U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

32–149 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–748

CHALLENGES FACING TODAY’S FEDERAL

PROSECUTORS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 13, 2006

Serial No. J–109–109

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

JAMES GALYEAN, Majority Chief Counsel 

NEIL MACBRIDE, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 22

Graham, Hon. Lindsey, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ......... 1

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 3

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 24

WITNESSES 

Battle, Michael A., Director, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................... 1

Brooks, Susan W., U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Indiana, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................... 5

Shockley, William I., former President, National Association of Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys, Lake Ridge, Virginia ......................................................................... 9

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Battle, Michael A., Director, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ............................................ 12

Brooks, Susan W., U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Indiana, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ............................................ 17

Shockley, William I., former President, National Association of Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys, Lake Ridge, Virginia, prepared statement ...................................... 25

Stein, Scott J., former Assistant U.S. Attorney, letter ......................................... 42

(1)

CHALLENGES FACING TODAY’S FEDERAL 

PROSECUTORS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2006

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey Graham, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Graham and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Chairman GRAHAM. The hearing will finally come to order. I 

apologize for being late. It has been one of those crazy days. 

I appreciate your coming in and talking about a very important 

subject matter to me and, I think, the Senate and Congress as a 

whole. And without further ado, I look forward to hearing from 

both of you, Mr. Battle and Ms. Brooks, about what we need to be 

doing as a Senate and a Congress to make sure you have the tools 

necessary to perform very vital jobs. And without further ado, Mr. 

Battle? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. BATTLE, DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BATTLE. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Graham. It 

is indeed my honor to be here representing the outstanding men 

and women of the 94 United States Attorneys’ Offices, and on their 

behalf I thank you for your continuing support of their efforts. 

My office provides oversight and coordination for the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, which collectively employ over 5,500 Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys and over 5,000 support staff. We serve as liaison between the United States Attorneys and the Attorney General, the 

Deputy Attorney General, the Department’s litigating divisions, 

and other components. Additionally, the office works with the 

United States Attorneys’’ Offices to implement the President’s and 

the Attorney General’s priority initiatives, including efforts to combat terrorism, violent crime, the exploitation of children, 

cybercrime, drug trafficking, and other areas. Federal prosecutors 

play a vital role in these and other priority law enforcement programs, and the President’s budget requests have sought the fundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 031491 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32149.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
2

ing levels necessary to allow the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to meet important mission requirements. 

So we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the overall budget 

with you and to provide more details this afternoon. As you know, 

Mr. Chairman, the full House and Senate Appropriations Committee recently marked up the Department’s appropriations bill. 

The House fully funded the President’s request for the United 

States Attorneys at $1.664 billion and the Senate Appropriations 

Committee proposed just $18.2 million less than that amount. 

Over the past several years, the cumulative effect of permanent 

rescissions and rising costs, such as a cost-of-living salary increase 

and rising rent, have contributed to the budget difficulties now 

faced by United States Attorneys’ offices nationwide. Specifically 

from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006, United States Attorneys’ appropriations have been reduced by rescissions of $67.2 million and absorption of another $52.8 million in cost-of-living salary 

increases. These two actions alone have effectively reduced the 

amount available to the United States Attorneys by $120 million 

over a 4-year period. 

Despite the fact that the amount provided by Congress has increased from year to year, those increases have not kept pace with 

rising costs. Once amounts for centrally managed mandatory costs 

such as rent, the telecommunications network, and personnel benefits are set aside, the amount remaining to allocate to the district 

offices has not been sufficient to meet the baseline district expenses 

for each of these past fiscal years, specifically the past 3 years. The 

declining district allocations have occurred and grown despite significant cost-saving measures because rising costs have outpaced 

the savings realized and the funding that has been provided. 

Because of these funding limitations, a majority of United States 

Attorneys’ Offices nationwide have had to leave vacancies unfilled. 

The problem caused by fixed personnel and space costs rising at a 

faster rate than the g has particularly deep ramifications in an organization where 72 percent of the budget is attributed to personnel costs and another 15 percent addresses rent costs. This 

means that 87 percent of the annual budget needs to be devoted 

to people and space. When other essential costs are included, such 

as the nationwide telecommunications network and other necessary 

infrastructure and critical operational costs are considered, the discretionary budget segment is actually very small. That budget segment has been insufficient to offset the effects of the permanent rescissions and absorption of cost-of-living increases. As a result, over 

the past 3 years a need to generate cost savings that could not otherwise be attained has increased the number of vacant full-time 

equivalent work years from 198 in fiscal year 2004 and 465 in fiscal year 2005 to 775 FTE projected for fiscal year 2006. Just to 

keep pace with rising costs during this same period, the United 

States Attorneys needed increases of at least 3 percent per year, 

in addition to enhancements. In the three most recent budget cycles, however, the average increase was 2 percent per year after rescissions, which included amounts intended for enhancements. The 

base budget for the United States Attorneys is eroding. 

The growing amount of unfilled FTE is affecting the number of 

cases filed and pending in the offices of the United States AttorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 031491 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\32149.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
3

neys. Between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2006, the number 

of criminal cases filed is projected to decrease by almost 5 percent 

nationwide, going from 61,443 to 58,717. The number of pending or 

backlog of criminal cases increased by 8,567, or 13 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2005. This upward trend is 

expected to continue in fiscal year 2006, and also in the civil area, 

affirmative civil cases filed have decreased by 1,062 cases, or 12 

percent, between 2003 and 2005. 

These data demonstrate the effect of the base erosion of the 

United States Attorneys’ workforce and mission. 

Full support of the President’s fiscal year 2007 request will serve 

to reverse the trend of receiving less appropriations than needed to 

maintain current service levels and will put an end to the recent 

string of rescissions and absorptions that have caused the unfilled 

vacancies to continue to rise. The fiscal year 2007 budget request 

of $1.664 billion will support 10,262 positions. It will also provide 

$23.3 million in enhancements, which will support 149 more positions. Now, while it will not totally offset the effect of permanent 

rescissions and absorptions, it will better position our organization 

to gain important momentum to address these gaps. It will also 

better position Federal prosecutors to keep pace with the substantial growth in resources that have been provided to Federal investigative agencies and the cases that they are bringing to us. 

We recognize that stewardship of appropriated funds is a serious 

responsibility. As the Nation’s principal litigators, the United 

States Attorneys are on the front lines to keep Americans safe. The 

United States Attorneys have taken many new responsibilities over 

the past several years, and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss this budget with you today, sir. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Battle appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman GRAHAM. Before Ms. Brooks speaks, we have Senator 

Sessions, who is my favorite U.S. Attorney, and who was really 

good at what he did. I am glad he is in the Senate. 

Senator Sessions? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Graham. It just turns out 

that I have a conflict and would not be able to be with you, because 

this is close to my heart, having served as Assistant United States 

Attorney, I guess, for 21⁄2 years and U.S. Attorney for 12, and I 

care about it and was proud of the work that our office did. 

But I just want to make a couple of points because, Senator 

Graham, when I became a United States Attorney, my office had 

five AUSAs, and my secretary was the administrative officer in the 

office, and we just all tried cases. I tried as many as any assistant. 

By the time I left, we had 18 assistants, supervisors, and office 

managers, and debt collection units, and all of this. But I assure 

you the taxpayers got more productivity per assistant when we 

first started because we produced a lot with not a lot of help. 

4

So I guess I am just wanting to ask you to be thinking about 

what management decisions you can make to make sure that productivity is at its highest possible level, No. 1. 

Also, one thing that has happened is we got a lot of pushback 

saying you are bringing too many criminal cases in Federal court, 

these are smaller cases, they ought to be tried in State court. Two 

things have happened that I think make that maybe more viable 

today than 20 years ago, that is, State police are usually much better, and so are State prosecutors. And they are really more able 

sometimes to prosecute those. 

Finally, I would ask, you know, you have got—and I do not guess 

there is any way to really deal with this, but you have got probably 

an aging group there because they were hired about the time we 

ramped up when I was coming along in the 1980’s, and we had a 

surging crime rate. And so a lot of people are supervisors now and 

things, and I am not sure they are in the courtroom. The only thing 

we pay them to do is put people in the slammer if they deserve it. 

And so I am very sympathetic and interested in trying to help, 

but I am not sure that we are aggressive enough at the Department of Justice level on down in trying to really challenge ourselves to find out how good we are doing and how we can enhance 

the prosecutions. 

I guess maybe since I have made those remarks I might let them 

have a quick response, Senator Graham. Mr. Battle is at EOUSA, 

and he is the one that everybody writes letters to asking for more 

assistance. I bet I wrote a bunch of letters to the EOUSA asking 

I had to have more of this and more of that, and we got some, I 

have to admit. 

Mr. BATTLE. Senator, that has not changed. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you comment on the thought that in a 

time of tight budgets, maybe there are some steps we could take. 

Maybe we do not have to take as many cases as we used to that 

States could handle. Maybe we could be more productive in handling the caseload we have. 

Mr. BATTLE. Thank you, Senator. It would seem, Senator—and 

I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the 1980’s also, and I remember when fundamentally the types of cases that we did were more 

in the genre of white collar. And, of course, I left the Department 

in the early 1990’s and came back a number of years later, and a 

lot of things had changed. 

And what I came to learn was that U.S. Attorneys’ Offices were 

being to do a lot more than they did when I was an assistant, and 

they were partnering more with State and locals in areas of crime 

that we did not deal with in the mid- to late 1980’s and the early 

1990’s. There tended to be more of a focus on violent crime. The 

number of drug cases had been ramped up, and the OCDETF units 

had grown in size. And we have now formalized things like Project 

Safe Neighborhoods, Project Safe Childhoods, and it seems that Assistant U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are actually 

being asked to do a lot more. And that is not because we are trying 

to replace the number of cases or what is being done by the State 

and local people. It is that the nature of the crime that is finding 

5

its way into our communities is straining the resources of our State 

and locals so they are asking us for help. 

There is more partnering of prosecuting cases across the board 

between State prosecutors and Federal prosecutors for the sole purpose of keeping people safe, and people in the community have become sophisticated in their knowledge that that partnership is, in 

fact, taking place. 

So it seems that I do not—I can get the actual number of what 

the average Assistant U.S. Attorney caseload is, but that would 

vary from community to community, with the number of cases, 

complexity of cases, and the types of crime that is going on in their 

communities. For example, the Attorney General announced his 

gang initiative about a year ago, and the level of gang activity in 

each community looks a little bit different. In some places, you 

have MI6, Bloods and Crips, in others you have smaller gangs, but 

they are all putting strain in a different way on their communities. 

So the answer to your question is AUSAs are actually being 

asked to do more. With the priorities that are being asked by the 

President and the Attorney General, our caseloads are going up. 

And, in addition, the complexity of cases is going up, and that is 

a little bit different than what maybe you or I experienced several 

years ago. 

Senator SESSIONS. And with very few exceptions, Mr. Chairman, 

that crime rate has gone down. Since 1980, I think the crime rate 

is about half what it was. And there are a lot of reasons for it. One 

of them, sadly, is that we have all the people in jail. It is not true 

that everybody commits crimes. Only a relatively small number do, 

and if you identify the repeat offenders, it does help bring down the 

crime rate. 

Well, I wish I could stay. I have an unavoidable conflict. Senator 

Graham, thank you for listening to these fine folks. 

Ms. Brooks, it is good to see you. There is a dispute over whether 

being an assistant is the best job in the world or U.S. Attorney. 

Which do you say? 

Ms. BROOKS. I did not have the privilege of being an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney, so I came into the Department of Justice as a 

United States Attorney, and I think it is the best job in the world. 

Senator SESSIONS. I liked it. They paid you good money to play 

cops and robbers, and you always get to be the good guy. 

Ms. BROOKS. It is great work, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Great work. 

Chairman GRAHAM. I feel like I am at a family reunion here. We 

will try to figure out what to do here. Anything else, Senator Session? 

Senator SESSIONS. No. Thank you. I have to run. 

Chairman GRAHAM. All right. Ms. Brooks? 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN W. BROOKS, U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. BROOKS. Chairman Graham, Senator Sessions, I am Susan 

Brooks, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. It is my honor to be here representing the United States Attorneys who are the Nation’s principal litigators and who are at the 

6

forefront of our country’s efforts to fight terrorism and to fight 

crime. I am also the Vice-Chair of what is called the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, or AGAC, and the Chair of its Office 

Management and Budget Subcommittee. The AGAC is a Committee of 16 United States Attorneys and one Assistant United 

States Attorney, representing various Federal judicial districts of 

varying sizes. We meet monthly to advise the Attorney General on 

policies affecting the United States Attorney community. The Office 

Management and Budget Subcommittee provides the full AGAC 

with recommendations on budget issues faced in our offices. 

As a representative of the United States Attorney community, I 

want to add my voice to the Department’s leadership and strongly 

urge Congress to fully fund the United States Attorneys’ Offices 

across the country at the level requested by the President. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impact on our individual offices 

from our budgets being funded below the President’s recent requests. The cumulative effects of not receiving the President’s 

budget requests, the consequences of past rescissions, and the underfunded cost-of-living adjustments and the rising costs are the 

underlying causes of our budget difficulties faced by United States 

Attorneys. As you have heard, between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal 

year 2006, our offices’ budgets have had to be reduced between 6 

percent and 16 percent, depending on the size of our district, because of funding limitations. 

The largest districts—typically in our largest communities—have 

traditionally had higher turnover rates in those offices. They have 

borne the burden of larger cuts because the turnover in those offices would help to generate savings as positions have been left unfilled. In smaller offices, turnover rates are typically not sufficient 

to generate savings so readily. So to avoid furloughs or reductions 

in force at many levels, the budget strategy would help the United 

States Attorneys across the country to remain within funding availability without permanent personnel reductions. In other words, 

this approach has been buying us time to implement savings strategies so we could try to lower our operating costs and avoid continuing to burden the larger offices for the benefit of the smaller 

offices. 

Our budget challenges were especially significant at the beginning of fiscal year 2005 and 2006. The United States Attorneys collectively resolved to generate as much savings as possible, and we 

have generated some fairly significant cost-saving measures, which 

have included: we have looked at all of our space, we have reduced 

the space that we have; we have reduced video and telecommunications lines; we now use far more online library services rather 

than hard copies; we have limited the ordering of real-time or hourly transcripts; we have limited travel; and we have limited the use 

of translation services. 

But even so, the savings that have been generated in these areas 

have not been sufficient to allow us to fill any meaningful amount 

of unfilled positions. More and more positions have been left vacant, just to make ends meet. As you have heard from Director 

Battle, the United States Attorneys’ budget is personnel-intensive. 

Nearly 72 percent of our overall budget is devoted to salary and 

benefits of our people. District budgets are 98 percent payroll, 

7

mainly due to the fact that some areas in our budget, such as employee benefits, rent, and basic infrastructure, are centrally funded 

through EOUSA. But as you have heard, the number of vacant fulltime equivalent work years, or FTE, has grown from 198 vacancies 

in 2004 now to a projection of up to 775 vacancies in fiscal year 

2006. 

As of August 2006, our overall vacancy rate for the United States 

Attorney community as a whole is 10.3 percent, with 17 extra-large 

districts experiencing an average vacancy rate of 12.89 percent, 

which does include 12.08 percent for attorneys and 13.7 percent for 

support staff. As I noted earlier, these extra-large districts have 

taken larger reductions over the last several years solely because 

of their larger turnover rates. But it does come at the price of higher vacancy rates. There is no question that filling these vacancies 

would allow us to do more cases than we currently are able to do. 

As Chair of the Office Management and Budget Subcommittee of 

the AGAC, I have worked diligently with my colleagues so that we 

may jointly address our budget situation. Our task is straightforward yet complex. It is straightforward because we know that if 

additional funds are not forthcoming, we do need to continue to 

lower costs of doing business. It is complex because the truly discretionary part of our budget is quite small, so the focus on cost 

savings necessarily points then to our workforce. Working with the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys over the last several 

years, we have used the tool of what is called Voluntary Early Retirement Authority or Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments, 

called VERA/VSIPs, to create opportunities to lower our average 

work-year costs so that we may start filling vacancies with the savings that that would generate. But transforming the average costs 

of a significant workforce is slow going. Most positions left by the 

vacancy of the VERA/VSIP tool have not been backfilled, as the 

savings were needed just to help to remain within our funded levels. But the incentive to generate savings and to fill as many vacancies as possible is strong. We will continue on this path and 

other sound business management paths, as Senator Sessions suggested, to address our budget issues responsibly. 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today because I want to tell you that we are very committed as 

United States Attorneys. We do take our responsibility for our 

budgets to manage actively and responsibly while still meeting the 

demands of our mission. We appreciate the efforts that Congress 

has already made on our behalf in years past, but we need your 

continued support to meet our important mission of protecting this 

country. I am confident that by working together, we can quickly 

and effectively reverse the impact of these several years of rescissions and cost-of-living pay absorptions. But the first opportunity 

for us to jointly address this is now, as you consider these appropriations for fiscal year 2007. 

So on behalf of all the United States Attorneys on the front lines, 

I am asking the Senate to help us by providing the United States 

Attorneys with the President’s full budget request of $1.664 billion 

in fiscal year 2007. We ask that you fund the United States Attorneys at the level requested by the President, consistent with the 

8

House of Representatives, and help us to avoid any rescissions that 

would take us below that level. 

Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to answering 

any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brooks appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman GRAHAM. Well, thank you both. Well done. And I appreciate Senator Sessions’ showing up. 

Ms. Brooks, how serious a problem is the pay cap which prohibits 

increasing the pay of first assistants, chiefs, and other senior 

AUSAs? If the President’s full budget is approved for 2007, will 

most AUSAs not subject to the pay cap receive a cost-of-living increase? 

Ms. BROOKS. The pay cap that you are referring to—I am not exactly certain which pay cap you are referring to, Senator. 

Chairman GRAHAM. The one that prohibits—the pay cap which 

prohibits increasing the pay of first assistants, chiefs, and other 

senior AUSAs. 

Ms. BROOKS. The pay cap issue is a very complex issue, and as 

we talked earlier, I really believe that it will be necessary for us 

to provide further information for the record at a later time on the 

pay cap issue. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Fair enough. When it comes to securing U.S. 

Attorneys’ Offices, Mr. Battle, do we have the money to do it where 

we are at with the review? 

Mr. BATTLE. If you would give me a second. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Sure. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. BATTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the Executive Office 

for United States Attorneys, we have been committed to providing 

this overtime, particularly when you go back to— 

Chairman GRAHAM. Just very quickly, briefly if you could, is 

there enough money to implement the security measures that we 

believe are necessary? 

Ms. BROOKS. Senator, I am aware that in the President’s request 

for 2007, that is one of the enhancements. Physical security is an 

enhancement that was requested of $1.43 million. We do have ten 

districts that are in need of advanced electronic security systems, 

and we are required to improve our identification badging systems 

of 0.375. So that is an enhancement that we have requested in the 

President’s request for physical security. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Thank you. What programs do we have, Mr. 

Battle and Ms. Brooks, to retain Assistant U.S. Attorneys? Is there 

anything new and novel going on there? Because these are talented 

people, and you have got to do it more for the money because part 

of it is just patriotism, but the money does matter. Could you very 

briefly address that? 

Mr. BATTLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we have a worldclass training facility in South Carolina, the National Advocacy 

Center. 

Chairman GRAHAM. We do. 

Mr. BATTLE. There is no better place that I have ever experienced the level of training that goes on, and my office, of course, 

monitors that. 

9

Chairman GRAHAM. Amen. 

Mr. BATTLE. And what I hear from Mr. Bailey, who runs it for 

us, is that he has to turn people away. People are breaking down 

the door to get in there, and I have attended a number of the 

trainings down there, and I can tell you, as you know, it is the finest in the country. 

In addition to that, we have a very aggressive mentoring program that was just started by the— 

Chairman GRAHAM. I am sorry. I meant retaining, not training. 

Or does it all go together? 

Mr. BATTLE. We think that training goes toward retention, yes. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Okay. Great. 

Mr. BATTLE. Because this is what the AUSA community is asking for in order to be better prepared. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Okay. 

Mr. BATTLE. Because we hear from the judiciary about the kinds 

of things that they need. 

In addition to that, we provide opportunities for annual percentage raises, all sorts of opportunities to give awards and bonuses. 

We have a student repayment program and things of that nature 

that make life as an Assistant U.S. Attorney the place where people want to be. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Ms. Brooks, have you found these things to 

be effective? 

Ms. BROOKS. They have been efficiency, and we offer a couple of 

other things that other workplaces might not: in the appropriate 

cases, flexible work options; in the appropriate situations, we do 

have limited retention or relocation incentives that we can offer. 

We think it is very, very important for us to do what we can to retain the lawyers that we do spend a lot of time training, not just 

the lawyers but the other staff as well. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Right. Thank you both. I have no further 

questions. I appreciate your testimony, and it has been—I know 

the challenges of the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices post-9/11 are huge, 

and we need to make sure the budgets are there to meet those 

challenges. Thank you both for what you do. Please pass on from 

myself and the Committee the appreciation that we have for the 

assistants and all those administrative people who keep us safe. 

God bless. 

Mr. BATTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BROOKS. Thank you for your support. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Shockley, I am going to have to leave in about 7 minutes. 

I apologize. I have got something else to go to, but I do appreciate 

your being here. From your association’s point of view, please tell 

us what we need to be doing. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM I. SHOCKLEY, FORMER PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS, 

LAKE RIDGE, VIRGINIA 

Mr. SHOCKLEY. I am not going to say things that are a great deal 

different than you have already heard, Mr. Chairman. But I think 

that it will come from a slightly different perspective. 

10

I am honored to be here today, and on behalf of all Assistant 

United States Attorneys, we thank you for holding today’s hearing 

and for your support for Federal prosecutors. We are especially appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of your leadership as Co-Chair of the 

Prosecutors Caucus. 

As previously discussed by Ms. Brooks and Mr. Battle, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, or USAOs, face significant financial and human resource challenges that diminish their ability to effectively carry out 

the mission of the Department of Justice. My 24 years as an AUSA 

ended earlier this year with my retirement after service in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, D.C., and California. I have come to 

believe that we may be approaching a time when Americans will 

be less safe and our system of justice less certain because of shortfalls in staff and financial resources at the district level. 

USAOs have responded to staffing constraints in part by raising 

local prosecution guidelines so that increases in criminal caseloads 

will not overwhelm the staff. Such adaptive measures are not available, however, on the civil side since, when the United States is 

sued, a civil AUSA must defend the lawsuit. When restitution or 

fines are imposed, collection must be sought. Since the civil attorneys in the USAOs in total collect more dollars than it takes to run 

all of the offices, it is difficult to understand, at least at the conceptual level, why funding should even be an issue. 

In addition to the areas previously mentioned, the budgetary restrictions have had damaging effects in other ways, for example, 

limiting the Government’s ability to obtain and process voluminous 

financial records; limiting funds for routine training; and causing 

shortage of supplies. Legal secretaries are often assigned to as 

many as five attorneys, and attorneys must stay late into the night 

to perform their legal work since much of their workday is consumed with tasks routinely performed by legal secretaries or clerks 

in other law offices. 

For the attorneys and support staff alike, these conditions can be 

demoralizing. What may be acceptable over the short term becomes 

debilitating over the long haul. Additionally, we are risking losing 

the best of our highest-performing young attorneys because we are 

unable to provide them with pay increases, rewarding their outstanding performance. 

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we agree with the Department’s witnesses that it is essential that the Senate approve the 

administration’s fiscal year 2007 requested funding level for U.S. 

Attorneys’ Offices and, additionally, that Congress adequately protect the offices’ funding from budgetary rescissions. 

Very quickly, let me address a second important issue. There is 

a real need in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to achieve cost savings in personnel while improving the retention rate of younger but highly 

skilled AUSAs. The Department of Justice recognized this over 15 

years ago when a high-level task force recommended the same approach that today is embodied in legislation pending before the 

Congress. It would provide AUSAs with the same retirement benefits as those received by Federal law enforcement officers. Numerous U.S. Attorneys have informally praised the legislation, which 

would accelerate the departure of retirement-eligible AUSAs while 

helping to stem the premature departure of skilled, experienced 

11

mid-level prosecutors. Since on average AUSAs remain with the 

Department for only 8 years, these early departures represent a 

critical loss of litigation skill and experience to the Government. 

Frankly, the larger United States Attorneys’ Offices have, in effect, 

become a Government-financed training ground for the litigation 

divisions of large law firms. 

Equally important, the costs of the legislation proposed can be 

satisfied by the collections reform proposals that will improve 

DOJ’s ability to collect restitution and judgments and increase Federal revenues. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the significant challenges facing 

Federal prosecutors are surmountable with appropriate funding at 

the district level. We believe that NAAUSA’s legislative proposal 

can and ought to be a substantial part of the remedy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and support on 

each of these fronts. 

Chairman GRAHAM. Thank you for your association’s support, 

and we will do everything within my power to try to get the money 

into the budget that will allow us to defend ourselves, and you, like 

other law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is out 

there on the front lines in the war on terror. These Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys literally are under threat, and I just 

thank you for what you do. We will try our best to make sure the 

budget is robust. 

Thank you very much, and with that the hearing will be adjourned, and the record will remain open for 1 week, and I would 

like to thank Bruce Moyer and Denise Boyd for bringing this important issue to our attention and assisting in the hearings. God 

bless. Thank you for what you do. 

Mr. SHOCKLEY. Thank you, Senator Graham. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shockley appears as a submission for the record.] 

[Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

12


32149.001
13


32149.002
14


32149.003
15


32149.004
16


32149.005
17


32149.006
18


32149.007
19


32149.008
20


32149.009
21


32149.010
22


32149.011
23


32149.012
24


32149.013
25


32149.014
26


32149.015
27


32149.016
28


32149.017
29


32149.018
30


32149.019
31


32149.020
32


32149.021
33


32149.022
34


32149.023
35


32149.024
36


32149.025
37


32149.026
38


32149.027
39


32149.028
40


32149.029
41


32149.030
42


32149.031
43


32149.032
44


32149.033
45


32149.034
46

Æ


32149.035