 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Statement of the Honorable Tom Davis on H.R. 583, The Assistant United States Attorney Retirement Benefit Act of 1999 September 9, 1999 Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing today and for exploring the broader question of who receives law enforcement benefits and why. I believe law enforcement benefits should be extended to those individuals who chose a career that potentially places the safety and welfare of themselves and their families in jeopardy. We should ensure that those individuals who are truly tasked to upholding the laws of our Nation are indeed the same individuals receiving law enforcement benefits. Mr. Chairman, that is why I introduced H.R. 583, the Assistant United States Attorney Retirement Benefit Act of 1999. On a daily basis, Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) fight to enforce our code of federal laws, and are increasingly called upon to enforce a wider range of criminal law to bolster the efforts of state and local governments in the fight against crime. AUSAs carry their jobs out on a daily basis with relatively little fanfare and often work eighty hour weeks to prosecute criminals who have terrorized our communities for too long. Additionally, AUSAs must prosecute criminals who are represented by defense attorneys who charge several hundred dollars per hour for their services. AUSAs make a conscious choice to forego significant private sector incomes and benefits in order to put the "bad guy" behind bars. Improving the retirement benefits of these individuals will allow us to attract and retain the best and brightest individuals to become career AUSAs. Right now, the current average length of service for an AUSA is ten years. Why wouldn't it be? The hours are long, the pay is low, and increasingly, AUSAs place themselves and their families in harm's way just by prosecuting criminals. Creating an incentive for AUSAs to remain with the Department of Justice for the length of their careers would be a tremendous victory for the American public, and put criminals in our society at a distinct disadvantage. H.R. 583 would offer an important benefit to the American taxpayer, it would help ensure a strong professional crime-fighting force of knowledgeable, experienced prosecutors at the federal level. Under Title 5, United States Code, Sections 8331 (20) and 8401 (17), the duties of law enforcement officers are defined as "primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention" of violators of federal law. Through the demands of their daily job, investigating and prosecuting criminals, AUSAs fit this definition and each of its specified categories. They are often called upon by federal law enforcement officers to assist in major investigations and offer their legal advice on grounds for apprehension, not to mention their integral role in the detention of criminals. Without the hard work of AUSAs across the United States, we would not be watching our violent crime statistics decline, and we would not be winning the War on Drugs. If we were to use the broader definition of the original criteria behind creating an enhanced retirement benefit, AUSAs should have been eligible for this additional benefit long ago. When the enhanced retirement benefit was first created in 1948, it applied to those occupations that required a greater mental or physical stamina. Certainly, the well-documented demands of an AUSA's workload and schedule would apply to that category. As the recent class action lawsuit filed by AUSAs against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) shows, these prosecutors are routinely called upon to put in significant amounts of overtime. DOJ illegally describes overtime as a necessary requirement of the job. AUSAs fight crime and sacrifice time with their families, yet they receive very little recognition for their work. I would also like to briefly touch on the overtime issue that faces AUSAs and as it affects or, more appropriately does not affect the enhanced retirement benefit. As I have previously mentioned, AUSAs are currently involved in a class action lawsuit against DOJ. DOJ does not pay its attorneys overtime as required by Federal Employees Pay Act. For years, DOJ, as the enforcer of laws, has knowingly violated the law by denying AUSAs overtime pay. To add insult to injury, DOJ has required its attorneys to keep two sets of books - one that reflects a 40 hour work week, and one that shows the actual number of hours worked. The latter set of books is given to Congress for appropriations purposes, and is also provided to Federal courts when a Judge requests that attorneys' fees be paid. DOJ does not deny this overtime benefit to any other law enforcement division under its jurisdiction. It is reasonable compensation that AUSAs are entitled to by law. I do not believe that a law enforcement retirement benefit should have any impact on the overtime benefit, or the resolution of that class action lawsuit. Federal law enforcement officers receive overtime for much the same reason they receive an enhanced benefit. They face an unusually high level of stress and danger in performing their job. Today, over 4,500 individuals serve as AUSAs in 93 separate offices throughout the country. AUSAs are now enlisted in our Nation's efforts to combat drugs, domestic and foreign terrorism, along with other pressing social threats. Increasingly, Congress calls on AUSAs to assist in fighting crimes that attract nationwide notoriety. In 1992, we passed the Anti-Car Theft Act, which created federal criminal penalties for the growing threat of car-jacking. Last Congress, we passed H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, which created criminal penalties for those parents who knowingly cross state lines in order to avoid paying court-ordered child support. When we enact these much-needed laws, we unwittingly add to the already increasing complexity of criminal investigations and litigation facing AUSAs. Congress, itself, has contributed to the growing need to employ career AUSAs who have developed a time-honed expertise in prosecuting criminals. Since I introduced this legislation on February 4, 1999, I have been contacted by AUSAs across the country who have shared with me their harrowing experiences fighting crime, and the very real threats that have caused them to drastically change their lifestyle. Notably, the stories of threats against attorneys do not come from just the AUSAs working in federal districts in major urban areas, but from all 93 U.S. Attorneys offices across the country. The stories are all strikingly similar in one regard: an AUSA is threatened for prosecuting a career criminal and simply doing their job. I would like to share one particular instance with you that demonstrates the threats that AUSAs must deal with on a daily basis as well as highlighting the fact that all other federal employees that work with an AUSA in the apprehension of criminals do receive the law enforcement benefit. In an anonymous letter I received the following story was shared with me. "In 1993, a defendant was on pre-trial release in a drug case. Evidence indicates he was involved in the disappearance and apparent murder of five individuals who were witnesses or family members of witnesses involved in the case. The case was dismissed because of lack of witnesses. The same defendant was later charged in another drug case. While the defendant was again on pre-trial release, this time including electronic monitoring, a co-defendant disclosed the defendant's intention to kill a state narcotics agent, a Drug Enforcement Agency agent, and the AUSA handling the case. The defendant had offered detailed descriptions of the area around the AUSA's house, and children in the AUSA's neighborhood. Additionally, the defendant described exactly how he intended to acquire a firearm and the necessary electronic equipment to disable his electronic monitoring equipment so he would have an alibi when he killed the AUSA and the law enforcement agents. The government was able to detain the defendant prior to his acting on his plans. However, while this defendant was incarcerated, he continued his plans to harm the agents and the AUSA. He attempted to escape from custody, and attempted to enter into a contract with an individual out of jail to kill those who had placed him in jail." This particular AUSA was forced to put a remote starter on his car, install an elaborate home security system, and tell his wife and three young children of the grave danger facing the family. Additionally, the AUSA and his family had to be protected by U.S. Marshals for a brief time period. This situation created an extraordinarily stressful and frightening situation for the AUSA and his entire family. The other individuals who were threatened by this defendant did receive law enforcement officer's benefit for the very real stress that they deal with on a daily basis, and the stress that their families also faced. Everyone that a criminal encounters from the moment they enter the federal criminal justice system until they are sent to jail receives a law enforcement officer's retirement benefit with the exception of AUSAs, and the federal judge who is life-tenured and attached to a different pay schedule. Often the AUSA becomes the last "potential scapegoat" for the hardened criminal searching for someone to blame because he/she must now go to prison for their crimes. This legislation has garnered a significant amount of support since I first introduced it back in the waning days of the 105th Congress. The number of inquiries that I received about this legislation in the brief time period between the 105th and 106th Congress showed that AUSAs are already widely recognized as an essential part of our federal crime-fighting cadre. H.R. 583 now has 36 co-sponsors, some of whom are former AUSAs, and know all too well the crime-fighting aspect of the job. I would also like to address the costs associated with H.R. 583. I realize that the preliminary Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is prohibitive, and would require an offset. I am working with the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys (NAAUSA) to address the cost issue. Furthermore, I will not attempt to move this legislation forward until reasonable, fair offsets are found, or the cost is lessened significantly. While H.R. 583 is a good idea whose time has come, now that we have restored fiscal responsibility to the federal government, we can not enact the legislation simply on the basis that it is good. We must remember to address the cost issue, or we will soon end up with a new era of budget deficits. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing today. I believe this is a fair and open forum through which we can determine whether or not the extension of law enforcement benefits is truly beneficial to the affected federal employees, the federal government, and the American taxpayer. As you know, our distinguished colleague from Tennessee, a former AUSA, Representative Ed Bryant, is here today to testify on behalf of the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys (NAAUSA) on H.R. 583. I would like to thank Mr. Bryant for testifying today, and thank him for all of his support for H.R. 583 again this Congress.
|
|
(T)
1-800-455-5661
|
|