[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 8, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-070 WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho ERIC SWALWELL, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TED LIEU, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
RON DeSANTIS, Florida PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KEN BUCK, Colorado BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman
JIM SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama TED LIEU, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
C O N T E N T S
----------
June 8, 2017
Opening Statements
Page
The Honorable Louie Gohmert, Texas, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations; Committee on the Judiciary**................... 3
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 5
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 6
Witnesses
Mr. Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Grant Programs, Department of Justice
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member,
Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the
Committee and can be accessed on the committee repository at:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08/20170608/106070/HHRG-115-JU08-
20170608-SD002.pdf
OVERSIGHT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2017
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert
[vice chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gohmert, Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner,
Chabot, Ratcliffe, Roby, Johnson of Louisiana, Jackson Lee,
Conyers, Jeffries, and Lieu.
Staff Present: Margaret Barr, Counsel; Stephanie Gadbois,
Counsel; Scott Johnson, Clerk, and Joe Graupensperger, Minority
Counsel.
Mr. Gohmert. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland
security, and Investigations will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the
subcommittee at any time. We welcome you to today's hearing.
This is the hearing that will not be disappointing to all
of the country. This is the hearing that has not been overhyped
and we expect to get some substance out today, Mr. Hanson. So,
we are actually looking forward to this. This is entitled
Oversight of the Department of Justice Grant Programs. And I
recognize myself for an opening statement.
Thank you to all of those in attendance to today's hearing,
as well as our distinguished witness, Mr. Alan Hanson,
testifying on behalf of the Department of Justice. This
morning's hearing is the fourth in a series of hearings held by
this committee, examining Department of Justice components,
programs, and activities. The ultimate goal of these hearings
is to reform and reauthorize, in some cases authorize for the
very first time, important components of the Department of
Justice.
Grants administered by the DOJ help communities across the
United States fight crime, address domestic violence and sexual
assault, and provide their officers with the tools and skills
they need to do their job. Approximately $2 billion is
appropriated by Congress each year to fund DOJ State and local
law enforcement activities. As with any government service,
Congress must periodically review these grants to ensure they
are working as intended and use taxpayer dollars wisely and
efficiently.
Today, this subcommittee will examine DOJ grant programs
administered by the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of
Violence Against Women, and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services.
The Office of Justice Programs, or OJP, administers grants
that provide leadership support to Federal, State, local, and
tribal justice systems by sharing the latest knowledge and
practices with these agencies and communities. Grants
administered address areas of need and research statistics, law
enforcement assistance at the State and local level, and
support for juvenile justice programs. The Office for Victims
of Crime, which is tasked with administering the Crimes Victim
Fund, is also a part of OJP.
The Office of Violence Against Women administers programs
authorized by the Violence Against Women Act. Approximately
twenty five grant programs are authorized by that legislation
with the goal of strengthening services to victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault while holding offenders
accountable.
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS
Office, provides information and grant resources to State,
local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement agencies
throughout the Nation.
Some of the work supported by the COPS Office grants
include developing innovative crime-fighting and policing
strategies, providing training and technical assistance to both
law enforcement and community members, and assisting in the
hiring of community policing professionals.
During my time as judge, I have worked with thousands of
police officials with a variety of background and experience.
The overwhelming majority of them embrace the idea of building
good relationships in high crime communities to address the
underlying conditions that contribute to the crimes.
Two programs worthy of note include Anti-Heroin Task Force,
the AHTF program, and the COPS Anti-Gang Initiative. The Nation
is facing an epidemic amount of opioid and drug abuse,
including heroin, the way it has come back, that has been
indiscriminate in its effect and devastation. Americans from
all walks of life and social status have been directly affected
by the epidemic, whether personally became addicted or had
friends or family members who have lost their lives.
The Anti-Heroin Task Force has worked to advance public
safety by getting these toxic drugs off our streets and out of
our communities. Anti-Gang Initiative works hand in hand with
these efforts by prosecuting the gangs that pedal these drugs.
While many of these grant programs help create a positive
impact in our communities on a daily basis, not all of the
DOJ's spending is as efficient as it should be.
Recent GAO investigations have targeted the mismanagement
of Federal resources and identified multiple programs that
include duplication and overlap of these DOJ grant programs.
For example, in 2012, GAO reviewed all 253 grant award
announcements that OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office published on
their websites for fiscal year 2010 and identified instances of
overlap across the components.
When GAO participated in the Judiciary Committee's DOJ
oversight hearing March 21st of this year, Director Maurer
testified the DOJ had implemented most of GAO's recommendations
to improve grant administration and management. However, a
cursory review of the long list of programs currently being
administered by DOJ suggests that more streamlining is likely
warranted. DOJ budget requests a $6 million increase to support
the grants management system 2.0 initiative. So, we are
interested in hearing about potential improvements of
efficiency, transparency of DOJs grant making sections.
President Trump has made clear that reducing violent crime
in our communities is a top priority for his administration.
Attorney General Sessions has already taken important steps
toward reaching that goal. It is contended DOJ grant programs
are an important tool in fighting crime. If so, it is vital
they work as efficiently as possible. And with that in mind, I
am looking forward to hearing the testimony today. The chair
now recognizes the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee,
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, for an opening statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the chairman. Good morning.
As well as thank the witness, Mr. Hanson, for your service to
the Nation, and also let me pleasantly recognize the ranking
member of the full committee, recognize the chairman of the
full committee, and appreciate that the ranking member will be
in place for me.
And I thank him for his extended courtesies because I have
a conflicting hearing. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have many
opportunities to work together on this committee, and we have
done so over the years. And I am delighted that you have
mentioned, certainly, some of the issues that we all have
concern with.
And I think we do have concern with the efficient operation
of the Department of Justice that I have always called the
anchor and the source of assistance for the vulnerable, but
also for upholding the law of the land and protecting the
American citizens. But then, when they need justice and they
need fairness and relief from those who would undermine them,
the Justice Department is there for them in a myriad of ways.
Each of us on this panel, regardless of party, are
committed to eliminating wasteful spending, unnecessary
duplication in funding pursuant to Federal grant programs.
However, as I indicated, there are many programs that may have
the perception as such, but are vital to many constituents
across the Nation. Given that the Department administers grants
that award recipients with $5 billion per year without
exception, accountability is paramount to ensure the grants are
not being used for fraudulent purposes. That is why we have
auditing requirements and reviews by the Office of the
Inspector General. And as acting assistant attorney general of
the OJP, it is Mr. Hanson's responsibility to oversee
compliance with these goals. I assume you work hard every day.
As we consider today the findings of the DOJ's OIG with
respect to various Justice Department grant programs, there are
several factors we should keep in mind.
First of all, though I am disappointed to learn that OJP's
Tribal Justice System Infrastructure failed to meet various
auditing standards due to deficiencies between OJP and BJA,
resulting in significant waste, I am heartened that it has
undertaken proposed remedial actions to address these findings.
That program is well-needed and is often heard by our Native
American friends of the status that they hold and the belief
that they do not hold the same respect and dignity of all other
Americans.
Specifically, OJP has agreed with all of OIG's 12
recommendations made in its auditing. Identifying these
deficiencies and detecting fraud, we hope that we will be
moving forward.
Second, the recent semi-annual report to Congress indicates
that OIG audited additional programs, such as D.C.'s Office of
Victim Services and Justice Grants and Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma,
which support investigation and prosecution of child sexual
abuse. OIG did not identify any significant concerns, and we
hope these programs are on schedule. Several other programs
fell into these criteria, and therefore, we hope that many of
these grant programs that are vital to the success of the
criminal justice system do, in fact, work, are effective, and I
would like to make sure that they are in place.
Let's take, for example, Houston. I am pleased that my
constituents and those of Ranking Member Conyers were the first
to be awarded the National Institute of Justice research grants
to address untested Sexual assault kits. SAK, also known as
rape kits, used in Texas, received $176,000 in fiscal year
2010, which remained in place for a number of years.
These are vital grants to be able to stop the terrible
results of untested rape kits and leaving many women across
America without justice. Those rape kits recognize and
represent criminal justice. Therefore, it is critical that we
examine cautiously the beneficial impact these grant programs
have on the lives of the American people and the adverse effect
that it will trigger.
We arbitrarily cut much-needed programs due to
deficiencies. Although OIG did not find evidence of endemic
fraud or rampant non-compliance across the spectrum, 29 percent
cut is proposed in the President's new budget for the Office of
Justice Programs. And the vast majority of the recipients of
grants administered through the Office of Justice Programs,
such as the Bureau of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency, just to name a few.
And, of course, the essential grants are administered
through the Office of Violence Against Women. These are needed.
Mr. Hanson, it was also indicated in your testimony, and we
agree that the Nation's overall rate of violent crime remains
historically low. However, the fiscal year 2018 budget release
shows a substantial increase for prosecution and support for
robust law enforcement.
Finally, I must remind my colleagues, that efforts to
ensure that grant recipients are accountable stewards of
taxpayer subsidy should not be used to eliminate these crucial
programs. Now, I believe that we are helping so many different
people across the Nation, and I want us to continue to be in
this August room where justice is rendered.
This has been a tumultuous couple of months. This is a
justice committee, and I would hope that, as we proceed with a
number of hearings and investigations that are proceeding in
the United States Senate and in the House, that we would find
it upon ourselves that there would be a courageous effort to
begin to assess what kind of end route we should be making on
any number of questions from public trust to use of power to
the issues that have gathered around the question of
obstruction of justice.
I think that we are courageous Republicans and Democrats to
do the right thing for the American people. And I hope that we
will do the right thing for the American people. It is time
that we begin an inquiry on all of these issues that are
involving the executive and administration. With that, I yield
back.
Mr. Gohmert. At this time, the chair will now recognize the
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia, for
his opening statement.
Chairman Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This
hearing is the fourth hearing in the Judiciary Committee's
series of hearings to review Department of Justice components,
programs, and activities and identify matters at the Department
of Justice that are in need of reform and reauthorization. It
is my hope that this hearing also underscores the importance of
having distinct and detailed authority in place for each DOJ
grant program funded by Congress.
Congress appropriates roughly $2 billion annually to the
Department of Justice for its grant programs. In addition, in
recent years, DOJ has administered an additional $2 to $3
billion annually in grant funding through the Crime Victims
Fund. The valuable Crime Victims Fund resources are available
to provide victim compensation assistance and other services
that improve community's responsiveness to the needs of
victims.
Many of DOJ's grant programs support critical efforts to
prevent, investigate, and prosecute crime. For example, funding
Congress provides for economic, high technology, and white-
collar crime prevention grants has helped the National White
Collar Crime Center in Richmond, Virginia deliver training in
computer forensics, cyber, and financial crime investigations,
and intelligence analysis to law enforcement agencies to all 50
States. Such efforts provide critical national leadership and
strengthen the Nation's law enforcement networks as a whole.
Another success story is the funding Congress has provided
for regional information sharing activities like the RISS
program. RISS offers secure information sharing and
communications capabilities, analytical and investigative
support services, and event de-confliction services to enhance
officer safety.
It supports efforts to defeat organized and violent crime,
drug activity, violent extremism, human trafficking, and other
national scourges across jurisdictions and regions. While there
are many Federal programs with laudable goals, the truth is
that the Federal government simply cannot sustain its current
path of deficit spending. As such, Congress must take tough
decisions among priorities at all agencies.
Just 7 years ago, Congress appropriated 50 percent more
funding for DOJ grants than it did in the fiscal year 2017
omnibus appropriations bill enacted in early May of this year.
In order to make the necessary priorities, we must have a full
picture of all the grant spending. Complicating the picture for
DOJ grants is a lack of specific authorization for much of the
grant funding. Of the approximately 90 distinct appropriations
for grant programs in fiscal year 2017, roughly 70 percent are
not currently authorized by the Judiciary Committee.
Of those, approximately 42 percent have never been
authorized by the Judiciary Committee. It is imperative that
Congress be apprised of the fundamental parameters of these
programs. We need to learn who is eligible, what the grant
awards look like, what percentage of appropriated funding is
actually distributed to grantees, and what DOJ permits the
funds to be spent on.
Last but not least, we need to understand the purpose of
these unauthorized programs, determine whether they are
achieving the established goals, and assess whether the
Department's goals align with the Judiciary Committee's
priorities. Once the committee evaluates these programs, I
intend to oversee the advancement of congressional authority
for the most worthy programs.
This hearing may also review the use of the Crime Victims
Fund. The Crime Victims Fund was established in 1984 by the
Victims of Crime Act, also known as VOCA, to provide funding
for State victim compensation and assistance programs. The
Crime Victims Fund does not receive appropriated funding.
Rather, deposits to the Crime Victims Fund come from a number
of sources, including criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds,
penalties, and special assessments. For fiscal year 2018, $610
million, more than 30 percent of the nearly $2 billion allotted
under DOJ's budget submission for discretionary grants, is
proposed to be supported by a transfer of mandatory budget
authority from the Crime Victims Fund. I look forward to
hearing DOJ's justification for this request, which is the
continuation of an effort that began under the past
administration.
In the course of the Judiciary Committee's comprehensive
review of DOJ programs and components, it will be appropriate
to consider whether the Crime Victims Fund's annual allocation
formula should be updated. In the meantime, I will expect DOJ
to consult with the Appropriations Committees on when and if it
is ever appropriate to subvert the Crime Victims Fund
allocation formula in order to make up for discretionary
appropriation shortfalls. I thank all of you for joining us
today. I especially thank Mr. Hanson, and I look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Gohmert. Thanks, Chairman. At this time, the chair
recognizes Judiciary Committee ranking member and recognize you
to give an opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Judge Chairman, and to our chairman
of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte; it is a pleasure for us
to come here today to listen to the acting assistant attorney
general, Mr. Alan Hanson, of the Office of Justice Programs. We
welcome you to this discussion today, and we want to examine
the grant programs administered by the Department of Justice.
Certainly, it is appropriate that we conduct regular
oversight of the various programs, their administration, and
their implementation, both because of the amount of funding
involved and because of the important role they play in helping
to make us all safer from crime.
In total, the Department administers grants that award more
than $5 billion per year. These grants are critical to the
ability of recipients, including State, local, and tribal
governments, to engage in the full range of activities
necessary to prevent crime and to investigate crimes that do
take place and to hold offenders accountable and to reduce
recidivism and, most importantly, prepare ex-offenders for
reentry into their communities after they have served their
sentences.
Grant funding also helps provide some measure of assistance
to crime victims who need and deserve help after being harmed.
I will mention just a few of these programs to illustrate the
range of their impact.
Grant funding under the Violence Against Women Act
established in 1994 has been critical to improving our Nation's
response to intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and
stalking. Then there is the COPS Hiring Program also
established in 1994, which has helped over 13,000 State, local,
and tribal law enforcement agencies hire over 129 police
officers and deputy sheriffs.
In my district in Michigan, the Department's grants include
funding from the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, and they have
helped Detroit address its backlog of untested sexual assault
kits and match samples with offenders whose DNA is contained in
the FBI's database. The Second Chance Act, a bipartisan program
enacted more than a decade ago, has helped State and local
governments focus resources on programs that have been proven
to reduce recidivism and make us safer by helping ex-offenders
successfully reintegrate into society after incarceration, most
important. In fact, just today, the Justice Center of the
Council of State Governments is issuing a report entitled
``Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver Results.'' And I ask
unanimous consent that this report be entered into the hearing
record.
[This material is available at the Committee and can be
accessed on the committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/JU/JU08/20170608/106070/HHRG-115-JU08-20170608-
SD002.pdf]
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. The report highlights the results
in seven States in which recidivism has decreased according to
several different measures. These States, including my State of
Michigan, have all received significant Second Chance Act
funding. Clearly, this program works, and we must continue to
support it.
And just last year, this committee worked in a bipartisan
manner to enact the comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act
programs that will target funding to help prevent and address
our heroin and opioid drug crisis.
Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues that are here, our State,
local, and tribal governments need our help. And our work to
give it to them has been successful. For more than 25 years,
the tide of crime and violence has receded. While yearly
statistics can vary and some cities may not always experience
the same success as the national trend during a given period of
time, overall, crime is about half of what it was at its peak
in 1991.
Violent crime has plummeted by 51 percent. And property
crime has fallen by 43 percent, and homicides are down 54
percent. Providing an array of grants, some that are more
general in scope and others that are more focused on particular
techniques or problems, has been critical to a multifaceted,
successful strategy to fight crime.
And so, that is why we conduct oversight here today. Going
forward, we have the opportunity to both maintain and improve
our grant programs. And I look forward to the continued
success. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back if there
is any time remaining.
Mr. Gohmert. I thank the ranking member. At this time, we
will begin by swearing in our witness. So, if you would, Mr.
Hanson, please rise.
Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
You may be seated. Let the record reflect the witness
responded in the affirmative.
Our witness, Mr. Alan Hanson, who currently serves as the
acting assistant attorney general for the Department of
Justice's Office of Justice Programs. Prior to the Department
of Justice, Mr. Hanson worked in a variety of roles on Capitol
Hill. Most recently, Mr. Hanson worked for Senator Richard
Shelby, where he served as general counsel and chief of staff.
Mr. Hanson also gained congressional policy and political
experience in his previous roles as a legislative director for
not only Senator Shelby, but Senator Jeff Sessions, a name that
rings a bell, and Congresswoman Anne Northrup.
Mr. Hanson received a bachelor's degree from Vanderbilt
University, part of the Southeastern Conference, and earned his
J.D. degree from Georgetown University.
The witness' statement will be entered into the record in
its entirety. We just ask that the witness summarizes his
testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that
time, there is a light in front of you. And with 1 minute to
go, it moves to yellow to alert you there is a minute left. And
when the light turns red, that is the indication that the time
is expired.
I now recognize our first and only witness, Mr. Hanson. I
am going to have to step out for a moment, and Mr. Johnson is
going to temporarily chair. But I have reviewed your written
statement, and I look forward to hearing from you further. Mr.
Hanson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALAN HANSON, ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Congressman Gohmert. Thank you to
Ranking Member Jackson Lee; thank you to Chairman Goodlatte,
and to Ranking Member Conyers, and other members of the
subcommittee for having me here to testify this morning. It is
a privilege to be here to discuss the work of my office, the
Office of Justice Programs, as well as the work of the Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services, and the Office on
Violence Against Women.
Let me say, first of all, I am very pleased to see some of
my former colleagues here today. Before taking my current
position as head of OJP, I spent more than 17 years working for
members of Congress in both the House and the Senate. I fully
appreciate that magnitude of your responsibility, and I share
your commitment to ensuring that federally-funded programs are
well managed and responsive to local needs.
Under the leadership of Attorney General Sessions, the
Department of Justice is working diligently to fulfill its
original core mission, which is to uphold the rule of law and
ensure that justice if administered fairly and effectively. As
you are aware, OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office award a wide range
of grants and cooperative agreements to support local, State,
and tribal law enforcement, criminal and juvenile justice
agencies, and victim service programs. These funds have proven
to be critical to ensuring public safety in America.
But we do much more. We provide training and technical
assistance; we fund research; we develop technology; we gather
statistics; and we distribute information to help justice
system professionals do their jobs better. Using all the
resources Congress has given us, we are working hard to reduce
crime and violence and protect our communities.
Empowered by an executive order from President Trump, the
Attorney General established a task force on crime reduction
and public safety to address the law and order challenges
facing our country. Each of the Department's grant-making
offices is playing a key role.
Later this month, under the auspices of this task force, we
will host a National Crime Reduction Summit where we bring in
law enforcement experts, victim assistance organizations,
community groups, and researchers who share information about
local crime-fighting efforts and to map out strategies for
reducing crime. The President's budget request for fiscal year
2018 offers another clear signal of this administration's
commitment to public safety.
His request includes $70 million for a block grants program
for Project Safe Neighborhoods, which would create Federal,
State, local, and tribal partnerships to reduce gang and gun
crime. Another $5 million would go to a DOJ-wide program
targeting cities with high rates of violence.
We are also working to fight the threat imposed by illicit
drugs, especially opioids. We know the dangers they pose both
to our citizens and to our law enforcement professionals. That
is why the President's budget asks for $20 million for a new,
comprehensive opioid abuse program, another $80 million to
support drug courts and other substance abuse programs. Of
course, the safety of our communities is utterly dependent on
the skill, commitment, and, not least, the well-being of our
law enforcement officers.
These officers put their lives on the line every day. They
deserve to know we have their back. The President has made his
commitment to America's public safety officers very clear. One
of his earliest actions was to sign an executive order
directing the Justice Department to develop a strategy to
reduce violence against law enforcement.
His budget request proposes substantial investments in our
Bulletproof Vest Partnership program and in resilience training
available through our Bauer Initiative. We are also
demonstrating a solid commitment to officer wellness research
and the Body Armor Standards and Testing Program managed by our
National Institute of Justice. The COPS Office is, of course,
central to the Department's officer safety and violent crime
reduction efforts. COPS programs have supported more than
13,000 of the Nation's 18,000 law enforcement agencies. Up to
$27 million under the COPS Hiring Program will be available
this year to help jurisdictions fight violent crime and address
other high-priority local concerns. And $157 million is
proposed in the President's fiscal year 2018 budget for law
enforcement hiring.
Finally, as we deal with the scourge of gun, gang, and drug
violence, we are also fighting to reduce domestic violence,
sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Our Office on
Violence Against Women funds hundreds of law enforcement
officers and prosecutors who enforce protection orders, try
sexual assault cases, and bring perpetrators or these crimes to
justice. And OVW's grant-funded program serves some 650,000
victims every year.
We propose to build on this record of success. The
President's budget request for OVW includes $480 million to
reduce crime, help victims, reach all affected communities, and
promote evidence-based practices. Between the Department's
three grant-making offices, we are helping to lead an
aggressive, preemptive attack on the crime and violence
creeping into too many of our neighborhoods while guarding
against waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
I have given a brief, but I hope compelling, account of the
Justice Department's work to fight crime, serve victims, and
protect our Nation's law enforcement officers. With your
support, we will fight hard to secure an America where
criminals find no haven and law-abiding citizens do not have to
look over their shoulders. This is my pledge to you. Thank you
for inviting me to testify before the subcommittee today. I
will be happy to take any questions you may have.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Hanson, for your
testimony. We will now proceed under the 5 minute rule for
questions, and I will begin by recognizing myself for 5
minutes.
I am really grateful for the information you provided us
today. Your written statement was very helpful. The summary
today is very helpful as well. And I was particularly grateful
for you bringing up efforts that are being taken to prevent
fraud, waste, and abuse through the Department's grant-making
programs. There is a lot of attention being paid to that these
days, and I think it is appropriate and necessary.
And as you have noted, the Department needs to take steps
to increase internal oversight because we have got nearly $10
billion in OJP programs and active grants. So, the first
question I had today is something you mentioned in your
testimony about a thorough pre-award risk analysis that is done
before any grant is awarded. And I imagine that the pre-award
risk analysis goes directly to just the initial grant
recipient. Is that right?
Mr. Hanson. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, is there any pre-award risk
analysis of the sub-recipients of those grants? Because I know
that is a common practice.
Mr. Hanson. Typically, there is not pre-award assessment of
the sub-grantees because it is not always clear who those would
be. However, we do have several measures in place where, of
course, as you pointed out, we do assess the risk they may
pose. We give them quite a bit of training with regard to how
to monitor; we have certain monitoring requirements from them
during the course of their grant project performance. And then,
we do provide our own oversight, depending on what we see on
the ground and through our program managers.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, in your view, is all that
working out pretty well? I mean, is that a sufficient buffer
for abuses at the sub-recipient level, you think?
Mr. Hanson. Sub-recipient grantees are a challenge. I think
we have the structure in place, and a lot of times, it is a
matter of working more closely with our grantees to properly
monitor them. I think those efforts could be enhanced. I think
we are continually learning from, perhaps, past problems and
enhancing our efforts to monitor those more closely. But,
again, misbehavior is often just a lack of appropriate
knowledge or understanding. And really working with the
grantees and to the extent necessary the sub-grantees to make
sure they understand what is expected.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appreciate that. Does the
Office of Justice Programs provide grants for overseas
projects? I think I have read where some of that is going
overseas. And if so, is it possible for us to get a
comprehensive list of all of those?
Mr. Hanson. We will be happy to get you a comprehensive
list in follow up. I can tell you it is very rare. The only
examples I am aware of would be some grants into Mexico and
potentially into Canada. But I would want to look into my
answer to that. We will follow up with you and get you a
comprehensive list.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I could be wrong. I think I read
somewhere about seminars or programs in Bulgaria and maybe
Western Europe. I am a little hazy on it, but that is why I was
asking for the summary. So, that would be helpful.
Mr. Hanson. Absolutely. We would be happy to provide that.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, when those grants or those
funds are being used overseas or sent to programs like that,
how does DOJ ensure that grants are being carried out in
accordance with our law and our values? I mean, is there any
safeguards in place for that that you know of?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, it would be the same safeguards that I had
outlined previously. We closely monitor our grantees. We
require them to monitor their sub-grantees. We have program
managers who oversee the programs who also have our financial
office who provides quite a bit of oversight. We also work very
closely with the Office of the Inspector General and, at times,
with the GAO to monitor those.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right. So, the Department's
conducting these routine reviews of the grant recipient's
finances and progress. You are ensuring that the rigid
parameters of every grant are continuously met. Let's say that
you uncovered a discrepancy or, Heaven forbid, some sort of
intentional fraud or something. At what point would the
Department require a grantee to pay back an award when waste or
fraud or abuse is detected?
Mr. Hanson. That is a potential remedy. We always try to
work with our grantees so that money is not called back or
recaptured. It happens on occasion. It begins, first, with, if
we discover there is a problem, the first thing we do is
consult with our grantee on how to correct those. We will
typically or commonly go ahead and freeze the funds at that
time until we are satisfied that those corrections have been
made. It would be rare, but it has happened, even in my short
time at OJP, where we have had to call back some funding.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am running out of time quickly
here, but just as a follow up to that: are there whistleblower
provisions that apply to all of this? So, if someone is out in
the field, so to speak, and they see waste or fraud or abuse
and they report it, is that part of the program?
Mr. Hanson. It is. Whistleblower protections, certainly,
within the Department and within the office, yes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Got it. Well, I am out of time.
So, I will recognize the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much and thank you for your
testimony. It has been helpful to us, and we want to stay in
contact as we continue to work through what we are drawing out
of the hearings today. With reference to the Community Oriented
Police Services and about police militarization, what is the
status of the interagency working group on lending Federal
military equipment?
Mr. Hanson. As you mentioned, we have a permanent working
group on law enforcement equipment. In the past couple of
years, they made some recommendations that were implemented
under the prior administration. We have heard some level of
concern from stakeholders in that regard, and we have recently
reconvened that permanent working group to sort of reassess and
look at sort of the parameters of what that equipment's desired
to be used for, and what equipment may be proper to supply to
given law enforcement agencies.
Mr. Conyers. Now, does the interagency working group
prescribe policies and practices for State and local law
enforcement use of federally-resourced military weapons and
equipment?
Mr. Hanson. The working group does set policies and
parameters for the appropriate use, yes, Congressman.
Mr. Conyers. And is it operating fairly well or okay? How
would you describe what is happening there?
Mr. Hanson. I think we feel like it is working well.
However, like I said, there have been some stakeholder concerns
expressed in the past couple years. And so, that permanent
working group continues to assess, particularly in light of the
new administration, how best that law enforcement equipment can
be supplied.
Mr. Conyers. Does the interagency working group prohibit
certain federally-resourced military weapons and equipment for
use by State and local law enforcement, if you know?
Mr. Hanson. That is correct. There are certain limitations
on the use of that equipment, yes.
Mr. Conyers. Do any come to mind that you would like us to
know about?
Mr. Hanson. The only one that I remember, because I said it
on the initial part of one meeting, was essentially a tracked
armored vehicle, so essentially a tank. I know there is some
limitations on that. Others, I would have to check and get back
to you.
Mr. Conyers. Well, make the check, and if there is, please
add it to our record.
Mr. Hanson. Be happy to do so.
Mr. Conyers. And finally, what is the status of the
implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act?
Mr. Hanson. DCRA was enacted relatively recently. And now
we have, since the year 2000, been compiling death and custody
statistics through the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics.
However, DCRA has changed the parameters of how that
information is collected, required to be collected from the
States. We have been working on that since the enactment. The
Federal plan for doing so is still being developed. And then,
of course, we will have to work with our partners in the State
to collect that information.
Mr. Conyers. And finally, which office within the Office of
Justice Programs is overseeing DCRA implementation?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, that has been part of the ongoing planning
for compliance with DCRA. However, currently, plans are
pointing to the Bureau of Justice Assistance for doing so.
Mr. Conyers. Finally, how is DCRA implementation being
coordinated with other Department of Justice data collection
efforts around police community encounters, including the FBI
Use-of-Force Database and the Community Oriented Policing
Services, which was formerly in the White House Police Data
Initiative?
Mr. Hanson. As we continue to compile and set forth our
efforts in collecting that data, I do know that we are
leveraging all the statistical resources within the Department.
So, FBI, Bureau of Justice Statistics do that now, and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics is, as of now, expected to head up
that effort.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, Judge,
I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. It is still hard not to call you
Mr. Chairman, you were for so long. But thank you. At this
time, we will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
being here, Mr. Hanson. Just a few questions. First of all, we
obviously see far too many officers killed across the country
in the line of duty every year. What steps is the Department
taking to prioritize the safety of our law enforcement officers
all across the country?
Mr. Hanson. Well, in addition to the executive order that
the President issued very early in his term calling for our
efforts to protect law enforcement, I think those priorities
are reflected in the budget request for fiscal year 2018.
As I also mentioned, the Attorney General has created a
task force of crime reduction. And within that task force,
there is a subcommittee specifically devoted to, as we call it,
back the blue. And that is particularly to protecting and
promoting the safety and wellness of law enforcement officers.
Within the numerous programs that we have within OJP and COPS
and OVW, to a lesser extent, to protect the police, one, in
particular, highlight is the Bauer Initiative.
And that is a five-part program looking at a variety of
areas that we can assist law enforcement officers. Providing
office safety and wellness training, active shooter response
training, de-escalations training and technical assistance,
officer safety and wellness programs to hopefully drive police
fatalities to zero, and also a research and evaluation program.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. As a long time member of this
committee, 20-plus years now, I want to commend the President
on the emphasis that he is putting on keeping our brave men and
women in uniform across the country to be as safe as possible.
It is a very dangerous job. We have had far too many killed
over the years. I have been to far too many of the candlelight
ceremonies here in Washington and also too many funerals back
in my district in the city of Cincinnati over the years, too.
So, I want to commend him for that and urge him to keep his
attention on this issue.
Let me move on to a couple of other things really quickly.
During the last hearing, I had asked about the body-worn
cameras and the pros and cons associated with officers wearing
such devices. What are the eligible uses for grant awards in
support of body-worn cameras?
Mr. Hanson. Within our body-worn camera program, that could
also be funded with Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Program
as well. We provide for, obviously, acquisition of equipment,
so actual body cameras, as well as policies and procedures for
their use, implementation, and technology associated with that.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. When I first came here, again, a
long time ago, President Clinton was in office and he had
pushed the COPS program, which a number of Republicans,
including myself, had taken a look at in general support of,
although we had some concerns.
One of the concerns we had was that it put some cities in
the position where they would hire folks for a couple of years
with Federal dollars. And then, unfortunately the dollars went
away after a couple of years, and the cities could not
necessarily afford to keep them on; people got laid off. Would
you want to comment on that? And have we done anything to
address that issue?
Mr. Hanson. I believe so. I mean, as I am sure you know,
the program is designed such that we do provide Federal
resources for the first few years, with the understanding and
requirement that the local jurisdiction maintains, does not
simply lay off. Obviously, there are challenges, fiscally and
otherwise, in local jurisdictions. And I would not be able to
speak authoritatively, but I do know we try to work with local
jurisdictions to ensure they are complying with the
requirements of the program.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The President has been outspoken on
making sure that our local communities are complying with
Federal law with respect to enforcing our immigration laws, and
it has been a fairly controversial topic in some cities and
States across the country. Would you want to comment on if
communities declare themselves sanctuary cities, what impact
that might have on Federal funding?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, particularly within the Department of
Justice. So, simply declaring that they are a sanctuary
jurisdiction in of itself might trigger suspicion, but it would
not immediately trigger action on our part. In accordance with
the Attorney General's grant funding memo of May 22nd, we are
looking particularly at three grant programs administered
through the Department of Justice. That is the COPS program,
the Byrne JAG Program, as well as Scat Payments, particularly
where we are going to require jurisdictions to certify that
they are in compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 as a condition of
receiving any grant funding under those programs.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. And as my time is wrapping up, let
me just comment on one final thing. The opioid addiction and
deaths as a result has been a tragedy all across the country,
including my State and Cincinnati. And I saw a figure the other
day that said that, back in 1980, I think, there were about
10,000 deaths nationwide due to overdose on drugs. And that has
gone from 10,000 to almost 60,000 last year. Would you want to
comment? And Mr. Chairman, if you will give me an additional 30
seconds, I would greatly appreciate it.
Mr. Gohmert. Without objection.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hanson. That is a priority of this administration and
this Attorney General. Under the comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act, we have created the Opioid Addiction Program.
Significant resources are being devoted in fiscal year 2017 and
requested for fiscal year 2018, in addition to other resources
of well over a total of over $100 million devoted particularly
to addressing that crisis and hopefully creating an environment
where folks either choose not to become addicted to opioids or
assist them in becoming free of that scourge.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
Jeffries, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jeffries. I thank the distinguished chair as well as
the witness for your presence and your testimony here today. I
want to pick up where my distinguished colleague from the great
State of Ohio left off on the sanctuary cities conversation.
Mr. Hanson, I assume you are familiar with President Trump's
executive order entitled ``Enhancing Public Safety in the
Interior of the United States?''
Mr. Hanson. I am.
Mr. Jeffries. And section 9(a) orders the Attorney General
and the secretary to ensure that jurisdictions that willfully
refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373, so-called sanctuary
jurisdictions, are not eligible to receive Federal grants. Is
that right?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, in the previous fiscal year, New York
City, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction, received $4.3 million
in Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding that it could lose
under this order. Is that right?
Mr. Hanson. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And on Friday the 21st, as I believe you just
testified, the Department of Justice sent a letter to New York
City and maybe other cities asking New York City to demonstrate
its compliance with section 1373. Is that right?
Mr. Hanson. That is right. That was April 21. That was a
reminder letter of the requirements to do so, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay, but are you aware that Federal courts
have found that policies that limit or prohibit compliance with
immigration holds and requests for relief do not violate
section 1373?
Mr. Hanson. I am aware of ongoing litigation surrounding
the sanctuary cities issue. I am not sure if I understand that
particular limitation you described.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay, well, let's go through some of the
jurisprudence that exists. According to the United States
district court, northern district of California, in the Stanley
v. City and County of San Francisco case, section 1373 only
prohibits the enactment of certain policies about sharing
immigration status information. It does not command the States
or cities to administer or enforce Federal law. Was that the
holding of that decision?
Mr. Hanson. I will be honest. I did not read the entire
decision, but that is my understanding of it, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay, and the Third Circuit, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, I believe the Virgin Islands, in the Galarza
decision, I believe, held immigration detainers do not and
cannot compel a State and local law enforcement agency to
detain suspected undocumented individuals subject to removal
and courts holding; electing not to respond to them is entirely
in the discretion of local law enforcement. Is that your
understanding of the Third Circuit's decision?
Mr. Hanson. Again, I have not read that opinion, but that
is my understanding.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay, now, are you familiar with the Supreme
Court's case in Arizona v. the United States?
Mr. Hanson. If you mean from a few years back, I am.
Mr. Jeffries. That is correct. And that decision held
nothing in Federal law requires localities to enforce
immigration laws and regulations. Correct?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. Jeffries. And I assume you are familiar with the 10th
Amendment?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, also yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And the 10th Amendment precludes the Federal
Government from coercing State or local governments to use
their resources to enforce Federal laws or regulations like
immigration. Is that correct?
Mr. Hanson. That is certainly a fair interpretation of
that, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And that is a concept known as the anti-
commandeering doctrine, correct?
Mr. Hanson. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And the Supreme Court has continuously upheld
the anti-commandeering doctrine, correct?
Mr. Hanson. I believe that is correct, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. In fact, Justice Scalia, may he rest in
peace, who was, obviously, a conservative--I am a progressive,
but had great respect for his legal mind. When he struck down,
in Prince v. United States, key provisions of the Brady Bill,
stated, ``It is an essential attribute of the States' retained
sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within
their proper sphere and that they should not be,'' his words,
``dragooned''--very creative--``dragooned into administering
Federal law.'' Are you familiar with that decision?
Mr. Hanson. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Chief Justice Roberts, again, conservative, I
am a progressive Democrat, Supreme Court decision in NFIB v.
Sebelius, which struck down a few provisions of the Affordable
Care Act, noted that, ``If you forbid funding conditions that
are so coercive they amount to a gun to the head of the State
or local government and that is inconsistent with Federal law
or the Constitution.'' Correct?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, I recall that ruling.
Mr. Jeffries. And so, I guess, in closing, my time has
expired, I cannot understand why the Department of Justice,
which is the entity that should administer the law, faithfully
execute, as well as the Constitution, can conduct themselves in
this fashion.
Notwithstanding clear judicial precedent from the Article
III branch of the government to the contrary, including
decisions written by some of the greatest conservative, legal
scholars ever to exist in this great Republic. And I would
hope, not that you would listen to the voices of those of us on
this side of the aisle, but listen to those who have
consistently articulated decisions anchored in the valued
precedent of federalism in this great country. I yield back.
Mr. Gohmert. I thank the gentlemen and especially the
shout-out to federalism. At this time, I recognize the
gentlelady for Alabama, Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you very much. Hello, Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Hanson. Hello, Congresswoman. Pleasure.
Mrs. Roby. Good to see you here. Congratulations on your
new position as acting assistant attorney general for the
Office of Justice Programs. So, thank you for being here today.
Two things I wanted to talk about: missing and exploited
children programs. Congress has provided an average of $70
million a year for the past 3 years for these programs. And I
wanted to just hear from you maybe a breakdown of how the
Department of Justice intends or has allocated this funding.
This is something very important to me.
When I joined this committee and this Congress, I made it
clear that I wanted to focus a lot of my energy and attention
to missing and exploited children's programs, as well as human
and sex trafficking issues across the board. We have recently
passed the Global Child Protection Act and some other really
important pieces of legislation that we have worked directly
with DOJ on, so that we can continue to advocate and fight for
the victims of these horrific crimes. And so, if you could just
talk a little bit about that funding and anything you want to
add as it relates to funding in the fiscal year 2018 as well.
Mr. Hanson. Sure. Well, thank you for that question.
Exploitation of children is a very serious issue for all of us
and certainly for our Attorney General. The Department, as you
pointed out, has committed significant resources over the years
and that commitment continues on our fiscal year 2018 budget
request. And a large portion of that funding will go to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for a
variety of programs that it runs to both help children who have
been exploited or abducted in some way and also to prevent
that.
We have a number of other programs looking at internet
crimes against children and other grant programs. So, very
significant funding to help not only, hopefully, prevent those
crimes, but then also assist them if they are victims of them.
I do not have it with me, but a comprehensive breakdown of that
spending, we would be happy to get it to you.
Mrs. Roby. Well, I appreciate that. And please know that
you have very willing partners here. There are horrible abuses
that are taking place not just globally, but right in our own
backyard. And I know you are aware, but even in our State of
Alabama, it has been brought to our attention about the
corridor between Birmingham and Atlanta and what is going on
right there. And I think the more we talk about it, as hard as
it is to talk about these terrible things that are being done
to children, we need to make sure that we are doing our part to
educate others about what is going on right here in our own
country as well.
So, please know that I look forward to continuing to work
with the Department on these issues and looking for
opportunities to combat these horrible crimes.
I want to go back to what the gentleman from Ohio was
talking about with opioid abuse. This, too, has become an
epidemic. It is an epidemic in our country. The more I read and
learn about what is going on, we have to continue to do all
that we can as members of Congress to make sure that the
resources are available. We did so, as you mentioned with the
Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, CARA. But I just wanted
to know the conversations that you are having in the Department
with stakeholders, who those stakeholders might be.
And then, also the issue of pilfering. There was some
grants that were to be made available to deal with this issue
on the locking mechanism of the pills that may be in a cabinet
where a child or anyone would have access to. So, if you could
just maybe expand a little bit on that issue; that would be
great.
Mr. Hanson. Sure. So, as I mentioned to Congressman Chabot,
we are proposing in fiscal year 2018 $20 million or so
particularly to a number of grants. Looking to help local
communities to develop systems, processes, ways of assisting
addicts as well as, of course, a number of other resources with
drug courts, intervention counseling that can be leveraged for
that purpose as well. You talked about the, I think, the secure
pill bottle program. That is something that could be funded. We
do not have a solicitation specific to that, but that is
something that could be funded through one of our co-op grants.
And I suspect we would see some proposals to that effect, and
we will certainly give them very serious consideration.
Mrs. Roby. Sure. And I appreciate that as well. And I mean,
of course, that is just one example amongst many that these
very precious dollars could be used to help combat, again, this
epidemic, this very serious epidemic in our country. Thank you
again for your service. Glad to see you here today, and I yield
back.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you.
Mr. Gohmert. At this time, I will go ahead and recognize
myself for 5 minutes and try not to duplicate anything else
because one of the things we are hoping that is going to be
done by the DOJ is cut out a lot of the duplication that has
occurred over the years. And I, probably more than most,
recognize the difficulties this DOJ will have because of what
has gone on before us.
I have been down on the Texas-Mexico border all hours, many
nights. And our Border Patrol open up and talk a bit in the
middle of the night. And what I have seen over and over in
talking to them is, as was shared one night, I was asked, ``Do
you know what the drug cartels call Homeland Security?'' ``No.
What?'' ``They call us logistics, like the commercial. The drug
cartels say all we have to do is get our future employees
across the border, and then Homeland Security ships them
wherever we want them to go.''
I have been there numerous times when, as the officers go
through their questions, they add a question that many of them
want to know. ``How much did you pay the gangs, the drug
cartels to get here?'' And it was often 5, 6, 7,000-8,000.
``You do not have that money. Where did you come up with that
money?'' And this was usually in Spanish, and I would have
somebody helping me. But the response would be, ``Oh, we got
$1,500, $2,000 from friends in America, $1,000 here and $1,000
there.'' ``Well, what are you doing for the rest of it?''
``They are going to let me work it off when I get to the city
where I am going.''
They had employees paying the drug cartels to let them be
employees for free in cities all over America. So, while we are
spending millions of dollars through DOJ trying to help local
law enforcement, at the same time, we were using Homeland
Security money to ship future criminal agents and some of them
in desperate situations, whether it was sex trafficking or
drugs.
So, it seems like some of the money DOJ is now going to be
spending is going to be having to help communities deal with
what we did to them in recent years. So, let me ask you: can
you tell a little more about the National Summit on Crime
Reduction and Public Safety? How is that going to help these
situations?
Mr. Hanson. Well, the upcoming summit, which is being
conducted in the auspices of the National Crime Reduction Task
Force created by the Attorney General, is going to bring
together a large group of stakeholders, community groups, crime
groups, law enforcement, and prosecutors throughout the
country.
And the idea is to bring them together and talk about
different strategies and things they are doing to combat crime
in their area and, hopefully, sort of share best practices with
each other, so that each jurisdiction and different group can
learn from the other and combine their knowledge and,
hopefully, create strategies that we can disseminate nationally
to fight crime, including the sorts of problems that you have
described.
Mr. Gohmert. And have you worked personally, directly with
any law enforcement in States and local governments?
Mr. Hanson. I have not had occasion to interact with a
number of them. I have not. Of course, I have only been on
board about four and a half months. But I have had the
opportunity to talk to many law enforcement officers, and I can
tell you that what we are hearing is across the board just the
breath of fresh air they feel coming from this Attorney General
and this administration about getting tough on crime in their
jurisdiction and the things they are dealing with.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. And hopefully not shipping any more
people to their locales that they are going to end up having to
deal with.
Mr. Hanson. I can tell you that you have got an Attorney
General that is absolutely committed to ending illegality at
the border and stopping those people there, prosecuting them
there, and then sending them back.
Mr. Gohmert. And I hope you know you do not have to tell
me. I consider Jeff Sessions to be a dear friend and just a
wonderful person. Well, one of the things that Mr. Jeffries has
expressed as a concern, and it is certainly a concern of mine.
I know it was a concern of Senator Jeff Sessions, and I am sure
yourself. We do. We send out money and often over the years it
has been, so we can put strings on it and dictate local
control.
Now, I know Attorney General, I was so pleased that he
ended some of the consent decrees, which appeared, to me, to be
a takeover of local law enforcement by the feds; or as Mark
Levin says, ``federalizing local law enforcement.'' Can you
tell us any more about that working relationship with
communities that have perhaps had problems, consent decree has
been removed? Are we working with them to help them with money
to get their systems up and working appropriately as law
enforcement?
Mr. Hanson. We are. It is our job, particularly in the
grantmaking components of the Department, to get this money to
law enforcement officers and agencies, so they can use it to
reduce crime, promote public safety, and, of course, protect
the well-being and safety of their officers. We always work
with jurisdictions to make sure they are in compliance with
whatever grant conditions may exist. It is not our job to deny
them funding. It is to make sure that they fulfill the
requirements to receive it.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, my time has expired. I am going to see,
did the gentleman from Louisiana or the gentlelady from Alabama
have any further questions? All right.
Then, Mr. Hanson, we do not always get an opportunity to do
this, but you are the sole witness today, and you have had
great questions from both sides of the aisle. Sometimes you do
not completely respond or think of other things that you might
wish to say maybe to expand on comments that were already made.
What would you say is the most important takeaway that this
committee should have from this hearing today?
Mr. Hanson. I just want you to know that we are here to
work with you, our authorizers and Congress, to combat crime,
to promote public safety, and protect our law enforcement
officers. And, as has been pointed out in a number of the
statements today, sometimes there is duplication in programs;
some different programs become outdated and need for
flexibility.
We are here to work with you and to get your thoughts on
the best way forward to, again, pursue those policy priority
areas set out by the A.G. and the President. And I would also
say that there is no need or concern about commandeering local
law enforcement officers. We are here to work with them as a
partner and not to direct them or tell them what to do.
Mr. Gohmert. Anything further from prior answers that you
wish to expand on or you thought of since that you wanted to
add?
Mr. Hanson. Well, I will just add just a little bit to my
exchange with Congressman Jeffries. The way forward on the
sanctuary grant funding determination in accordance with the
Attorney General's memo from May 22nd is just to look at three
grant programs. They were actually identified last year with
regard to 1373 compliance. All jurisdictions were placed on
notice in fiscal year 16 and agreed that compliance with 8
U.S.C. 1373 would be a condition of receiving that grant. And
so, we are simply carrying that policy forward. There is no
attempt to commandeer or otherwise deny grant funding except
that, as a grant condition, jurisdictions must comply with all
applicable Federal laws and are on notice that 8 U.S.C. 1371 is
one of those applicable laws.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. Of course, one of the concerns that
is expressed in local jurisdictions. Yeah, we award this grant
money and people hear the total amount, you know, whether it is
$70 million, whatever it happens to be for a particular
program. And yet, normally, it is not pointed out that salaries
usually come out of that amount at DOJ to implement the money
that goes to the local jurisdictions.
And in a different committee yesterday, we were hearing
from part of the Department of Interior that they were running
about 25 percent as administrative costs. And as I pointed out
to them, if they were in the private sector, they would be
fired and never be allowed to touch money again. But being they
are in the government, 25 percent may be deemed not that
unreasonable; I think it is. But, what do you see the
Department of Justice doing to minimize the amount of money
necessary to pay for salaries and administrative costs at DOJ,
so that more can go to the locales that actually need it?
Mr. Hanson. It is a priority of ours to concentrate the
resources Congress makes available to us to the State and local
law enforcement agencies who are our partners. As such, we try
to minimize the overhead, for lack of a better term, that is
taken out of us. We do not receive at OJP any direct
appropriation for management or administration.
Therefore, we do have to take the funding salaries and
other costs out of the grants. However, we consistently keep
that below 8 percent. And I believe we proposed for fiscal year
2018 about 7.7 that is drawn across the board from most, but
not all of the grant programs. So, not even all the programs we
administer to we take that 7.7 percent drawdown from them.
Mr. Gohmert. Our hearing is basically coming to a
conclusion. But I wanted to take a point of personal privilege
and point out that I do not know of anybody else in our
committee during the years that President Bush was in office
and the person he chose as the Director of the FBI, Robert
Mueller, was the FBI Director. But I had numerous exchanges
with Director Mueller. He had his 5-year up-or-out program.
For most people that have dealt with Federal law
enforcement, they know from a local standpoint that it normally
takes 5 years for a State and local law enforcement group to
feel comfortable with a Federal agent. As they come in or they
come in and they are in a special agent in charge supervisory
position, often the feeling is, ``Okay, is this going to be one
of those guys that takes all our work and runs and does the
press conference? Or are they actually going to be a partner?''
Five years, you know what you have got. You know you have
got partners. And we had incredible, experienced FBI agents all
over the country doing phenomenal work. In his 5-year up-or-out
program, when you are a supervisor for 5 years, you either got
to get out or come to Washington. And so, many of them thought,
``I am not coming to Washington and being a yes-man, you know,
a minion. I would rather stay here. I can make more money. I
wish I could stay in the FBI and continue to work, even though
a lesser salary.''
And as, I think the Wall Street Journal pointed out, we
lost thousands and thousands of years of experience in the FBI.
I felt like Director Mueller basically gutted the FBI of so
much experience. And if you are looking for a bunch of yes-men,
then the less experienced the better.
But I would just encourage you and our Attorney General,
you know, use those assets. Let's build it back from what
Director Mueller brought it down to. We got a lot of work to
do. And I am grateful for the people that are still there with
experience, but it is going to make your job harder. So, I
appreciate your being here today. I know it is not fun
testifying except for the bonus check you get for coming.
And not everybody in government appreciates sarcasm, but
the witness is not receiving any remuneration for testifying.
But without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witness or
additional materials for the record. Hearing nothing further,
our meeting is adjourned. Thank you, Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you.
[all]