yates -- the fisherman, says the term, tangible object, is ambiguous and undefine ned the statute, and like nouns accompanying the other nouns accompanying tangible obtuse its possesses no recordkeeping, documentary, or informational content or purpose so goes the argument. he had no fair notice that his conduct of throwing back the undersized grouper was prohibited and so that would be a violation of the due process clause to convict him. so, this is actually -- it's a criminal case but actually a business case. so the u.s. chamber of commerce has weigh ned, in support of mr. yates, which i notable, and the chamber argues that consistent with the text in context and the legislative intent of this antisome redding provision itself should cover only documents, records and record-keeping devices, rather than sweep in the actual inventory of goods, and the chamber's brief warns the implications of the government's

interpretation would have serious effects on small businesses and other legitimate business conduct-such as routine maintenance and disposal of inventer to. shy of of offer an opportunity for response? >> the government has come in for a fair amount of teasing for this case, and so don -- >> you know, that's one side of the story. [laughter] >> here's the other side of the story. that the fisherman is a commercial fisherman. out in the gulf of mexico and he was visited by a state inspector, and the stay inpicket juror looked at his load of fish and said, gees you got a bunch of group here below the limit that you are allowed to catch, and so i am going to instruct you to take house undersized grouper aside in the box and tape up the box and then when you come back to shore you have

to turn it in and we'll have a proceeding whether you are obi organize vie laying the law lamp the commercial fisherman did after the state inspector left was to instruct one of his employees to take that crate of fish and dump it overboard and replace it with fish that were who longer undersized. and employee did that. and then he got back to shore, and he ratted out his boss, and so the boss was essentially prosecuted for a statute that we think is basically a statute that forbids the destruction of evidence to impede an investigation, which certainly sounds like what the fisherman did. so, anyway. -- >> i'm certain there must be a general instruction -- >> don, this not a capital case. correct? [laughter] >> that's the other side of the story. >> that's a pretty good

rebuttal. moving on to the facebook case, which is my personal favorite on the criminal docket, because everyone and anyone who knows a teenager or other marginally irresponsible semi adult should tell them to focus on the case and follow it with interest. this is a case that comes out of the third circuit. it's at the intersection of constitutional and criminal law, like many criminal cases, but this involves the first amendment. the case involved a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten or injure another person when you communicate the 0 threat through interstate commerce, and the question in this case is whether threatening is in the eye of the beholder or whether the government has to prove that you subjectively intended your speech to be a threat of bodily injury or death to another person. so the facts of the case are pretty interesting the alleged threats at issue are facebook

posts and the defendant, anthony aloneas, his life was falling apart himself wife has left him, taking their two children. he was a frequent poster on facebook but after this traumatic event in his life, he changed his facebook persona to a rapper-like pseudonym. he his posts were -- were explicit and violent, not unlike the lyrics of popular rap songs. apparent hill he would would post disclaimers at the end of the post explaining the lyrics were fictitious forks entertainment purposes only, he viewed his posts a therapeutic and a way to deal with this frustration of his life falling

apart. thing and thing is he expresses the first amendment on his facebook page and predicted he would be arrested to the facebook post ask would be laughing all the way to the bank when he won his constitutional claims against the government you. don't see many people advertising they intend to kind of maybe sort of break the law but have their defense already and they're going to tell you about it. one of the posts -- i just want to read this so you get a flavor for this. one post is districted at his ex-wife. i guess many of them were. and just so you know, will put also ellipses around the most explicit language to not cause problems with c-span. hi, did you know it's illegal for me to say i want to kill my wife? it's illegal. it's indirect criminal contempt. it's one of the only sentences i'm not allowed to say. it's okay for me to say it right

then. because i was just telling you that it's illegal for me to say, want to kill my wife. i'm not actually saying it. i also found out it's extremely illegal to go on facebook and say something like, the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be from thefield behind it because of of the easy access to the gateway road and you have a clear line of sight through through sun room. insanely illegal. it goes on, from there. and another one posted right after a visit from an fbi agent to his home, his prediction coming true. he is getting the attention that he was obviously looking for. he composed a little rap about her. which in part says the following: little agent lady sit0s so close can took all the strength i had not turn the blank ghost. pulled my nice, slit my wrist and slit her throat, leave her

bleeding from their jugular in the arms of her partner. this stuff is pretty explicit and if not for the context -- i'll give our are you more context. he would at the end of mosts -- they were often based on other either rap performances, eminem songs were a favorite parody of his, and he would post the links to original work of art at the bottom of his post, again with these disclaimers saying this is my way of giving myself some therapy. so the basic question before the court is whether the government had to prove he subjectively intended to threaten or whether it's enough that a reasonable person, and probably everyone in this room, including his wife, perceived it as a threat. he argues subjective intent is required to avoid a conflict with the first amendment.

because otherwise speech that really is meant to be expression, that is not a true threat, would be chilled, and the question before the court is, what does it take to prove a true threat? so pretty colorful. >> i'm not sure which of those cases is more unusual in terms of its fact pattern. >> the fact pattern is great. one of the things that makes its interesting -- the fact pattern interesting-not just to laypersons but to lawyers -- it seems to me under even the standards he is advocating, he is probably toast. so it seems like a bad vehicle because it seems like from what i have read that the facts are very government-friendly in the sense that the government could prove subjective intent to threaten. >> ace a matter of legal standard. >> creek. it's interesting they chose this one. the court waited so long to jump into the foray of inappropriate

facebook behavior you. think they could choose a vehicle where the legal standard would clearly make a difference. the last one on the criminal docket i'll touch on briefly is not nearly as interesting. to me. only because it has implications maybe for the average person, but maybe not. this case involves two men driving down the highway in north carolina with a -- one brakelight that was malfunctioning. and the officer pulled them over and noticed that one of anyone was laying down in the back seat with, like, blanket over his head, and even with the officer standing there, asking for license and registration, remained laying there in the back seat with the blanket over his head. so the officer thought this was a little suspicious, asked questions of both of the men, and concluded that their stories weren't matching up and the guy

the back seat was still laying down, answering the officer's questions. so he asked for fer mission to search the vehicle and surprisingly they agreed. the search uncovered 54-grams of cocaine. a grand jury indicted the guy in the back seat for two counts of trafficking cocaine and he moved to suppress on the ground that the stop was not objectively reasonable because as it turns out, north carolina law only requires one working brakelight. [laughter] who knew. >> obviously the officer didn't. >> well, this is the crux of the problem. the officer's position and the state's position is really, who knew? the code has more general provision, the traffic code, that sort of suggests that all of the rear lamps, everything that came in the rear of your car that lights up, has to be in proper working order. so there's a conflict between this general provision and a specific provision that makes it

pretty clear that you only need one working brakelight, and the state argues that ambiguity basically means this mistake of law was reasonable, so therefore, the stop was legitimate. and reasonable suspicion standards satisfied. the other side argues, well threshing court has never recognized mistakes of law as justifying a reasonable suspicion from a violation standpoint. so the court never said that doesn't violate the fourth amendment. what they have said is if there's a reasonable mistake after law, you might not get the evidence suppressed because it goes to whether that remedyes really i -- so this case is interesting. cannon is the fourth amendment expert here among us, and obviously the sg, but it's interesting to me -- if the petitioner prevails here, is it a victory? under the circumstances of the

case it does seem like there's both good faith and kind of objective reasonableness in the officer's interpretation of the law. so even they're win the question that it's a fourth amendment violation, what does he get out of that? >> if there's no issue involving the good faith exception before the court -- >> to its not properly -- there is some talk in the opinion that it was both kind of good faith and also objectively reasonable because there was this objective uncertainty in the law. >> want to ask a question i suspect is on everyone's mind, wire was the guy under the blanket. >> if he had been under a cell phone i could answer that. >> the government may have a view, and i confess i have not gotten through the united states amicus brief or north carolina's brief. i read the decision below and the pets petitioner's brief.

>> the good stuff in the okay ooh case about eminem and the rap song was in the footnotes the petitioner's brief doesn't flesh out what he was doing back there. >> i think we can all agree that would ordinarily qualify as if not suspicious, certainly curious behavior. >> which is why i said, the brakelight malfunction and the experience of being pulled up and subjected to a stop for member something that is not illegal, that's something aberdeen e everyone could relate to and maybe worry about as a general -- as a riecks. right? but not too many of you probably lying in the back seat, hiding under blankets, when the police are trying to ask you questions. >> usually a good idea to sit up under those circumstances. fair to say. well, we're going to throw the floor open for questions. we were going to talk about cases come downing the pike and maybe i'll just as moderator exercise martial law and give

the 60-second summary. all supreme court practitioner and journalists in the world are waiting to see whether the supreme court is going to wade into the area of same-sex marriage and has a number of cases coming up, as all you've will be aware, that present the question of whether there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage , and we may know at the end of the month if the supreme court is going to decide that issue. there are yet more challenges to the are affordable care act winding their way up to the supreme court. it's uncertain if they will get to the court this term, including cases involving questions concerning the funding of the exchanges on which health insurance is now -- purchased as a result of the affordable care act and further issues as joan mentioned, concern thing an mixability of the contrasiptive mandate and the interplay between that and claimed

religious liberties. there are cases involving race, cases involve eight firm action. the fisher versus university of texas case that maury worked on whet it was last before the supreme court, seems to be heading back in that direction. unclear -- >> hopefully not. we won in the -- >> may not end up in the supreme court. in the fifth circuit. ... >>

>> perhaps this time next year you will hear about decisions. with that we have 10 or 15 minutes left we will open the floor for questions. we will be a little harder to see those in in the balcony of your welcome to ask questions as well. i don't believe we have a microphone so i will repeat the question for the benefit of the audience and those watching on television. >> [inaudible] >> the question is about a gun laws and if any issues jihad -- issues will end up

at the supreme court? >> there are some in the court of appeal it is not for certain but possible. >> there is a number of issues since the supreme court in the late 2000's to recognize the individual right to bear arms. but while they have been mixed counterpurchase they agree there is a higher standard for most of moiseyev's of most restrictions such as a complete ban outside the home is scrutinized very closely. and to carry a firearm have come under any serious threat. it is interesting to see which of those beyond the

core question will come up next. >> [inaudible] >> with reasonable expectations of privacy in the wake of the decision there is some speculation of the potential implications for challengers in windhoek -- rand wiretapping and. >> it certainly would be one of them and people who have concerns that are heartened

by approving this is shows how much we expose ourselves now that all the communications to be collected by government and others and this sulfone ruling and it is bin medicare is an expectation what what you may store in the cloud. >> en the self space -- in a

diesel phone space. >> bell we could reiterate that. >> [inaudible]

>> i will try a touche to transform that into question because i am hard-pressed to think of jay supreme court question but if the current chords use government and law enforcement generally does that change somewhat? >>. [laughter] >> when the chief justice was nominated to the justice o'connor's ct had not written many opinions the

rest of of a child for eating a french fry of the metro platform. kisses is law and order another william renquist. i have not seen with his jurisprudence uniform sympathy for law enforcement by any stretch. even with the kids are different area. but they may be under title six. >> with us chief being relatively young with yellow and children -- with young children. >> there are cases of

restricting speech. that was a number of years ago. >> and they could take it away now. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> so what impact is that d.c. circuit might have on the supreme court dockets? >> most of those cases. [laughter] >> what a difference toch

when dash we saw last week it led year and another generation of the health care law case and it made of big difference during the first term obama and had none because of the senate now has judges on the court didn't will make the difference down the road. but it last year but it is not always breaks that way but i would think there is not as many appeals coming up. i think it is the most exciting circuit we have out there.

>> i cannot remember the last time in recent history when it went. >> in in december the health care case will be heard. >> it would be a shame if it is of perception and the appointees include the of latest lawyers that practice in washington and really are a credit to the bench to say our target is a political hack this is the first case that draws their attention. senator reid in particular has done a disservice to the country and the bench to act as if the outcome is preordained because of their confirmation.

that is what is upsetting about the current political environment. >> i promised we would get to the last question in the back. >> what do you see about reproductive rights and it particularly whether the concept the antiabortion groups tried to push its there is any traction in the supreme court. >> the question is about reproductive rights. >> is that likely to change any time soon? >> i think they will stay away from that issue as long as they came and. >> with the abortion that is

on the contraceptive mandate and that the offers some from massachusetts but this is live the category. >> like roe v wade. >> we will let that be the last word. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> i just want to comment on the author jason ryan a.

excellent conversation. good to listen to him back of his conclusions with fax. i like to hear more about how he feels we can change the feelings to lift himself out of poverty to keep extending. >> your thoughts on the bottom of the screen it was stretched across the bottom you could read it before it was those small with these older tv sets you cannot read it even in any other format we appreciate if you go back to where you could stretch that out or a different font so people could read it to. >>, like to comment how

people can get the information on important topics they're not doing nearly enough and we appreciate c-span. >> can continue to lead is know about the programs you are watching.

brno and an estimate we will come to order event will go lower guests this morning in edwina's says with the first and second panel. one month ago to date him

then and harm to human dna into my clothes from less shot and killed in the town of fergus in missouri. the officer said he was is in self-defense while the incident remains under investigation this much is known that because caused for others across our country. but those events have sparked a much a heated discussion fitting police strategy, of response, race relations. the purpose of today's mission but to a sign blame that is seen as foes of good it of the ledger shall system but of those federal programs with the for

exercises in planning and training. the issues to will be discussing issues such just about ferguson but across the nation progress three diving to the federal programs to help equip agencies you want to explore the value to the communities they serve and especially to taxpayers. i want to start by thanking senator mack paschal and her staff for cochairing this hearing with me. spending a lot of time and ferguson we look for the thank you for your of leadership during this time and all you have done to help our country move forward entering the of weeks that followed the shooting michael brown the media focused job of

response of law enforcement questions have been opposed by local leaders and police associations and law enforcement efforts again ahead of help but think how we learn all over again the fire of police to name -- more time at a site is there - - the police cars and helps to build the bond of trust that strengthens communities. we convened to examine the federal government's role to help states and local police do their work. since 1997 agencies have supplied over $5 billion of surplus in equipment to law-enforcement. in addition but to pay for a

monastery -- military-style payroll -- a style of gear and to provide weapons to law enforcement. we have received briefings and has reviewed key documents office by congress is of overdue. of and when it that have the requirements and procedures. we will hear from pan and explore the of proper role san techniques head of congress if she's to to have sophisticated equipment.

these programs were established with good intention to help law enforcement for for reducing debt, they matched june there is a citizen may have been added to and by but for these programs a response would that have been as fast or as effective the job of law enforcement is to protect those of the nation and said job of law enforcement is protection of civil rights. we're here from all witnesses as a result different going developments

across the country. rears years as we have ears of stability for accountability of funds and local police. it is our job to have value to the police in the communities they serve and taxpayers. >> good morning think you to the of witnesses for appearing this panel and the second and also to the chairman to convene this hearing. as i look at my short time left having.

not only their vision but there was some. protect and some and our fingers saw no role in state and local police forces. none. but yet what we have seen is on the basis of men 11. what seems to be an overreaction and progress through the federal government of law-enforcement does the same thing it has done every other area with the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. we're aren't dangerous ground to undermine the principles that this the

country. it is hard to see differences retrieve memos triumphs in tallows free c haas splenic for he said a standing -- and will not be. i have we are her it is not just this program for home even with those justice or homeland security agreements with the have been space as louis figment of dash friends but i have a certificate question is. the 1033 has been around though longtime not just in response to this.

we need to reach center where we are still. >> to see where we stepped over lew the law in the blood that have been there arius. >> to redress the lower roof and and also to beijing in the calf of punish we would get back to you. thanks for your trayvon and chip senator with what you have shown in your decision to elevate the - - a full

committee will is important to full of oversights. either merger for parish room. >> as i side effects and phone -- unfolding but i saw firsthand about aggressive foley's actions you soon as he and and and now on teeeight. >> i think most the colorful and if rubber bullets and

laser sights and assault weapons. while this hearing may review in a this canary hell hole for afflatus. those protesters on a wednesday afternoon did not deserve to be treated the academy combat since. i've moping what happened in ferguson and today boyle and former better public policy to protect our constitutional freedom and also provide adequate public safety for the brave men

meant women. who put on budget for police to acquire the weapons if every incentive to press as monday nez microwaves in office furniture but they also get $1 million tactical vehicles up food have of the roof tilts hamas fair roads

is visit e hint the department has given susan is to defer a with the regard to or the size of the agency that receives them. halley's 13 agencies with fever they and than it sort officers received the mrap in the last three years. the possession of local police is now far higher but law enforcement agencies have 73 no's and the knowledge in a manhattan.

>> have a place this entered into the we are her if in san but one way he did that was to work with a police force to repair broken windows and trying to appear less militaristic with their presence in the communities. i find it ironic the same time we embrace those tactics as strong evidence of progress we are a half

but al's of questions of why they did go away some of this material. according to the agency agency, approximately 36 percent of the equipment is given away to law enforcement is brand new. let me say that again. 36% that is given away is print provide assistance but

it is impossible to tell how they are spent because the department of homeland security and justice does not keep adequate data. so we just could not know from asking these agencies how much military equipment or anything else they are buying. in fact, it is possible either both programs and fund police departments to maintain and sustain the save me equipment they get for free from another policy but to provide a force is necessary and appropriate and read mr. everything we can come of those brave men and women have the equipment they need to maximize their own safety. we also have to of knowledge

getting military parade weapons and vehicles comes with the cost the way officers are perceived and the way it is used. dressing in military fatigues are not viewed as partners in any community. armored military vehicles even painted black are by definition it intimidating. supplying communities with the capacity to acquire military equipment with no requirement that the officers are trained on the proper use with little visibility of the local needs and inadequate guidelines directing used many may be asking for that over militarization that we saw and ferguson for i am happy to hear the white house has launched its own review of programs and policies and a look forward

to the results of the review but many issues may only be solved by legislation. i plan to build what i learn on today to work with fellow senators on legislation to address the many public policy concerns that will live rise at today's hearing. think you for being here today and those calling for the full committee hearing and we look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. >> thank-you again for your efforts with this awful incidents and everything that flows from its. please introduce the witnesses that i will ask the first question. >> the principal deputy for the u.s. department of defense the has managed military logistics in

various capabilities since 2002 to oversee military acquisitions worth more than $170 billion and has worked with the office of secretary of defense since 1981. bright and is the assistant administrator for the men and overseas dash 17 billion the grant programs to improve the national capability to prepare for or respond to or recover from all hazard and previously served in the white house security staff on hazard preparation. ms. mason never sees an annual budget of 2 million going to criminal-justice agencies with a wide range of physical efforts in comprehensive services they previously saw as deputy

associate general dubiety thank you for appearing today we look forward to your testimony. you may begin. >> because they have a conflict later this morning may i submit a statement and i also want to associate myself with the remarks of senator rick castle. >> it will be made part of the record please don't call for five minute. >> to members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear to talk to rob the excess military property i appreciate the committee's support and your continued interest to the success of our mission following the events and ferguson it is appropriate to address the issue of police forces as

byron testimony has more detail and i will submit for the record. the congressional authorized program, a program ranges from office equipment and supplies to the capabilities tear have first responders for natural disasters those of actively participate across u.s. territories it has been provided since 1998 the key element as a state coordinator was appointed by the state governor they approve law enforcement agencies to review all requests for properties for the intended use. working with the state coordinators law enforcement agencies to determine their

need how the equipment is used in the department of defense does not have the expertise and cannot assess how it is used in individual law enforcement agencies. agencies have received 1.9% million pieces of equipment 1.8 is not controlled and 70,000 pieces of controlled property that is more tactical those items from the file cabinets to generators law enforcement agencies currently possess 460,000 pieces of property they have received overtime examples include 44,000 night vision and glasses and multipurpose vehicles 617

ambush protected vehicles the department does not provide sniper rifles or weapons or uniforms dod has provided one generator and one cargo trailer to the police department additionally dod has provided st. louis county 12 rifles 15 weapons sites one disposal robot to night vision devices. property retained through this program has been used extensively through the public as was the first responder disaster relief. for example, during the height of superstorm sandy they drove the hunt sees through water too deep for vehicles you said 64 people and also for for an sec investigation but then using

spare equi half to help out with those being members. but with the interagency review to ensure equipment provided is appropriate for the needs of personnel and communities we propose any legislative changes we believe are necessary to come as a result of the review. we authorized of program transfuse spy agency's counterterrorism activities it enables first responders and others to save lives. the department of defense is not bush equipment on any police force agencies decide what they need with their

respective state coordinators. thank you for the opportunity to discuss access military property in we're ready to work with congress. are live for word to answering your questions. >> good morning chairman and ranking members of the committee and assistant coordinator of the mets from department of homeland security. on behalf of secretaryñi johnson to discuss the prepared is grant programs we have raised questions with use of federal grant fund by local authorities particularly with law-enforcement agencies these events have raised questions regarding the department oversight and my parents will hope to answer those questions to prepare does grant programs are to

assist communities to build and sustain capabilities to prevent protect mitigate and respond and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic defense. as of your and with the third annual prepared this report the response to use the 2013 bombing shows out prepared miss but the planning and oranges station also came to share to enable the response from ago i but the cuts after enabled the of apprehension while protecting public safety but

what has happened and ferguson promises see the obama of that order the report - - but we did the department of komen security before to to to read the effort to the homeland security is managed and with the security initiative is a primary grant program to support tribal communities including law enforcement. . .al communities incluting the law enforcement program. we work closely with and rely upon states and tribes to conduct oversight of the programs and we monitor compliance with reporting and other program requirements. these programs are also audited by the department's inspector

general and by states for the state and urban areas programs. under the homeland security act states are required to distribute 80% of the funds to local communities within their state. the act also requires the department to ensure that at least 25% of the combined funds allocated under the state and urban areas programs are used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities. these activities include purchase of equipment. grant recipients must purchase equipment listed. the department prohibits use of grant funds for purchase of lethal weapons and ammunition. these are not on the authorized equipment list. homeland security grant funds may be used to purchase equipment classified as personal protection equipment such as helmets, body armor and ear and eye protection. the homeland security act allows

equipment purchased with grant funds including personal protective equipment to be used for purposes unrelated to terrorism so long as one purpose of the equipment is to build and sustain terrorism based capabilities. the authorized list notes ballistic personal equipment purchased with grant funds is not for riot suppression. the department worked with the city of ferguson. we will continue our discussions with missouri officials to determine which specific items may have been deployed to ferguson. in reviewing the use of the grant funds the department will make every effort to evaluate whether the use was appropriate under grant program rules including requirements that federal grant funds not be used to engage in conduct contrary the federal, state or local law. the department takes this responsibility very seriously. the department's financial and

program grant monitoring provides a means for accountability and proper management of funds. members of the committee, this concludes my statement. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important issues with you and i look forward to responding to questions you may have. >> thanks for that testimony. ms. mason, please proceed. make sure that your mic is on, please. >> good morning. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you about the department of justice's role in supporting state and local law enforcement agencies. recent events in ferguson, missouri have raised concerns about whether state and local law enforcement use of military type equipment should be more closely examined. as president obama has said the laws of the united states

mandate a distinction between national armed forces and civilian state and local law enforcement. to help maintain that distinction while insuring that departments have access to state-of-the-art equipment and training congress authorized department of justice to administer programs and funding to help state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies safe guard their communities while also protecting the civil liberties of their citizens. as assistant attorney general of office of justice programs i am responsible for overseeing a range of activities designed to support law enforcement. our work with law enforcement agencies is part of our mission to provide leadership, information and other assistance to strengthen community safety and ensure the fair administration of justice. onef oour largest programs and leading source for federal funding for law enforcement is the justice assistance grant program commonly known as jag. a formula grant program supports

a wide range of activities intended to approve the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminalti justice system. due to importance in community crime prevention we take great pains to see that funds are used appropriately and administered in the most transparent way possible. our bureau of justice assistants takes the number of steps to ensure compliance and prevent misuse of funds including requirement of quarterly financial and activity reports and an annual desk review of active grants. these ersh ams allow us to minimize inappropriate use of federal funds. as we provide critical funding to state and local law enforcement agencies our research and development standards and testing programs managed by the national institute of justice enable us to employ state-of-the-art

equipment and technology to aid in their work. much of the equipment and technology used in public safety is adapted from the military. a notable example is the police body armor which has saved the lives of more than 3,100 officers. our partnership with the department of defense and department of homeland security allows us to coordinate and make them available to public safety agencies. we accomplish by providing technicalxn/6=3t assistance to and local agencies through the= national law enforcement and corrections technology center. i wish to also add that through the police public contact survey our bureau of justice statistics collects data on citizen law enforcement interactions such as driver stops and request for assistance. we are working to improve our c

we do due diligence about numbers if it is an agency requests 100 rifles and there are only 10 law enforcement officers they don't get 100, they get 10. we rely on the state coordinator. i think we are buying down risk out there for our law enforcement agencies in the protection of the public and providing public safety and also in disaster relief. >> same question, how do we make sure we are aligning risk with the resources being offered by the three agencies within the

federal government? >> i think it is appropriate to start the discussion with risk. the state program and the urban areas security initiative are risk-informed allocation decisions meaning secretary of homeland security factors risk into the allocation of the funds and the statute directs in the urban area security initiative program that he put the resources in the highest risk urban areas in the united states. this year fiscal '14 secretary designated 39 high risk areas to receive funding. the risk assessment is done in partnership with our colleagues at department's intelligence and analysis division working with department of justice and intelligence community. we provide the secretary with the best picture of risk we can. we recommend to him allegations based on those risk profiles. we communicate with the jurisdictions about their risk profiles and invite them to

submit information to us that they believe we may not have or we may not have taken into account and the secretary makes the allocation decisions. as to how well we are doing i point to the requirement vis-a-vis law enforcement that 25% of the annual appropriations for the state and urban areas programs go to law enforcement. for the five year period of fiscal '08 to '12, states exceeded that 25% requirement by nearly $1 billion and spent 36% of the funding. the funding is getting to law enforcement as statute intends. >> risk, resources? >> the jag program is a formula program and the money a allocated to state and local jurisdictions based on formula and crime rates and data. the office of administration

programs what we do is provide them with training about various criminal justice issues. we are in the process of pulling together a tool kit that will enable law enforcement to know how to, for example, control crowds while also protecting civil liberties. one of our primary responsibilities is to make sure that we equip local law enforcement with the training that they need and that they request in order to use our best practices to protect their communities. >> thank you. second question deals with coordination or the appeared lack thereof. some cases you are directed to coordinate and directed by law to coordinate from agency to agency. give us examples of where you are coordinating well and areas where you need to coordinate better, please. really right to the point, please. >> we need to do a better job in coordination. probably a failure in

coordination across the interagency regarding what we are providing. departments are coordinating with state coordinators and with our colleagues. we do when there is missing equipment coordinate and let them know that kind of issue. coordinating on what police forces can use that can be better. >> i think we are coordinating well in the risk assessment that informs allocation of the programs. i think through our discussion today and white house review we will have a lot of opportunity to improve how we coordinate on down stream use of the equipment perhaps discussion of training and what else we might do. i think there is a lot of opportunity for improvement. >> thank you. >> i confer with my colleagues and we look forward to the results of the president's review and information about how we can better coordinate our resources together. >> just give us very briefly some idea of how the review is

going, give us idea of the timeline for completion of review and we will have an opportunity to hear about it. >> it's in its preliminary stages. i am not sure what the outcome timeline is. >> are we talking this quarter, this year? >> i'm going to defer to brian who is actually sitting on that. >> chairman, i don't know the timeline. what i can tell you is it is a comprehensive review that is looking at the very same kinds of data that you have requested, looking at how these programs operate and what the opportunity space might be for improvement. >> if you will answer the question for the record. do you have anything further? >> i don't have information for the timeline. >> good thoughtful comprehensive review. last thing i want to say before i turn the gavel over my colleagues have heard me say more than a few times one of the adages that my father often gave

my sister and me. just use common sense. i would hope in addition to rules and regulations i hope we are using common sense. i hope we are using it within this committee and within the agencies that oversee these programs and i hope we are using it at the state and local level. i will be off to a meeting in the capitol. >> thank you. when was the last time that you can recall that the equipment from 1033 transfer program was used in counter terrorism? >> senator, we don't have capability of monitoring how the equipment that we have provided -- >> i understand that. do you have recollection other than boston and tsarnaev and he is in the boat and maybe some

equipment was used there -- does anybody know when the last time in terms of true counter terrorism that equipment was used? >> i'm sure we could pulse the system for anecdotes on that but i would really have to do that. >> i'm not going to go through the audit and the lack of timely response by your organization to the audit. how do you all determine what federal supply classes are available to be transferred? >> that is done basically by our item managers. >> tell me, how do they decide it is appropriate for a community of my hometown of 35,000 people? >> that is done by state coordinator. >> how did you decide that an mrap is an appropriate vehicle for local police forces? >> an mrap is a truck -- >> it is not a truck. it is a 48,000 pound offensive

weapon. >> it is not an offensive weapon. >> it can be used as an offensive weapon. >> it is stripped of all electronic warfare capability and does not have a weapon on it. >> you all give out .30 caliber weapons. it is on your list. it is this big. that's the size of the shell. so all i'm asking is i want to know how you come about to say that a little town in oklahoma, you make it available and then the state coordinator determines they get one. there is six in oklahoma. how did we get to the point where we think states need mraps? how did that process come about? >> this is one of the areas that we are obviously going to look at, senator, how we decided what

equipment is available. obviously, we have made big decisions, fighter aircraft tanks and strikers are not available. sniper rifle is not available. grenade launcher not available. >> drones are available? >> no. >> airplanes are available. >> helicopters are available. >> you can't tell us today how we make those decisions of what goes on the list? >> that is basically a common sense decision inside the department and we do go back to the states. >> when something is removed from the list -- i don't know if you have recent experience with this -- are agencies required to return the restricted equipment? >> that is why we retain title for what we call controlled equipment so we can pull the equipment. >> so is a .30 caliber gun --

>> it is available. >> i'm talking -- >> nothing that requires a belt. >> are you aware of any that have been previously authorized that are now restricted? >> the type of stuff we have ended up further restricting for body armor. we used to provide body armor and no longer do that. once body armor becomes excess we can't guarantee safety. major equipment i am not aware of any. >> according to fema's authorized equipment list battle dress uniformed are an authorized purchase under preparedness grant programs, right? >> i believe that is correct, senator. >> why? >> the authorized equipment list

is reviewed biannually and we consult with state and local responders and the stakeholders and the grantees who advise us on what it is they need to build capabilities to support national preparedness goals. >> let's get to the point. >> responders have told us -- >> so we need to have in the states funded by the federal government a militarized police force? that is a component of it. and that fits in with our goals? >> we certainly can review the types of uniforms that our responders are requesting. they have advised us in building of capabilities to fight terrorism that this type of dress would be useful. >> let me ask you the same question i asked mr. estavez. when was the last time that you

are aware in terms of the grant money being given out -- by the way, the homeland security grants aren't based on risks. the others are based on a mandate that came through this committee that said x state would get x percent. when was the last time we have seen what you have given and used other than the response to the tsarnaev brothers, been used against counter terrorism? >> that was the last time. >> when was another time? >> i'm quite sure that new york used the domain awareness system in the times square bombing attempt. that is a funded asset with these grant funds. so within the last few years. >> so we with homeland security grants, with the 1033 program

and with the department of justice grants over the last five years we have put out $41 billion worth of money and we know of really two times -- and the point i'm getting to is that we will never have enough money to be totally prepared for everything. so the question is as common sense in judgment and judgment we need to relook. we need a reassessment of the 1033 and both grant programs at homeland security as well as the program. i will submit the rest of my questions for the record. ms. mason, i want to extend if i may for a moment, i did a complete oversight of grant programs three and a half years ago at the justice department.

your testimony inferred you are on top of all of your grants right now. would you restate what you said in your opening testimony in terms of grant management? >> thank you for the question, senator. what i would say is that we have done a very good job of implementing the things you suggested in your assessment of our grant programs primarily through the creation of the audit assessment and management where we do a lot of internal self-assessment and looking at our programs. we implemented risk assessment tools to determine which of our grants should get more in-depth monitoring. we have implemented that every single one of our grants gets a desk review every year. we believe we are doing a much, much better job in overseeing our grant programs. >> thank you very much. >> i want to clear up and make sure that the record is clear in response to a question from

congress to the defense logistics agency they responded that of the 1033 program 36% of the property issued is new and not used. in other words, almost 40% of what you are giving away has never been used by the military. >> i apologize for shaking my head when you said that earlier. it is condition code a. condition code a is like new. >> well, so we can argue about brand new, new or like new. what in the world are we doing buying things that we are not using? isn't that a fundamental problem that you need to get at before we talk about whether the stuff is being used appropriately or being used with training or being used in a way that makes common sense, how in the world are we buying -- we are going to -- i guarantee you when i get

the list and i will -- i guarantee you the stuff you are giving away you are continuing to buy. i guarantee it. tell me how that happens. >> first of all, we will have to look at the type of stuff that is provided in new condition. >> give me an example of something provided in new condition. 36% of what you are giving away you have no idea what you are giving away that is new? >> i will have to go through the list and i will be happy to take your question for the record on that. as our structure changes and budget changes things we thought we need are no longer needed or things we bought for the war and i'm not talking about tactical rifles and the like, basic medical kits and that type of stuff may no longer be needed as we change environment on the ground. bca, changes on structure, things we require are no longer

needed. that is the basic reason. >> this is absolutely totally in your wheelhouse. you have acquisitions. if we are buying so much stuff and what is going to drive me crazy is when i figure out you gave away last year you bought this year. that will drive me crazy. just be ready. that will drive me crazy. let me look at how much you are giving away. i know that this is state coordinator. i want to make sure we are clear about how out of control some of this is. in dr. coburn's state the sheriff's office has one full time sworn officer, one. they have gotten two mraps since 2011. now, you gave the impression in your testimony that you all are at least doing the minimum about making sure what you give is in somehow proportional to the size of a force. before you answer that. let me give you this fact.

in the lake angeles police department in michigan you gave them 13 military assault weapons since 2011. they have one full time sworn officer. so one officer now has 13 military grade assault weapons in their police department. how in the world can anyone say that this program has one lick of oversight if those two things are in existence? >> i will have to look into the details on each of those. the rule of thumb is one mrap validated by the state coordinator for a police department that requests an mrap, no more than one. i would have to look at the incident in senator coburn's state and same thing with rifles. >> i will make part of the record the list. we have a long list of law enforcement agencies that received three times as many

5.56 and 7.62 military grade weapons per full time officer. and this is a long list. this isn't a short list. so i think we need to get to the bottom of that. the risk allocation you talked about, there is a formula that every state gets money regardless of risk, right? it doesn't matter if you have zero risk in your state everyone gets money? >> there are state minimums prescribed. >> which has nothing to do with risk. isn't it true that rather than communities saying this is what we figured out we need now you tell them how much money they get and you give them a list. >> we have moved more towards project based applications where we are asking grantees to identify with an eye towards tighter management and oversight

we want to know more of this. i think the evolution of the program has gone from at a time when there were generic programs at the state level where we are trying to tighten investment. >> mraps can be very dangerous, correct? >> very heavy sleeks. >> there is no requirement for training for these departments getting these vehicles? >> we can't provide training. >> are you comfortable with the fact that texas has received 73 mraps in three years while the entire national guard in texas has six? how can you explain that? >> for excess material and it was put on the list of available we have provided that state is responsible for training. military force is maintaining

and they will allocate those across the entire force structure. i'm not sure how they will be allocated. >> could it be the guard doesn't want them because they know they tear up the roads and they flip easily? >> if the guard requires an mrap for deployment -- >> does it make you uncomfortable that there are states where the -- >> as they come back -- >> why are we giving it away to police departments before the guard? >> we have more mraps than we need. >> why would the police departments be in line to get these before the national guard?

>> the ones that we are excessing are the older -- they are not the best mraps. we maintain the best mraps. >> is there a reason any of you could give me why if we are going to continue funding -- by the way, i have seen a lot of good during my career from federal funding to state and local law enforcement. by the way, i want to be clear, i saw a vehicle extricate some police officers in a pretty dangerous situation in ferguson once some of the outsideers started coming in from other states that wanted confrontation with the police. having said all of that, has there been a discussion about perhaps saying the first thing that we would fund before we begin to fund anything else, not a federal mandate but first on your list must be body cams? has that been discussed at doj or homeland security that these officers using this equipment

that the best way to check whether or not it is being used appropriately is for every officer to wear a camera? >> senator, the office of justice programs funs are available for law enforcement agencies to use to purchase body cameras and we see value in it. our national institute of justice is studying the effectiveness of body cameras and appropriate use of body cameras. >> but they can buy them now? >> yes, ma'am. >> it wouldn't be hard if we decided before you get anything else we are going to insist you use our money for body cams before you buy other things like full blown battle gear or camouflage uniforms or grenade launchers. >> the money is formula money and we do not control how state and local jurisdictions use the

money. >> video cameras are on the authorized equipment list. if a grantee came forward and said they believe body cameras for law enforcement would serve purposes for which the program is authorized in terms of preparing capabilities for terrorism, operational coordination, situational awareness we would consider that an allowable expense. >> are you aware of local police department that is purchasing an mrap with their own funds? >> i'm not and i don't know how they would. >> or a .30 caliber weapon? >> i couldn't answer that question. mraps are not available. >> i wasn't around here but according to my briefing here the first program was authorized in the defense authorization bill primarily about the drug wars, is that correct?

>> correct. >> what were local police departments missing that they needed to be given from the defense department is combat war on drugs? >> we, the department, we do this because we are asked to do this. >> i understand. what equipment -- >> police departments were outgunned by drug gangs. they were looking for protection and fire power. >> then apparently this has expanded in 1997. my note says based on lobbying from police organizations. >> i can't answer why the authorization was expanded. at the time it was for counter terrorism. if it was lobbying from police organizations. >> there is always a great desire to get free things from federal government, correct? >> of course. >> this program which apparently provided $5.1 billion of free equipment since 1997 has all been free. >> it is not free to the taxpayer. we bought it and used it.

>> free to local governments, correct? >> correct. >> free to local police departments. do you know too many police departments that turn free things down? >> not in the position of a local police department but if something was available and they thought they needed it -- because they have to sustain the equipment. if they thought they needed it and it was useful to them, why not? >> the $41 billion that dhs granted under the program since 2002, that is grant money, correct? >> yes, senator. >> is there any cost sharing associated with that? >> in several of the programs, port security program for example in some years there is a cost sharing requirement. >> how much? of the $41 billion, how much is that multiplied by by local budgets. >> we will have to follow up with you on that. i can tell you the emergency management performance is a 50%

cost share in that every year. >> do you think we multiply that by another $40 billion? are we maybe talking -- we have granted $41 billion worth of funds for the purchase of this type of equipment and local governments have maybe contributed a billion? >> we will have to follow up with you on the numbers. just to be clear, the $40 billion is not just for law enforcement. there are a lot of other purposes if these programs, ports, that number includes our firefighter programs, staffing for emergency managers and firefighters. >> when people get things for free and get a lot of money one of the first things my wife as an irs agent learned, first government phrase was use it or lose it. that is just concern in terms of how you put money to work. ms. mason, the $4.4 billion granted department of justice since 2005 has that had cost

sharing requirements? >> the money is formula money that does not require cost sharing from local governments. for example, this year we allocated and awarded $280 million in grants. those were spread between 56 u.s. states and territories as well as local governments. for 80% of our grants the average award size is only 3 $30,000. >> are you aware of any piece of equipment that is either given away or allowed to be purchased -- really talking about defense department, any pieces of equipment given away that would not be available for purchase by a local police department? are they all available on the open market? >> mrap is not available in open market because it is out of production. >> when it was in production was there restrictions in terms of people being able to buy that? >> i would have to go back and look at that.

there were probably restrictions that it was unavailable. >> my point being is if we are making decision at the wrong level. if local police departments actually needed this equipment, if they felt it was necessary, isn't the proper way of doing this is to have them go through their city councils and make the political case for armoring up to protect themselves against drug lords or counter terrorism. i understand the federal role in terms of information sharing and devices to share information. hasn't this gone out of control simply because the federal government is there granting money and people are going to use it? >> i guess from my perspective, senator, we have bought this stuff from the department of defense. it is no longer needed. the states need to make that decision on whether they need this type of equipment. in fact, they do. that is the funnel.

the state coordinator appointed by a governor makes a decision on whether a local police force needs it or not. >> prior to programs in place did any police department have any type of this equipment? did they ever use their own funds and purchase this type of equipment? or is it only because it is available and given to them for free, i will take some of that? that would be a neat thing to have. >> police forces certainly have army vehicles and weapons. >> senator, in our port security grant program we do fund a lot of police boats that patrol the water ways of our nation's over 100 ports. the cost share requirement for that has varied over year by year. in many years it has been 25%. so the local jurisdiction has to make a decision about those investments. and i don't have the entire history but i would imagine that

in our port cities before the port security grant program was created that many of them likely did acquire. >> in terms of what type of equipment needs to be purchased needs to be made at the local level. they need to show their citizens we need that protection. i am all for protection of the police department. we attended a congressional badge of courage ceremony or badge of bravery for lieutenant brian murphy in the oak creek massacre. we saw a video of these brave courageous public safety individuals just walk straight into danger. we are all about making sure that these officials are protected but the decision needs to be made at the local level

and not here in the federal government. otherwise this is the problem we have when we make the decision of the lev of government. >> we will provide that information. >> thank you. i was pleased and somewhat relieved to see attorney general holder and the justice department announce that they will independently investigate not only the shooting of michael brown but also the policing practices of the ferguson and st. louis county police forces. i think that department of justice investigations like these serve a critical role in maintaining and in some cases rebuilding public confidence in law enforcement. i would like to know from our panelists, then, if the grant programs administered by each agency look at whether a state or local law enforcement agency is under active investigation for civil rights or civil

liberties violations or has a history of those violations. mr. estavez, the statute that authorizes the 1033 program requires the secretary of defense to carry out the program in consultation with the attorney general. so i wonder what is the nature of the consultation between the department of defense and the department of justice on this program and is there a discussion of whether a law enforcement agency is under investigation for the possible deprivation of constitutional rights. >> senator, baldwin, the consultation with the department of justice is one of the areas that we are frankly lacking that we need to do a better job of that we will look at under the administration's review and will discuss with this committee. we need to do a better job there. i will say that -- >> currently, and i will accept your statement at face value

that you can do better. currently in that consultation, is the matter of an open or closed investigation into civil rights or civil liberties deprivation a part of your discussion or consultation? >> no. >> is there any reason why it could not be in the future? >> of course, it could be. >> okay. is there coordination between the department of homeland security and the department of justice in the programs that you administer on these same questions? >> we certainly coordinate on the risk elements of the allocation decisions and recommendations for the secretary. the risk formula is prescribed by statute. it is a combination of threat, vulnerability and consequence and the elements of each of those are laid out in statute. to answer your specific question, no, we do not take

into account whether a law enforcement organization is under investigation for potential deprivation of civil rights and civil liberties. >> ms. mason, in administering the jag program, is that -- obviously within department consultation discussion. do those issues get discussed? >> thank you for the question, senator. the grants are formula money and we have very little discretion over how that money is used, but the civil rights division does coordinate with our office when they are doing investigations and as they develop their consent decrees and we work closely with them in designing the content of the consent decrees. >> tell me a little more about the nature of the consultation and how that can come into play

in decisions that you're entertaining. >> well, there are two factors in that. the office of justice programs has its own office of civil rights that makes sure that all of the grant programs for the department comply with civil rights laws. if the civil rights division is investigating one of our grantees, theytypically will coordinate with our office of civil rights. we will monitor things and as the process proceeds have input into whatever agreement is reached between the department with that agency. >> thank you. i want to move to the issue of training especially in the 1033 program. we have heard in testimony that billions of dollars worth of surplus military equipment has been transferred to state and

local law enforcement agencies including some significantly sophisticated materials previously operated by trained military personnel primarily in combat situations for some of that equipment. this includes as we have talked about mraps, armored vehicles, grenade launchers, assault rifles. we certainly have great confidence in the skills of our first responders but these pieces of equipment are not traditional police equipment and may be very unfamiliar to many police officers and sheriff's deputies in communities across this country. so understand that the defense logistics agency conducts a biannual inventory. this effort appears to be

focused simply on corroborating that the transferred equipment is accounted for. can you tell me if the dla review or the original application process makes any inquiry at all as to whether the agency has the appropriate training or access to the appropriate training to use and maintain this equipment or if after the fact the equipment is being properly used? >> dla, defense logistics agency does not have that capability and neither does the department of defense as a whole. we can't manage local police forces even equipment we are trained to use is for combat separations and not for local policing operations. we do not provide grenade launchers. the training, the state coordinator certifies the police force that will receive the item

has the ability to train themselves to use it. they are going to get a helicopter they have a pilot. the state coordinator certifies the local police force has the ability to sustain the equipment that they are going to be provided. >> and what confidence do you have that that level of inquiry is happening at the state coordinator level if it is not happening under your supervision? >> i think that frankly varies by state coordinator but i think state coordinators in the last number of years have put more attention and due diligence on that process. and we found that as we -- we did a full out review of the whole program with state coordinator suspended in all of the states because of accountability issues. during that process we found state coordinators are focusing their attention on the issues, senator. >> mr. kamoie, are there similar

requirements in either the application process or the audit process for training, for proper maintenance of equipment? what sort of accountability can you share with this committee and the department of homeland security? >> we encourage training for grantees. it is an allowable expense under our programs. we do not require training but we offer training for the department's center for domestic preparedness and federal law enforcement training center. we offer it and encourage it but we do not require training. >> and ms. mason, i believe you already testified that training is one of the applicable, one of the things that can be funded through grants. can you talk about the training

opportunities available? >> yes. the training opportunities, funds may be used for training but separate and apart from the jag funding the department of justice program provides full range of training for law enforcement. over the last three years we have put together approximately 100 online training courses. we also have many webinars on various issues. we survey the law enforcement to find out what training classes and things they would need but it is part of our mission to make sure that we provide a range of training opportunities for state and local governments. >> thank you. >> senator paul. >> i think many of us are horrified by some of the images that came out of ferguson. we were horrified by seeing an unarmed being confronted by an armored personnel carrier. we're horrified by seeing an

unarmed man with his hands over his head being confronted by a drawn assault weapon. we're horrified by images of tear gas being shot into the yards of people's personal homes who were protesting. one of the fundamental things about america is dissent, and the ability to dissent. it needs to be peaceful and there needs to be repercussions for those who do not act in a peaceful way. but confronting those with armored personnel. you sort of obscure that separation if you allow the police to become the military. in fema's authorized equipment list there's actually written descriptions for how the equipment should be used. it says it's specifically not supposed to be used for riot suppression. is that true, it's not supposed to be used for riot suppression? how do you plan on policing that

since the images clearly show us large pieces of equipment bought with your grant used in that riot suppression? >> senator, paul that is accurate. the categories of personal protective equipment helmets, ear and eye equipment, ballistics, prohibition in the authorized list not to be used for riot suppression. >> what will you do about it? >> we're going to follow the lead of the department of justice's investigation about the facts. we're going to work with the state of missouri to determine what pieces of equipment were grant funded. and then we have a range of recommend disavailable to us should there be any finding of noncompliance with those requirements. those include everything from corrective action plans to ensure it doesn't happen again, recoupment of funds. we'll look closely at the facts, but we're going to allow the investigation to run its course and determine what the appropriate remedy is.

>> but it gets back to the whole question. if you're a police force anywhere in the country from dundee, michigan, of 3900, when is mrap to 25 other cities under 25,000 have mraps, they think they are for right suppression. many police forces think this is what the equipment is good for, riot suppression in a big city, urban area. you're specifically instructing it's not for that. we've talked about we've had two instances of terrorism. we spend billions and billions of dollars and maybe two instances of terrorism. i think by supplying all of this free equipment, much of which is, frankly, inappropriate, shouldn't be on anybody's list of authorized equipment. in the 1033 program they list 12,000 bayonets have been given out. what purpose are bayonets being given out for?

>> senator, bayonets are available under the program. i can't answer what a local police force would need a bayonet for. >> i can give you an answer. none. so, what's president obama's administration's position of handing out bayonets? it's on your list. are you going to take it off the list? >> we're going to look at what we're providing under the administration's review -- >> so it's unclear whether president obama approves of 12,000 bayonets being given out? i would think you could make that decision last week. >> i think we need to review all the equipment we're providing, senator. we, the department of defense, do not push any of this equipment on any police force. the states decide what they need. >>my understanding is you have the ability to decide what equipment is given out and what equipment is not given out. if you decided tomorrow, if president obama decided tomorrow that mine-resistance ambush

protection 20-ton vehicles are not appropriate for cities in the united states, he could decide tomorrow to take it off the list. you could decide this tomorrow. my question is, what is the administration's opinion on giving out mine-resistant ambush protection 20-ton vehicles to towns across america -- are you for it or against it? >> obviously, we do it senator. we'll look at that. i can also say we can give you anecdotes for mine-resistant after buck protected vehicles for police shootouts. >> we've been told they're only supposed to be used for terrorism, right? isn't that what the rule is? >> it's for counterdrug, which could have been the shootout. i would have to look at the incident. counternarcotics, counterterrorism. >> i guess the point i wish to make is that these are fairly simple problems and common sense applied years ago l years ago. you know, we could have fixed these. we'll maybe fix them, although i

have my doubts. i've seen rarely anything fixed in government. i would say we're now responding to a tragic circumstance, you know, in ferguson to do this. but i think that i -- you know, i find these decisions to be very easy to make. you just shouldn't be giving out mine-resistant vehicles. bayonets, i don't know why we have to get together and have a study for months to decide bayonets are inappropriate to be given out. really, it's gotten out of control. and this is largely been something that the militarization of police is something that's gotten so far out of control, and we've allowed it to dissend along with not a great protection of our civil liberties as well. so, we -- you know, we say we're going to do this. it's okay if it's for drugs. well, look at the instances of what have happened in recent times. the instance in georgia just a couple months ago of an infant in a crib getting a percussion .

turns out the infant, obviously, wasn't involved in drug trade but either was the infant's family. happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. no one has even been indicted on this. really, this is crazy, out of control. giving military equipment and with the breakdown of the whole idea of due process of no-knock raids and not having judges issue warrants anymore, you can see how this gets out of control and people are very, very concerned with what is going on here. and i see the response so far to be lackluster. i hope you will do a more complete job in trying to fix this. thank you. >> senator ayotte. >> hi. i want to thank all the witnesses for being here and certainly thank senator mccaskill and chairman and ranking member for having this will hearing. so, what i wanted to understand in particular, mr. estevez, i think as you described the 1033

program, you have a state coordinator and then d.o.d. does not decide what equipment is needed. you're just relying on that state coordinator for those decisions. >> that's correct. and i should point out that the governor of the state has the state coordinator, not us. we rely on the state to filter those decisions. >> so, is there any follow-up in terms of what the equipment is being used for and what type of training the police departments that are receiving it have been -- have obtained when the equipment is transferred? >> state coordinators in certifying that the department -- that the local agency needs that certify they're going to have the available training and train themselves on that equipment. >> do you do any types of follow-up other than receiving the certification? is there any kind of audit of what's happening and what -- how the equipment's being used? >> there is no follow-up on how

the equipment's being used. our audit for the controlled equipment because we provide 96% of what we provide is noncontrolled, benign equipment. we follow up -- >> when i'm referring to this, i should have been specific on the controlled equipment. obviously, office furniture you wouldn't generally have a follow up on. >> but we follow up on accountability of the equipment. we retain title to that equipment. but we do not follow up on it, senator. >> okay. so, do you think with this process that is being reviewed right now, not only the president but the congressional oversight that will be had here that the way the system is working right now, that d.o.d. has some responsibility so not just have a follow-up in terms of what's being done with this equipment? >> i think there has to be a part of the look at what we're doing, review. i think from speaking from the department of defense's

standpoint, it's very hard for us because we don't have expertise in police forcing. it's not what we do, on whether it's an appropriate use or not appropriate use. now, i can look at the pictures of ferguson and wince like everybody else in this room. but i think that has to be part of the dialogue and discussion of what we're going to do and how we're going to assess use of equipment. >> mr. kamoy, i wanted to ask -- don't know if i'm pronouncing your name correctly. >> you are. thank you, senator. >> i don't know if you're the appropriate person to ask this question, but on the homeland security front, what type of oversight is there in terms of the 1033 equipment. does homeland have any oversight over the receipt of that? >> we do not, senator. >> is there any coordination between the grants that homeland is giving in light of what the departments are receiving on the 1033 front? >> we don't