U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–070 2017

OVERSIGHT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANT 

PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 8, 2017 

Serial No. 115–18 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

(iii) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 8, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, Texas, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

Homeland Security, and Investigations; Committee on the Judiciary ............ 1 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Committee 

on the Judiciary** ................................................................................................ 3 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 5 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 6 

WITNESSES

Mr. Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Grant 

Programs, Department of Justice 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and can be 

accessed on the committee repository at: 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08/20170608/106070/HHRG-115-JU08- 

20170608-SD002.pdf 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

GRANT PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND

INVESTIGATIONS

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert [vice 

chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gohmert, Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, 

Chabot, Ratcliffe, Roby, Johnson of Louisiana, Jackson Lee, Conyers, Jeffries, and Lieu. 

Staff Present: Margaret Barr, Counsel; Stephanie Gadbois, Counsel; Scott Johnson, Clerk, and Joe Graupensperger, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland security, and Investigations will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the subcommittee 

at any time. We welcome you to today’s hearing. 

This is the hearing that will not be disappointing to all of the 

country. This is the hearing that has not been overhyped and we 

expect to get some substance out today, Mr. Hanson. So, we are actually looking forward to this. This is entitled Oversight of the Department of Justice Grant Programs. And I recognize myself for an 

opening statement. 

Thank you to all of those in attendance to today’s hearing, as 

well as our distinguished witness, Mr. Alan Hanson, testifying on 

behalf of the Department of Justice. This morning’s hearing is the 

fourth in a series of hearings held by this committee, examining 

Department of Justice components, programs, and activities. The 

ultimate goal of these hearings is to reform and reauthorize, in 

some cases authorize for the very first time, important components 

of the Department of Justice. 

Grants administered by the DOJ help communities across the 

United States fight crime, address domestic violence and sexual assault, and provide their officers with the tools and skills they need 

to do their job. Approximately $2 billion is appropriated by Congress each year to fund DOJ State and local law enforcement activities. As with any government service, Congress must periodiVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:11 Nov 22, 2017 Jkt 027070 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A070.XXX A070
2 

cally review these grants to ensure they are working as intended 

and use taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently. 

Today, this subcommittee will examine DOJ grant programs administered by the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Violence 

Against Women, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

The Office of Justice Programs, or OJP, administers grants that 

provide leadership support to Federal, State, local, and tribal justice systems by sharing the latest knowledge and practices with 

these agencies and communities. Grants administered address 

areas of need and research statistics, law enforcement assistance at 

the State and local level, and support for juvenile justice programs. 

The Office for Victims of Crime, which is tasked with administering 

the Crimes Victim Fund, is also a part of OJP. 

The Office of Violence Against Women administers programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act. Approximately twenty five grant programs are authorized by that legislation with the 

goal of strengthening services to victims of domestic violence and 

sexual assault while holding offenders accountable. 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS 

Office, provides information and grant resources to State, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation. 

Some of the work supported by the COPS Office grants include 

developing innovative crime-fighting and policing strategies, providing training and technical assistance to both law enforcement 

and community members, and assisting in the hiring of community 

policing professionals. 

During my time as judge, I have worked with thousands of police 

officials with a variety of background and experience. The overwhelming majority of them embrace the idea of building good relationships in high crime communities to address the underlying conditions that contribute to the crimes. 

Two programs worthy of note include Anti-Heroin Task Force, 

the AHTF program, and the COPS Anti-Gang Initiative. The Nation is facing an epidemic amount of opioid and drug abuse, including heroin, the way it has come back, that has been indiscriminate 

in its effect and devastation. Americans from all walks of life and 

social status have been directly affected by the epidemic, whether 

personally became addicted or had friends or family members who 

have lost their lives. 

The Anti-Heroin Task Force has worked to advance public safety 

by getting these toxic drugs off our streets and out of our communities. Anti-Gang Initiative works hand in hand with these efforts 

by prosecuting the gangs that pedal these drugs. While many of 

these grant programs help create a positive impact in our communities on a daily basis, not all of the DOJ’s spending is as efficient 

as it should be. 

Recent GAO investigations have targeted the mismanagement of 

Federal resources and identified multiple programs that include 

duplication and overlap of these DOJ grant programs. For example, 

in 2012, GAO reviewed all 253 grant award announcements that 

OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office published on their websites for 

3 

fiscal year 2010 and identified instances of overlap across the components. 

When GAO participated in the Judiciary Committee’s DOJ oversight hearing March 21st of this year, Director Maurer testified the 

DOJ had implemented most of GAO’s recommendations to improve 

grant administration and management. However, a cursory review 

of the long list of programs currently being administered by DOJ 

suggests that more streamlining is likely warranted. DOJ budget 

requests a $6 million increase to support the grants management 

system 2.0 initiative. So, we are interested in hearing about potential improvements of efficiency, transparency of DOJs grant making sections. 

President Trump has made clear that reducing violent crime in 

our communities is a top priority for his administration. Attorney 

General Sessions has already taken important steps toward reaching that goal. It is contended DOJ grant programs are an important tool in fighting crime. If so, it is vital they work as efficiently 

as possible. And with that in mind, I am looking forward to hearing 

the testimony today. The chair now recognizes the ranking member 

of the Crime Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, for an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chairman. Good morning. 

As well as thank the witness, Mr. Hanson, for your service to the 

Nation, and also let me pleasantly recognize the ranking member 

of the full committee, recognize the chairman of the full committee, 

and appreciate that the ranking member will be in place for me. 

And I thank him for his extended courtesies because I have a 

conflicting hearing. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have many opportunities to work together on this committee, and we have done 

so over the years. And I am delighted that you have mentioned, 

certainly, some of the issues that we all have concern with. 

And I think we do have concern with the efficient operation of 

the Department of Justice that I have always called the anchor and 

the source of assistance for the vulnerable, but also for upholding 

the law of the land and protecting the American citizens. But then, 

when they need justice and they need fairness and relief from those 

who would undermine them, the Justice Department is there for 

them in a myriad of ways. 

Each of us on this panel, regardless of party, are committed to 

eliminating wasteful spending, unnecessary duplication in funding 

pursuant to Federal grant programs. However, as I indicated, there 

are many programs that may have the perception as such, but are 

vital to many constituents across the Nation. Given that the Department administers grants that award recipients with $5 billion 

per year without exception, accountability is paramount to ensure 

the grants are not being used for fraudulent purposes. That is why 

we have auditing requirements and reviews by the Office of the Inspector General. And as acting assistant attorney general of the 

OJP, it is Mr. Hanson’s responsibility to oversee compliance with 

these goals. I assume you work hard every day. 

As we consider today the findings of the DOJ’s OIG with respect 

to various Justice Department grant programs, there are several 

factors we should keep in mind. 

4 

First of all, though I am disappointed to learn that OJP’s Tribal 

Justice System Infrastructure failed to meet various auditing 

standards due to deficiencies between OJP and BJA, resulting in 

significant waste, I am heartened that it has undertaken proposed 

remedial actions to address these findings. That program is wellneeded and is often heard by our Native American friends of the 

status that they hold and the belief that they do not hold the same 

respect and dignity of all other Americans. 

Specifically, OJP has agreed with all of OIG’s 12 recommendations made in its auditing. Identifying these deficiencies and detecting fraud, we hope that we will be moving forward. 

Second, the recent semi-annual report to Congress indicates that 

OIG audited additional programs, such as D.C.’s Office of Victim 

Services and Justice Grants and Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, which 

support investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse. OIG 

did not identify any significant concerns, and we hope these programs are on schedule. Several other programs fell into these criteria, and therefore, we hope that many of these grant programs 

that are vital to the success of the criminal justice system do, in 

fact, work, are effective, and I would like to make sure that they 

are in place. 

Let’s take, for example, Houston. I am pleased that my constituents and those of Ranking Member Conyers were the first to be 

awarded the National Institute of Justice research grants to address untested Sexual assault kits. SAK, also known as rape kits, 

used in Texas, received $176,000 in fiscal year 2010, which remained in place for a number of years. 

These are vital grants to be able to stop the terrible results of 

untested rape kits and leaving many women across America without justice. Those rape kits recognize and represent criminal justice. Therefore, it is critical that we examine cautiously the beneficial impact these grant programs have on the lives of the American people and the adverse effect that it will trigger. 

We arbitrarily cut much-needed programs due to deficiencies. Although OIG did not find evidence of endemic fraud or rampant 

non-compliance across the spectrum, 29 percent cut is proposed in 

the President’s new budget for the Office of Justice Programs. And 

the vast majority of the recipients of grants administered through 

the Office of Justice Programs, such as the Bureau of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, just to name a few. 

And, of course, the essential grants are administered through the 

Office of Violence Against Women. These are needed. Mr. Hanson, 

it was also indicated in your testimony, and we agree that the Nation’s overall rate of violent crime remains historically low. However, the fiscal year 2018 budget release shows a substantial increase for prosecution and support for robust law enforcement. 

Finally, I must remind my colleagues, that efforts to ensure that 

grant recipients are accountable stewards of taxpayer subsidy 

should not be used to eliminate these crucial programs. Now, I believe that we are helping so many different people across the Nation, and I want us to continue to be in this August room where 

justice is rendered. 

This has been a tumultuous couple of months. This is a justice 

committee, and I would hope that, as we proceed with a number 

5 

of hearings and investigations that are proceeding in the United 

States Senate and in the House, that we would find it upon ourselves that there would be a courageous effort to begin to assess 

what kind of end route we should be making on any number of 

questions from public trust to use of power to the issues that have 

gathered around the question of obstruction of justice. 

I think that we are courageous Republicans and Democrats to do 

the right thing for the American people. And I hope that we will 

do the right thing for the American people. It is time that we begin 

an inquiry on all of these issues that are involving the executive 

and administration. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, the chair will now recognize the 

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia, for his 

opening statement. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This 

hearing is the fourth hearing in the Judiciary Committee’s series 

of hearings to review Department of Justice components, programs, 

and activities and identify matters at the Department of Justice 

that are in need of reform and reauthorization. It is my hope that 

this hearing also underscores the importance of having distinct and 

detailed authority in place for each DOJ grant program funded by 

Congress. 

Congress appropriates roughly $2 billion annually to the Department of Justice for its grant programs. In addition, in recent years, 

DOJ has administered an additional $2 to $3 billion annually in 

grant funding through the Crime Victims Fund. The valuable 

Crime Victims Fund resources are available to provide victim compensation assistance and other services that improve community’s 

responsiveness to the needs of victims. 

Many of DOJ’s grant programs support critical efforts to prevent, 

investigate, and prosecute crime. For example, funding Congress 

provides for economic, high technology, and white-collar crime prevention grants has helped the National White Collar Crime Center 

in Richmond, Virginia deliver training in computer forensics, cyber, 

and financial crime investigations, and intelligence analysis to law 

enforcement agencies to all 50 States. Such efforts provide critical 

national leadership and strengthen the Nation’s law enforcement 

networks as a whole. 

Another success story is the funding Congress has provided for 

regional information sharing activities like the RISS program. 

RISS offers secure information sharing and communications capabilities, analytical and investigative support services, and event deconfliction services to enhance officer safety. 

It supports efforts to defeat organized and violent crime, drug activity, violent extremism, human trafficking, and other national 

scourges across jurisdictions and regions. While there are many 

Federal programs with laudable goals, the truth is that the Federal 

government simply cannot sustain its current path of deficit spending. As such, Congress must take tough decisions among priorities 

at all agencies. 

Just 7 years ago, Congress appropriated 50 percent more funding 

for DOJ grants than it did in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations bill enacted in early May of this year. In order to make 

the necessary priorities, we must have a full picture of all the 

6 

grant spending. Complicating the picture for DOJ grants is a lack 

of specific authorization for much of the grant funding. Of the approximately 90 distinct appropriations for grant programs in fiscal 

year 2017, roughly 70 percent are not currently authorized by the 

Judiciary Committee. 

Of those, approximately 42 percent have never been authorized 

by the Judiciary Committee. It is imperative that Congress be apprised of the fundamental parameters of these programs. We need 

to learn who is eligible, what the grant awards look like, what percentage of appropriated funding is actually distributed to grantees, 

and what DOJ permits the funds to be spent on. 

Last but not least, we need to understand the purpose of these 

unauthorized programs, determine whether they are achieving the 

established goals, and assess whether the Department’s goals align 

with the Judiciary Committee’s priorities. Once the committee evaluates these programs, I intend to oversee the advancement of congressional authority for the most worthy programs. 

This hearing may also review the use of the Crime Victims Fund. 

The Crime Victims Fund was established in 1984 by the Victims 

of Crime Act, also known as VOCA, to provide funding for State 

victim compensation and assistance programs. The Crime Victims 

Fund does not receive appropriated funding. Rather, deposits to the 

Crime Victims Fund come from a number of sources, including 

criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and special assessments. For fiscal year 2018, $610 million, more than 30 percent of 

the nearly $2 billion allotted under DOJ’s budget submission for 

discretionary grants, is proposed to be supported by a transfer of 

mandatory budget authority from the Crime Victims Fund. I look 

forward to hearing DOJ’s justification for this request, which is the 

continuation of an effort that began under the past administration. 

In the course of the Judiciary Committee’s comprehensive review 

of DOJ programs and components, it will be appropriate to consider 

whether the Crime Victims Fund’s annual allocation formula 

should be updated. In the meantime, I will expect DOJ to consult 

with the Appropriations Committees on when and if it is ever appropriate to subvert the Crime Victims Fund allocation formula in 

order to make up for discretionary appropriation shortfalls. I thank 

all of you for joining us today. I especially thank Mr. Hanson, and 

I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thanks, Chairman. At this time, the chair recognizes Judiciary Committee ranking member and recognize you to 

give an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Judge Chairman, and to our chairman 

of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte; it is a pleasure for us to come 

here today to listen to the acting assistant attorney general, Mr. 

Alan Hanson, of the Office of Justice Programs. We welcome you 

to this discussion today, and we want to examine the grant programs administered by the Department of Justice. 

Certainly, it is appropriate that we conduct regular oversight of 

the various programs, their administration, and their implementation, both because of the amount of funding involved and because 

of the important role they play in helping to make us all safer from 

crime. 

7 

In total, the Department administers grants that award more than $5 billion per year. These grants are critical to the ability of 

recipients, including State, local, and tribal governments, to engage 

in the full range of activities necessary to prevent crime and to investigate crimes that do take place and to hold offenders accountable and to reduce recidivism and, most importantly, prepare exoffenders for reentry into their communities after they have served 

their sentences. 

Grant funding also helps provide some measure of assistance to 

crime victims who need and deserve help after being harmed. I will 

mention just a few of these programs to illustrate the range of 

their impact. 

Grant funding under the Violence Against Women Act established in 1994 has been critical to improving our Nation’s response 

to intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Then 

there is the COPS Hiring Program also established in 1994, which 

has helped over 13,000 State, local, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies hire over 129 police officers and deputy sheriffs. 

In my district in Michigan, the Department’s grants include 

funding from the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, and they have 

helped Detroit address its backlog of untested sexual assault kits 

and match samples with offenders whose DNA is contained in the 

FBI’s database. The Second Chance Act, a bipartisan program enacted more than a decade ago, has helped State and local governments focus resources on programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism and make us safer by helping ex-offenders successfully reintegrate into society after incarceration, most important. In 

fact, just today, the Justice Center of the Council of State Governments is issuing a report entitled ‘‘Reducing Recidivism: States Deliver Results.’’ And I ask unanimous consent that this report be entered into the hearing record. 

[This material is available at the Committee and can be accessed 

on the committee repository at: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/ 

JU08/20170608/106070/HHRG-115-JU08-20170608-SD002.pdf] 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. The report highlights the results in 

seven States in which recidivism has decreased according to several 

different measures. These States, including my State of Michigan, 

have all received significant Second Chance Act funding. Clearly, 

this program works, and we must continue to support it. 

And just last year, this committee worked in a bipartisan manner to enact the comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act programs that will target funding to help prevent and address our heroin and opioid drug crisis. 

Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues that are here, our State, local, 

and tribal governments need our help. And our work to give it to 

them has been successful. For more than 25 years, the tide of crime 

and violence has receded. While yearly statistics can vary and some 

cities may not always experience the same success as the national 

trend during a given period of time, overall, crime is about half of 

what it was at its peak in 1991. 

Violent crime has plummeted by 51 percent. And property crime 

has fallen by 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. Providing an array of grants, some that are more general in scope and 

others that are more focused on particular techniques or problems, 

8 

has been critical to a multifaceted, successful strategy to fight 

crime. 

And so, that is why we conduct oversight here today. Going forward, we have the opportunity to both maintain and improve our 

grant programs. And I look forward to the continued success. I 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back if there is any time remaining. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the ranking member. At this time, we will 

begin by swearing in our witness. So, if you would, Mr. Hanson, 

please rise. 

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony 

you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

You may be seated. Let the record reflect the witness responded 

in the affirmative. 

Our witness, Mr. Alan Hanson, who currently serves as the acting assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. Prior to the Department of Justice, Mr. 

Hanson worked in a variety of roles on Capitol Hill. Most recently, 

Mr. Hanson worked for Senator Richard Shelby, where he served 

as general counsel and chief of staff. Mr. Hanson also gained congressional policy and political experience in his previous roles as a 

legislative director for not only Senator Shelby, but Senator Jeff 

Sessions, a name that rings a bell, and Congresswoman Anne 

Northrup. 

Mr. Hanson received a bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt University, part of the Southeastern Conference, and earned his J.D. degree from Georgetown University. 

The witness’ statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. We just ask that the witness summarizes his testimony in 

5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a 

light in front of you. And with 1 minute to go, it moves to yellow 

to alert you there is a minute left. And when the light turns red, 

that is the indication that the time is expired. 

I now recognize our first and only witness, Mr. Hanson. I am 

going to have to step out for a moment, and Mr. Johnson is going 

to temporarily chair. But I have reviewed your written statement, 

and I look forward to hearing from you further. Mr. Hanson, you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN HANSON, ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. HANSON. Thank you, Congressman Gohmert. Thank you to 

Ranking Member Jackson Lee; thank you to Chairman Goodlatte, 

and to Ranking Member Conyers, and other members of the subcommittee for having me here to testify this morning. It is a privilege to be here to discuss the work of my office, the Office of Justice 

Programs, as well as the work of the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, and the Office on Violence Against Women. 

Let me say, first of all, I am very pleased to see some of my 

former colleagues here today. Before taking my current position as 

head of OJP, I spent more than 17 years working for members of 

Congress in both the House and the Senate. I fully appreciate that 

9 

magnitude of your responsibility, and I share your commitment to 

ensuring that federally-funded programs are well managed and responsive to local needs. 

Under the leadership of Attorney General Sessions, the Department of Justice is working diligently to fulfill its original core mission, which is to uphold the rule of law and ensure that justice if 

administered fairly and effectively. As you are aware, OJP, OVW, 

and the COPS Office award a wide range of grants and cooperative 

agreements to support local, State, and tribal law enforcement, 

criminal and juvenile justice agencies, and victim service programs. 

These funds have proven to be critical to ensuring public safety in 

America. 

But we do much more. We provide training and technical assistance; we fund research; we develop technology; we gather statistics; 

and we distribute information to help justice system professionals 

do their jobs better. Using all the resources Congress has given us, 

we are working hard to reduce crime and violence and protect our 

communities. 

Empowered by an executive order from President Trump, the Attorney General established a task force on crime reduction and 

public safety to address the law and order challenges facing our 

country. Each of the Department’s grant-making offices is playing 

a key role. 

Later this month, under the auspices of this task force, we will 

host a National Crime Reduction Summit where we bring in law 

enforcement experts, victim assistance organizations, community 

groups, and researchers who share information about local crimefighting efforts and to map out strategies for reducing crime. The 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2018 offers another clear 

signal of this administration’s commitment to public safety. His request includes $70 million for a block grants program for 

Project Safe Neighborhoods, which would create Federal, State, 

local, and tribal partnerships to reduce gang and gun crime. Another $5 million would go to a DOJ-wide program targeting cities 

with high rates of violence. 

We are also working to fight the threat imposed by illicit drugs, 

especially opioids. We know the dangers they pose both to our citizens and to our law enforcement professionals. That is why the 

President’s budget asks for $20 million for a new, comprehensive 

opioid abuse program, another $80 million to support drug courts 

and other substance abuse programs. Of course, the safety of our 

communities is utterly dependent on the skill, commitment, and, 

not least, the well-being of our law enforcement officers. 

These officers put their lives on the line every day. They deserve 

to know we have their back. The President has made his commitment to America’s public safety officers very clear. One of his earliest actions was to sign an executive order directing the Justice 

Department to develop a strategy to reduce violence against law 

enforcement. 

His budget request proposes substantial investments in our Bulletproof Vest Partnership program and in resilience training available through our Bauer Initiative. We are also demonstrating a 

solid commitment to officer wellness research and the Body Armor 

Standards and Testing Program managed by our National Institute 

10 

of Justice. The COPS Office is, of course, central to the Department’s officer safety and violent crime reduction efforts. COPS programs have supported more than 13,000 of the Nation’s 18,000 law 

enforcement agencies. Up to $27 million under the COPS Hiring 

Program will be available this year to help jurisdictions fight violent crime and address other high-priority local concerns. And $157 

million is proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2018 budget for 

law enforcement hiring. 

Finally, as we deal with the scourge of gun, gang, and drug violence, we are also fighting to reduce domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Our Office on Violence Against 

Women funds hundreds of law enforcement officers and prosecutors 

who enforce protection orders, try sexual assault cases, and bring 

perpetrators or these crimes to justice. And OVW’s grant-funded 

program serves some 650,000 victims every year. 

We propose to build on this record of success. The President’s budget request for OVW includes $480 million to reduce crime, 

help victims, reach all affected communities, and promote evidencebased practices. Between the Department’s three grant-making offices, we are helping to lead an aggressive, preemptive attack on 

the crime and violence creeping into too many of our neighborhoods 

while guarding against waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. 

I have given a brief, but I hope compelling, account of the Justice 

Department’s work to fight crime, serve victims, and protect our 

Nation’s law enforcement officers. With your support, we will fight 

hard to secure an America where criminals find no haven and lawabiding citizens do not have to look over their shoulders. This is 

my pledge to you. Thank you for inviting me to testify before the 

subcommittee today. I will be happy to take any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Hanson, for your testimony. We will now proceed under the 5 minute rule for questions, 

and I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

I am really grateful for the information you provided us today. 

Your written statement was very helpful. The summary today is 

very helpful as well. And I was particularly grateful for you bringing up efforts that are being taken to prevent fraud, waste, and 

abuse through the Department’s grant-making programs. There is 

a lot of attention being paid to that these days, and I think it is 

appropriate and necessary. 

And as you have noted, the Department needs to take steps to 

increase internal oversight because we have got nearly $10 billion 

in OJP programs and active grants. So, the first question I had 

today is something you mentioned in your testimony about a thorough pre-award risk analysis that is done before any grant is 

awarded. And I imagine that the pre-award risk analysis goes directly to just the initial grant recipient. Is that right? 

Mr. HANSON. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. So, is there any pre-award risk analysis of the sub-recipients of those grants? Because I know that is 

a common practice. 

Mr. HANSON. Typically, there is not pre-award assessment of the 

sub-grantees because it is not always clear who those would be. 

However, we do have several measures in place where, of course, 

11 

as you pointed out, we do assess the risk they may pose. We give 

them quite a bit of training with regard to how to monitor; we have 

certain monitoring requirements from them during the course of 

their grant project performance. And then, we do provide our own 

oversight, depending on what we see on the ground and through 

our program managers. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. So, in your view, is all that working 

out pretty well? I mean, is that a sufficient buffer for abuses at the 

sub-recipient level, you think? 

Mr. HANSON. Sub-recipient grantees are a challenge. I think we 

have the structure in place, and a lot of times, it is a matter of 

working more closely with our grantees to properly monitor them. 

I think those efforts could be enhanced. I think we are continually 

learning from, perhaps, past problems and enhancing our efforts to 

monitor those more closely. But, again, misbehavior is often just a 

lack of appropriate knowledge or understanding. And really working with the grantees and to the extent necessary the sub-grantees 

to make sure they understand what is expected. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I appreciate that. Does the Office of 

Justice Programs provide grants for overseas projects? I think I 

have read where some of that is going overseas. And if so, is it possible for us to get a comprehensive list of all of those? 

Mr. HANSON. We will be happy to get you a comprehensive list 

in follow up. I can tell you it is very rare. The only examples I am 

aware of would be some grants into Mexico and potentially into 

Canada. But I would want to look into my answer to that. We will 

follow up with you and get you a comprehensive list. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I could be wrong. I think I read somewhere about seminars or programs in Bulgaria and maybe Western 

Europe. I am a little hazy on it, but that is why I was asking for 

the summary. So, that would be helpful. 

Mr. HANSON. Absolutely. We would be happy to provide that. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. So, when those grants or those funds 

are being used overseas or sent to programs like that, how does 

DOJ ensure that grants are being carried out in accordance with 

our law and our values? I mean, is there any safeguards in place 

for that that you know of? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes, it would be the same safeguards that I had 

outlined previously. We closely monitor our grantees. We require 

them to monitor their sub-grantees. We have program managers 

who oversee the programs who also have our financial office who 

provides quite a bit of oversight. We also work very closely with the 

Office of the Inspector General and, at times, with the GAO to 

monitor those. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. All right. So, the Department’s conducting these routine reviews of the grant recipient’s finances and 

progress. You are ensuring that the rigid parameters of every grant 

are continuously met. Let’s say that you uncovered a discrepancy 

or, Heaven forbid, some sort of intentional fraud or something. At 

what point would the Department require a grantee to pay back an 

award when waste or fraud or abuse is detected? 

Mr. HANSON. That is a potential remedy. We always try to work 

with our grantees so that money is not called back or recaptured. 

It happens on occasion. It begins, first, with, if we discover there 

12 

is a problem, the first thing we do is consult with our grantee on 

how to correct those. We will typically or commonly go ahead and 

freeze the funds at that time until we are satisfied that those corrections have been made. It would be rare, but it has happened, 

even in my short time at OJP, where we have had to call back 

some funding. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I am running out of time quickly 

here, but just as a follow up to that: are there whistleblower provisions that apply to all of this? So, if someone is out in the field, 

so to speak, and they see waste or fraud or abuse and they report 

it, is that part of the program? 

Mr. HANSON. It is. Whistleblower protections, certainly, within 

the Department and within the office, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Got it. Well, I am out of time. So, I 

will recognize the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much and thank you for your testimony. It has been helpful to us, and we want to stay in contact 

as we continue to work through what we are drawing out of the 

hearings today. With reference to the Community Oriented Police 

Services and about police militarization, what is the status of the 

interagency working group on lending Federal military equipment? 

Mr. HANSON. As you mentioned, we have a permanent working 

group on law enforcement equipment. In the past couple of years, 

they made some recommendations that were implemented under 

the prior administration. We have heard some level of concern from 

stakeholders in that regard, and we have recently reconvened that 

permanent working group to sort of reassess and look at sort of the 

parameters of what that equipment’s desired to be used for, and 

what equipment may be proper to supply to given law enforcement 

agencies. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, does the interagency working group prescribe policies and practices for State and local law enforcement 

use of federally-resourced military weapons and equipment? 

Mr. HANSON. The working group does set policies and parameters for the appropriate use, yes, Congressman. 

Mr. CONYERS. And is it operating fairly well or okay? How would 

you describe what is happening there? 

Mr. HANSON. I think we feel like it is working well. However, 

like I said, there have been some stakeholder concerns expressed 

in the past couple years. And so, that permanent working group 

continues to assess, particularly in light of the new administration, 

how best that law enforcement equipment can be supplied. 

Mr. CONYERS. Does the interagency working group prohibit certain federally-resourced military weapons and equipment for use by 

State and local law enforcement, if you know? 

Mr. HANSON. That is correct. There are certain limitations on the 

use of that equipment, yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do any come to mind that you would like us to 

know about? 

Mr. HANSON. The only one that I remember, because I said it on 

the initial part of one meeting, was essentially a tracked armored 

vehicle, so essentially a tank. I know there is some limitations on 

that. Others, I would have to check and get back to you. 

13 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, make the check, and if there is, please add 

it to our record. 

Mr. HANSON. Be happy to do so. 

Mr. CONYERS. And finally, what is the status of the implementation of the Death in Custody Reporting Act? 

Mr. HANSON. DCRA was enacted relatively recently. And now we 

have, since the year 2000, been compiling death and custody statistics through the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. However, 

DCRA has changed the parameters of how that information is collected, required to be collected from the States. We have been 

working on that since the enactment. The Federal plan for doing 

so is still being developed. And then, of course, we will have to 

work with our partners in the State to collect that information. 

Mr. CONYERS. And finally, which office within the Office of Justice Programs is overseeing DCRA implementation? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes, that has been part of the ongoing planning for 

compliance with DCRA. However, currently, plans are pointing to 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance for doing so. 

Mr. CONYERS. Finally, how is DCRA implementation being coordinated with other Department of Justice data collection efforts 

around police community encounters, including the FBI Use-ofForce Database and the Community Oriented Policing Services, 

which was formerly in the White House Police Data Initiative? 

Mr. HANSON. As we continue to compile and set forth our efforts 

in collecting that data, I do know that we are leveraging all the 

statistical resources within the Department. So, FBI, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics do that now, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

is, as of now, expected to head up that effort. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, Judge, 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. It is still hard not to call you Mr. 

Chairman, you were for so long. But thank you. At this time, we 

will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being 

here, Mr. Hanson. Just a few questions. First of all, we obviously 

see far too many officers killed across the country in the line of 

duty every year. What steps is the Department taking to prioritize 

the safety of our law enforcement officers all across the country? 

Mr. HANSON. Well, in addition to the executive order that the 

President issued very early in his term calling for our efforts to 

protect law enforcement, I think those priorities are reflected in the 

budget request for fiscal year 2018. 

As I also mentioned, the Attorney General has created a task 

force of crime reduction. And within that task force, there is a subcommittee specifically devoted to, as we call it, back the blue. And 

that is particularly to protecting and promoting the safety and 

wellness of law enforcement officers. Within the numerous programs that we have within OJP and COPS and OVW, to a lesser 

extent, to protect the police, one, in particular, highlight is the 

Bauer Initiative. 

And that is a five-part program looking at a variety of areas that 

we can assist law enforcement officers. Providing office safety and 

wellness training, active shooter response training, de-escalations 

training and technical assistance, officer safety and wellness proVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:11 Nov 22, 2017 Jkt 027070 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A070.XXX A070
14 

grams to hopefully drive police fatalities to zero, and also a research and evaluation program. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. As a long time member of this committee, 20-plus years now, I want to commend the President on the 

emphasis that he is putting on keeping our brave men and women 

in uniform across the country to be as safe as possible. It is a very 

dangerous job. We have had far too many killed over the years. I 

have been to far too many of the candlelight ceremonies here in 

Washington and also too many funerals back in my district in the 

city of Cincinnati over the years, too. So, I want to commend him 

for that and urge him to keep his attention on this issue. 

Let me move on to a couple of other things really quickly. During 

the last hearing, I had asked about the body-worn cameras and the 

pros and cons associated with officers wearing such devices. What 

are the eligible uses for grant awards in support of body-worn cameras? 

Mr. HANSON. Within our body-worn camera program, that could 

also be funded with Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Program 

as well. We provide for, obviously, acquisition of equipment, so actual body cameras, as well as policies and procedures for their use, 

implementation, and technology associated with that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. When I first came here, again, a long 

time ago, President Clinton was in office and he had pushed the 

COPS program, which a number of Republicans, including myself, 

had taken a look at in general support of, although we had some 

concerns. 

One of the concerns we had was that it put some cities in the 

position where they would hire folks for a couple of years with Federal dollars. And then, unfortunately the dollars went away after 

a couple of years, and the cities could not necessarily afford to keep 

them on; people got laid off. Would you want to comment on that? 

And have we done anything to address that issue? 

Mr. HANSON. I believe so. I mean, as I am sure you know, the 

program is designed such that we do provide Federal resources for 

the first few years, with the understanding and requirement that 

the local jurisdiction maintains, does not simply lay off. Obviously, 

there are challenges, fiscally and otherwise, in local jurisdictions. 

And I would not be able to speak authoritatively, but I do know 

we try to work with local jurisdictions to ensure they are complying 

with the requirements of the program. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The President has been outspoken on 

making sure that our local communities are complying with Federal law with respect to enforcing our immigration laws, and it has 

been a fairly controversial topic in some cities and States across 

the country. Would you want to comment on if communities declare 

themselves sanctuary cities, what impact that might have on Federal funding? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes, particularly within the Department of Justice. 

So, simply declaring that they are a sanctuary jurisdiction in of 

itself might trigger suspicion, but it would not immediately trigger 

action on our part. In accordance with the Attorney General’s grant 

funding memo of May 22nd, we are looking particularly at three 

grant programs administered through the Department of Justice. 

That is the COPS program, the Byrne JAG Program, as well as 

15 

Scat Payments, particularly where we are going to require jurisdictions to certify that they are in compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 as 

a condition of receiving any grant funding under those programs. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And as my time is wrapping up, let me 

just comment on one final thing. The opioid addiction and deaths 

as a result has been a tragedy all across the country, including my 

State and Cincinnati. And I saw a figure the other day that said 

that, back in 1980, I think, there were about 10,000 deaths nationwide due to overdose on drugs. And that has gone from 10,000 to 

almost 60,000 last year. Would you want to comment? And Mr. 

Chairman, if you will give me an additional 30 seconds, I would 

greatly appreciate it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without objection. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSON. That is a priority of this administration and this 

Attorney General. Under the comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, we have created the Opioid Addiction Program. Significant 

resources are being devoted in fiscal year 2017 and requested for 

fiscal year 2018, in addition to other resources of well over a total 

of over $100 million devoted particularly to addressing that crisis 

and hopefully creating an environment where folks either choose 

not to become addicted to opioids or assist them in becoming free 

of that scourge. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Jeffries, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished chair as well as the witness for your presence and your testimony here today. I want to 

pick up where my distinguished colleague from the great State of 

Ohio left off on the sanctuary cities conversation. Mr. Hanson, I assume you are familiar with President Trump’s executive order entitled ‘‘Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States?’’ 

Mr. HANSON. I am. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And section 9(a) orders the Attorney General and 

the secretary to ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to 

comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373, so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, are 

not eligible to receive Federal grants. Is that right? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, in the previous fiscal year, New York City, 

so-called sanctuary jurisdiction, received $4.3 million in Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding that it could lose under this order. 

Is that right? 

Mr. HANSON. That is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And on Friday the 21st, as I believe you just testified, the Department of Justice sent a letter to New York City and 

maybe other cities asking New York City to demonstrate its compliance with section 1373. Is that right? 

Mr. HANSON. That is right. That was April 21. That was a reminder letter of the requirements to do so, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay, but are you aware that Federal courts have 

found that policies that limit or prohibit compliance with immigration holds and requests for relief do not violate section 1373? 

16 

Mr. HANSON. I am aware of ongoing litigation surrounding the 

sanctuary cities issue. I am not sure if I understand that particular 

limitation you described. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay, well, let’s go through some of the jurisprudence that exists. According to the United States district court, 

northern district of California, in the Stanley v. City and County 

of San Francisco case, section 1373 only prohibits the enactment of 

certain policies about sharing immigration status information. It 

does not command the States or cities to administer or enforce Federal law. Was that the holding of that decision? 

Mr. HANSON. I will be honest. I did not read the entire decision, 

but that is my understanding of it, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay, and the Third Circuit, Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, I believe the Virgin Islands, in the Galarza decision, I believe, held immigration detainers do not and cannot compel a State 

and local law enforcement agency to detain suspected undocumented individuals subject to removal and courts holding; electing 

not to respond to them is entirely in the discretion of local law enforcement. Is that your understanding of the Third Circuit’s decision? 

Mr. HANSON. Again, I have not read that opinion, but that is my 

understanding. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay, now, are you familiar with the Supreme 

Court’s case in Arizona v. the United States? 

Mr. HANSON. If you mean from a few years back, I am. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. That is correct. And that decision held nothing in 

Federal law requires localities to enforce immigration laws and regulations. Correct? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes, that is my understanding. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And I assume you are familiar with the 10th 

Amendment? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes, also yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And the 10th Amendment precludes the Federal 

Government from coercing State or local governments to use their 

resources to enforce Federal laws or regulations like immigration. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. HANSON. That is certainly a fair interpretation of that, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And that is a concept known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, correct? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And the Supreme Court has continuously upheld 

the anti-commandeering doctrine, correct? 

Mr. HANSON. I believe that is correct, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. In fact, Justice Scalia, may he rest in peace, who 

was, obviously, a conservative—I am a progressive, but had great 

respect for his legal mind. When he struck down, in Prince v. 

United States, key provisions of the Brady Bill, stated, ‘‘It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere and 

that they should not be,’’ his words, ‘‘dragooned’’—very creative— 

‘‘dragooned into administering Federal law.’’ Are you familiar with 

that decision? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes. Yes. 

17 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Chief Justice Roberts, again, conservative, I am a 

progressive Democrat, Supreme Court decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, 

which struck down a few provisions of the Affordable Care Act, 

noted that, ‘‘If you forbid funding conditions that are so coercive 

they amount to a gun to the head of the State or local government 

and that is inconsistent with Federal law or the Constitution.’’ Correct? 

Mr. HANSON. Yes, I recall that ruling. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so, I guess, in closing, my time has expired, 

I cannot understand why the Department of Justice, which is the 

entity that should administer the law, faithfully execute, as well as 

the Constitution, can conduct themselves in this fashion. 

Notwithstanding clear judicial precedent from the Article III 

branch of the government to the contrary, including decisions written by some of the greatest conservative, legal scholars ever to 

exist in this great Republic. And I would hope, not that you would 

listen to the voices of those of us on this side of the aisle, but listen 

to those who have consistently articulated decisions anchored in 

the valued precedent of federalism in this great country. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentlemen and especially the shoutout to federalism. At this time, I recognize the gentlelady for Alabama, Mrs. Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you very much. Hello, Mr. Hanson. 

Mr. HANSON. Hello, Congresswoman. Pleasure. 

Mrs. ROBY. Good to see you here. Congratulations on your new 

position as acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs. So, thank you for being here today. Two things I 

wanted to talk about: missing and exploited children programs. 

Congress has provided an average of $70 million a year for the past 

3 years for these programs. And I wanted to just hear from you 

maybe a breakdown of how the Department of Justice intends or 

has allocated this funding. This is something very important to me. 

When I joined this committee and this Congress, I made it clear 

that I wanted to focus a lot of my energy and attention to missing 

and exploited children’s programs, as well as human and sex trafficking issues across the board. We have recently passed the Global 

Child Protection Act and some other really important pieces of legislation that we have worked directly with DOJ on, so that we can 

continue to advocate and fight for the victims of these horrific 

crimes. And so, if you could just talk a little bit about that funding 

and anything you want to add as it relates to funding in the fiscal 

year 2018 as well. 

Mr. HANSON. Sure. Well, thank you for that question. Exploitation of children is a very serious issue for all of us and certainly 

for our Attorney General. The Department, as you pointed out, has 

committed significant resources over the years and that commitment continues on our fiscal year 2018 budget request. And a large 

portion of that funding will go to the National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children for a variety of programs that it runs to 

both help children who have been exploited or abducted in some 

way and also to prevent that. 

We have a number of other programs looking at internet crimes 

against children and other grant programs. So, very significant 

18 

funding to help not only, hopefully, prevent those crimes, but then 

also assist them if they are victims of them. I do not have it with 

me, but a comprehensive breakdown of that spending, we would be 

happy to get it to you. 

Mrs. ROBY. Well, I appreciate that. And please know that you 

have very willing partners here. There are horrible abuses that are 

taking place not just globally, but right in our own backyard. And 

I know you are aware, but even in our State of Alabama, it has 

been brought to our attention about the corridor between Birmingham and Atlanta and what is going on right there. And I 

think the more we talk about it, as hard as it is to talk about these 

terrible things that are being done to children, we need to make 

sure that we are doing our part to educate others about what is 

going on right here in our own country as well. 

So, please know that I look forward to continuing to work with 

the Department on these issues and looking for opportunities to 

combat these horrible crimes. 

I want to go back to what the gentleman from Ohio was talking 

about with opioid abuse. This, too, has become an epidemic. It is 

an epidemic in our country. The more I read and learn about what 

is going on, we have to continue to do all that we can as members 

of Congress to make sure that the resources are available. We did 

so, as you mentioned with the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery 

Act, CARA. But I just wanted to know the conversations that you 

are having in the Department with stakeholders, who those stakeholders might be. 

And then, also the issue of pilfering. There was some grants that 

were to be made available to deal with this issue on the locking 

mechanism of the pills that may be in a cabinet where a child or 

anyone would have access to. So, if you could just maybe expand 

a little bit on that issue; that would be great. 

Mr. HANSON. Sure. So, as I mentioned to Congressman Chabot, 

we are proposing in fiscal year 2018 $20 million or so particularly 

to a number of grants. Looking to help local communities to develop systems, processes, ways of assisting addicts as well as, of 

course, a number of other resources with drug courts, intervention 

counseling that can be leveraged for that purpose as well. You 

talked about the, I think, the secure pill bottle program. That is 

something that could be funded. We do not have a solicitation specific to that, but that is something that could be funded through 

one of our co-op grants. And I suspect we would see some proposals 

to that effect, and we will certainly give them very serious consideration. 

Mrs. ROBY. Sure. And I appreciate that as well. And I mean, of 

course, that is just one example amongst many that these very precious dollars could be used to help combat, again, this epidemic, 

this very serious epidemic in our country. Thank you again for your 

service. Glad to see you here today, and I yield back. 

Mr. HANSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, I will go ahead and recognize myself 

for 5 minutes and try not to duplicate anything else because one 

of the things we are hoping that is going to be done by the DOJ 

is cut out a lot of the duplication that has occurred over the years. 

19 

And I, probably more than most, recognize the difficulties this DOJ 

will have because of what has gone on before us. 

I have been down on the Texas-Mexico border all hours, many 

nights. And our Border Patrol open up and talk a bit in the middle 

of the night. And what I have seen over and over in talking to 

them is, as was shared one night, I was asked, ‘‘Do you know what 

the drug cartels call Homeland Security?’’ ‘‘No. What?’’ ‘‘They call 

us logistics, like the commercial. The drug cartels say all we have 

to do is get our future employees across the border, and then 

Homeland Security ships them wherever we want them to go.’’ 

I have been there numerous times when, as the officers go 

through their questions, they add a question that many of them 

want to know. ‘‘How much did you pay the gangs, the drug cartels 

to get here?’’ And it was often 5, 6, 7,000–8,000. ‘‘You do not have 

that money. Where did you come up with that money?’’ And this 

was usually in Spanish, and I would have somebody helping me. 

But the response would be, ‘‘Oh, we got $1,500, $2,000 from friends 

in America, $1,000 here and $1,000 there.’’ ‘‘Well, what are you 

doing for the rest of it?’’ ‘‘They are going to let me work it off when 

I get to the city where I am going.’’ 

They had employees paying the drug cartels to let them be employees for free in cities all over America. So, while we are spending millions of dollars through DOJ trying to help local law enforcement, at the same time, we were using Homeland Security money 

to ship future criminal agents and some of them in desperate situations, whether it was sex trafficking or drugs. 

So, it seems like some of the money DOJ is now going to be 

spending is going to be having to help communities deal with what 

we did to them in recent years. So, let me ask you: can you tell 

a little more about the National Summit on Crime Reduction and 

Public Safety? How is that going to help these situations? 

Mr. HANSON. Well, the upcoming summit, which is being conducted in the auspices of the National Crime Reduction Task Force 

created by the Attorney General, is going to bring together a large 

group of stakeholders, community groups, crime groups, law enforcement, and prosecutors throughout the country. 

And the idea is to bring them together and talk about different 

strategies and things they are doing to combat crime in their area 

and, hopefully, sort of share best practices with each other, so that 

each jurisdiction and different group can learn from the other and 

combine their knowledge and, hopefully, create strategies that we 

can disseminate nationally to fight crime, including the sorts of 

problems that you have described. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And have you worked personally, directly with 

any law enforcement in States and local governments? 

Mr. HANSON. I have not had occasion to interact with a number 

of them. I have not. Of course, I have only been on board about 

four and a half months. But I have had the opportunity to talk to 

many law enforcement officers, and I can tell you that what we are 

hearing is across the board just the breath of fresh air they feel 

coming from this Attorney General and this administration about 

getting tough on crime in their jurisdiction and the things they are 

dealing with. 

20 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. And hopefully not shipping any more people 

to their locales that they are going to end up having to deal with. 

Mr. HANSON. I can tell you that you have got an Attorney General that is absolutely committed to ending illegality at the border 

and stopping those people there, prosecuting them there, and then 

sending them back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I hope you know you do not have to tell me. 

I consider Jeff Sessions to be a dear friend and just a wonderful 

person. Well, one of the things that Mr. Jeffries has expressed as 

a concern, and it is certainly a concern of mine. I know it was a 

concern of Senator Jeff Sessions, and I am sure yourself. We do. 

We send out money and often over the years it has been, so we can 

put strings on it and dictate local control. 

Now, I know Attorney General, I was so pleased that he ended 

some of the consent decrees, which appeared, to me, to be a takeover of local law enforcement by the feds; or as Mark Levin says, 

‘‘federalizing local law enforcement.’’ Can you tell us any more 

about that working relationship with communities that have perhaps had problems, consent decree has been removed? Are we 

working with them to help them with money to get their systems 

up and working appropriately as law enforcement? 

Mr. HANSON. We are. It is our job, particularly in the 

grantmaking components of the Department, to get this money to 

law enforcement officers and agencies, so they can use it to reduce 

crime, promote public safety, and, of course, protect the well-being 

and safety of their officers. We always work with jurisdictions to 

make sure they are in compliance with whatever grant conditions 

may exist. It is not our job to deny them funding. It is to make sure 

that they fulfill the requirements to receive it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, my time has expired. I am going to see, did 

the gentleman from Louisiana or the gentlelady from Alabama 

have any further questions? All right. 

Then, Mr. Hanson, we do not always get an opportunity to do 

this, but you are the sole witness today, and you have had great 

questions from both sides of the aisle. Sometimes you do not completely respond or think of other things that you might wish to say 

maybe to expand on comments that were already made. What 

would you say is the most important takeaway that this committee 

should have from this hearing today? 

Mr. HANSON. I just want you to know that we are here to work 

with you, our authorizers and Congress, to combat crime, to promote public safety, and protect our law enforcement officers. And, 

as has been pointed out in a number of the statements today, 

sometimes there is duplication in programs; some different programs become outdated and need for flexibility. 

We are here to work with you and to get your thoughts on the 

best way forward to, again, pursue those policy priority areas set 

out by the A.G. and the President. And I would also say that there 

is no need or concern about commandeering local law enforcement 

officers. We are here to work with them as a partner and not to 

direct them or tell them what to do. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Anything further from prior answers that you 

wish to expand on or you thought of since that you wanted to add? 

21 

Mr. HANSON. Well, I will just add just a little bit to my exchange 

with Congressman Jeffries. The way forward on the sanctuary 

grant funding determination in accordance with the Attorney General’s memo from May 22nd is just to look at three grant programs. 

They were actually identified last year with regard to 1373 compliance. All jurisdictions were placed on notice in fiscal year 16 and 

agreed that compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 would be a condition of 

receiving that grant. And so, we are simply carrying that policy forward. There is no attempt to commandeer or otherwise deny grant 

funding except that, as a grant condition, jurisdictions must comply 

with all applicable Federal laws and are on notice that 8 U.S.C. 

1371 is one of those applicable laws. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. Of course, one of the concerns that is 

expressed in local jurisdictions. Yeah, we award this grant money 

and people hear the total amount, you know, whether it is $70 million, whatever it happens to be for a particular program. And yet, 

normally, it is not pointed out that salaries usually come out of 

that amount at DOJ to implement the money that goes to the local 

jurisdictions. 

And in a different committee yesterday, we were hearing from 

part of the Department of Interior that they were running about 

25 percent as administrative costs. And as I pointed out to them, 

if they were in the private sector, they would be fired and never 

be allowed to touch money again. But being they are in the government, 25 percent may be deemed not that unreasonable; I think it 

is. But, what do you see the Department of Justice doing to minimize the amount of money necessary to pay for salaries and administrative costs at DOJ, so that more can go to the locales that actually need it? 

Mr. HANSON. It is a priority of ours to concentrate the resources 

Congress makes available to us to the State and local law enforcement agencies who are our partners. As such, we try to minimize 

the overhead, for lack of a better term, that is taken out of us. We 

do not receive at OJP any direct appropriation for management or 

administration. 

Therefore, we do have to take the funding salaries and other 

costs out of the grants. However, we consistently keep that below 

8 percent. And I believe we proposed for fiscal year 2018 about 7.7 

that is drawn across the board from most, but not all of the grant 

programs. So, not even all the programs we administer to we take 

that 7.7 percent drawdown from them. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Our hearing is basically coming to a conclusion. 

But I wanted to take a point of personal privilege and point out 

that I do not know of anybody else in our committee during the 

years that President Bush was in office and the person he chose 

as the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, was the FBI Director. 

But I had numerous exchanges with Director Mueller. He had his 

5-year up-or-out program. 

For most people that have dealt with Federal law enforcement, 

they know from a local standpoint that it normally takes 5 years 

for a State and local law enforcement group to feel comfortable 

with a Federal agent. As they come in or they come in and they 

are in a special agent in charge supervisory position, often the feeling is, ‘‘Okay, is this going to be one of those guys that takes all 

22 

our work and runs and does the press conference? Or are they actually going to be a partner?’’ 

Five years, you know what you have got. You know you have got 

partners. And we had incredible, experienced FBI agents all over 

the country doing phenomenal work. In his 5-year up-or-out program, when you are a supervisor for 5 years, you either got to get 

out or come to Washington. And so, many of them thought, ‘‘I am 

not coming to Washington and being a yes-man, you know, a minion. I would rather stay here. I can make more money. I wish I 

could stay in the FBI and continue to work, even though a lesser 

salary.’’ 

And as, I think the Wall Street Journal pointed out, we lost 

thousands and thousands of years of experience in the FBI. I felt 

like Director Mueller basically gutted the FBI of so much experience. And if you are looking for a bunch of yes-men, then the less 

experienced the better. 

But I would just encourage you and our Attorney General, you 

know, use those assets. Let’s build it back from what Director 

Mueller brought it down to. We got a lot of work to do. And I am 

grateful for the people that are still there with experience, but it 

is going to make your job harder. So, I appreciate your being here 

today. I know it is not fun testifying except for the bonus check you 

get for coming. 

And not everybody in government appreciates sarcasm, but the 

witness is not receiving any remuneration for testifying. But without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit 

additional written questions for the witness or additional materials 

for the record. Hearing nothing further, our meeting is adjourned. 

Thank you, Mr. Hanson. 

Mr. HANSON. Thank you. 

Æ