not been properly authorized in over 20 years. H.R. 2215 contains a number of important provisions to help Congress and the Administration reform the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other Justice Department components, including the Office of Justice Programs. It also includes an important amendment which I offered to require the FBI to report to Congress on its use of DCS 1000 (formerly known as `Carnivore'), used to obtain e-mail addresses pursuant to court order.

I am concerned, however, over the adoption of the Baldwin amendment, which would establish a Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) within the Department of Justice to implement the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). It adds yet another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy at the Department, adds yet another political appointee to that bureaucracy, and prejudges the outcome of the pending reorganization of the Office of Justice Programs which has been criticized for its unwieldy operations. The VAWO would be headed by a presidentially appointed director, who would have final authority for all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Office.

Congress, through the annual appropriations process, has signaled its dissatisfaction with the overlap and duplication within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), a 30-year-old organization focused on providing support (primarily grants) to states and units of local government to improve the nation's criminal justice and juvenile justice systems. Beginning with FY 1999, OJP was required to submit a series of reports to Congress, first detailing the scope of overlap and duplication, as well as efforts to remedy the problem, and then a proposal and implementation plan on restructuring OJP. In February 2000, the Department sent to the Congress a reorganization plan that would begin the process of streamlining OJP. This specific plan did not address changing the Bureaus currently headed by the appointees, nor did it address the proliferation of appointees. Instead, the reorganization plan addressed redirecting workflow within the program offices and support offices.

There is currently no Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs to review the current reorganization plans. I believe it is premature to legislatively restructure the office before the new administration is able to fully assess pending reorganization plans and efforts. This is not the time to add yet another office requiring presidential appointment within the Department of Justice. If anything, we should be considering eliminating, not expanding, these political positions.

The Baldwin amendment is also of concern because it establishes yet another grant making organization within the Department, thereby creating another costly bureaucracy. Instead of taking full advantage of economies of scale and utilizing the existing infrastructure for making grants--which includes reviewing applications, making payments, and financial monitoring--the Baldwin amendment establishes a separate, redundant grant-making apparatus. The unintended consequence of this change will result in more resources dedicated to administrative functions and less programmatic funds available for grant programs. Furthermore, many of the state-level agencies that receive funding from VAWA, also receive funding from OJP's many other bureaus and offices. Coordination is difficult now; removing VAWO from OJP would compound the problem. Similarly the research and statistics agencies are housed in OJP. Coordination problems would only be exacerbated by moving VAWO out of OJP. At a minimum, the VAWO should utilize the existing DOJ grant financial administration services of OJP in carrying out its grant programs.

Insofar as the Baldwin amendment 1) creates another duplicative and unnecessary bureaucracy which will exacerbate coordination problems and waste taxpayer dollars; 2) creates an unnecessary political appointee; and, 3) prejudges current efforts to restructure OJP, I respectfully oppose this amendment, and would urge the Attorney General to do likewise.
Bob Barr



This Report:     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF
Search Results  > House Report 107-125
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
1 of 1