>> thank you all so much. i've just got a couple of things to say. before i get started, i want to it knowledge my wife who is with me. thank you. and some of my colleagues and partners from virginia. [applause] and my colleagues and partners in the legislative process in virginia. i see those in the senate with me. i see those in a house of delegates. and i see one of my mentors, and the next congressman for the eighth congressional discover union, don buyer, right here. [applause] i hope i have not missed anybody. thank you so much. thank you to the national alliance on mental illness. and thank you, jim payne, and betty greer. i am honored to receive the richard t greer advocacy award and i'm humbled. although i've never met mr. brewer, his or her beautician lives on and his commitment

indoors through the work of everyone here in -- mr. greer, his commitment lives on through the work of everyone here. i was always ashamed by virginia's abysmal ranking -- i have always fought for improved mental health services and i was always ashamed by virginia's abysmal ranking compared to other states for mental health funding. though i would have to admit, mental health was never my top priority. i was involved with economic element, education, transportation, public safety, environmental issues. there were many things that were at the top of my keep. -- my heap. i promise you i would give anything to not be in this position today. when my world changed forever last november, i knew i had to do something to make a change to prevent future tragedies. my family had been dealing with my son's illness for some years,

but i never truly understood what gus was going through or how he suffered. i determined to devote my life and efforts to change the law to reduce the likelihood that such tragedies would occur in the future, to discuss mental health openly and honestly in an effort to remove the stigma, and to work to insure that my son is remembered for who he was and what he did, not how he died. i could not do that while sitting on the sidelines or working behind the scenes. my son was unbelievable. he remains in every respect my hero. gus was everything i wanted to be. he was smart, handsome, strong, inquisitive, and confident. he was helpful, kind, generous, and brilliant. and he was so talented. he could master any musical in the dash instrument. he could sing, dance, and had deep faith in god, and was, indeed, his brothers keeper.

he could do anything he wanted to do and do it well. his life was just not long enough. i have work to change the crisis intervention area of the law and the things that immediately failed gus just prior to his death. but i know that so many people and families lived in crisis, or live crisis to crisis. as you in this room know, the problems inherent in the system in virginia are not unique. people have reached out for me, desperate for help from throughout the country. i know that many people are engulfed in mental illness, including our neighbors and friends and coworkers, and they have so much to share and so much to contribute to society. who knows whether the cure for cancer or the next big idea to save the earth or to unlock the secrets of the universe is locked in the mind of someone who now struggles with the disease of the brain? [applause]

and how many of those bright minds are locked away in our criminal justice system? i represented five people recently one afternoon in the circuit court of allegheny county in a small, rural area i represented the legislature, but i'm also a lawyer. legislative services are part time in virginia. five people charged with criminal offenses. three of them went to the penitentiary that afternoon. all five struggled with -- three of them had serious mental health diagnoses. one was less serious, but not unserious at all, depression, and also had addiction problems. another was just a complete alcoholic. all five struggled. it is just unconscionable that so many people are locked away in these institutions that simply some -- simply struggle with and to illness. i'm not finished with the work we did in virginia this year, not at all. what we have done should be seen

as the beginning of the work that must be done, not the end. in the words of mike scott of the water boys, that was the river and this is the sea. i'm determined that every virginian who is in need, no matter who they are or what they look like, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, no matter whether they have health insurance, every virginian receives the services they need when mental health strikes -- when mental illness strikes. we will make it possible that those people can lead productive lives through struggle with the help they need. so they have safety and can feel real hope. this morning, you heard from congressional records and it is on the hill. don't stop there. take the conversation back to your state capitals, to your governor, to your state representatives, share your stories. share your experiences. continue to shed light on

something that is too often left in the shadows. everyone in this room knows just as i do that people remain ignorant about mental illness. whether we respond with compassion or understanding, people fear, minimize, or deny that which they do not understand. the stigma that results hold us back. we have to educate. we have to put names and faces on the issue. they will remember you. help me to help others understand that the time to act is now. we cannot afford to wait for another crisis or tragedy. too many lives have been lost. too many families changed forever already. we need to be in the prevention business. we need to be in a long-term recovery business. we need to provide as wide a range of services as the individual wants. the current system is failing. the energy and innovation and ideas to fix the system are here

in this room. we have no other option but to act. thank you for your excellent work. thank you for the tremendous honor. the work goes on. [applause] >> thank you so much, senator deeds. as our speakers have shown this morning, the power of our advocacy flows from our lifted -- lived experiences. our next speaker is an especially powerful voice, participating in the nami called to action. demi lovato is a profile encourage. like the title of her incredible album, she is unbroken by her personal experience with bipolar

depression and eating disorders. last year, the mental health services administration honored her for her mentorship of young adults with mental health and substance abuse issues. and this year, her book "staying strong 365 days a year" made the new york times bestseller list. this summer, she embarked on a mental health listening and engagement were sponsored by the pharmaceutical company to share her story and to learn from leaders in the mental health advocacy community at events around the country such as ours today. we are especially grateful for her coming here today, because in just two days, she starts her world tour and she will be making stops in 28 cities across the united states and canada. [applause] her fan base includes over 24 million diehard twitter followers and 36 million facebook fans, many of whom we

hope will join us today in our day of action. and two of those millions of fans live in my home in arlington, virginia, and our ages 12 and 15. i am grateful to demi as a mental health advocate, but i'm especially grateful to her as a mom. i cannot tell you how much it means to have a celebrity who is a real role model, who takes her fame and uses it to help others to raise awareness -- [applause] -- to help young girls and all of us settle the prejudice they keep so many from speaking out and getting help. demi brings help, she brings hope to all of those affected by mental illness and we are thrilled to have her here today. [applause]

>> thank you so much. that introduction was really overwhelming. in the most positive way. so thank you. hi, everyone, my people. [laughs] it is an honor to be here today at nami's day of action. looking out at all of you is so inspiring. it's great to see so many people dedicated to improving mental health in the lives of others. seeing people of all ages from all over the country come together gives me so much hope that change is really possible. those of us here today know that mental illness has no prejudice. it affects people of every race, gender, age, and economic

status. and it is not the thing was between democrats or republicans either. [applause] that is why we are here today and we need to send -- send a simple message to our nations leaders. mental health matters and it must be taken seriously. [applause] it is time to ask for mental health and pass conference of mental health bills this year. [applause] we are here because groups like nami have helped us understand that our forces -- our voices do matter, our stories really do matter. we have the power to make a difference and we have the personal experience needed to be taken seriously. we know what it means to have our lives, or the lives of those

we love, get off track because of mental illness. we understand that mental illness is serious and can be absolutely devastating. we also know that mental illness can be treatable when we have access to appropriate conference of care. i know that it is largely because of our personal experience with mental illness that each of us is here today. as i learn more about my own illness and the experience of others, i realize how much we all have in common. even if mental illness has made a few headlines because of my career. there are a number of ways in which i've been very lucky, yet even with access to so much, my journey has not been an easy one i any means. during my darkest times, i didn't know why i was alive and i definitely did not like myself. i had very low times that were so emotionally draining that i

couldn't find the strength to crawl out of bed in the morning. i was withdrawn, disconnected, and very angry. there were stretches of time where i felt nothing but chain. -- shame. i would medicate myself with drugs and alcohol in an effort to feel normal, not better, just normal. i did not understand why somebody like me with all of the resources and reasons the world to be emotionally well, i could not find happiness. when i was finally diagnosed with by part -- bipolar disorder, it was a relief in so many ways. it helps me make sense with my bipolar depression and all of the things i was doing to cope with it. getting the right diagnosis did not happen overnight. through the process of being misdiagnosed and misunderstood, i understood -- i learned how important it is to be open with your doctor, so you can get to

the root of what is going on as soon as possible. the journey to living well with bipolar disorder is a process that for me involved seeing a therapist, being honest with myself and others, following my treatment plan, and taking care of my body. it requires conference of care. -- comprehensive care. [applause] living well with bipolar disorder takes work and it does not all happen at once. there was not one day when the light simply came on and i said, i'm cured, i'm better. sometimes even the first, second, or even third medication we tried is not the one that works the best. but we owe it to ourselves to keep trying. the reality is, you are not a car. you cannot go to a shop and it fixed immediately. you need ongoing maintenance. there'll always be work left to do.

i can only do the work now because i truly believe i'm worth it. and today, i'm so grateful for my life and i want to preserve and protect it. [applause] it is my personal mission to share with others of all ages people who are children, that our fans, people who do not know my music at all, but hopefully my speech today can have some impact -- it is my mission to share this with the world and to let them know that there is life on the other side of those dark times that seems so hopeless and helpless. i want to show the world there is life, surprising, wonderful, and unexpected life after diagnosis. [applause]

i'm proud to say that i'm living proof that someone can live, love, and thrive with bipolar disorder if they get connected with professional resources, and accept support soonest possible. that's why i purchase a painting -- that's why i'm participating in the mental health listening and engagement tour. to meet and listen to people like you and getting to know the issues that affect the mental health community. i hope to do my part to reduce the fear for others and to reduce the shame that is associated with mental illness. i want to do what i can to make things better for others by becoming the strongest and most informed mental health advocate and it -- advocate that i can be. today, we have a chance to make history with nami, an organization that has been at the forefront of advancing

mental health in this country for decades. [applause] we have seen increased attention to our country's broken mental health system over the past few years. but we've seen very little action. today, our message is very clear. it's time for congress to act for mental health by supporting the passage of a comprehensive mental health bill this year. [cheers and applause] i understand that the details around comprehensive mental health care are complex. i am not a policy expert in any way, shape, or form. but i do know that the basics of conference of health care reform -- comprehensive care make good sense -- common sense.

comprehensive care means as a nation, we step up our efforts to prevent suicide, which is currently the second leading cause of death for young adults in the united states. comprehensive care means that if a man with mental illness gets diabetes or cancer, his doctors work together to determine what the best approach is for his mind and body. comprehensive care also means that when a woman leaves a psychiatric hospital, there is a process in place to make sure she gets the care that she needs so that she doesn't end up back in jail, hospital, or on the street, or worst of all, even dead. [applause] at the heart of it, comprehensive care means that our mental health system reaches people early and far more often, so fewer people fall through the cracks and suffer alone. i'm so proud to be here with you today.

together as mental health advocates, we can make our voices heard. our shared message is simple. like you said, keep it simple. support passage of a comprehensive mental health bill this year. [applause] so go out there and make today count. together, we will make a difference as we act for mental health. don't forget to treat -- tweet, and post, because we all know that gets the word going. [laughter] i'm about to, you know, when i'm not sitting here on an important panel. [laughter] i'm so proud of this community today, and i want the entire world to know that i'm proud of everyone in here. and i'm also proud of myself for getting the help that i need,

and you can have that, too. [cheers and applause] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next washington journal, congress moen -- congresswoman gwen moore on violence against women. trent franks on protecting u.s. infrastructure from terrorist attacks. linder, part of the c-span college tour. >> this weekend, american

history tv is live from baltimore's fort mchenry were the 200th anniversary of the star-spangled banner is being celebrated. we will tour fort mchenry and hear how war came to baltimore in 1814 and about the british barrage on the fort. night, former presidents george w. bush and bill clinton launched the presidential leadership scholars launched the presidential leadership scholars program. in the afternoon, live comments with tom harkin and hillary clinton. on c-span 2, book tv. the secret world of oil. then, christian gillibrand on her life and politics.

find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you were watching. us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. at a senate homeland security hearing yesterday, a defense department official defended a program that transfers military equipment to local police departments. the committee heard testimony about how police use that military gear. this part of the hearing is an hour and a half. >> come to order. we want to welcome all of our guests.

we want to welcome eyewitnesses on the first panel and second panel. unarmedh ago today, an man named michael brown was shot and killed by local police in the town of ferguson, missouri. theas been stated that officer was acting in self-defense. remainse investigation ongoing, this much is known. it has caused very real pain for his family as well as for many residents of ferguson and for others across our country. that unfolded and ferguson inspired a much-needed national discussion on a range of issues including police strategy, lawn for three spots to civil protest and unrest, and race relations. the purpose of the hearing is not to explore what happened in ferguson on that fateful day or to assign blame. that is the responsibility of

our judicial system. rather, the purpose of the hearing is to examine the effectiveness of federal programs that provide state and local police with surplus military equipment and grant funding for equipment for exercises, planning, and training. the issues we will be discussing today are not just about ferguson. they affect communities across our nation. deep dive into the federal programs that help equip state and local law enforcement agencies, we want to explore the value of these programs to police, the communities they , and especially to taxpayers. we look forward to learning from .enator mccaskill firsthand i want to thank you for your leadership.

during the weeks that followed the shooting of michael brown, national media attention focused on the protests, including response by local law enforcement. poseduestions have been by leaders, civil rights organizations, police organizations, law enforcement experts, and others on whether the police response was correct, measured, and appropriate. in thinking about these issues, i can't help think about in my home state of delaware, learning the value of our police spending more time out of their police cars, working, talking every day with people in the community, and engaging in positive ways. bondsould help build the of trust that strengthen the community in the way that armed personnel, and the sole weapons never can -- assault weapons never can.

since 1997, federal agencies supplied over five billion dollars in surplus department of defense supplies and equipment to law enforcement. departments of justice and issue grantsrity that can pay for military style gear. in light of the events in ferguson, we have reviewed federal agencies in providing equipment and weapons to state and local law enforcement. our staff has received briefings from the agencies and reviewed documents. this review is long overdue. the witnesses with us today will describe the programs that can supply military style equipment and weapons to law enforcement and the current oversight requirements and procedures. we will hear from a second panel of witnesses with critical knowledge, including some with law enforcement backgrounds. we will explore proper roles and

techniques for using this equipment. congressxamine whether should do more to hold accountable police departments that obtain sophisticated equipment. these programs were established with a very good intention. to provide law enforcement with equipment that would help them do their duties. the question is the, to our police receive what they truly need to uphold the law? we need to acknowledge that there have been instances where police have been outgunned by heavily armed criminals. well these how resources were able to help the police respond in the aftermath of the boston marathon bombing. job of law enforcement is to protect the lives and well-being of the people in the nation. the jobless law enforcement is the protection of the civil rights. witnessesso hear from

with expertise in the civil rights issues. my hope is that we in congress and other government leaders learn what is discussed during the hearing and from the ongoing developments in ferguson and similar situations across the country. in closing, we are here today because we have a responsibility to ensure accountability, funds, and equipment. to ensure these programs provide value to the police, communities, and taxpayers. >> good morning. thank you to our witnesses for appearing on both this panel and the second one. thank you to the chairman for convening this hearing. as i look at my short time left remaining in congress and having

traveled for two weeks in august, i am brought constantly and frequently back to the position of our founders. not only their vision, but their wisdom. protect and serve. our founders saw no role for the federal government and state and local police forces, none. is ont what we have seen the basis of what we saw at 911, what seems to be an overreaction and the progress for the federal ,overnment in law enforcement doing the same thing it has done and never -- every other. this period when it comes to the general welfare clause.

we are on dangerous ground. of undermining the very principles that built the country. it is hard to see a difference between the militarized and increasingly federalized police force we see in towns across america today and the force that madison had in mind when he said, a standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be a safe companion to liberty. withe some real heartburn , withst the 1033 program some of the justice department grants, and a lot of the homeland security grants in terms of how they have been utilized, what they have been utilized for, so i look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

i have some significant questions. the 1033 program has been around a long time. it was not just in response to this. centerthink we need to re- where we are. there is no law for the federal government and the local and state release forces in our country. whittle that out today to see where we stepped across the line and actually have created some problems that would not have been there otherwise. thank you, mr. chairman. what's thank you. i'm going to ask senator mccaskill did reduce our witnesses and we will hear from you. we're going up to leave just before 11:15 and all try to get back, but in the meantime. >> thank you.

i want to thank both you and dr. coburn for the interest you have shown in today's hearing. i know your decision to elevate this hearing to the full committee level is a sign of your commitment to oversight in these very poor areas. i am very appreciative of the fact it has been elevated to the full committee. the chairmanached to hold this hearing because of the shock and sadness i felt as i saw events unfolding in ferguson, missouri in the weeks following the death of michael brown. i heard reports and saw firsthand about aggressive police actions in used against protesters under the umbrella of crowd control" and not in response to violence. like many of you, i saw armored vehicles with a sniper pointing a rifle at an unarmed protester on a warm summer afternoon. i think most americans were uncomfortable watching suburban

street in st. louis been transformed with vivid images, powerful images, across this country into a war zone. complete with camouflage, tear gas, rubber bullets, armored vehicles, and laser sites on assault weapons. while this hearing may reveal many strong arguments why some of this equipment may be helpful for the safety of police officers in certain situations, i am confident that militarized policing tactics are not consistent with the peaceful exercise of first amendment rights of free speech and free assembly. those lawful, peaceful protesters on that wednesday afternoon in ferguson, missouri did not deserve to be treated like enemy combatants. would happen in ferguson and what we learned at

this hearing today will inform a better public policy that will protect our constitutional freedoms and also provide adequate public safety for the brave men and women who put on a uniform every day to protect the people of this great nation through our very admirable rule of law. the federal government has played a significant role in enabling police department's across the country took worth a military weapons, vehicles, and other types of equipment we sell used in ferguson. the department of defense's 1033 program, authorized in 1997, gives away dod surplus equipment for free to state and local law enforcement. much of the equipment from the program is as mundane as office furniture and microwaves, but the department of defense is also giving local law enforcement million dollar tactical vehicles, including its mine resistant ambush protected vehicle or mraps.

they are built withstand roadside arms and and provides to expose of devices. these are vehicle so heavy they can tear up roads in the department of defense knows this. yet it continues to provide these vehicles to local law-enforcement agencies across the nation. according to information provided by department of defense in just the last three years, the department of defense has given 624 mraps to state and local offers many agencies. at least 13 law-enforcement agencies with fewer than 10 full-time sworn officers received an mrap in the last three years. in the local mraps police and sheriff's department is far higher than the mraps in possession of our country's national guard. in texas, local law enforcement agencies have 73 mraps. the national guard has only 6.

in florida, local law-enforcement agencies have 45 mraps. the national guard has zero. i would like to ask for consent the information provided the from the defense department be included in the hearing record today. and also the department of justice information received about consent decrees into the record. >> without objection. >> a question whether they need this kind of equipment and whether they need it more than our state's national guard. one of the key lessons learned throughout iraq and afghanistan wars is the idea we had to win the hearts and minds. one of the ways the military try to do that was acting more like a police force. working with communities, helping to repair broken windows and damaged property, and trying to appear less militaristic with their presence in the communities. at theit ironic that same time we are embracing those tactics as strong evidence of

progress against the counterinsurgency, we are in fact underlining a militarization of our domestic police departments. i also have questions about why whydefense department about the defense department is giving away some of this material. according to the defense logistics agency, d.o.a., approximately 36% of the equipment given away to law enforcement is brand new. let me say that again. that hase equipment been given away is brand-new. towill give you a chance counter that. that was the information we received from dla. even if it is not 36%, if any of it is brand-new, then there a row question about what are we doing that go -- what are we doing? why are we buying things merely to turn around and give it away?

usable ands still identical or similar items will be needed and bought new by the defense department again. it doesn't appear by new, to give it away and spending money to replace it is an effective use of the defense department's resources. local law enforcement agencies are also acquiring military, using grants from the department of justice and the department of homeland security. in 2014, department of homeland security made available over 400 million under its state homeland 580rity program and another 7 million under its urban area security initiative grant program. although these grants cannot be used to buy weapons, they can and do fund the purchase of armored vehicles, nonlethal weapons, and tactical equipment. the department of justice program which received 376 $9 appropriations in fy1 to4 state and local law-enforcement funding that can be used from everything from mobile data terminals, lethal and nonlethal

weapons and office supplies and uniforms and to provide maintenance funds to maintain the expensive vehicles that have been given them by the department of defense. grant programs provide important assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies. however, it is impossible to tell how these federal funds are being spent because department of homeland security and department of justice don't track the purchases or keep adequate data. know from cannot asking these agencies, how much military equipment or anything else that local law enforcement agencies are actually by. in fact, it is possible that either or both of these programs are funding police department to maintain and sustain the same equipment they're getting for free from another federal agency. confident many police departments are creating policies and providing training to ensure that any use of force is necessary and appropriate.

and we must do everything we can to make sure our law enforcement officers, those brave men and women who have sworn to protect us, have the government they need to maximize their own safe. but we also have to acknowledge giving military grade vehicles and weapons to every police officer and police force in america comes with costs. both in ways officers are perceived in the way this equipment is used. officers dressed in military fatigues will not be viewed as partners in any community. armored military vehicles, even if they're painted black and used with utmost discretion, are by definition, intimidating. supplying communities with the capacity to acquire military equipment with no requirement that the officers are trained on the proper use of the equipment, little visibility in the actual needs or capabilities of local forces, and inadequate guidelines directing their use them in many just may be asking for the kind of over militarization that we saw on

some days and evenings in ferguson. i was happy to here the white house has launched its own review of the programs and policies that have german police militarization in this country, and i look forward to that review. i understand many of these issues may only be sought by legislation. a plan to build on what i learn today together with my colleagues on this committee and to work with i fellow senators in the coming weeks on legislation that will address the many public policy concerns i'm confident will arise in today's hearing. i thank the witnesses for being here today. i surly thank the chairman and raking member for the calling of this full committee hearing and we look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. >> thank you for your efforts in this whole incident and every thing that flows from it. if you could briefly to reduce the witnesses and then i will ask for questions and yield to dr. coburn and senator mccaskill will be on her way. witness is alan estevez

conference will to the under secretary defense for acquisition, technology, and the just except the u.s. department of defense. has managed military logistics acquisitions and supplies for the department of defense in various capabilities since thousand two and oversee military acquisition worth more than $170 billion. he has worked with the office of the secretary of defense its 1981. is the assistant administrator for grant programs for the federal emergency management agency. he oversees more than $17 billion in grant programs to build, sustain, and improve our national capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. he previously served on the white house national security staff and with the department of health and human services on has her preparation. carol mason is the assistant attorney general office of justice program. she oversees an annual budget of more than to lean dollars dedicated to support state, local, and tribal, criminal

justice agencies, a wide range of research, valuation and statistical efforts and comprehensive services for crime victims. she previously oversaw the office of justice grant program as deputy associate attorney general. we would like to thank you for a very today and we look forward to your testimony. mr. estevez, you may begin. >> mr. chairman? thisse of a conflict later morning, can i sum it is statement for the record, please? i want to associate myself with senator mccaskill and thank her for her leadership. >> please proceed. your entire statement will be a part of the record. glad you're here. >> thank you. opportunity tohe appear before the committee and discussed the departments transfer of excess military property to law enforcement agencies. i would appreciate the committee support of the department in

your continued interest in ensuring the success of our mission. following the events in ferguson, missouri, we believe it is appropriately address the issues regarding the equipping of police forces. my written testimony has more detail and i have submitted it to the record. the transfer of excess property to law enforcement agencies is congressionally authorized program designed to ensure the use of taxpayer resources. does provide a property that ranges from office equipment and supplies to equipment that augments law enforcement abilities and enhances first responders during natural disasters. more than 8000 federal and state law-enforcement agencies actively participated in the program across 49 states in three u.s. territories. or than $5.1 billion a property has been provided since 1990. a key element of both the structure and execution of the program is the state coordinator. appointed by the respective state governor. state coordinator's approval enforcement agencies within their state to participate in a program and review all requests

for property saluted by those agencies along with the statement of intended use. working through state coordinators, law-enforcement agencies determine their need for different types of equipment and the need -- determine how it is used. the department of defense does not have the expertise and police force functions and cannot assess how equipment is used in the mission of individual law-enforcement agencies. in the past 12 months, law-enforcement agencies received approximately 1.9 million pieces of excess equipment. 1.8 million pieces of non-control or general property, office type equipment. 78,000 pieces and tactical in nature. medical kits, toolsets, generators. law-enforcement agencies currently possess approximately 40 -- 460,000 pieces of control property they have received over time. examples of control property arms,e over 92,000 small

44,000 nightvision devices, 5200 high mobility multipurpose vehicles or humvees, 617 ambush protected vehicles or mraps. the department is not provide tanks, grenade launchers, sniper rifles or uniforms. humvees,rovided to the one generator, when cargo trailer to the ferguson police department. additionally, they are provided to st. louis county police departments six pistols, 12 rifles, 15 weapon sites, one robot, three helicopters, seven humvees, and two night vision devices. property has been used in protection of law-enforcement officers and the public as well as first responder disaster relief support. for example, during the height of superstorm sandy i'm a new jersey police had three humvees and trucks to do for commercial vehicles to save 64 people.

in wisconsin, green bay police use donated computers for forensic investigations. during the 2013 flood in louisiana, police used six humvees to rescue 137 people. in texas, armored vehicles protected received through the program, through a standoff and shoot out with the members. rescued 137 people. >> the department is participating in review of programs for state and local law enforcement agencies to ensure equipment provided is appropriate to needs while enhancing safety of law enforcement personnel and communities. we will alter procedures. in summary the congressionally authorized 1033 program provides property that is in excess for

law enforcement and counter drug and counter terrorism activities and enabled first responders to save lives. the department of defense does not push equipment on police forces. state and local law enforcement agencies decide what they need and access through respective state coordinators. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the transfer of property and ready to work with congress to review the scope of the mission. >> i am assistant coordinator of department of homeland security. it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the department's homeland security preparedness programs. recent events raised questions regarding use of funds by state

and local authorities especially by law enforcement agencies. these events raised questions regarding the department's oversight of the funds. i hope my appearance before you will help answer questions. the department's programs assist communities across the nation to build and sustain critical capabilities to protect, mitt gale, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism. as a result of your support and the work of our partners throughout our country our national preparedness capabilities have matured which is a key finding of the national preparedness report released last month. the response to the 2013 boston marathon bombing demonstrated how investments have improved capabilities. the planning, organization, equipment, training and exercises all came together to enable the emergency response. grant funded equipment such as

the forward looking infrared camera on a massachusetts police state helicopter enabled the apprehension of dzhokhar tsarnaev why enhancing personal safety of law enforcement officers and protecting public safety. what happened in ferguson, missouri has prompted a national dialogue that goes well beyond the department. in mid august president obama ordered a review of programs that support law enforcement agencies. we at the department of homeland security look forward to contributing to the efforts. the homeland security grant program including state and urban area security initiative is the primary homeland security program that supports state, local and tribal 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 criminal 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 nation,risk to our homeland, how do we make sure the resources we apply our with the risk that exists? , speakat as a background

with us about each of these three programs. how will a we doing in terms of enabling law-enforcement to have the resources, some of the resources they need, to meet the level of risk they face in their communities, public safety risks. >> we bought a comment that is no longer needed for a variety of reasons. there is a variety of reasons why stuff would become excess. when it is no longer needed, we across theilable levels of department of defense first, and one for smit by congressional authorization as dibs early in that process before he goes out to state

agencies. not all of the equipment provided to law enforcement is available to everyone else. we are providing you, that i think is useful to law enforcement both from a disaster relief and public protection utilization. it is not for the department to really judge how law-enforcement -- that is not our expertise. we rely on the state coordinators provided by the governor of each state who vet incoming requests from law enforcement agencies. we do do jill jones about nh -- in regard toigence the amount, but we rely on the state coordinator. i think we are buying down risk out there for law-enforcement agencies and protection of the public and providing public safety and also disaster relief. we makeamoie, how do

sure we are aligning risk with the resources being offered by these three agencies within the federal government? >> i think is appropriate to start the discussion with risk. the homeland security grant program, state and urban area security initiative, our risk-import allocation decisions meeting the secretary of homeland security factors risk into the allocations of those funds in the statute directs in their been areas security initiative program, for example, that he put the resources in the highest risk urban areas in the united states. this year, fiscal 14, the secretary designated 39 high-risk urban areas to receive funding. the risk assessment is done in partnership with our colleagues at the department's intelligence and analysis division. 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 grenade thrown through a window in a no-knock raid. turns out the infant, obviously, wasn't involved in the 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 coordinate in the decision-making about local law enforcement requests. the process that mr. estevez has laid out, we don't coordinate that at all. >> you wouldn't know in issuing a homeland grant what the d.o.d. has done in issuance of equipment to local agencies? >> correct. >> so, how do you then know that in terms of the use of the homeland grants for this, that there isn't -- shouldn't be some follow-up? >> so, that's an entirely different story. i will say on the -- i know the defense department's equipment under the 1033 program is free. grantees have paid for, i believe, transportation costs using grant funding. but it's a very small percentage

of use of grant funds. so, in terms of how grantees use equipment that has been acquired with our programs, for the state program, even the urban area program, the grants pass through the state. 80% of the state program funding has to go to local jurisdictions within that state. so, we work with the state in oversight. in their applications they tell us more and more detail now about the projects they intend. certainly, we have the ability to drill down in as we are doing with the state of missouri and follow up on use of the equipment to ensure that it meets program requirements. so, we have this ability. we do not have real-time visibility on all acquisitions made at the local level. but working with our state partners, we can get pretty good visibility. >> can i ask -- i would like opinion from all of you, if you're able to answer. so, we focused a lot

understandably so on these programs and the military style equipment to agencies in a ferguson-type situation. what i'd like to know is the use of equipment, whether it's from homeland security, how have we evaluated the needs in a boston marathon bombing situation or a situation like that which seems to me quite different than obviously a ferguson situation. >> thanks for the question, senator. we work with grantees and provide them tools to assess the risks that they face and the hazards in their community. we try to provide them guidance on how to estimate their capabilities for addressing the threats they have identified. they certainly have discretion in terms of the kinds of equipment they think would best

meet those needs. as we did see in boston, the equipment that was purchased, including the law enforcement equipment, certainly facilitated the response. certainly facilitated the pursuit and apprehension of the tzarnaevs. >> miss mason, i wanted to ask you about on the justice end with regard to the burn jag grants. do we know how much of those grants are used for this type of equipment? having been attorney general of my state, a fair amount of those grants have gone to other things, i know, as well for example whether it's protecting children from online predators or providing assistance to victims of crime, even though there's voca and vowa funds, but there are said for how much are

used fof the funds. >> thank you for the question. as you mentioned the jag money is used to address a full range of criminal justice issues in a state. what we've seen is that of the money that's allocated for the law enforcement category, because there are courts categories, victims category, of the law enforcement category, 40% of the money allocated in that category goes to equipment. most of the equipment we're seeing people buy are computers, technology and things like that. and they're for vehicles, the jag money can only be used for cars, boats, helicopters without coming back to the director for specific approval. we're only in the last -- since 2005 we went back and did an investigation. we have approved only seven armored vehicles since 2005. >> thank you. my time is up. >> i think senator coburn has a few more questions and then we'll get to the second panel. >> i want to introduce to the record an article in the -- from

october 16, 2013, ""the boston globe,"" this sets the record straight. tzarnaev was found because the guy checked his boat. didn't have anything to do with money we spent. didn't have anything to do other than he was surprised to find this guy in fetal position in his boat and called 911. this needs to be in the record to set the record straight about what that is. >> thank you. >> i have one question for the three of you and then we'll go to the next panel. what have you heard directly from the administration in terms of review at your level about the review that the administration announced, based on what happened in ferguson? what information have you received that the justice department and homeland security and fema and at the defense department? what have you heard directly from the white house? >> we have already had meetings

on the -- about the review. we've already been supplying information. so the review is in the active process at this time. >> as far as the justice department is concerned? >> it's all -- all of us are involved. >> let me get them to answer specifically. what have you heard, brian? >> i participated in the first meeting of the review panel. it is a comprehensive review of the programs that are operation, the very same kinds of questions we talked about here. training, our oversight, auditing, noncompliance. senator, i look forward to reading that article. information that was provided to me by the massachusetts homeland security agency and the state police indicate that the -- >> and the infrared -- >> and the infrared camera was instrumental in locating him. i look forward to reading that article. >> here's the direct quote from the guy that called 911 to tell him, there's someone in my boat, he's injured, i think it's

tzarnaev. >> we've been providing information to the white house. we're fully engaged. the only reason i wasn't there is because i was out of town. >> that's great to hear. that's great to hear. that's called appropriate response. thank you. >> second panel with four witnesses. does anybody else have a question they really want to ask this -- one or two questions they really want to ask these three witnesses before we move to our second panel? >> i have two simple questions. before ferguson had the three of you ever met? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> not good. second question, do any of you now have any policy that requires you to track any kind of usage data for the equipment you're providing that is considered military grade? yes or no. >> no. >> no.

>> we do have activity reports we require on a quarterly basis from oush grantees about how they use our jag funds. >> well, i would like to see and put in the record, since you're the only one that says you claim you have usage data, i would like all the usage data that would show what military weaponry, camouflage, uniforms, helmets, all of the things we saw in ferguson, what data you >> washington journal is next live with your phone calls. ae house will consider measure related to minimum health insurance standards. gwen moore on domestic violence. trent franks on protecting key national infrastructures from terrorist attacks.

and a look at issues affecting higher education with dr. james linder. potter the c-span bus college tour big ten schools.