Issues Presented by Prosecutors to Congress at Capital Conference
Returning to a conference format that hasn’t been used in almost a decade, the 2002 NDAA Capital Conference “capitalized” on the presence of a number of local prosecutors in Washington to advance several issues of importance to all prosecutors.
The Executive Committee of the National District Attorneys Association chose the topics that would be presented. They decided that seeking forgiveness for student loans, as a means of helping our younger prosecutors stay in our profession, and trying to obtain funding for prosecutor programs would be appropriate topics for this visit to the Hill. In addition, an information briefing on the value to prosecutors of the training presented by the National Advocacy Center was also suggested as an appropriate topic.
NDAA provided background materials for those attending the conference as well as some general notes on how to schedule a meeting with members of Congress and what to expect during the meeting. A synopsis of the materials follows—full copies of them can be found in the Capital Conference summary on the NDAA Web site in the members only section.
The National Advocacy Center
The National Advocacy Center, located on the campus of the University of South Carolina, has been a joint venture between the Department of Justice and the National District Attorneys Association since 1999. The advocacy center was developed to provide continuing and specialized professional training for federal and local prosecutors.
The National Advocacy Center includes class and conference rooms, administrative areas, courtrooms, over 260 motel style rooms, dining and recreational facilities, and state-of-the-art automation and video training capabilities. The center has a full time staff, representing both the Department of Justice and the National District Attorneys Association. Faculty, from both state and federal prosecutors’ offices, are brought to the center for each course. From October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001 (Fiscal Year 2001), almost 3000 local prosecutors trained at the advocacy center and a comparable number have trained there each year since its inception. This means that almost one out of every 12 local prosecutors in the nation has the opportunity to receive training at the center each year.
The portion of the National Advocacy Center administered by the National District Attorneys Association is dedicated to training state and local prosecutors by providing a range of courses targeted specifically to meet a prosecutor’s needs. During any quarter, some eight courses are presented including advocacy courses targeted towards varying levels of experience and specialized courses, such as “Advanced Techniques in DNA Forensic Evidence” or “Cybersleuth 2: Trying the Cybercase” to reach specialized requirements.
Students attending the courses have all expenses paid, including travel and lodging and receive a per diem. Student selection for each course represents prosecutors and their staffs from all over the United States.
Student Loan Forgiveness
In 1999 (then) NDAA President John Justice sought and received, clarification from the Department of Education (DOE) that prosecutors were considered “law enforcement” under the loan forgiveness provisions of the Perkins Student Loan Program but not under the Stafford Program. As part of the initial NDAA inquiry, public defenders were included and DOJ, the ABA and the public defender organizations were supportive. The DOE response indicated that public defenders were not included in the Perkins Program, and Stafford Loans covered neither prosecutors nor public defenders.
In April 2000, a congressman from California (who is no longer a member of Congress) introduced a bill specifically adding public defenders to the Perkins Program but ignoring the Stafford Program. Despite efforts to convince both him and the public defenders that this was not a tactically sound route, they persisted. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and stirred up its interest in the inclusion of any attorneys in the Perkins Program.
In May 2000, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce took under consideration “technical amendments” to the Higher Education Act. One of these, offered by the chairman, would have excluded attorneys (not just prosecutors) from the student loan forgiveness provision of the Perkins Loan Program. Committee opposition to the change lead to a compromise that continued the provisions for prosecutors and added public defenders but added a limitation of an adjusted gross income not to exceed $30,000. The corrections then passed a vote on the floor of the House and went to the Senate for action. No action was ever taken in the Senate on the corrections and they died with the end of the 106th Congress.
The concept of student loan forgiveness has gained support since May 2000 for federal and military attorneys. Federal agencies had been authorized to pay student loans for attorneys for several years and the programs are now being funded because of problems retaining attorneys. To retain military attorneys, a bonus is being paid after about 10 years of service. In a bill to reauthorize the federal court system, there is a provision for loan forgiveness for federal public defenders.
DOJ Reauthorization Bill
A reauthorization bill for DOJ passed the House last summer as a bare bones bill. In December 20, 2001, the Senate passed its version and added a number of items that greatly expanded the scope of the legislation. NDAA was advised that this bill would be going to conference in the spring to iron out differences and that it would be the only criminal law related bill to pass during the remainder of this Congress.
To capitalize on this opportunity, efforts towards forgiveness for student loans made under the Stafford Program were added to the bill. The need for student loan forgiveness had also been brought up in the context of counsel competency under the Innocence Protection Act as an affirmative alternative to the standards proposed in that legislation. The rationale had been to give the criminal justice system the ability to recruit and retain competent counsel as the foundation of the system rather then artificially establishing other measures of competency.
Meetings were held with key staff for the principal members of the conference committee and draft language was provided to them based on comparable provisions already in the legislation that called for phased-in forgiveness over a 10-year period.
Because of the nature of the DOJ reauthorization, the members were hesitant to add the loan forgiveness provisions, but several were supportive of the idea as a separate issue. As of the start of the NDAA Capital Conference, there seemed to be little chance to get loan forgiveness added to the DOJ reauthorization, but members of Congress had been made aware of the issue and opportunities.
To increase awareness of the problems caused by the student loan burden, it was suggested that prosecutors attending the Capital Conference continue to press on this issue. Points raised included:
- Problems in recruiting and retaining prosecutors:
- Compare starting pay with that of other attorneys’ positions,
- Provide examples of difficulties in either recruiting or retaining young attorneys because of financial impact,
- Problems in recruiting minority attorneys,
- Problems with the criminal justice system could best be fixed by being able to recruit and retain competent lawyers,
- Forgiveness for both prosecutors and public defenders, and
- Graduated forgiveness system to provide incentive to stay in position.
Funding for Local Prosecutors
The president’s FY 2003 budget proposal includes:
- $30.2 billion for the Department of Justice—an increase of 13 percent over FY 2002.
- $2 billion in new funding for counter-terrorism efforts raising the department’s anti-terrorism spending to over $3 billion in FY03.
- $1.6 billion (an increase of $74 million) for initiatives to combat drug trafficking and support demand reduction programs.
- Other key budget increases to ensure enforcement of civil rights laws; to compensate victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks; to improve the management and services of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); and to increase federal detention and incarceration capacity.
- Reflecting a theme established last year, the budget request reduces funding for state and local law enforcement efforts within the DOJ budget.
- Much of the funding, and at least one major DOJ functional area are being redirected to the Federal Emergency Management Administration.
- This refocusing consolidates first responder funding within FEMA—a total of $3.5 billion for first responders.
See a more detailed comparison of funding in the members only section of the NDAA Web site.
What’s Missing: Funding for local prosecutors is almost non-existent with the exception of the assistance provided for Southwest border prosecutors and for prosecution of gun cases. It was suggested that the following topics would be appropriate for local prosecutors to discuss with their members of Congress:
- Expanding the gun prosecution grant (Safe Neighborhoods) to also cover violent crime and to permit it to be used for traditional community prosecution programs. The current scheme can only be used to hire a prosecutor but an expansion could allow for technical equipment and an investigator who could support community programs and free up attorney time.
- Funding to provide training and technical assistance to local prosecutors for DNA evidence. A continual influx of new prosecutors need training in using DNA in the courtroom, and they need to be able to call for help when confronted with evidentiary problems.
- Funding to provide training and assistance for the prosecution of drug cases. There hasn’t been any funding to train prosecutors in trying drug cases in over a decade. The new chemical drugs are spreading across the county and prosecutors need both training in how to try these cases and a resource to call upon when confronted with a new drug in their jurisdictions. The spread of meth or oxycon are both prime examples.
- Funding to provide training and assistance to local prosecutors in the area of cybercrime. Efforts to date have gone for investigative agencies but no one is adequately training prosecutors on how to try these cases. Given the implications of identity theft, hacking and increasing fraud against the elderly, this is a high-risk area.
- Training and assistance for local prosecutors in the area of crimes against the elderly. This is a cutting edge area of criminal law. With aging baby boomers, longer life spans and more affluence, the setting is there (as the numbers show) for an increase in crimes against the elderly. These crimes have spillovers into VAWA and health care issues as well.
|
