U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

80–314 PDF 2013

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 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

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 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

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 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 highend 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 
2 

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. 
3 

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. 
4 

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 
5 

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. 
6 

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. 
7 

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 mil-
8 

lion 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:] 
9 
10 

-

~ z 

z 

o -

~ « 

u 

} 
11 

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 
12 

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:] 
13 

Tom A. Coburn, M.D. 

United States Senator 

Written Testimony 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations 

United States House of Representatives 

"Luxury Jets and Empty Prisons: Wasteful and Duplicative Spending at 

the Department of Justice" 

April 10, 2013 

Chainnan Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on wasteful and duplicative 

spending at the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

continues to provide excellent annual reports on duplicative federal programs, as well as specific 

publications on the Justice Department. The recently released third annual report is no 

exception, and I recommend it to each of you. 

Federal duplication and the mismanagement of taxpayer funds in the current labyrinth of 

government programs is one of the most critical matters currently facing Congress. We must 

eliminate duplication wherever we find it, and stop contributing to the problem by continuing to 

create new, unnecessary and duplicative programs. A government with over $16 trillion in debt 

owes its citizens a commitment to root out duplication and waste. If we do not, Congress will be 

unable to slow federal spending and will perpetuate ineffective government programs that do not 

actually meet the needs of those we intend to help. 

This problem has never been more apparent than it is at the Department of Justice. My 

testimony will examine some of the primary pitfalls of duplication at the Justice Department, 

provide a brief overview of the current state of duplication across the government, and suggest 

ways Congress can eliminate duplication, including the comprehensive debt reduction plan I 

released in 20 II called Back in Black, and prevent waste, fraud, duplication, and unnecessary 

spending at the Justice Department in the future. 

Duplication Nation 

Over the past three years, GAO has released three annual reports on duplication, a report card on 

the federal government's progress in reducing duplication by acting on prior GAO 

recommendations, and a report on reducing the risk of unnecessary duplication at the Department 

of Justice. The latest report was issued yesterday, and it highlights extensive duplication and 

overlap in hundreds of federal programs. This week's report reveals 17 more areas of extensive 

duplication and an additional 14 areas of signiticant potential cost savings for the federal 

government. 
14 

The findings by GAO reveal just how much our government has grown and, in many cases, how 

Congress has played a significant role in this expansion by ignoring the principles outlined in the 

Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. Yet, even with the road map provided by GAO, 

Congress does not have the discipline to control federal spending and re-route our nation back to 

fiscal responsibility. 

The lives of every American are touched, in some way, by a federal program or initiative. The 

federal government provides funding to address a variety of issues, from law enforcement to 

homelessness to victim assistance to education; however, these programs overlap each other not 

only across different agencies, but also within each individual agency as one agency usually 

administers multiple programs for the same or similar purposes. Whether it is carrying out 

similar missions or funding similar projects, everything the government is doing once, it is likely 

doing twice or three times and often not very welL 

Duplication at the Department of Justice 

As proven by the annual GAO duplication reports, every agency suffers from unnecessary 

duplication, overlap, and fragmentation; however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been one 

of the worst offenders. 

While DOJ addressed GAO's 2011 recommendation to reduce overlap in explosives 

investigations between ATF and the FBI, GAO notes continued monitoring is needed to ensure 

successful implementation.! Furthermore, the 2012 annual duplication report, along with GAO's 

July 2012 report on DOJ grant programs, highlights the problems of waste, fraud, abuse, and 

duplication that continue to plague the Justice Department. 

DOJ awards all grants through its three granting agencies-the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 

the Office on Violence Against Women (OYW), and the Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS). "Since t1scal year 2005, Congress has appropriated approximately $30 billion for crime 

prevention, law enforcement, and crime victim services for more than 200 federal financial 

assistance programs that the Department of Justice .. manages.,,2 In FY 2010 alone, DOJ 

awarded approximately $3.9 billion through 11,000 grants. 

GAO notes the number of grant programs, recipients, and the billions of dollars awarded 

annually present multiple administrative challenges for DOr In fact, for the 11th consecutive 

year, the DOJ Inspector General (DOJ IG) continues to include grant management on its list of 

"Top 10 Management Challenges" facing the DOJ3 In its list of 2012 challenges, the DOJ IG 

notes "The Department's management of grants and contracts has long presented a challenge by 

virtue of the large amounts of money at stake. From FY 2008 through FY 2011 the Department 

1 Gov<O'lllIIlcnt Accountability Otlice, "Opportunities to Reduct! Potential Duphcation in GoveI1l111ent Programs. Save Tas Dollar~. and Enhance 

Revenue," :\farch 201L GAO-11-318SP. aVailable at lrtW~~~~y".lli1_QJ1Q'~':,,,~!~)20)1:'i92Q_,Qs:ll 

2 Gov<O'lllIIlcnt Accountability Otlice. "OppOltunitic:;, to Reduce Potential Duplication in GOVc11l111ellt Programs. Save Tax Dollar", and Enhance 

Revenue," Febtuary 2012, GAO-12-342Sl'. at 110. oVOIlaMe otbttp.",''.'i'\vw.gao.gov·;j:;,,,eb 59\l/Sgggj KpllC 

.' U.S. Department of Justicc, Ottice of the Inspector GeneraL 'Top :\,fanageIIlent Challenge:;,," ovodohle of 

bnp:/'www.jmtke.goY'nir·'cb"Uenge~ 

2 
15 

awarded approximately $15 billion in grants and $27 billion in contracts, and it awarded another 

approximately $1 billion in grants and $6 billion in contracts in FY 2012."" 

Grants continue to be managed poorly as the DOJ does not assess or evaluate its grant programs 

to determine if they overlap or duplicate each other, or to determine, where appropriate, if certain 

grant programs should be consolidated. GAO found DOJ "awarded funds from different grant 

programs to the same applicants whose applications described similar-and in some cases, the 

same-purposes for using the grant funds'" In addition, the three DOJ granting agencies are not 

required to consider sub-grant data in their award decisions. As a result, "Justice is at risk of 

unintentionally awarding funding from multiple grant programs to grant recipients in the same 

communities for the same or similar purposes because it does not consistently and routinely 

check for any unnecessary duplication in grant applications.,,6 

For example, 56 of the 253 grant programs (more than 20%) reviewed by GAO provide funds to 

be used for victims' assistance. GAO notes 18 of those 56 programs were administered by a 

DOJ office other than OVW and the Oftlce for Victims of Crime (OVC), even though the 

primary function of these two offices is to serve crime victims. 

Furthermore, the DOJ IG and other GAO reports have consistently noted tremendous waste, 

fraud, and abuse in victims' assistance funding, particularly those administered by OVW. For 

example, in February, the DOJ IG audited several OVW grants, totaling over $2.2 million, 

awarded to a non-profit in Utah. The DO] IG questioned almost $28,000 of grant expenditures, 

which were used for such prohibited items as jackets and water bottles for the grantee's staff at 

an end project celebration (which the non-profit says was an event encouraged by OVW), 

unapproved meals, window blinds and appliance warranties, unapproved training and travel 

costs, and a client's cable TV bill 7 

In February, the DOJ IG aJso audited six VA W A grants, totaJing over $4.1 million, to an Indian 

tribe in New Mexico." The DOJ TG found the Eight Northern Tndian Pueblos Council, Tnc. 

(ENIPC) incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in unallowable costs through these grants. 

EN1PC paid over $347,000 in unallowable payroll costs and an additional $81,068 in 

unallowable fringe benetlts associated with those payroll expenses. Furthermore, the DOJ TG 

questioned over $97,000 in unsupportable and unallowable training and associated travel costs 

incurred by ENTPC, as well as over $15,000 in unallowable insurance charges. Overall, the DOJ 

IG determined that ENIPC did not have a "process in place to effectively ensure that charges to 

grants are allowable," and questioned a total of $573,266 (14%) in grant funds." 

+ Id. at Top Ivlanagemcnl Challenges. 2012 

5 Government A.:countabililY Office. "Opportunities Lo Reu lice Potential Duplication in Government Programs. Save Tax Dollars, anu Enhan..:e 

Revenue," FeblUat}' 2012, wpm note 2, at 111 

old. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Ottic!! of the Inspector Gen<O'raL "Audit of the Oftice on Violence Again:;,t \Vomen Grants ,lwarded to Citlzen:;, 

Against Phy:;,ical and SCA,lal Abu~e, Logan. Utah," GR-60-13-003, February 2013. aVOIlnhle of 

b-tj:Jl~'0.Y~m~!"'"\.:C9ig.J:5~I'Qrt-,~~Ql)--:g§Qn~Q},pJlJ 

~ U. S. Department of Justice, Ottice of the Inspector General. '·Audit of the Ottice on 'holence ,\gainst W olllen G1"allt~ A "\-yarded to the Eight 

:'-I011hern Indianl'ueblos Council. hIC., San Juan Pueblo, :'-Ie"\-\' 1texico,"' GR-60-13-004. Febtuary 2013, avO/foMe at 

at 22 
16 

And these are just two examples in one sub-agency from DOJ IG reports released this year alone. 

Unfortunately, there are many more highlighting problems in a variety of DOJ grants. 

In July 2012, GAO released a report solely on Justice Grant Programs. 10 The report addressed 

three questions: "(1) To what extent does overlap across DOI grant programs exist and 

contribute to the risk of unnecessary duplication in grant awards? (2) To what extent has DOJ 

taken steps to reduce overlap in its grant programs and the potential for unnecessary duplication 

in grant awards? (3) To what extent does DOI use grant monitoring and assessment to determine 

grant program etfectiveness and use the results to enhance its grant programs?" 11 

Based on a review of the 253 grant solicitations DOI published in FY 20 10, GAO determined 

DOI grant programs overlap across 10 justice areas, and stated "the existence of overlapping 

grant programs is an indication that agencies should increase their visibility of where their funds 

are going and coordinate to ensure that any resulting duplication in grant award funding is 

purposeful rather than unnecessary." 12 Even though GAO recognized overlap among some 

programs may be desirable to leverage multiple sources offunding for a single purpose, it stated 

"coordination across the administering granting agencies is critical for such leveraging to 

occur." 13 Yet, it appears there are too many grant programs with too many DOI sub-agencies 

administering the grants to keep an accurate account of where taxpayer funds are going 

There is a lack of coordination in awarding grants to applicants as both the prime grantee and 

sub-grantee. GAO found DOl's granting agencies were awarding multiple grants to the same 

grantees for the same or similar purposes, and the ability to seek funding as both a prime and 

sub-grantee appear to exacerbate unnecessary duplication and overlap. 

GAO reviewed 26 grant applications from programs identified as having similar purpose areas, 

and "found instances where applicants used the same or similar language to apply for multiple 

streams of funding." 14 For example, to receive funds to reduce child endangerment through 

cyber investigations, an applicant stated in both its application to the COPS Child Sexual 

Predator Program and OJP's Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) program it would "use 

the grants to increase the number of investigations in the state, provide training for cyber crime 

investigations, serve as a forensic resource for the state, and establish an Internet safety 

program.,,'5 A second recipient received funding for sexual assault victim services from both the 

Otlice for Victims of Crime and OVW using similar language in both applications. 

Notably, although DOJ contacted these grantees after GAO alerted it of the problems, follow-up 

for the purpose of determining duplication is not common practice at DOl In fact, what is very 

concerning to me is that DOJ employs a very narrow definition of "duplication" that prevents it 

from properly assessing true overlap within its grant programs. 16 

DOJ Should DO :rvlor~ Lo R~JllC~ th~ Risk ofUnn~cessary Duplication <U1d 

4 
17 

One area particularly ripe for unnecessary overlap is state and local law enforcement funding. 

The two primary grant programs for these purposes are Edward Byrne grant programs and 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants. While there are at least 3 types of Byrne 

grants and several COPS grants, the largest sources are the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grants (Byrne JAG) and COPS Hiring grants. Both of these grants are written so 

broadly that state and local jurisdictions can use the funding for almost any law enforcementrelated purpose, and as a result, these grants overlap each other as well as additionaJ DOJ grants 

targeted at specific law enforcement issues. 

For example, GAO conducted a survey regarding FY 2010 Byrne JAG funding, and found 23 of 

the 50 (nearly 50%) responding state administering agencies "reported that they or their subgrantees used JAG funding to hire police officers, even though a separate DOJ program 

dedicates funding exclusively to hiring law enforcement personne1."17 The other DO] program, 

COPS Hiring grants "are designed to advance public safety through community policing by 

addressing the full-time sworn officer needs of state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies 

nationwide." 18 

GAO notes DOJ is not even aware that applicants receiving Byrne JAG funding through a subgrant may also receive funding as a prime grantee from the COPS Hiring grant program. The 

above survey results "indicate an increased risk of DO] funding unnecessarily duplicative grant 

awards.,,19 In one single county, GAO found the county received both Byrne JAG and COPS 

Hiring grants for officers to conduct community policing. In addition, the largest city in that 

county aJso received a COPS Hiring grant for community policing, and those officers patrolled 

areas overlapping those monitored by the county officers. As a result, three DOJ grants provided 

community policing funds to the same geographical areas. 20 

Similarly, one county received two different DOJ grants for its drug courts and mental health 

counseling-a Byrne JAG grant and an OJP Adult Drug Court Grant. The county received so 

much federal money that it actually exceeded its need, and it planned to return some of the 

funds to DOJ. 21 

Not only do federal grants for state and local law enforcement contain duplication and overlap, 

but the grantees also use the funds for questionable purposes. The 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided the COPS program with an additional $1 billion in funding 

during that fiscal year. 22 However, many police departments were ineligible for grants due to 

j"MatlS 

IS u.s. Departmenl of Justice v..ebsite. aWl/lab/e allt.llE~2~l'\·},!,~QPJiJlllil'2i,.g\lyJ::~[~lltllW-"~Il£11r::Vr~Z 

1~ Government lkcountability Office, "]u:;,tice Grant Program:;,: DO] Should DO !vlore to Reduce the Risk ofUnnece%ary Duplication and 

Lnham:e Program A:;~essment," supra nole 10. al 18 

20 ld.: 5ce also Govel1l1I1ent ,\ccollIItabiiity Office. "OpP011unities to Reduce Pokntial DuplicatioIllll Govel1unent Programs. Save Tax Dollars. 

and Enhance Revenue." wpm note 2. at 11." 

21 Government Accountability Oftic~, "Ju:;,tic~ Grant Program:;,: DOJ Should DO :tvlor~ to R~duc~ th~ Risk ofUnneces:;,ary Duplication and 

Enhanc~ Program ,\:;,s~%m~nt" supra note 10. at 19: see af \0 Govelrun~nt lkcountability Oflic~, "Opportulllties to R~duc~ Pokntial Duplication 

in Gov~nlln~nt l'rograms. Sav~ Tae-;: Dollar:;,. and Enhanc~ Rev~nu~."' lupm nok 2. at 115 

22 U.S. Depattm~nt of Ju:;,tice. Otlic~ of the hl~p~ctor G~neraL "l\. R~view ofth~ Sd~ction Proc~:;,s for the COPS Hiring R~cov~ry Program,' No 

10-25, :\hy 2010, at p. i. OliO/fable othttp Y'inw.jmtice.g0v'oi3'f<OjlOlt~,'('OrShl102:'.rdf 
18 

past misuse of COPS funding. USA Today reported 26 police agencies in 16 states were barred 

from COPS stimulus funds "after misusing millions of dollars in prior aid.,,23 

The DO] IG has reported misuse offunds by both grantees and the COPS Office. For example, 

in 2011, the DOJ IG found the COPS Office improperly awarded a Technology Program grant to 

a grantee for personnel costs of four police officers when this grant was specifically to be used 

for law enforcement technology and interoperable communications, and the 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act conference report also designated the grantee to use the funds for 

equipment. 24 

In addition, despite claims to the contrary, there is little evidence showing that COPS funding 

has directly impacted violent crime rates. According to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation 

(FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), with the exception of 2005 and 2006, the violent crime 

rate has continually declined since the 1990s. 25 In fact, at the end of 20 11, on a per capita basis, 

violent crime was at its lowest level since 1970.2(, 

However, this downward trend has continued even when COPS funding has decreased. 27 

Specifically, COPS Hiring grant funding was at its highest in 1997 and 1998; yet, the crime rate 

in those years was also much higher than it was in any of the subsequent years when COPS 

Hiring grant funding consistently decreased." If COPS Hiring grants contributed significantly 

to the reduction of crime, then the years in which that funding was minimal should have been 

years with a significant increase in crime. DO] funded COPS Hiring grants at its lowest ($200 

million or less) from FY 2002 - FY 2008, and in each year, violent crime rates were significantly 

lower than in the years where COPS Hiring grants received the greatest funding. 29 

In fact, COPS grantees have even misused crime statistics to ensure they receive a grant, and the 

COPS Otllce has also not adequately reviewed applications to verify this and other information 

prior to awarding grants. In 2010, the DOJ IG reported several grantees serving small 

populations reported unusually high crime rates (ex. a town with a population of 426 reported 43 

homicides in 1 year).30 The COPS Office was relying on the number of crimes reported rather 

than the official crime rates, and claimed the short time frame for grant review and the ability of 

IT statl'to create a new data query based on rates limited its ability to use more accurate data for 

:3 Tom A. Cohunl. M.D., ··Da..:k in nla..:k 

l!Jl.p~~'~_\~ ~.r·i~jj1L'<~Q:\::JllR ~nml~,,-2JllL.Ql!LttO~~J 

:5 fcJd"ul Bureau ofhlVesilgation. Unifonn Crime Report, 2011, Table 1. available (1/ b.1i£ ~_v..'o:"-'0~.!1Ji~l'2i@..!~~I1.:~ui,ii!i.!ldo;r~qiIr}<{::j1!_::JJ!~: 

u.~· 20 t L Clim.;-tll-the-u.,>.-2011ijabks-bblc:-l 

:(;N;I-tl;m~h~~~-:-,c~~it;.--&i-~~kJ -p-;i~ing Services (COPS): Current ugislative Issues."' Congressional Resean.:h Service. R40709, 

~ovelllber 20.2012. at 3 

:- Tom A Cobum. 1LD.. "Back in Black: A Ddicit Reduction Plan:' July 201 L wpm note 23, at 308 

2g Nathan Jame:;" "Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding," Congressional Re:;,earch Service, RL3330K 

December 6, 201 L at 5: Nathan James, "Community Oriented Policing Servicc~ (COPS): Cunent Legi:;,lativc bsue~," lupm note 26, at 5 

2~ Jd. 

."J U.S. Department of Ju:;,tice. Otlice of the hl~pector General. 'l\. Review of the Selection Proce:;,s for the COPS Hiring Recovery Program:' 

lupm note 22, at 2." 

6 
19 

grant evaluation.·ll After reviewing a sample of 29 grantees, the DO] IG questioned the crime 

rates used to award grants to 20 of those grantees. 32 

Both the GAO and The Heritage Foundation have published studies suggesting little correlation 

between the violent crime rate and COPS funding from the early 1990s to early 2000S33 GAO 

concluded "COPS grants were not the major cause of the decline in crime from 1994 through 

2001.,,34 For example, some cities, such as Oklahoma City, which did not accept COPS funds, 

reported declines in crime equal to those cities that did receive the grants. 'S 

For the Byrne JAG awards to state and local law enforcement, waste, fraud and abuse plat\ues 

the program right in our own backyard36 In 2010, the DOJ IG noted an award to Washington, 

D.C. was fraught with problems, including awards of over $650,000 to unapproved subrecipients in 2008,37 failure to award grants to applicants with the highest peer review scores," 

failure to review quarterly reports submitted by sub-recipients,39 and over $317,000 in 

unsupported administrative costs, such as office supplies, website services and consulting fees, in 

three ditferent grants over three years. 40 

Based on the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution, I do not believe the federal government 

has the authority to fund basic state and local law enforcement activities, such as hiring patrol 

officers and paying for their equipment. In fact, several states interviewed by GAO said they are 

in a better position to determine the needs of their communities, and federal funding delivery 

could be improved and risk of duplication reduced if DO] would consult the states before 

making grant awards directly to localities. 41 Not only does the federal government have no 

constitutional basis to fund most state and local law enforcement activities, but it also has zero 

ability to adequately meet the very different needs of each community through the one-size-fitsall approach of a few large federal grant programs 

Other questionable uses ofDOJ grant funds where we could eliminate waste and save money 

include: 

'I !d. at 2() 

Weed and Seed Grant Program: This grant was supposedly eliminated and replaced 

by the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Grant Program; however, grantees still receive 

funding through Weed and Seed. Last year, Easton, Pennsylvania received a Weed and 

3: Td. at 27-2R 

"David D. Ivluhlhausen, Ph.D. am! Brian W Walsh, "COPS Reform: Why Congress Cmd Ivlale the COPS Program Work." The IIeritage 

Foundation. No. 21 RR, Sc:pwmbc:r 26, 200R, amllahle at 1..)!tj2~~·_S.,~.Q-!])P-I9.!.~l~~=-C5'JIl'thCnl2Ai%_':':J1QR~4fJ:g;JJ<:ft.r9J 

34 Govemmenl Accountability Office, '-Community Policing Granls: COPS Grants Were a rvfouesl Conlribulor to Declines in Crime in the 

1990::;:' ReporlLo the ChainmUl. Committee on the Juuiciary, IIOllse of Representatives. OAO-06-104. Odober 2005, at 16 

35 Kevlll Johnson. Stimulus Funds .New Police o.rncers, l"SA T()l)A'c. february 26. 2009. available (1/ 

J1.llR3tilll2.<11~0il~t.1l~!lQ~!!.':'.0ntgg~~LtJ.4.jQ11'.2Q.~lZ.:2~~:im~L tLhtm.. 30 u.s. Department of Ju:;,tice. Otlice of the hl~pector General. "Office of Justice Program~ ,\\vards to Ju~tice Grant~ Administration Ed"\yard 

Dyrne Ivlemorial Slale and Lo..:al un\ Enfor..:ement Assislance Granl Program." GR-30-1O-002. June 2010. available m 

h.ttQ.:L·'Y.~~~.i!,.l'i..tL&RQ}:..gig,.gEUH,,_g3QJ.QQ(;l..J0J 

3"1d. at 10 

.<g ld. at 17 

.<" ld. at 20 

1(' Jd. at 7. 21S 

11 Government Accountability Office. "Oppoltunitie~ to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Progranl~. Save Tax Dollar·s. and Enhance 

Revenue." ~upra note 2. at 115 

7 
20 

Seed grant and spent $5,000 on T-shirts for children participating in the program42 The 

Weed and Seed coordinator labeled the T -shirts important branding opportunities for the 

program. In addition, a 20 I 0 DOJ IG report revealed Weed and Seed grants to Oklahoma 

City were used on items such as flat screen TVs, samurai swords, arcade games, and 

binoculars, totaling over $153,000 in questioned costs 43 I have recommended 

elimination of this program and its successor, the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation 

Grant Program. However, rather than eliminate Weed and Seed, in FY 2011 the 

administration created this new grant, merely stamping Weed and Seed with a new name. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Grants (OJJDP): This office 

awards a variety of overlapping grant funds to help states set up and operate their juvenile 

justice systems, and many could be eliminated. In November 20 II, the DOJ IG 

questioned 100% of an OJJDP grant awarded to ACORN. This $138, 130 grant to the 

New York Agency for Community Affairs (NY ACA) was passed through to ACORN. In 

fact, during the life of the grant, NY ACA never had any paid employees, and the 

executive director of NY ACA also served as executive director for the New York branch 

of ACORN. "4 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP): X-rays of all types seem to be a problem at BOP. For 

inmates, even though x-rays are now almost entirely digitized, the BOP still spends 

approximately $1.3 million each year to create hard copies of prisoners' x-rays. 

Additional taxpayer funds are used to mail the copies to each institution to which the 

prisoners may be transferred. 45 For incoming packages, the Federal Transfer Center in 

Oklahoma City uses a contractor to provide x-ray machines to inspect the packages for 

contraband material, and the DOJ IG is now investigating that contract for potential fraud 

and waste of taxpayer funds. 4(, 

U.S. Marshals Service IUSMS): Over the course of 18 months, the USMS made 

455,000 purchases totaling over $521 million. 47 The DOJ IG reviewed a sample of 638 

purchases, and found 125 (20%) totaling $230,000 were not made with proper prior 

approvaL 48 Other questioned costs included purchases for instrument supplies, music 

and uniforms for the Pipes and Drums unit of the Investigative Operations Division, 

pizza,49 a warehouse club membership, ,0 over $41,000 for lodging for visiting class 

Inma""n! "'mod,"" '1'00/" THE E"A""PRi.Ss-Tllvms. August 11 2012, avallahle ar 

"July201L alJ6. 
21 

advisors to the Training Division," and over $10,000 for a gym membership by the 

Middle District of Florida. 52 Furthennore, five of seven training conferences were 

cancelled at a cost of over $79,000 and two had fewer attendees than anticipated, 

resulting in over $10,000 in fees due to un-booked hotel rooms." These examples only 

scratch the surface of the detailed DOJ IG report on the USMS, and most of the expenses 

could be eliminated 

Human Trafficking Grants: Between 2007 and 2008, a DOJ IG report found numerous 

questioned costs in several DOJ tratlicking grants. Those costs included $700,000 to 

Boat People SOS for advertising, software, stipends, emergency assistance, otlice 

insurance, and miscellaneous expenses,54 and $357,712 over less than two years for the 

Refugee Women's Network to serve only twenty-one potential victims, of which only 

five turned out to be certiiied as actual tratlicking victims." Furthennore, there was a 

wide variation in the amount spent per victim among different grants, from a low of 

$2,500 per victim to a high of $33,333 per victim. 56 These costs increase when one 

includes only those who actually turn out to be victims. In fact, these fib'1lreS are even 

more concerning when one takes into account the fact that the DO] IG found grantees 

have "significantly overstated the number of victims they served," 57 information DOJ 

also included in its annual report to Congress.5R Reducing tratlicking grant spending by 

20%, as requested in the administration's FY 2012 budget, would save $14.04 million 

over 10 years 59 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Bombing Prevention (OBP): 

Despite GAO's detennination that the Justice Department took action to address overlap 

in explosives investigations between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns, and Explosives (ATF), that does not solve the 

duplication between DRS and DOJ in this area. Despite the DOl's clear expertise and 

resources to deal with bombing incidents, DRS established an OBP in 2003 without 

authorization from Congress. In FY 2011, OBP received approximately $15 million. By 

eliminating OBP and allowing ATF and FBI to handle explosives investigations, it would 

save taxpayers $163 million over 10 years 60 

'I!d. at 13 

'~Td. at 14 

"!d. at 20-21 

54 nO.1 InspcdoTG . .:ncral's Audit RL-llort: GR-l0-07-004, "Office rOT Victims orCri111c, Vidims orr,ApioiLaLioll. and Traffi..:king Assisium;-; 

Grant: Boat P~opl~ S.D.S., In..:., falls Chun.:h. Yirginia:' Departm~nl of Justice OITio..:e ofInspedor Gen<!I"al, July 2007 

~\ no.1 InspcctorGct1cral's Audit Report: GR-40-07-005, "Office of .TlI~icc Programs, Office for Victims ofCrimc. Services for Trafficking 

\"idims. Dis..:retionary Granl Program. Cooperalive Agreemenl Awarded to Refugee Women's -:\elworL In..: .• De..:atur. Georgia," Deparlment of 

Justice Oflke of Inspector GeneraL Jllly 2007 

56 Glenn A. fine. 'Top Ivlanagement and PerfOTIllan..:e Challenges in the Department of Jllsti..:e:' Inspe..:lor General ~-Iemorandum. November 13. 

2008. available af ht1Q..;:~~}~ib1l~.R.tL\_:'9i.g[.,;Jl~ill,{u6~~Z..QJ1:SjJJ1k~.1J.J1..ll 

5"ld. 

58 "Auorney General's Annual Reporllo Congress and Assessment of u.s. GOVeTIUllent Activilies to Combat Traffid..ing in Pe:r:;ollS, fis..:al Year 

2009," U.S. Department of Ju:;,tice. July 2010. avmlable at http //v,~"v".justice.20viaoiamlUalrepottsitt2009iagrep01thumantratlickino2009.pdf at 

29. ("From the inception of the program in January 2003 tluough JlllIe 30. 2009. OVC gralltee~ provided :;,ervice~ to 2,699 pre-cettitied potential 

victims oftratlicking.5 Data collected from July 1. 2008 to June 30. 2009 (the last fi.1l112-month period for which data ha:;, not been previously 

repotted in thi~ repott). indicate that 461 victims ·were em-oIled a~ ne\v clients by the O'lC-fllnded grantee:;, and \vere provided comprehensive 

~ervice~.··) 

:"" Tom A Cobum. 1·LD., 'Back in Black A Ddicit Reduction Plan:' July 201 L wpm note 23. at 330 

(00) ld. at 241-242 

9 
22 

Government-Wide Duplication: GAO Duplication Report (March 2011) and GAO FollowUp on 2011 Report (February 2012) 

In its March 2011 report, as part of its identification of massive duplication across multiple 

agencies, GAO identified nearly 430 individual programs with similar or overlapping missions 61 

Those programs fall under 81 specific areas of duplication and potential cost savings. Examples 

include: 

100+ surface transportation programs 

88 economic development programs 

82 teacher quality programs 

56 financial literacy programs 

47 job training programs 

20 homelessness prevention and assistance programs 

18 food for the hungry programs; and 

17 disaster response and preparedness programs 

Last year, in addition to releasing its second annual duplication report, GAO also released a 

follow-up report on the 20 II recommen dations-a Washington report card, detailing actions 

taken or not taken by Congress and the Executive Branch to address duplication identified by 

GAO. G2 

In the 2011 report, within the 81 specific areas of duplication and potential cost savings, GAO 

identified 176 explicit recommendations for ways in which Congress and the Executive Branch 

could eliminate duplication and make reforms that would save taxpayers billions of dollars. (,3 

However, GAO's 2012 report card gave Washington a failing grade. 

Both Congress and the Executive Branch have failed to enact a majority of GAO's 

recommendations. 

In fact, the February 2012 report card indicated Congress only fully implemented 4 (13%) of the 

recommendations, and the Executive Branch fully addressed 19 (13%) of GAO's 

recommendations. Combined, Washington fully addressed only 4 of the 81 areas identified by 

GAO, a mere 5 percent. Congress and the Executive Branch completely ignored 21 percent of 

the areas in desperate need of reform. 64 In short, 153 specific recommendations, 87 percent, 

made by GAO last year have not been fully implemented. 

Of the 81 specific areas of duplication and potential cost savings: 65 

4 (5%) are full y addressed and completed; 

61 Government lkcountability Office, "OpPol1unities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue." :\,farch 201L I/lpm notd 

62 Government Accountability Office, "Pollow-Cp on 2011 Repo11: Status of Actions Tak:en to Reduce Duplication. Overlap_ and Fragmentation. 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue." Febmary 2012. GAO-12-4.'i3SP. ovmloble othttp:'iw,Yw.3ao.30v/3,."et~,'590'38g891.pdi 

6J Jd. at 1 

"'lId. at 2 

o'ld. 

10 
23 

60 (74%) were partially addressed; and 

17 (21%) were not addressed in any way that GAO could identify. 

Within the 81 specific areas, GAO made 176 explicit recommendations to Congress and the 

Executive Branch. Of those: 66 

23 (13%) are fully addressed and completed; 

99 (56%) were partially addressed; and 

54 (31%) were not addressed in any way GAO could identify. 

Of the 30 (17%) recommendations to Congress: 

4 (13%) are fully addressed and completed; 

8 (27%) were partially addressed; and 

18 (60%) were not addressed in any way GAO could identify 

Of the 146 (83%) recommendations to the Execntive Branch: 

19 (13%) are fully addressed and completed; 

35 (24%) were partially addressed; and 

92 (63%) were not addressed in any way GAO could identify 

Fully Addressed Recommendations 

Four of the 81 areas (5%) identified by GAO in 2011 were fully addressed by Washillb>ton in the 

I-year following their publication. Congress addressed one area, and the Executive Branch 

addressed three67 

Ethanol Tax Credit: At the end of 2011, Congress did not extend the ethanol tax credit, 

eliminating this duplicative tax credit. 

Explosives Investigations at DOJ: The Executive Branch is now monitoring overlap in 

four areas of explosives investigations conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI), yet 

duplication with Department of Rome land Security (DRS) remains68 

International Affairs: The State Department is now formally delineating the roles of 

overlapping functions at its new Arms Control. Verification, and Compliance and 

International Security and Nonproliferation Bureaus. 

IRS Program Integrity: The IRS studied ways to systematically identify non-resident 

aliens who have improperly tiled certain IRS forms. The IRS determined creating an 

automated program to identify this type of non-compliance is not currently cost effective. 

Of note in its report card, GAO used certain criteria to assess whether its recommendations were 

fully, partially or not addressed by Congress and the Executive Branch."" For example, for 

purposes of congressional action: 

II 
24 

Addressed: Relevant legislation is enacted and addresses all aspects of the action needed; 

Partially Addressed: Relevant legislation has passed a committee, either the House or the 

Senate, or been enacted, but only addressed part of the action needed; 

Not Addressed: Legislation may have been introduced, but has not passed out of a 

committee. 

F or purposes of Executive Branch action: 

Addressed: Executive action taken to fully implement the recommendation; 

Partially Addressed: Some Executive Branch action started or in development, such as 

the forming a task force, but no action completed; 

Not Addressed: Minimal or no progress toward implementation by the Executive 

Branch. 

As you can see, even though 60 of the 81 areas (74%) identified by GAO were partially 

addressed by Washington, by definition, no real reform has occurred in these areas. Rather, such 

partial fulfillment merely means a bill passed a committee or a task force was formed. These 

actions are great for a press release, but are clearly not effective solutions to the duplication 

problem. 

Failure to fully address each of these 81 areas and all 176 explicit recommendations represents 

billions of dollars in savings lost by Washillb>ton. 

Government-Wide Duplication: GAO Duplication Report-February 2012 

Concurrent with its report card on Washington, GAO issued its second annual duplication report 

in February 2012 GAO again identified multiple areas of duplication, overlap and 

fragmentation. 70 

The report recommended 51 areas where federal programs could achieve greater efficiencies or 

improve the provision of government services. Specifically, the 2012 annual report found 32 

areas where there is duplication, overlap, or fragmentation among federal government programs. 

It also recommended 19 additional opportunities for agencies or Congress to take action that 

could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections. 71 

Examples of duplication and overlap include' 

253 Department of Justice grant solicitations, yielding 11,000 grant awards totaling 

$3.9 billion in FY2010 alone; 

14 programs and 3 tax expenditures across 3 agencies to reduce diesel emissions; 

94 federal initiatives across II agencies to foster green building in the private sector; 

-t· Government Accountability Ofilcc. "()pp011unitie~ to Reduce l'otentiall)upiication in Govcmment Program:;" Save 'lax Dollars, and Enhance 

Revenue," Febtuary 2012, wpm note 2 

-11d. at 2 

12 
25 

160 programs, tax expenditures and other tools across 20 federal entities to support 

homeowners hip and rental housing; 

50 programs in 9 federal agencies to support employment for people with disabilities. 

The 2011 and 2012 GAO reports provide Congress and the Executive Branch with extensive 

details in 132 areas of government duplication and opportunities for signiticant cost savings and 

specific recommendations to address each area. As GAO stated in the 2012 annual report, 

"Collectively, this report shows that, if actions are taken to address the issues raised herein, as 

well as those from our 2011 report, the government could potentially save tens of billions of 

dollars annually .. ,,72 

Unfortunately, as shown by last year's report card, both Republicans and Democrats have failed 

to take action to address most of the areas ripe for reform. As a result, Congress is perpetuating 

the nation's growing national debt, which now exceeds $16 trillion. 

I am encouraged by GAO's continued innovation of ways in which it and the public can continue 

to hold Congress and the Executive Branch accountable for addressing waste, fraud, abuse and 

duplication identified in GAO reports. Thus, I hope the public will use GAO's new online 

Action Tracker system to detennine if Washington has indeed taken steps to follow GAO's 

recommendations to reduce the unnecessary duplication across the federal government 

Preventing Future Duplication 

With the release of yesterday's third annual GAO duplication report, combined with the 201 1 

and 2012 duplication reports and last July's report on Justice Grant Programs, Congress and the 

administration have been given extensive details in multiple areas of government duplication 

with the opportunity to provide significant cost savings by addressing waste, fraud, abuse, and 

overlap, particularly in DO] grant programs. 

In the July 2012 report, GAO provided specific recommendations to alleviate these problems at 

the Justice Department. While the administration must act to address many of the 

recommendations, Congress must also change our attitude of indifference and incompetence by 

recognizing that we have played a part in expanding the role of the Justice Department beyond 

its criticaJ mission-"to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according 

to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal 

leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those h'Uilty of 

unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.,,7' 

As a result, in many areas, DO] has failed to fulfill its pledge to the American people. Through 

continued growth of the Department through congressionally-mandated programs, as noted by 

GAO, even when the DOJ wants to consolidate programs, it must often "seek statutory 

authorization to discontinue or consolidate enacted programs that [it] believes may be 

13 
26 

overlapping." 74 Congress is largely to blame for creating new duplicative programs and failing 

to conduct oversi ght. 

However, there are several areas where DO) can improve its grant management, even if 

Congress fails to do its job. First, GAO notes DO] has failed to conduct formal assessments of 

its grant programs to determine the extent of overlap or where it may consolidate programs. "By 

conducting an assessment of its grant programs ... DO] would be better positioned to take action, 

such as through consolidation and coordination of its programs, in a more systematic way to 

limit overlap and mitigate the risk of unnecessary duplication." 75 

Second, DO] should establish procedures requiring grantees to disclose on their applications 

other federal funding they currently receive or for which they have recently applied. 76 

Unfortunately, DO] actually "encourage[s] applicants to seek out as much DO) grant funding as 

possible, including trom grant programs that may have similar objectives or allow for similar 

activities.,,77 By sharing information, DO) could reduce the risk of unnecessary duplication and 

avoid awarding multiple grants to the same grantees for the same or similar purposes or in 

amounts in excess of the applicant's need. 

Third, DO] can increase coordination among its three granting agencies to conduct a pre-award 

review of grants that have a risk of overlap. By doing so, DO) could improve oversight and 

better utilize information it already has to avoid unnecessary duplication be/i)"e final awards are 

made 7 " 

In doing so, DO] should also strongly reconsider its definition of "duplication." It continues to 

use a narrow definition of "duplication" such that it occurs only in "instances where grantees are 

using federal money for the same exact item,,79 GAO notes DO] "excludes from its purview all 

federal funding that grant applicants have been awarded to carry out the same or similar 

activities within a proposed project." As a result, DO] is likely "awarding funds for proposed 

projects that are already partially or fully funded, [and] it may also be doing so at the expense of 

other applicants who, in the absence of other funding sources, may demonstrate to [DO]] greater 

financial need for their proposals."Xf) Every agency should use the same definition of 

"duplication," the one suggested by GAO, so there is consistency across the federal government 

for programs that should be eliminated or consolidated as a result of overlap. Massaging the 

detlnition of "duplication" to fund multiple grants to the same grantees for the same or similar 

purposes is the height of wasteful government spending 

Fourth, DO] should submit grant award information to USA Spending in a timely manner. 

74 Gov~mmcnl Accountability Office, '"Ju:sli..:c Grant Programs DOJ Should DO Ivlorc Lo Reduce the Risk of Unnecessary Duplication <U1d 

Enhance Program, bses:;,ment," supra note 1 O. at 20 

751d. at 22-23 

'Old. at 25, 49 

-- ld. at 26-27 

-~ Jd. at 25 

-u ld. at 24 

80) ld. 

14 
27 

Finally, Congress should also increase its oversight of the Department of Justice and its grant 

programs. While the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have general oversight hearings 

with the Attorney General, unfortunately, these hearings do not provide the opportunity to truly 

understand particular grant programs, ask probing questions, and make recommendations for 

changes. Congress should take active legislative steps to cancel, consolidate, and make statutory 

changes to DOJ programs to eliminate waste, fraud, and duplication. 

For example, authorizing committees should conduct the necessary oversight before 

reauthorizing grant programs, and there should be specific sunset dates in the legislation. As 

noted earlier in my testimony, both COPS and Byrne JAG programs are fraught with waste and 

duplication; however, Congress has failed to actually investigate and reauthorize these programs 

based on detailed oversight. As a result, Congress continues to fund these programs without 

proper oversight and without establishing improved metrics with which to evaluate the programs 

in the future. 

In addition to elimination or consolidation of specific grants, there are other non-grant program 

areas within the Justice Department that could be consolidated or eliminated to reduce 

duplication. For example, statling of certain sub-agencies within the DOJ could be reduced, 

particularly where there has been a steady decrease in caseloads. INTERPOL's U.S operation 

has seen a decreased caseload since 2010, but the President's 2012 budget request included a 

funding increase of 10%. Even decreasing the budget by 10% from the 2010 level would still 

yield an increase in the dollars spent per case This 10% reduction would save $33.3 million 

over 10 years 81 

DOJ could also reduce the statT of the Otlice of Legal Policy. IfDOJ reduced the stafl'by 10% 

and subjected OLP to the hiring freeze, it would save $6.9 million over 10 years DOJ could 

build additional savings by eliminating OLP's travel budget of $7,000. 82 

Furthennore, DOJ could require greater participation by state and local governments in the 

programs providing significant benefits to them. For example, federal law enforcement partners 

with state and local law enforcement across the country to apprehend criminals. Law 

enforcement can work together without spending money by simply opening the lines of 

communication and using resources already allocated to them. As a result, overhead costs would 

fall. However, in 2010, $528.6 million went to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task 

Forces, which only operate in nine select regions, despite being paid for by taxpayers around the 

country. lfwe required only the affected regions to contribute 25% toward the task force, while 

still retaining all funding for individual law enforcement agencies, we would save $1.47 billion 

over ten years." 

Many, many more examples of cost-savings at the DOJ are detailed in my deficit reduction plan, 

Back in Black. I also encourage all members of Congress to conduct their own oversight by 

finding waste and duplication in their own states and making it public. In July 2011, I released a 

~l Tom A Cobum. r..,,1.o., 'Back in Black A Ddicit Reduction Plan:' July 2011, wpm note 23, at 322-323 

at 323-324 

15 
28 

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. 
29 

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. 
30 

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. 
31 

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 
32 

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:] 
33 

i!lepurtment of alustite 

n :STlMO ..... V OF 

LEE J. LOFTlWS 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AO,\IINISTRATIO/li 

1I.S.I)[PART"'t:NT Of JUSTICE 

DEFORE TilE 

SUBCOIIIM ITI"EE ON CRIME. TERRORISM, UOMELAND SECURITY "'1'1'0 

INVESTIGATIONS 

COM-" ll'rrU: ON T il E JUDIC IARY 

UN ITED STATES IIOUSE OF REPRE$E1'ITATIVES 

FOR A H EAR ING ON 

PF 'iJ)tNG I'R ORI '. SAl'TIIE li.S. OEI'ART,\IF. 'TO.' JUSTlC£ 

PRESENTED ON 

,\I'RIL 10, 20U 
34 

Testimony of Lee J. Lofthus 

Assistant Attorney General for Administration, U.S. Department of Justice 

before the 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations 

House Committee on the Judiciary 

April 10,2013 

Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the 

Subcommittee, for the invitation to discuss our work to reduce expenses, find and take 

advantage of efficiencies, and save taxpayer money. The Department takes these efforts 

very seriously, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak about our initiatives in these 

areas and address your concerns. 

The Department of Justice continuously and rigorously seeks ways to operate more 

efficiently and cost effectively, so that our funds are available for the critical national 

security and law enforcement activities that impact the Nation. The Department's 

leadership has challenged employees Department-wide time and time again to find 

savings across our operations, and they have responded. When we find ways to improve 

our practices and save money, we act on those suggestions, recommendations and 

opportunities. 

In addition to our commitment to save money and work as efficiently as possible, the 

Department also protects American taxpayers and the federal fisc by combating 

healthcare fraud and financial fraud, compensating victims and returning billions of 

dollars to the Treasury. For example, in FY 2012, the efforts of DOJ personnel resulted 

in total collections of nearly $14 billion in civil and criminal fines, restitution, and other 

debt owed to the government. 

Sound Financial Management 

We strive for sound financial management, which is at the core of properly accounting 

for taxpayer dollars. In FY 2012, the Department earned an unqualified audit opinion on 

its consolidated financial statements for the ninth consecutive year. For the sixth straight 

year, the auditor's report on internal controls over tinancial reporting did not identify any 

material weaknesses at the consolidated Department level. Moreover, for the first time, 

no material weaknesses were reported in any of the individual component level audits. 

The continued progress made by our financial management offices is concrete evidence 

of the Department's commitment to continually improve our comprehensive financial 

management practices. 
35 

The Department continues to implement our new Unified Financial Management 

System (UFMS) on time and within budget. With the implementation ofUFMS, the 

Department's financial management community has integrated procurement activities, 

centralized redundant activities, achieved economies of scale on credit card and payroll 

processing, and given Departmental leadership real-time financial data for use in quicldy 

and accurately providing an assessment of the Department's status of funds. In addition, 

UFMS has identified and standardized common business processes across the 

Department to leverage best practices to improve financial management and reporting. 

We have accomplished all this while maintaining a clean audit opinion. 

At the beginning ofFY 2013, we began implementation ofUFMS at the United States 

Marshals Service (USMS) and at five program offices in the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI). The Department's Asset Forfeiture program also expanded its use of 

UFMS, bringing the total number ofUFMS users to over 5,000. Building upon the 

implementations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), these new 

system expansions offer great potential for improving our financial management 

capabilities for the future. Once FBI fully implements UFMS, DOJ will operate only 

three financial systems (UFMS, FMIS2 and SAPIFederal Prison Industries) instead of the 

seven systems in operation in FY 2008. 

Pro-active Efforts to Save Taxpayer Money 

The Department has worked continually to identify savings, efficiencies, cost avoidances, 

and best practices in order to best leverage our resources. This goes far beyond cutting 

conference and travel spending: we have explored streamlining administrative processes 

across the Department. In addition, we have consolidated or realigned several offices in 

order to eliminate unnecessary spending and create administrative efficiencies. 

The Department also takes pride in its efforts to drive savings in response to President 

Obama's Executive Order 13589: Promoting Efficient Spending. In FY 2012, the 

Department exceeded its $146 million reduction goal on spending in the areas of 

publication, travel, supplies, executive fleet, advisory contracts, and IT devices by $91 

million, for total savings of $237 million compared with FY 2010. 

Conferences and Travel 

The Department has taken aggressive steps to limit and monitor conference spending. 

New policy guidance was issued in June 2012 that places strict controls on conference 

planning, approval, attendance, and reporting. This guidance was supplemented by a 

2 
36 

January 2013 memorandum detailing additional restrictions on indirect cost rates applied 

to certain conference costs. 

Our efforts to control conference spending have been successful. In FY 2011, we 

reduced conference expenditures by 28%, spending $26 million less than in FY 2010. 

We further reduced FY 2012 expenditures by $7.8 million, or 12 percent less than FY 

2011. 

The Department has also cut back on travel costs. In addition to the Attorney General's 

January 2011 guidance that suspended all non-essential travel (initially implemented for 

FY 2011, but renewed in 2012 and 2013), the Department also generated cost savings by 

using non-refundable airfares instead of government contract fares. Overall Department 

travel obligations have decreased by over 19% from FY 2010 through FY 20121 

Reorgallization alld COllsolidatioll 

The Department has identified savings by proposing to consolidate and realign 

components in order to realize increased efficiencies. During FY 2012, the Department 

refocused and realigned functions of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) to the 

DEA and closed NDIC, which will save about $12 million in FY 2013. We merged the 

administrative functions of the Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of the Solicitor 

General into a single executive office, which will result in savings of $463,000 in FY 

2013. 

To promote greater efficiency, the Department also realigned the Office of Dispute 

Resolution into the Office of Legal Policy, and has decentralized the Law Enforcement 

Wireless Communications (LEWC) funding by transferring LEWC functions and funding 

for operation and maintenance of legacy radio networks back to components for a 

combined savings of nearly $120 million from the FY 2010 enacted level. The 

Department has also merged the detention functions previously performed by the Office 

of the Federal Detention Trustee into the USMS to align detention resources with 

operations and reduce contracts, overhead, and IT costs. 

In addition to Department-wide savings initiatives, we have also identified componentunique program savings. The Bureau of Prisons' expansion of compassionate release to 

inmates with medical conditions that have served at least 67 percent of their sentence (for 

non-violent and non-sex offenders) is estimated to save $3.2 million in FY 2013. 

Evaluating Federal Prisoner Detention intergovernmental agreements, which set daily 

1 Travel obligations (Object Class 21.0) declined from $580 million if FY 2010 to $469 million in 

FY2012. 

3 
37 

rates per detainee (known as "jail day rates") starting in FY 2012 through FY 2014 is 

expected to achieve $20 million in savings. 

IT Savings 

The Department's ongoing efforts to increase inter-component collaboration in IT 

contracting have realized numerous etliciencies. Recent efTorts have led to the 

Department proposing IT offsets in the FY 2012 and FY 2013 President's Budget. In FY 

2012, we proposed extending the technology refresh cycle by one year and submitted an 

offset of $8 million. In FY 2013, we proposed an offset of $22 million associated with 

increased component collaboration in the acquisition ofIT equipment and services. 

Beginning in FY 2014, the Department will redirect five percent of our IT base resources 

annually into a reinvestment pool dedicated to IT projects that will produce a favorable 

return on investment within 18 months or demonstrably improve citizen services or 

administrative etliciencies. This five percent redirection beginning in FY 2014 comes in 

addition to the Department's five percent reduction in IT from FY 2012 to FY 20 I 3. 

Attorney General's SAVE Council 

In July 2010, the Attorney General established his Advisory Council for Savings and 

Etliciencies (the SAVE Council) to explore additional areas where we can reduce 

spending to operate as et1kiently as possible. The SAVE Council develops, implements, 

and tracks ongoing initiatives that result in savings, cost avoidance, streamlining, and 

instituting best practices. The SAVE Council drives savings efforts throughout the 

Department. To date, we've saved over $120 million through the efTorts of this Council. 

Examples of these efforts include: 

Permanent Change of Duty Station Reform - The Department revised a 

longstanding policy that reduces the number of days (120 days to 60 days) an 

employee may be reimbursed for temporary quarters expenses when they are 

transferred. This initiative has saved the Department $21 million. 

Online Travel Booking - With a uniform, standardized, web-based travel 

reservation service, the Department has saved $9. I million. 

Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Program Internet Noticing: 

Civil jJudicial and Criminal Notices: the Department implemented an 

internet site (w,vw.forfeiture.gov) to publish civil/judicial and criminal 

4 
38 

notices. Internet notification facilitates the management of the advertising 

process and saves considerable advertising/newspaper expenses. The total 

estimated savings expected in 2013 is $1.5 million. 

Administrative Notices: In September 2012, a regulation change allowed 

the Department to publish administrative notices on the internet. Now all 

forfeiture notices can be published on forfeiture.gov, giving the public a 

single access point to search, retrieve, and print notices. The total 

estimated savings expected in 2013 is $3.75 million. 

Consolidation of Wireless and IT Contracts - The Department mandated that 

all Department components move to the existing wireless contracts of agency 

partners. This has saved the Department $6.4 million. 

The SAVE Council continues to meet on a monthly basis to report on active savings 

initiatives, and to discuss new ideas for saving taxpayer money. 

Space/Physical Footprint Reductions 

The Department has been actively reviewing its inventory so that it can reduce its 

physical footprint and better utilize existing workspace. As part of this ongoing effort, 

from FY 2010 through FY 2012, as part of the Administration's $3 billion real property 

cost savings goal, we identified over $300 million in savings. We were able to realize 

these savings through project terminations or reductions, as well as lower new lease space 

rent rates. As part of the Administration's "Freeze the Footprint" policy, which requires 

agencies to freeze growth in their oUke and warehouse space at FY 2012 levels, the 

Department is developing its Real Property Cost Savings and Innovation Plan for FY 

2013-2015, which will document square footage growth and offsets in the Department's 

real estate portfolio. Wherever feasible, we will continue to pursue cost savings in this 

area. 

Closing 

Our efforts to make the Department more efficient and to save taxpayers money is by no 

means complete, and our work in this area is ongoing. We appreciate the work of the 

Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office in 

highlighting areas where we can make further improvements. I am acutely aware of the 

financial challenges we face, and acutely aware of the need to ensure every dollar the 

Department receives is spent wisely. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. 

5 
39 

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 
40 

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:] 
41 

Office of the Inspector Genera l 

United States Depa rtment of Justice 

Statement of Michael E. Horowitz 

Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism. 

Homf'l~nrl ~P.r:Hrity , ~mn [nv"!'Ilie;Hion~ 

cortcenling 

Cost Savings and Efficiencies at the Department of Justice 

Apri.110, 2013 
42 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify about the efforts of the Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) to 

identi(y waste and inefficiency in the DOJ. Helping to ensure that taxpayer 

funds are used wisely to support the Department's mission has long been a 

central focus of the OIG's oversight work, but never more so than in the 

current budgetary environment. 

In my nearly one year as Inspector General, my office has pursued a 

number of initiatives to help make the operations of the Justice Department 

more effective and efficient, and to identi(y important savings of taxpayer 

dollars. During this time, we have issued more than 70 audits, which included 

annual financial statement audits, information security audits, audits of grant 

recipients, and audits of state and local participants in the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation's (FBI) Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). We issued reports 

on the Department's handling of suspension and debarment, the FBI's 

implementation of the Sentinel project, the FBI's handling of its forensic DNA 

case backlog, the U.S. Marshals Service's (USMS) management ofits 

procurement activities, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review's 

management of immigration cases. Our Investigations Division processed more 

than 10,000 complaints in the past year, resulting in dozens of arrests and 

convictions involving corruption or fraud offenses and well over 100 

administrative actions against Department employees. And all of this work was 

in addition to our more high-profile investigations, such as our reports on 

Operation Fast and Furious, the improper hiring practices in the Justice 

Management Division, the Pardon Attorney's handling of the Clarence Aaron 

clemency request, and the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights 

Division. 

I am particularly proud of having appointed the DOJ OIG's first-ever 

whistleblower ombudsperson, and I am committed to ensuring that 

whistleblowers in the Department can step forward and report fraud, waste, 

and abuse without fear of retaliation. During my tenure, I have seen first-hand 

the important role that whistle blowers play in advancing the OIG's mission to 

address wasteful spending and improve the Department's operations. We will 

continue to do all we can to ensure that we are responsive to complaints that 

we receive, and to ensure that allegations of retaliation are thoroughly and 

promptly reviewed. 

While this past year has been a remarkably busy time, I note that it is 

typical of the extraordinary work that the DOJ OIG has produced for years. 

Indeed, over the past 10 fiscal years, the OIG has identified nearly $1 billion in 

questioned costs - far more than the OIG's budget during the same period. In 
43 

addition, we have identified over $250 million in taxpayer funds that could be 

put to better use by the Department, and our criminal and administrative 

investigations have resulted in the imposition or identification of more than 

$100 million in civil, criminal, and nonjudicial fines, assessments, restitution, 

and other recoveries over that period. 

Moreover, when we issue our audits and reviews, we regularly make 

recommendations to the Department on how it can reduce costs and improve 

ineffective or inefficient programs. The Department must redouble its efforts to 

adopt and implement these OIG recommendations. As of September 2012, 

hundreds of OIG recommendations to the Department remain open, and our 

FY 2012 audits and related single audits identified approximately $25 million 

in questioned costs that the Department should make every effort to resolve 

and, if necessary, recover. I intend to make this issue a priority for my office. 

Now that I have provided a brief overview of what we have done during 

the past year to help ensure that taxpayer funds are being used well and that 

the Department is being managed effectively and efficiently, let me provide 

some details about the specific opportunities my office has identified for further 

cost savings and efficiencies at the DOJ. I have grouped these opportunities 

into four categories: (1) addressing the Department's growing cost structure; 

(2) reducing duplication and improving coordination; (3) optimizing grant and 

contract administration; and (4) enforcing against fraud and financial offenses. 

From these four areas, one clear message emerges: Leading the 

Department in this climate of budget constraints will require careful budget 

management and significant improvements to existing operations; focusing 

only on discrete operating efficiencies is unlikely to fully address the significant 

challenges of moving the Department from an era of expanding budgets into an 

era of budget constraints without sacrificing its mission. It is therefore 

incumbent upon the Department to plot a new course for the current 

budgetary environment, one that streamlines the Department's operations 

while simultaneously taking on the most important and fundamental questions 

about how the Department is structured and managed. 

The Department Must Address its Growing Cost Structure, Particularly the 

Federal Prison System 

The current budgetary environment presents critical challenges for the 

Department. Of particular importance, the Department's mission has 

remained substantially unchanged since 2001, even as the budgetary 

environment in which the Department operates has changed dramatically. 

From FY 2001 through FY 2011, the Department's discretionary budget grew 

by more than 41 percent in real dollars, to $28.9 billion. Yet, in FY 2012, the 

Department's discretionary budget decreased by more than 7 percent (to $26.9 

3 
44 

billion), and in FY 2013, the Department's discretionary budget decreased 

again, this time by 5.9 percent (to $25.3 billion). It therefore appears likely 

that in the years ahead Department leadership will face the significant 

challenge of fulfilling the Department's mission without the assurance of 

increased resources. 

While the Department has taken initial steps to address its reduced 

budget, the Department must also have in place an innovative and transparent 

strategic vision for how to fulfill its mission in the long term without requiring 

additional resources. 

Nowhere is this problem more pressing than in the federal prison system, 

where the Department faces the challenge of addressing the increasing cost of 

housing a continually growing and aging population of federal inmates and 

detainees. The federal prison system is consuming an ever-larger portion of 

the Department's budget, making safe and secure incarceration increasingly 

difficult to provide, and threatening to force significant budgetary and 

programmatic cuts to other DOJ components in the near future. The 

Department's own budget reports demonstrate the fundamental financial 

challenges facing the Department. Fifteen years ago, the BOP's enacted budget 

was $3.1 billion, which represented approximately 14 percent of the 

Department's budget. In comparison, the Department requested $6.9 billion 

for the BOP in FY 2013, or 26 percent of the Department's total FY 2013 

budget request. Moreover, the President's FY 2013 budget projects the budget 

authority for federal correctional activities to rise from $6.9 billion to 

$7.4 billion by 2017. 

In FY 2006, there were 192,584 inmates in BOP custody. As of October 

2012, the BOP reported more than 218,000 inmates in its custody, an increase 

of more than 13 percent. Not surprisingly, these trends mirror the increased 

number of federal defendants sentenced each year, which rose from 

approximately 60,000 in FY 2001 to more than 86,000 in FY 2011, according 

to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. 

The Department, during both the prior administration and the current 

administration, has been aware of the budgetary and capacity problems 

associated with a rapidly expanding prison popUlation for years. The 

Department first identified prison overcrowding as a programmatic material 

weakness in its FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, and it has 

been similarly identified in every such report since. In fact, prison 

overcrowding was the Department's only identified material weakness last year. 

Yet, despite the Department having recognized this problem as a material 

performance weakness for the past 7 years, conditions in the federal prison 

system continue to decline, even as the BOP receives an ever-increasing share 

4 
45 

of the Department's scarce resources. For example, since FY 2000, the BOP's 

inmate-to-staff ratio has increased from about four-to-one to a projected fiveto-one in FY 2013. Since FY 2006, federal prisons have moved from 

approximately 36 percent over rated capacity to approximately 39 percent over 

rated capacity in FY 2011, with medium security facilities currently operating 

at approximately 48 percent over rated capacity and high security facilities 

operating at approximately 51 percent over rated capacity. Moreover, even if 

the Department receives its requested funding as detailed in BOP's Long Range 

Capacity Plan, the Department's outlook for the federal prison system remains 

bleak: the BOP projects system-wide crowding to be 44 percent over rated 

capacity through 2018. 

The OIG believes that the Department can make better use of existing 

programs to realize cost savings and reduce overcrowding. For example, in 

December 2011, the OIG reviewed the Department's International Prisoner 

Treaty Transfer Program, which permits certain foreign national inmates from 

treaty nations to transfer to their home countries to serve the remainder of 

their sentences. The OIG review found the BOP and the Criminal Division's 

International Prisoner Transfer Unit had rejected 97 percent of foreign national 

inmates' requests to transfer from FY 2005 through FY 2010, and in FY 2010, 

slightly less than 1 percent of the 40,651 foreign national inmates in the BOP's 

custody were transferred to their home countries to complete their sentences. 

While some factors that reduce the number of transfers are beyond the 

Department's control, the OIG found the Department could take steps to 

increase the number of inmates transferred and the timeliness of the process 

that would result in potentially significant savings. The Department is now 

implementing the OIG's 14 recommendations to manage the program more 

effectively. Similarly, the OIG is reviewing the BOP's implementation of its 

Compassionate Release Program, which allows the Department to release 

prisoners under extraordinary and compelling conditions, such as terminal 

illness. 

Whatever approach the Department wishes to take to address the 

growing cost of the federal prison system, it is clear that something must be 

done. In an era where the Department's overall budget is likely to remain flat 

or decline, it is readily apparent from these figures that the Department cannot 

solve this challenge by spending more money to operate more federal prisons 

unless it is prepared to make drastic cuts to other important areas of the 

Department's operations. The Department must therefore articulate a clear 

strategy for addressing the underlying cost structure of the federal prison 

system and ensuring that the Department can continue to run our prisons 

safely and securely without compromising the scope or quality of its many 

other critical law enforcement missions. 

5 
46 

Reducing Duplication and Improving Coordination of Department 

Functions 

In the current budgetary environment, the Department cannot afford to 

spend its limited taxpayer funds on duplicative programs that would run more 

cost-effectively if they were combined in whole or in part. Our oversight work 

has identified areas which we believe the Department should carefully examine 

for consolidation opportunities. 

One such area is the Department's grant-making apparatus. The 

Department currently maintains three separate grant-making components: the 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), and 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Prior OIG reports have found 

that this structure has led to inefficient duplication. For example, while OVW 

has in the past required its grant recipients to use the OJP financial guide, 

OVW has recently released its own financial guide. OVW grantees who also 

receive OJP grants therefore must often follow two different sets of rules, 

thereby increasing the risk of waste and noncompliance. A recent GAO report 

raised similar concerns, noting that COPS uses a different grant management 

system than OVW and OJP, thereby limiting the Department's ability to share 

information on the funding its components have awarded or are preparing to 

award. 

The division of grant-making responsibility among three separate 

components also creates the challenge of ensuring that there is proper 

coordination of, and clear strategic vision for, the Department's overall grantmaking efforts, and that those overall efforts are consistent with the priorities 

of the Department's non-grant-making components. The Department should 

therefore seek to consolidate the common functions of these three grantmaking components to increase coordination and save costs while maintaining 

key separate practices for meeting individual statutory requirements and 

fulfilling the missions of each office. 

The Department could reap similar benefits to its operations, and its 

bottom line, by improving the coordination between other components carrying 

out related or overlapping missions. An example of this opportunity is found in 

the Department's four primary law enforcement components: the FBI, DEA, 

ATF, and USMS. 

Law enforcement represents a central element of the Department's 

mission, yet the ability and willingness of Department components to 

coordinate and share intelligence, resources, and personnel with one another 

and other law enforcement agencies has historically posed a significant 

challenge. One cause of this challenge is the confusion created when 

6 
47 

components have overlapping jurisdictions. For example, whereas the FBI may 

investigate all federal crimes and instances of terrorism, other agencies possess 

simultaneous jurisdiction to enforce specific criminal laws that necessarily 

overlap, such as the DEA's investigations of federal drug cases or ATF's 

investigations of federal firearms cases. Some overlap between these four 

components is unavoidable and may even help ensure proper law enforcement 

focus and attention. However, the Department should clarify the jurisdictional 

boundaries of each wherever possible. It may also benefit from considering 

whether consolidation of any operational functions or administrative functions, 

such as information technology, human resources, budgeting, and records 

management, could yield operational benefits, improve law enforcement safety, 

or save costs. Similarly, the Department should consider ways to increase the 

sharing of lessons learned and best practices among law enforcement 

components. 

In the same vein, the Department should consider whether its law 

enforcement components have the proper level of consistency in their standard 

procedures, protocols, and manuals; where there are differences, the 

Department should consider whether they are justified. While the 

Department's law enforcement components generally adhere to Attorney's 

General Guidelines and policies for law enforcement activities, specific 

protocols and procedures for particular investigative techniques often vary from 

component to component. In particular, our review of new policies ATF 

implemented after Operation Fast and Furious underscored the agency's delay 

in completing its integration into the Department and in implementing controls 

to protect the public that were used in other Department law enforcement 

components. For example, we found that ATF had not until recently used 

review committees to evaluate either its undercover operations or its use of 

high-level and long-term confidential informants. We also expressed concern 

that ATF and the Department had not devoted sufficient attention to ensuring 

that ATF's policies scrupulously adhered to requirements found in the Attorney 

General's Guidelines and other Department policies, including ATF's 

confidential informant policies, which were not revised to conform to the 

Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants 

until 8 years after ATF joined the Department. We therefore believe that 

Department-led, cross-component assessments designed to compare the law 

enforcement components' policies could identify opportunities for 

improvements that would make the Department's law enforcement operations 

more consistent and efficient. 

Notably, the challenge of coordination is not limited to domestic 

operations, but rather extends to the Department's substantial international 

law enforcement efforts as well. The DEA, FBI, ATF, and USMS have stationed 

personnel abroad who work with their foreign counterparts to investigate and 

prosecute violations of U.S. law, and to provide reciprocal assistance to their 

foreign counterparts. The DEA maintains the Department's largest 

7 
48 

international presence with more than 1,000 full-time employees devoted to 

international operations in 65 countries. The DEA requested an international 

enforcement budget of more than $400 million in FY 2013. The FBI's 

international presence is also sizable, with 61 legal attaches, 14 sub-offices, 

and 287 authorized positions in 66 countries during FY 2012. With 

substantial overseas resources comes the need to ensure that these resources 

are well managed, coordinated with each other, and coordinated with both 

domestic and foreign law enforcement organizations. Meeting these challenges 

requires putting frameworks in place to support international investigations 

before they begin, including clear lines of investigative authority among law 

enforcement agencies, appropriate mechanisms to share information, and 

appropriate and consistent training of all personnel involved in international 

operations. 

Optimizing Grant and Contract Administration 

From FY 2008 through FY 2011 the Department awarded approximately 

$15 billion in grants and $27 billion in contracts, and it awarded another 

approximately $1 billion in grants and $6 billion in contracts in FY 2012. 

Appropriate administration of public funds must always be a priority, but in 

this climate of constrained budgets, the use of billions of taxpayer dollars 

requires particular attention from Department management. 

In addition to the potential gains from consolidating the Department's 

grant-making components discussed above, the Department should focus its 

attention on improving other aspects of its grant-making efforts. Most 

obviously, the Department should ensure that grants are achieving the 

intended results. Using performance measures that provide adequate 

information to evaluate not only the benefits achieved through the grantmaking process but also the investment required will help the Department 

improve the efficiency of its grant-making and allow it to use its limited 

resources where they will be most useful. 

Once grant funds are disbursed, the Department relies on thousands of 

governmental and non-governmental grant recipients to appropriately manage 

the billions of dollars of awards. It is therefore imperative that the Department 

diligently oversee those recipients and provide them with tools to help ensure 

that grant terms and conditions are followed. Several such efforts are under 

way at the Department. For example, in September 2011, representatives from 

the Civil Division, the Antitrust Division, and the OIG, in cooperation with the 

Department's National Advocacy Center, produced a grant fraud training video 

for federal prosecutors and other government attorneys. In March 2012 the 

Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force's Recovery Act, Procurement, and 

Grant Fraud Working Group, which includes the OIG, released a training 

framework for reducing grant fraud risk. The Department also developed and 

8 
49 

implemented a Grant Financial Management Online Training program complete 

with test questions to help support grant recipient compliance with rules and 

regulation. Yet not all of these training programs are required for all 

Department grant recipients, and as demonstrated by the $22 million in 

questioned costs reported in FY 2012 OIG grant and contract audits as well as 

related single audits, grant management and the oversight of grantee 

expenditures continue to be significant challenges for the Department. 

Optimizing grant-making is of obvious importance, but the Department 

currently spends more on contracts for goods and services each year than on 

grants. Some of the largest of these contracts are related to the planning, 

implementation, and management of complex information technology systems. 

In total, the Department awarded nearly $3 billion in contract funds on 

information technology in FY 2012. 

The OIG's audits and reviews of Department programs have found 

instances of poorly managed or otherwise inefficient expenditures on 

information technology. For example, the ~IG's September 2012 interim report 

on the FBI's implementation of Sentinel, an investigative and case management 

system, found that the FBI deployed the system after taking over management 

of the project from a contractor. However, we found that the system was 

deployed behind schedule and did not provide all of the originally planned 

capabilities. We also found that although the FBI's $441 million cost estimate 

is $10 million less than the latest Sentinel budget, the estimate did not include 

originally planned operations and maintenance costs for the next 2 years, 

which the FBI estimated to be $30 million annually, and that the FBI did not 

adjust its cost baseline when it transferred requirements to other FBI 

information systems. The Department must ensure that there is adequate 

management and oversight of information technology contracts to minimize 

cost overruns and provide planned system functionality. 

Spending on conferences represents another cost category that we 

believe the Department should scrutinize. Although the Department has 

reported reducing these expenditures by $7 million in the last year and $33 

million in total over the last two years, it nevertheless reported spending over 

$58 million on conferences in FY 2012, and that number excludes spending on 

conferences that cost less than $20,000 and conferences that were not 

predominantly for DOJ attendees. We believe that the current budgetary 

environment demands that the Department search for adequate alternatives to 

conferences, such as video conferencing, and that it strongly consider 

restricting its conference spending even further. 

Enforcing Against Fraud and Financial Offenses 

Finally, I wish to emphasize today the importance of the Department's 

continued vigorous enforcement against fraud and financial offenses. The 

9 
50 

Department has long played an important role in preventing and reducing 

fraud and financial crimes. 

Rarely in the Department's history has this role received as much 

attention - or as many resources - as in the past few years. The Department 

must ensure that these resources are appropriately deployed where they can 

make the greatest impact. For example, the Department appears to have had 

success in bringing False Claims Act cases, having announced in September 

2012 that its total recoveries in these cases since January 2009 exceeded $13 

billion, of which $9.3 billion was recovered in cases involving fraud against 

federal health care programs. Notably, many of those cases were the result of 

disclosures by whistle blowers, starkly demonstrating the importance of 

encouraging government employees to come forward with information about 

waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. The Department should continue to 

strive to maximize such recoveries. 

In addition, the Department must ensure that individuals and entities 

who have committed fraud previously do not have the means or opportunity to 

do so again. For example, the Department can use the suspension and 

debarment of individuals or entities to protect the government's financial 

interest from unethical, dishonest, or otherwise irresponsible entities and to 

reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs. Suspension and 

debarment decisions are made either administratively through agency 

suspending and debarring officials or statutorily as a result of convictions for 

quali(ying offenses. A June 2012 OIG audit found that the Department had 

not established an adequate system to ensure that it fulfills its responsibilities 

related to statutory debarment, creating the possibility that federal funding 

could be inadvertently and inappropriately awarded to excluded individuals. 

The Department also should ensure the effective use of its Asset 

Forfeiture Program to confiscate both the means to commit and the proceeds of 

criminal activity. In particular, the Department may benefit from seeking 

greater interagency efficiency in its asset forfeiture efforts, as a recent GAO 

report concluded that there may be overlap between the asset management 

activities and the information technology infrastructures of the Department's 

Asset Forfeiture Program and the Treasury Department's similar Asset 

Forfeiture Fund. The Department may wish to consider studying the feasibility 

of consolidating or better coordinating the administrative structure of its asset 

forfeiture program with that of the Treasury Department. 

And on a related note, the Department should continue to strengthen its 

efforts to collect criminal penalties and civil judgments owed to the 

Department. In FY 2012, for example, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices reported 

collecting $13.1 billion in criminal and civil actions, more than doubling the 

$6.5 billion reported in FY 2011. However, at the end of FY 2012, the 

U.S. Attorneys' Offices reported an ending principal balance of nearly 

10 
51 

$86 billion relating to criminal and civil actions that remained uncollected, 

which is more than 6 times the amount collected and $10 billion more than the 

ending principal balance in FY 2011. In addition, collection efforts appeared to 

vary substantially among the U.S. Attorneys' Offices. 

Conclusion 

Avoiding wasteful and ineffective spending is a fundamental 

responsibility of federal agencies in any budgetary environment. But when 

times are tight, as they are today, the government must redouble its efforts to 

make the most of every taxpayer dollar. While our oversight work has 

identified numerous examples of ineffective or questionable spending at the 

Department of Justice, it has also identified numerous opportunities for 

improvements that we believe will help maximize the efficiency, and 

effectiveness, of the Department's programs and operations. I hope and trust 

that the Department will pursue each and every one of the OIG's 

recommendations to this end without delay. 

In concluding, I want to emphasize the message I offered at the start of 

this testimony: to fully address the budgetary challenges facing the 

Department, and to protect its ability to fulfill its mission, the Department 

must develop a unified and transparent strategy for the future, one that 

focuses on its fundamental cost structure, strips away unnecessary 

duplication, and ensures that, where necessary, hard choices about program 

funding are made in a principled manner. I look forward to working closely 

with the Department and the Congress to ensure that this is done, and done 

right. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer 

any questions. 

11 
52 

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 
53 

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 
54 

GAO 

For Rf'le3.."if' 011 DpllvPIY 

'·:xped.cd al 10 a.rt1. r·~I)T 

Wedne1'>day, April 10, 201~1 

GAO-13-505T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 

Investigations, Committee on the 

Judiciary, House of Representatives 

DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

Additional Actions Needed 

to Enhance Program 

Efficiency and Resource 

Management 

Statement of David C. Maurer, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice 

GAO 

Accountability * Integrity * Reliability 
55 

l GAO 

'~ -~- _ .. c;..,o..'J.«I'!I. _ 

_ .. _""c...,_ 

-~-­ _ ..... -,._ .. ... .• " 

Wby (,AU Old Tbhl Slutl)' 

In \IIQIII VI .. 201~, OOJ· .. 121_ 1M.I<IOt'~._aff";of 

...... .. _ ..... -...Ify-- "'*"..,.;.;t1eL GAO .- r.......-• .....-tAb, "'~_OOJ __ 

~ _IO___ ___ ... --"' ,_", .... 

.. -"*' 

~ 

_-..~n­

--~­

___ GAO 

_ ....... 1-.;. .... - (1) -..eN __ ~ .. 

,,--",01 OOJ ..... _ __ 

... (2)00/. JUtIOO 

h"'" II\IP 1I'1nI_ ~'"'''''' _~(3)""""""'~" OOJ.od Tr~ _ ~e 

",ogramo; (') DOh ""'ogeI!I«II 01 

_ _ 

__ ~.!!.o>do: OOJ ~_w.a_ 

__ ord(5)""orlap -.!IJhII>:Sc<I 

tIN_IO_..,.pr\DI 

"'_GAO_~"'""""' ... " 2C'2~AIInI2Illl tIIor'G"'1I/! 

2012""""",,"""" ~"""'_""""c>ft lOll F", IN _...-.,..OOJOD<_'" ""","...-0._'.' ..-.oIJI:oCI ____ __ ~OOJ Go\O 

--

"lolll GAO ... ---- R, n,ml':",l" 

a.o,O_"-_f!M 

~1000JInP"o< 

ItIIO<IIIO lotio """""" 1:I!"IJ'1"'" 

~II/IO'-''''''''''''~ OOJ_IIIIY""IQ(.,,..,.mftIl\_ ._- .. _.....,..,.,.,'"llo<Ing_ 

~EE'D' ________________ _ 

DEPAnTMf~N1' OF JUSTICE 

Additional Aetlolt!! Needed (0 Enhallce ProJlrRln 

Emclenc)' Ilmi RlSOurc:e Mllnagemc •• t 

What GAO Found 

In J"~I 2012, GAO 11"",110 I!I8IIh11 c.po~"",nl 01 Jusllol'l (00.1) "..". I~.n 

:IOQ \I'ta"' ",.,gr." .... 1AWId IICfOIII 10 ~'"I' ju511ce"'", _ .",,11101 "" .. .., 

COftInDIIItd 10 ~ 1'15 ~ O! ~~. grtnl .... 'CIS I« III. """ Of 

_, ""'_ GAO II1II r~ """""11 "'I'III,.-oPO. 1IItI OOJCIIMU<:I 

..,...-....... '" otft .. _lhIIblanlOI(jtanl ptogr_-",,>_ _, .... N COIWIkl"'"" • ~ OOJ _ t..! .... 1III<WIO 1_ .cIions, ..... 

~ .. \Oo_" .. _"*,~ 

1ft Fetlllll<'l 2012. ~ ~ IIIaI 00.1'5 81111e1proo1 V .. PIWInIwIfip (8VP) PtOgl_-.ceol_IIII ........ """VOII •• ___ _ 

1IOd~ ___ IIOIII1LIIII __ .. ~_521mi1ion .. _~ 

""'~ 

_____ __ M" .. ...,_ GM)._"I",_IIIMOOJ , ........... """" .............. "' __ 01 

_ ''''-... """'olludgoob;. OOJ _ ... __ lIIOIIIlgoIoa 52 

........ _ ""'" \O~"," ... 1Iy lIMe .... 01 ~ZOI3. OOJ o/ioIIII!; '*'" IOIPfolfllM turoCII_ .. , _l"'or201~ B'IIP 111_ 

'" 5111""""" 21112, G"O ,epolled '~III OOJ ..... " .. ~men1 or tile TI'''~ 

rtl'a.",..;) ~ ~o .... "' .... p\ic8IIYo .... OI ..... lIQIIMIIIfICIioPtift ,.,"''''' ' 0 11'" ~lIII' ..... IQI!ei!" ... 01_ ~OO with ~ •• , ctI __ fOl 

.. ......,.., Go\O 'IfICIrto<l IhO. ,_ "O"11CY mainmII .. "polole Ilod<IfIu ,ysa _ Iot ... -..cr...., 1oI1e1l0<l III-'" G"O fICOII'fIl4IrocIId 1/101 OOJ"no:! T ...... ' _<:I o"lICI'/ \0 ".. ........ l1li ~ <II conoaIII1aIlnD !he. _ 

~0It..-~ ... Ift"''''''''2013, 00J_''''_*,,,*DDJ_ TI_ ... y'*lIQlHCI ~_ ... _UCII .. COM""" ,,,, SIUCI'j ____ 

poI ..... _ ,I>UII!III..--_ ... ~_, __ _11" .. 0IUIry '*I "'" lIten ...... .!:lId, 

InJot./2012. GM),eponecI __ """_1r,,,,,00J's_''''-• 

F ........ ..-_' • ....-_ -..uOOJIO_~~1I 

""' .... "'_,.., 2011 . .. .,. .. ,--... """" ... 1M"'" heM,... . DOJ_IIOI ~dcII:oImeIJ _. -"*'-11'.0 __ _110111_,,", (l.A.OI_I.''''OIMIhalOOJ __ IJd_ _. ___ ""'131,.,..... __ OOJ_'~III .. ~pI .. 1O 

",oood.1!IIs ..... moIIGfI , ..... II 01 "'"""2OIS, hOd not ~ ".."'......., ""'" 10 _'II , .... H1IOm1IlIIan 

In "D<~2O S GAO llportoa"" ....... pln _ ..... w""" tel".,. IiolllIItHd' "",~~es 0lIl •• ,00 01 , _1M IIy OOJ, ""' DeP'lllmtlll 01 HomtIIIno:I 

Se<:u<~, ..... ,... Ofb 01 NJ!IonII 0nIg Co!!Ir'" Poky 11'1111 ml, l1li ... lelf'l)tllm-

._:lln""mMiorl . ....ong _1fIirGI G.l.0 ""'_911.w.nclloI ....... ~ iI'I __ .... ,.,..,.,~ oucI'I .. In IOt_"" __ 

...... _ .. 1",OIISm. GAO ,_OIM. irI pet\. IhII'I'.o _rllllllllICite ootatIot.101IoId 1M ...... _lor ~ ,10;1 __ 0 "' ______ IIt.~ DOJ~"'"_-

............ 01l1li '-....__......IIuISI_ """ DOJ ""' .... IMCIIIIMtpI 1D1IfO __ ........ TlIo.tlalll, _ .Gonol_ ... _tII"" ~1OI11101111Dn<1g __ OI~ "'_ 

------------------
56 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing to discuss our 

prior work on ways in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) can 

increase efficiencies and better manage its resources across key 

programs. In fiscal year 2012, DOJ's enacted budget was $27 billion, and 

its appropriation was among the top ten of all federal agencies. As the 

fiscal pressures facing the nation continue, it is increasingly important for 

DOJ and other executive branch agencies to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of government programs. This is especially important given 

DOJ's leading role administering a wide array of programs to fulfill its 

mission to, among other things, enforce the law and to provide federal 

leadership in preventing and controlling crime. 

As requested, my testimony today is based on our recent work examining 

programs across an array of DOJ components. In some of these program 

areas, DOJ has sole responsibility, while in others DOJ works with other 

departments and agencies. This statement addresses five key program 

areas where we highlighted opportunities for, and made 

recommendations to address, enhanced program efficiency and resource 

management' (1) identifying and mitigating unnecessary overlap and 

duplication in DOJ grant programs, 2 (2) deobligating undisbursed grant 

funds from Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Program awards whose 

grant terms have ended, 3 (3) consolidating operations of DOJ and 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury) asset forfeiture programs, 4 (4) 

1Some of the reports included in this statement contain additional findings and 

recommendations that we do not address here because they did not specifically address 

improvements in program efficiency and resource management Some of the 

recommendations are directed both to DOJ and other federal agencies With which joint 

efforts Will be required to address necessary Improvements 

20verlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have Similar goals, engage in Similar 

activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries Duplication occurs 

when two or more agencies or programs are engaged In the same activities or provide the 

same sen.flces to the same beneficiaries 

3A deobligation is the cancellation or downward adjustment of previously incurred 

obligations 

4Asset forfeiture refers to the process of confiscating money or property that represents 

either proceeds of crimes or property used In the commission of crimes 

Page 1 GAO-13-606T 
57 

Background 

improving overall management of asset forfeiture funds, and (5) 

strengthening coordination and reducing unnecessary overlap across 

field-based entities (e.g., units, centers, and task forces) that may share 

law enforcement and terrorism-related information 

My statement is based on reports addressing each of these areas issued 

from February 2012 through April 2013, and includes selected updates 

obtained from April 2012 through April 2013. For our prior reports, we 

analyzed documentation, such as grant solicitations and program policies 

and procedures, and interviewed relevant DOJ officials responsible for 

managing DOJ's grant and asset forfeiture programs, and its field-based 

information-sharing entities. More information about the scope and 

methodology of our prior work can be found in those reports.' To update 

the status of DOJ's efforts to address the recommendations we made in 

these reports, we collected information from DOJ program officials on 

actions they have taken or planned in response. We conducted our work 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

DOJ Grants Administration DOJ awards federal financial assistance to state and local governments, 

for-profit and nonprofit organizations, tribal jurisdictions, and educational 

5See, respectively, GAO, Justice Grant Programs. OOJ Should 00 More to Reduce the 

Risk of Unnecessary Duplication and Enhance Program Assessment, G.t\O-12-SF 

(Washington, D.C .. July 12, 2012), Law Enforcement Body Armor. OOJ Could Enhance 

Grant Management Controls and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program 

ReqUirements, (;/\0-12-30'3 (Washington, 0 C .. Feb. 15, 2012), Asset Forfeiture 

Programs: Justice and Treasury Should Determine Costs and Benefits of Potential 

Consolidation, (3f\O-1)-D7:.? (Washington, 0 C Sept 12,2012); Justice Assets Forfeiture 

Fund: Transparency of Balances and Control over Equitable Sharing Should Be Improved, 

GAO-1)-738 (Washington, 0 C July 12, 2012); and Information Sharing' Agencies Could 

Better Coordinate to Reduce Overlap In FIeld-Based ActIvItIes, (;AO-l'~-4ll (Washington, 

DC' Apr 4,2013) 

Page 2 GAO-13-506T 
58 

institutions, to help prevent crime, assist victims of crime, and promote 

innovative law enforcement efforts. Federal financial assistance programs 

provide funding pursuant to statutory authorization and annual 

appropriations through formula grants, discretionary grants, cooperative 

agreements, and other payment programs, but are all generally referred 

to as grants" From fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2012, 

approximately $33 billion has been appropriated to support the more than 

200 grants programs that DOJ manages. 7 

DOJ administers its grant programs through three granting agencies-the 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Office on Violence Against Women 

(OVW), and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office. 

OJP is the largest of DOJ's granting agencies, and its mission to develop 

the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and 

assist crime victims is broader than that of OVW or the COPS Office. 

OJP's bureaus and offices administer grant programs that address victim 

assistance, technology and forensics, and juvenile justice, among other 

things. One such grant program is the BVP program, which was created 

following enactment of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 

1998,8 and provides grants on a competitive basis to state and local law 

enforcement agencies to assist in their purchasing of ballistic-resistant 

and stab-resistant body armor. The COPS Office grant programs focus on 

advancing community policing, which generally involves cooperation 

between police departments and community residents in identifying and 

developing solutions to crime problems. OVW administers grant programs 

related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking 

6Formula grant programs are noncompetitive awards based on a predetermined formula, 

typically established in statute Discretionary grants are usually awarded on the basis of a 

competitive selection process A cooperative agreement IS a type of federal financial 

assistance similar to a grant except the federal government IS more substantially Involved 

with the grant Payment programs typically take the form of reimbursements to state and 

local law enforcement entities for purchases such as body armor 

71n addition to fiscal year funding from 2005 through 2012, this amount includes $4 billion 

appropriated In fiscal year 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (Recovery Act). Pub L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat 115, 129-30, which Includes $10 million 

for salaries and expenses to manage, administer, and oversee the grant programs. ThiS 

approximate amount does not reflect amounts, if any, that have been rescinded, 

reprogrammed, or transferred 

8 Pub L No 105-181,112 Stat 512 

Page 3 GAO-13-506T 
59 

Asset Forfeiture 

Field-Based Infoffi1ationSharing Entities 

DOJ and Treasury both operate asset forfeiture programs that are 

designed to prevent and reduce crime through the seizure and forfeiture 

of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal 

crimes. Each department also maintains a separate fund that is the 

receipt account for the deposit of forfeitures. 9 Over the years, a series of 

laws has been enacted that has expanded forfeiture from drug offenses to 

money laundering, financial crimes, and terrorism-related offenses. In 

addition to depriving criminals of property used or acquired through illegal 

activities, these programs are designed to enhance cooperation among 

foreign, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies through the 

equitable sharing of assets recovered through the program, and, as a byproduct, produce revenues in support of future law enforcement 

investigations and related forfeiture activities. A number of federal law 

enforcement organizations participate in DOJ's Assets Forfeiture Fund 

(AFF), including the U.S. Marshals Service, which serves as the primary 

custodian of seized and forfeited property for the program. Once property 

is forfeited to the government, it is subsequently sold, put into official use, 

destroyed, or transferred to another agency. Cash and monetary 

instruments that have been forfeited and property that has been forfeited 

and sold are subsequently deposited in the forfeiture fund. In fiscal year 

2012, the value of total assets in the AFF was approximately $5.97 

billion.'° Money collected in the funds is used to pay for expenses related 

to the asset forfeiture program and for other law enforcement initiatives. 

DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) operate or support, through grant 

funding or personnel, five types of field-based information-sharing entities 

that may collect, process, analyze, or disseminate information in support 

of law enforcement and counterterrorism-related efforts, as shown in table 

1 

9The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 established the Department of Justice 

Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) Pub L No 98-473, tit II, §§ 310, 2302 (codified as 

amended at 28 USC § 524(c)) Likewise, the Treasury Forfeiture Fund Act of 1992 

established the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) as a successor to what was then the 

Customs Forfeiture Fund. Pub. L. No. 102-393, § 638 (codified as amended at 31 U.S C 

§ 9703) 

10U.S Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, Assets 

Fotfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund Annual Financial Statements, Fiscal Year 

2012, Audit Report 13-07, January 2013 Washington, 0 C. Total assets Include cash and 

noncash assets, net investments, and fund balances 

Page4 GAO-13-506T 
60 

Table 1: Field-Based Information-Sharing Entities 

Entity Description 

Joint Terrorism Task Forces Funded and managed by DOJ's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to prevent, 

preempt, deter, and investigate terrorism, as well as to apprehend terrorists 

Field Intelligence Groups Part of the FBI that supports FBI investigations by collecting and analyzing 

intelligence and sharing this information with the FBI and, when applicable, its law 

enforcement and intelligence partners 

Regional Information Sharing Systems Funded through grants administered by DOJ's Bureau of Justice Assistance to 

centers help combat major crimes and terrorism, and promote officer safety by linking 

federal, state, local, and tribal criminal justice agencies through secure 

communications and providing Information-sharing resources and investigative 

support 

State and major urban area fusion centersa Funded by a variety of state and federal sources Including DOJ and DHS 

grants-to serve as intermediaries for sharing terrorism and other threat-related 

information betNeen the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial, and 

private sector homeland security partners 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Supported by ONDCP grant funds to assist in the disruption and dismantlement of 

(HIDTA) Investigative Support Centers drug-trafficking and money-laundering organizations by preventing or mitigating 

associated criminal activity. HIDTA program resources may also be used for 

terrorism Investigations and prevention activities 

SGurce GAO analysIs of field-based Inforrmllon-shanngenlllles 

"A fusion center is a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that combines resources, expertise 

or information at the center with the goal of maximizing the ability of such agencies to detect, prevent, 

investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity. See 6 U.S.C § 124h(j)(1) 

In general, the five types of entities in our review were established under 

different authorities and have distinct missions, roles, and responsibilities. 

As of January 2013 there were a total of 268 of these field-based entities 

located throughout the United States, and DOJ, DHS, and ONDCP 

provided an estimated $129 million in fiscal year 2011 to support three of 

the five types of entities. 11 

11The three types of field-based entities Include Regional Information Sharing Systems 

centers, state and major urban area fusion centers, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Areas Investigative Support Centers. The National Fusion Center Association reported 

fusion center funding based on self-reported responses from 57 of 77 fUSion centers Data 

on funding estimates for the other two types-Joint Terrorism Task Forces and Field 

Intelligence Groups-are classified 

Page 6 GAO·13·506T 
61 

DOJ Has Steps Under 

Way to Reduce the 

Risk of Unnecessary 

Duplication in Its 

Grant Programs 

In July 2012, we reported that DOJ's more than 200 grant programs 

overlapped across 10 key justice areas, and that this overlap contributed 

to the risk of unnecessarily duplicative grant awards for the same or 

similar purposes. '2 We also recognized that overlapping grant programs 

across programmatic areas result in part from authorizing statutes. 

Further, we recognized that overlap among DOJ's grant programs may be 

desirable because such overlap can enable DOJ's granting agencies to 

leverage multiple funding streams to serve a single justice purpose 

However, we found that the existence of overlapping grant programs is an 

indication that agencies should increase their ability to monitor where 

their funds are going and coordinate to ensure that any resulting 

duplication in grant award funding is purposeful rather than unnecessary, 

and we made recommendations to reflect these needed improvements 

In addition, we found that OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office did not 

routinely share lists of current and potential awardees to consider both 

the current and planned dispersion and purposes of all DOJ grant funding 

before finalizing new award decisions. Our work found instances where 

DOJ made multiple grant awards to applicants for the same or similar 

purposes without being aware of the potential for unnecessary duplication 

or whether funding from multiple streams was warranted. We also 

reported that OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office had not established 

policies and procedures requiring consistent coordination and information 

sharing among its granting agencies. Further, we found that OJP and 

OVW used a separate grants management system than the COPS Office, 

limiting their ability to share information on the funding they have awarded 

or are preparing to award to a recipient. '3 According to COPS Office 

officials, its mission and grant management processes are different 

enough to necessitate a separate system. However, OJP officials told us 

that its system has been and can be modified with minimal investment to 

accommodate different grant processes. 

To better identify and address the challenges associated with potential 

unnecessary duplication, we made a total of eight recommendations. DOJ 

12We based thiS assessment on our review of all 253 grant award announcements that 

OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office published on their websites for fiscal year 2010. See 

G;;0-:2 51! 

13We included some of these related findings In GAO, 2012 Annual Report- Opportunities 

to Reduce DuplicatIon, Overlap, and FragmentatIon, Achieve Savings, and Enhance 

Revenue, GAO-12-3L2SP (Washington, 0 C Feb 28,2012) 

Page 6 GAO-13-506T 
62 

concurred with all eight of our recommendations. Five of the 

recommendations specifically relate to ways in which DOJ can improve 

program efficiency and resource management, and these are that DOJ 

conduct an assessment to beUer understand the extent to which the 

department's grant programs overlap with one another and determine 

if grant programs may be consolidated; 

coordinate within and among granting agencies on a consistent basis 

to review potential or recent grant awards from grant programs that 

DOJ identifies as overlapping, before awarding grants; 

require its grant applicants to report all federal grant funding, including 

all DOJ funding, that they are currently receiving or have recently 

applied for in their grant applications; 

provide appropriate OJP, COPS Office, and OVW staff access to both 

grant management systems; and 

ensure its comprehensive study of DOJ grant management systems 

assesses the feasibility, costs, and benefits of moving to a single 

grants management system, including the steps needed to harmonize 

DOJ grant processes, so that any variation in how granting agencies 

manage their portfolios is not an encumbrance to potential system 

unification. 

DOJ has taken steps to partially address these recommendations 

Specifically, DOJ has formed an assessment team, composed of OJP, 

OVW, and COPS Office representatives, to review all of the department's 

fiscal year 2012 grant program solicitations, or announcements, and 

categorize them by several elements. These elements include program 

type, eligible grant funding recipients (e.g., states, localities, tribes, and 

law enforcement agencies), target grant award beneficiaries (e.g., victims 

and juveniles), allowable uses of the funds, and locations funded. The 

assessment team is also developing criteria to identify potentially 

duplicative programs and then plans to assign risk levels of potential 

duplication to those that have multiple solicitations addressing similar key 

components. According to DOJ officials, the assessment team plans to 

conclude its work later in 2013. 

In addition, OJP has granted read-only access of its grants management 

system to OVW and the COPS Office to allow pertinent staff in those 

offices to access the most up-to-date OJP grant information. Further, OJP 

officials said that they are exploring ways in which more data systems 

may be used for coordinating grants. DOJ officials anticipate that 

eventually, agencies can leverage the information in these systems 

during the preaward process to avoid funding potentially overlapping and 

duplicative grant activities; however, DOJ's plans rest upon completion of 

Page 7 GAO-13-506T 
63 

DOJ Has Not Yet 

Deobligated Unused 

BVPFunds 

the assessment team's work. Officials told us that upon receipt of the 

assessment team's findings, they plan to work to develop and support a 

targeted and strategic approach to reviewing applications across all three 

granting agencies before making grant award decisions. DOJ officials 

noted that as part of this approach, DOJ plans to establish policies and 

procedures to govern coordination efforts. Thus, completion of this 

assessment could better position DOJ to take more systemic actionssuch as improved coordination and potential consolidation of its 

programs-to limit overlap and mitigate the risk of unnecessary 

duplication. 

DOJ has also initiated a feasibility study of moving to a single grants 

management system that includes the identification of the steps needed 

to harmonize grant processes, among other factors such as return on 

investment Since this study-like DOJ's other efforts to address all of our 

recommendations-is still under way, it is too soon to tell whether the 

department's actions will fully address each of the recommendations. 

We have also previously reported on and made recommendations related 

to DOJ's BVP grant program. 14 In February 2012, we reported that DOJ 

had designed several controls for the BVP program to ensure grantee 

compliance with program requirements, among other things, but could 

take additional action to further reduce management risk. For example, 

we found that from fiscal years 2002 to 2009, the BVP program had 

awarded about $27 million in BVP grants to grant recipients who did not 

ultimately seek reimbursement. 15 Since the grant terms for each of these 

grantees had ended, the grantees were no longer eligible for 

reimbursement and DOJ could deobligate these funds. 16 To improve 

DOJ's resource management, we recommended that DOJ deobligate 

undisbursed funds from grants in the BVP program whose terms have 

14G/"'D-12-J5~,! 

15The BVP program has generally funded, on a reimbursable basis, up to 50 percent of 

the cost of the body armor a JUriSdiction procures with Its available BVP funds 

1600J obligates the grant funding at the time it makes the award When grantees 

request-and DOJ approves-more money than the grantees eventually use dUring the 

term of the grant, the money can be deobligated Our onginal report describes a number 

of circumstances In which this situation can occur, including when grantees purchase 

body armor uSing other sources of funding 

Page 8 GAO-13-506T 
64 

DOJ and Treasury 

Have Not Yet Studied 

the Feasibility of 

Consolidating Asset 

Forfeiture Activities 

ended. Further, we noted that since the BVP program received about $24 

million in fiscal year 2012, deobligating this $27 million could have 

significant benefits. For example, deobligating this funding could enable 

the department to apply the amounts to new awards or reduce requests 

for future budgets. The department concurred with this recommendation 

and has since deobligated $2 million. In early April 2013, DOJ officials 

stated that they expect to complete the deobligation process before the 

end of April 2013. They also said the process is time-intensive because it 

has involved reconciliation among multiple data and financial 

management systems. DOJ officials stated that they plan to use the 

deobligated funds toward fiscal year 2014 BVP awards 

In September 2012, we found that DOJ and Treasury had made limited 

progress to consolidate their asset forfeiture property management 

activities. 17 Specifically, the departments had made limited progress in 

sharing storage facilities or contracts, and they had not fully explored the 

possibility of coordinating or consolidating the management of their 

assets to achieve greater efficiencies, effectiveness, and cost savings. As 

a result, each department maintained separate asset-tracking systems, 

separate contracts, and separate storage facilities, which we found to be 

potentially duplicative. For example, DOJ and Treasury maintain four 

separate asset-tracking systems-DOJ maintains one system and 

Treasury maintains three-to support their respective asset forfeiture 

program activities, and these four tracking systems have similar 

functionalities. 18 According to DOJ and Treasury data, the cost of 

developing, maintaining, and overseeing their four asset-tracking systems 

in fiscal year 2011 totaled $16.2 million for DOJ's asset-tracking system 

and $10.4 million for the three Treasury asset-tracking systems 

combined. Further, we found that in some cases, storage facilities are 

located in the same geographic area. For example, both the U.S 

Marshals Service-the primary custodian of DOJ's seized assets-and 

17C:lAO-1:2-8?'2. 

18The Consolidated Asset Tracking System (CATS) is the system of record for the DOJ 

program Treasury uses three asset tracking systems. (1) the Treasury Seized Asset and 

Case Tracking System (SEACATS), which is the system of record for the Treasury 

program, (2) the Asset Forfeiture Tracking and Retrieval (AFTRAK) system that 

Treasury's Internal Revenue Service uses, and (3) the Forfeiture and Seizure Tracking 

(FASTRAK) system that DHS' U.S. Secret Service uses. Two of the three assettracklng 

systems used In the Treasury program-AFTRAK and FASTRAK-are owned and 

operated by the DHS 

Page 9 GAO-13-505T 
65 

Treasury maintain vehicle storage facilities, 40 percent of which are within 

20 miles of each other 

DOJ and Treasury officials noted that when Congress passed a law 

establishing the Treasury Forfeiture Fund in 1992, it recognized the 

differences in the programs' missions, which warranted creating separate 

programs, and this encouraged independent operational decisions that 

eventually created additional differences between the two programs Both 

programs are designed to reduce and prevent crime. DOJ's asset 

forfeiture program represents the interests of law enforcement 

components within its department as well as several components outside 

the department, while Treasury's program represents the interests of 

Treasury and DHS components. 19 We recognized the separate legal 

authorities of the two funds, but noted that those legal authorities did not 

preclude enhanced coordination within programs. Thus, we 

recommended that DOJ and Treasury conduct a study to determine the 

feasibility of consolidating potentially duplicative asset management 

activities including, but not limited to, the use of asset-tracking systems 

and the sharing of vendor and contract resources. The departments 

concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2013, DOJ officials 

reported that DOJ and Treasury representatives had met several times in 

the fall of 2012 and thereafter agreed upon an approach to conduct the 

study and assess potential costs. DOJ officials noted that they would 

continue to meet with their Treasury partners to execute their plan. Since 

work remains under way, it is too soon to tell whether the departments' 

actions will fully address the recommendation. 

19The components outside of Justice are the United States Postal Inspection Service, the 

Food and Drug Administration; the United States Department of Agriculture, the Office of 

the Inspector General, the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Secunty, and the 

Defense Criminal Investigative Service 

Page 10 GAO-13-506T 
66 

DOJHasNot 

Documented the 

Process for Carrying 

Over Asset Forfeiture 

Funds from Year to 

Year 

In July 2012, we reported on the growth of revenues and expenses in 

DOJ's AFF from fiscal years 2003 to 2011, and the need for transparency 

in DOJ's process for carrying over funds from one fiscal year to the 

next20 Each year, DOJ earns revenue from the proceeds of the forfeited 

assets it collects. It then pays its expenses, which include payments to 

victims and the costs of storing and maintaining forfeited assets. DOJ 

uses any balance to help cover anticipated expenses in the next fiscal 

year that may not be covered by that year's revenues, and this is known 

as carrying over funds. For example, at the end of fiscal year 2003, DOJ 

carried over approximately $365 million to cover expenditures in the next 

fiscal year. In contrast, at the end of fiscal year 2011, DOJ carried over 

$844 million to cover expenses into fiscal year 2012. After DOJ reserves 

funds to cover needed expenses, DOJ declares any remaining funds to 

be an excess unobligated balance and has the authority to use these 

funds for any of the department's authorized purposes. 21 In recent years, 

DOJ also used these excess unobligated balances to cover rescissions." 

For example, in fiscal year 2011, DOJ used excess unobligated balances 

to help cover a $495 million AFF program rescission. Also, in fiscal year 

2012, DOJ used $151 million of the remaining AFF funds identified at the 

end of the fiscal year to acquire the Thomson Correctional Center in 

Thomson,llIinois. 23 

At the time of our review, when determining the amounts to carryover, 

DOJ officials reviewed historical data on past program expenditures, 

analyzed known future expenses such as salaries and contracts, and 

estimated the costs of any potential new expenditures. However, as we 

concluded on the basis of our findings in July 2012, without a clearly 

documented and transparent process, it was difficult to determine 

whether DOJ's conclusions regarding the amounts that need to be carried 

20 G.A.O-1;-736 Carryover consists of budget authority from the prior fiscal year that is 

available for obligation in the current fiscal year, that is, funds that are carried forward 

21 28 U S.C § 524(c)(B)(E) 

22Rescissions cancel the availability of DOJ's previously enacted budget authority, making 

the funds involved no longer available for obligation 

23 DOJ's appropriations act for fiscal year 2013 specifies that DOJ may only obligate up to 

$10 million of the excess unobligated balances, and directs DOJ to use $154 7 million of 

available amounts for payments associated vvith jOint law enforcement operations, as 

authorized by 28 USC § 524(c)(1)(I) Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6, 127, tit. II, dlv. 8, § 218 (c), (d) Stat. 198, 

260, 

Page 11 GAO-13-506T 
67 

DOJ and Other 

Agencies Could 

Improve Coordination 

to Help Reduce 

Unnecessary Overlap 

in Field-Based 

Infomlation Sharing 

over each year were well founded. We recommended that DOJ clearly 

document how it determined the amount of funds that it would need to be 

carried over for the next fiscal year, a recommendation with which DOJ 

concurred. DOJ officials stated that they plan to include information on 

the basis for its decisions concerning the amount of funds to be carried 

over in future Congressional Budget Justifications, but as of March 2013, 

the decision on how to present the information was still pending. Since 

this information has not yet been made available, it is too soon to tell 

whether it will fully address the recommendation. 

In April 2013, we identified overlap in some activities offive types of fieldbased information-sharing entities and concluded that DOJ, DHS, and 

ONDCP could improve coordination among the entities to help reduce 

unnecessary overlap in activities. 24 In general, the five types of entities in 

our review were established under different authorities and have distinct 

missions, roles, and responsibilities. We reviewed their activities in eight 

urban areas and found overlap as each carried out its respective 

missions, roles, and responsibilities.25 Specifically, we identified 91 

instances of overlap in analytical activities and services, with more 

instances of overlap involving a fusion center and a Field Intelligence 

Group (54 of the 91 instances) compared with the other three types of 

entities.26 For example, we found that in five of the eight urban areas, the 

fusion center, Regional Information Sharing Systems center, and the 

Field Intelligence Group disseminated information on all crimes-which 

can include terrorism and other high-risk threats as well as other types of 

crimes-for federal, state, and local customers including state and local 

police departments. In addition, we found 32 instances of overlap in 

investigative support activities across the eight urban areas reviewed, 

25For the purposes of our reView, 'mission area" refers to the area of work in which an 

entity conducts an activity (all-crimes, counterterrorism, and counternarcotics) 

26We defined six categories of analytical activities and services that entities can perform 

Among these are collection management, which IS the Identification, location, and 

recording or storing of information used to support analysis; strategic analYSIS, which is 

the analYSIS of crime patterns, crime trends, or criminal organizations for the purpose of 

planning, decision making, and resource allocation, and analytical products, which involve 

the conversion of raw information into intelligence We identified these categories by 

revieWing agency documents and interviewing agency offiCials to generate a list of 

analytical activities and services that entities potentially conduct 

Page 12 GAO-13-505T 
68 

with more instances of overlap involving a Regional I nformation Sharing 

Systems center and a fusion center (18 of the 32 instances) compared 

with the other three entities. 27 For example in one urban area, the 

Regional Information Sharing Systems center and the fusion center both 

conducted tactical analysis, target deconfliction, and event deconfliction 

within the same mission area for federal, state, and local customers. We 

reported that overlap, in some cases, can be desirable. In particular, 

overlap across analytical activities and services can be beneficial if it 

validates information or allows for competing or complementary analysis. 

Nevertheless, overlap can also lead to inefficiencies if, for example, it 

burdens law enforcement customers with redundant information 

To promote coordination, we recommended two actions. First, we 

recommended that the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, and the Director of ONDCP collaborate to develop a mechanism 

that would allow them to hold field-based information-sharing entities 

accountable for coordinating and monitor and evaluate the coordination 

results achieved. Second, we recommended that the Attorney General, 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of ONDCP work 

together to assess opportunities where practices that enhance 

coordination can be further applied. DHS and ONDCP concurred with 

both recommendations. DOJ generally concurred with both 

recommendations, but asserted that it was already actively promoting 

coordination and routinely seeking to identify efficiency gains. For 

example, DOJ cited its participation in summits with other agencies, 

including DHS, and the colocation of certain field-based entities as 

evidence in support of this. While these efforts are positive steps for 

sharing information and coordinating, we noted and continue to believe 

that they do not fully address the recommendations. We maintain that an 

accountability mechanism to ensure coordination could add valuable 

context to any existing interagency discussions while encouraging entities 

to engage in coordination activities, such as leveraging resources to avoid 

27We defined five categories of investigative support activities and services that entitles 

can perform Among these are tactical analysIs, which is the analysis of information 

regarding a specific criminal event that can be used Immediately by operational Units to 

further a criminal investigation, plan tactical operations, and provide for officer safety; 

target deconfliction, which is determining if multiple law enforcement agencies are 

investigating, for example, the same person, vehicle, weapon, or business; and event 

deconfliction, which is determining if multiple federal, state, or local law enforcement 

agencies are conducting an enforcement action (e.g, a raid, undercover operation, or 

surveillance) in proximity to one another during a specified time period 

Page 13 GAO-13-506T 
69 

Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(441147) 

unnecessary overlap. Further, our recommendation calls for DOJ, DHS, 

and ONDCP to collectively assess opportunities to enhance coordination 

through whatever effective means they identify. 

Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the 

subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

For further information about this statement, please contact David C 

Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-

9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement In addition to the contact named above, the following 

individuals also made contributions to this testimony: Joy Booth, Assistant 

Director; Sylvia Bascope; Michele Fejfar; Heather May; Lara Miklozek; 

Linda Miller; and Janet Temko. 

Page 14 GAO-13-506T 
70 

This IS a work of the U.S government and is not subject to copyright protection In the 

United States The published product may be reproduced and distributed In ItS entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copYrighted Images or other material, permission from the copYright holder may be 

necessary if you vvish to reproduce this material separately 
71 

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 
72 

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 approxi- mately $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. 
73 

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:] 
74 

Testimony of Thomas A. Schatz 

President, Citizens Against Government Waste 

Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

Luxury Jets aud Empty Prisous: Wasteful and Duplicative Spending at the Department of 

Justice 

April 10, 2013 
75 

My name is Thomas A. Schatz, and I am president of Citizens Against Government 

Waste (CAGW). CAGW was founded in 1984 by the late industrialist J. Peter Grace and 

nationally-syndicated columni~t .Tack Anderson to build support for implementation of President 

Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission recommendations and other waste-cutting proposals. Since 

its inception, CAGW has been at the forefront of the fight for efficiency, economy, and 

accountability in government. CAGW has more than one million members and supporters 

nation,,~de, and, over the past 28 years, it has helped save taxpayers $1.2 trillion through the 

implementation of Gmce Commission findings and other recommendations. 

CAG\V does not accept government funds. The organization's mission reflects the 

interests of taxpayers. All citizens benefit when government programs work cost-effectively, 

when de/kit spending is eliminated, and when govemment is held accountable. Not only "vill 

representative government bene/it ii'om the pursuit of these interests, but the country will prosper 

economically because govermnent mismanagement, fiscal profligacy, and duonic de/ieits soak 

up private savings and crowd out the private investment necessary for long-term growth. 

It is no secret that wasteful spending is present throughout the federal government and 

that every agency could perfornl its functions more effectively and efficiently. 

Recommendations to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement are regularly provided 

by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the 

President's budget, and congressional authorizing and appropriations committees. Outside of the 

government, think tanks, advocacy groups, and private-sector companies also provide ongoing 

analysis of government expenditures. For example, since 1993, CAGW has released Prime Cuts, 

a compendium of recommendations that emanate from both public and private sources; some 

still date back to the Grace Commission. The 2013 edition of Prime Cuts identified 557 
76 

recommendations that would save taxpayers $580.6 billion in the fiTst year and $1.8 trillion over 

five years. Prime Cuts can serve as a blueprint to cut government spending and put the nation on 

a path toward fiscal stability. 

"C'nder less dire fiscal circumstances, taxpayers might be amused by the title of to day's 

hearing - "Luxury Jets and Empty Prisons: Wasteful and Duplicative Spending at the 

Department or Justice" - if the "C'nited States' spending binge were not so far past the point of a 

much-needed intervention. And, as any twelve-stepper knows, tile first step is admitting there is 

a problem. 

That said, I will defer to the GAO, \vhose February 2013 report, "Executives' Use of 

Aircraft for Nonmission Purposes," garnered some unflattering coverage, as the GAO 

highlighted the expenditure of $11.4 million on "FBI luxury jets for travel umelated to the 

agency's mission." The references to "empty prisons," bringing to mind the Obama 

administration's sweetheart deal to acquire the shuttered Thomson Prison in Illinois for $165 

million, are even more egregious. In addition to the countless millions of dollars that will be 

needed to upgrade and activate ilie facility, this action is extremely wasteful. As House 

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) pointed out, "ilie federal government 

already owns four additional empty prison facilities, which are awaiting activation." 

Luxur:y jets and empty prisons notwithstanding, my testimony today will focus on 

multiple areas within the Department of Justice (DOJ) where wasteful spending on entire 

programs could easily be eliminated. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 

(JAG) program has had several iterations since its purpose was first established in 1988. In 

2005, Congress merged several DOJ grant programs under the JAG umbrella. Over the years, 
77 

JAG has devolved into a giveaway program with too much flexibility, no effective targeting 

strategy, weak oversight, and few eonsequonces for mhmanagemen\ of the funds, JAG funds 

were frequently earmarked, and the program has mOl}Jh~d into an open-ended source of money 

med to subsidiz~ stales' routine operational law enforcement expenses. 

In a June 19, 2008 Washington Post article, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) spoke of the 

lack of oversight in the JAG program, stating that "some bureaucrat cannot decide on a whim 

who gets precious tax dollars. It's insulting to alllhe programs that work hard on their 

applications to have merit lake a back seat to who you know," 

The now defunct Expect.\I[ore.gov, the George W. Bush administration's rating system 

for federal programs that was managed by the Office oL'v!anagement and Budget, described the 

Byrne grants as "a variety of potential local law enforcement activities rather than a clearly 

defined, specific or existing problem, interest, or need," ExpectMore,gov went on to say, "With 

program funds eligible to be used for multiple purposes, the DOJ cannot target the funds to high 

priority uses, There are no meaningful goals for the program. Performance measures are still 

under development. Grantees are not required to report on performance. As a result, it is 

difficult to determine what the program is accomplishing." According to Prime Cuts, 

eliminating the JAG program would save taxpayers $519 million in the first year and $2,6 billion 

over five years. 

Additional savings for taxpayers could be found through the elimination ofthe 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, A signature plan of the Clinton 

administration, COPS was intended to reduce rising crime rates in the early I 990s by providing 

federal grant money for the hiring of 100,000 police officers to patrol American streets. 
78 

Nineteen years later, the program has failed to reach its stated goals and has fallen victim to 

hundreds of millions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. 

In April 2005, the DO] inspector general (IG) released audits of Dnly 3 percent of COPS 

grants and found $277 million in "misspent" grant funds, including money tor jobs never filled, 

jobs tilled for only a short time, or payments for routine police department expenses unrelated tD 

increasing the number of cops on the beat. Following the audits, the DOJ has recouped only $6 

million of the S277 million. 

On top ofthe waste and mismanagement, COPS requires that recipient cities keep the 

program running on their own dime for at least one year after the grant money runs Dut, which 

creates another unfunded mandate for local governments already strapped for cash. 

A July 2012 GAO report found substantial overlap among DOl's grant programs. DOJ 

funds multiple programs like COPS, and in many instances different programs perform the same 

function. Since fiscal year 2005, approximately $33 billion has been appropriated to DOJ for the 

administration of more than 200 federal financial assistance solicitations, such as grants, that 

support criminal justice activities at the statc and local levels. The GAO suggested that DOJ 

perform an assessment of the programs to find "where a consolidation of programs may be more 

efficient" COPS would be a great place to start. A September 2010 Congressional Research 

Service report found that the costs of the program outweighed the benefits by more than $1 

billion. In short, COPS is an expensive, failed, and duplicative program that should be 

terminated. 

Another perennial example of waste highlighted in Prime Cuts is the State Justice 

Institute, which was create-d by Congress in 1984 to "improve the quality Df justice in State 
79 

courts, facilitate better coordination betwccn State and Federal courts, and foster innovativ~, 

efficicntsolutions to common issue~ faced by all courts." To accomplish this mission, the 

institute provid~s grants for r~search on criminal justice issues. However, the institute is 

duplicativ~ of other programs within the DOJ. House Republican leadcrs, including Speaker of 

the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Erie Cantor, have repeatedly suggested eliminating 

the program. 

In addition to the cost-saving measures identilied by CAGW, the Obama administration 

has highlighted multiple areas ol"waste within the DOl In his fiscal year (FY) 2012 

Terminations, Reductions, and Savings report, President Obama recommended suspending 

further development of the Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) program, eliminating lhe Drug 

Enforcemcnt Agency's (DEA) Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program, and reducing the 

number oflight-duty sedans purchased by the federall3ureau of Investigation (FBI). 

The I1VN program was created in 1998 to address the DOl's aging communications 

systems. However, the IWN itself has since become outdated. According to a 2012 audit of the 

IWN by the DOJ, "despite costing over $356 million over 10 years, the IWN program has yet to 

achieve the results intended when the Department initially began developing it in 1998." 

According to the 2012 Terminations, Reductions, and Savings report, "the current 

approach is at risk of becoming obsolete more quickly than other approaches. This impedes the 

project's ability to meet any changes in requirements and integrate industry advances in wireless 

technology over the procurement life-cycle. A range of alternatives now exist that were not 

available when the project was originally conceived. These alternatives, alone or in combination 
80 

with each other andlor the current approach, can hclp accelerate delivcry of bctter 

communication capabilities, such as data, video, and applications more cheaply." 

Some of the possible alternatives to this approach identified by the Obama administration 

include "commercial wireless companies offering voice, data, video, and 'apps' on 30 or 4G 

Long Term Evolution (L TE) technologies, as well as their commercial infrastructure (e.g. 

towers, antennas, etc.); other innovative communication programs within DOJ providing data 

and voice capabilities that already satisfy many agent communications needs (e,g., DO] mobile 

devices and surveillance technologies); and opportunities lo leverage connnunicaLions platforms 

of other Federal, Stale, and local partners (e.g., the Department of Homeland Security on the 

southwest border, large metropolitan police departments, etc.)." 

The DO] should implement the President's recommendation and suspend further 

development of the IWN program, which would produce $103 million in one-year savings, 

The 2012 Terminations. Reductions, and Savings report also suggested terminating the 

DEA's MET program. Tn April 1995, ORA created the MET program to attack drug-trafficking 

organi~ations. MET teams were designed to be deployed on a temporary basis (an average of six 

months) to work with federal, state, and local law enforcement partners in the disruption of 

gangs. 

Howevcr, a Dcccmber 2010 audit by tile DO] 10 found that "despite its name, the METs 

were not mobile. They were being operated mainly in Metropolitan areas near DEA office.s. 

Consequently, rural law enforcement agencies did not have the benefit of using MET resources 

to address either the methamphetamine or violent gang problems within their jurisdictions, Since 
81 

2008, MET has grown almost 75 percent in personnel and 90 percent in funding and have 

focused primarily on criminal street gangs and neighborhood drug \raf(icking operations." 

According to the IG, "DEA fIeld divisions generally reported that after MET 

deployments ended, the target locations experienced decreases in drug sales and violent crime, 

and that commnnity reaction and involvement was positive. However, DEA post-deployment 

reports showed that some lypes of violent crimes increased in the 6-month period after a 

deployment ended. This would seem to indicate that the etIects of MET deployments are 

transitory and perhaps poorly focused." 

The administration proposes to eliminate the MET and transfer the 145 positions 

associated with the program to DEAs Diversion Control Fee Acconnt (DCFA) to staff Tactical 

Diversion Squads (TDS). TDS investigate, disrupt, and dismantle those suspected of diverting 

and traffIcking in illegal pharmaceutical controlled substances or listed chemicals. Eliminating 

MET would achieve one-year savings of $31 million and five-year savings of S 155 million. 

Lastly, in his FY 2011 Terminations. Reductions. and Savings report, President Obama 

recommended reducing the number of light-duty sedans added to the FBI's flcct. Given the 

current federal hiring freeze, it seems obvious that the government should not continue to expand 

its fleet of vehicles. The president's proposed reduction would still allow for the replacement of 

J ,250 aging vehicles, but would prevent the overall si~e of the fleet from increasing. This action 

would produce $4 million in savings for taxpayers in the year of its execution. 

In conclusion, wasteful ~pendillg can be boiled down to both mismanagement of existing 

programs and the authorization of unnecessary or duplicative programs. Since the Judiciary 

Commiltee enjoys oversight responsibility for the Justice Department, it is imperative that the 
82 

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 Depart-
83 

ment 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. 
84 

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 finetuned 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:] 
85 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

Richard W. Stanek, President 

Major County Sheriffs' Association (MCSA) 

"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 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States House of Representatives 

April 10, 2013 
86 

Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear 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 the criminal justice system. 

I am the elected Sheriff of Hennepin County, Minnesota and here today in my capacity 

as President of the Major County Sheriffs' Association (MCSA), whose membership is comprised 

of elected sheriffs from counties across the country with populations of 500,000 people or 

more, representing a combined 100 million Americans. I also serve on the Board of the 

National Sheriffs' Association and as chair of NSA's Homeland Security Committee. 

Additionally, I represent the Sheriffs Associations on the Department of Homeland Security's 

Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group (ITACG), the Criminal Intelligence 

Coordinating Council (CICC), and on the Director of National Intelligence's Homeland 

Security/Law Enforcement Partners Group. 

The start of my now 29 year career in law enforcement was as a police officer in the 

Minneapolis Police Department. I also served nearly a decade in the Minnesota State 

Legislature and was appointed by the Governor as the Commissioner of Public Safety & Director 

of Homeland Security for Minnesota. 

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 a 2008 estimate by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of Census Bureau data, states 
87 

and local governments invested $75.9 billion in "police protection" (and total spending on 

criminal justice services tops $160 billion.) The federal government that year contributed 

another $2. 6 billion, totaling just 3 percent. Today that contribution is about half that amount. 

But the value and reach of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) justice assistance grant programs 

far exceed the small investment. We leverage the grant dollars to innovate; to test new ideas; 

to measure performance; and then to replicate what works. What I experience with the federal 

grant programs -like the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program and the Regional 

Information Sharing System (RISS) and the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) 

program - 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. 

Crime is at an all-time low in this country; as low as the 1960's. The grant programs 

aren't 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. 

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 

requires 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," for every day acts of crime, for natural disasters and acts of terror. We provide 

the foundation for everv criminal investigation, including those that become federal 
88 

investigations. Federal law enforcement cannot do their jobs as successfully if we can't do ours 

successfully. And because of the changing nature of crime, the expansion of criminal networks 

into the heartland, neither of us can do our jobs successfully unless we are working together 

and in partnership. This is the work that the federal grant programs pay for. When we track 

and enforce drug trafficking, gang violence, human trafficking, sexual predators or financial 

crimes, we are more successful when we work together, including participation in multijurisdictional task forces. The 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 NOT to. 

The major purpose of the Department of Justice (DOJ) justice assistance grant programs 

is to spur innovation and to test and replicate smart, 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 learn from each other what works and we are able to implement these successful 

approaches where they are needed. Frankly, we have gotten better at doing our jobs, together. 

With over 18,000 law enforcement agencies across our great country, cross-jurisdictional 

learning cannot happen without the national government's assistance. 

Our fundamental mission of providing public safety also underpins our economic 

recovery. It goes without saying that business does not invest where crime flourishes. Also, 

individuals returning from prison and jail often need support, treatment, and tools for stable 

employment if they are to become productive members of society who contribute to our 

4 
89 

nation's economic vitality and who are able to sustain healthy families and vibrant 

communities. And the federal investment in crime prevention has "off-the-book" savings as 

well. 

According to the most recently available report, the total economic loss to victims in 

2008 exceeded $17 billion for both violent ond property crimes. Think of the savings we have 

achieved with this historic drop in crime. 

We must also recognize that, by the federal grant programs, the states are serving as 

the laboratories of democracy for initiatives that, once proven successful, can and should be 

replicated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). This is no small benefit given that BOP 

spending continues to rise, requiring ever greater resources that are needed at the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and by other functions of the 

Department. Texas, Ohio, Kansas, Michigan, and many other states have shown remarkable 

success in reducing crime, lowering reCidivism, restoring families, and saving taxpayer moneyall at the same time. This is not waste and duplication. This is the taking a hard look at the 

data and the drivers of crime and redeploying resources to address those gaps and meet those 

needs. 

I'd like to talk 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 exact opposite is true. 

The goal of eliminating waste through identification of unnecessary duplication is 

laudable and obviously appropriate in this fiscal climate. But some of the information in the 
90 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of 2012 regarding duplication and overlap 

among DOJ grant programs is concerning because it leads to conclusions that misunderstand 

how these programs are used in the field. The report did not cite specific examples of 

duplication, but rather offered examples of where duplication is perceived to be possible. I am 

aware of some examples in the GAO report where no actual duplication is evident. I'm also 

aware that DOJ regularly shares information across programs to reduce chances for 

duplication. In one of the examples cited in the report, the grant recipient - a state law 

enforcement agency - used funding from three separate programs to support three separate 

efforts in the state addressing human trafficking, internet crimes against children, and sex 

offender identification. The three grants enabled separate and distinct programs supporting 

enhancements to law enforcement and the criminal justice system throughout the state. 

Further, 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 the challenge. It was because of Byrne JAG, together with COPS 

and, later, drug courts and RSAT funding that we were able to address interdiction, 

pseudoephedrine tracking, treatment, and laboratory clean-up to get ahead of the trend and, if 

not eradicate the scourge, at least dampen its reach. This is not duplication. This is not waste. 

This is careful planning and leveraging of resources. 
91 

The committee should also be aware that there is a great deal of coordination that 

happens at the state and local level. Sixty percent of Byrne JAG funding flows through the State 

Administering Agencies, or SAAs. Most SAAs are the cabinet-level criminal justice planning 

agency focusing on crime prevention, law enforcement, domestic and sexual assault prevention 

and response, juvenile justice and crime victims' services. 

A requirement of the Byrne JAG program is that SAAs conduct statewide strategic 

planning, bringing together all the relevant partners to determine priorities and set joint 

strategies for reducing crime. Because the SAAs manage multiple federal and state funding 

streams, they weave together various sources of funding, including from the private sector, into 

a comprehensive strategy. In my state of Minnesota, the SAA oversees virtually all ofthe 

Department of Justice grant programs, including Byrne JAG, Victims of Crime Act funding and 

Violence Against Women Act programs. It also oversees the substance abuse treatment, DNA 

testing, and juvenile delinquency prevention grants. I am a member of Minnesota's Violent 

Crime Coordinating Council that advises the Governor and Commissioner of Public Safety on 

the statewide crime reduction strategy. So while we know that silos do exist at the state and 

local government levels, much like they do at the federal level, the SAAs are able to function 

across those silos and to build partnerships with local governments with the one goal of 

preventing and fighting crime. 

Also, the SAAs have been engaged in a years-long effort, funded by the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) and assisted by the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA), to embed 

evidence-based practices in every program Byrne JAG funds. These practices strengthen the 
92 

capacity of local communities to think smartly about their allocated funds. In this context, the 

word "overlap" can have two quite contradictory meanings. It can assume a duplication of 

effort and the waste of taxpayer money. Or it can describe the ability to fit together resources 

efficiently and without waste. 

As the sheriff of a major metropolitan community that has felt the impact of this 

recession, I can assure you that no one - no one - would apply for, and use, grant money for 

overlapping or duplicative purposes. What incentive is there for someone to take money and 

use it for the same thing twice? In a time of scarce resources, a time in which we find ourselves 

now, it would not be in the best interest of any grantee to use money for the same purpose 

twice, when we are seeing some of our fundamental building blocks in our communities 

crumbling. 

I'd also like to address a GAO report {GAO-13-471} released just last week on field-based 

information sharing activities. The report acknowledges that some overlap is actually beneficial 

when it comes to sharing criminal intelligence including possible terrorism-related information. 

"The efforts of JTIFs, FIGs, RISS centers, fusion centers, and HIDTA Investigative Support 

Centers to gather, analyze, and disseminate law enforcement, public safety, and terrorismrelated information are essential for our nation's homeland security. Similarities in their 

activities and customers can provide benefits through competing or complementary analysis 

and corroboration of reports." 

Federal support for the DOJ justice assistance grant programs has been cut by almost 

$1.5 billion over the last two fiscal years, a reduction of 43 percent. In addition, the 
93 

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 pur-
94 

chased 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? 
95 

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. 
96 

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 
97 

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. 
98 

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. 
99 

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. 
100 

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. 
101 

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 per-
102 

tains 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 mis-
103 

conduct 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 
104 

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? 
105 

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 
106 

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 
107 

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—— 
108 

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 
109 

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.] 

Æ