Anti-Lobbying Act
The Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the U. S. Department of Justice, has posted a timely reminder on federal lobbying restrictions on their Web site, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja. These restrictions apply to funds received from any federal source, not just those from DOJ.
The Anti-Lobbying Act (18 U.S.C. § 1913) was amended recently to expand the restrictions on use of appropriated funding for lobbying. This expansion makes the anti-lobbying restrictions enforceable through large civil penalties (fines between $10,000 and $100,000 for each occurrence). These restrictions are in addition to the anti-lobbying and lobbying disclosure restrictions imposed by 31 U.S.C. § 1352, which reads, “None of the funds appropriated by any Act may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any Federal action.”
DOJ warns that all grant applicants must understand that no federally-appropriated funding made available under federal grant programs may be used, either directly or indirectly, to support the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation, or policy, at any level of government, without the express approval by DOJ. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a minimum $10,000 fine for each occurrence. This prohibition applies to all activity, even if currently allowed within the parameters of the existing OMB circulars. OMB is updating their circulars to reflect the new restrictions.
These restrictions are in addition to any prohibitions on lobbying found within any federal tax status.
DOJ Reauthorization
The House has passed a reauthorization bill (H.R. 3036, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006) for the Department of Justice, focusing largely on the department’s grant-making components: the Office of Justice Programs, the Office on Violence Against Women, and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office. Grants administered by these offices primarily fund state and local law enforcement initiatives.
The bill authorizes $20.1 billion for DOJ in FY 2005; and $20.4 billion for FY 2006, generally tracking the president’s budget requests.
In addition to authorizing funding, the measure combines the current Byrne formula grant, Byrne discretionary grant, and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) programs into one Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (the JAG program), with an authorization amount similar to the amount appropriated for all three programs in recent years and a formula that follows current law. Note that the authorization does not mandate an equal appropriation, but serves as a benchmark.
It also reauthorizes the COPS program as a single block program, covering all of its current purposes, so local governments will only need to file one COPS application for any of these purposes; provides for new audit and training capacity for all DOJ grant programs to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; provides the first statutory authorization for the Weed and Seed program; establishes a congressional medal and plaque for individuals and units that responded to the 9/11 attacks; reauthorizes the bulletproof vest program; and establishes a privacy officer for DOJ.
Victims’ Rights Constitutional Amendment
At their March meeting, the NDAA Board of Directors voted to support the Constitutional Amendment now before Congress as S. J. Res. 1 (sponsored by Senators Kyl (R-AZ) and Feinstein (D-CA)) and H. J. Res. 48 (sponsored by Congressman Chabot (R-OH)).
If ultimately passed, the amendment would grant violent crime victims the right to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime and notice of any release or escape of the accused; not to be excluded from a public proceeding and to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve and pardon proceedings; and to adjudicative decisions that consider the victims’ safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and just and timely claims to restitution from the offender. It prohibits any restriction of the rights except as dictated by a substantial interest in public safety or the administration of criminal justice, or by compelling necessity. Civil suits against public officials would be precluded by the amendment.
There are 25 co-sponsors of the amendment in the Senate, and they hope for a floor vote in mid-spring. The House has 21 co-sponsors; the Judiciary Committee held hearings last September but no further action has been taken.
Medical Records Privacy Regulation
NDAA was invited to testify before the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Subcommittee on Privacy and Confidentiality concerning implementation of the medical records privacy regulation. NDAA provided testimony before that same committee in 1997, prior to the writing and implementation of the regulation.
Because of the short notice, NDAA could not provide a witness to testify. However, NDAA President McCulloch did send a letter to the subcommittee chair outlining some of the problems experienced by prosecutors. A full copy of his letter is on NDAA’s Web site, click here.
In summary, his letter stated that a “growing degree of frustration is being evidenced by law enforcement in regard to the implementation of the regulation.” The subcommittee expressed sufficient concern with the problems that Mr. McCulloch articulated, that several members suggested a special hearing on prosecutor issues.
Student Loan Forgiveness
Senator Durbin had his loan bill, with a major change, added to a gang violence bill that he and Senator Kennedy plan to use as an alternative to a bill authored by Senators Hatch and Feinstein (S. 1735). NDAA testified in support of the general concepts of federal assistance for gang violence issues, has not taken a stance on S. 1735 and is reviewing the two bills.
There is no counterpart to S. 1735 in the House at this time, so chances of its passage this year are minimal. If it passes, the major change in the student loan provisions is management of the student loan program by the Department of Justice (DOJ) instead of the Department of Education.
DOJ, as part of the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS), does have institutional responsibility for an education-funding program for police officers. Students accepted into the Police Corps receive up to $3,750 a year, with a maximum total award of $15,000, to cover the expenses of study toward a baccalaureate or graduate degree. To be eligible for the Police Corps, a student must attend (or be about to attend) an accredited public or non-profit four-year college or university. Undergraduate participants must attend full time.
NDAA predicts that there is little chance that this bill will pass. In addition, DOJ may not be supportive of loan forgiveness for two reasons:
First, they have not been able to get adequate, if any, funding for their own employees under their statutory authority to pay loans from departmental budgets. Second, it would require developing or expanding their bureaucracy to manage the program, which would take funds away from any funds actually appropriated for student loans.
|
