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]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 2215) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes, having considered

the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

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

The amendment is as follows:

2

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘21st Century Department of

Justice Appropriations Authorization Act’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

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.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002, to carry out the

activities of the Department of Justice (including any bureau, office, board, division,

commission, subdivision, unit, or other component thereof), the following sums:

(1) GENERAL ADMINISTRATION.—For General Administration: $93,433,000.

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPEALS.—For Administrative Review and

Appeals: $178,499,000 for administration of pardon and clemency petitions and

for immigration-related activities.

(3) OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.—For the Office of Inspector General:

$55,000,000, which shall include for each such fiscal year, not to exceed $10,000

to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

(4) GENERAL LEGAL ACTIVITIES.—For General Legal Activities: $566,822,000,

which shall include for each such fiscal year—

(A) not less than $4,000,000 for the investigation and prosecution of

denaturalization and deportation cases involving alleged Nazi war criminals; and

(B) not to exceed $20,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

(5) ANTITRUST DIVISION.—For the Antitrust Division: $140,973,000.

(6) UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.—For United States Attorneys:

$1,346,289,000.

(7) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.—For the Federal Bureau of Investigation: $3,507,109,000, which shall include for each such fiscal year—

(A) not to exceed $1,250,000 for construction, to remain available until

expended; and

(B) not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

(8) UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE.—For the United States Marshals

Service: $626,439,000, which shall include for each such fiscal year not to exceed $6,621,000 for construction, to remain available until expended.

3

(9) FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM.—For the Federal Prison System, including the

National Institute of Corrections: $4,662,710,000.

(10) FEDERAL PRISONER DETENTION.—For the support of United States prisoners in non-Federal institutions, as authorized by section 4013(a) of title 18

of the United States Code: $724,682,000, to remain available until expended.

(11) DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION.—For the Drug Enforcement Administration: $1,480,929,000, which shall include not to exceed $70,000 to meet

unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

(12) IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.—For the Immigration and

Naturalization Service: $3,516,411,000, which shall include—

(A) not to exceed $2,737,341,000 for salaries and expenses of enforcement and border affairs (i.e., the Border Patrol, deportation, intelligence,

investigations, and inspection programs, and the detention program);

(B) not to exceed $650,660,000 for salaries and expenses of citizenship

and benefits (i.e., programs not included under subparagraph (A));

(C) for each such fiscal year, not to exceed $128,410,000 for construction, to remain available until expended; and

(D) not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

(13) FEES AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES.—For Fees and Expenses of Witnesses: $156,145,000 to remain available until expended, which shall include for

each such fiscal year not to exceed $6,000,000 for construction of protected witness safesites.

(14) INTERAGENCY CRIME AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT.—For Interagency Crime

and Drug Enforcement: $338,106,000, for expenses not otherwise provided for,

for the investigation and prosecution of persons involved in organized crime

drug trafficking, except that any funds obligated from appropriations authorized

by this paragraph may be used under authorities available to the organizations

reimbursed from such funds.

(15) FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION.—For the Foreign Claims

Settlement Commission: $1,130,000.

(16) COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE.—For the Community Relations Service: $9,269,000.

(17) ASSETS FORFEITURE FUND.—For the Assets Forfeiture Fund:

$22,949,000 for expenses authorized by section 524 of title 28, United States

Code.

(18) UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION.—For the United States Parole

Commission: $10,862,000.

(19) FEDERAL DETENTION TRUSTEE.—For the necessary expenses of the Federal Detention Trustee: $1,718,000.

(20) JOINT AUTOMATED BOOKING SYSTEM.—For expenses necessary for the

operation of the Joint Automated Booking System: $15,957,000.

(21) NARROWBAND COMMUNICATIONS.—For the costs of conversion to

narrowband communications, including the cost for operation and maintenance

of Land Mobile Radio legacy systems: $104,606,000.

(22) RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION.—For administrative expenses in

accordance with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: $1,996,000.

(23) COUNTERTERRORISM FUND.—For the Counterterrorism Fund for necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney General: $4,989,000.

(24) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS.—For administrative expenses not otherwise provided for, of the Office of Justice Programs: $116,369,000.

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

(a) APPOINTMENTS.—Not later than September 30, 2003, the Attorney General

shall exercise authority under section 542 of title 28, United States Code, to appoint

200 assistant United States attorneys in addition to the number of assistant United

States attorneys serving on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) SELECTION OF APPOINTEES.—Individuals first appointed under subsection (a)

may be appointed from among attorneys who are incumbents of 200 full-time litigation positions in divisions of the Department of Justice and whose official duty station is at the seat of Government.

(c) TERMINATION OF POSITIONS.—Each of the 200 litigation positions that become vacant by reason of an appointment made in accordance with subsections (a)

and (b) shall be terminated at the time the vacancy arises.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002 to carry out this section.

4

TITLE II—PERMANENT ENABLING PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. PERMANENT AUTHORITY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by

adding at the end the following:

‘‘§ 530C. Authority to use available funds

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except to the extent provided otherwise by law, the activities

of the Department of Justice (including any bureau, office, board, division, commission, subdivision, unit, or other component thereof) may, in the reasonable discretion of the Attorney General, be carried out through any means, including—

‘‘(1) through the Department’s own personnel, acting within, from, or

through the Department itself;

‘‘(2) by sending or receiving details of personnel to other branches or agencies of the Federal Government, on a reimbursable, partially-reimbursable, or

nonreimbursable basis;

‘‘(3) through reimbursable agreements with other Federal agencies for work,

materials, or equipment;

‘‘(4) through contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with non-Federal

parties; and

‘‘(5) as provided in subsection (b), in section 524, and in any other provision

of law consistent herewith, including, without limitation, section 102(b) of Public Law 102–395 (106 Stat. 1838), as incorporated by section 815(d) of Public

Law 104–132 (110 Stat. 1315).

‘‘(b) PERMITTED USES.—

‘‘(1) GENERAL PERMITTED USES.—Funds available to the Attorney General

(i.e., all funds available to carry out the activities described in subsection (a))

may be used, without limitation, for the following:

‘‘(A) The purchase, lease, maintenance, and operation of passenger

motor vehicles, or police-type motor vehicles for law enforcement purposes,

without regard to general purchase price limitation for the then-current fiscal year.

‘‘(B) The purchase of insurance for motor vehicles, boats, and aircraft

operated in official Government business in foreign countries.

‘‘(C) Services of experts and consultants, including private counsel, as

authorized by section 3109 of title 5, and at rates of pay for individuals not

to exceed the maximum daily rate payable from time to time under section

5332 of title 5.

‘‘(D) Official reception and representation expenses (i.e., official expenses of a social nature intended in whole or in predominant part to promote goodwill toward the Department or its missions, but excluding expenses of public tours of facilities of the Department of Justice), in accordance with distributions and procedures established, and rules issued, by the

Attorney General, and expenses of public tours of facilities of the Department of Justice.

‘‘(E) Unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended

under the direction of the Attorney General and accounted for solely on the

certificate of the Attorney General.

‘‘(F) Miscellaneous and emergency expenses authorized or approved by

the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney

General, or the Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

‘‘(G) In accordance with procedures established and rules issued by the

Attorney General—

‘‘(i) attendance at meetings and seminars;

‘‘(ii) conferences and training; and

‘‘(iii) advances of public moneys under section 3324 of title 31: Provided, That travel advances of such moneys to law enforcement personnel engaged in undercover activity shall be considered to be public

money for purposes of section 3527 of title 31.

‘‘(H) Contracting with individuals for personal services abroad, except

that such individuals shall not be regarded as employees of the United

States for the purpose of any law administered by the Office of Personnel

Management.

‘‘(I) Payment of interpreters and translators who are not citizens of the

United States, in accordance with procedures established and rules issued

by the Attorney General.

5

‘‘(J) Expenses or allowances for uniforms as authorized by section 5901

of title 5, but without regard to the general purchase price limitation for

the then-current fiscal year. ‘‘(K) Expenses of— ‘‘(i) primary and secondary schooling for dependents of personnel

stationed outside the continental United States at cost not in excess of

those authorized by the Department of Defense for the same area,

when it is determined by the Attorney General that schools available

in the locality are unable to provide adequately for the education of

such dependents; and ‘‘(ii) transportation of those dependents between their place of residence and schools serving the area which those dependents would normally attend when the Attorney General, under such regulations as he

may prescribe, determines that such schools are not accessible by public means of transportation. ‘‘(2) SPECIFIC PERMITTED USES.— ‘‘(A) AIRCRAFT AND BOATS.—Funds available to the Attorney General for

United States Attorneys, for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the

United States Marshals Service, for the Drug Enforcement Administration,

and for the Immigration and Naturalization Service may be used for the

purchase, lease, maintenance, and operation of aircraft and boats, for law

enforcement purposes.

‘‘(B) PURCHASE OF AMMUNITION AND FIREARMS; FIREARMS COMPETITIONS.—Funds available to the Attorney General for United States Attorneys, for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the United States Marshals Service, for the Drug Enforcement Administration, for the Federal

Prison System, for the Office of the Inspector General, and for the Immigration and Naturalization Service may be used for—

‘‘(i) the purchase of ammunition and firearms; and

‘‘(ii) participation in firearms competitions.

‘‘(C) CONSTRUCTION.—Funds available to the Attorney General for construction may be used for expenses of planning, designing, acquiring, building, constructing, activating, renovating, converting, expanding, extending,

remodeling, equipping, repairing, or maintaining buildings or facilities, including the expenses of acquisition of sites therefor, and all necessary expenses incident or related thereto; but the foregoing shall not be construed

to mean that funds generally available for salaries and expenses are not

also available for certain incidental or minor construction, activation, remodeling, maintenance, and other related construction costs.

‘‘(3) FEES AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES.—Funds available to the Attorney

General for fees and expenses of witnesses may be used for—

‘‘(A) expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diem in lieu of subsistence, of witnesses (including advances of public money) and as authorized

by section 1821 or other law, except that no witness may be paid more than

1 attendance fee for any 1 calendar day;

‘‘(B) fees and expenses of neutrals in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, where the Department of Justice is a party; and

‘‘(C) construction of protected witness safesites.

‘‘(4) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.—Funds available to the Attorney

General for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the detection, investigation,

and prosecution of crimes against the United States may be used for the conduct of all its authorized activities.

‘‘(5) IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.—Funds available to the

Attorney General for the Immigration and Naturalization Service may be used

for—

‘‘(A) acquisition of land as sites for enforcement fences, and construction incident to such fences;

‘‘(B) cash advances to aliens for meals and lodging en route;

‘‘(C) refunds of maintenance bills, immigration fines, and other items

properly returnable, except deposits of aliens who become public charges

and deposits to secure payment of fines and passage money; and

‘‘(D) expenses and allowances incurred in tracking lost persons, as required by public exigencies, in aid of State or local law enforcement agencies.

‘‘(6) FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM.—Funds available to the Attorney General for

the Federal Prison System may be used for—

‘‘(A) inmate medical services and inmate legal services, within the Federal prison system;

‘‘(B) the purchase and exchange of farm products and livestock;

6

‘‘(C) the acquisition of land as provided in section 4010 of title 18; and

‘‘(D) the construction of buildings and facilities for penal and correctional institutions (including prison camps), by contract or force account, including the payment of United States prisoners for their work performed

in any such construction.

‘‘(7) DETENTION TRUSTEE.—Funds available to the Attorney General for the

Detention Trustee may be used for all the activities of such Trustee in the exercise of 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 Marshals Service and to the detention of aliens in the custody

of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, including the overseeing of construction of detention facilities or for housing related to such detention, the

management of funds appropriated to the Department for the exercise of detention functions, and the direction of the United States Marshals Service and Immigration Service with respect to the exercise of detention policy setting and operations for the Department of Justice.

‘‘(c) RELATED PROVISIONS.—

‘‘(1) LIMITATION OF COMPENSATION OF INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED AS ATTORNEYS.—No funds available to the Attorney General may be used to pay compensation for services provided by an individual employed as an attorney (other

than an individual employed to provide services as a foreign attorney in special

cases) unless such individual is duly licensed and authorized to practice as an

attorney under the law of a State, a territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia.

‘‘(2) REIMBURSEMENTS PAID TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.—Funds available

to the Attorney General that are paid as reimbursement to a governmental unit

of the Department of Justice, to another Federal entity, or to a unit of State

or local government, may be used under authorities available to the unit or entity receiving such reimbursement.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections of chapter 31 of title 28,

United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘530C. Authority to use available funds.’’.

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

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code (as amended by

section 201), is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘§ 530D. Report on enforcement of laws

‘‘(a) REPORT.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice—

‘‘(A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain—

‘‘(i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any

Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose

enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility

of the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional; or

‘‘(ii) within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the United States,

from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or complying with, any standing

rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction) established by a final decision of any court of, or superior to

those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the interpretation, construction, or

application of the Constitution or of any statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer;

‘‘(B) determines—

‘‘(i) to contest affirmatively, in any judicial, administrative, or other

proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law; or

‘‘(ii) to refrain from defending or asserting, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of

any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law, or

not to appeal or request review of any judicial, administrative, or other

determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision; or

‘‘(C) approves (other than in circumstances in which a report is submitted to the Joint Committee on Taxation, pursuant to section 6405 of the

7

Internal Revenue Code of 1986) the settlement or compromise (other than

in bankruptcy) of any claim, suit, or other action—

‘‘(i) against the United States (including any agency or instrumentality thereof) for a sum that exceeds, or is likely to exceed, $2,000,000;

or

‘‘(ii) by the United States (including any agency or instrumentality

thereof) pursuant to an agreement, consent decree, or order that provides injunctive or other nonmonetary relief that exceeds, or is likely

to exceed, 3 years in duration.

‘‘(2) SUBMISSION OF REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.—For the purposes of paragraph (1), a report shall be considered to be submitted to the Congress if the

report is submitted to—

‘‘(A) the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate;

‘‘(B) the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader of the House of

Representatives;

‘‘(C) the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

‘‘(D) the Senate Legal Counsel and the General Counsel of the House

of Representatives.

‘‘(b) DEADLINE.—A report shall be submitted—

‘‘(1) under subsection (a)(1)(A), not later than 30 days after the establishment or implementation of each policy;

‘‘(2) under subsection (a)(1)(B), within such time as will reasonably enable

the House of Representatives and the Senate to take action, separately or jointly, to intervene in timely fashion in the proceeding, but in no event later than

30 days after the making of each determination; and

‘‘(3) under subsection (a)(1)(C), not later than 30 days after the conclusion

of each fiscal-year quarter, with respect to all approvals occurring in such quarter.

‘‘(c) CONTENTS.—A report required by subsection (a) shall—

‘‘(1) specify the date of the establishment or implementation of the policy

described in subsection (a)(1)(A), of the making of the determination described

in subsection (a)(1)(B), or of each approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C);

‘‘(2) include a complete and detailed statement of the relevant issues and

background (including a complete and detailed statement of the reasons for the

policy or determination, and the identity of the officer responsible for establishing or implementing such policy, making such determination, or approving

such settlement or compromise), except that—

‘‘(A) such details may be omitted as may be absolutely necessary to prevent improper disclosure of national-security- or classified information, or

of any information subject to the deliberative-process-, executive-, attorneywork-product-, or attorney-client privileges, if the fact of each such omission

(and the precise ground or grounds therefor) is clearly noted in the statement: provided, That this subparagraph shall not be construed to deny to

the Congress (including any House, Committee, or agency thereof) any such

omitted details (or related information) that it lawfully may seek, subsequent to the submission of the report; and

‘‘(B) the requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed satisfied—

‘‘(i) in the case of an approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C)(i),

if an unredacted copy of the entire settlement agreement and consent

decree or order (if any) is provided, along with a statement indicating

the legal and factual basis or bases for the settlement or compromise

(if not apparent on the face of documents provided); and

‘‘(ii) in the case of an approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C)(ii),

if an unredacted copy of the entire settlement agreement and consent

decree or order (if any) is provided, along with a statement indicating

the injunctive or other nonmonetary relief (if not apparent on the face

of documents provided); and

‘‘(3) in the case of a determination described in subsection (a)(1)(B) or an

approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C), indicate the nature, tribunal, identifying information, and status of the proceeding, suit, or action.

‘‘(d) DECLARATION.—In the case of a determination described in subsection

(a)(1)(B), the representative of the United States participating in the proceeding

shall make a clear declaration in the proceeding that any position expressed as to

the constitutionality of the provision involved is the position of the executive branch

of the Federal Government (or, as applicable, of the President or of any executive

agency or military department).

8

‘‘(e) APPLICABILITY TO THE PRESIDENT AND TO EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND MILI- TARY DEPARTMENTS.—The reporting, declaration, and other provisions of this section

relating to the Attorney General and other officers of the Department of Justice

shall apply to the President, to the head of each executive agency or military department (as defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United States

Code) that establishes or implements a policy described in subsection (a)(1)(A) or is

authorized to conduct litigation, and to the officers of such executive agency.’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (1) The table of sections for chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code (as

amended by section 201), is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘530D. Report on enforcement of laws.’’.

(2) Section 712 of Public Law 95–521 (92 Stat. 1883) is amended by striking

subsection (b).

(3) Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

President shall advise the head of each executive agency or military department

(as defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United States Code)

of the enactment of this section.

(4)(A) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,

the Attorney General (and, as applicable, the President and the head of any executive agency or military department described in subsection (e) of section

530D of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)) shall submit

to Congress a report (in accordance with subsections (a), (c), and (e) of such section) on—

(i) all policies described in subsection (a)(1)(A) of such section that were

established or implemented before the date of the enactment of this Act and

were in effect on such date;

(ii) all determinations described in subsection (a)(1)(B) of such section

that were made before the date of the enactment of this Act and were in

effect on such date; and

(iii) all approvals described in subsection (a)(1)(C) of such section that

were made between October 1, 1996, and the date of the enactment of this

Act.

(B) If a determination described in subparagraph (A)(ii) relates to any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding that is pending in the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, with respect to any such determination, then the report required by this paragraph shall be submitted within

such time as will reasonably enable the House of Representatives and the Senate to take action, separately or jointly, to intervene in timely fashion in the

proceeding, but not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this

Act.

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

If the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice (including

any bureau, office, board, division, commission, subdivision, unit, or other component thereof) is required by any Act (which shall be understood to include any request or direction contained in any report of a committee of the Congress relating

to an appropriations Act or in any statement of managers accompanying any conference report agreed to by the Congress) to provide a notice or report to any committee or subcommittee of the Congress (other than both the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the

Senate), then such Act shall be deemed to require that a copy of such notice or report be provided simultaneously to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of

Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

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

(a) BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS.—Title I of the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended—

(1) in section 504(a) by striking ‘‘502’’ and inserting ‘‘501(b)’’;

(2) in section 506(a)(1) by striking ‘‘participating’’;

(3) in section 510—

(A) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ‘‘502’’ inserting ‘‘501(b)’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(d) No grants or contracts under subsection (b) may be made, entered into, or

used, directly or indirectly, to provide any security enhancements or any equipment

to any non-governmental entity.’’; and

(4) in section 511 by striking ‘‘503’’ inserting ‘‘501(b)’’.

(b) ATTORNEYS SPECIALLY RETAINED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The 3d sentence of section 515(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘at

not more than $12,000’’.

9

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

(a) Section 524 of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘to the Attorney General’’ after ‘‘available’’;

(2) in paragraph (c)(1)—

(A) by striking the semicolon at the end of the 1st subparagraph (I) and

inserting a period;

(B) by striking the 2d subparagraph (I);

(C) by striking ‘‘(A)(iv), (B), (F), (G), and (H)’’ in the 1st sentence following the 2d subparagraph (I) and inserting ‘‘(A)(ii), (B), (F), and (G),’’; and

(D) by striking ‘‘fund’’ in the 3d sentence following the 2d subparagraph

(I) and inserting ‘‘Fund’’;

(3) in paragraph (c)(2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘for information’’ each place it appears; and

(B) by striking ‘‘$250,000’’ the 2d and 3d places it appears and inserting

‘‘$500,000’’;

(4) in paragraph (c)(3) by striking ‘‘(F)’’ and inserting ‘‘(G)’’;

(5) in paragraph (c)(5) by striking ‘‘Fund which’’ and inserting ‘‘Fund, that’’;

(6) in subsection (c)(8)(A) by striking ‘‘(A)(iv), (B), (F), (G), and (H)’’ and inserting ‘‘(A)(ii), (B), (F), and (G),’’; and

(7) in subsection (c)(9)(B)—

(A) by striking ‘‘year 1997’’ and inserting ‘‘years 2002 and 2003’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘Such transfer shall not’’ and inserting ‘‘Each such

transfer shall be subject to satisfaction by the recipient involved of any outstanding lien against the property transferred, but no such transfer shall’’.

(b) Section 522 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)’’

before ‘‘The’’, and by inserting at the end the following:

‘‘(b) With respect to 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 beginning not later than 1 year after

the date of enactment of 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act and continuing thereafter, and notwithstanding any other provision

of law, the same criteria shall be used (and shall be required to be used, as applicable) to classify or categorize offenders and victims (in the criminal context), and to

classify or categorize actors and acted upon (in the noncriminal context).’’.

(c) Section 534(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding ‘‘and’’

after the semicolon.

(d) Section 509(3) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the

2d period.

(e) Section 533(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘or

the person of the Attorney General’’ after ‘‘President’’.

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

(a) Section 529 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)’’

before ‘‘Beginning’’, and by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(b) The Attorney General shall, not later than February 2, 2003, and of every

year thereafter, provide to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of

each House of the Congress—

‘‘(1) a report identifying and describing every grant, cooperative agreement,

or programmatic services contract that was made, entered into, awarded, or extended, in the immediately preceding fiscal year, by or on behalf of the Office

of Justice Programs (including any component or unit thereof, and the Office

of Community Oriented Policing Services), and including, without limitation, for

each such grant, cooperative agreement, or contract: the term, the dollar

amount or value, a complete and detailed description of its specific purpose or

purposes, the names of all parties (including, without limitation, any subgrantees or subcontractors), the names of each unsuccessful applicant or bidder

(and a complete and detailed description of the application or bid and the specific purpose or purposes proposed), and the name of the contracting officer; and

‘‘(2) a performance review of every grant, cooperative agreement, or programmatic services contract made, entered into, awarded, or extended by or on

behalf of the Office of Justice Programs (including any component or unit thereof, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services) that was terminated or that otherwise ended in the immediately preceding fiscal year, and including, without limitation, for each such grant, cooperative agreement, or contract: a complete and detailed description of how the appropriated funds involved actually were spent, complete and detailed statistics relating to its performance, its specific purpose or purposes, and its effectiveness, and a sworn,

10

written declaration by each grantee, contractor, subcontractor, and subgrantee

that— ‘‘(A) the appropriated funds were spent for such purpose or purposes,

and only such purpose or purposes; ‘‘(B) the terms of the grant, cooperative agreement, or contract were

complied with; and ‘‘(C) all documentation necessary for conducting a full and proper audit

under generally accepted accounting principles, and any (additional) documentation that may have been required under the grant, cooperative agreement, or contract, have been kept in orderly fashion and will be preserved

for not less than 3 years from the date of such termination or end.’’. (b) Section 1913 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘to

favor’’ and inserting ‘‘a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor,

adopt,’’, by inserting ‘‘, law, ratification, policy,’’ after ‘‘legislation’’ every place it appears, by striking ‘‘by Congress’’ the 2d place it appears, by inserting ‘‘or such official’’ before ‘‘, through the proper’’, by inserting ‘‘, measure,’’ before ‘‘or resolution’’, by striking ‘‘Members of Congress on the request of any Member’’ and inserting ‘‘any

such Member or official, at his request,’’, by striking ‘‘for legislation’’ and inserting ‘‘for any legislation’’, and by moving ‘‘, being an officer or employee of the United

States or of any department or agency thereof,’’ to immediately after ‘‘; and’’. (c) Section 1516(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, entity, or program’’ after ‘‘person’’, and by inserting ‘‘grant, or cooperative agreement,’’ after ‘‘subcontract,’’. (d) Section 112 of title I of section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105–277

(112 Stat. 2681–67) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal year’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Justice—’’, and inserting ‘‘any fiscal year the Attorney General—’’. (e) Section 2320(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘title 18’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘this title’’; and

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as subparagraphs (A)

through (D), respectively;

(3) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(f)’’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(2) The report under paragraph (1), with respect to criminal infringement of

copyright, shall include the following: ‘‘(A) The number of infringement cases involving specific types of works,

such as audiovisual works, sound recordings, business software, video games,

books, and other types of works. ‘‘(B) The number of infringement cases involving an online element.

‘‘(C) The number and dollar amounts of fines assessed in specific categories of dollar amounts, such as up to $500, from $500 to $1,000, from $1,000 to

$5,000, from $5,000 to $10,000, and categories above $10,000.

‘‘(D) The amount of restitution awarded.

‘‘(E) Whether the sentences imposed were served.’’.

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

Section 535 of title 28, United States Code, is amended in subsections (a) and

(b), by replacing ‘‘title 18’’ with ‘‘Federal criminal law’’, and in subsection (b), by replacing ‘‘or complaint’’ with ‘‘matter, or complaint witnessed, discovered, or’’, and by

inserting ‘‘or the witness, discoverer, or recipient, as appropriate,’’ after ‘‘agency,’’.

SEC. 208. COUNTERTERRORISM FUND.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT; AVAILABILITY.—There is hereby established in the Treasury

of the United States a separate fund to be known as the ‘‘Counterterrorism Fund’’,

amounts in which shall remain available without fiscal year limitation—

(1) to reimburse any Department of Justice component for any costs incurred in connection with—

(A) reestablishing the operational capability of an office or facility that

has been damaged or destroyed as the result of any domestic or international terrorism incident;

(B) providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute domestic or

international terrorism, including, without limitation, paying rewards in

connection with these activities; and

(C) conducting terrorism threat assessments of Federal agencies and

their facilities; and

(2) to reimburse any department or agency of the Federal Government for

any costs incurred in connection with detaining in foreign countries individuals

accused of acts of terrorism that violate the laws of the United States.

(b) NO EFFECT ON PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not affect the amount or availability of any appropriation to the

Counterterrorism Fund made before the date of enactment of this Act.

11

TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 301. REPEALERS.

(a) OPEN-ENDED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE

OF CORRECTIONS.—Chapter 319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking section 4353.

(b) OPEN-ENDED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE.—Section 561 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking

subsection (i).

(c) REPEAL OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.—

(1) REPEALER.—Section 310001 of Public Law 103–322 is repealed.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

(A) TITLE 31 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.—Title 31 of the United

States Code is amended—

(i) in section 1321(a) by striking paragraph (91), and

(ii) in section 1105(a) by striking paragraph (30).

(B) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—(i) Section 210603 of the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended

by striking subsection (a).

(ii) Section 13(a) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–7a(a)) is amended

by striking ‘‘out of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund,’’.

(iii) Section 6(h)(1) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of

1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–8(h)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘, and from amounts

appropriated out of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund,’’.

(iv) Section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1231(i)(5)) is amended by striking ‘‘, of which’’ and all that follows through

‘‘2000’’.

(v) Sections 808 and 823 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–132; 110 Stat. 1310, 1317) are repealed.

(vi) The Drug-Free Prisons and Jails Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 3751 note)

is amended by striking section 118.

(vii) Section 401(e) of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C.

13751 note) is amended by striking paragraph (2).

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

Title 18 of the United States Code is amended—

(1) in section 4041 by striking ‘‘at a salary of $10,000 a year’’;

(2) in section 4013—

(A) in subsection (a)—

(i) by replacing ‘‘the support of United States prisoners’’ with ‘‘Federal prisoner detention’’;

(ii) in paragraph (2) by adding ‘‘and’’ after ‘‘hire;’’;

(iii) in paragraph (3) by replacing ‘‘entities; and’’ with ‘‘entities.’’;

and

(iv) in paragraph (4) by inserting ‘‘The Attorney General, in support of Federal prisoner detainees in non-Federal institutions, is authorized to make payments, from funds appropriated for State and local

law enforcement assistance, for’’ before ‘‘entering’’; and

(B) by redesignating—

(i) subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d); and

(ii) paragraph (a)(4) as subsection (b), and subparagraphs (A), (B),

and (C), of such paragraph (a)(4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of such

subsection (b); and

(3) in section 209(a)—

(A) by striking ‘‘or makes’’ and inserting ‘‘makes’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘supplements the salary of, any’’ and inserting ‘‘supplements, the salary of any’’.

SEC. 303. REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003.

When the President submits to the Congress the budget of the United States

Government for fiscal year 2003, the President shall simultaneously submit to the

Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on

the Judiciary of the Senate such proposed legislation authorizing appropriations for

the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2003 as the Attorney General may judge

necessary and expedient.

12

SEC. 304. REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

(a) APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION.—The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall appoint

a Deputy Inspector General for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who shall be

responsible for supervising independent oversight of programs and operations of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation until September 30, 2004.

(b) INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall submit to the Congress a plan

for oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Inspector General shall

consider the following activities for inclusion in such plan:

(1) FINANCIAL SYSTEMS.—Auditing the financial systems, information technology systems, and computer security systems of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(2) PROGRAMS AND PROCESSES.—Auditing and evaluating programs and

processes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify systemic weaknesses or implementation failures and to recommend corrective action.

(3) INTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICES.—Reviewing the activities of internal affairs

offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the Inspections Division

and the Office of Professional Responsibility.

(4) PERSONNEL.—Investigating allegations of serious misconduct by personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(5) OTHER PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS.—Reviewing matters relating to any

other program or and operation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the

Inspector General determines requires review.

(6) RESOURCES.—Identifying resources needed by the Inspector General to

implement such plan.

(c) REVIEW OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ORDER.—Not later than 30 days after the

date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall—

(1) review Attorney General Order 1931–94 (signed November 8, 1994); and

(2) submit to the Congress a report stating whether the Attorney General

intends to rescind, to modify, or to take no action affecting such order.

SEC. 305. STUDY OF UNTESTED RAPE EXAMINATION KITS.

The Attorney General shall conduct a study to assess and report to Congress

the number of untested rape examination kits that currently exist nationwide and

shall submit to the Congress a report containing a summary of the results of such

study. For the purpose of carrying out such study, the Attorney General shall attempt to collect information from all law enforcement jurisdictions in the United

States.

SEC. 306. REPORT ON DCS 1000 (‘‘CARNIVORE’’).

Not later than 30 days after the end of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Attorney

General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide to the

Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate a report

detailing—

(1) the number of times DCS 1000 was used for surveillance during the preceding fiscal year;

(2) the Department of Justice official or officials who approved each use of

DCS 1000;

(3) the criteria used by the Department of Justice officials to review requests to use of DSC 1000;

(4) a complete description of the process used to submit, review, and approve requests to use DCS 1000;

(5) the specific statutory authority relied on to use DCS 1000;

(6) the court that authorized each use of DCS 1000;

(7) the number of orders, warrants, or subpoenas applied for, to authorize

the use of DCS 1000;

(8) the fact that the order, warrant, or subpoena was granted as applied

for, was modified, or was denied;

(9) the offense specified in the order, warrant, subpoena, or application; and

(10) the nature of the facilities from which, or the place where the contents

of, electronic communications were to be disclosed.

TITLE IV—VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Violence Against Women Office Act’’.

13

SEC. 402. ESTABLISHMENT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

(a) OFFICE.—There is hereby established within the Department of Justice,

under the general authority of the Attorney General, a Violence Against Women Office (in this title referred to as the ‘‘Office’’).

(b) DIRECTOR.—The Office shall be headed by a Director (in this title referred

to as the ‘‘Director’’), who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall report to the Attorney General

through the Associate Attorney General. The Director shall have final authority for

all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Office. The Director shall not engage in any employment other than that of serving as the Director,

nor shall the Director hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any organization,

agency, or institution with which the Office makes any contract or other arrangement under this title.

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

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall have the following duties:

(1) Serving as special counsel to the Attorney General on the subject of violence against women.

(2) Maintaining liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State

Governments on matters relating to violence against women.

(3) Providing information to the President, the Congress, the judiciary,

State and local governments, and the general public on matters relating to violence against women.

(4) Serving, at the request of the Attorney General or Associate Attorney

General, as the representative of the Department of Justice on domestic task

forces, committees, or commissions addressing policy or issues relating to violence against women.

(5) Serving, at the request of the President, acting through the Attorney

General, as the representative of the United States Government on human

rights and economic justice matters related to violence against women in international forums, including, but not limited to, the United Nations.

(6) Carrying out the functions of the Department of Justice under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103–322) and the

amendments made by that Act, and other functions of the Department of Justice on matters relating to violence against women, including with respect to

those functions— (A) the development of policy, protocols, and guidelines;

(B) the development and management of grant programs and other programs, and the provision of technical assistance under such programs; and

(C) the award and termination of grants, cooperative agreements, and

contracts.

(7) Providing technical assistance, coordination, and support to— (A) other elements of the Department of Justice, in efforts to develop

policy and to enforce Federal laws relating to violence against women, including the litigation of civil and criminal actions relating to enforcing such

laws;

(B) other Federal, State, and tribal agencies, in efforts to develop policy, provide technical assistance, and improve coordination among agencies

carrying out efforts to eliminate violence against women, including Indian

or indigenous women; and

(C) grantees, in efforts to combat violence against women and to provide support and assistance to victims of such violence.

(8) Exercising such other powers and functions as may be vested in the Director pursuant to this title or by delegation of the Attorney General or Associate Attorney General.

(9) Establishing such rules, regulations, guidelines, and procedures as are

necessary to carry out any function of the Office.

SEC. 404. STAFF OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE.

The Attorney General shall ensure that the Director has adequate staff to support the Director in carrying out the Director’s responsibilities under this title.

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

14

1See H.R. 863, 107th Cong., (2001); Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2001, H.R.

Rept. No. 107–46 (April 20, 2001).

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 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.

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.

15

2Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1980, Pub. L. No. 96–

132, 93 Stat. 1040 (Nov. 30, 1979).

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 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.

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.

16

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

17

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued

Ayes Nays Present

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

18

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 deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
19

signed 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.

Enclosure

cc: Honorable John Conyers Jr.

Ranking Member

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 payas-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)

20

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

1. The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the programs that would be authorized by the bill. The

2001 appropriation for the entire Department of Justice is $20.9 billion.

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

21

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)

Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226–2960)

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

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

22

3The 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.

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 Civil Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Civil Rights Division, Office of Legal Counsel, Interpol, Legal Activities Office Automation,

and Office of Dispute Resolution.

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 governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
23

ment 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 diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
24

visions 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:

• payment for motor vehicles, boats, and aircraft;

• payment for service of experts and consultants, and payment

for private counsel;

• payment for official reception and representation expenses

and public tours;

• payment of unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character;

• payment of miscellaneous and emergency expenses;

• payment of certain travel and attendance expenses;

• payment of contracts for personal services abroad;

• payment of interpreters and translators; and

• payment for uniforms.

Specific permitted uses of available funds include:

• payment for aircraft and boats;

• payment for ammunition, firearms, and firearm competitions; and

• payment for construction of certain facilities.

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.

25

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:

1) establishes a policy to refrain from enforcing any provision

of a Federal statute, rule regulation, program, policy, or

other law within the responsibility of the Attorney General;

2) refrains from adhering to, enforcing, applying, or complying

with any other judicial determination or other statute, rule,

regulation, program, or policy within the responsibility of

the Attorney General;

3) decides to contest in any judicial, administrative, or other

proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any

Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other

law;

4) refrains from defending or asserting, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any

provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program,

policy, or other law, or not to appeal or request review of

any judicial, administrative, or other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision;

or

5) when the Attorney General approves the settlement or compromise of any claim, suit or other action against the

United States for more than $2,000,000 or for injunctive relief against the government that is likely to exceed 3 years.

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.

26

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:

• every grant, cooperative agreement, or programmatic services contract that was made, entered into, awarded, or extended in the immediately preceding fiscal year by or on behalf of the Office of Justice Programs; and

• a performance review of every grant, cooperative agreement,

or programmatic services contract made, entered into,

awarded, or extended by or on behalf of the Office of Justice

Programs that was terminated or that otherwise ended in

the immediately preceding fiscal year.

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:

1) reestablishing the operational capability of an office or facility that has been damaged as the result of any domestic or

international terrorism incident;

2) providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including paying rewards

in connection with these activities;

27

4 494 U.S. 152 (1990) (J. Scalia concurring).

3) conducting terrorism threat assessments of Federal agencies; and

4) for costs incurred in connection with detaining individuals

in foreign countries who are accused of acts of terrorism in

violation of United States law.

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

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:

• auditing the financial systems, information technology systems, and computer security systems of the FBI;

• auditing and evaluating programs and processes of the FBI

to identify systemic weaknesses or implementation failures

and to recommend corrective action;

• reviewing the activities of internal affairs offices at the FBI;

and

• investigating allegations of misconduct by FBI personnel.

28

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:

1) the number of times DCS 1000 was used for surveillance

during the preceding year;

2) the persons who approved the use of DCS 1000;

3) the criteria applied to requests for the use of DCS 1000;

4) a description of the request process for the use of DCS

1000;

5) the statutory authority supporting DCS 1000;

6) any judicial authorizations of DCS 1000;

7) the number of orders, warrants, or subpoenas applied for

to authorize the use of DCS 1000;

8) the fact that an order, warrant, or subpoena was granted

as applied for, modified, or denied;

9) the offense specified in the order, warrant, subpoena, or

application; and

10) the nature of the facilities or the place where the contents

of electronic communications disclosed by DCS 1000.

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.

29

Section 403. Duties and Function of Director of Violence Against

Women Office.

Section 403 enumerates the following duties of the Director:

1) serving as special counsel to the Attorney General on violence against women;

2) maintaining a liaison with the judicial branches of Federal

and State Governments;

3) providing information to the President, the Congress, the

judiciary, State and local government, and to the general

public;

4) serving as a representative of the Justice Department on

domestic task forces, committees, or commissions;

5) serving as a representative of the United States Government on human rights and economic justice matters at

international forums;

6) carrying out the functions of the Justice Department under

the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and other matters

relating to violence against women, including developing

policy, the development and management of grant and other

programs, and the award and termination of grants;

7) providing technical assistance, coordination, support to

other elements of the Justice Department, other Federal,

State, and Tribal agencies, and to grantees;

8) exercising other powers delegated by the Attorney General

or Associate Attorney General;

9) and establishing rules, regulations, guidelines and necessary procedures to carry out the functions of VAWO.

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

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART II - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 31 - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Sec.

30

501. Executive department.

* * * * * * *

530C. Authority to use available funds.

530D. Report on enforcement of laws.

* * * * * * *

§ 509. Functions of the Attorney General

All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and

all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General except the functions—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) of the Board of Directors and officers of the Federal

Prison Industries, Inc.ø.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 515. Authority for legal proceedings; commission, oath, and

salary for special attorneys

(a) * * *

(b) Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to

the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath

required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not

required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney øat not more

than $12,000¿.

* * * * * * *

§ 522. Report of business and statistics

(a) The Attorney General, by April 1 of each year, shall report

to Congress on the business of the Department of Justice for the

last preceding fiscal year, and on any other matters pertaining to

the Department that he considers proper, including—

(1) a statement of the several appropriations which are

placed under the control of the Department and the amount

appropriated;

(2) the statistics of crime under the laws of the United

States; and

(3) a statement of the number of causes involving the

United States, civil and criminal, pending during the preceding

year in each of the several courts of the United States.

(b) With respect to 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 beginning not later than 1 year after the date of enactment

of 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization

Act and continuing thereafter, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the same criteria shall be used (and shall be required

to be used, as applicable) to classify or categorize offenders and victims (in the criminal context), and to classify or categorize actors

and acted upon (in the noncriminal context).

* * * * * * *

31

§ 524. Availability of appropriations

(a) Appropriations for the Department of Justice are available

to the Attorney General for payment of—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) There is established in the United States Treasury a special fund to be known as the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘Fund’’)

which shall be available to the Attorney General without fiscal

year limitation for the following law enforcement purposes—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(I) payment of overtime salaries, travel, fuel, training,

equipment, and other similar costs of State or local law enforcement officers that are incurred in a joint law enforcement

operation with a Federal law enforcement agency participating

in the Fundø;¿.

ø(I) after all reimbursements and program-related expenses have been met at the end of fiscal year 1989, the Attorney General may transfer deposits from the Fund to the building and facilities account of the Federal prison system for the

construction of correctional institutions.¿

Amounts for paying the expenses authorized by subparagraphs

ø(A)(iv), (B), (F), (G), and (H)¿ (A)(ii), (B), (F), and (G), shall be

specified in appropriations Acts and may be used under authorities

available to the organization receiving the funds. Amounts for

other authorized expenditures and payments from the Fund, including equitable sharing payments, are not required to be specified in appropriations acts. The Attorney General may exempt the

procurement of contract services under subparagraph (A) under the

øfund¿ Fund from section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of the

United States (41 U.S.C. 5), title III of the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 and following),

and other provisions of law as may be necessary to maintain the

security and confidentiality of related criminal investigations.

(2) Any award paid from the Fund øfor information¿, as

provided in paragraph (1)(B) or (C), shall be paid at the discretion of the Attorney General or his delegate, under existing departmental delegation policies for the payment of awards, except that the authority to pay an award of $250,000 or more

shall not be delegated to any person other than the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, the Director of

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the Administrator of

the Drug Enforcement Administration. Any award øfor information¿ pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) shall not exceed

ø$250,000¿ $500,000. Any award øfor information¿ pursuant to

paragraph (1)(C) shall not exceed the lesser of ø$250,000¿

$500,000 or one-fourth of the amount realized by the United

States from the property forfeited.

(3) Any amount under subparagraph ø(F)¿ (G) of paragraph (1) shall be paid at the discretion of the Attorney General or his delegate, except that the authority to pay $100,000

32

or more may be delegated only to the respective head of the

agency involved.

* * * * * * *

(5) Amounts in the Fund, and in any holding accounts associated with the øFund which¿ Fund, that are not currently

needed for the purpose of this section shall be kept on deposit

or invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United

States and all earnings on such investments shall be deposited

in the Fund.

* * * * * * *

(8)(A) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

as necessary for the purposes described in subparagraphs

ø(A)(iv), (B), (F), (G), and (H)¿ (A)(ii), (B), (F), and (G), of paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

(9)(A)***

(B) For fiscal øyear 1997¿ years 2002 and 2003, the Attorney General is authorized to transfer, under such terms and

conditions as the Attorney General shall specify, real or personal property of limited or marginal value, to a State or local

government agency, or its designated contractor or transferee,

for use to support drug abuse treatment, drug and crime prevention and education, housing, job skills, and other community-based public health and safety programs. øSuch transfer

shall not¿ Each such transfer shall be subject to satisfaction by

the recipient involved of any outstanding lien against the property transferred, but no such transfer shall create or confer any

private right of action in any person against the United States.

* * * * * * *

§ 529. Annual report of Attorney General

(a) Beginning on June 1, 1979, and at the beginning of each

regular session of Congress thereafter, the Attorney General shall

report to Congress on the activities and operations of the Public Integrity Section or any other unit of the Department of Justice designated to supervise the investigation and prosecution of—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) The Attorney General shall, not later than February 2, 2003,

and of every year thereafter, provide to the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of each House of the Congress—

(1) a report identifying and describing every grant, cooperative agreement, or programmatic services contract that was

made, entered into, awarded, or extended, in the immediately

preceding fiscal year, by or on behalf of the Office of Justice

Programs (including any component or unit thereof, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services), and including,

without limitation, for each such grant, cooperative agreement,

or contract: the term, the dollar amount or value, a complete

and detailed description of its specific purpose or purposes, the

names of all parties (including, without limitation, any subgrantees or subcontractors), the names of each unsuccessful apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
33

plicant or bidder (and a complete and detailed description of

the application or bid and the specific purpose or purposes proposed), and the name of the contracting officer; and

(2) a performance review of every grant, cooperative agreement, or programmatic services contract made, entered into,

awarded, or extended by or on behalf of the Office of Justice

Programs (including any component or unit thereof, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services) that was terminated or that otherwise ended in the immediately preceding fiscal year, and including, without limitation, for each such grant,

cooperative agreement, or contract: a complete and detailed description of how the appropriated funds involved actually were

spent, complete and detailed statistics relating to its performance, its specific purpose or purposes, and its effectiveness, and

a sworn, written declaration by each grantee, contractor, subcontractor, and subgrantee that—

(A) the appropriated funds were spent for such purpose

or purposes, and only such purpose or purposes;

(B) the terms of the grant, cooperative agreement, or

contract were complied with; and

(C) all documentation necessary for conducting a full

and proper audit under generally accepted accounting principles, and any (additional) documentation that may have

been required under the grant, cooperative agreement, or

contract, have been kept in orderly fashion and will be preserved for not less than 3 years from the date of such termination or end.

* * * * * * *

§ 530C. Authority to use available funds

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except to the extent provided otherwise by

law, the activities of the Department of Justice (including any bureau, office, board, division, commission, subdivision, unit, or other

component thereof) may, in the reasonable discretion of the Attorney

General, be carried out through any means, including—

(1) through the Department’s own personnel, acting within,

from, or through the Department itself;

(2) by sending or receiving details of personnel to other

branches or agencies of the Federal Government, on a reimbursable, partially-reimbursable, or nonreimbursable basis;

(3) through reimbursable agreements with other Federal

agencies for work, materials, or equipment;

(4) through contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements

with non-Federal parties; and

(5) as provided in subsection (b), in section 524, and in any

other provision of law consistent herewith, including, without

limitation, section 102(b) of Public Law 102–395 (106 Stat.

1838), as incorporated by section 815(d) of Public Law 104–132

(110 Stat. 1315).

(b) PERMITTED USES.—

(1) GENERAL PERMITTED USES.—Funds available to the Attorney General (i.e., all funds available to carry out the activities described in subsection (a)) may be used, without limitation, for the following:

34

(A) The purchase, lease, maintenance, and operation of

passenger motor vehicles, or police-type motor vehicles for

law enforcement purposes, without regard to general purchase price limitation for the then-current fiscal year.

(B) The purchase of insurance for motor vehicles, boats,

and aircraft operated in official Government business in

foreign countries.

(C) Services of experts and consultants, including private counsel, as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, and

at rates of pay for individuals not to exceed the maximum

daily rate payable from time to time under section 5332 of

title 5.

(D) Official reception and representation expenses (i.e.,

official expenses of a social nature intended in whole or in

predominant part to promote goodwill toward the Department or its missions, but excluding expenses of public tours

of facilities of the Department of Justice), in accordance

with distributions and procedures established, and rules

issued, by the Attorney General, and expenses of public

tours of facilities of the Department of Justice.

(E) Unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character,

to be expended under the direction of the Attorney General

and accounted for solely on the certificate of the Attorney

General.

(F) Miscellaneous and emergency expenses authorized

or approved by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney

General, the Associate Attorney General, or the Assistant

Attorney General for Administration.

(G) In accordance with procedures established and

rules issued by the Attorney General— (i) attendance at meetings and seminars;

(ii) conferences and training; and

(iii) advances of public moneys under section 3324

of title 31: Provided, That travel advances of such moneys to law enforcement personnel engaged in undercover activity shall be considered to be public money

for purposes of section 3527 of title 31.

(H) Contracting with individuals for personal services

abroad, except that such individuals shall not be regarded

as employees of the United States for the purpose of any

law administered by the Office of Personnel Management.

(I) Payment of interpreters and translators who are not

citizens of the United States, in accordance with procedures

established and rules issued by the Attorney General.

(J) Expenses or allowances for uniforms as authorized

by section 5901 of title 5, but without regard to the general

purchase price limitation for the then-current fiscal year.

(K) Expenses of—

(i) primary and secondary schooling for dependents of personnel stationed outside the continental

United States at cost not in excess of those authorized

by the Department of Defense for the same area, when

it is determined by the Attorney General that schools

available in the locality are unable to provide adequately for the education of such dependents; and

35

(ii) transportation of those dependents between

their place of residence and schools serving the area

which those dependents would normally attend when

the Attorney General, under such regulations as he

may prescribe, determines that such schools are not accessible by public means of transportation.

(2) SPECIFIC PERMITTED USES.—

(A) AIRCRAFT AND BOATS.—Funds available to the Attorney General for United States Attorneys, for the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, for the United States Marshals

Service, for the Drug Enforcement Administration, and for

the Immigration and Naturalization Service may be used

for the purchase, lease, maintenance, and operation of aircraft and boats, for law enforcement purposes.

(B) PURCHASE OF AMMUNITION AND FIREARMS; FIREARMS COMPETITIONS.—Funds available to the Attorney

General for United States Attorneys, for the Federal Bureau

of Investigation, for the United States Marshals Service, for

the Drug Enforcement Administration, for the Federal Prison System, for the Office of the Inspector General, and for

the Immigration and Naturalization Service may be used

for—

(i) the purchase of ammunition and firearms; and

(ii) participation in firearms competitions.

(C) CONSTRUCTION.—Funds available to the Attorney

General for construction may be used for expenses of planning, designing, acquiring, building, constructing, activating, renovating, converting, expanding, extending, remodeling, equipping, repairing, or maintaining buildings

or facilities, including the expenses of acquisition of sites

therefor, and all necessary expenses incident or related

thereto; but the foregoing shall not be construed to mean

that funds generally available for salaries and expenses are

not also available for certain incidental or minor construction, activation, remodeling, maintenance, and other related construction costs.

(3) FEES AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES.—Funds available to

the Attorney General for fees and expenses of witnesses may be

used for—

(A) expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diem in

lieu of subsistence, of witnesses (including advances of public money) and as authorized by section 1821 or other law,

except that no witness may be paid more than 1 attendance

fee for any 1 calendar day;

(B) fees and expenses of neutrals in alternative dispute

resolution proceedings, where the Department of Justice is

a party; and

(C) construction of protected witness safesites.

(4) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.—Funds available

to the Attorney General for the Federal Bureau of Investigation

for the detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes

against the United States may be used for the conduct of all its

authorized activities.

36

(5) IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.—Funds

available to the Attorney General for the Immigration and Naturalization Service may be used for—

(A) acquisition of land as sites for enforcement fences,

and construction incident to such fences;

(B) cash advances to aliens for meals and lodging en

route;

(C) refunds of maintenance bills, immigration fines,

and other items properly returnable, except deposits of

aliens who become public charges and deposits to secure

payment of fines and passage money; and

(D) expenses and allowances incurred in tracking lost

persons, as required by public exigencies, in aid of State or

local law enforcement agencies.

(6) FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM.—Funds available to the Attorney General for the Federal Prison System may be used for—

(A) inmate medical services and inmate legal services,

within the Federal prison system;

(B) the purchase and exchange of farm products and

livestock;

(C) the acquisition of land as provided in section 4010

of title 18; and

(D) the construction of buildings and facilities for

penal and correctional institutions (including prison

camps), by contract or force account, including the payment

of United States prisoners for their work performed in any

such construction.

(7) DETENTION TRUSTEE.—Funds available to the Attorney

General for the Detention Trustee may be used for all the activities of such Trustee in the exercise of 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 Marshals Service and to the detention of aliens

in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,

including the overseeing of construction of detention facilities or

for housing related to such detention, the management of funds

appropriated to the Department for the exercise of detention

functions, and the direction of the United States Marshals Service and Immigration Service with respect to the exercise of detention policy setting and operations for the Department of Justice.

(c) RELATED PROVISIONS.—

(1) LIMITATION OF COMPENSATION OF INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED AS ATTORNEYS.—No funds available to the Attorney

General may be used to pay compensation for services provided

by an individual employed as an attorney (other than an individual employed to provide services as a foreign attorney in special cases) unless such individual is duly licensed and authorized to practice as an attorney under the law of a State, a territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia.

(2) REIMBURSEMENTS PAID TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.—

Funds available to the Attorney General that are paid as reimbursement to a governmental unit of the Department of Justice,

to another Federal entity, or to a unit of State or local governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
37

ment, may be used under authorities available to the unit or entity receiving such reimbursement.

§ 530D. Report on enforcement of laws

(a) REPORT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall submit to the

Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General

or any officer of the Department of Justice— (A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain— (i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any

provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of

the Attorney General or such officer on the grounds

that such provision is unconstitutional; or

(ii) within any judicial jurisdiction of or within the

United States, from adhering to, enforcing, applying,

or complying with, any standing rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those of, that jurisdiction) established by a final decision of any court of, or

superior to those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the interpretation, construction, or application of the Constitution or of any statute, rule, regulation, program,

policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or

administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer;

(B) determines— (i) to contest affirmatively, in any judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of

any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation,

program, policy, or other law; or

(ii) to refrain from defending or asserting, in any

judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the constitutionality of any provision of any Federal statute,

rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law, or not

to appeal or request review of any judicial, administrative, or other determination adversely affecting the constitutionality of any such provision; or

(C) approves (other than in circumstances in which a

report is submitted to the Joint Committee on Taxation,

pursuant to section 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code of

1986) the settlement or compromise (other than in bankruptcy) of any claim, suit, or other action—

(i) against the United States (including any agency

or instrumentality thereof) for a sum that exceeds, or is

likely to exceed, $2,000,000; or

(ii) by the United States (including any agency or

instrumentality thereof) pursuant to an agreement, consent decree, or order that provides injunctive or other

nonmonetary relief that exceeds, or is likely to exceed,

3 years in duration.

(2) SUBMISSION OF REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.—For the

purposes of paragraph (1), a report shall be considered to be

submitted to the Congress if the report is submitted to—

38

(A) the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate;

(B) the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader

of the House of Representatives;

(C) the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives

and the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(D) the Senate Legal Counsel and the General Counsel

of the House of Representatives.

(b) DEADLINE.—A report shall be submitted— (1) under subsection (a)(1)(A), not later than 30 days after

the establishment or implementation of each policy;

(2) under subsection (a)(1)(B), within such time as will reasonably enable the House of Representatives and the Senate to

take action, separately or jointly, to intervene in timely fashion

in the proceeding, but in no event later than 30 days after the

making of each determination; and

(3) under subsection (a)(1)(C), not later than 30 days after

the conclusion of each fiscal-year quarter, with respect to all approvals occurring in such quarter.

(c) CONTENTS.—A report required by subsection (a) shall— (1) specify the date of the establishment or implementation

of the policy described in subsection (a)(1)(A), of the making of

the determination described in subsection (a)(1)(B), or of each

approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C);

(2) include a complete and detailed statement of the relevant issues and background (including a complete and detailed statement of the reasons for the policy or determination,

and the identity of the officer responsible for establishing or implementing such policy, making such determination, or approving such settlement or compromise), except that— (A) such details may be omitted as may be absolutely

necessary to prevent improper disclosure of nationalsecurity- or classified information, or of any information

subject to the deliberative-process-, executive-, attorneywork-product-, or attorney-client privileges, if the fact of

each such omission (and the precise ground or grounds

therefor) is clearly noted in the statement: provided, That

this subparagraph shall not be construed to deny to the

Congress (including any House, Committee, or agency

thereof) any such omitted details (or related information)

that it lawfully may seek, subsequent to the submission of

the report; and

(B) the requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed

satisfied—

(i) in the case of an approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C)(i), if an unredacted copy of the entire

settlement agreement and consent decree or order (if

any) is provided, along with a statement indicating the

legal and factual basis or bases for the settlement or

compromise (if not apparent on the face of documents

provided); and

(ii) in the case of an approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C)(ii), if an unredacted copy of the entire

39

settlement agreement and consent decree or order (if

any) is provided, along with a statement indicating the

injunctive or other nonmonetary relief (if not apparent

on the face of documents provided); and

(3) in the case of a determination described in subsection

(a)(1)(B) or an approval described in subsection (a)(1)(C), indicate the nature, tribunal, identifying information, and status of

the proceeding, suit, or action.

(d) DECLARATION.—In the case of a determination described in

subsection (a)(1)(B), the representative of the United States participating in the proceeding shall make a clear declaration in the proceeding that any position expressed as to the constitutionality of the

provision involved is the position of the executive branch of the Federal Government (or, as applicable, of the President or of any executive agency or military department).

(e) APPLICABILITY TO THE PRESIDENT AND TO EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.—The reporting, declaration, and

other provisions of this section relating to the Attorney General and

other officers of the Department of Justice shall apply to the President, to the head of each executive agency or military department

(as defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United

States Code) that establishes or implements a policy described in

subsection (a)(1)(A) or is authorized to conduct litigation, and to the

officers of such executive agency.

* * * * * * *

§ 533. Investigative and other officials; appointment

The Attorney General may appoint officials—

(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United

States;

(2) to assist in the protection of the person of the President

or the person of the Attorney General; and

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

(a) The Attorney General shall—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve any information

which would assist in the location of any missing person (including an unemancipated person as defined by the laws of the

place of residence of such person) and provide confirmation as

to any entry for such a person to the parent, legal guardian,

or next of kin of that person (and the Attorney General may

acquire, collect, classify, and preserve such information from

such parent, guardian, or next of kin); and

* * * * * * *

40

§ 535. Investigation of crimes involving Government officers

and employees; limitations

(a) The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may investigate any violation of øtitle 18¿ Federal criminal

law involving Government officers and employees—

(1) notwithstanding any other provision of law; and

(2) without limiting the authority to investigate any matter which is conferred on them or on a department or agency

of the Government.

(b) Any information, allegation, øor complaint¿ matter, or complaint witnessed, discovered, or received in a department or agency

of the executive branch of the Government relating to violations of

øtitle 18¿ Federal criminal law involving Government officers and

employees shall be expeditiously reported to the Attorney General

by the head of the department or agency, or the witness, discoverer,

or recipient, as appropriate, unless—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 561. United States Marshals Service

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(i) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may

be necessary to carry out the functions of the Service.¿

* * * * * * *

SECTION 712 OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF

1978

(Public Law 95–521)

ATTORNEY GENERAL RELIEVED OF RESPONSIBILITY

SEC. 712. (a)***

ø(b) The Attorney General shall notify the Counsel with respect to any proceeding which the United States is a party of any

determination by the Attorney General or Solicitor General not to

appeal any court decision affecting the constitutionality of an Act

or joint resolution of Congress within such time as will enable the

Senate to direct the Counsel to intervene as a party in such proceeding pursuant to section 706.¿

OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF

1968

TITLE I—JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

* * * * * * *

PART E—BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

41

Subpart 1—Drug Control and System

Improvement Grant Program

* * * * * * *

GRANT LIMITATIONS

SEC. 504. (a) A grant made under this subpart may not—

(1) for fiscal year 1991 appropriations be expended for

more than 75 per centum; and

(2) for any subsequent fiscal year appropriations be expended for more than 75 per centum;

of the cost of the identified uses for which such grant is received

to carry out any purpose specified in section ø502¿ 501(b), except

that in the case of funds distributed to an Indian tribe which performs law enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary

of the Interior) for any such program or project, the amount of such

grant shall be equal to 100 percent of such cost. The non-Federal

portion of the expenditures for such uses shall be paid in cash.

* * * * * * *

ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS UNDER FORMULA GRANTS

SEC. 506. (a) Subject to subsection (f), of the total amount appropriated for this part in any fiscal year, the amount remaining

after setting aside the amount to be reserved to carry out section

511 of this title shall be set aside for section 502 and allocated to

States as follows:

(1) 0.4 percent shall be allocated to each of the øparticipating¿ States; and

* * * * * * *

Subpart 2—Discretionary Grants

CHAPTER A—GRANTS TO PUBLIC AND

PRIVATE ENTITIES

PURPOSES

SEC. 510. (a) The purpose of this chapter is to provide additional Federal financial assistance to public or private agencies and

private nonprofit organizations for purposes of—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) undertaking projects which are national or multijurisdictional in scope and which address the purposes specified in

section ø502¿ 501(b); and

* * * * * * *

(d) No grants or contracts under subsection (b) may be made,

entered into, or used, directly or indirectly, to provide any security

enhancements or any equipment to any non-governmental entity.

* * * * * * *

42

ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR GRANTS

SEC. 511. Of the total amount appropriated for this part (other

than chapter B of this subpart) in any fiscal year, 20 percent or

$50,000,000, whichever is less, shall be reserved and set aside for

this section in a special discretionary fund for use by the Director

in carrying out the purposes specified in section ø503¿ 501(b).

Grants under this section may be made for amounts up to 100 percent of the costs of the programs or projects contained in the approved application.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART I—CRIMES

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 11—BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

* * * * * * *

§ 209. Salary of Government officials and employees payable

only by United States

(a) Whoever receives any salary, or any contribution to or supplementation of salary, as compensation for his services as an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, of any independent agency of the United States, or of the

District of Columbia, from any source other than the Government

of the United States, except as may be contributed out of the treasury of any State, county, or municipality; or

Whoever, whether an individual, partnership, association, corporation, or other organization pays, øor¿ makes any contribution

to, or in any way øsupplements the salary of, any¿ supplements,

the salary of any such officer or employee under circumstances

which would make its receipt a violation of this subsection—

Shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this

title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 73—OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

§ 1516. Obstruction of Federal audit

(a) Whoever, with intent to deceive or defraud the United

States, endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede a Federal auditor in the performance of official duties relating to a person, entity,

or program receiving in excess of $100,000, directly or indirectly,

from the United States in any 1 year period under a contract or

subcontract, grant, or cooperative agreement, or relating to any

43

property that is security for a mortgage note that is insured, guaranteed, acquired, or held by the Secretary of Housing and Urban

Development pursuant to any Act administered by the Secretary,

or relating to any property that is security for a loan that is made

or guaranteed under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, shall be

fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 93—PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

§ 1913. Lobbying with appropriated moneys

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be

used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or

other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a

Member of Congress, øto favor¿ a jurisdiction, or an official of any

government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any

legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation øby Congress¿, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the

United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to øMembers of Congress on the request of any Member¿

any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such

official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which they deem

necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.

Whoeverø, being an officer or employee of the United States or

of any department or agency thereof,¿ violates or attempts to violate this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not

more than one year, or both; and, being an officer or employee of

the United States or of any department or agency thereof, after notice and hearing by the superior officer vested with the power of

removing him, shall be removed from office or employment.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 113—STOLEN PROPERTY

* * * * * * *

§ 2320. Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f)(1) Beginning with the first year after the date of enactment

of this subsection, the Attorney General shall include in the report

of the Attorney General to Congress on the business of the Department of Justice prepared pursuant to section 522 of title 28, an accounting, on a district by district basis, of the following with respect to all actions taken by the Department of Justice that involve

trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging,

copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works (as defined in

44

section 2318 of øtitle 18¿ this title), criminal infringement of copyrights (as defined in section 2319 of øtitle 18¿ this title), unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances (as defined in section 2319A of

øtitle 18¿ this title), or trafficking in goods or services bearing

counterfeit marks (as defined in section 2320 of øtitle 18¿ this

title):

ø(1)¿ (A) The number of open investigations.

ø(2)¿ (B) The number of cases referred by the United

States Customs Service.

ø(3)¿ (C) The number of cases referred by other agencies

or sources.

ø(4)¿ (D) The number and outcome, including settlements,

sentences, recoveries, and penalties, of all prosecutions brought

under sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, and 2320 of øtitle 18¿ this

title. (2) The report under paragraph (1), with respect to criminal infringement of copyright, shall include the following:

(A) The number of infringement cases involving specific

types of works, such as audiovisual works, sound recordings,

business software, video games, books, and other types of works.

(B) The number of infringement cases involving an online

element.

(C) The number and dollar amounts of fines assessed in specific categories of dollar amounts, such as up to $500, from

$500 to $1,000, from $1,000 to $5,000, from $5,000 to $10,000,

and categories above $10,000.

(D) The amount of restitution awarded.

(E) Whether the sentences imposed were served.

* * * * * * *

PART III—PRISONS AND PRISONERS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 301—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

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

(a) The Attorney General, in support of United States prisoners

in non-Federal institutions, is authorized to make payments from

funds appropriated for øthe support of United States prisoners¿

Federal prisoner detention for—

(1) necessary clothing;

(2) medical care and necessary guard hire; and

(3) the housing, care, and security of persons held in custody of a United States marshal pursuant to Federal law under

agreements with State or local units of government or contracts with private øentities; and¿ entities.

ø(4)¿ (b) The Attorney General, in support of Federal prisoner detainees in non-Federal institutions, is authorized to

make payments, from funds appropriated for State and local

law enforcement assistance, for entering into contracts or coopVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
45

erative agreements with any State, territory, or political subdivision thereof, for the necessary construction, physical renovation, acquisition of equipment, supplies, or materials required to establish acceptable conditions of confinement and

detention services in any State or local jurisdiction which

agrees to provide guaranteed bed space for Federal detainees

within that correctional system, in accordance with regulations

which are issued by the Attorney General and are comparable

to the regulations issued under section 4006 of this title, except

that—

ø(A)¿ (1) amounts made available for purposes of this

paragraph shall not exceed the average per-inmate cost of

constructing similar confinement facilities for the Federal

prison population,

ø(B)¿ (2) the availability of such federally assisted facility shall be assured for housing Federal prisoners, and

ø(C)¿ (3) the per diem rate charged for housing such

Federal prisoners shall not exceed allowable costs or other

conditions specified in the contract or cooperative agreement.

ø(b)¿ (c)(1) The United States Marshals Service may designate

districts that need additional support from private detention entities under subsection (a)(3) based on—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c)¿ (d) HEALTH CARE FEES FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN NONFEDERAL INSTITUTIONS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 303—BUREAU OF PRISONS

* * * * * * *

§ 4041. Bureau of Prisons; director and employees

The Bureau of Prisons shall be in charge of a director appointed by and serving directly under the Attorney General øat a

salary of $10,000 a year¿. The Attorney General may appoint such

additional officers and employees as he deems necessary.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 319—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 4353. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such

funds as may be required to carry out the purposes of this chapter.¿

* * * * * * *

46

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

(Public Law 105–277)

* * * * * * *

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

SEC. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during

øfiscal year 1999, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of

Justice Programs of the Department of Justice—¿ any fiscal year

the Attorney General— (1) may make grants, or enter into cooperative agreements

and contracts, for the Office of Justice Programs and the component organizations of that Office; and

(2) shall have final authority over all grants, cooperative

agreements, and contracts made, or entered into, for the Office

of Justice Programs and the component organizations of that

Office.

* * * * * * *

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.

ø(a) APPROPRIATIONS.—Of the amounts authorized in Sections

103(k) and 106(b)(2) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

(18 U.S.C. 922 note) and in section 4(b) of the National Child Protection Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 5119b(b)), a total of $100,000,000 for

fiscal year 1995, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, and $25,000,000

for fiscal year 1997 may be appropriated from the Violent Crime

Reduction Trust Fund established by this Act.¿

* * * * * * *

47

TITLE XXXI—VIOLENT CRIME

REDUCTION TRUST FUND

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 310001. CREATION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST

FUND.

ø(a) VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.—There is established a separate account in the Treasury, known as the ‘‘Violent

Crime Reduction Trust Fund’’ (referred to in this section as the

‘‘Fund’’) into which shall be transferred, in accordance with subsection (b), savings realized from implementation of section 5 of the

Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (5 U.S.C. 3101 note;

Public Law 103–226).

ø(b) TRANSFERS INTO THE FUND.—On the first day of the following fiscal years (or as soon thereafter as possible for fiscal year

1995), the following amounts shall be transferred from the general

fund to the Fund—

ø(1) for fiscal year 1995, $2,423,000,000;

ø(2) for fiscal year 1996, $4,287,000,000;

ø(3) for fiscal year 1997, $5,000,000,000;

ø(4) for fiscal year 1998, $5,500,000,000;

ø(5) for fiscal year 1999, $6,500,000,000; and

ø(6) for fiscal year 2000, $6,500,000,000.

ø(c) APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE FUND.—(1) Amounts in the

Fund may be appropriated exclusively for the purposes authorized

in this Act and for those expenses authorized by any Act enacted

before this Act that are expressly qualified for expenditure from

the Fund.

ø(2) Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) and outlays

flowing from such appropriations shall not be taken into account

for purposes of any budget enforcement procedures under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 except

section 251A of that Act as added by subsection (g), or for purposes

of section 605(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Amounts

of new budget authority and outlays under paragraph (1) that are

included in concurrent resolutions on the budget shall not be taken

into account for purposes of sections 601(b), 606(b), and 606(c) of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or for purposes of section 24

of House Concurrent Resolution 218 (One Hundred Third Congress).

ø(d) LISTING OF THE FUND AMONG GOVERNMENT TRUST

FUNDS.—Section 1321(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:

ø‘‘(91) Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.’’.

ø(e) REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REPORT ANNUALLY

ON THE STATUS OF THE TRUST FUND.—Section 1105(a) of title 31,

United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following

new paragraphs:

ø‘‘(30) information about the Violent Crime Reduction

Trust Fund, including a separate statement of amounts in that

Trust Fund.

ø‘‘(31) an analysis displaying, by agency, proposed reductions in full-time equivalent positions compared to the current

48

year’s level in order to comply with section 5 of the Federal

Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994.’’. ø(f) ALLOCATION AND SUBALLOCATION OF AMOUNTS IN THE

FUND.—ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 602(a) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 is amended— ø(A) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end

of clause (ii), by striking the semicolon and inserting a

comma at the end of clause (iii), and by adding after clause

(iii) the following:

ø‘‘(iv) new budget authority from the Violent

Crime Reduction Trust Fund, and

ø‘‘(v) outlays from the Violent Crime Reduction

Trust Fund;’’;

ø(B) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of

subparagraph (B) and by adding after subparagraph (C)

the following:

ø‘‘(D) new budget authority from the Violent Crime

Reduction Trust Fund; and

ø‘‘(E) outlays from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust

Fund;’’; and

ø(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

ø‘‘(4) NO DOUBLE COUNTING.—Amounts allocated among

committees under clause (iv) or (v) of paragraph (1)(A) or

under subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (2) shall not be included within any other allocation under that paragraph.’’.

ø(2) FISCAL YEAR 1995.—The chairman of the Committee

on the Budget shall submit to the House of Representatives or

the Senate, as the case may be, appropriately revised allocations under clauses (iv) and (v) of paragraph (1)(A) or subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2) of section 602(a) of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for fiscal year 1995 to carry

out subsection (b)(1).

ø(g) VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND SEQUESTRA- TION.— ø(1) SEQUESTRATION.—Part C of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding

after section 251 the following new section:

ø‘‘SEC. 251A. SEQUESTRATION WITH RESPECT TO VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

ø‘‘(a) SEQUESTRATION.—Within 15 days after Congress adjourns to end a session, there shall be a sequestration to eliminate

any budgetary excess in the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund

as described in subsection (b).

ø‘‘(b) ELIMINATING A BUDGETARY EXCESS.—

ø‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by paragraph (2),

appropriations from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund

shall be reduced by a uniform percentage necessary to eliminate any amount by which estimated outlays in the budget

year from the Fund exceed the following levels of outlays:

ø‘‘(A) For fiscal year 1995, $703,000,000.

ø‘‘(B) For fiscal year 1996, $2,334,000,000.

ø‘‘(C) For fiscal year 1997, $3,936,000,000.

ø‘‘(D) For fiscal year 1998, $4,904,000,000.

49

For fiscal year 1999, the comparable level for budgetary purposes shall be deemed to be $5,639,000,000. For fiscal year

2000, the comparable level for budgetary purposes shall be

deemed to be $6,225,000,000.

ø‘‘(2) SPECIAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE.—If estimated outlays

from the Fund for a fiscal year exceed the level specified in

paragraph (1) for that year, that level shall be increased by the

lesser of that excess or 0.5 percent of that level.

ø‘‘(c) LOOK-BACK.—If, after June 30, an appropriation for the

fiscal year in progress is enacted that causes a budgetary excess in

the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund as described in subsection

(b) for that year (after taking into account any sequestration of

amounts under this section), the level set forth in subsection (b) for

the next fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount of that excess.

ø‘‘(d) WITHIN-SESSION SEQUESTRATION.—If an appropriation for

a fiscal year in progress is enacted (after Congress adjourns to end

the session for the budget year and before July 1 of that fiscal year)

that causes a budgetary excess in the Violent Crime Reduction

Trust Fund as described in subsection (b) for that year (after taking into account any prior sequestration of amounts under this section), 15 days later there shall be a sequestration to eliminate that

excess following the procedures set forth in subsection (b).

ø‘‘(e) PART-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS AND OMB ESTIMATES.—Paragraphs (4) and (7) of section 251(a) shall apply to appropriations

from, and sequestration of amounts appropriated from, the Violent

Crime Reduction Trust Fund under this section in the same manner as those paragraphs apply to discretionary appropriations and

sequestrations under that section.’’.

ø(2) REPORTS.—Section 254(g) of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following

new paragraph:

ø‘‘(4) REPORTS ON SEQUESTRATION TO REDUCE THE VIOLENT

CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.—The final reports shall set

forth for the budget year estimates for each of the following:

ø‘‘(A) The amount of budget authority appropriated

from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund and outlays

resulting from those appropriations.

ø‘‘(B) The sequestration percentage and reductions, if

any, required under section 251A.’’.¿

* * * * * * *

TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE II—THE BUDGET PROCESS

* * * * * * *

50

CHAPTER 11—THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND

PROGRAM INFORMATION

* * * * * * *

§ 1105. Budget contents and submission to Congress

(a) On or after the first Monday in January but not later than

the first Monday in February of each year the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year. Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in

each budget the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(30) an analysis displaying, by agency, proposed reductions in full-time equivalent positions compared to the current

year’s level in order to comply with section 5 of the Federal

Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 13—APPROPRIATIONS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—TRUST FUNDS AND REFUNDS

* * * * * * *

§ 1321. Trust funds

(a) The following are classified as trust funds:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(91) Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.¿

* * * * * * *

SECTION 13 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1970

(Public Law 91–383)

SEC. 13. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM CRIME PREVENTION ASSISTANCE.

(a) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—There are authorized to be appropriated øout of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund,¿ not to

exceed $10,000,000, for the Secretary of the Interior to take all necessary actions to seek to reduce the incidence of violent crime in

the National Park System.

* * * * * * *

51

SECTION 6 OF THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION

FUND ACT OF 1965

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES

SEC. 6. GENERAL AUTHORITY; PURPOSES.—(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND OTHER PROJECTS TO REDUCE

CRIME.—

(1) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—In addition to assistance for

planning projects, and in addition to the projects identified in

subsection (e)ø, and from amounts appropriated out of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund,¿ the Secretary may provide

financial assistance to the States, not to exceed $15,000,000,

for projects or combinations thereof for the purpose of making

capital improvements and other measures to increase safety in

urban parks and recreation areas, including funds to—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

SECTION 241 OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

ACT

DETENTION AND REMOVAL OF ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED

SEC. 241. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(i) INCARCERATION.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as

may be necessary to carry out this subsectionø, of which the

following amounts may be appropriated from the Violent Crime

Reduction Trust Fund:

ø(A) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;

ø(B) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;

ø(C) $330,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;

ø(D) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;

ø(E) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and

ø(F) $340,000,000 for fiscal year 2000¿.

* * * * * * *

52

ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT

OF 1996

TITLE VIII—ASSISTANCE TO LAW

ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A—Resources and Security

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 808. COMPILATION OF STATISTICS RELATING TO INTIMIDATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

ø(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that— ø(1) threats of violence and acts of violence against Federal, State, and local government employees and their families

are increasing as the result of attempts to stop public servants

from performing their lawful duties;

ø(2) these acts are a danger to the constitutional form of

government of the United States; and

ø(3) more information is needed relating to the extent and

nature of the danger to these employees and their families so

that actions can be taken to protect public servants at all levels of government in the performance of their duties.

ø(b) STATISTICS.—The Attorney General shall collect data, for

the calendar year 1990 and each succeeding calendar year thereafter, relating to crimes and incidents of threats of violence and

acts of violence against Federal, State, and local government employees and their families in the performance of their lawful duties.

Such data shall include— ø(1) in the case of crimes against such employees and their

families, the nature of the crime; and

ø(2) in the case of incidents of threats of violence and acts

of violence, including verbal and implicit threats against such

employees and their families, the deterrent effect on the performance of their jobs.

ø(c) GUIDELINES.—The Attorney General shall establish guidelines for the collection of the data under subsection (b), including

a definition of the sufficiency of evidence of noncriminal incidents

required to be reported.

ø(d) USE OF DATA.—

ø(1) ANNUAL PUBLISHING.—The Attorney General shall

publish an annual summary of the data collected under this

section.

ø(2) USE OF DATA.—Except with respect to the summary

published under paragraph (1), data collected under this section shall be used only for research and statistical purposes.

ø(e) EXEMPTION.—The Attorney General, the Secretary of

State, and the United States Secret Service is not required to participate in any statistical reporting activity under this section with

respect to any direct or indirect threat made against any individual

for whom that official or Service is authorized to provide protection.¿

* * * * * * *

53

Subtitle B—Funding Authorizations for

Law Enforcement

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 823. FUNDING SOURCE.

øAppropriations for activities authorized in this subtitle may

be made from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.¿

* * * * * * *

SECTION 118 OF THE DRUG-FREE PRISONS AND JAILS

ACT OF 1998

øSEC. 118. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to

carry out this subtitle from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust

Fund as authorized by title 31 of the Violent Crime and Control

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211)—

ø(1) for fiscal year 1999, $30,000,000; and

ø(2) for fiscal year 2000, $20,000,000.

ø(b) RESERVATION.—The Director may reserve each fiscal year

not more than 20 percent of the funds appropriated pursuant to

subsection (a) for activities required under section 116.¿

SECTION 401 OF THE ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT OF

1996

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHING BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) * * *

ø(2) VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.—The sums

authorized to be appropriated by this subsection may be made

from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.¿

* * * * * * *

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’’

54

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:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I am pleased to bring before the

Committee H.R. 2215, the DOJ Authorization Act. This bill is

89

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

90

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.

91

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

92

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:]

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

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

104

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:

• auditing the financial systems, information technology systems, and computer

security systems of the FBI;

• auditing and evaluating programs and processes of the FBI to identify systemic weaknesses or implementation failures and to recommend corrective action;

• reviewing the activities of internal affairs offices at the FBI; and

105

• investigating allegations of misconduct by FBI personnel.

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?

106

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:]

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.

107

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

108

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:]

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 crimiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
109

nal 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 withVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
110

drawn. 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:]

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.

111

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:]

Mr. BARR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple

amendment. It simply requires the Attorney General to report at

112

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

113

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 conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:34 Jul 10, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR125.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR125
114

sidered as read. The gentleman from New York is recognized for

5 minutes.

[The amendment follows:]

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.

115

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:]

116

117

118

119

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,

120

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?

121

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

122

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?

123

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.]

124

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.

125

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:]

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

126

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:]

127

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

128

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?

129

[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?

130

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?

131

[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.

132

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:]

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:]

133

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:]

134

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

135

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 smalltown 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

136

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

137

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.

138

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.]

139

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

140

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.]

(141)

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,

142

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

Æ