The or that would allow the government to go to the providers before Getting Court approval. But as i understand, the administrations already put into practice the provider Court Approval. Weve had now the benefit of some weeks of experience with that and i wanted to ask you, have you noticed any problems with that . Have there been any difficulties . And if not, does it make any sense to move backward to a model where you can search without getting prior Court Approval . I think that the proposal that or the new processes that we are using have proved to be effective. We go to the court first in order to you know, the reasonable articulable suspicion, standard, get the information that we need. We only use two hops now, instead of three. And i think, ive not heard any negative reports. So i have to say that i agree with the legislative proposal that you have made, and is consistent with what the president talked about, about our need to have that emergency capability. For the ability, as we have now, in a variety of other fisa circumstances, the ability to get information on an emergency basis with collapse some subsequent Court Approval, and review. Just to ensure that we can have all the tools that we need to keep the American People safe, and to deal with those emergency situations, where they might arise. Thank you, mr. Attorney general. Mr. Chairman, do i have time for another question . [ inaudible ] then i yield back. And i just want im going to miss the vote. I want to defend dr. Harris. I think the Charter Schools tuitions, the voucher, is really important. Ive been in some of the schools in the district of columbia. It is making a difference. In my Old Neighborhood in philadelphia where mr. Fattah knows well, thats an opportunity for kids in the inner city to get an education. I was the first in my family to go to college. An education gave me, so i think mr. Harris, dr. Harris is passionate about that, and so, in defending dr. Harris, i think thats what he was concerned about. We dont have to go into it. Let me just make clear, my only point was, that what happened in the court case in louisiana was not about Charter Schools. Not our view of Charter Schools. We can certainly debate about Charter Schools, support them, whatever. Thats not of any consequence to me or the department of justice. We were seeking information about Charter Schools that dealt with a court order, a longstanding Discrimination Court order. I just want to mr. Chairman . I just think it probably would not be a need for a hearing action if there could just be a normal question and an answer. I think the fact that the rush kind of increased the heat unnecessarily, because i think that the answer would have been sufficient to dr. Harris question. And i appreciate dr. Harris. I told him privately hes been one of the most committed members of the subcommittee. I agree. But when we ask a witness a question, the witness has to have a chance to answer the question. And then we can have, you know well i agree with that. But i know he hes been one of the better members weve had. And i know hes passionate on the issue and i think we all, fwrangly, we want a Congress Full of people who care. Not just people who want to get here to do nothing. And he cares. And so i just wanted to defend dr. Harris. With that im going to stay. There is a vote on, but its previous question out of respect for the attorney general. Dr. Carter, and then judge carter well kind of go, but im going to stay so we can continue that way you wont have to thank you, mr. Chairman. I was going to ask if we were going to take a break for the vote or not. Well, i can catch you as you come back. You wont miss your time. So you can do what you think is appropriate. Well, i have a pretty extensive question here and i would hate to miss the vote. Okay. So id like to step out, vote and come back. Sure. If anyone, mr. Schiff do you want to ask your question now . You can do it. Because i think theres still six minutes left. Theres time for your final question. Okay. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the candid discussion we had here just awhile ago. And i welcome mr. Attorney general. Appreciate your work, also. The question i have was around the immigration. And in your testimony youve referenced your work on addressing the immigration backlog. And youre applying some money to it because the cases that we have right now on adjudication by about 40 , 42 between 09 and 0 twelve but the number of Immigration Judges crew only by 11 . So, i understand that you want to use some of the money to upgrade and increase the number of Immigration Judges, and i understand that even if we upgrade them today, theres so many who are in line to retire, so my question is, you know, how many judges can be looking at, how will it reduce the backlog . And is there a plan to, you know, backfill with the ones in line for retirement . We certainly need we need more Immigration Judges to deal with the pending case load. If you look at the number of pending cases its continued to increase to 358,000, thats an increase of 56 since 2009. Our highest priority of cases deals with people who are detained to have criminal convictions. Now our proposal, the president s budget request, would allow us to add 35 new immigration judge teams at 17 million in order to do that. Those immigration teams would be able to adjudicate between 20,000 and 39,000 more cases annually. And so were looking at an increase of 35, and that would be the number that we would want to maintain, which would also mean that to the extent that people are retiring or leaving the bench we would want to replace those, as well, so that we have a net increase of 35, and try to get at that backlog. So the increase in the cases and the subsequent backlogs, is that as a result of paying more attention to the lower part of the morton memorandum where we say we want to go after folks who are law you know, not law abiding and leave alone the rest of the folks on that morton memo . Well, im not sure that i can say what exactly has generated the backlog, but it is there. Its extremely real. I mean you know 358,000 is an unacceptably high number. Sure. It leads to resolutions that occur way too far from a time from the time that we would like to have them occur. You know, asylum cases take significantly longer to resolve than cases in which removal is not requested, and so those are very time consuming kinds of matters. But its clear that we simply need more bodies. When i say Immigration Judges were actually talking about immigration teams. The judges and all the people who support them. So when we talk about Immigration Judges, and cases were talking about not only criminal, but were also talking about asylum issues, and deportation . Right. Were looking at the full panoply of things that Immigration Judges have to deal with. So if as many deportation cases that ive heard about does not go through a court process, it sounds like, and it feels like that theyre denied that process in terms of being adjudicated before theyre decided whether youre going to deport them or not. Whether they fit some of the executive orders that we say we can keep some folks here or not, or whether some of the folks are dream youngsters and their parents are being deported, whether we want to use put them through the adjudication process to see whether they should stay or not. Is that all part of the caseload or is that separate . Well, i think, you know, the caseload is varied. As i said there are asylum cases, there are cases involved detained aliens who have criminal convictions. There are, you know, unaccompanied minors that we have to deal with. We have a program that were trying to put in place so that they get adequate representation. There are a whole variety of cases that Immigration Judges have to deal with, and the issue at base is simply we need more Immigration Judges, and thats why that request is in the budget. Thank you. In that process did we provide any kind of training or assistance to those who are noncitizens in terms of having them understand the process of our judicial system so that theyre properly handled . And do we have hang considerations when theyre being worked with . Or going through the process so that they understand their rights and the things that are going on . I know that we have tried to make efforts to deal with the language issues that exist for people who find themselves in our immigration system. It is something that we have tried to focus attention to, and resources on. You cannot have a meaningful process unless somebody understands what it is they are what they are in the middle of. So weve had to try to increase our language capability, and that is also something that is that is costly because were dealing with, you know, predominantly maybe one or two languages but the reality we deal with a variety of language capabilities that we have to have. My sense about your stance on due process is that you want to do the best that you can. And thats costly, and im not sure that you get all the resources you need. Perhaps we can talk more about that later. On the rape kits, i understand there is about 400,000 to 500,000 kits sitting in the Evidence Room waiting to be processed. We have some sunding thats been set aside so that we can ask the fbi to be able to consider training local Law Enforcement agencies so that they can proceed and move on the backlog. And i understand that theres a constriction there, where the fbi requires all these tests to be certified. I think its called through codis. Isnt there a way that we can fund a process where local Law Enforcement can be trained, and then the kits can be uploaded to codis and be certified so that we can, one address the backlog, two, be more efficient, so that arrestees and victims can have their day in court . Yeah, we want to make sure that the information is ultimately we want to make sure that the tests are done in an appropriate way so that we can feel certain, we can feel secure that the information is ultimately put in to the National System is, in fact, good. That they are that we can run hits, see if we can hits against the information thats contained in the National System. The fbi certainly helps with training. The fbi has eliminated, i think, virtually eliminated, not totally, the backlog that we have on the federal side. There still is a backlog that comes to our state and local partners that we have to try to address. We want to do it in such a way that we get good, scientifically reliable tests that are done so that once they become a part of the larger database, we feel confident that the tests that are run against it will stand up, for instance, in court. And so that people are identified appropriately, cases can be won, convictions can be sustained on appeal. Because it seems to me that without that evidence, through the fbi, you cant do your job. To continue or the d. A. Cannot do the job to prosecute. And so it seems like at least we should have some sort of Pilot Program in this country where we can promote some way to make it more efficient, and spread that responsibility. It doesnt seem to me that the application of the rape kit is going to be that complicated. And certify in it maybe some training, but doesnt seem to me that would be that complicated, either. And so, i like to see if we cant Work Together on a Pilot Program that we put in to the process, and see whether we can address this very important aspect of the backlog. Because it is about speedy trials and making sure that the evidence doesnt get stale on the way. So hopefully we can Work Together and move this forward, and i believe that the chairman is also very interested in this kind of efficiency. We look forward to working with you in the creation of such a such an effort. Because there have to be ways in which we can be efficient, be creative, and at the same time be rigorous in making sure that the tests that are done are scientifically secure and will be evidentially sound and there have to be ways in which we can do that. And so, as we look at this backlog, we will try to make available the resources of the federal government to assist our state and local partners, and maybe through some Pilot Program, as youve suggested, we can do that. Mr. Chairman, the last comment would be if were successful in this, in the move forward, i suspect that youre going to need more help in terms of prosecution. Because the other half, once its determined, then the other half is going to be expensive, too, so understanding that we may have to think about how we cover that cost. Well, you raise a good point, sir. And that is one thing that i think we always try to think about as we make our budget proposals. We have to look at this comprehensive. Because the possibility exists that we could create substantial numbers of new cases. If we were to be successful in reducing the backlog which is a good thing. We want to have the capacity to process these cases, to try these cases. Which are at this point going to be mainly at the state and local level. And so that means that i think we probably want to have the ability through our grantmaking perhaps, to support those efforts. But we have to view this comprehensively. We cant simply fix one part of the system because it will have an impact on other parts of the system. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You could take some of the settlement money that was discussed and use it, and i think mr. Honda has put mr. Amodei . Thanks, mr. Chairman. General i represent most of nevada that does not include las vegas. And i want to sensitize you to the things thats been going on in the department of justice since the bush administration. And that is what i call discrimination against resort cities. There is presently pardon me . Discrimination against resort cities. There is presently in doj administrative guidance, not regulation, not a statute, stay away from places like, and it names a few places in my state and other states, for conferences, trainings, meetings, stuff like that. Now i understand with other agencies the sensitivity over the last few years, when people go to places, and pay for dance lessons, and exorbitant food costs and all that other sort of stuff, which is a bad thing. But i also know that, for instance, and im sure this plays out in other areas, that one of the primary factors in deciding where to have a training or a conference or a meeting should be value to the taxpayer. Youve testified here today, talking about scarce federal resources, and i want to sensitize you to some instances because there are a couple of organizations that are actually in reno, National Judicial college. Doj is involved with funding for training for judges in various areas. National council of family and Juvenile Court judges. Both happen to be located in reno, nevada. Have been for a long time. Dont know why they picked there. But its a long time ago before you or i were hanging out here on a regular basis. That have experienced, since the bush administration, guidance in doj add minimum policies that says you must avoid these locations. And as recently as two weeks ago, got a call from somebody who said, whos in the resort industry, we cant hold our meeting or our conference or our training in your facility because it happens to have a fasano attached. And so, my sensitivity lesson here, if i could is, is i sit here and look at this stuff and its like, listen, i expect that when we talk about, especially in an appropriations context, scarce federal resources, department of justice doing more with less, all that, that one of the primary drivers would be how much does it cost to go there . Because in many instances where these things have been canceled, and a lot of them have been doj cancellations, small, this is not the American Legion convention. Its 70, 100 folks. Theyve been canceled within a couple weeks, so youve got the airline costs, theyve been moved to a venue where rooms are triple the cost. And also, im not a convention person, but you know the price of a gallon of coffee and all that stuff . Where its like, under the guise of avoiding an appearance of, we did it in a casino, oh, my god, that the cost went up triple. To what . I think theyre capable of not using taxpayer money to gamble. I think they can figure out that they dont need to be paying for dance lessons or whatever they have. A ought to be capable of being able to make a decision based on whats the best value for the taxpayer. Because i dont see doj guidance that says, and i dont expect to see it, and i hope i wouldnt see it, that says hey by the way were not doing any more meetings, conferences or trainings in states that have legalized marijuana. Whats that got to do with value to theee taxpayer . Or states where, you know, some members have talked about, you know, unacceptable, civil rights backlog, or whatever. Where its like were not coming to your town because we dont like the whatever. Hopefully decisions are made on the best value of the taxpayer and there happens to be a place in nevada or oklahoma or wherever that if somebody says how come youre there, you can say because guess what rooms are 80 bucks a night, they got the best deal, it was the best price, and by the way, were not using taxpayer money to you know. Anywhere you go has got a bar in it. I mean are we talking about we cant go to your venue because theres you kind of get the gist. So in sensitizing that to you i would like to be able to provide you the guidance thats been in doj since before you arived and have a point of contact to work to say, listen, i want to make your management decisions for you. But when i see a discrimination thats been pretty ongoing in the 30ments ive been here, numerous cancellations, and not just doj but you guys are the ones that have it in writing that id like the opportunity to work with you.