U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–641 PDF 2008

ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY AND EQUITABLE RETIREMENT TREATMENT ACT OF 2007 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 2878 

NOVEMBER 1, 2007 

Serial No. 110–124 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 1, 2007 

Page 

TEXT OF THE BILL 

H.R. 2878, the ‘‘Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement 

Treatment Act of 2007’’ ........................................................................................ 2 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Artur Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Alabama, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................................................................ 7 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES 

Larry D. Thompson, Esquire, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, 

Pepsico, Inc., Purchase, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Steven H. Cook, Esquire, Vice Prseident, National Association of Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Lake Ridge, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Mr. Kenneth E. Melson, Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

for the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Ms. Amy Baron-Evans, Sentencing Resource Council, Federal Public and 

Community Defenders, Federal Defender Office, Boston, MA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 41 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 57 

(1) 

ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY AND EQUITABLE RETIREMENT TREATMENT ACT OF 

2007 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Waters, Nadler, Johnson, Jackson Lee, Davis, Baldwin, Sutton, Forbes, Coble, and Lungren. 

Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; 

Ameer Gopalani, Majority Counsel; Mario Dispenza, (Fellow) 

BATFE Detailee; Veronica Eligan, Majority Professional Staff 

Member; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, 

Minority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. I am 

pleased to welcome you to today’s hearing on H.R. 2878, the ‘‘Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Treatment Act of 2007.’’ 

H.R. 2878 was introduced on June 27 this year by the gentleman 

from Alabama, Mr. Davis. The legislation currently enjoys bipartisan support of 36 cosponsors, including 10 Members of this Committee. The purpose of the measure is to improve the current set 

of retirement benefits afforded to Assistant U.S. Attorneys. According to a recent Department of Justice internal memo, the enhancement of the AUSA retirement benefit program is one meaningful 

way to improve the retention rate. Title II of the bill seeks to implement the change by elevating the current set of benefits to equal 

those currently offered to other law enforcement officials, including 

FBI, U.S. Marshals, and Bureau of Prison employees. 

Under PAYGO, any bill that increases outlays has to be paid for, 

and we do have concerns about how this bill is paid for, and we 

will explore that concern during the hearings. 

I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 2878, follows:] 

2 

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2878 

To amend titles 18 and 28 of the United States Code to provide incentives for the 

prompt payments of debts owed to the United States and the victims of crime by 

imposing surcharges on unpaid judgments owed to the United States and to the 

victims of crime, to provide for offsets on amounts collected by the Department 

of Justice for Federal agencies, and to increase the amount of special assessments 

imposed upon convicted persons; to establish an Enhanced Financial Recovery 

Fund to enhance, supplement and improve the debt collection activities of the Department of Justice; to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide to assistant 

United States attorneys the same retirement benefits as are afforded to Federal 

law enforcements officers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2007 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. 

CANNON, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. 

UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. CUMMINGS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend titles 18 and 28 of the United States Code to provide incentives for the 

prompt payments of debts owed to the United States and the victims of crime by 

imposing surcharges on unpaid judgments owed to the United States and to the 

victims of crime, to provide for offsets on amounts collected by the Department 

of Justice for Federal agencies, and to increase the amount of special assessments 

imposed upon convicted persons; to establish an Enhanced Financial Recovery 

Fund to enhance, supplement and improve the debt collection activities of the Department of Justice; to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide to assistant 

United States attorneys the same retirement benefits as are afforded to Federal 

law enforcements officers, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007’’. 

TITLE I—ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY 

SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL SURCHARGE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3612 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 

striking subsection (g) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(g) IMPOSITION OF SURCHARGE.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A surcharge shall be imposed upon a defendant if there 

are any unpaid criminal monetary penalties as of the date specified in subsection (f)(1). 

‘‘(2) AMOUNT OF SURCHARGE.—The surcharge imposed under paragraph (1) 

shall be— 

‘‘(A) 5 percent of the unpaid principal balance; or 

‘‘(B) $50, if the unpaid balance is less than $1,000. 

‘‘(3) ALLOCATION OF PAYMENTS.— 

3 

‘‘(A) FINE OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.—If a surcharge is imposed under 

paragraph (1) for a fine or special assessment— 

‘‘(i) an amount equal to 95 percent of each principal payment made 

by a defendant shall be credited to the Crime Victims Fund established 

under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 

10601); and 

‘‘(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of each principal payment shall 

be credited to the Department of Justice Enhanced Financial Recovery 

Fund established under section 104 of the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007. 

‘‘(B) RESTITUTION.—If a surcharge is imposed under paragraph (1) for 

a restitution obligation— 

‘‘(i) an amount equal to 95 percent of each principal payment shall 

be paid to any victim identified by the court; and 

‘‘(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of each principal payment shall 

be credited to the Department of Justice Enhanced Financial Recovery 

Fund established under section 104 of the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007. 

‘‘(C) SURCHARGES.—For any payment made by a defendant after the 

full amount of a surcharge imposed under paragraph (1) has been satisfied, 

the full amount of such payment shall be credited to the principal amount 

due or accrued interest, as the case may be. 

‘‘(4) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

‘‘(A) the term ‘criminal monetary penalties’ includes the principal 

amount of any amount imposed as a fine, restitution obligation, or special 

assessment, regardless of whether any payment schedule has been imposed; 

and 

‘‘(B) the term ‘principal payment’ does not include any amount that is 

imposed as interest, penalty, or a surcharge.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 3612 of title 18, United States Code, 

is amended— 

(1) by striking subsections (d) and (e); and 

(2) by redesignating subsections (f) through (i), as amended by this Act, as 

subsections (d) through (g), respectively. 

SEC. 102. IMPOSITION OF CIVIL SURCHARGE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3011 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘§ 3011. Imposition of surcharge 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A surcharge shall be imposed on a defendant if there is an 

unpaid balance due to the United States on any money judgment in a civil matter 

recovered in a district court as of— 

‘‘(1) the fifteenth day after the date of the judgment; or 

‘‘(2) if the day described in paragraph (1) is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal 

public holiday, the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 

‘‘(b) AMOUNT OF SURCHARGE.—A surcharge imposed under subsection (a) shall 

be— 

‘‘(1) 5 percent of the unpaid principal balance; or 

‘‘(2) $50, if the unpaid balance is less than $1,000. 

‘‘(c) ALLOCATION OF PAYMENTS.—If a surcharge is imposed under subsection 

(a)— 

‘‘(1) an amount equal to 95 percent of each principal payment made by a 

defendant shall be credited as otherwise provided by law; and 

‘‘(2) an amount equal to 5 percent of each principal payment shall be credited to the Department of Justice Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund established under section 104 of the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007. 

‘‘(d) SURCHARGES.—For any payment made by a defendant after the full amount 

of a surcharge imposed under subsection(a) has been satisfied, the full amount of 

such payment shall be credited to the principal amount due or accrued interest, as 

the case may be. 

‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

‘‘(1) the term ‘principal payment’ does not include any amount that is imposed as interest, penalty, or a surcharge; and 

‘‘(2) the term ‘unpaid balance due to the United States’ includes any unpaid 

balance due to a person that was represented by the Department of Justice in 

the civil matter in which the money judgment was entered.’’. 

4 

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter A of chapter 176 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

by striking the item relating to section 3011 and inserting the following: 

‘‘3011. Imposition of surcharge.’’. 

SEC. 103. INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. 

Section 3013 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection 

(a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) The court shall assess on any person convicted of an offense against the 

United States— 

‘‘(1) in the case of an infraction or a misdemeanor— 

‘‘(A) if the defendant is an individual— 

‘‘(i) the amount of $10 in the case of an infraction or a class C misdemeanor; 

‘‘(ii) the amount of $25 in the case of a class B misdemeanor; and 

‘‘(iii) the amount of $100 in the case of a class A misdemeanor; and 

‘‘(B) if the defendant is a person other than an individual— 

‘‘(i) the amount of $100 in the case of an infraction or a class C 

misdemeanor; 

‘‘(ii) the amount of $200 in the case of a class B misdemeanor; and 

‘‘(iii) the amount of $500 in the case of a class A misdemeanor; and 

‘‘(2) in the case of a felony— 

‘‘(A) the amount of $200 if the defendant is an individual; and 

‘‘(B) the amount of $1,000 if the defendant is a person other than an 

individual.’’. 

SEC. 104. ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY FUND. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Treasury a separate account 

known as the Department of Justice Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Fund’’). 

(b) DEPOSITS.—Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, or 

any other law regarding the crediting of collections, there shall be credited as an 

offsetting collection to the Fund an amount equal to— 

(1) 2 percent of any amount collected pursuant to civil debt collection litigation activities of the Department of Justice (in addition to any amount credited 

under section 11013 of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 

Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 527 note)); 

(2) 5 percent of all amounts collected as restitution due to the United States 

pursuant to the criminal debt collection litigation activities of the Department 

of Justice; 

(3) any surcharge collected under section 3612(g) of title 18, United States 

Code, as amended by this Act, or section 3011 of title 28, United States Code, 

as amended by this Act; and 

(4) 50 percent of any special assessment collected under section 3013(a) of 

title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act. 

(c) AVAILABILITY.—The amounts credited to the Fund shall remain available 

until expended. 

(d) PAYMENTS FROM THE FUND.— 

(1) AMOUNT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Attorney 

General shall use not less than $20,000,000 of the Fund in each fiscal year, 

to the extent that funds are available, for the civil and criminal debt collection activities of the Department of Justice, including restitution judgments 

where the beneficiaries are the victims of crime. 

(B) EXCEPTIONS.— 

(i) ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT.—In each fiscal year following the first 

fiscal year in which deposits into the Fund are greater than 

$20,000,000, the amount to be used under paragraph (1) shall be increased by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price 

Index for the calendar year preceding that fiscal year. 

(ii) LIMITATION.—In any fiscal year, amounts in the Fund shall be 

available to the extent that the amount appropriated in that fiscal year 

for the purposes described in subparagraph (A) is not less than an 

amount equal to the amount appropriated for such activities in fiscal 

year 2006, adjusted annually in the same proportion as increases reflected in the amount of aggregate level of appropriations for the Executive Office of United States Attorneys and United States Attorneys. 

5 

(2) USE OF FUNDS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Funds used under paragraph (1) shall be used to enhance, supplement, and improve civil and criminal debt collection litigation 

activities of the Department of Justice, primarily such activities by United 

States attorneys’ offices. A portion of such sums may be used by the Department of Justice to provide legal, investigative, accounting, and training 

support to the United States attorneys’ offices. 

(B) LIMITATION ON USE.—Funds used under paragraph (1) may not be 

used to determine whether a defendant is guilty of an offense or liability 

to the United States (except incidentally for the provision of assistance necessary or desirable in a case to ensure the preservation of assets or the imposition of a judgment which assists in the enforcement of a judgment or 

in a proceeding directly related to the failure of a defendant to satisfy the 

monetary portion of a judgment). 

(e) OTHER USE OF FUNDS.—After using funds under subsection (d), the Attorney 

General may use amounts remaining in the Fund for additional civil or criminal 

debt collection activities, for personnel expenses, for personnel benefit expenses incurred as a result of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or for other prosecution and litigation expenses. The availability of amounts from the Fund shall 

have no effect on the implementation of title II or the amendments made by title 

II. 

(f) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘United States’’— 

(1) includes— 

(A) the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the 

military departments, and independent establishments of the United 

States; and 

(B) corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the 

United States; and 

(2) except as provided in paragraph (1), does not include any contractor of 

the United States. 

SEC. 105. EFFECTIVE DATES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by section 101 and section 103 shall 

apply to any offense committed on or after the date of enactment of this Act, including any offense involving conduct that continued on or after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

(b) FUND AND SURCHARGES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 104 and the amendments made by section 102 

shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(2) PENDING CASES.—The amendments made by section 102 shall apply to 

any case pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

TITLE II—EQUITABLE RETIREMENT TREATMENT OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS 

SEC. 201. RETIREMENT TREATMENT OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS. 

(a) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.— 

(1) ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DEFINED.—Section 8331 of title 5, 

United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in paragraph (28), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(B) in paragraph (29) relating to dynamic assumptions, by striking the 

period and inserting a semicolon; 

(C) by redesignating paragraph (29) relating to air traffic controllers as 

paragraph (30); 

(D) in paragraph (30), as so redesignated, by striking the period and 

inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(E) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(31) ‘assistant United States attorney’ means an assistant United States 

attorney appointed under section 542 of title 28.’’. 

(2) RETIREMENT TREATMENT.—Chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, is 

amended by adding after section 8351 the following: 

‘‘§ 8352. Assistant United States attorneys 

‘‘Except as provided under the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007 (including the provisions relating to the non-appliVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:32 Nov 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\110107\38641.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
6 

cability of mandatory separation requirements under section 8335(b) and 8425(b) of 

this title), an assistant United States attorney shall be treated in the same manner 

and to the same extent as a law enforcement officer for purposes of this chapter.’’. 

(3) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (A) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for chapter 83 of title 

5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

section 8351 the following: 

‘‘8352. Assistant United States attorneys.’’. 

(B) MANDATORY SEPARATION.—Section 8335(a) of title 5, United States 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘8331(29)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘8331(30)(A)’’. 

(b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM.— (1) ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DEFINED.—Section 8401 of title 5, 

United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in paragraph (34), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(B) in paragraph (35), by striking the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(36) ‘assistant United States attorney’ means an assistant United States 

attorney appointed under section 542 of title 28.’’. 

(2) RETIREMENT TREATMENT.—Section 8402 of title 5, United States Code, 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h) Except as provided under the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable 

Treatment Act of 2006 (including the provisions relating to the non-applicability of 

mandatory separation requirements under section 8335(b) and 8425(b) of this title), 

an assistant United States attorney shall be treated in the same manner and to the 

same extent as a law enforcement officer for purposes of this chapter.’’. 

(c) MANDATORY SEPARATION.—Sections 8335(b)(1) and 8425(b)(1) of title 5, 

United States Code, are each amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘This 

subsection shall not apply in the case of an assistant United States attorney.’’. 

SEC. 202. PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCUMBENTS. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘assistant United States attorney’’ means an assistant United 

States attorney appointed under section 542 of title 28, United States Code; and 

(2) the term ‘‘incumbent’’ means an individual who is serving as an assistant United States attorney on the 120th day after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

(b) NOTICE REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Department of Justice shall take measures reasonably designed to 

provide notice to incumbents on— 

(1) their election rights under this title; and 

(2) the effects of making or not making a timely election under this title. 

(c) ELECTION AVAILABLE TO INCUMBENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—An incumbent may elect, for all purposes, to be treated— 

(A) in accordance with the amendments made by this title; or 

(B) as if this title had never been enacted. 

(2) FAILURE TO ELECT.—Failure to make a timely election under this subsection shall be treated in the same way as an election under paragraph (1)(A), 

made on the last day allowable under paragraph (3). 

(3) TIME LIMITATION.—An election under this subsection shall not be effective unless the election is made not later than the earlier of— 

(A) 120 days after the date on which the notice under subsection (b) 

is provided; or 

(B) the date on which the incumbent involved separates from service. 

(d) LIMITED RETROACTIVE EFFECT.— 

(1) EFFECT ON RETIREMENT.—In the case of an incumbent who elects (or is 

deemed to have elected) the option under subsection (c)(1)(A), all service performed by that individual as an assistant United States attorney shall— 

(A) to the extent performed on or after the effective date of that election, be treated in accordance with applicable provisions of subchapter III 

of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by 

this title; and 

(B) to the extent performed before the effective date of that election, be 

treated in accordance with applicable provisions of subchapter III of chapter 

83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, as if the amendments made 

by this title had then been in effect. 

Any service performed by the incumbent pursuant to an appointment under section 515, 541, 543, or 546 of title 28, United States Code, shall, for purposes 

7 

of subparagraph (B), be treated in the same manner as if performed as an assistant United States attorney; this sentence shall not be taken into account for 

purposes of determining whether or not an individual is an incumbent. 

(2) NO OTHER RETROACTIVE EFFECT.—Nothing in this title (including the 

amendments made by this title) shall affect any of the terms or conditions of 

an individual’s employment (apart from those governed by subchapter III of 

chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code) with respect to any period of service preceding the date on which such individual’s election under subsection (c) is made (or is deemed to have been made). 

(e) INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PRIOR SERVICE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—An individual who makes an election under subsection 

(c)(1)(A) shall, with respect to prior service performed by such individual, deposit, with interest, to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund the difference between the individual contributions that were actually made for such 

service and the individual contributions that would have been made for such 

service if the amendments made by this title had then been in effect. 

(2) EFFECT OF NOT CONTRIBUTING.—If the deposit required under paragraph 

(1) is not paid, all prior service of the incumbent shall remain fully creditable 

as law enforcement officer service, but the resulting annuity shall be reduced 

in a manner similar to that described in section 8334(d)(2)(B) of title 5, United 

States Code. 

(3) PRIOR SERVICE DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘prior service’’ 

means, with respect to any individual who makes an election (or is deemed to 

have made an election) under subsection (c)(1)(A), all service performed as an 

assistant United States attorney, but not exceeding 20 years, performed by such 

individual before the date as of which applicable retirement deductions begin 

to be made in accordance with such election. 

(f) REGULATIONS.—The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations necessary to carry out this title, including provisions under which any interest 

due on the amount described under subsection (e) shall be determined. 

SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The amendments made by section 201 shall take effect on the first day of the 

first applicable pay period beginning on or after the 120th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. 

And let me thank all the witnesses who are here. I have had a 

chance to work with the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys and the 

U.S. Attorneys Association in formulating this bill, and we thank 

them for their good work. I am particularly glad to see the former 

Deputy Attorney General of the United States, former United 

States attorney in Atlanta, Larry Thompson, who is here, and I 

thank him for his insight today. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill has two simple thrusts. The first one 

deals with an issue that may seem narrow to some people, but it 

is important, related to financial recovery in cases where the government seeks to recoup money. In many instances when we have 

these cases, there is a financial victim. In some cases the government is the financial victim. We have struggled to collect debts. We 

have struggled to collect revenues over the last several years. Estimates vary widely from 14 percent to 33 percent, but I think we 

all agree that we can do better. 

This bill gets at that problem by imposing a late fee on unpaid 

criminal penalties. In effect, if a defendant is late in making a principle payment, there is a surcharge of 5 percent that would be 

added if the judgment is not paid within 15 days of judgment as 

8 

it should be. What we would do is to gather the money from these 

late assessment fees and to use them for primarily two purposes, 

part of it to enhance the victims’ recovery fund and part of it to 

enhance what DOJ calls its enhanced financial recovery fund. 

The enhanced financial recovery fund, in plain English, is the 

pocket of money that goes to U.S. attorneys offices to help them 

collect debt, to help them go out and collect these resources that 

may be owed to the government. It is interesting to me. You know, 

Washington, DC. is not good at putting numbers in perspective and 

numbers that they think are small are massive to our constituents. 

In the last several years, DOJ has collected between $3 billion and 

$5.8 billion every year in collections from defendants, corporate and 

individual, more than most of us would have thought. 

As I said, some numbers indicate that even with those amounts 

of money—$3 billion to $5.8 billion—the collection rate is 14 percent. An increase of one-quarter of 1 percent would recoup an additional $10 million. So we can bring in good amounts of money for 

a relatively small amount of additional collection activity. That is 

the first part of this bill. 

The second part of it is something that I think we all can appreciate. As of today, assistant United States attorneys, career assistant United States attorneys who choose to retire from that job are 

in a worse-off position financially than every other class of Federal 

law enforcement officer. I don’t think there is a justification for 

that. 

If you are a career assistant United States attorney, you make 

the decision to serve the public over a period of time, and the average lifespan, career-span of these individuals is 8 to 9 years. That 

includes the big giant offices where people come and go, and allow 

the small offices like the one that I served in in the Middle District 

of Alabama, where it is not uncommon at all for AUSAs to serve 

the whole span of their career. I always think of my old friend 

Broward Siegrist in Montgomery, Alabama, who was an assistant 

U.S. attorney for 35 years. He would not have done anything else. 

Some people say, well, there are other ways to get at this problem. Some people say why not just raise the pay for assistant U.S. 

attorneys. We should do that, but as a practical matter, people 

don’t do this work because of the pay. You can never pay assistants 

in Atlanta what Alston Bird is going to pay them. You can’t pay 

assistants in Birmingham what Maynard Cooper would pay them. 

What you can do, however, is to take the ones who have decided 

to stay in the system and give them an equitable retirement that 

matches that of other law enforcement officers. That is all that provision of this bill does, to move career prosecutors into line with 

FBI agents, DEA agents and other Federal law enforcement officers. 

I will say finally, Chairman Scott, this Committee, every now 

and then, we have occasional disagreements. The good thing about 

this bill is it has strong bipartisan support. It has a chance at 

movement, and I welcome the opportunity to have a good 

uncontentious discussion in the Judiciary Committee today. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

9 

I yield now to my colleague, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for holding this hearing. 

I want to thank all the witnesses as well. We know how busy 

your schedules are and thank you for taking the time to share with 

us your expertise and knowledge on this. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing today on 

H.R. 2878, the ‘‘Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007.’’ It is an understatement to recognize the incredible contribution that Federal prosecutors play in 

our criminal justice system. There are over 5,000 assistant United 

States attorneys who prosecute criminal cases in 93 judicial districts. 

The AUSAs handle some of the most important prosecutions in 

our communities. They work in the trenches to dismantle terrorist 

cells, violent gangs, sophisticated fraud rings and drug trafficking 

organizations. Some of the most significant Federal prosecutions of 

members of al-Qaeda, organized crime syndicates, the Oklahoma 

City bombing, the Unibomber and countless other cases were conducted by career prosecutors. 

But these cases do not represent the day-in and day-out responsibility of Federal prosecutors who handle cases important to protecting our communities from terrorists, drug traffickers, violent 

criminals and sexual predators. To put it simply, the AUSAs are 

the backbone of our criminal justice system and they are dedicated 

public servants who make real and significant sacrifices every day. 

In the last few years, we have seen unprecedented levels of 

threats and actual violence against prosecutors. In recognition of 

these threats, the House passed this year H.R. 660, the ‘‘Court Security Improvement Act of 2007,’’ and included a specific provision 

requiring the Justice Department to submit to Congress a lengthy 

report on security measures needed to protect AUSAs and their 

families. Federal prosecutors deserve the same protections that 

judges receive. 

H.R. 2878, the ‘‘Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007,’’ recognizes the important contribution that career prosecutors make. It would provide career 

AUSAs with retirement benefits equal to those of Federal law enforcement agents. The act would provide an incentive for some career prosecutors to remain in the public sector. 

H.R. 2878 also proposes a new and innovative financing mechanism to pay for the cost of the new retirement system. I want to 

commend representatives from the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys for their proposal. It is innovative and 

merits serious consideration by the Judiciary Committee. I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about this new proposal, 

and look forward to working with Chairman Scott on this important issue. 

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

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We have been joined by the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. Without 

10 

objection, all Members may include opening statements in the 

record at this point. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here to help us consider the important issues before us today. Our first witness will 

be the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, Mr. Larry Thompson. He currently works in 

the private sector as senior vice president of government affairs, 

general counsel and secretary of PepsiCo. In this capacity, he is responsible for the company’s worldwide legal functions, as well as 

its government affairs organization and the corporation’s charitable 

foundation. 

Prior to joining PepsiCo, former Deputy Attorney General 

Thompson had a distinguished career in public service. In addition 

to serving in the number two position at the Department of Justice, 

he also led the National Security Coordination Council and chaired 

the department’s Corporate Fraud Task Force. He holds a BA in 

sociology from Culver-Stockton College, and MA in sociology from 

Michigan State, and a JD from the University of Michigan. 

Our next witness will be Steve Cook, who is currently the vice 

president of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. 

Since 1986, he has also served as assistant U.S. attorney in the 

Eastern District of Tennessee. In the Eastern District, he has the 

proud distinction of serving as the section chief of the narcotics and 

violent crime section, the anti-gang coordinator, and the coordinator of the office’s Project Safe Neighborhoods program. Prior to 

becoming an AUSA, he served as law clerk in the Sixth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. 

Third we have Mr. Kenneth Melson, who currently serves as the 

director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys at 

the Department of Justice. He has also served as a Federal prosecutor for more than 24 years, initially joining the U.S. attorney’s 

office in the Eastern District of Virginia in 1983. Prior to joining 

the department, he worked as an assistant commonwealth’s attorney in Arlington, Virginia where he rose to the position of chief assistant commonwealth attorney. He holds a BA degree from 

Dennison University and a JD from the National Law Center at 

George Washington University. 

Our final witness will be Ms. Amy Baron-Evans. Ms. Evans currently serves as National Sentencing Resource Counsel at the Federal Public and Community Defenders Office. In this capacity, she 

represents defenders’ interests in matters of policy and provides 

litigation support in cases before the United States Supreme Court. 

She is the former co-chair of both the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense 

Lawyers and the Practitioners Advisory Group to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. She received her JD from Harvard Law 

School. 

Each of our witnesses’ written statements will be made a part of 

the record, each statement in its entirety. I would ask that each 

witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To 

help stay within that time, I think all of you are familiar with the 

timing device at the table. When you have 1 minute left, the light 

will go from green to yellow, and then finally to red when 5 minutes are up. 

11 

Mr. Thompson? 

TESTIMONY OF LARRY D. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, PEPSICO, INC., PURCHASE, NY 

Mr. THOMPSON. Good morning, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes and Members of the Crime Subcommittee. I appreciate 

the opportunity this morning to appear before the Subcommittee in 

support of this important legislation. 

Before I begin, I would like to sort of reintroduce to the Members 

of the Subcommittee my colleague and coworker Daniel Bryant, 

who spent many years in a professional capacity working for the 

Subcommittee. Dan? 

I hope that doesn’t affect my testimony. [Laughter.] 

I would like to begin by just noting that I completely agree with 

the remarks of Congressman Davis that he presented to the Subcommittee. You have my prepared statement. I am not going to 

read it. I would like to amplify my prepared statement to the Subcommittee with some additional observations based on my 33 years 

of practicing law in both the private sector and in government service. 

Our justice system is the envy of the world for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is an adversary system. No 

one is presumed guilty in our system of justice. People accused of 

wrongdoing have an absolute right to the very best legal representation that they can obtain or afford. That is the way it should be. 

But the legislation under consideration makes certain that the people of this great country are not shortchanged in this equation. 

I cannot emphasize enough to the Members of this Subcommittee 

how complex and sensitive many of the cases are in the Federal 

courts throughout the system, in small districts and in large districts. Federal investigations and litigation is very, very complex 

and sensitive. AUSA’s day-in and day-out face experienced and talented lawyers with tremendous resources available to them. Again, 

this is the way it should be, but quite frankly it is a continuing 

struggle for the Department of Justice to meet this challenge. 

During my two stints in the Department of Justice, I have witnessed AUSAs undertake literally heroic acts of dedication and professionalism in the face of better resourced and more experienced 

adversaries, and prevail on behalf of justice. 

Chairman Scott, permit me to give you two examples really from 

each end of the chronological spectrum of my career. In the early 

1980’s, four Federal prosecutors took on a literal army of talented 

and experienced defense lawyers in Operation Southern Comfort in 

the Northern District of Georgia, which at the time involved the 

largest drug smuggling case ever brought by the Federal Government. The case, which had a nexus to organized crime in the U.S. 

and terrorism in Colombia, went to trial with 13 or 14 defendants. 

The trial, which I participated in, lasted 21⁄2 months. 

Extensive evidence of racketeering and even murder was introduced at trial. All but one of the defendants, an admittedly minor 

player, were found guilty, and several of the defendants remain in 

prison today. This was a terrific effort on behalf of dedicated career 

12 

prosecutors. Three of these professionals left government shortly 

after this trial. Today, all are now in the private sector. 

More recently, let me bring your attention to 2002, in which our 

financial markets were rocked with a spate of corporate scandals. 

The most notable of these scandals was the collapse of the Enron 

Corporation. The fraud involved in the Enron case was massive 

and complex. Again, in the face of experienced and well-resourced 

adversaries, the key participants in the Enron fraud case have 

been brought to justice. 

This single case in my judgment has helped to restore Americans’ 

confidence both in their financial markets and in their justice system. It demonstrates that no one, even powerful executives, is 

above the law. Now, several of the Enron prosecutors have left government service for the private sector. 

Today following 9/11, we need experienced and balanced AUSAs 

in the Department of Justice ranks. These prosecutors and civil 

AUSAs day-in and day-out help to lead investigations and give sensitive counsel to investigators to help prevent terrorist activity in 

our homeland and help secure the public safety. 

These AUSAs work alongside dedicated Federal law enforcement 

officials in the trenches, but their retirement benefits are not the 

same. I could say that this is not fair, but I will use a legal term. 

It is not equitable. For these reasons, I support this legislation. 

One of the reasons—if I could just have 1 second, Mr. Chairman—one of the reasons that we have this disparity is that in the 

past, AUSAs were, when the retirement system was initially set 

up, AUSAs were in some instances political appointees. That is not 

the case today. When I was a U.S. attorney, for example, I hired 

a young lawyer. I didn’t ask him about his politics. I was in the 

Reagan administration. He went on to serve with distinction as a 

United States attorney in the Clinton Administration, Kent Alexander, and for all these reasons I wholeheartedly support this important legislation. 

Thank you. 

Sorry—5 minutes is very difficult for a lawyer. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY D. THOMPSON

Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes and Members of the Crime Subcommittee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Crime Subcommittee today to 

address the need to ensure that Assistant United States Attorneys have the necessary tools and resources to do their jobs and in so doing receive equitable retirement benefits that recognize their critical role in federal law enforcement. 

I would like to share with the Members of the Subcommittee three simple observations based on my experience over the years both in government service and in 

the private sector. 

First, attracting and retaining top talent is essential for organizations to excel, 

whatever their mission. 

Second, the U.S. federal law enforcement system is rightly the envy of the world 

in terms of its effectiveness, professionalism, and values. That success is largely a 

function of the quality of the professionals who serve in it—both federal agents and 

Assistant United States Attorneys. 

Third, we cannot relax in our commitment to maintaining and building on the federal law enforcement system’s legacy of success, especially in view of the increasing 

and necessary convergence of the law enforcement and national security missions 

in recent years. 

13 

The legislation under consideration, the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act, H.R. 2878, would help strengthen a key part of our 

law enforcement community—Assistant United States Attorneys—by ensuring their 

equitable treatment and promoting the retention of talent. Of course, Assistant 

United States Attorneys aren’t principally motivated by the salary: Most of them 

could quickly and appreciably increase their compensation by heading to the private 

sector. But we should always be pursuing reasonable steps that might increase the 

incentives to serve longer, allowing them to gain invaluable experience and thereby 

strengthening the federal law enforcement system. This bill represents such a step. 

H.R. 2878 makes civil and criminal monetary judgments entered in favor of the 

United States, or the victims of crime, more collectible. In addition, the bill establishes for Assistant United States Attorneys a pension that is equitable to the pension received by the other federal law enforcement officers with whom federal prosecutors work. I think linking these two laudable objectives in this way represents 

a creative way to improve key aspects of the federal law enforcement mission. 

Prior to serving as Deputy Attorney General from 2001 to 2003, I served as the 

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia and led the Southeastern Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. These varied experiences 

allowed me to work directly and closely with scores of Assistant United States Attorneys through the years. It is an understatement to observe that their work in 

both the criminal and civil arenas is critically important and ever more complex. 

And September 11, 2001 has only accelerated the challenges they face. Their mission today demands increasing skill and sophistication in investigating and prosecuting a wide range of criminal activities, including domestic and international terrorism, organized drug trafficking, firearms crimes, and sophisticated white collar 

offenses. On the civil side as well, the role of Assistant United States Attorneys is 

increasingly demanding, whether defending federal government agencies or officials, 

initiating civil actions against individuals or corporations which commit fraud, or 

enforcing civil and criminal judgments entered in favor of the United States, or the 

victims of crime. 

If there were ever a time when experience and good judgment were demanded 

within our federal law enforcement ranks, it is today. 

The legislation under consideration would confer upon Assistant United States Attorneys a retirement benefit equal to that received by federal law enforcement officers with whom Assistant United States Attorneys work shoulder-to-shoulder in the 

investigation and enforcement of federal law. The original reason for the disparity 

between law enforcement officer and Assistant United States Attorney retirement 

benefits—due to the status of Assistant United States Attorneys as political appointees when the law enforcement officer retirement credit was first created more 

than 50 years ago—has long been superseded by the change in hiring of Assistant 

United States Attorneys as nonpolitical, merit-appointed civil servants. In fact, a report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee in 1989 concluded: 

‘‘Clearly, career AUSAs should be authorized to receive retirement benefits afforded all of the other members of the federal law enforcement community since 

the majority of AUSA responsibilities relate to the investigation, apprehension 

or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of criminal laws of the United 

States.’’ 

I believe it is crucial that there be the greatest equity possible regarding retirement benefits throughout the federal law enforcement community. The legislation 

under consideration today will recognize Assistant United States Attorneys for the 

key role they play in enforcing our nation’s laws, and provide a well-deserved boost 

to their morale. An improved Assistant United States Attorney retirement benefit 

will assist United States Attorney Offices to more effectively recruit and retain 

skilled prosecutors, thereby developing the talent in its ranks more effectively. Such 

an outcome would undoubtedly strengthen their ability to perform their mission. 

I would note that while I strongly support the aim of this legislation, there may 

be additional avenues available to Congress to promote the important objectives of 

equity and talent retention. I am aware that there have been constructive conversations ongoing for some time about addressing underlying compensation questions for 

Assistant United States Attorneys generally. I think such a review is appropriate. 

The specific mechanism provided in this bill for supporting the financial basis for 

an improved Assistant United States Attorney retirement benefit advances another 

important aspect of the Justice Department’s mission: Promoting the interests of 

victims of crime. 

American taxpayers have a right to expect that those who commit fraud, harm 

our citizens, or commit other criminal or civil wrongdoing will be punished and that 

the federal government will make every reasonable effort to recover any ill-gotten 

14 

gains and other assets necessary to make the victims whole. The Department of 

Justice has the sole responsibility to collect criminal monetary judgments, including 

restitution to victims, and the primary responsibility to collect civil judgments. This 

responsibility falls chiefly upon United States Attorney Offices. Yet, as the Government Accountability has pointed out, the amount of outstanding criminal and civil 

debt to be collected is large and growing. 

The collection of outstanding criminal and civil debt is inherently difficult to accomplish as many debtors are incarcerated and have long since dissipated their assets. The most sophisticated debtors, generally owing the largest debts, have hidden 

their assets under corporate shells, the names of their close friends or associates, 

or the laws of foreign countries. Competing priorities and limited resources further 

complicate the efforts of Assistant United States Attorneys to enforce judgments entered in favor of the United States or the victims of crime. Finally, current law gives 

defendants no real incentive to promptly satisfy, to the best of their ability, judgments entered in federal court when they are imposed. I do think the Justice Department has made real strides in recent years to facilitate improved collection efforts and I commend their efforts. 

The legislation under consideration today addresses some of these problems by authorizing a significant infusion of resources—at least $20 million per year—to 

strengthen the Department’s judgment enforcement efforts and to add additional 

Assistant United States Attorneys to the Department’s judgment enforcement efforts. The funding for these resources is generated by surcharges, or late fees, that 

will be imposed on unpaid judgments, as an effective way to encourage defendants 

to satisfy their judgments promptly. Those late fees, along with a small increase in 

the offsets applied against recoveries made by the Justice Department for other federal agencies, will be deposited into an Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund. That 

Fund will pay for enhanced judgment enforcement efforts by the United States Attorneys Offices. I think this is a sensible public policy, promoting equity, 

incentivizing more prompt payments by debtors, and serving the interests of the victims of crime. 

In conclusion, I believe that the aims of the legislation under consideration today 

are deserving of the Subcommittee’s consideration and support. Restoring equity to 

the retirement benefits of Assistant United States Attorneys is overdue, and is the 

right thing to do. Enhancing the Department’s judgment enforcement resources will 

improve the collection of outstanding judgments, including fines and restitution, and 

will advance the administration of justice. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share these views with the Subcommittee. 

Mr. SCOTT. I didn’t make the rules. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I know. Thank you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Cook? 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN H. COOK, ESQUIRE, VICE PRSEIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, LAKE RIDGE, VA 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the 5,600 assistant United States attorneys serving across the country, I would like to express our deep 

and sincere appreciation to you for holding this hearing on H.R. 

2878. 

We are especially appreciative of the leadership of Congressman 

Davis, and we would also like to acknowledge the fact that he is 

a former assistant United States attorney, and we are proud to 

have had him among our ranks. 

Likewise, we would like to express our appreciation to the other 

Members of the Committee who are cosponsors of our bill. 

As has already been indicated, I certainly serve as the vice president of the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and I am required to emphasize that I am here in that capacity, not in my capacity as a Department of Justice employee. 

15 

With that background, I would like to turn to H.R. 2878, that is 

the ‘‘Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement 

Treatment Act of 2007.’’ This act has two subparts which I would 

like to address in turn. The first part calls for certain simple and 

straightforward improvements in financial recovery. I would like to 

begin by pointing out, as did Mr. Melson in his written comments, 

that the United States attorneys offices collect over $4 billion a 

year on average in outstanding judgments or civil settlements, that 

is between fiscal years 2003 and 2006. That is twice the total budget of all United States attorneys’ offices. Despite that, over $50 billion remains uncollected. We also agree 

with Mr. Melson’s observation in his statements that a substantial 

majority of this is uncollectible. But we also agree, as is reflected 

in his statement, that billions remain uncollected that could be collected. 

This bill would give United States attorneys offices the resources 

necessary to importantly improve the collection and enhancement 

recovery of money for our victims, for funds for the crime victims 

fund, as well as for the Federal agencies which ultimately represent monies to our taxpayers. 

In a nutshell, it works by reforming debt collection procedures, capturing $20 million which is then used to enhance judgment enforcement. In particular, the bill does this with surcharges and late 

fees and offsets—surcharges or a 5 percent late fee imposed on 

judgments which are not paid within 15 days. Offsets are a 5 percent Federal restitution in addition to 2 percent on civil judgments. 

I wish to emphasize that there is no offset on Federal victims nor 

the crime victims fund. These offsets simply associate the cost of 

collection with the agency that incurs the debt. Through the use of 

these two reforms, we estimate an increased revenue of approximately $175 million. The first $20 million of that would be used to 

provide resources to the United States attorneys’ offices to enhance 

recovery efforts, essentially doubling the potential efforts that are 

currently focused on that. 

There is, as I have said, $50 billion in outstanding debt. Funds 

after that would be used to offset the cost of equitable retirement 

to which I would like to turn now, the Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007. First, I would like to thank former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson for his support of this important legislation. Make no mistake about it, the 5,600 assistant United 

States attorneys I referred to earlier are loyal, dedicated professionals who are proud to serve this country. 

In doing so, however, they make many sacrifices. They make 

many sacrifices by working long hours under high pressure conditions. These are heavy litigation positions requiring them to spend 

many, many, many hours away from their families. They make sacrifices in terms of the wages. The law firms—I have a son who just 

graduated from law school—many law firms have offered and do 

offer salaries that far exceed what I am paid after 20 years of service. 

Sacrifices in terms of the danger from the job—death threats are 

a routine part of our job. The very real nature of these threats can 

be demonstrated by Tom Wales, who was shot to death in his home 

on October 11, 2001. But AUSAs don’t come to the job expecting 

16 

the same pay or benefits as private practice, and they aren’t doing 

so now. This bill would simply bring retirement for AUSAs in line 

with the retirement provided to many others with whom they work 

in the criminal justice system—probation officers, pretrial services 

officers, U.S. marshals’ employees, Bureau of Prisons employees, 

FBI agents, DEA agents, IRS agents. 

As it stands now, the retirement provisions included in this bill 

are available to everyone with whom we serve on a daily basis in 

the criminal justice system. This bill would fill a long-open gap and 

provide the same benefits to dedicated assistant United States attorneys, and importantly do so with no burden on the taxpayer. 

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that extending these benefits to assistant United States attorneys is fair, equitable, and simply the right thing to do. 

Thank you again for providing us with this hearing and this opportunity to be heard on this very important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:] 

17 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN H. COOK


SHC-1.eps
18 


SHC-2.eps
19 


SHC-3.eps
20 


SHC-4.eps
21 


SHC-5.eps
22 


SHC-6.eps
23 


SHC-7.eps
24 


SHC-8.eps
25 


SHC-9.eps
26 


SHC-10.eps
27 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Melson? 

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH E. MELSON, DIRECTOR OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. MELSON. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Congressman Forbes 

and Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for giving 

me the opportunity to address this bill, and thank you all for your 

favorable comments concerning the great work that assistant 

United States attorneys do every single day of every single year. 

The department considers the collection of debts owed to the Federal Government and to victims of crime to be a high priority. But 

by its very nature, collecting criminal debt is difficult, and significantly improving the process requires additional resources and legislative changes. Nevertheless, I believe that the steps the department has taken and those that we plan to take will go a long way 

toward the difference in the lives of Federal crime victims. 

Let me first say that we work vigorously to collect debts on behalf of the government and nonfederal victims. We collected more 

than $19 billion in criminal and civil debts from 2002 to 2006. Over 

the last 3 years, we have collected well over $1 billion for victims 

of crime, with over $1.5 billion collected for victims of crime in fiscal year 2006 alone, a significant increase over the prior years. 

While these are impressive results, we all know that there is 

more work to be done. By the end of fiscal year 2006, the amount 

of outstanding debt was reported to have grown to $46 billion. But 

it is important to note that some 90 percent of that debt is 

uncollectible for a variety of reasons, according to an independent 

study. 

In the 2001 report, GAO made 13 recommendations to improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal debt collection process. The Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the Department of Justice have addressed all 13 recommendations, and 

on January 5 of 2005, the Attorney General established the Task 

Force on Improving the Collection of Criminal Debt, as suggested 

by the GAO report. 

The task force proposed legislation called the Restitution for Victims of Crime Act of 2006, which I am happy to say Congressman 

Forbes and Smith incorporated into their House bill, H.R. 3156. 

This proposal amends the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act to 

improve collection procedures by addressing obstacles encountered 

by U.S. attorneys’ offices in the enforcement of restitution orders. 

Among the three important changes is the provision of tools to 

restrain defendants’ assets prior to trial to prevent the dissipation 

of resources otherwise available for restitution. The task force’s legislative proposal has been included as an amendment to the 2008 

CJS appropriations bill, which was recently passed by the Senate. 

I hope the conference committee will also see the importance of this 

legislation to the lives of crime victims. 

With regard to H.R, 2878, the department is reviewing this complicated piece of legislation and the department has not yet taken 

a formal position on it. However, I would like to describe some of 

28 

the areas where the department has questions and concerns regarding H.R. 2878 as currently drafted. 

The legislation does not address the fact that the Civil Service 

retirement and disability fund must cover $1.2 billion in retroactive 

agency contributions. Furthermore, the cost of ongoing increased 

agency contributions to the fund would be on the order of $75 million to $85 million a year. Although the legislation proposes a 

means for funding these costs through surcharges on unpaid debts 

and additional offsets, if collections are not sufficient to cover these 

costs, they would instead be borne by the U.S. attorneys’ offices operating appropriations, a potentially significant vulnerability for 

our budget. 

In addition, the legislation as now drafted delays, in our opinion, 

and at worst appears to permanently reduce by 5 percent the 

amounts that would otherwise be credited to victims of crime. We 

are also concerned about the fairness of providing expanded retirement benefits to AUSAs, but not to others in the department, many 

of whom perform substantially the same work as AUSAs. In addition, non-attorney staffs that support law enforcement would also 

be unfairly left out of this legislation. 

The costs for this additional personnel and law enforcement officer retirement plan cannot be fiscally supported by the current proposal. 

In closing, I want to stress that I identify the above concerns not 

because of any objection to improving assistant U.S. attorney compensation or benefits. I was an AUSA for 24 years, and I am committed to supporting the work of AUSAs and the work that they 

do. Recognizing the invaluable role of AUSAs in their law enforcement mission, the department’s leadership is committed to and has 

been actively exploring ways to ensure we recruit and retain the 

best and most talented assistant United States attorneys. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melson follows:] 

29 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH E. MELSON


KEM-2.eps
30 


KEM-3.eps
31 


KEM-4.eps
32 


KEM-5.eps
33 


KEM-6.eps
34 


KEM-7.eps
35 


KEM-8.eps
36 


KEM-9.eps
37 


KEM-10.eps
38 


KEM-11.eps
39 


KEM-12.eps
40 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Melson. 

Ms. Baron-Evans? 

TESTIMONY OF AMY BARON-EVANS, SENTENCING RESOURCE 

COUNCIL, FEDERAL PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY DEFENDERS, 

FEDERAL DEFENDER OFFICE, BOSTON, MA 

Ms. BARON-EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Scott, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to share the views of the Federal 

public and community defenders on this bill, the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act. 

The Federal defenders exist because more than 80 percent of all 

Federal defendants are indigent and they require appointed counsel. Looking at this bill, it seems quite unrealistic that the bill 

could generate any more money than is currently being generated, 

given that 80 percent of Federal defendants are indigent, and that 

they become more so when they are prosecuted and convicted and 

go to prison. 

That is not our major concern. Our major concern is more fundamental. First of all, there are three major concerns. First of all, this 

is a tax on the poor. Second of all, Mr. Thompson said that our justice system is the envy of the world. One of the reasons it is the 

envy of the world, if indeed it is, is because we have a public prosecutor system, a system in which—and before the revolution, this 

choice was made—a system in which the public prosecutor has no 

financial or other personal interest in the cases that he brings. 

This bill would give prosecutors a financial interest, and even if not 

acted upon, has the distinct appearance of impropriety. 

The third problem is that it would create inequity vis-&-vis Federal defenders. This is not a problem that could be fixed by this bill 

because we could not possibly imagine asking for us to be making 

our living or our retirement benefits on the backs of our clients. 

That would be an obvious and direct conflict of interest. 

Getting back to why it is a tax on the poor. We haven’t really 

focused on those details. Any defendant who hasn’t paid every bit 

of his or her monetary obligations by 15 days after judgment gets 

an automatic 5 percent surcharge. This is even if the judge imposed a payment schedule, which the judge has every authority to 

do by statute, even if the judge has imposed a specific date for payment and the person is not out of compliance with that schedule, 

even if the person is participating in the BOP’s financial recovery 

system where they take a little bit of money out of their meager 

prison earnings regularly to pay off financial obligations. 

This is a tax on the poor because the only people who can possibly pay it 15 days after judgment are people with funds, and we 

know that 80 percent of Federal defendants don’t have funds. Also, 

increasing the special assessment by doubling it or factors also of 

three or four depending on what type of misdemeanor or felony it 

is—by the time a person gets out of prison and has paid off his 

monetary obligations, the very next $100 should not be going to a 

prosecutor’s retirement fund. It should be going to that person’s 

ability to get back on their feet and have a second chance to be a 

productive member of society. We shouldn’t be telling people that 

their next $100 is going to support the prosecutor who put you in 

prison. It doesn’t look good. It is not right. 

41 

1http://jnet.ao.dcn/Reports/CriminallJusticelReports/ 

GoodlPracticeslforlFederallPanellAttorneylProgram.html. 

As to the inequity with the Federal defenders, I am the only Federal defender here. We have offices in 89 of 94 judicial districts. 

The system couldn’t function without us. There is a statute that 

Congress passed a long time ago which says Federal defenders 

shall not be paid more than AUSAs. The Judicial Conference 

adopted a policy saying that Federal defenders and Federal prosecutors, that there should be parity in their salaries and in their 

benefits for the very same reasons that are justifying this bill, 

which are that we have to be able to keep qualified and diversified 

assistant Federal public defenders. 

Ask any judge and they would much prefer a well trained and 

smart Federal defender’s office than a lack of one any day. It really 

helps the system move smoothly and it is the only way to effective 

assistance of counsel, which is part of our system, just as much as 

prosecution. 

I might add, and this is no slam on my brothers here, but I 

might add that prosecutors rarely go out into the field, and when 

they go out into the field, they are accompanied by an agent with 

a gun. Federal public defenders, we only have one or two investigators in every one of our offices. That means that the lawyers are 

regularly going out and interviewing witnesses and going to dangerous places, and nobody has a gun, and even if we are accompanied by an investigator, the investigator doesn’t have a gun. 

Again, I am not suggesting that we should be given higher retirement benefits on the backs of our clients, and we would definitely 

oppose any plan like that. And you know, all things being equal, 

I would think it is great for everybody to get paid more money. But 

things cannot be equal under this bill. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Baron-Evans follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMY BARON-EVANS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to this hearing to provide the views of the Federal Public and Community Defenders on H.R. 2878, the Enhanced Financial Recovery and 

Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007. We have offices in 89 of 94 federal 

judicial districts. All of our clients are indigent, and over 75% are African American, 

Hispanic or Native American. More than 80% of federal criminal defendants require 

appointed counsel. We represent 60% of those defendants, with the other 40% represented by panel attorneys. 1

We oppose this bill. As we understand it, the goal is to collect more money from 

convicted criminal defendants, and to use it for debt collection activities, some prosecution activities, and ultimately for enhanced retirement benefits for Assistant 

United States Attorneys (AUSAs). The bill would also take 5% of principal payments 

on fines and special assessments currently paid to the Crime Victims Fund, and 5% 

of principal payments on restitution obligations currently paid to individual victims 

to be used for the same purposes. The theory seems to be that if higher monetary 

obligations are imposed on criminal defendants, this will fund improved debt collection activities, and in this way, sufficient money will be generated to fund what appears to be at least a doubling of the cost of retirement benefits for AUSAs, of which 

there are currently about 5600. However, it is difficult to see how this scheme would 

result in substantially, if any, more dollars collected, with 80% of federal criminal 

defendants being indigent and more so when they go to prison. 

We oppose the bill because it amounts to a tax on the poor to fund retirement 

benefits for the relatively rich. Giving prosecutors a financial interest in the cases 

they bring would create a conflict of interest, and at least the appearance of injusVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:32 Nov 06, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\110107\38641.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
42 

2While the court need not impose a fine after considering the defendant’s resources, obligations to dependents, or need to make restitution, 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a), (b), there is no provision 

for judicial waiver of the special assessment. 3See Abraham S. Goldstein, Prosecution: History of the Public Prosecutor, in 3 Encyclopedia 

of Crime and Justice 1286, 1286–1287 (S. Kadish ed. 1983). Juan Cardenas, The Crime Victim 

in the Prosecutorial Process, 9 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 357, 371 (1986) (‘‘[B]y the time of the 

American Revolution * * * local district attorneys were given a virtual monopoly over the power 

to prosecute. Crime victims were no longer allowed to manage and control the prosecution of 

their crimes.’’); Joan E. Jacoby, The American Prosecutor: A Search for Identity 19 (1980) (‘‘By 

the advent of the American Revolution, private prosecution had been virtually eliminated in the 

American colonies and had been replaced by [a] series of public officers who were charged with 

handling criminal matters.’’); Randolph N. Jonakait, The Origins of the Confrontation Clause: 

An Alternative History, 27 Rutgers L.J. 77, 99 (1995) (‘‘By the time of the Revolution, public 

prosecution in America was standard, and private prosecution, in effect, was gone.’’); Jack M. 

Kress, ‘‘Progress and Prosecution,’’ in 423 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and 

Social Science 99, 103 (1976) (‘‘[P]ublic prosecution was firmly established as the American system by the time the Judiciary Act of 1789 created United States district attorneys to prosecute 

federal crimes.’’); Robert L. Misner, ‘‘Recasting Prosecutorial Discretion,’’ 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 717, 729 (1996) (‘‘By the outbreak of the Revolution, private prosecution was replaced 

by public prosecution through county officials.* * *’’). 4Goldstein, supra* note 2, 1286–1287. 

tice. The bill also has ex post facto problems. Further, the reason law enforcement 

officers receive the retirement package they do—hazardous duty—is entirely inapplicable to federal prosecutors. The bill would create inequity in compensation between AUSAs and Assistant Federal Public Defenders (AFPDs), which is unwarranted and would be detrimental to the system. To be perfectly clear, we are not 

seeking higher retirement benefits to be paid from funds recouped from our clients, 

an obvious conflict of interest. 

THE PROPOSAL AMOUNTS TO A TAX ON THE POOR. 

Sec. 101 would impose a surcharge of 5% (or $50 on an amount less than $1000) 

on any amount of a fine, restitution or special assessment that is unpaid as of the 

15th day after judgment. The surcharge would be imposed even when, under 18 

U.S.C. § 3572(d), the court, in the interest of justice, scheduled payment on a date 

certain or in installments, and the person was not out of compliance with the schedule. It would also apply if the person was participating in BOP’s financial responsibility program, whereby a portion of his or her meager prison earning is regularly 

deducted to pay court-imposed financial obligations. See 28 CFR §§ 545.11, 545.25. 

The only persons to whom this would not apply are those few defendants in a position to pay off criminal monetary penalties within 15 days of judgment. In short, 

this is a tax on the poor, to fund retirement benefits for the relatively rich. 

Sec. 103 would increase the amount of the mandatory special assessment by multiples of 2 to 5.2 Indigent individuals would be required to pay a special assessment 

of $10–25 for a misdemeanor, and $200 for a felony. If the poorest of defendants 

does manage to save a few hundred dollars, the government has a position as a priority creditor to take it from them, rather than allow those defendants a second 

chance to get on their feet as productive citizens. 

IT WOULD CREATE A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR PUBLIC

PROSECUTORS AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. 

By the advent of the American Revolution, the English model, in which private 

parties brought criminal prosecutions, was replaced with the system we have today, 

in which public prosecutors acting solely in the public interest and without financial 

or other personal motives, prosecute criminal cases.3 One reason for the switch was 

that persons acting as private prosecutors often abused the criminal justice system 

by initiating prosecutions to exert pressure for financial payment.4 The public prosecution model helps to ensure equal justice, and the appearance of equal justice. 

HR 2878 would create improper incentives, which would, at least, appear to be 

improper and create disrespect for law. Conceivably, it could result in a formal or 

informal quota system. It could distort the function of prosecutors from that of seeking justice to something akin to personal injury lawyers who receive financial rewards contingent on case outcomes and numbers of plaintiffs. Public prosecutors 

should not be exposed to these incentives, and should not be seen as having such 

incentives. 

Funding prosecutorial activities other than debt collection from funds collected 

from convicted defendants would also be improper. Sec. 104(d)(2)(A) states that 

funds may be used by DOJ to provide ‘‘legal, investigative, accounting, and training 

support,’’ without limitation to debt collection activities. While Sec. 104(d)(2)(B) 

43 

states that the funds may not be used ‘‘to determine whether a defendant is guilty 

of an offense,’’ this limitation is essentially undone by subsequent text stating, ‘‘except incidentally’’ if ‘‘necessary or desirable’’ to preserve assets or enforce a judgment, and then quite broadly in Sec. 104(e), that the Attorney General may use the 

funds ‘‘for other prosecution and litigation expenses.’’ 

THE BILL WOULD PERMIT PROSECUTIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE. 

Sec. 105(a) would permit prosecutions in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. 

The final clause would apply the amendments made by sections 101 and 103 to ‘‘any 

offense involving conduct that continued’’ after enactment, even where the offense 

is not a continuing offense such as conspiracy. 

Mail fraud, for example, is committed for ex post facto purposes on the date of 

mailing, although some conduct ‘‘involved’’ in the mail fraud scheme may take place 

after that date. Another example is illegal entry—the offense is committed on the 

date of entry, but it may ‘‘involve’’ conduct, i.e., staying, after that date. Yet another 

is bribery, which is committed for ex post facto purposes on the date of the bribe, 

but some conduct ‘‘involved’’ may occur after that date, e.g., the person bribed does 

something in return. In fact, the language is so broad that the government could 

claim that it applied to so-called ‘‘relevant conduct’’ as defined in the Sentencing 

Guidelines. 

RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR AUSAS EQUAL TO THOSE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND

GREATER THAN THOSE OF AFPDS IS UNJUSTIFIED AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO

THE SYSTEM. 

As we understand it, federal law enforcement agents receive the retirement package they do because they engage in hazardous duty. AUSAs do not. They are lawyers—they go to court, write briefs, interview witnesses, meet with opposing counsel, etc. They interview witnesses in their own offices, which in most districts, are 

in the federal courthouse, so they need not leave the building. Investigations in the 

field are handled by law enforcement agents. To the extent a federal prosecutor may 

occasionally leave his or her office to participate in an investigation, he or she is 

accompanied by a law enforcement agent armed with a gun. AFPDs, in contrast, 

typically do most of their own investigations. Our offices have one or two investigators to staff their entire caseload. AFPDs go to dangerous places, such as Liberia, 

Afghanistan, and the inner city. If accompanied by an investigator, the investigator 

is unarmed. 

HR 2878 would ensure that AFPDs are under-compensated as compared to 

AUSAs. According to statute, the compensation paid to AFPDs may not exceed that 

paid to AUSAs in the district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g)(2)(A). The March 1993 Report of the Judicial Conference of the United States on the Federal Defender Program states at pp. 24–25: 

With regard to attorneys and other supporting personnel in federal public defenders’ offices, the CJA contemplates equal pay with the United States attorneys’ offices for persons with comparable qualifications and experience. Parity 

in salary and benefits generally for federal defender staff will reflect the 

importance of the work performed in defender offices and, more importantly, will assist in recruiting and retaining qualified and diversified 

personnel. 

HR 2878 would ensure that AUSAs receive a total compensation package, including 

benefits, greater than that of AFPDs. As the Judicial Conference notes, this would 

be bad policy. AFPDs perform a valuable service to the public and our criminal justice system. Without them, the system could not function. Having high quality lawyers in Federal Defender Offices is critical to effective representation of the indigent, and the smooth functioning of the system. 

In sum, we urge you to reject this bill. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I thank all of you for your testimony. 

I will recognize myself now for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. Thompson indicated the question of equity and wanted all 

law enforcement-related attorneys to be getting the same kind of 

retirement. But Mr. Melson, doesn’t this create inequity among 

U.S. attorneys or other attorneys because either all the assistant 

44 

U.S. attorneys would be covered or just those in criminal. Many 

AUSAs have essentially a civil practice. Is that not true? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. And would this bill give even those on the civil side 

who have essentially medical malpractice and those kind of cases, 

would they get the benefit of this retirement? 

Mr. MELSON. As I understand the bill, Congressman Scott, it will 

give it to both civil and criminal, but I would add that the civil 

AUSAs often work at some point in their career on the criminal 

side and have also many of the same issues with respect to health 

care fraud civil investigations. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Well, are there other Department of Justice 

lawyers who do essentially criminal work that would not be covered 

by this bill? 

Mr. MELSON. There are others in the department that will not 

be covered by this bill. We fully support what the AUSAs in the 

field do, but there are a substantial number of criminal litigating 

and civil litigating attorneys in the Department of Justice that sit 

side-by-side with U.S. attorneys in the field trying cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. And they would not be covered by the bill? 

Mr. MELSON. That is my understanding. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Can you respond to the comment that public 

defenders are an integral part of the criminal justice system and 

they are not included in the bill? 

Mr. MELSON. Your honor, we agree that the public defender service does a great amount of work and their service to the community 

and to the justice system is very important. It is integral and I 

agree that we could not have an effective system without the public 

defenders. They are in perhaps a different position. We are looking 

at solely the bill as it pertains to AUSAs. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do we have any indication—a comment was made 

that the money might not actually come in. How much of the total 

funds are we now collecting? 

Mr. MELSON. We are collecting about 33 percent of the collectible 

fines and restitution. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you added on another 5 percent, what gives 

anybody the impression that we would increase the amount of 

money coming in? 

Mr. MELSON. As we indicated, to significantly improve the collection process, we would need more resources and some legislative 

fixes. 

Mr. SCOTT. If more money came in under the present system, are 

the victims being fully compensated? I mean, if more money came 

in, would we be choosing between a pension for Department of Justice officials or victim compensation? Would we be making a choice, 

or would victims be first in line? 

Mr. MELSON. Well, we agree with your concern that any bill not 

affect the crime victims fund or victims receiving restitution. That 

is one of the aspects that we are looking at closely to make sure 

that there are not any unintended consequences of this bill to the 

victims of crime. 

Mr. SCOTT. If more money came in, presumably the victims 

would be more likely to get compensated. Is there anything in the 

bill that puts the victim in front of the U.S. attorney pension fund? 

45 

Mr. MELSON. As I understand the bill, most of the money of the 

principal goes to the victims and the victims crime bill. It is after 

that is paid that the additional money is given to the retirement 

fund. 

Mr. SCOTT. And after that happens, it is unlikely that there 

would be much more money left over. Is that not true? 

Mr. MELSON. Well, that is one of the areas that we are looking 

at, and one of our concerns is whether or not there will be a sufficient amount of money to pay for both the ongoing retirement benefits and the $1.2 billion retroactive government contribution to the 

retirement fund. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Cook, could you respond to the concerns that it 

is inappropriate to have law enforcement have a personal financial 

interest in the outcome of cases? And whether or not there would 

be an extra burden for people re-entering? We have a secondchance bill that we hope to bring up next week to help people reenter. Would this be counterproductive to that effort—those two 

questions, the conflict of interest, prosecutors having an interest in 

the outcome of a case, and the extra burden to those trying to reenter. 

Mr. COOK. Let me begin, if I may, with respect to the conflict of 

interest issue. I hope it goes without saying to this Committee that 

as our panel of assistant U.S. attorneys who have worked on this 

looked at this bill, it was of utmost concern that we avoided either 

any conflict of interest or appearance of any conflict of interest. The 

integrity of both the United States Department of Justice and the 

individual assistant U.S. attorneys who work in that system is 

paramount to us. 

Having said that, any appearance of impropriety that has been 

suggested here could easily be resolved by making sure that any 

funds beyond those used to offset a retirement—that is to say a 

surplus—are channeled to a different area, for example Treasury, 

rather than the Department of Justice. 

This bill as it is currently set is not linked. That is to say, a second title provides the retirement benefit that I think most of us 

would agree is proper and appropriate and fair, and makes the collection reforms to provide funds which would offset it, not directly 

fund it. 

I am sorry. The second question was? 

Mr. SCOTT. Extra burden on prisoners trying to re-enter. 

Mr. COOK. We are talking about indigent defendants. As we talk 

about indigent defendants, I think you have to start with the understanding that when a defendant comes into court, the courts are 

duty-bound and directed by the sentencing guidelines not to impose 

a fine on that individual to begin with. So when we are talking 

about a fine, that issue isn’t there. 

The second category of financial or monetary penalty that might 

be imposed is a special assessment. We would agree that perhaps 

it would be appropriate to remove the $200, return back to the 

$100 special assessment fee, and it has virtually no impact on the 

amount of income generated or funds generated in this case. 

So that leaves one category. There are no fines that are going to 

be imposed on indigent defendants. Special assessments are unchanged, then, with respect to felonies as a special assessment. 

46 

That leaves us only with restitution. With respect to restitution, 

there are mandatory impositions of restitution. That restitution as 

a matter of law is imposed whenever there is a defendant who first 

is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and then secondly we 

can prove to the court that there is a specific loss. 

Many categories of loss to victims are already not recoverable 

under this process. There is no pain and suffering, for example. 

There are no attorneys’ fees for example. So the victims’ return is 

already artificially reduced, and that is to say that the amount imposed on the offender is already artificially low. This bill would impose a modest—I would even say very modest—increase in that 

amount. Given that modest imposition, then you have to take now 

it is imposed, now what? The concern is that it carries with that 

person and then is a burden to them in the future. 

Well, I don’t think anybody in this room would think for a 

minute that the Department of Justice is going to prioritize collections against indigent defendants. It simply isn’t rational. The 

monies that would come into this system, the $20 million to enhanced recovery, that $20 million is rationally going to be focused 

on going after the large white-collar criminals who have engaged 

in sophisticated schemes to hide their assets. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Well, thank you. 

On the conflict of interest, I don’t think anybody is going to bring 

a case because they might think their pension is going to be at 

risk. Their pension is set. I think the idea that you are going to 

fund the criminal justice system through fines is probably more of 

an ideological question that some of us have concerns with. 

The gentleman from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, I want to echo what the Chairman has said, what 

Mr. Davis has said, how much we appreciate all of you being here 

and what you do and what you have done and what you are currently doing. 

The second thing, it has been said, and we don’t need to say this 

again, how much everybody on a bipartisan basis appreciates what 

everybody does. That issue we can kind of take and put on the 

shelf. We all agree with that. 

The other thing that, Mr. Cook, you mention is that this is the 

right thing to do, and maybe it is the right thing to do, but then 

we have it colored with a whole lot of other reasons why we are 

doing it. You know, that prosecutors risk their lives; that we are 

losing good prosecutors to the private sector, et cetera, et cetera. 

Mr. Thompson mentioned that the system works good because it 

is an adversarial system, and we don’t want this to be adversarial, 

but we certainly want to do our job and raise tough questions so 

we can at least investigate what is going on. 

The core question that I asked you guys when you came to my 

office, and I ask you again today because I don’t know the answer 

to this. Where do we stop as a country? We are continuing to have 

people sit right where you sit, they sit in the couches in my office, 

and I am sure they do in the Chairman’s office day after day. There 

is not a group in America that doesn’t come in and want to retire 

at 50 years old—not a group. It is the firefighters, it is the policemen, it is the military—it is every person we see. And on every one 

47 

of those, we say they are good people. They are risking their lives. 

We think the world of them. Mike just told me he wants to do it 

at 50 years old. [Laughter.] 

But on a serious note, I have economists that come in there and 

they just say, ‘‘Folks, you are not going to be competitive with the 

rest of the world because the reality is we have life expectancies 

now that have flipped on us in the last 50 or 60 years—80 or 81 

years of age. Some people will be retiring longer than they worked. 

That is just the reality of the situation. 

We have Social Security that we know is being stretched to the 

hilt. We have baby boomers coming on-line next year that is going 

to stretch our system. We have Medicare that is now 4.5 percent 

of gross national product. It is going to be 22 percent at a certain 

period of time. When we look at our military, these people aren’t 

going out and just traveling to Florida. They are getting jobs with 

corporate America someplace, oftentimes making significantly more 

money than they made before, and we are still paying those benefits. 

Where do we draw the line as a society and say, ‘‘We just can’t 

have everybody retiring at 50, as much as we love them, as great 

a job as they do. We just can’t pay benefits at that particular point 

in time.’’ Because I know that is one of the things that I am wrestling with on this bill and a lot of other ones. I think as a country, 

we are going down a fiscally scary world because we are going to 

have our whole population out retired at 50 and doing something 

else. So what do you think? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman Forbes, those are very, very good 

concerns and questions. The Chair’s questions were very appropriate. Those were the kinds of things that I had to deal with when 

this bill was first brought to my attention when I was in public 

service. But just before I try to get to your question, may I just suggest one thing here though, is that we still have the fact that the 

cases and investigations in the Federal system are increasingly 

more complex. They are increasingly more difficult. 

The people, the government requires assistant U.S. attorneys 

who are highly skilled, highly capable, and experienced. We need 

to be able to retain our assistant U.S. attorneys. 

Mr. FORBES. All right. Let me stop you there, only because I have 

a time limit, and then I am going to let you answer. But I want 

to throw my second question out to you because you have segued 

me into that. 

The second question I will ask you, if the Chairman will indulge 

me maybe just an extra minute or so, we just had an excellent 

modeling and simulation program brought to me yesterday by 

Raytheon Corporation. They normally do the national defense stuff. 

They did one for public education where they did a complex modeling and simulation, and answered the same question you just 

asked. The question was, how do we put out more math and 

science students and how do we retain better teachers? 

The first solution they thought was going to be there was raise 

the salary, and they bumped the salary up in their model from 

$33,000 to $50,000, thinking that was the answer. When they ran 

the model out, though, it didn’t have the impact because industry 

raised their prices and, to make a long story short, it offset. What 

48 

really answered the question, they said when they did the model, 

they went in after the second year and got the bad teachers out 

and then that increased it. 

When I look at people who are prosecutors and they leave, they 

never tell me it is because of the retirement system. Do you know 

what they tell me? It is because ‘‘my kids are going to college’’ or 

‘‘because I have weddings coming up’’ or ‘‘because I have cash-flow 

problems.’’ And if I did a retirement system, they are still going to 

have kids going to college and they are going to have the weddings. 

So I am not against what you are doing. I am just trying to make 

sure we are intellectually asking, is this really the way we keep the 

good people there. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And congressman, I do think we ought to take 

a look at the retirement system, as you suggest, in the Federal law 

enforcement system. But as long as we have the retirement system 

the way it is, and you have men and women in the trenches working alongside Federal law enforcement officers doing very difficult 

and dangerous work, you have this inequity. I don’t think that is 

appropriate. I don’t think it is fair. This legislation offers a creative 

solution to a piece of that puzzle. It is only a piece. 

I totally agree with Ms. Baron-Evans that the Federal defenders 

are very important to our justice system. I would support Congress 

undertaking a comprehensive look at Federal law enforcement. We 

need to do that. This legislation, though, I think is an important 

first step in the puzzle as to how do we improve our system, because the cases are increasingly complex, increasingly difficult, and 

that is not going to stop. 

Mr. FORBES. Anybody else? Ms. Evans? 

Ms. BARON-EVANS. I would just say if we need increasingly 

skilled and experienced prosecutors, they should be staying longer. 

I mean, leaving at 50, that is when I started. I actually came from 

private practice into public service, and, well, I mean, most of the 

supervisors in my office and in other offices in Federal defenders’ 

offices are in their 40’s, 50’s, or 60’s. It seems that the more experience you have, the better, rather than encouraging people to leave 

at 50. 

Mr. FORBES. My time is up, but I would just ask if any of you 

could submit in writing to us a response. Because I think those two 

questions are kind of at the core of what we are wrestling with, not 

that we don’t like anybody, we don’t want to do this, but how do 

we answer those two questions. 

Thank you again for what you do and for being here and for putting up with our questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Forbes. 

In a follow up to that question, I think if there has been any 

analysis of salaries, if people don’t feel they are getting paid sufficiently, what the salary ought to be for these positions. I think that 

would be an interesting thing to hear. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank my friend from Texas for letting me skip ahead of 

her. I have explained to her I have a Ways and Means hearing 

going on, so I thank her for her generosity. 

49 

I don’t have the time to engage Mr. Forbes’ in his philosophical 

discussion. I would advocate retirement age of 70 for U.S. senators 

so they could come back into the private sector and spend more 

time with us, and there would be more movement over there. 

[Laughter.] 

But let me turn, in all seriousness, to several concerns that have 

been raised. I want to start out, Ms. Baron-Evans, with your concerns. The Chairman was more modulated than you were, but you 

made some observations I think worthy of addressing for a moment 

about the potential conflict of interest in AUSAs bringing collection 

cases, pursuing collection actions and some of the revenues potentially going to their retirement funds. 

On a broad philosophic level, I think I understand your point. 

Let me frame it another way. Members of Congress routinely vote 

on things that affect us financially. The markup I am about to go 

to is about the alternative minimum tax. That affects Members of 

Congress who are making $168,000 a year in many communities. 

I suppose somebody somewhere might suggest there is a problem 

with a committee of people who are going to pay the tax voting on 

it, but the normal theory that we use in this institution is if a policy issue is of generalized concern, and you are part of a broadly 

affected class of people, there is no conflict of interest. 

Now, if it is something where for whatever reason just affects 

you, or there is a direct tie-in between your vote and your finances 

that is unique, well, that is a conflict of interest concern. And we 

struggle even with those definitions. 

I would submit in the context of AUSAs obviously if the money 

from a particular collection were going into an escrow account for 

that lawyer, that is enormously problematic, so problematic nobody 

would advocate it. But if there is a generalized pot of money where 

some portion of it is going to AUSAs around the country, I think 

that undercuts to me any conflict of interest concerns. I will give 

you a chance when I am done to debate that if you want, but it 

is my first observation. 

The second observation I want to pick up on your observation 

that this is a tax on the poor, as you described it. Mr. Cook, good 

lawyer that he is, said exactly what I was going to say, that from 

my recollections being a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, if someone is indigent, you can’t fine them anyway. 

Now, we know there is a class of people who are not declared to 

be indigent, but who still really don’t have any disposable resources, or if they do, they spent them all on their lawyer. But I 

want to inject a little bit of reality into this. The Government Accountability Office in 2005 found that amazingly only 7 percent of 

white-collar restitution is collected. White collar restitution is not 

poor people. It is CFOs who defrauded their company and their investors, such as the folks with HealthSouth in Birmingham a few 

years ago. 

White collar restitution is big massive companies who have 

cheated people out of millions of dollars and who are exceptionally 

well-heeled. Mr. Cook is exactly right that any effort to collect this 

money is going to be pointed at those kinds of institutional players, 

not at John Jones who lives with Miss Sally. 

50 

So I want to ask you, Mr. Melson, if you would address the question of what the department can do to increase that 7 percent 

amount, and let us not quibble about the amount. There may be 

some dispute about that. But what can be done to give us a better 

crack and recouping money from high-class defendants with a lot 

of money such as big corporations? 

Mr. MELSON. Thank you, congressman. There are several things 

that we can do. One is more resources and the other is legislative 

fixes. I have mentioned one of the potential legislative fixes that is 

already in the hopper, the bill that Congressman Scott and Congressman Forbes have introduced which allows us to restrain these 

assets that these fat cats have before they learn that they have to 

dissipate them in order to avoid the restitution. 

The GAO study found that there was between 5 and 13 years 

that would usually elapse between the time defendants started 

their criminal activity and the time that a restitution judgment is 

imposed. During that time, a smart white-collar defendant is going 

to transfer the assets to the spouses or to others so that we can’t 

get a hold of it. With this new legislation, we will be able to go 

after them and the corporations, restrain their assets while they 

are being investigated, before they are indicted, and before the restitution judgment is finally imposed at the very, very end of the 

system. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Melson, let me stop you at that point. Obviously, 

my time is very limited. I want to make one other observation. 

I would encourage you, and I support that bill that you just described—I think it is a very good approach—I would encourage 

DOJ to really work with this Committee to try to see what we can 

do to strengthen collection against well-heeled white-collar defendants. The 7 percent number we would all agree is too low. We have 

a stake in doing something about it. 

The last point that I want to make is this one. I want to address 

briefly the point that Mr. Forbes made and that the Chairman 

made, the question why. Why do we single out AUSAs? This bill 

does make distinctions between AUSAs and some other class of 

Federal lawyers. Maybe this is the best reason that I could end 

with today. The day-in and day-out decision to charge people 

doesn’t get made by attorneys general of the United States or even 

U.S. attorneys, frankly. The day-in and day-out decisions get made 

by lawyers who are sitting in small offices who answer to the title 

of assistant United States attorney. 

And the civil cases Mr. Thompson described, the Federal Government doesn’t typically handle garden variety civil cases. The Federal Government handles massive cases where there is a claim of 

government liability and government culpability. It is complex 

work and enormously important work. It deals with the public 

trust. 

My belief is that if we want to make these jobs as apolitical as 

possible, if we want to make these jobs professional and not political—and by the way, Mr. Thompson is right. Twenty years ago, 

you became an AUSA in a lot of places if you were kind of connected to the guy who had the job, and sometimes good people 

came out of that, and sometimes they didn’t. 

51 

If we want to move toward an environment where the politics is 

drained from it and a Larry Thompson and a Democrat U.S. attorney can have the same kinds of people, one way that you do that 

is to treat the job as being more of a career profession and no, it 

is not just about what we pay people more and more people will 

do it. You will never pay AUSAs enough for that to be the reason 

they do the work. But what you can do is to reward the people who 

make the decision and who make the choice and who decide to 

stay. If you decide to reward them, you make it more likely that 

apolitical people will do this kind of work. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, would you advise your colleague from Virginia 

that when I get to be 50, I also want to retire? Would you let him 

know that? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Thompson, we are going to hold you harmless in spite of 

your association with Dan Bryant. That may be questionable. 

[Laughter.] 

It is good to have you all with us. 

Mr. Melson, perhaps my frugality is showing, but if this bill is 

enacted, would it not open the door to other groups of Federal employees who would also make good causes to increase their retirement benefits? 

Mr. MELSON. Well, certainly that is a concern that we have, that 

there are other elements in the Department of Justice, even in addition to the trial attorneys who would be subject to the same type 

of rationale and reasoning to become part of the law enforcement 

officers’ retirement plan. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Cook, what other employment groups in the Federal Government have identical retirement benefits as the AUSAs, 

and they, too, might say, well you know, how about us? 

Mr. COOK. Congressman, if I could begin by pointing out maybe 

the obvious, and that is we are already drawing lines. There are 

in the system that I am working in, the lines have unfortunately 

been drawn at my doorstep. That is to say that everybody I work 

with on a daily basis has this benefit. This benefit isn’t going to 

be enough for me to retire, frankly, but it is going to be enough for 

me to go home at night and say I am being treated fairly by my 

employer because I now receive the same benefit as everybody I 

work with on a day-in and day-out basis. 

As to the second part of your question, and that is who else in 

the system might also ask for these benefits, I would respectfully 

submit to you that there are probably plenty, but we can continue 

to draw the lines that we have. As it is, assistant United States 

attorneys are the ones who serve you on the front line of the criminal justice system and we are the only ones on that front line that 

I deal with on a daily basis who don’t receive these benefits. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Mr. COOK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Baron-Evans, do Federal public defenders receive the same retirement and salary benefits as do AUSAs? 

52 

Ms. BARON-EVANS. Yes, Mr. Coble. My understanding from the 

AO is that our salaries and benefit package adds up to the same 

thing, and that is the Judicial Conference policy. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Thompson, this is not a directly relevant question perhaps, 

but I know there is some concern across the country about the disparity between State district attorneys and assistant State district 

attorneys, as opposed to their Federal counterparts, and that won’t 

be addressed here today, but it does concern people. 

Let me ask you this: How about retirement disparities within the 

Justice Department? For example, if this bill were enacted, would 

it result in certain members of the department receiving more 

money as AUSAs, as opposed to their counterparts, say for example 

in the Criminal Division? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, there is a difference in the proposed legislation, Congressman. But the fact of the matter is, you have to look 

at the team on the front line, as Mr. Cook pointed out. And the 

men and women on the front line who are working beside DEA 

agents, FBI agents, doing the same kind of thing, putting the same 

hours in, it is important as a first step to make this as the title 

of the legislation implies, more equitable. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I thank you all for being with us. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a transportation hearing. I may have to 

go back and forth, but I yield back my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member, and thank the witnesses. It is good to see my good friend 

Mr. Thompson, though I am certainly prepared to hold him in contempt for rejecting the pleas and cries of many to subject himself 

to the grueling nomination process for the Attorney General of the 

United States of America. [Laughter.] 

I am still contemplating that, since the process is still ongoing 

you may have still an opportunity. [Laughter.] 

But let me thank my colleagues. Let me pose a question to the 

Chairman. Mr. Chairman, is there a bill that you and the Ranking 

Member have on this same issue? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

I am sorry. Let me try to clear the record. Is there a bill that you 

and Mr. Forbes have on this same issue? 

Mr. SCOTT. I am not sure which one he was citing. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So therefore I don’t need to try and probe that 

bill. 

So let me probe this and try to raise questions in the context of 

the idea. I think the idea is a good idea. I certainly think that we 

need to refine it and, Ms. Baron-Evans, I am going to probe you 

because frankly I want the public defenders included. I appreciate 

your moral and principled stance, but let me try to work with you 

to see how it can clarify. 

Mr. Thompson, what I may be disturbed about is how it will be 

perceived, which is that you are denying victims their full compensation. But I do think there is something if Mr. Davis’s citation 

is correct, you might help me with that, having been in the Justice 

Department, as to the poor collection rate of the monies that are 

due the government in the first place. So say, for example, we were 

53 

able to maximize three-fold, certainly I would like to see career assistant U.S. attorneys find their life’s work in building knowledge 

and working on behalf of the people of the United States. 

So my question to you is, the first issue is what would you propose, and I think it would need to be language in this legislation 

if it was to move, on the recovery percentage? And why are we not 

collecting? 

I will come to Ms. Baron-Evans because I think we should distinguish, and I haven’t looked at the fine points, but I don’t think the 

bill suggests that we are getting money out of a turnip. It is talking 

about defendants that come with assets that are illegally secured. 

So therefore let me fine out how we can do better on the recovery, 

particularly on the white-collar crimes. 

Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I would suggest two fundamental points, Congresswoman. That is, number one, nothing should be done to take 

advantage of victims. Victims should always be first in line in 

terms of having restitution as victims of crime. That is number 

one. 

Number two, we certainly shouldn’t adversely impact those defendants who cannot pay, and when I say ‘‘adversely impact’’ to the 

Chair’s question, allow them to have some meaningful re-entry into 

society. So the point will be—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Very important point. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So the point will be how can we go after the uncollected fines and debts from corporations, wealthy individuals, 

that are apparently not being collected. One of the things I think 

this legislation will do is these are very sophisticated kinds of litigation proceedings, albeit on the civil side. And one of the things 

I think this legislation will allow is for retention of assistant 

United States attorneys, because I think the effect of this bill will 

be to allow AUSAs to stay in service longer. You will get more experienced individuals to handle these kinds of cases. I think that 

is the long-term solution to the problem that you raise. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Let me ask Mr. Melson and then Ms. Baron-Evans. Mr. Melson, 

it seems that the Department of Justice may not have taken a position. You might correct me if I came in and that is not the case. 

But what I would appreciate if you would sort of peruse the question, if the legislation was written, that public defenders who are 

in essence—I know they are independent under the Federal system, and they sort of work in tandem to a certain extent, to be included. And if this bill could be done in a way that you could not 

be charged with violating the victims fund, would you be interested 

in such a bill? And Ms. Baron-Evans would you respond to the idea 

of public defenders, either through the enhanced compensation? 

And I do understand that you might be concerned with being 

compromised. I don’t think that would be the case, but you can answer that because these are Federal funds that would be owed to 

you, so they couldn’t be taken on the basis of you are pressing the 

case of your clients. 

Mr. Melson? 

Mr. MELSON. Yes, you are correct that the department has not 

yet been able to take a position, has not formulated any position 

54 

on the bill. We are concerned with not affecting the victims’ funds, 

and because of any amendments to the bill as it now stands, as you 

are suggesting, that might include the public defenders, we would 

have to again look at that and make sure there are not any unintended consequences either toward the victims or victims’ funds. It 

would be premature for us to give you a position on that at this 

point. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, you will keep that in mind? 

Mr. MELSON. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We may want to look in that direction. 

Ms. Baron-Evans? Try to be as broad-thinking as possible. Don’t 

deny yourselves rightful compensation. We will put up a firewall 

for you. 

Ms. BARON-EVANS. I would very much not like to deny us rightful compensation, but I know that the defenders have been asked 

informally about this before, and there is no way in the world, really, that we could accept any funds that came from our clients. It 

is just a conflict. 

You know, a conflict of interest, and now I am talking about the 

prosecutors too, in the conflict or apparent conflict that happens 

when a prosecutor has a financial interest in the case. I know Mr. 

Scott, you said, it is not really a conflict. A conflict exists even if 

you don’t act on it, and I am not suggesting anybody necessarily 

or in the vast majority of cases would act on it. 

But when you think about it, imagine the report in the building 

the next day after you pass this bill, if you were to pass it. Congress just passed a bill that is going to up our retirement benefits 

based on how much we can collect from defendants. Come on. That 

has an effect. And it looks bad. The reason I say it looks bad, we 

want defendants to respect the system. We want defendants to respect the judges. We even want the defendants to respect the prosecutor, if at all possible. And sometimes they do. 

But it is not going to help matters to have people thinking that 

retirement benefits of prosecutors are being funded on their backs. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. I look forward to working with 

you on this issue. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 

courtesy of being able to ask some questions. 

I am a cosponsor of this bill, but I have some concerns after listening to some of the testimony here. The major one is, I guess, I 

should have looked a little more closely at the language of the bill, 

because while I support increased retirement benefits for assistant 

U.S. attorneys, I do not support the idea of somehow suggesting 

that, since prosecutors work in the same office with guys who carry 

guns, men and women who carry guns and go out every day, they 

ought to be treated the same way exactly. 

Let us go back in history to understand why we allowed retirement for law enforcement personnel at an earlier age. Part of it 

was based on the physical demands of the job. I mean, you can say 

that is not the case, but go back and look at it. The whole argument that we have gone through in California over law enforcement personnel is because of the physical and emotional stress that 

55 

takes place and also the fact we want younger people in who are 

physically capable of doing the job. 

Now, I know that there are exceptions to that, when you get to 

be detective when you were sitting at your desk and doing your 

thing. I don’t want to suggest that is not true, but I think the gentleman from Virginia made a very good point. When we established 

an early retirement age for people for a particular reason because 

there was a physical connection to that, to then say because you 

work in the same office you are being treated unfairly because you 

can’t retire at the same age is just nonsense. 

I am all for improving the retirement benefits of assistant U.S. 

attorneys. But this idea that we move from saying we are going to 

allow people to retire early because they are law enforcement, they 

carry a gun, they have certain stresses in their lives, and then we 

say because we work in the same office with them, we are doing 

the same job, is just not true. I don’t care how many times you 

want to say it. It is not true. 

I hope that we could come up with a different formula that would 

improve the retirement benefits of assistant U.S. attorneys, but do 

not give them the ability to retire. I mean, you have a contrary argument here before us. You are saying we need to do this to keep 

people on the job, and the reason we are going to keep them on the 

job is we are going to let them retire earlier. Now, I am a lawyer 

and I can use words well, but the average person is going to have 

a lot of difficulty figuring that out. 

And then as far as Ms. Baron-Evans is concerned, I understand 

your concern, and if what you are suggesting is we could somehow 

make it easier for you and your brethren to apply for carry permits 

because you are in dangerous situations, I would probably support 

that. Your comment was you go in dangerous places, you are not 

protected nor are you investigators, and if you need something like 

that, I will be one to help you do that. 

And the third thing is, we have Mr. Chabot’s bill to reform the 

restitution procedures on the Federal level that I believe was offered as an amendment to a previous bill. I would hope that as we 

go forward on this bill, we might consider incorporating Mr. 

Chabot’s ideas into any final product that we put here. 

If I could just ask, am I wrong to say that assistant U.S. attorneys don’t have quite the physical stress and quite the problems 

that we have with folks that are carrying guns and going out in 

the field as DEA agents and FBI agents and others? 

Mr. COOK. Let me back up even one step further on your 

premise. The premise is that we want to have the same retirement 

benefits as have been accorded only people who carry firearms because the class that is covered is much broader than that. We have 

pretrial services officers, probation officers, many of whom write 

pre-sentence reports and never have any—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. I know. We extended it those cases, so therefore 

if we were wrong in extending it in those cases, we should extend 

it even further? 

Mr. COOK. Well, let me say first, I don’t think you were wrong 

in extending those benefits. To return to the other point you made, 

and that is with respect to the stresses and dangers of the job, the 

stresses of the job of being an assistant United States attorney I 

56 

would say is equal to, in fact I would respectfully submit substantially greater than that posed to the typical agent. 

The stresses of working a 12-or 14-hour day, 7 days a week, to 

prepare for a trial like Mr. Thompson described, and that is a trial 

that is going to extend over a many month period of time is substantial. And it is important to understand, and I think that you 

are right when you say there is a conflict between the position, and 

if I could describe it this way. In many districts we have a retention issue. That is to say, we want to keep people beyond the 8 

years, 4 years, 5 years that they come in. This bill we think would 

help with that part of retention. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand. Let me just say, though, about what 

you said about assistant U.S. attorneys. When I was attorney general of California, I had 1,000 lawyers working for me. We were the 

only law firm in California on the prosecution side that handled 

death penalty cases. You talk about strain and stress of cases. 

Those cases last for years and years and years. I would put those 

people up against any assistant U.S. attorney that you are talking 

about in terms of stress, but I still wouldn’t argue that they would 

be considered the same as law enforcement officials. I am just 

sorry. We have a very big disagreement on this. 

Mr. COOK. Well, then I would have to say to you that, as I come 

to the table, I would say that as I grow older I have quickly found 

that my ability to maintain the level of performance has paled beside what I was able to do when I was 30 and 40. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you. 

We have a little more work to do, and we have a vote in about 

6 minutes, so I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony. Members may have additional questions which they will forward you, and we ask that you answer them as promptly as you 

can so your answers may be made part of the record. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 week for the submission of additional materials. Without objection, the Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(57) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this very important hearing regarding this 

Committee’s consideration of H.R. 2878, the ‘‘Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2007.’’ H.R. 2878 will increase the retirement 

benefits of Assistant U.S. Attorneys to the level of federal law enforcement officers, 

which is intended to strengthen the Department of Justice’s ability to win critical 

cases by ensuring the retention of skilled, experienced federal prosecutors. 

I am pleased to welcome our witnesses who have gathered here today to give us 

guidance and insights in our efforts to evaluate the merits of H.R. 2878. We certainly must be mindful that the Department of Justice has a void to fill from the 

loss of very qualified attorneys and must implement a system that yields incentives 

that will lead to the retention of skilled, experienced, federal prosecutors. 

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this hearing is to consider the merits of H.R. 2878, 

the ‘‘Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 

2007.’’ H.R. 2878 will increase the retirement benefits of Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

to the level of federal law enforcement officers, which aims to strengthen the Department of Justice’s ability to win critical cases by ensuring the retention of 

skilled, experienced federal prosecutors. 

We know that with the presence of terrorist threats, violent crimes, and whitecollar crime, there is an ever-growing need for skilled federal prosecutors. The growing attrition rate of top-flight prosecutors from the Department of Justice is harming the Department’s ability to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes and thus 

potentially exposing the American society to even more unsafe conditions. The average line Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) remains with DOJ for only 8 

years, a critical loss of litigation skill and experience by the government and recent 

DOJ workforce realignment efforts have been only modestly successful, with cash 

incentive retirement offers prompting a limited response among eligible AUSAs. A 

report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee concluded that career AUSAs 

should be authorized to receive similar retirement benefits to those of all other 

members of the federal law enforcement community since the majority of AUSA responsibilities relate to the investigation, apprehension or detention of individuals 

suspected or convicted of criminal laws of the United States. 

Title II brings the retirement benefits of AUSAs into line with the retirement benefits of thousands of federal law enforcement employees, including Special Agents 

of the FBI, Secret Service, IRS and DEA, deputy U.S. Marshals, probation and pretrial service officers and Bureau of Prison employees. H.R. 2878 provides that 

AUSAs receive the same retirement benefits received by law enforcement officers. 

H.R. 2878 proposes to pay for the cost of increased retirement benefits by debt 

collection reform. The 93 United States Attorney Offices are responsible for criminal 

and civil debt collection efforts that result in billions of dollars a year collected for 

federal agencies and the victims of crime. On average, the USAOs collect over $4 

billion a year, more than twice the total budget of all USAOs. 

However, the Government Accountability Office has criticized the Department of 

Justice for deficiencies in the collection of civil and criminal judgments. There are 

still tens of billions of dollars left in uncollected debt, due in part to inefficiencies 

in the law and competing priorities. Title I responds to GAO’s criticism by reforming 

federal debt collection procedures, making criminal fines, criminal restitution obligations, and civil judgments payable to the United States more collectible. 

We need to continue to seek solutions that will put in place effective guidelines 

that create vehicles to recruit and maintain our skilled, and experienced federal 

58 

prosecutors sop that we can combat the criminal element that threatens the safety 

of our society. Consideration of H.R. 2878 is before us today as a potential solution 

to that problem. While we seek solutions to the debt collection process and attempt 

to fund the retirement programs of U.S. Attorneys with such funds, we must ensure 

that we do not interfere with the compensation resources for crime victims. It is also 

important for us to consider the important contributions of federal public defenders 

as we provide incentives for recruiting and retaining federal attorneys. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today in our attempt to gain some guidance on 

this very important matter. 

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

f 

59 

Æ 


LDT.eps