[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LUXURY JETS AND EMPTY PRISONS: WASTEFUL AND DUPLICATIVE SPENDING AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 10, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-314 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio JUDY CHU, California
TED POE, Texas TED DEUTCH, Florida
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
MARK AMODEI, Nevada SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho JOE GARCIA, Florida
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama Virginia
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 10, 2013
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations................................................. 1
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations................................................. 2
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 4
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 5
WITNESSES
The Honorable Tom A. Coburn, M.D., a U.S. Senator from the State
of Oklahoma
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Lee J. Lofthus, Assistant Attorney General for Administration,
U.S. Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 41
David C. Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
Government Accountability Office
Oral Testimony................................................. 52
Prepared Statement............................................. 54
Thomas A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste
Oral Testimony................................................. 71
Prepared Statement............................................. 74
Richard W. Stanek, President, Major County Sheriff's Association
(MCSA)
Oral Testimony................................................. 82
Prepared Statement............................................. 85
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Tom A. Coburn, M.D., a U.S.
Senator from the State of Oklahoma............................. 9
LUXURY JETS AND EMPTY PRISONS: WASTEFUL AND DUPLICATIVE SPENDING AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Gohmert,
Coble, Bachus, Forbes, Franks, Gowdy, Labrador, Scott, Conyers,
and Richmond.
Staff present: (Majority) Sarah Allen, Counsel; Allison
Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Alicia Church,
Clerk; and (Minority) Ron LeGrand, Counsel.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement.
Like all American families, the Federal Government has been
forced to make cuts. Under sequester, the Justice Department
must cut approximately $1.6 billion from its annual budget of
over $27 billion per year. The Department has had had over a
year to prepare, but rather than doing the difficult work of
identifying and eliminating waste and duplication, the Attorney
General has told Congress that the only way it can meet its
obligation is to furlough tens of thousands of employees.
The furloughs undermine the Department's ability to conduct
its core mission and are happening in the midst of obvious
waste, fraud, and abuse at the Department. For example, one law
enforcement agency spends $116,000 over an 18-month period to
buy high-end sunglasses. Hundreds of Washington bureaucrats
were given government cars to commute to work. The Department
spent $600,000 on event planners for just five conferences.
The Department has almost $100 million in appropriated
funds sitting unused for the Bullet Proof Vest Partnership
Program. The Department has 56 separate grant programs for
victims assistance, 41 programs for forensics, and 33 programs
for juvenile justice. The Department spent $165 million on a
prison in Illinois that now sits empty with four other empty
prisons awaiting activation.
The Attorney General blames sequestration for why five
Federal prison facilities, including the infamous Thompson
prison, sit empty and, therefore, useless. Is the better
question not, why does the Department own five prisons it
cannot afford to operate?
The Department spent $165 million to purchase the Thompson
prison last year while sequestration was already looming. This
money could have been used to prevent furloughing the guards
the Department has at its operating prisons. Luckily, it
appears the Department has now found the $150 million needed to
keep the guards in the prison and the prisoners off the
streets.
Law enforcement agencies also appear to be staffing their
Washington, D.C. headquarters by reassigning agents from other
parts of the country on temporary duty. The Department does
this by using an overly generous definition of ``temporary,''
extending these assignments for up to 18 months. In addition to
their full salaries, these employees receive enormous
additional financial benefits from the taxpayers, including
$224 a day for housing costs and $71 a day for food. This adds
up to at least $8,600 per month per employee above and beyond
their salaries. An employee taking advantage of an 18-month
long temporary assignment can receive a bonus of $154,800 in
food and housing subsidies.
I am very dismayed that the Department would furlough
thousands of employees, including Federal agents in the field,
instead of cutting costs by eliminating temporary duty
assignments at headquarters. And I intend to learn more about
this practice from the Department.
The Justice Department fulfills a critical mission:
enforcing Federal law, defending the interests of the United
States, ensuring public safety against threats, foreign and
domestic, and ensuring the fair and impartial administration of
justice for all Americans. And yet our review of the Justice
Department's recent spending uncovered many examples, such as
the ones I have just mentioned, where the Department is not
being a good steward of taxpayer money.
Government waste, duplicative spending, and inefficient
operations are always cause for concern. This is more true than
ever in light of our current economic environment in which the
country faces a national debt of $16 trillion and growing. We
must identify and reduce unnecessary spending in the Department
of Justice so it can focus on its critical law enforcement and
national security functions. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about how the Department can achieve greater
cost savings in a responsible way.
And it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening
statement, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I welcome this
hearing and discussion about spending in the Department of
Justice and ways of ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being
spent in a manner that is both effective and efficient. Each of
us on this panel, regardless of party, is committed to
eliminating wasteful spending and unnecessary, duplication and
overlap.
I welcome our first witness, our former colleague, Dr.
Coburn, who has been working very hard to find wasteful
spending. Every dollar we spend we find that is wasted can be
reallocated to things that are actually doing some good.
The title would suggest that there are some major issues to
be addressed, and I would note that many of these issues are
already subjects of past and recent GAO and inspector general
audits and reports. I am pleased to see that we will have a GAO
and Department of Justice IG as well as DoJ officials and other
witnesses to shed light on those and explain where progress has
been made and what still needs to be done.
On the issues GAO was asked to investigate concerning the
Department of Justice's use of Department aircraft, the GAO
conducted the audit as requested from March 2012 through
February of this year in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards, and found no improprieties. On
the issue of empty prisons mentioned in this title, I expect
Mr. Lofthus from DoJ to fully enlighten us on this issue.
On other management issues within DoJ, both the GAO and the
Department of Justice IG have issued reports with
recommendations for improvement of administration and
management of grants within DoJ. I look forward to hearing
where DoJ is in addressing these recommendations and learning
from other witnesses on how it might further improve its
process.
I am also looking forward to hearing where DoJ is on
implementing recommendations regarding asset forfeiture
program, an area that, Mr. Chairman, you and I and other
colleagues have asked the GAO to review. The information I have
received indicates that DoJ has been making progress in this
area, but that much still needs to be done to implement the
recommendations.
In this environment of the sequester, we are all challenged
to find ways to reduce spending. Where waste, fraud, and abuse,
and unproductive duplication is found, we must eliminate it and
put in place measures to assure that such practices do not
reappear. However, there is no budget line designated as waste,
fraud, and abuse, or unproductive duplication. And duplication
and overlapping grants do not necessarily equate to duplicate
spending.
Simply suggesting that we cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and
duplication is not the basis for eliminating productive
program. Budget reductions, such as the sequester, will have an
effect on the Department's mission.
Mr. Chairman, I will note that since about the 1980's,
there has been an idea around here that you can cut taxes and
not have an effect on the budget, cut budgets and not have an
effect on agency's ability to get something done. When you cut
an agency's budget 10 percent, they have either got to fire 10
percent of the people or pay all of them 10 percent less. And
that has to have an effect on an agency's ability to fulfill
its missions.
Already the Department of Justice is not prosecuting as
many cases as it could, and certainly has never prosecuted
enough in the areas of consumer identity theft, organized
retail theft, due to the need to prioritize other kinds of
cases.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate our witnesses being with us
today and look forward to being enlightened by their testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the other gentleman from Virginia, the
Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. And I certainly want to welcome Senator
Coburn because we are very interested in his contribution to
this effort to achieve efficiency and reduce waste and
unnecessary spending in our government agencies.
On March 1st of this year, every Federal agency came under
a requirement to reduce its spending across the board. In the
days leading up to this reduction, referred to as the
sequester, Attorney General Eric Holder dramatically warned
Congress and the public that the Justice Department would be
forced to make cuts that would hinder the Department's ability
to fulfill its missions and threaten the safety of all
Americans.
Specifically, Holder claimed in a letter to Congress that
in order for the Justice Department to reduce its budget by the
required amount, which represents approximately a 6 percent
reduction in the Department's more than $27 billion budget, DoJ
would have to cut the equivalent of more than 1,000 of the
Federal agents whose job it is to keep Americans safe from
crime and threats to the homeland. Holder also warned that the
Department would reduce Federal correctional officers by the
equivalent of 1,300 employees, which would, to quote the
Attorney General, ``increase the likelihood of inmate
misconduct, violence, and other risks to correctional workers
and inmates.''
While I recognize that reducing an agency's budget by 6
percent is not necessarily an easy task, I do believe that this
can be done without ominous threats and without hampering
critical government functions. The fact that the Department
recently announced that it was ultimately able to find $150
million in its budget to avoid furloughing correctional
officers, a move that I strongly support, only helps to prove
this point.
After taking a close look at recent spending trends at the
Justice Department, I am very confident that there are many
ways that the Department can tighten its belt by rooting out
waste and redundancy. There are many such examples, but for the
purpose of time, I will highlight just a few of the more
egregious examples that we have found.
Despite clear disapproval from Congress and despite the
fact that the Bureau of Prisons already had four empty Federal
prisons waiting to be activated, last year the Justice
Department spent $165 million to purchase an unused prison in
Illinois. In addition to the initial millions that taxpayers
nationwide paid to the State of Illinois, this unauthorized
purchase continues to cost taxpayers tens of millions of
dollars. It has been estimated that it will cost $6 million a
year to secure the empty prison, and another $70 million before
it is even operational. The enormous amount of money that was
spent and continues to be spent on this fool's errand would
have gone a long way toward addressing the reductions required
by sequestration.
The Illinois prison is just one example of a large,
unnecessary expenditure, and there are many smaller examples
that also quickly add up. Our review of DoJ spending showed
that tax dollars are also used at the Department to pay for
event planners at elaborate conferences, pizza parties, and $12
cups of coffee, and to provide cars for Washington bureaucrats
to simply commute between their homes and the office. This is
not money wisely spent.
I strongly support the mission of the Justice Department
and the fine men and women who are working there who keep this
country safe. However, at a time when our national debt is over
$16 trillion, we simply cannot afford to drink $12 coffees and
purchase prisons when others sit vacant.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today
about how we can root out waste and duplication at the
Department. And I would like to particularly welcome and thank
my former House colleague, the distinguished senator from
Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn. We very much appreciate you making the
trip across the Capitol to share your extensive knowledge on
this subject.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Goodlatte. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes. For how long is Dr. Coburn's visa
on this side of the House valid for?
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, it is dependent on how well behaved he
is while he is over here, right?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Point well taken.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner. This
hearing begins with a recognition of the fact that the prisons,
the Federal prisons, are 14 percent over capacity. It also
begins with a recognition of the fact that maximum security
prisons are 52 percent overcrowded. So I just wanted to begin
my comments with some of the Judiciary Committee 113th Congress
over the top hearing titles. I think this is going to become a
book maybe someday or at least an essay.
Get a load of this: Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform,
hearing on the Obama Administration's Regulatory War on Jobs,
the Economy, and America's Global Competitiveness. Or what
about this: Mismanagement at the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice. Or what about this: Hearing on Luxury
Jets and Empty Prisons: Wasteful and Duplicative Spending at
the Department of Justice. And then we find out with the
preliminary investigation that the ``luxury jets,'' quote/
unquote, referred to in the hearing title are government-owned
aircraft that the Attorney General and the FBI director must
use for travel abroad regardless of the purpose of the trip.
And if it is not official, they have to make reimbursement.
Ladies and gentlemen--well, here is another title: ``Release of
Criminal Detainees by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
Policy or Politics.'' Now, I think this is going down in the
history books.
Now, there is a shortage of prison space. Let us begin with
that and consider that there are other truly constructive
measures to rein in spending, and there is duplication. Some of
it can be explained, some of it can be improved, and that is
the only part of the hearing that I support to have any valid
rationality to reality.
Now, what we need to do is find out what the Department is
doing and how we can help. The fact of the matter is that none
of this has ever been raised before at any Judiciary Committee
or Subcommittee level. And so it is in that sense that I
support the title and the discussion here with just a modest
degree of skepticism. And I, too, welcome the doctor and the
senator to this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
You know, let me say that I think whether the Justice
Department is efficiently using its resources or not is a
constitutional function of oversight. And I am happy that we
are having this hearing, and I am happy that I have been able
to bring to the attention of the public where I think there is
wasteful and duplicative spending, and why the Administration
seems to be hitting hot button items rather than doing its job
and giving the taxpayers their money's worth.
Without objection, other Members' opening statements will
be made part of the record.
And without objection, the Chair will be authorized to
declare recesses during the votes on the House floor.
We have two very distinguished panels today. Our witness on
the first panel is Senator Tom Coburn, M.D., United States
senator representing Oklahoma. He is a Member of the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs. Dr. Coburn serves as the Ranking
Member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Committee and previously was a Member of the Judiciary
Committee.
His priorities in the Senate include reducing wasteful
spending and balancing the budget. He has offered amendments to
eliminate the funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, the Woodstock
Museum in New York, and countless other special interest
earmarks sponsored by Members of both parties. He has also
worked to make government more accountable and transparent. In
2006, he teamed up with then Senator Barack Obama to create
www.usaspending.gov, an online database of all Federal
spending.
Prior to his election to the Senate, he represented
Oklahoma's 2nd congressional district in the House from '95 to
2001. He graduated with an accounting degree from Oklahoma
State and received his medical degree from the Oklahoma Medical
School.
Dr. Coburn, thank you for joining us.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TOM A. COBURN, M.D.,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is great to
see my former colleagues and those that I did not get an
opportunity to serve with. I appreciate the opportunity to come
here.
Regardless of what has been said, the important thing that
has not happened in my years in the Senate is significant
oversight of how we spend money. And we can be critical of
every agency in terms of how they spend money. It is not
necessarily easy. We do not always give them the resources to
manage it properly.
But the real problem for us is us. And I have a written
testimony I will submit, but let me just talk about us for a
minute.
Our tendency to put a parochial benefit into the things we
do in Congress has driven us to lead to all the duplication
that the GAO has identified. Four years ago I went to the GAO
and I went to the Congressional Research Service, and I said I
want to see every program in the Federal Government, and they
told me it was impossible to do it. And even today, only one
agency knows all their programs, only one, and that is the
Department of Education. They actually publish all their
programs.
The second thing that I would note is we have ignored the
enumerated powers of the Constitution. Very well meaning. We
intend to do well. But you mix ignoring the enumerated powers
and then you add a parochial benefit to our individual States
or districts, and you have a formula for disaster in terms of
creating programs that multiply duplicate one another.
So the first report that we got 2 years ago from GAO, and
this was put into the debt limit increase that you all were
kind enough to allow through the House that mandated GAO do
this, and I want to compliment them. They have done a heck of a
great job in terms of looking at the things we as a Congress
directed them to do.
The problem, again I will go back, is us. This is the
second real hearing I know of in the House that actually is
addressing duplication. The first was the Education and
Workforce, and you all passed out the Skills Act, which
consolidated some 39 programs under the jurisdiction of the
Labor Workforce or Education and Workforce and 6 effective job
training programs.
So the problem is us. And what I would say is I did not
vote for the sequester. I think it is dumb. It is like your
wife asking you to go out and weed the flower bed, and you have
set the lawn mower on scalp, and you mow down the flowers, the
bushes, and the weeds in the flower bed. That is what we are
doing right now.
But the problem is not the government agencies. The problem
is us. We have not done effective oversight. We have not
demanded metrics. And too often what we have done is written
programs, especially grants, that have a parochial interest
that totally ignores the enumerated powers. And so when you
look at the $3.9 billion that the Department of Justice
dispensed in 2010 through 11,000 individual grants, not one of
them was risk based. And the assumption of our grant programs,
besides the duplication that is there, is that they should not
be risk based. And when they are not risk based, we are not
going to get much benefit for them, whether we ignore the
enumerated powers or not, whether it is really our role.
The other point I would make is we are not very good in
Washington of actually doing programs that actually work down
at the local government level. Let me give you an example. We
studied all the job training programs in my State. We went
through and we looked at every Federal job training program
that was operating in the State of Oklahoma. We get $189
million a year to operate Federal job training programs.
But we also looked at the State run programs, and here is
what we found. Not one Federal job training program running in
the State of Oklahoma was effective. But every State financed
and run program was highly effective in terms of giving people
a skill that would give them an income. So what are we doing
with $189 million that we could actually do somewhere else that
would actually be effective?
So I would re-emphasize, as you oversight and look at the
Department of Justice grants, you ought to ask what are the
metrics on it, does it duplicate something that is already out
there? Number three, is it really a legitimate role for the
Federal Government?
In my testimony you will find all the duplication, the
waste, the COPS program, for example. Oklahoma City is the
biggest city in Oklahoma. It is booming, very low unemployment
rate, growing, has a lot of the same problems any other city of
the size of a million or 2 million people. But, in fact, they
do not take the COPS program money, except our crime rate
reduction was equal to or below all the cities that did the
COPS program.
So the question is, that is an anecdotal piece of evidence.
But as we look at all the grant programs in the Justice
Department, what we ought to do is say, is there a role for the
Federal Government? Can we effectively do something, and can we
effectively manage it? And if we are going to try to do those
things, are we going to require metrics on those programs to
demonstrate that the dollars that were actually speny did
something?
Behind me are the Department of Justice grant programs, and
what the GAO found--I mean, this is----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, that will be put in
the record hopefully with large enough font so that people can
read it.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Senator Coburn. I have a super large size that I have used
on the Senate floor that is much larger than that, about two
times----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Please give us a copy.
Senator Coburn. Well, we will send the whole board, and you
can pay to reduce it. That is not coming out of my budget.
[Laughter.]
The point I would make is there is no question the
Department of Justice is having trouble managing these grants
effectively. And I think they will admit that. We see the same
institution or city or grant recipient get multiple awards from
different grant programs within the Justice Department for
exactly the same thing.
You know, one easy thing that ought to come out of Congress
is any grant program that has a grant application ought to have
a stipulation that whoever is the grantee affirms that they are
not getting another Federal grant for exactly the same thing
under this grant application. You will save hundreds of
millions of dollars the first year we do that, just by making
them just by making them affirm that they are not getting
another source from another within the Department.
I guess I am out of time.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. We do not filibuster on this side of the
Capitol. [Laughter.]
Senator Coburn. Well, I thank you for the opportunity. I
hope you will take the time to read my statement--it is rather
lengthy, but if you get into duplication, you will find that we
have significant problems, and the problem is us.
[The prepared statement of Senator Coburn follows:]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Senator Coburn. By
tradition when Members testify, there are no questions from the
Committee. So we will let you off.
Senator Coburn. I am happy to take them if you----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, we have got another panel to talk
about that.
Senator Coburn. Got it.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. So we will revoke your visa and send you
back to the other side of the Capitol.
Will the other witnesses please come and take their seats?
I will begin by swearing in the witnesses before
introducing them. If you all would please rise. Raise your
right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Let the record show that all of the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Please be seated.
Also let me say that without objection, all Members'
opening statements will be placed in the record.
Also without objection, all of the witnesses' testimony in
their entirety will be placed in the record.
And now I will introduce the witnesses.
Mr. Lee Lofthus is assistant attorney general for
administration in the Justice Management Division at the
Department of Justice. He is the Department's chief financial
officer and responsible for Department-wide financial
reporting, budget formulation and execution, asset forfeiture
fund for operational support, procurement, and debt management
support. He also oversees the Department's libraries and
records management facilities, human resources planning, and is
the senior ethics official for the Department.
Prior to his appointment, he served as the principal deputy
attorney general and controller for the Justice Management
Division. He has served in a variety of management positions,
overseeing financial operations, financial policy, reporting
and systems, and including as the Department's controller and
deputy chief financial officer from August 2003 to May of '06,
and director of the finance staff in the Justice Management
Division from January of '99 to August of '03.
He received an MBA degree from the American University in
Washington.
The next witness is the Honorable Michael E. Horowitz. Mr.
Horowitz was sworn in as the fourth confirmed inspector on
April 16th, 2012. And in this capacity, he oversees a
nationwide workforce of approximately 450 special agents,
auditors, inspectors, attorneys, and support staff whose
mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and
misconduct in DoJ programs and personnel, and to promote
economy and efficiency in Department operations.
He previously served as the commissioner of the Sentencing
Commission and worked for the Department of Justice in the
Criminal Division at main Justice from 1999 to 2002, first as
deputy assistant AG and then as chief of staff. He received a
bachelor of arts degree from Brandeis and received his law
degree from Harvard.
Our third witness is David Maurer. He is the director of
the U.S. Government Accountability Office on the Homeland
Security and Justice team. He leads the GAO's work in reviewing
DHS and DoJ management issues. His recent work includes reports
and testimonies on DoJ grant management, crowding in the
Federal prison system, Guantanamo Bay detainees, nuclear
smuggling, homeland security research and development, and DHS
management, and immigration.
He previously worked as acting director of the GAO's
natural resource and environmental team where he managed work
assessing U.S. global nuclear detection programs and
enforcement of Federal environmental law.
He began his GAO career in the Detroit regional office in
1990. He received his bachelor's degree from Michigan State,
and then his master's in public policy from the University of
Michigan. He received a master of science in natural resource
strategy through the Industrial College of the Armed Forces at
the National Defense University.
Our fourth witness is Tom Schatz, who is the president of
the Citizens Against Government Waste, and is a lobbying
affiliate of the Council for the Citizens Against Government
Waste. In his capacity as president, Mr. Schatz works to
further the mission of the CAGW to eliminate waste, fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement in government.
According to official OMB and CAGW estimates,
implementation of the CAGW cost cutting and waste cutting
recommendations has helped save the taxpayers $1.3 trillion.
During his 26 years with the CAGW, Mr. Schatz has helped
make the CAGW a leading government watchdog on fiscally
conservative issues like taxes and earmarks according to the
National Journal. He is a regularly featured guest on national
television news programs and local news broadcasts. His
editorials on fiscal policy have appeared in publications
nationwide, including the New York Times and the Wall Street
Journal.
He received his bachelor's degree from the State University
of New York at Binghamton and his law degree from George
Washington University.
Our final witness is Sheriff Richard Stanek, who is the
27th sheriff of Hennepin County, Minnesota's largest. He was
first sworn in on January 1, 2007, and was reelected in 2010.
Sheriff Stanek began a 2-year term as president of the Major
County Sheriff's Association and serves on the board of
directors of the National Sheriffs Association, and co-chairs
the NSA's Homeland Security Committee.
A 29-year veteran of law enforcement, he began his career
in the Minneapolis Police Department and rose to through the
ranks from patrol officer, detective, precinct commander, to
commander of criminal investigations. While a police officer,
he was elected 5 times to the Minnesota House of
Representatives. There he chaired the House Crime Policy and
Finance Committee. In 2003, he was appointed by the governor as
commissioner of public safety and director of homeland
security.
He earned a criminal justice degree from the University of
Minnesota, and a master's in public administration from Hamline
University. He completed training at the National Sheriffs
Institute, the FBI's National Executive Institute, and
Leadership in Counterterrorism, and the U.S. Army War College
National Security Seminar 57th Session.
And remember we have a green, yellow, and red light which
is enforced more properly on people who are not familiar with
unlimited debate like United States senators are. And I will
first recognize Mr. Lofthus.
TESTIMONY OF LEE J. LOFTHUS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lofthus. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Congressman
Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee for the invitation to
discuss our work to reduce spending, find efficiencies, and
save the taxpayer money. The Department of Justice takes these
efforts very seriously, and I appreciate the opportunity to
speak about our work this morning.
Sound financial management is at the core of properly
accounting for taxpayer dollars. In Fiscal Year 2012, the
Department earned an unqualified audit opinion on its
consolidated financial statements for the ninth consecutive
year. I am also pleased that for the sixth consecutive year,
the auditor's report on internal controls over financial
reporting did not identify any material weaknesses at the
Department level. To provide a sustainable base for future
positive audit results, we also continue to implement the new
unified financial management system in order to replace our
most aged systems.
The Department works continuously to identify savings,
efficiencies, cost avoidances, and best practices in order to
best leverage our scarce resources. In response to President
Obama's executive order on promoting efficient spending, in
Fiscal Year 2012 we exceeded our $146 million reduction goal in
the areas of publications, travel, supplies, fleet management,
advisory contracts, and IT devices. Spending in these areas
decreased by $237 million compared to 2010.
We have also taken extensive steps to limit and monitor our
conference spending. Building upon OMB's 2011 conference
policies, we issued detailed new guidance in June 2012 that
places strict controls on conference planning costs,
attendance, food approval, and reporting. This guidance was
most recently supplemented by a January of 2013 policy placing
restrictions on indirect costs billed to the Department.
Our efforts to control conference spending have been
successful. In 2011, we reduced conference expenditures by 28
percent, spending $26 million less than in FY 2010. This past
year in 2012, we further reduced our conference spending by
$7.8 million, another 12 percent reduction.
We are also cognizant of the need to identify programmatic
duplication and overlap. After a review of overlapping drug
enforcement related intelligence capacity, we closed the
National Drug Intelligence Center and moved its needed residual
functions to DEA, an action that will save about $12 million
annually. In another example, we closed the Office of the
Federal Detention Trustee and merged its activities into the
Marshal Service to align detention resources with operations
and reduce administrative costs. Where there other such viable
opportunities, we are willing to pursue them.
In July 2010, the Attorney General established the DoJ SAVE
Council. Comprised of staff across Justice and from disciplines
both in and outside financial management, the SAVE Council
ideas have saved over $120 million through efforts such as
reducing the cost of employee moves, posting asset forfeiture
related notices online rather than in the print media, and an
optimizing our use of the most favorable wireless
communications contracts.
In closing, the DoJ's efforts to improve its operations and
save the taxpayer money are ongoing. We appreciate the work of
the Office of the Inspector General and GAO in highlighting
areas where we can make further improvements.
I am acutely aware of the financial management challenges
we face, particularly now in the face of sequestration. I am
also acutely aware of the need to ensure every dollar the
Department receives is spent wisely. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today and to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lofthus follows:]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Lofthus.
Mr. Horowitz?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Scott,
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today before you about the efforts of my office in
identifying wasteful and inefficient spending at the Justice
Department. Ensuring that taxpayer funds are used wisely has
long been a central focus of the inspector general's work and
our oversight, and that mission is particularly important in
the current budgetary environment.
It was just 1 year ago that I was sworn in as the
Department's inspector general, and my office had undertaken a
number of important reviews during that time. We have issued
more than 70 audits and reports, including a review of the
Department's handling of suspension and debarment, the FBI's
implementation of the sentinel case management system, the U.S.
Marshal Service management of its procurement activities, and
the Executive Office for Immigration Review's management of
immigration cases.
Our Investigations Division handled more than 10,000
complaints, resulting in dozens of arrests and convictions
involving corruption or fraud offenses, and well over 100
additional administrative actions against Department employees.
And we, of course, completed many high profile investigations,
such as our reports on ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, the
improper hiring practices in the Justice Management Division,
the partner attorneys' improper handling of the Clarence Aaron
clemency request, and most recently, the operations of the
Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.
I am particularly proud of having appointed the first ever
whistleblower ombudsperson at the Justice Department's
Inspector General Office, and I am committed to ensuring that
whistleblowers in the Department can step forward and report
fraud, waste, and abuse without fear of reprisal. I have seen
firsthand in just my year in this job the important role that
whistleblowers play in advancing our mission to address
wasteful spending and to improve the Department's operations.
We will continue to do all we can to be responsive to
complaints that we receive and to ensure that any allegations
of retaliation are promptly reviewed and appropriately
resolved.
While this past year has been a remarkably busy time, it is
typical. I have learned of the extraordinary work that the
Office of the Inspector General has produced for years. Over
the past 10 years, we have identified nearly $1 billion in
questioned costs, far more than the inspector general's budget
during that same time period.
In addition, we have identified over $250 million in
taxpayer funds that could have been put to better use by the
Department, and our criminal and administrative investigations
have resulted in more than $100 million in criminal, civil, and
administrative recoveries.
In my written statement, I provide additional details about
four specific areas we believe the Department can achieve
further cost savings and efficiencies: reducing duplication and
improving coordination, optimizing grant and contract
administration, addressing the Department's continually
increasing prison costs, and enforcing the laws against fraud
and financial offenses.
Leading the Department in this climate of budget
constraints will require careful financial management and
significant improvements to existing operations. Focusing only
on isolated operating efficiencies is unlikely to fully address
the significant challenges of moving the Department from an era
of expanding budgets into an era of flat or budget constraints.
It is essential that the Department plot a new course for the
current budgetary environment, one that streamlines the
Department's operations, while simultaneously reevaluating the
most important and fundamental questions about how the
Department is structured and managed.
The Office of the Inspector General looks forward to
continuing its independent oversight of that effort and to work
with the Department and the Congress as part of that effort.
I am pleased to answer any questions that the Committee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz follows:]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
Mr. Maurer?
TESTIMONY OF DAVID C. MAURER, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Maurer. Good morning, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking
Member Scott, and other Members and staff. I am pleased to be
here today to talk about the findings from a variety of our
recent work looking at programs and activities at the
Department of Justice. DoJ's law enforcement, national
security, and criminal justice missions impact taxpayers every
single day, and like other departments, DoJ faces a challenging
budget environment.
When you think of DoJ's budget as a pie, the two biggest
slices by far go to the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons. These
two agencies comprise $15 billion of DoJ's $27 billion budget,
and in recent years, both have received steadily increasing
resources. This reflects the FBI's central role in combatting
terrorism and fighting crime and the continued increase in the
size of the Federal prison population, which, as we reported,
is expected to grow to more than a quarter of a million by
2018. This will lead to a Federal system that contains 45
percent more inmates than it was designed to hold.
Given the current budget environment, it is likely that the
overall size of DoJ's budget will at best remain roughly the
same. But if the two biggest slices are growing, it means even
greater pressure on everything else: grants, U.S. attorneys,
DEA, ATF, and so on. Given this reality, it is especially
important for DoJ to run its programs and activities in the
most effective and efficient manner.
DoJ still has work ahead on that front. Over the past year,
we have issued a series of reports that collectively illustrate
that DoJ can and should do a better job managing its resources
and enhancing program efficiency. Our July 2012 report on DoJ's
grant programs offers several examples. We assessed the extent
of overlap and risk of duplication across more than 250 grant
programs that ultimately led to 11,000 grant awards. We found
sometimes significant overlap. For example, 56 different grant
solicitations managed by six different DoJ offices provided
funding for victim's assistance and related research.
Now, overlapping programs are not necessarily bad if the
Department has good internal coordination and strategic
visibility over the ultimate use of grant funds. Unfortunately,
we found DoJ lacking in those key areas. We also found cases
where DoJ was not aware it had awarded funds to the same
recipient for similar purposes.
The sheer number of different grant programs creates purely
administrative challenges. For example, DoJ has a program to
help local law enforcement agencies cover the cost of bullet
proof vests. We found that this program had accumulated $27
million in unspent expired grant awards, which is roughly equal
to its annual appropriation. We recommended that DoJ de-
obligate these funds so they could be used rather than sit
unused in an account.
DoJ can also improve the efficiency and transparency of its
asset forfeiture fund. Annual revenues from federally-seized
assets grew from $500 million in 2003 to $1.8 billion in 2011.
These funds are not appropriated. It is basically extra money
that DoJ uses for a variety of purposes, such as covering the
cost of program, reimbursing victims, and in some cases for DoJ
programs and activities. For example, last summer, DoJ used
$151 million of forfeited funds to help purchase the Thompson
Correctional Center from the State of Illinois.
Over the past several years, DoJ has annually generated
more revenue from selling seizes assets that it spent. This
means the fund accumulates money which DoJ carries over from 1
year to the next. For example, at the end of of 2010, DoJ
carried over $975 million to start 2011.
Our work found that DoJ should be more transparent in
explaining how it determines how much carryover is needed to
cover planned costs. These calculations typically involve
hundreds of millions of dollars in providing greater clarity
would aid congressional decision making about DoJ's budget.
In conclusion, let me stress one thing. We want DoJ to work
well. We want the Department to get the most out of every
taxpayer dollar that it receives, and I know that is something
the Department is committed to as well. In fact, DoJ concurred
with and is taking action to address every recommendation
mentioned in my written statement. Over the coming months, GAO
will be there to provide objective, nonpartisan oversight of
the Department and report the findings from our work to the
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maurer follows:]1
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schatz?
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A. SCHATZ, PRESIDENT,
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE
Mr. Schatz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Scott, other Members of the Subcommittee. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
This Committee's Subcommittee hearing is a good example of
the type of oversight that every Subcommittee and Committee in
the House should be conducting on a regular basis. As Dr.
Coburn said, the problem is Members of Congress who tend to
look at a problem and create a program rather than looking at a
problem and determining whether or not the program already
exists to solve that same situation. That is how overlap
occurs. The agencies do not create the program. They come from
Congress.
Yesterday, the GAO issued its 3rd annual report on overlap
and duplication. The 2011 and 2012 reports were estimated by
Senators Coburn and Jeff Sessions to include programs that cost
$400 billion annually. Therefore, there is little doubt that
tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars could be saved
through the consolidation or elimination of such programs.
Recommendations to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement are regularly provided by GAO, CBO, the IGs,
President's budget, even the authorizing and appropriations
Committee, as well as outside groups like think tanks, advocacy
groups, and private sector companies. For example, since 1993,
Citizens Against Government Waste has released Prime Cuts, a
compendium of recommendations that emanate from both public and
private sources. The 2013 edition of Prime Cuts includes 557
recommendations that would save taxpayers $580.6 billion in 1
year, and $1.8 trillion over 5 years.
My written testimony and my statement today focus on
programs within the Department of Justice, including the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or JAG
Program, the Community Oriented Policing Services Program, or
COPS, the State Justice Institute, the Integrated Wireless
Network Program, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Mobile
Enforcement Team Program, and the FBI's light duty sedan fleet.
The first three programs are included in Prime Cuts, and the
latter three are all from the President's budget in 2011 and
2012.
Now, the GAO pointed out in a July 2012 report that
approximately $33 billion has been appropriated to DoJ since
2005 for more than 200 criminal justice grant programs. And
certainly Dr. Coburn's chart indicates there is a tremendous
amount of overlap and duplication in those programs.
DoJ funds multiple programs like COPS, and in many
instances, different programs perform the same functions. The
CRS reported in September 2010 that the costs of the COPS
program outweigh the benefits by more than a billion dollars.
The current JAG Program itself is the result of a 2005
consolidation of several DoJ grant programs. Nonetheless, JAG
has been shown not to target funds to high priority uses, does
not provide meaningful goals, and the grantees are not required
to report on performance.
President Obama has recommended suspending development of
the Integrated Wireless Network Program, which was intended to
address DOJs aging communications program. The program was
started in 1998. It has cost $356 million over 10 years and has
yet to achieve its intended results. And even for the Federal
Government, that is a long track record of failure. The
President's budget recommended existing commercial technology
or leveraging communications platforms of DoJ partner agencies,
such as Homeland Security or even State and local law
enforcement agencies. Eliminating this program would save $103
million in 1 year.
The DEA created the Mobile Enforcement Team Program in
April 1995 to attack drug trafficking organizations, and the
teams were designed to be deployed on average for 6 months. A
December 2010 audit by the DoJ IG found that ``Despite its
name, the METs were not mobile.'' They were being operated
mainly in metropolitan areas near DEA offices. The IG also
found that the effects of MET deployments are transitory and
perhaps poorly focused. Eliminating this program would save $31
million in 1 year and $155 million over 5 years.
In conclusion, wasteful spending is either caused by
mismanagement of existing programs or the authorization of
unnecessary or duplicative programs. The Justice Department
enjoys oversight responsibility for the Department, and it is
imperative that the Committee exercise its oversight on a
consistent basis. In fact, it might even be worth considering
establishing rules for House Committees that there are as many
hearings on oversight as there are about how to spend money.
Perhaps, then rather than just spending the money, we'll spend
more time determining how well the money is spent.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schatz follows:]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Schatz.
Sheriff Stanek?
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD W. STANEK, PRESIDENT,
MAJOR COUNTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION (MCSA)
Sheriff Stanek. Well, thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Ranking Member Scott. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
here before you today to discuss the spending priorities at the
Department of Justice, including successful ways that the
Department supports State and local law enforcement and the
effective functioning of our criminal justice system.
I am the elected sheriff of Hennepin County, Minnesota and
am here today in my capacity as president of the Major County
Sheriffs Association, whose membership is comprised of elected
sheriffs from counties across this country with populations of
500,000 people or more, representing a combined population of
100 plus million Americans.
The start of my 29-year career in law enforcement was as a
police officer in the Minneapolis Police Department. I also had
a chance to serve nearly a decade as an elected representative
in the Minnesota State Legislature and was appointed by the
governor as the Commissioner of Public Safety and director of
Homeland Security in Minnesota.
And let me start my testimony today by saying this, that
some would suggest that the Federal Government has no
legitimate role to play in supporting State and local law
enforcement and the effective functioning of the criminal
justice system. In truth, the Federal investment is a tiny
portion of overall spending on criminal justice. According to
an 2008 estimate by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, State and
local governments invested $75.9 billion in police protection.
The Federal Government that year contributed another $2.6
billion, totaling just 3 percent. Today that contribution is
about half of that amount, but the value and reach of the
Department of Justice assistance grant programs far exceed that
small investment.
Now, we leverage the grant dollars to innovate, to test new
ideas, to measure performance, and then to replicate what
works. What I experienced with the Federal grant programs, my
vantage point as the chief law enforcement officer of a large
urban county of 1.3 million citizens, is not waste or
duplication. Rather, I see the careful, smart, effective
deployment of scarce resources, usually in partnership with
State and local funding, to prevent crime, enforce our laws,
partner with Federal law enforcement agencies, and protect
victims.
Now, Mr. Chairman, Members, crime is at an all-time low in
this country, as low as the 1960's. And these grant programs
are not the only reason for this historic and sustained drop in
crime. But study after study have proven what we know to be
true, that the innovative policing and other crime fighting
tools tested and replicated, because of the Federal grant
programs, have played a significant role, and we ignore those
lessons at our peril.
You know, crime in this country, including in rural areas,
is increasingly driven by regional, national, and even
transnational gangs and drug trafficking organizations.
Fighting these crimes require sophistication and coordination
across all levels of government in ways unheard of just a
decade ago.
State and local law enforcement officers are the first
responders, the boots on the ground, so to speak, for everyday
acts of crime, natural disasters, and acts of terror. We
provide the foundation for every criminal investigation,
including those that become Federal investigations.
That Federal support is vital to our collective success, so
to critics who say that the Federal Government does not have a
role in supporting State and local crime fighting initiatives,
I say the national government cannot afford to not have a role.
The major purpose of the Department of Justice grant assistance
programs is to spur innovation and to test and replicate smart
and evidence-based practices. Over the past 20 years, we have
implemented and fine-tuned intelligence-led policing,
community-oriented policing, and other innovations, all of
which were supported in part by a range of DoJ grant programs.
Through these programs, and, yes, through DoJ supported
training conferences, we learned from each other what works,
and we were able to implement these successful approaches where
they are needed.
Finally, we have gotten better at doing our jobs together.
With over 18,000 law enforcement agencies across this great
country, cross jurisdictional learning cannot happen without
the national government's assistance.
And I would like to talk for a minute about the Byrne JAG
Program specifically and the misunderstanding that arises when
people hear that the grant program is flexible and can be used
for the same purposes as other grant programs.
The assumption seems to be that this flexibility is bad or
allows for wasteful duplication. In fact, the opposite is true.
It is not only entirely appropriate, but also critically
important, to be able to draw upon several funding streams to
create comprehensive initiatives. Because of Byrne JAG's
flexibility, we can identify a need and craft a response,
pulling resources from several sources if and when necessary.
When homemade methamphetamine first exploded in the
Midwest, we were without the tools to meet that challenge. It
was because of Byrne JAG together with COPS and later drug
courts and our set funding that we were able to address
interdiction, pseudoephedrine tracking, treatment, and
laboratory cleanup to get ahead of the trend, and if not
eradicate----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Sheriff, your time has expired.
Sheriff Stanek. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Stanek follows:]
__________
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. The Chair will recognize Members
under the 5-minute rule, which will be enforced beginning with
me.
Mr. Lofthus, the Thompson prison was a white elephant, and
the Department of Justice purchased it last October from the
President's home State of Illinois. There is concern in the
southern and southwestern part of my State about the Federal
prison being purchased there. And this prison was purchased
despite the fact that Congress opposed its purchase, and the
fact that DoJ has formerly constructed bureau prison facilities
that currently sit idle awaiting full funding for operation.
Now, with the sequestration there were originally problems
with the number of prison guards at the existing prisons. Why
do we have five prisons sitting empty?
Mr. Lofthus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start by
saying that we bought Thompson because we needed the high
security bed space for the Federal prison. BOP needs high
security bed space. It is 52 percent overcrowded in the high
security level.
Thompson prison is twice the prison for half the price that
we could construct a prison for. This is exactly the type of
thing the Department ought to be doing, and that is getting
value for the taxpayer----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. Well, we have got four other
prisons that are sitting empty that apparently are not as high
a priority. Does the Bureau of Prisons intend to sell them?
Mr. Lofthus. No, we do not, sir.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Why not?
Mr. Lofthus. Because two of those prisons actually are
already open. We have inmates at the Berlin, New Hampshire
prison, and we have inmates at the Aliceville, Alabama prison.
Both those institutions have begun taking inmates. They have
between 140 and 170----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. At what percent of capacity are each of
these prisons that are open?
Mr. Lofthus. They are both just starting up. They were
finished last year, and now they are----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Give me a percentage, please.
Mr. Lofthus. Excuse me?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Give me a percentage of capacity,
please.
Mr. Lofthus. Let us see, just off the top of my head,
approximately 10 percent, but that is because we are just
starting----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. So we have got a fully staffed
prison at 10 percent capacity. What about the other two that
are sitting empty. Are you going to sell them or are you going
to put those at 10 percent capacity with fully staffed?
Mr. Lofthus. One prison was just finished, and the second
prison, which is Yazoo City, Mississippi, has not yet been
finished and it has not yet been delivered. We expect that to
be delivered in June. So the reason that prison is empty is
because it is still being put into final construction to be
turned over to the prison so they can start----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. So we have three prisons that are
empty or will be empty when they are delivered, and we have two
other prisons at 10 percent capacity. That is not very
efficient. You have got to admit that.
Mr. Lofthus. Well, I think the thing to focus on is the
Bureau of Prisons is 37 percent overcrowded overall.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. But how come there have not been people
transferred from the overcrowded prisons to the ones that are
at 10 percent capacity?
Mr. Lofthus. We need--because we just brought these prisons
online. We just got the activation money for the prisons. And I
would like to thank the Congress for funding in the Fiscal Year
'13 full year enacted bill that was just received on March
26th, that full-year funding bill has provided us activation
money to completely activate and fill those first two prisons,
Mr. Chairman, and activate the second two prisons. So all four
of those prisons are going to come online. All four are going
to be used. And we would like to activate that Thompson prison
as well. I look forward to the opportunity to get activation
money for Thompson because----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, you know, are there different
strokes for different folks? We activate four prisons, but we
do not have the activation money for a prison in the
President's home State, which the Federal Government bought
despite the Congress' opposition. Now, does that mean anything
in the Justice Department that Congress is opposed to it?
Mr. Lofthus. We bought the prison, sir, because of the need
for high capacity bed space, and I am optimistic that with the
release of the President's budget, we will be able to at some
point get activation funds for the Thompson prison.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Do you propose transferring terrorists
from Guantanamo to that prison?
Mr. Lofthus. There are no plans to move anyone from
Guantanamo.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. What if Congress tells you you cannot do
it. Are you going to do it anyhow?
Mr. Lofthus. The Attorney General has been on record that
no one will be moved from Guantanamo, and Congress has enacted
prohibitions that preclude us from moving anybody from----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, we said you should not buy that
prison, and you went ahead and did it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Lofthus, to follow that up, could
you activate the prisons without the appropriations?
Mr. Lofthus. No, sir. We wait for the activation funding,
and that is important. It is important----
Mr. Scott. Are you saying that the reason you did not
activate it was because Congress had not appropriated the
money?
Mr. Lofthus. We need activation money to open those
prisons, that is right.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Maurer, we were talking about overlapping
programs. I would just note that Congress in Homeland Security
has overlapping programs itself. You mentioned more than 200
programs in the Department of Justice. Did the Department of
Justice invent these programs, or did Congress pass those
programs?
Mr. Maurer. All those programs were enacted under
congressional legislation, so the situation is created by the
Congress.
Mr. Scott. Say it again?
Mr. Maurer. Congress passed the laws to create those 250
programs. The challenge the Justice Department faces is
managing 250 separate programs.
Mr. Scott. That were created by Congress?
Mr. Maurer. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. Hmm. Mr. Lofthus, on the SAFE Program, do rank
and file members have access to offer recommendations that
could be considered by the SAFE Program?
Mr. Lofthus. Absolutely. Absolutely. That is one of the
things we value, the fact that people outside financial
management, it is not a small, closed group of budgeters who
are making those recommendations. People from all over the
Department can submit suggestions to the Attorney General. And
the SAFE Council has quite a broad spectrum of people
participating from across the Department.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And, Sheriff Stanek, you talked about
overlap, and you got cut off as you were talking about overlap.
I imagine if you have a special focus on disabled and another
special focus on veterans, another special focus on women, you
might find a disabled woman veteran that would qualify for all
three. Is there anything necessarily wrong with overlapping
programs, as long as a person does not get overlapping
individual services?
Sheriff Stanek. Mr. Chair, Members, I think that is
absolutely correct. We do not purposely or intently go out to
overlap services, but rather we take funding from different
streams. Some are granted toward probation. Some are granted
toward law enforcement, some to the courts, some to the
judiciary. Together, we put those grant monies together and
then figure out a way to best deliver the service that the
individual needs or the prevention program that we are focusing
on.
Mr. Scott. Is it possible that one agency might actually be
well suited to administer more than one program?
Sheriff Stanek. Mr. Chair, Members, that is correct. And a
brief example that might be downtown Minneapolis. We provide
safe zone coverage. During the summer, crime seems to spike,
particularly outdoors. And so the sheriff's office provides
patrols. Minneapolis police provides patrols. We bring in folks
from probation, corrections. Those are different funding
streams. We have distinctly different jobs, and lanes, and
boundaries that we stay within, but we work together to prevent
crime and help educate folks.
Mr. Scott. Is it possible that one agency administering
more than one grant program might actually do it more
efficiently than separate agencies trying to administer
separate programs?
Sheriff Stanek. Mr. Chair, Members, that is also correct,
and an example of that would be through our task forces. A lot
of times you will have multiple agencies. I have 46 cities and
37 law enforcement agencies in my county alone. We operate five
different task forces that geographically cover our county.
Even though each one of those task forces are made up of three
or four, five, six different law enforcement agencies, we have
one law enforcement agency that provides the oversight, the
fiscal guidance, so that it is done the right way and that
there is consistency across the board.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Maurer, can you talk a bit about
the effect that wholesale furloughs have on the ability of
agencies to fulfill their missions?
Mr. Maurer. Well, we have not done any published work
looking specifically at that. But as a general proposition,
furloughs make it more challenging for every department and
every agency to carry out their mission. And they are all
handling it in different ways.
Mr. Scott. Are you likely to lose your best employees when
you do furloughs?
Mr. Maurer. Well, it certainly does not make a good
recruiting calling card if you are having to contend with
furloughs.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Lofthus, are there any special security
concerns about traveling by the Attorney General and FBI agents
that cost money?
Mr. Lofthus. In terms of the furloughs?
Mr. Scott. No, in terms of traveling. The Attorney General
traveling, are there security concerns that cost money?
Mr. Lofthus. You are are talking about the use of aircraft?
Mr. Scott. Sure.
Mr. Lofthus. Yes, absolutely. The first thing to know about
use of executive aircraft at the Department of Justice is that
mission operations always come before any executive travel.
With all the FBI aircraft, mission operations come first.
Whenever the planes are used for executive travel, the Attorney
General's travel on government aircraft is in complete
compliance with the 1993 OMB Government Aircraft Circular,
A126, and related policies and threat assessments.
The Attorney General is what is known as a required use
traveler for both official and personal travel, and he is one
of at least six cabinet members or other senior government
officials in this category. The Attorney General's travel
follows the longstanding OMB rules, and just as we did for
prior attorneys general, this Attorney General completely
follows the A126 aircraft rules when he uses those aircrafts.
To the specific point of your question on the security
concerns, the FBI puts those planes mission first before any
executive travel.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus.
Mr. Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Lofthus, the Department of
Justice budget is over $27 billion. I think we all recognize we
face a difficult budget situation with a lot of needs and not
enough money. Can your Department support a simple 2 percent
reduction in your budget request for Fiscal Year 2014?
Mr. Lofthus. I am very concerned with that reduction for
our budget in Fiscal Year 2014. I am very concerned with the
reduction that we just took because of sequestration. The
figure has already been said in this hearing about the $1.6
billion reduction. Next year we face $2.2 billion in reductions
if nothing changes.
And to give you an idea of the magnitude of that reduction,
if we take that $2.2 billion reduction at the Department of
Justice, that puts our budget back to the size it was in 2009.
We had over 7,000 fewer employees--FBI agents, prosecutors,
correctional officers. We had over 7,000 fewer positions in
2009, and that is the reduction that we face in Fiscal Year
2014 if the lower levels stay in place. So it is very
concerning.
Mr. Bachus. Are there any expenditures that you are
prepared to cut?
Mr. Lofthus. Absolutely.
Mr. Bachus. Can you share with the Committee some of those
where you do believe you can cut expenses? And would you share
those materials with the Committee to make a brief response to
my----
Mr. Lofthus. Absolutely. We would be happy to share all the
materials with you.
I can say three fast examples of things we have cut. In
travel, we have taken a hard look at cutting back travel, our
travel charges. We are $45 million less this past year than
they were in 2010. We are taking efforts to consolidate our e-
mail systems, and we will save over $3 million a year by Fiscal
Year '15. The last example I will give you is something that my
colleague here at the table, the IG, and I have worked on
together. Our staffs came up with a way to do the financial
audits more efficiently. It saves $4 million a year, and that
has been implemented this year.
So we are looking across our contracts, across our training
to save money.
Mr. Bachus. You know, Mr. Maurer's testimony, he said they
made several recommendations to DoJ in prior reports to help
improve program efficiency and resource management, and that
you, the Department, has concurred with those recommendations.
And I think he has outlined, you know, hundreds of millions of
dollars of recommendations. And you have concurred with those
recommendations, right?
Mr. Lofthus. That is right. And I can give you a couple of
examples.
Mr. Bachus. In terms of where you can cut going forward.
Mr. Lofthus. Well, where we can look for opportunities to
coordinate better and run the programs more efficiently. The
asset forfeiture recommendations that we received from GAO I
think are good ones. And we and Treasury are working together
to see what can come out of that opportunity. Along our grant
programs, we do want to look across COPS, OBW, and OJP for any
efficiencies we can get out of those programs.
Mr. Bachus. What about consolidating those grant award
operations, which has been recommended time and time again?
Mr. Lofthus. In terms of consolidating the grant programs
overall, those grant programs were basically authorized by
Congress at different times under three different statutes, and
they exist separately today. We try to make those programs
complementary.
But I would like to address one thing if I may, and that is
the idea that these programs are somehow duplicative and
wasteful because they sound similar. It is important to keep in
mind that even though there are DoJ programs specialized in
their respective areas, given the broad nature of their
missions, there can be programs that touch each other for
legitimate purposes or appear to overlap on their face, but, in
fact, serve very different purposes. We have gotten our grant
programs to look together on how they can make sure they do not
overlap.
But let me give you one example.
Mr. Bachus. Well, let me ask you, and if you could maybe
supply that. I have seen several instances where a local agency
received several grants to do the same activity. Surely we can
improve on that.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.
Could I allow a response to the last question by my
colleague? Could you take that, Attorney General Assistant
Lofthus?
Mr. Lofthus. Absolutely. Absolutely. We do want our
programs to work together , and make sure we do them
efficiently, and that we are not giving out money or the same
thing out of multiple offices. That is very important to us.
But let me give one example of why sometimes this can be
misleading when it sounds like we have duplicative programs,
and I will use the example of victim's grants. Not all victim's
programs belong necessarily in the Office of Victims of Crime.
Some of the Department victim support programs support
counseling for victims. Others train counselors. Others provide
training for law enforcement personnel who are first responders
at the crime scene for victims of crime. Some programs provide
training to forensic specialists who help examine crime scenes
in order to solve crime.
DoJ's victims programs are very specialized, they are
multidimensional, and they are not duplicative mirror images of
one another. It is important to recognize that programs that
may sound the same actually fulfill very different functions
across the broad spectrum of victim services and other criminal
justice assistance that we provide State, local, and tribal.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much. Let me ask the inspector
general----
Mr. Bachus. If I could respond. You know, a $10,000 pizza
party is a $10,000 pizza party. I mean, you can----
Mr. Conyers. Well, wait a minute.
Mr. Bachus. But anyway----
Mr. Conyers. Yeah, I think we ought to----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. Conyers. Let me just ask the Attorney General, Mr.
Horowitz, do you think that this hearing has helped clear up
some of the confusion with regard to the over capacity issue in
the prisons and the fact that there are some vacancies in some
prisons?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think in terms of prisons, the
Federal prisons, their capacity issues, there is frankly a
broader issue that we have identified in our management
challenges for the Department, which is how it is going to
address what it itself since 2006, 7 years running now, has
identified as a material programmatic weakness.
Mr. Conyers. Which is what?
Mr. Horowitz. Which is prison overcrowding. The prisons
were in 2006 30 percent overrated capacity. In 2012, 7 years
after identifying that as a material weakness, programmatic
weakness, prison capacity is 38 percent overrated capacity. It
is not getting better. It has gotten more overcrowded.
And by the Department's own estimate in its 2012 corrective
action plan, it has focused again on getting more funding more
prisons. Obviously that is a question for Congress whether
Congress will, in fact, fund more prisons.
Mr. Conyers. Well, you know, that assumes that the rate of
incarceration is going to be steady and that we can
statistically project that out over the years. It is no secret
that this country incarcerates more people than any other
country on the planet, and that may have something to do with
it.
Do you, Sheriff Stanek, wish to weigh in on this discussion
that I am having between the IG and the Attorney General?
Sheriff Stanek. Mr. Chair, Member, in terms of of
replication or duplication of services or----
Mr. Conyers. Well, either one of these issues. The fact
that we are incarcerating more people means that we are going
to need more capacity. And even now we are over capacity by 45
percent even with the new prisons that are under construction.
So I think this is an important hearing in that regard, but we
cannot call in and say, let us get the numbers down or let us
get the buildings up, and let us get them fully occupied.
Sheriff Stanek. Well, Mr. Chairman, Members, if you are
asking me that question, I would be happy to comment ever so
briefly, and that is, you know, I think local law enforcement
across this country can save you a whole heck of a lot money.
Help us on the front end in terms of prevention and education
and the grant programs that come through the Department of
Justice that help us in that respect so we do not have to use
prison at that last stop gap measure. We would rather get to
them on the front end and deal with them early on through
prevention and education.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I had a
conflict. I wanted to be here when the Thompson matter was
discussed. I am sure that has been thoroughly exhausted, and I
will try to play catch up ball on that.
Good to have you gentlemen with us today.
Mr. Maurer, the GAO's report on grant duplication speaks a
lot about how each of the three DoJ grant-making offices have
different backroom functions. For example, OJP and COPS are
overseen by the Department's Internal Oversight Office, but OVW
has contracted these functions out to 3rd parties.
Do you believe that combining the three grants offices
would lead to a better oversight and coordination approach, and
are there efficiencies lost by having separate offices
involved?
Mr. Maurer. Thank you for the question. Clearly there are
inefficiencies that result from having different backroom
functions and different oversight mechanisms for the three
major offices. Our report highlighted two main areas. The first
is there are two different information systems that basically
track all the different grant programs. They do not talk to one
another. And what that means is when people within the
Department are making decisions on where to provide grant
funding, they cannot easily look into the other system to
determine if the same grant recipient has already received
funds from another source. We recommend that the Department
address this problem, and it is starting to take action to do
so.
The second area is one you rightfully point out is this
issue of oversight. There is an office that provides oversight
over OJP and COPS programs that do not provide oversight over
OVW programs. We recommend to you that the Department consider
providing a consistent level of oversight across all three
program offices, and the Department is in the process of
considering that right now.
Mr. Coble. And I presume, Mr. Maurer, that this is advice
duplication, is it not?
Mr. Maurer. It certainly involves the risk of duplication.
That was a main finding from our report from last year with so
many programs with such a lack of internal coordination, with a
lack of strategic visibility of how the funds are ultimately
going to be reused. It raises the possibility that duplicative
streams of money can go to the same grant recipient, and that
was our primary concern.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lofthus, a GAO report found
that a large number of law enforcement agencies used Byrne JAG
and not just COPS hiring funds to hire police officers. I am
talking about consolidation again now. Why do these overlapping
programs need to be administered by a separate office? Would it
not be more cost effective to merge grants that fund the same
or similar functions?
Mr. Lofthus. Well, that was one of the recommendations in
the recent GAO report that the Department look more closely at
the operation--at the opportunities, rather, to see if we can
consolidate programs or work cooperatively where they are
complementary, to eliminate the possibility for that type of
duplication if it exists.
And we have started those discussions across the 3
programs, and if there is something we can do better, we are
clearly interested in it.
Mr. Coble. Any other witness want to weigh in on this? Mr.
Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. From our perspective, we agree completely
with what GAO has found. We have highlighted this as a concern
as well. Congress has created the three grant-making agencies,
but that does not mean you cannot consolidate the backroom
operations so that each of the agencies know what each other is
doing regularly. And you can have effective, strong practices
across three rather than three different practices.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir. Thank you, gentlemen, for being
with us.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you. The gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
panelists.
Let me just start and clear up what Mr. Lofthus said, and I
think Congressman Scott, Ranking Member Scott, touched on it.
But I would like it to be crystal clear because I think that
part of my issue with a lot of the hearings in here is that we
shoot for a sensational title with no meat to back it up. So as
we talk about this, these luxury air jets, can the AG fly
commercial if he wanted to?
Mr. Lofthus. Under the current A126 OMB Circular that
designates what required use travel is, and required use travel
pertains to both official and personal travel, based on the OMB
Circular and based on related executive branch policies----
Mr. Richmond. Is that a long way to get to yes or no?
Mr. Lofthus. That is a long way to get to yes. To your
question, the AG is supposed to fly on secure means of
transportation, and that is in accordance with the government-
wide policy.
Mr. Richmond. How does his travel compare to the Attorney
General before him?
Mr. Lofthus. He follows precisely the same policies we had
in place for the predecessor attorneys general in the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Richmond. My information tells me that he flies about
half of the time that the prior Attorney General did for
personal use.
Mr. Lofthus. That is right.
Mr. Richmond. So it is a 50 percent reduction.
Mr. Lofthus. You are referring to personal trips.
Mr. Richmond. Yes.
Mr. Lofthus. That is a----
Mr. Richmond. Let me switch over to Mr. Maurer for a
second. We are talking about cost, and I know that in my home
State where I chaired Judiciary even in a Republican
legislature with a Republican governor, to find reductions, we
looked at good time in our prison. And according to you all, if
we would increase good time simply by 7 days a year, we could
save about $40 million. Do you remember that as being an
accurate number?
Mr. Maurer. Yes, that is correct. That was in one of our
reports issued last year.
Mr. Richmond. And if we could reduce our prison population
by about 10 percent, whether it is through creative sentencing,
alternatives to incarceration, deferred adjudication, we could
save the country about $650 million a year. Is that about the
number you remember?
Mr. Maurer. Yeah, that is a good ballpark. That is about 10
percent of BOP's current budget. That is correct.
Mr. Richmond. So, and I guess my point is that if we look
for ways to fight crime either on the front end or alternatives
to the traditional theory of just locking people up, then we
can fight crime in a smarter, more efficient way, but also have
a significant amount of resources to do other things.
Mr. Maurer. That is absolutely correct. There needs to be a
whole spectrum. You need to address crime on the front end.
There may opportunities to look at sentencing legislation.
There may be opportunities to look at increased flexibilities
for people who are already currently in the system. There may
be opportunities to look at reentry programs that would be
implemented by Justice, HHS, Labor, and other agencies at the
Federal level.
A lot of this obviously rests with the Congress. You know,
GAO cannot and is not going to take an opinion on the right way
to go, but we think our work helps set up a useful debate on
this important subject.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you. Mr. Horowitz. Question: within the
Attorney General's office, they have their own Office of
Professional Responsibility that is charged with investigating
attorney misconduct and things of that nature. And you cannot
touch that, right?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct. By statute, the IG Act, we
are unique in that regard. Most inspector generals have the
ability to oversee the conduct of all the employees in the
Justice Department. There is a carve out Congress has put in
the IG Act for the Justice Department inspector general. We
cannot look at attorney misconduct in the course of their work.
Mr. Richmond. So the Office of Professional Responsibility
that reports to the Attorney General is charged with
investigating the acts of assistant attorney generals and the
Attorney General.
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
Mr. Richmond. Even though they report to him.
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
Mr. Richmond. And I do not want to put you on the spot, but
I saw the testimony from other attorneys generals that
suggested that you could save duplication, you could have more
transparency, more efficiency, if you put all of that under
your portfolio. Would you agree?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. That has been consistently the position
of our office. My predecessor, Glenn Fine, spoke extensively on
this, pointing out that we are one of the few, if only,
inspector general's offices that cannot review all of the
misconduct that is presented regarding Department employee
work.
Mr. Richmond. And to Mr. Schatz and Mr. Stanek, I agree
with you, Mr. Schatz--I am sorry--when you talk about we need
to look at a more cost benefit analysis and return on
investment, the money we spend.
I see that my time has expired. I would just add that I
think the COPS program substantially outweighs the cost, the
benefits.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
witnesses.
Mr. Horowitz, you had a very distinguished career as a
prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, so I want to
see if you can help me work my through a quote. And it is not a
quote from you, so it may be problematic for you to help work
our way through it.
The quote is, ``Federal prosecutors will have to close
cases and let those criminals go.'' That is a quote from the
President of the United States with respect to sequestration.
And I am wondering who he was talking about, ``those
criminals,'' because if it is an open case in a U.S. attorney's
office, we would typically refer to those folks as defendants
as opposed to criminals, do we not?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct. If it is a charged case,
they are a defendant.
Mr. Gowdy. So who are ``those criminals'' that the
President was referring to when he was invoking the hell back
comment apocalypse talking about sequestration? Do you have any
idea who ``those criminals'' would be?
Mr. Horowitz. I do not, Congressman.
Mr. Gowdy. I think your former colleague from the
Department of Justice testified that if sequestration were to
go into effect, it would take us back to 2009 funding levels.
Did I hear the testimony correctly?
Mr. Lofthus. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. How many criminals were let go in 2009?
Mr. Horowitz. I am not aware of criminals being let go. I
was not in the Justice Department at the time.
Mr. Gowdy. How about the gentleman from the Department of
Justice? Any criminals let go in 2009?
Mr. Lofthus. That is not something I can answer this
morning, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I think we would have heard about it if a
bunch of criminals were let go due to a lack of funding, do you
not? I mean, we would not need a congressional hearing for
that. We would have all heard about that.
Mr. Lofthus. The resources that are provided to the United
States attorney's organization influences the staffing, and the
prosecutions, and the paralegals we have.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I know that actually. And we had furloughs
in South Carolina. We had to furlough prosecutors. We had to
furlough victim advocates. We had to furlough administrative
assistants, investigators. Not a single, solitary criminal case
was closed because of those furloughs.
So what I am trying to get at is the irresponsibility of
threatening, whether it is the Attorney General saying we are
going to be less safe or the President saying we are going to
let those criminals go because we cannot survive on 2009
funding levels. So when sequester went into effect, the net
result, the net impact on DoJ's budget was, what, about a
hundred million?
Mr. Lofthus. The net impact of sequestration was $1.6
billion this year.
Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no, I am talking about salaries and
expenses, the salaries and expenses, because that is what would
impact whether or not cases had to be closed and criminals let
go, is about $100 million.
Mr. Lofthus. I would have different numbers than that. I am
not sure I----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, let us assume for the sake of argument
that I am right. Just assume arguendo I am right. Are you
telling me there is no other place to save $100 million within
DoJ's budget?
Mr. Lofthus. Our problem is we have to save $1.6 billion,
and that will be comprised of both----
Mr. Gowdy. I want to focus on the United States Attorney's
Office, that line item, salaries and expenses, because the
quote was cases are going to be dropped and criminals are going
to be let go.
Mr. Lofthus. From a chief financial officer perspective,
this is the way I would look at the issue that you are raising
this morning. When we take the sequestration cut to the U.S.
attorney's organization, you are right, they have the ability
and frankly they are going to have to look at taking cuts
across the spectrum of their budgets. That includes their
personnel, their salaries, and their benefits.
Mr. Gowdy. What is a SAUSA? What is a special assistant
U.S. attorney?
Mr. Lofthus. What is a special assistant attorney?
Mr. Gowdy. Yeah.
Mr. Lofthus. An ordinary prosecutor is known as an
assistant United States attorney.
Mr. Gowdy. Right, and a special would be a State prosecutor
that maybe was on loan or, in some instances, some folks just
volunteer to work for the U.S. attorney's office for the
experience. And they do so for free, agreed?
Mr. Lofthus. You can have a special AUSA.
Mr. Gowdy. Okay. And they would be free in some instances.
Mr. Lofthus. They could be.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. How much did you spend on conferences
last year?
Mr. Lofthus. How did we spend on conferences last year?
About $54 million approximately.
Mr. Gowdy. And how many of those conferences were for CLE
credit that could not be gathered any other way than attending
a conference?
Mr. Lofthus. I do not have that information at the table
with me. We would have to get back to you.
Mr. Gowdy. Can you get CLE credit so you can keep your law
license via the Internet?
Mr. Lofthus. That I do not know.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, you can.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Virginia, the Chairman of the full
Committee.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, in your testimony you say that the structure
of the DoJ grant-making offices has led to inefficient
duplication. Would you support combining the three offices so
that administrative functions like legal and management support
could be streamlined? And do you think this would save money
for the Department and get more money out to the field?
Mr. Horowitz. I think from our standpoint, we agree with
GAO as well on this, that there needs to be streamlined
backroom operations, administrative, legal. It not only would
save costs from an administrative standpoint, but frankly from
an effectiveness of grant management. Each of the three
agencies would know what each other is doing. When we issue an
audit about a grant-making event that occurred in one of the
three, all three would have the same information sitting in
front of them if their operations were the same in the
backroom.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Lofthus, you have heard the IG. You have
heard the GAO. Does the Department support consolidating these
three offices?
Mr. Lofthus. We have not reached any conclusion on
consolidating the three offices. We recognize that the three
offices were created at different times under different
statutes enacted by Congress.
What we do agree with is the fact that the recommendations,
I think, that were made to us are sound recommendations, and
that OJP, OVW, and COPS have already begun to work together to
look at opportunities where they can cooperate better,
coordinate. And that includes the backroom functions,
potentially using IT systems that are complementary, or using
the same systems. So those things are on the table for us now
as a result of those recommendations, and we are happy to look
at what is feasible.
Mr. Goodlatte. What is your timetable for that, because we
would be very interested in knowing what the Department
recommends on these, though some of these proposals may require
legislation to authorize a different approach. And we are
anxious to act in ways that would help the Department more
efficiently. Do you have a timetable for making recommendations
to us that both look at what the inspector general has found
and what you have in your own administration of the Department
found that would require some action on our part? Or are you
planning to take action on the part of the Department in a
reasonably prompt fashion, especially considering that you have
been now confronted, as has the rest of the Federal Government,
with the need to save money due to sequestration?
Mr. Lofthus. Congressman, I know the front end of that
timetable better than I know the back end of the timetable,
meaning we have started. We have already started to meet and
work together to see what can be done. So I know we have
started.
As to when we will finish, I do not have that at the table
here this morning, but I am happy to talk to the grant
organizations and see what the realistic timetable is.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, going back to the concerns raised by
the gentleman from South Carolina about decisions made, for
example, to release people who are scheduled for deportation, a
considerable percentage of whom were criminal aliens, it would
seem to me that the sooner you do that, the sooner you will
feel less pressure to make decisions like that and more able to
make decisions that enhance the efficiency of the Department
and make it more effective at addressing law enforcement
issues, and not be forced to make decisions that I do not think
you should have made in the first place. But nonetheless, the
decision was made.
If you are finding savings that make sense, you do not have
to make decisions to achieve savings that in the minds of many
Americans do not make sense.
Mr. Lofthus. I think that certainly from my seat as the
financial officer, and I think from the seat of the Attorney
General and the Deputy Attorney General, there is an absolute
immediacy to the financial issues facing the Department and the
issues being raised here this morning.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much.
And let me ask Mr. Maurer, the mission of the COPS office
is to assist law enforcement agencies in enhancing public
safety through the implementation of community policing
strategies. To what extent do you believe, based on your
experience in examining COPS hiring grants that these grants
specifically support the advancement of community policing? Do
you believe that the effectiveness of these grants is being
accurately measured?
Mr. Maurer. We currently have work under way for you right
now looking specifically at that question, and we will be
expecting to report on that within the next several weeks, and
we will get back to you on the answers. But generally speaking,
those are good, valid questions, and we look forward to issuing
our final report later on the spring.
Mr. Goodlatte. In other words, our effort here with these
programs has been to enhance law enforcement, not to replace
what has traditionally been the local and State funding sources
for local law enforcement. We do not want that simply to result
in the replacement of dollars coming at the State level for
money that makes a trip to Washington and then back down to the
States. We want to see something for it. And we would welcome
your input and your report as soon as possible.
And I would ask if the Chairman would allow Mr. Horowitz to
see if he has any insight on the same point.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mr. Horowitz. We have not done any particular work in that
area, but we again, when we do work and GAO does work, we
coordinate with each other. So we are looking forward to
getting their report on this and following up as we deem
appropriate once we get that report.
Thank you.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, witnesses.
Thanks for being here.
I was amazed during a hearing we had with the director of
ICE to find out about the prosecutions involved in going after
people who have reentered the United States after being
deported. Do any of our witnesses know what the percentage of
total prosecutions by the Justice Department is for people
illegally entering the country?
Mr. Lofthus. I do not.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, I was shocked when my friend, Zoe
Lofgren, brought up that the number one area of most
prosecutions was with regard to people illegally entering this
country. 34.9 percent of the prosecutions we were told were for
people who illegally entered the country, and a big hunk of
that was people that illegally entered after being deported.
So I am just wondering, is there any coordination between
Justice Department and Homeland Security? I mean, the whole
purpose for having Homeland Security was one stop shopping so
that people would work together better. And I am just wondering
about the relationship between the Department of Justice and
the Department of Homeland Security, because it sure seems like
if Homeland Security did their job, you have just freed up over
a third of the budget you are having to use right now for
prosecutions. That frees up a massive number of jail cells. You
do not even need the prisons that you have purchased because
you will have about a 30 capacity opened up for others besides
those entering illegally.
So I am wondering, what is the relationship with DHS? Is
there any when it comes to prosecution and how they could save
you so much money and time?
Mr. Lofthus. Congressman, if I could start. As the chief
financial officer, I will readily admit that I would feel more
comfortable giving you the financial perspective on that rather
than the law enforcement----
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. Then if you are going to change my
question, let me change the question itself. Do you know how
much you would save if we had a secure border where we were not
having to spend 34.9 percent of our prosecutions on people
entering illegally?
Mr. Lofthus. That is not a number that we have calculated.
I certainly do not have it at the table. But what I can say is
that we do look when we formulate our budget to see what is
going on at DHS so that we have some sense of what is happening
on the other side to withstand the change.
Mr. Gohmert. But beyond looking at the budget, do you
coordinate with them? You surely recognize how dramatic it
would be the freeing up of prison space, of prosecutors, all of
those type of things, if DHS would simply do the job of
securing the border. And I do not mean closing it. I want
immigrants coming. I am talking about people that come that we
do not want coming in.
Mr. Lofthus. There is no question we are very much aware of
the front end work done by DHS and how it impacts the back end
work that the Department of Justice, both on the prosecution
side and the prison capacity side, not to mention the detention
trustee portion of the budget or the detention portion of the
budget in the Marshal Service.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, I know there was discussion about the
cost of flights, and that the comment we are doing same thing
the prior Administration did when it came to personal flights.
And I am sure the Bush Administration is pleased that this
Administration is mimicking them in any regard. But it still
deserves to be analyzed a bit.
If it is a personal flight, like saying I am just going to
see my kid play baseball, according to the policy, it is not
law. It must be DoJ policy that the Attorney General must fly
on a private plane, right?
Mr. Lofthus. He is a required use traveler, that is right.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. And that is not because of law, but
because of DoJ policy that you are following from the Bush
Administration, correct?
Mr. Lofthus. No, sir, it is not DoJ policy. It is executive
branch policy under OMB Circular A126, 1993.
Mr. Gohmert. Right, okay, but that is the point. It is not
the law that we passed in Congress. This is the Administration
saying we want you to fly privately, and then you can reimburse
$420 for each $15,000 flight as an example of what it costs.
But that is the executive branch's decision, in this case
apparently agreeing with the Bush Administration. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Lofthus. It is an executive branch policy, that is
right.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their insightful
testimony. I would like to thank the Members for their vigorous
participation. This has been one of the more substantive
hearings that I think we have had in trying to get to the
bottom of all of this, how we can do oversight and how we can
save money.
The jurisdiction of this Subcommittee was changed to
include investigations at the beginning of this Congress, and
this Chairman has won awards for oversight, and I want to try
to win another one.
So without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]