[Senate Hearing 113-767]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-767
OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
FOR EQUIPPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
92-902 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Gabrielle A. Batkin. Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Deputy Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Chief Counsel
Jason T. Barnosky, Senior Professional Staff Member
Robert H. Bradley, Legislative Assistant
Cathy C. Yu, Counsel
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Christopher J. Barkley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Andrew C. Dockham, Minority Counsel
Justin Rood, Minority Director of Investigations
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Lauren M. Corcoran, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Carper............................................... 1
Senator Coburn............................................... 3
Senator McCaskill............................................ 4
Senator Johnson.............................................. 21
Senator Baldwin.............................................. 24
Senator Paul................................................. 27
Senator Ayotte............................................... 29
Prepared statements:
Senator Carper............................................... 55
Senator Coburn............................................... 57
Senator McCaskill............................................ 58
Senator Landrieu............................................. 62
WITNESSES
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Hon. Alan F. Estevez, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, U.S. Department of
Defense........................................................ 8
Brian E. Kamoie, Assistant Administrator for Grant Programs,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 9
Karol V. Mason, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice........................... 11
Jim Bueermann, Chief (Ret.), Redlands, California, and President,
Police Foundation.............................................. 34
Peter B. Kraska, Ph.D., Professor, School of Justice Studies,
University of Eastern Kentucky................................. 35
Mark Lomax, Executive Director, National Tactical Officers
Association, accompanied by Major Ed Allen, Seminole County
Sheriff's Office............................................... 37
Wiley Price, Photojournalist, The St. Louis American Newspaper... 39
Hilary O. Shelton, Washington Bureau Director and Senior Vice
President for Policy and Advocacy, National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People.................................. 40
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Bueerman, Jim:
Testimony.................................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Estevez, Hon. Alan F.:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Kamoie, Brian E.:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Kraska, Peter B. Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Lomax, Mark:
Testimony.................................................... 37
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 107
Mason, Karol V.:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Price, Wiley:
Testimony.................................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 209
Shelton, Hilary O.:
Testimony.................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 210
APPENDIX
Additional statements for the Record:
Boston Globe Article......................................... 218
DOD 1033 Program Fact Sheet.................................. 224
Document submitted by Senator McCaskill...................... 230
Pictures submitted by Senator McCaskill...................... 233
Information submitted by Senator Baldwin..................... 259
American Civil Liberties Union............................... 267
American Psychological Assocation............................ 376
Conference of Mayors......................................... 385
Fraternal Order of Police.................................... 387
Major County Sheriffs........................................ 393
Mound City Bar Association................................... 403
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc................ 404
National Association of Police Organizations, Inc............ 414
Norm Stamper, Seattle Chief of Police (Ret.)................. 416
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Estevez.................................................. 424
Mr. Kamoie................................................... 463
Ms. Mason.................................................... 480
Mr. Bueerman................................................. 510
Mr. Kraska................................................... 515
Mr. Lomax.................................................... 520
Ms. Shelton.................................................. 527
OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
FOR EQUIPPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
Carper, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Landrieu, McCaskill, Baldwin,
Coburn, Johnson, Paul, and Ayotte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER
Chairman Carper. The hearing will come to order. We want to
welcome all of our guests this morning. We especially want to
welcome our witnesses, the first panel and our second panel.
One month ago today, an unarmed young man named Michael
Brown was shot and killed by a local policeman in the town of
Ferguson, Missouri. It has been stated that the officer was
acting in self-defense. While the incident remains under
investigation, this much is known. It has caused very real pain
for Mr. Brown's family, as well as for many residents of
Ferguson and for others across our country. The events that
unfolded in Ferguson have sparked a much needed national
discussion on a range of issues, including police strategy, law
enforcement response to civil protest and unrest, and race
relations. The purpose of today's hearing, though, 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 today's hearing is to examine the
effectiveness of Federal programs that provide State and local
police with surplus military equipment and grant funding for
equipment, exercises, planning, and training. The issues we
will be discussing today are not just about Ferguson. They
affect communities across our Nation. As we take a 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 serve, and especially
to taxpayers.
I want to just start off by thanking Senator McCaskill and
her staff for all of their efforts in organizing this hearing
and for co-chairing it with me. Our colleague from Missouri has
spent a great deal of time in Ferguson this past month
examining these issues, and we look forward to learning from
her firsthand experiences. Claire, I want to thank you for your
leadership during this difficult time and, for all that you
have done to help our country move forward and learn from what
you and your fellow Missourians have been grappling with.
During the weeks that followed the shooting of Michael
Brown, national media attention focused on the protests,
including the response by local law enforcement. Many questions
rightfully have been posed by local leaders, by civil rights
organizations, by police associations, law enforcement experts,
and others on whether the police response was correct,
measured, and appropriate.
In thinking about these issues we will be discussing today,
I cannot help but think about how, in my own home State of
Delaware, we are learning all over again the value of our
police spending more time outside of their police cars, working
and talking every day with people in the community and engaging
them in positive ways. As you might imagine, this helps build
the bonds of trust that strengthen communities in ways that
armored personnel vehicles and assault weapons never can.
We have convened today to examine the Federal Government's
role in helping State and local police do their important work.
Since 1997, Federal agencies have supplied over $5 billion in
surplus Department of Defense (DOD) supplies and equipment to
law enforcement. In addition, both the Departments of Justice
(DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) administer grant programs
that also can pay for military-style gear such as armored vests
and vehicles.
In light of the events in Ferguson, our Committee has
reviewed the role of Federal agencies in providing equipment,
supplies, and weapons to State and local law enforcement. Our
staff has received briefings from the agencies and has reviewed
key documents. This review by Congress is long overdue. The
Federal witnesses with us today will describe the programs that
can supply tactical and 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 and opinions on these programs, including
some with law enforcement backgrounds.
We will explore the proper roles and techniques for using
this equipment. We will also examine whether Congress should do
more to monitor and hold accountable the police departments
that obtain sophisticated equipment. These programs were
established with a very good intention: to provide equipment
that would help law enforcement perform their duties. The
question is whether what our police receive matches 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,
including organized crime and gangs. In addition, we all
remember well how helpful some of these programs were to enable
police to perform extraordinarily well in the aftermath of the
Boston Marathon bombing. But for these programs, the response
would not have been as fast or as effective.
Of course, the job of law enforcement is to protect the
lives and the well-being of the people of our Nation. Equally
important, the job of law enforcement is the protection of our
civil rights. So we will also hear from witnesses with
expertise on the civil rights issues that arise as a result of
these programs.
It is my hope that we in Congress and other government
leaders learn from what is discussed during today's hearing and
from the ongoing developments in Ferguson and in similar
situations across the country. In closing, we are here today
because we have responsibility to ensure accountability of
funds and equipment provided by the Federal Government to State
and local police. It is our job to ensure that these programs
provide value to police, to the communities they serve, and to
taxpayers.
Dr. Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN
Senator Coburn. Good morning, and thank you to our
witnesses for appearing, both this panel and the second one.
And thank you to the Chairman for convening this hearing.
As I look at my short time left remaining in Congress, and
having traveled for 2 weeks in Oklahoma in August, I am brought
constantly and frequently back to the position of our
Founders--and not only their vision but their wisdom.
Protect and Serve. Our Founders saw no role for the Federal
Government in State and local police forces. None. And yet what
we have seen is, on the basis of what we saw on 9/11, what
seems to be an overreaction and a progress toward the Federal
Government and law enforcement is doing the same thing it has
done in every other area when it comes to the General Welfare
Clause and the Commerce Clause. And 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.''
I have some real heartburn with not just the 1033 program,
with the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants, with
some of the Justice Department grants, and with a lot of the
homeland security grants in terms of how they have been
utilized, what they have been utilized for. And 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 9/11. But I think we need to have a
good airing. We need to re-center where we are.
There is no role for the Federal Government in the local
and State police forces in our country. And I hope we can
winnow that out today to see where we have stepped across the
line and actually have created some problems that would not
have been there otherwise.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carper. Thank you, Dr. Coburn.
Once she has given her opening statement, I am going to ask
Senator McCaskill to introduce our witnesses, and we will look
forward to that. I will lead off the questioning. I am going to
have to leave just a little before 11:15 for a meeting in the
Capitol. I am going to try to get back. But in the meantime,
you are chairing. Thanks very much.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Chairman Carper. 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 important areas, and I am
very appreciative of the fact that it has been elevated to the
full Committee.
I first approached Chairman Carper 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 being 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 a
suburban street in St. Louis being transformed with vivid
images, powerful images, across this country into a war zone,
complete with camouflage, tear gas, rubber bullets, armored
vehicles, and laser sights 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. I am hoping that what happened in Ferguson and what
we learn 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 departments across the country to acquire the
military weapons, vehicles, and other types of equipment we saw
used in Ferguson. The Department of Defense's 1033 program,
which was authorized in its current form 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 vehicles (MRAPs). They are heavily armored vehicles
built to withstand roadside bombs and improved explosive
devices (IEDs). These are vehicles so heavy that they can tear
up roads, and 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 the Department of
Defense, in just the last 3 years, the Department of Defense
has given 624 MRAPs to State and local law enforcement
agencies, seemingly without regard to need or size of the
agency that has received them. At least 13 law enforcement
agencies with fewer than 10 full-time sworn officers received
an MRAP in the last 3 years. The number of MRAPs in the
possession of local police and sheriff departments is now far
higher than the MRAPs in possession of our country's National
Guard.
In Texas, for example, local law enforcement agencies have
73 MRAPs. The National Guard has only six. In Florida, local
law enforcement agencies have 45 MRAPs. The National Guard has
zero. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the
information provided me from the Defense Department be included
in the hearing record today.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information provided by the Department of Defense appears
in the Appendix on page 224.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Carper. Without objection.
Senator McCaskill. And also, the Department of Justice
information received about consent decrees into the record.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The information from the Department of Justice and submitted by
Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Carper. Without objection.
Senator McCaskill. I question whether State and local law
enforcement agencies need this kind of equipment and certainly
whether they need it more than our States' National Guards. One
of the key lessons learned throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan
wars was the idea that we had to win hearts and minds, and one
of the ways the military tried to do that was by 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. I, therefore, find it ironic that at the same time
we are embracing those tactics as strong evidence of progress
against a counterinsurgency, we are, in fact, underlining the
militarization of our domestic police departments.
I also have questions about why the Defense Department is
giving away some of this material. According to the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA)--and we will have a witness from that
agency testify momentarily--approximately 36 percent of the
equipment that is given away to law enforcement is brand new.
Now, we will give you a chance to counter that. That was in
the information we received from DLA.
Even if it is not 36 percent, if any of it is brand new,
then there is a real question about what are we doing. Why are
we buying things in the Department of Defense merely to turn
around and give them away?
All of it--weapons, tactical equipment, office supplies--is
still usable, and identical or similar items will be needed and
bought new by the Defense Department again. It does not appear
that buying new equipment to give it away and then spending
money to replace it is an effective use of the Defense
Department's resources.
Local law enforcement agencies are also requiring military-
type equipment using grants from the Department of Justice and
the Department of Homeland Security. In fiscal year (FY) 2014,
the Department of Homeland Security made available over $400
million under its State Homeland Security Program and another
$587 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 and
tactical equipment. And the Department of Justice Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, which received $376 million in
appropriations in fiscal year 2014, gives State and local law
enforcement agencies funding that can be used from everything
from mobile data terminals, lethal and non-lethal weapons, to
office supplies and uniforms, and to provide the maintenance
funds to maintain the expensive vehicles that have been given
them by the Department of Defense.
These 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 do
not track the purchases or keep adequate data. So we just
cannot know from asking these agencies how much military
equipment or anything else that local law enforcement agencies
are actually buying. In fact, it is possible that either or
both of these programs are funding police departments to, in
fact, as I mentioned previously, maintain and sustain the same
equipment they are getting for free from another Federal
agency.
I am confident that 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 that our law enforcement officers--those brave men
and women who have sworn to protect us--have the equipment they
need to maximize their own safety. But we also have to
acknowledge that giving military-grade vehicles and weapons to
every police officer and police force in America comes with
costs, both in ways officers are perceived and 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 are painted black and used with the utmost discretion,
are, by definition, intimidating. And 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 he actually needs or
capabilities of local forces, and inadequate guidelines
directing their use may just be asking for the kind of
overmilitarization that we saw on some days and evenings in
Ferguson.
I was happy to hear that the White House has launched its
own review of the programs and policies that have driven police
militarization in this country, and I look forward to the
results of that review. However, I understand that many of
these issues may only be solved by legislation. I plan to build
on what I learn today, together with my colleagues on this
Committee, and to work with my fellow Senators in the coming
weeks on legislation that will address the many public policy
concerns that I am confident will arise in today's hearing.
I thank the witnesses for being here today. I certainly
thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their calling of this
full Committee hearing, and we look forward to the testimony of
the witnesses.
Chairman Carper. Senator McCaskill, thank you again for
your efforts in this whole incident and everything that flows
from it.
If you would go ahead and just briefly introduce the
witnesses, they all can testify, and then I will ask the first
question, yield to Dr. Coburn, and then Senator McCaskill will
be on her way. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Our first witness is Alan Estevez. He is
the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics at the U.S. Department
of Defense. Mr. Estevez has managed military logistics,
acquisitions, and supplies for the Department of Defense in
various capabilities since 2002 and has overseen military
acquisitions worth more than $170 billion. Mr. Estevez has
worked with the Office of the Secretary of Defense since 1981.
Brian Kamoie is the Assistant Administrator for Grant
Programs for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Mr. Kamoie 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. Mr. Kamoie previously served on the White House
National Security staff and with the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) on hazard preparation.
Karol Mason is the Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs (OJP). Ms. Mason oversees an annual budget of
more than $2 billion dedicated to supporting State, local, and
tribal criminal justice agencies, an array of juvenile justice
programs, a wide range of research, evaluation, and statistical
efforts, and comprehensive services for crime victims. Ms.
Mason previously oversaw the Office of Justice Grant Programs
as Deputy Associate Attorney General.
We would like to thank you for appearing today, and we look
forward to your testimony. Mr. Estevez, you may begin.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carper. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Because I have a conflict later this
morning, can I submit a statement for the record,\1\ please?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu appears in the
Appendix on page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Carper. Certainly.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. And I want to associate myself
with the remarks of Senator McCaskill and thank her for her
leadership.
Chairman Carper. You bet.
All right. Mr. Estevez, please proceed. Your entire
statement will be made part of the record. Just feel free to
summarize. If you go much over 5 minutes, we will have to rein
you in. Thank you. We are glad you are here.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ALAN F. ESTEVEZ,\1\ PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND
TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Estevez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn,
Senator McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before the Committee and discuss the
Department's transfer of excess military property to law
enforcement agencies. I appreciate the Committee's support of
the Department and your continued interest in ensuring the
success of our mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Estevez appears in the Appendix
on page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the events in Ferguson, Missouri, I believe it is
appropriate that we address the issues regarding the equipping
of police forces. As you note, my written testimony has more
detail, and I submit it to the record.
The transfer of excess property to law enforcement agencies
is a congressionally authorized program designed to ensure good
stewardship over taxpayer resources. The program has provided
property that ranges from office equipment and supplies to
equipment that augments local law enforcement capabilities and
enhances first responders during natural disasters.
More than 8,000 Federal and State law enforcement agencies
actively participate in the program across 49 States and three
U.S. territories. More than $5.1 billion of property has been
provided since 1990.
A key element in both the structure and execution of the
program is the State Coordinator, who is appointed by their
respective State Governor. State Coordinators approve law
enforcement agencies within their State to participate in the
program and review all requests for property submitted by those
agencies along with a statement of intended use. Working
through State Coordinators, law enforcement agencies determine
their need for different types of equipment, and they determine
how it is used. The Department of Defense does not have the
expertise in police force functions and cannot assess how
equipment is used in the mission of individual law enforcement
agencies.
Within the past 12 months, law enforcement agencies
received approximately 1.9 million pieces of excess equipment:
1.8 million pieces of non-controlled or general property--that
would be office-type equipment--and 78,000 pieces of controlled
property. That is property that is more tactical in nature.
Non-controlled items range from file cabinets to medical kits,
generators to tool sets. Law enforcement agencies currently
posses 460,000 pieces of controlled property that they have
received over time. Examples of controlled property include
over 92,000 small arms, 44,000 night vision devices, 5,200 high
mobility, multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs), and 617
mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles. The Department does
not provide tanks, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, crew-
served weapons, or uniforms.
DOD has provided two HMMWV, one generator, and one cargo
trailer to the Ferguson Police Department. Additionally, DOD
has provided to St. Louis County Police Departments 6 pistols,
12 rifles, 15 weapons sights, 1 explosive ordnance disposal
robot, 3 helicopters, 7 HMMWVs, and 2 night vision devices.
Property obtained through this program has been used
extensively in both protection of law enforcement officers and
the public as well as for first responder disaster relief
support. For example, during the height of Superstorm Sandy,
New Jersey police drove two cargo trucks and three HMMWVs
through water too deep for commercial vehicles to save 64
people. In Wisconsin, Green Bay police used donated computers
for forensic investigations. During a 2013 flood in Louisiana,
Livingston Parish police used six HMMWVs to rescue 137 people.
In Texas, armored vehicles received through the program
protected police officers during a standoff and shootout with
gang members.
The Department is participating in the administration's
Interagency Review of Federal Programs for Equipping State and
Local Law Enforcement Agencies to ensure that equipment
provided is appropriate to their needs, while enhancing the
safety of law enforcement personnel and their communities. We
will alter our procedures and propose any legislative changes
we believe necessary that come as a result of that review.
In summary, the congressionally authorized 1033 program
provides property that is excess to the needs of the Department
of Defense for use by agencies in law enforcement, counter-
drug, and counterterrorism activities. It enables first
responders and others to ensure the public's safety and save
lives. The Department of Defense does not push equipment on any
police force. State and local law enforcement agencies decide
what they need and access our excess equipment through their
respective State Coordinators.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the
Department's transfer of excess military property. The
Department is ready to work with Congress to review the program
scope and mission. I look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Carper. Thank you, Mr. Estevez. Mr. Kamoie.
TESTIMONY OF BRIAN E. KAMOIE,\1\ ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
GRANT PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Kamoie. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Chairman
McCaskill, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee.
I am Brian Kamoie, Assistant Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland
Security. On behalf of Secretary Johnson and Administrator
Fugate, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss
the Department's Homeland Security preparedness grant programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kamoie appears in the Appendix on
page 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, have raised questions
regarding the use of Federal grant funds by State and local
authorities, especially the use of funds by law enforcement
agencies. These events have also raised questions regarding the
Department's oversight of these funds. I hope that my
appearance before you today will help answer those questions.
As you know, the Department's preparedness grant programs
assist communities across the Nation to build and sustain
critical capabilities to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond
to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic
events. As a result of your support and investments and the
work of our partners throughout our country, our national
preparedness capabilities have matured, which is a key finding
of the Department's third annual National Preparedness Report
released last month.
The response to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing
demonstrated how preparedness grant investments have improved
capabilities. The activities supported by grant funding--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 State Police helicopter enabled the apprehension
of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, while enhancing the 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 and its
grant programs. In mid-August, President Obama ordered a review
of Federal programs that support State, local, and tribal law
enforcement agencies. We at the Department of Homeland Security
look forward to contributing to this effort and to the insights
it will provide.
The Homeland Security Grant Program, including the State
Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security
Initiative, is the primary Homeland Security Grant Program that
supports State, local, and tribal communities, including the
law enforcement community. Funds under these programs are
awarded directly to States or tribes, which in turn manage,
distribute, and track the funding. Thus, 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 (IG) and by States for the State
and Urban Areas programs.
Under the Homeland Security Act, States are required to
distribute 80 percent of the funds awarded under the State
program to local communities within their State. The act also
requires the Department to ensure that at least 25 percent of
the combined funds allocated under the State and Urban Areas
programs are used for law enforcement terrorism prevention
activities. These activities include the purchase of equipment.
Grant recipients must purchase equipment listed on the
Department's Authorized Equipment List, which outlines 21
categories of allowable equipment. The Department prohibits the
use of grant funds for the purchase of lethal or non-lethal
weapons and ammunition. These equipment categories are not on
the Authorized Equipment List.
Homeland Security grant funds may be used to purchase
equipment that can be classified as personal protective
equipment, such as ballistics protection equipment, helmets,
body armor, and ear and eye protection. Response vehicles, such
as Bearcats, are also allowed. 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 Equipment List also notes that ballistic
personal protective equipment purchased with grant funds is not
for riot suppression.
The Department has worked with Missouri officials and
searched our own data to identify equipment purchased with
preparedness grant funds. We will continue our discussions with
Missouri officials to determine which specific items may have
been deployed to Ferguson.
In reviewing the use of those grant funds, the Department
will make every effort to evaluate whether the use was
appropriate under grant program rules. This includes the
requirement and assurance that Federal grant funds not be used
to engage in any conduct that is contrary to any Federal,
State, or local law.
The Department considers oversight of grant programs a
priority and takes this responsibility very seriously. The
Department's financial and programmatic grant monitoring
provides a systematic means of ensuring oversight,
accountability, and proper management of preparedness funds. We
strive continually to improve the Department's oversight of
these funds.
Chairman Carper, Chairman McCaskill, Ranking Member Coburn,
and 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 any questions you
may have.
Chairman Carper. Mr. Kamoie, thanks so much for that
testimony.
Ms. Mason, please proceed. Make sure that your mic is on,
please.
TESTIMONY OF KAROL V. MASON,\1\ ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Mason. Good morning. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
Coburn, Senator McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today
about the Department of Justice's role in supporting State and
local law enforcement agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Mason appears in the Appendix on
page 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, have raised concerns
about whether State and local law enforcement's use of
military-type equipment and tactical training should be more
closely examined. As President Obama has said, the laws of the
United States mandate a clear distinction between our national
armed forces and civilian State and local law enforcement. To
help maintain that distinction while ensuring that civilian law
enforcement departments have access to state-of-the-art
equipment and training, Congress has authorized the Department
of Justice to administer programs and funding to help State,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies safeguard their
communities, while also protecting the civil liberties of their
citizens.
As Assistant Attorney General of the 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 overall mission to provide
leadership, information, and other assistance to strengthen
community safety and ensure the fair administration of justice.
One of our largest programs and the leading source of
Federal funding for law enforcement is the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. JAG, a formula
grant program, supports a wide range of activities intended to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal
justice system.
Due to its importance in community crime prevention and
reduction, we take great pains to see that funds are used
appropriately and administered in the most transparent way
possible.
Our Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the office
responsible for managing the JAG program, takes a number of
steps to ensure compliance with program stipulations and
prevent misuse of funds, including the requirement of quarterly
financial and activity reports and an annual desk review of
each of its active grants. These measures allow us to maximize
our oversight of JAG grants and minimize the potential for
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 deploy state-of-the-art equipment and
technology to aid them 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 the
Department of Homeland Security has allowed us to collaborate
on the research and development of these technologies and to
help make them available to public safety agencies. We
accomplish this by providing technical assistance to State 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
requests for assistance. We are actively working to improve our
understanding of the nature of these interactions and to
bolster our collections of data on the excessive use of force
by law enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice and my office, the
Office of Justice Programs, are committed to using our
resources to help America's law enforcement agencies protect
their communities while earning the trust and respect of the
citizens they serve. We will continue to bring the latest
knowledge and the best tools to this task. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward
to working with this Committee to ensure that we are able to
meet our collective goals of public safety and public trust.
Thank you.
Chairman Carper. Ms. Mason, thank you for that testimony,
and again, to each of you, for what you have had to say.
Dr. Coburn and I and the Members of this Committee spend a
lot of time trying to figure out how do we make sure that the
amount of resources that we are applying to a particular
problem or challenge, particularly something that poses a risk
to our Nation, to our homeland, how do we make sure that the
resources that we apply are commensurate with the risk that
exists. With that as a metric, with that as background, speak
with us about each of these three programs. How well are we
doing in terms of enabling law enforcement to have the
resources, some of the resources that they need, to meet the
level of risk that they face in their communities, public
safety risks? Mr. Estevez, please.
Mr. Estevez. From a taxpayer perspective, we have bought
equipment that is no longer needed by the Department of Defense
for a variety of reasons, and I will say, Senator McCaskill, it
is not that some of it is not new, ``brand new'' is the term
that I was shaking my head at. And there is a variety of
reasons why stuff would become excess. But when it is no longer
needed, we make it available across the Department of Defense
first, and law enforcement by congressional authorization has
dibs early in that process, before it goes out to State
agencies. And not all of the equipment that is provided to law
enforcement is available to everyone else.
I think we are providing equipment that is useful to law
enforcement, both from a disaster relief and from a public
protection utilization, and it is not for the Department to
really judge how law enforcement--that is not our expertise. We
rely on the State Coordinators appointed by the Governor of
each of those States who vet incoming requests from their local
law enforcement agencies. We do due diligence about numbers, if
it is an agency requests, 100 rifles and there are only 10 law
enforcement officers, they do not get 100, they get 10. But we
rely on the State Coordinator.
So I think we are buying down risk out there for our law
enforcement agencies and the protection of the public and
providing public safety and also, of course, disaster relief.
Chairman Carper. Excuse me. Mr. Kamoie, same question. How
do we make sure that we are aligning risk with the resources
that are being offered by these three agencies within the
Federal Government?
Mr. Kamoie. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I think it is
appropriate to start the discussion with risk. As you know, the
Homeland Security Grant Program, both the State program and the
Urban Area Security Initiative, are risk-informed allocation
decisions, meaning the Secretary of Homeland Security factors
risk into the allocation of those funds, and the statute
directs in the Urban Area Security Initiative program, for
example, that he put the resources in the highest-risk urban
areas in the United States. In this year, fiscal year 2014, 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, working with the Department of Justice and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the intelligence
community (IC). So we provide the Secretary with the best
picture of risk we can. We recommend to him allocations based
on those risk profiles. We communicate with the jurisdictions
about their risk profiles, invite them to submit information to
us that they believe we might not have or we might not have
take into account. And then the Secretary makes those
allocation decisions.
As to how well we are doing, what I would point to is the
requirement vis-a-vis law enforcement that 25 percent of the
annual appropriations for the State and Urban Areas programs go
to law enforcement. For the 5-year period of fiscal year 2008
to fiscal year 2012, States----
Chairman Carper. Go ahead and wrap it up, and I want to
leave some time for Ms. Mason, please.
Mr. Kamoie. Absolutely. States exceeded that 25-percent
requirement by nearly $1 billion, and they spent 36 percent of
the funding. So the funding is getting to the law enforcement
as the statute intends.
Chairman Carper. Good. Ms. Mason, same question. Risk,
resources, how are they aligned?
Ms. Mason. Thank you, Senator. The JAG Program is a formula
program and money is allocated to State and local jurisdictions
based on a formula, based on the violent crime rates and
population data. And the Office of Justice Programs has very
little discretion over the use of that money by State and local
jurisdictions.
But what we do is provide them with training about various
criminal justice issues, and we are in the process of pulling
together a toolkit that will enable law enforcement to know how
to, for example, control crowds while also protecting civil
liberties.
So 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.
Chairman Carper. All right. Thank you.
The second question deals with coordination or the appeared
lack thereof. In some cases you are directed to coordinate. You
are directed by law to be coordinating from agency to agency.
Give us some examples of maybe where you are coordinating well
and, frankly, some areas where you need to coordinate better,
please. Really succinct and right to the point, please.
Mr. Estevez. We need to do a better job in coordination.
Let me start off there. There is probably a failure in
coordination across the interagency regarding what we are
providing. The Department is coordinating with the State
Coordinators, coordinating with our colleagues, my fellow
witnesses. We do, when, there is missing equipment, coordinate
and let them know that kind of issue. But coordinating on what
police forces could use, that could be better.
Chairman Carper. Mr. Kamoie.
Mr. Kamoie. Mr. Chairman, I think we are coordinating well
in the risk assessment that I mentioned that informs the
allocation of the programs. But I think through our discussion
today and the White House review, I think we will have a lot of
opportunity to improve how we coordinate on the downstream use
of the equipment, perhaps discussion of training and what else
we might do. So I think there is a lot of opportunity for
improvement.
Chairman Carper. Thank you. Ms. Mason.
Ms. Mason. I concur 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.
Chairman Carper. Just give us, very briefly, some idea of
how the review is going. Give us some idea of what the timeline
is for completion of the review, when we will have an
opportunity to hear about it.
Mr. Estevez. It is in its preliminary stages, Senator. I am
not sure what the outcome timeline is.
Chairman Carper. Are we talking this quarter? This year?
Mr. Estevez. I am going to defer to Brian, who is actually
sitting on that.
Mr. Kamoie. Sorry, Chairman. I do not 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.
Chairman Carper. If you would just answer that question for
the record, think about it a little further and answer that
question.
Chairman Carper. You do not have anything, Ms. Mason?
Ms. Mason. No, I do not have any more information about the
timeline, but I----
Chairman Carper. We want a good, thoughtful, comprehensive
review, but we want it sooner rather than later.
The last thing I want to say before I turn the gavel over
to Senator McCaskill and leave, my colleagues have heard me say
more than a few times, one of the adages that my father often
gave to my sister and me when we were kids growing up, we would
do some bone-headed stunt, he was always saying, ``Just use
some common sense.'' I would just hope, in addition to all the
rules and regulations and oversight and laws we have in place
dealing with these issues, I just hope we are using some common
sense. I hope we are using it within certainly this Committee.
I hope we are using it within the agencies that oversee these
three programs. And I hope they are using it at the State and
local level.
I am going to run off to this meeting at the Capitol. If I
can get back, I will. And if not, Senator McCaskill, you have
it. Thank you all. Dr. Coburn.
Senator Coburn. Thank you.
Mr. Estevez, when was the last time that you can recall
that the equipment from a 1033 transfer program was used in
counterterrorism?
Mr. Estevez. Senator, we do not have the capability of
monitoring how the equipment that we have provided is----
Senator Coburn. I understand that, but do you have any
recollection--other than Boston and the Tsarnaev and he is in
the boat and maybe some equipment was used there, when----
Mr. Estevez. I do not, Senator.
Senator Coburn. Does anybody know when the last time in
terms of true counterterrorism that equipment was used?
Mr. Estevez. I am sure we could pulse the system for
anecdotes on that, but I really would have to do that, sir.
Senator Coburn. All right. I am not going to go through the
audit and the lack of response or timely response by your
organization to the audit, but how do you all determine what
Federal supply classes are available to be transferred?
Mr. Estevez. That is done basically by our item managers
who manage----
Senator Coburn. I know, but tell me, how do they decide an
MRAP is appropriate for a community of my hometown, 35,000
people?
Mr. Estevez. That is done by the State Coordinator.
Senator Coburn. I understand that, but how did you ever
decide that an MRAP is an appropriate vehicle for local police
forces?
Mr. Estevez. An MRAP is a truck, Senator, with----
Senator Coburn. No, it is not a truck. It is a 48,000-pound
offensive weapon.
Mr. Estevez. It is not an offensive weapon, Senator. It----
Senator Coburn. It can be used as an offensive weapon.
Mr. Estevez. When we give an MRAP, it is stripped of all
its electronic warfare capability. It does not have a .50-
caliber weapon on it. It is not an offensive weapon. It is a
protective vehicle.
Senator Coburn. OK. I will just make a point. You all give
out .30-caliber weapons. It is on your list. A .30 caliber is a
3-centimeter weapon. That is this big. That is the size of the
shell. I just want to know how you come about to say that
Muskogee, Oklahoma--and I know who makes the decision on
whether equipment--but you make it available, and then a State
through the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) and the State
Coordinator determines that they get one of those. There are
six of them in Oklahoma, all right? How did we ever get to the
point where we think States need MRAPs? How did that process
come about?
Mr. Estevez. This is one of the areas that we are obviously
going to look at, Senator, on how we decided what equipment is
available. I mean, obviously we have made some big decisions.
Fighter aircraft, tanks, Strykers, those types of things are
not available. Sniper rifles, not available. Grenade launchers,
not available.
Senator Coburn. Drones are available.
Mr. Estevez. No.
Senator Coburn. Airplanes are available.
Mr. Estevez. Airplanes are available.
Senator Coburn. Helicopters are----
Mr. Estevez. Cargo helicopters, helicopters, not Apaches.
Senator Coburn. OK. But, you cannot tell us today how we
make those decisions of what goes on the list and off the list.
Mr. Estevez. It is basically a common-sense decision inside
the Department, and then we do, as I keep saying, go back to
the States.
Senator Coburn. When something is removed from the list--
and I do not know if you have any recent experience with this--
are agencies required to return the restricted equipment?
Mr. Estevez. That is why we retain title for what we call
controlled equipment, so that we can pull that equipment.
Senator Coburn. So is a .30-caliber gun----
Mr. Estevez. A 7.62 weapon is available on the--7.62mm is
available.
Senator Coburn. I am talking 30--OK.
Mr. Estevez. No crew-served weapons, nothing that requires
a belt for feeding ammunition.
Senator Coburn. All right. Are you aware of any that have
been previously authorized that are now restricted?
Mr. Estevez. The type of stuff that we have ended up
further restricting, body armor. We used to provide body armor.
We no longer do that. Part of that is for safety reasons. Once
body armor becomes excess, we cannot guarantee its safety.
Major equipment, I am not aware of any, Senator.
Senator Coburn. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Kamoie, according to FEMA's Authorized Equipment List,
battle dress uniforms are an authorized purchase under
preparedness grant programs, right?
Mr. Kamoie. I believe that is correct, Senator.
Senator Coburn. Why?
Mr. Kamoie. The Authorized Equipment List is reviewed
biannually, and we consult with State and local responders and
stakeholders and the grantees who advise us on what it is they
need to build the capabilities to support the national
preparedness goals. Responders----
Senator Coburn. Let us get right down to the point----
Mr. Kamoie. So responders have told us that----
Senator Coburn. So we need to have in the States, funded by
the Federal Government, a militarized police force? I mean,
that is a component of it.
Mr. Kamoie. Well, I think a lot more----
Senator Coburn. And that fits in with our goals?
Mr. Kamoie. We certainly can review the types of uniforms
that our responders are requesting, but they have advised us,
in the building of capabilities to fight terrorism, that this
type of dress would be useful.
Senator Coburn. OK. Let me ask you the same question I
asked Mr. Estevez. When was the last time that you are aware,
in terms of the grant money that is being given out, either the
UASI grants or the Homeland Security grants--and, by the way,
the Homeland Security grants are not based on risk. The UASI
grants are. The others are based on a mandate that came through
this Committee that said X State will get X percent, rather
than doing it on risk like we should have. When was the last
time we have seen what you have given being used, other than
the response to the Tsarnaev brothers, used against
counterterrorism?
Mr. Kamoie. That was the last time, the Tsarnaev----
Senator Coburn. When was another time?
Mr. Kamoie. I am quite sure that New York used its Domain
Awareness System in the Times Square bombing attempt. That is a
funded asset with these grant funds.
Senator Coburn. OK.
Mr. Kamoie. So within the last----
Senator Coburn. With the Homeland Security grants, with the
1033 program, with the Department of Justice grants, over the
last 5 years, we have put out $41 billion worth of money, and
we know of really two times.
The point I am getting to is that we will never have enough
money to be totally prepared for everything, and so the
question is, it is common sense, much like the Chairman said,
and judgement, and I see I am about to run out of time. We need
a reassessment, both of the 1033 and both the grant programs at
Homeland Security as well as the Byrne Justice program. I will
submit the rest of my questions for the record.
And, Ms. Mason, I just want to extend, if I may, just for a
moment. I did a complete oversight of the grant programs 3\1/2\
years ago at the Justice Department, and what we saw was not
pretty. And your testimony kind of inferred that you guys are
really on top of all your grants right now. Would you kind of
restate what you said in your opening testimony in terms of
your grant management?
Ms. Mason. 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 Office of the
Audit Assessment and Management, where we do a lot of internal
self-assessment and looking at our programs. We have
implemented risk assessment tools to determine which of our
grants should get more in-depth monitoring. So we have also
implemented that every single one of our grants gets a desk
review every year. So we believe that we are doing a much
better job in overseeing our grant programs.
Senator Coburn. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. [Presiding.] 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 programs, 36 percent of the property issued is new
and not used. In other words, almost 40 percent of what you are
giving away has never been used by the military.
Mr. Estevez. And I apologize for shaking my head when you
said that earlier. What they said is that it is Condition Code
A. Condition Code A is like new.
Senator McCaskill. OK. 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? And isn't that a fundamental
problem that you need to get at? Before we even talk about
whether all this 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 that--and, by the way, we
are going to--I guarantee you when I get this list--and I will,
because this will not be the last hearing we have on this. I
guarantee you the stuff you are giving away, you are continuing
to buy. I guarantee it. So tell me how that happens.
Mr. Estevez. Well, first of all, we will have to look at
the type of stuff that is provided in new condition.
Senator McCaskill. Well, give me an example of something
that is provided in new condition.
Mr. Estevez. Senator, I will have to go through----
Senator McCaskill. But 36 percent of what you are giving
away, you have no idea what it is you are giving away that is
new?
Mr. Estevez. I will have to go through the list, Senator,
and I will be happy to take your question for the record on
that. So as force structure changes, as our budget changes,
things that we thought we would need were no longer needed, or
things that we bought for the war--and I am not talking about
tactical rifles and the like. I am talking about basic medical
kits, that type of stuff--may no longer be needed as we draw
down force structure based on changing environment on the
ground.
The Budget Control Act (BCA) changes our force structure.
Things that we required will no longer be needed as that force
structure changes. That is the basic reason.
Senator McCaskill. Well, this is actually totally in your
wheelhouse because you have acquisitions. So if we are buying
so much stuff--and what is going to drive me crazy is when I
figure out that what you gave away last year, you bought this
year. That is going to drive me crazy. So just be ready. It is
going to drive me crazy.
Let me look at how much you are giving away. I know that
this is the State Coordinator, but I want to make sure that we
are clear about how out of control some of this is.
In Dr. Coburn's State, the Payne City 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 somehow proportional to the size of a force.
Before you answer that, let me give you this fact. In the
Lake Angelus 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?
Mr. Estevez. 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. So I would have to look at the incident in
Senator Coburn's State. And the same thing with rifles,
weapons.
Senator McCaskill. I will make part of the record the
list.\1\ We have a long list of law enforcement agencies that
received 3 times as many 5.56 and 7.62 military-grade weapons
per full-time officer, and this is a long list. This is not a
short list. So, I think we need to get to the bottom of that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information provided by Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 224.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk allocation you talked about, Mr. Kamoie, there is
a formula that every State gets money, regardless of risk,
right? It does not matter if you have zero risk in your State.
Everyone gets money.
Mr. Kamoie. There are State minimums prescribed by the
Homeland Security----
Senator McCaskill. Which has nothing to do with risk.
Mr. Kamoie. Correct.
Senator McCaskill. OK. I want to make sure we are clear on
that. And isn't it true now that rather than these communities
coming and saying, ``This is what we have figured out we
need,'' now you tell them how much money they get, and they
give you a list of what they want to buy with it?
Mr. Kamoie. Well, we have actually moved more toward
project-based applications where we are asking grantees up
front to identify the types of projects and the investment,
really with an eye toward tighter fiscal management and
oversight of the programs. We want to know more of this. I
think the evolution of the program has gone from, at a time
when they were pretty generic homeland security strategies at
the State level, where we are trying to tighten the investment
justifications and then telling us in advance.
Senator McCaskill. MRAPs can be very dangerous, correct,
Mr. Estevez? They flip?
Mr. Estevez. They are very heavy vehicles.
Senator McCaskill. And yet there is no requirement for
training for any of these departments that are getting these
vehicles.
Mr. Estevez. We cannot provide training to police
departments, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. So, are you comfortable with the fact
that Texas has received 73 MRAPs in 3 years while the entire
National Guard of Texas only has six? How can you explain that?
Mr. Estevez. Again, for excess material--and an MRAP was
put on the list of available--we provided--and the States and
State Coordinators are responsible for ensuring training. The
military force is retaining about 12,000 MRAPs across the Army
and the Marine Corps, a smattering in the Air Force and the
Navy, and they are going to allocate those across the entire
force structure. So I am not sure how they will be allocated
across the Guard.
Senator McCaskill. Could it be that the Guard does not want
them because they know that they tear up the roads and they
flip easily and have limited applicability?
Mr. Estevez. The Guard will--if the Guard requires an MRAP
for deployment, they will be issued an MRAP.
Senator McCaskill. Does it make you uncomfortable that
there are States where the National Guard has no MRAPs, but
police departments have them everywhere? Does that fact make
you uncomfortable in any way?
Mr. Estevez. I believe the Guard will be allocated the
force structure that they are needed for their Federal role. So
as I said, there are 12,000 MRAPs that will be allocated across
the force structure as they come back from----
Senator McCaskill. Why are we giving them away to police
departments before we give them to the Guard?
Mr. Estevez. Because we bought 24,000 MRAPs, so we have
more MRAPs than we will need. And we bought----
Senator McCaskill. I understand. But why would the police
departments be in line to get these before the National Guard?
Mr. Estevez. The ones that we are excessing are the older,
they are not the best MRAPs. We have retained the best MRAPs in
the force structure.
Senator McCaskill. Is there any reason that any of the
three of you can give me why we would not, if we are going to
continue funding State and local--and, by the way, I have seen
a lot of good during my career from Federal funding to State
and local law enforcement. And, 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 outsiders
started coming in from other States that wanted a confrontation
with the police.
Having said all 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, rather,
the first on your list must be body cams? Has that been
discussed either at DOJ or at Homeland Security? That these
officers that are going to be using some of this equipment,
that the best way to check whether or not it is being used
appropriately is for every officer to wear a camera?
Ms. Mason. Senator, the Office of Justice Programs, our JAG
funds are available for law enforcement agencies to use to
purchase body cameras, and we do see value in body cameras. But
as you know, our National Institute of Justice is studying the
effectiveness of body cameras and the appropriate use of body
cameras.
Senator McCaskill. But they can buy them now?
Ms. Mason. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. So it would not 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
that attach to rifles?
Ms. Mason. The JAG money is formula money, and we do not
control how State and local jurisdictions use that money. But
it is a permissible use to buy body cameras.
Mr. Kamoie. Chairman McCaskill, video cameras are on the
Authorized Equipment List, and if a grantee came forward and
said to us that they believe that 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.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Senator Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Estevez, are you aware of any local police
department that has purchased an MRAP with their own funds?
Mr. Estevez. I am not, and I do not know how they would.
Senator Johnson. Or a .30-caliber weapon?
Mr. Estevez. I could not answer that question on what a
local police department buys with their own funds, but MRAPs
are not available, so that is why I know that.
Senator Johnson. Again, I was not around here, but
according to my briefing here, the first program was authorized
in a defense authorization bill primarily about the drug wars.
Is that correct?
Mr. Estevez. That is correct.
Senator Johnson. So what were local police departments
missing that they needed to be funded or given from the Defense
Department to combat the War on Drugs?
Mr. Estevez. First, let me be clear. We, the Department, we
do this because we are asked to do this.
Senator Johnson. I understand. Again, I am just asking for
the history. What equipment were local----
Mr. Estevez. The police departments were outgunned by drug
gangs, so they were looking for protection, and they were
looking for fire power.
Senator Johnson. OK. Then apparently this was expanded in
1997, my note says, ``based on lobbying from police
organizations.''
Mr. Estevez. Again, I cannot answer why the authorization
was expanded. At the time it was for counterterrorism, but if
it was lobbying from police organizations, OK.
Senator Johnson. Of course, there is always a great desire
to get free things from the Federal Government, correct?
Mr. Estevez. Of course.
Senator Johnson. This program, which has apparently
provided about $5.1 billion of free equipment since 1997--it
has all been free, correct?
Mr. Estevez. Yes. It is not free to the taxpayer. We bought
it, used it, and----
Senator Johnson. I understand, but free to the local
governments, correct?
Mr. Estevez. That is correct.
Senator Johnson. Free to local police departments.
Mr. Estevez. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. Do you know of too many police departments
that turn free things down?
Mr. Estevez. Again, I am 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 this
equipment. If they thought they needed it and it was useful to
them, why not?
Senator Johnson. Mr. Kamoie, the $41 billion that DHS has
granted under your program since 2002, has there been any--that
is grant money, correct?
Mr. Kamoie. Yes, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Is there any cost sharing associated with
that?
Mr. Kamoie. In several of our programs, the Port Security
Grant Program, for example, in some years there is a cost-
sharing requirement in the----
Senator Johnson. How much? Of the $41 billion, how much is
that multiplied by local budgets?
Mr. Kamoie. Given that the cost share requirement was
imposed in some years and not, we will have to followup with
you on that, but I can tell you the Emergency Management
Performance Grant Program, about $350 million a year, is a 50-
percent cost share in that every year.
Senator Johnson. Do you think if we multiply that by
another $40 billion, has there been a 50-percent cost share, we
have basically granted $41 billion worth of funds for the
purchase of this type of equipment, and local governments have
maybe contributed $1 billion?
Mr. Kamoie. Well, we will have to followup with you on
numbers.
Senator Johnson. OK.
Mr. Kamoie. But just to be clear, Senator, the over $40
billion is not just for law enforcement. I mean, there are a
lot of other purposes for these programs: port security,
transit security. That number includes our firefighter
programs, staffing for emergency managers and firefighters.
Senator Johnson. When people get things for free, when you
get a lot of money, one of the first things my wife as an IRS
agent learned, the first government phrase was, ``Use it or
lose it.'' And that is just a concern in terms of how you put
money to work.
Ms. Mason, the $4.4 billion granted by the Department of
Justice since 2005, has that had any kind of cost-sharing
requirement associate with it?
Ms. Mason. The JAG money is formula money that does not
require cost sharing from local governments. But, for example,
this year we awarded $280 million in grants. Those are spread
between the 56 U.S. States and territories as well as local
governments. So for 80 percent of our grants, JAG grants, the
average award size is only $30,000.
Senator Johnson. So, all three of the witnesses, are you
aware of any piece of equipment that is either given away or
allowed to be purchased--I am really talking about the Defense
Department. Are any of those pieces of equipment that have been
given away that would not be available for purchase by a local
police department? Or are they all available on the open
market?
Mr. Estevez. An MRAP is not available on the open market
because it is out of production. It was only made for the
Department.
Senator Johnson. But when it was in production, were there
any restrictions in terms of people being able to buy that?
Mr. Estevez. I would have to go back and look at that. It
was probably the restriction it was unavailable.
Senator Johnson. OK. I think my point being is if--we are
making the decision at the wrong level here. If local police
departments actually needed this equipment, if they felt it was
necessary, isn't the proper way of doing this to have them go
through their city councils, go through their States, make the
political case for armoring up to protect themselves, whether
it is against drug lords or whether it is against
counterterrorism? I can understand the Federal role in terms of
information sharing and potentially communication devices so we
can provide that information. But, I mean, hasn't this gone out
of control simply because the Federal Government is there, we
are just granting money, and people are going to use it?
Mr. Estevez. I guess from my perspective, Senator, we have
bought this stuff for the Department of Defense. It is no
longer needed. The States need to make that decision on whether
they need this type of equipment. And, in fact, they do, and
that is the funnel. So the State Coordinator, appointed by a
Governor, makes the decision on whether a local police force,
after a request by a local police force, needs it or not, not
the Department of Defense.
Senator Johnson. So, again, prior to these 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, it is
given to them for free--``Yes, I will take some of that,''
``That would be kind of a neat thing to have parked in our
garage.''
Mr. Estevez. I am not an expert in local policing, but
police forces certainly had armored vehicles, police forces
certainly had weapons.
Mr. Kamoie. Senator, in our Port Security Grant Program, we
do fund a lot of police boats that patrol the waterways of our
Nation's over 100 ports. The cost-share requirement for that
has varied over year by year, but in many years it has been 25
percent. And so, yes, a local jurisdiction has to make a
decision about those investments, and I do not 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 police vessels to secure the port.
Senator Johnson. OK. So, again, I really would like that
information in terms of how much cost sharing, and if we are
looking for a solution, I think that would be it right there. I
think people need to have skin in the game. These decisions in
terms of what type of equipment is going to be purchased need
to be made at the local level. They have to show their citizens
that we really do need that type of protection.
And, by the way, I am all for protection of the police
department. Senator Baldwin and I and her representative
attended a congressional Badge of Courage ceremony, Badge of
Bravery for Lieutenant Brian Murphy and Officer Sam Lenda in
the Oak Creek Sikh massacre, and we saw a video of these brave,
courageous public servants, public safety individuals, just
walking straight into danger. So we are all about making sure
that these officials are protected. But the decision needs to
be made at the local level, not here in the Federal Government.
Otherwise, this is exactly the problem we have when we make the
decision at the wrong level of government.
Mr. Kamoie. Senator, we will provide you that information.
Senator Johnson. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Baldwin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN
Senator Baldwin. 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. Estevez, 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?
Mr. Estevez. 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 we will discuss with
this Committee. So we need to do a better job there.
I will say that----
Senator Baldwin. Well, I accept your statement at face
value that you can do better. But 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?
Mr. Estevez. No.
Senator Baldwin. And is there any reason why it could not
be in the future?
Mr. Estevez. Of course it could be.
Senator Baldwin. OK. Mr. Kamoie, is there coordination
between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department
of Justice in the programs that you administer on these same
questions?
Mr. Kamoie. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. 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. But 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.
Senator Baldwin. Ms. Mason, in administering the Byrne JAG
program--it is obviously a within-Department consultation
discussion--do those issues get discussed?
Ms. Mason. Thank you for the question, Senator. The Byrne
JAG 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.
Senator Baldwin. I understand what you said about the
formula and the lack of discretion, but tell me a little bit
more about the nature of that consultation and how that can
come into play in decisions that you are entertaining.
Ms. Mason. 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, they typically 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.
Senator Baldwin. 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 I understand that the Defense Logistics Agency conducts
a biennial inventory review of the States that participate in
the 1033 program. But this effort appears to be focused simply
on corroborating that the transferred equipment is accounted
for.
Can you tell me if the DLA review, Mr. Estevez, or even 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?
Mr. Estevez. Defense Logistics Agency, which facilitates
this program, does not have that capability, and neither does
the Department of Defense as a whole. We cannot manage local
police forces. Even equipment that we are trained to use is
trained to use for combat operations, not for local policing
operations. And let me also say we do not provide grenade
launchers, to be clear.
So the training, the State Coordinator certifies that a
local police force that is going to receive an item has the
ability to train themselves to use it, so if they are going to
get a helicopter, they have a pilot. And the State Coordinator
certifies that the local police force has the ability to
sustain the equipment that they are going to be provided.
Senator Baldwin. 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?
Mr. Estevez. I think that, frankly, varies by State
Coordinator, but I think State Coordinators in the last number
of years have actually put more attention and due diligence on
that process. And we found that as we did a full-out review of
the whole program with the State Coordinators, suspended all
the States because of accountability issues, and during that
process we found that State Coordinators are focusing their
attention on those issues, Senator.
Senator Baldwin. Mr. Kamoie, are there similar requirements
in either the application process or the audit process for
training, for proper maintenance of equipment? What
accountability can you share with this Committee in the
Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Kamoie. We encourage training for grantees. It is an
allowable expense under our programs. We do not require
training, but we do offer training through the Department's
Center for Domestic Preparedness for responders and the
Department's Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. So we do
offer it, we encourage it, but we do not require training.
Senator Baldwin. And, Ms. Mason, I believe you already
testified that training is one of the things that can be funded
through grants. But can you talk about the training
opportunities available in Byrne JAG?
Ms. Mason. Yes. The training opportunities, Byrne JAG funds
may be used for training, but separate and apart from our JAG
funding, the Office of Justice Programs provides a full range
of training opportunities for law enforcement. Over the last 3
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.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Paul.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL
Senator Paul. I think many of us were horrified by some of
the images that came out of Ferguson. We were horrified by
seeing an unarmed man with his hands over his head being
confronted by an armored personnel carrier. We were horrified
by seeing an unarmed man with his hands over his head being
confronted by a man with a draw on an assault weapon. We were
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 have dissent, and it needs to be peaceful. There
needs to be repercussions for people who do not act in a
peaceful way. But confronting protesters with armored personnel
carriers is thoroughly un-American, and for 150 years, we have
had rules separating the military, keeping the military out of
policing affairs. But you obscure that separation if you allow
the police to become the military.
In FEMA's Authorized Equipment List, there is actually
written descriptions for how the equipment should be used, and
it says it is specifically not supposed to be used for riot
suppression. Mr. Kamoie, is that true, that it is not supposed
to be used for riot suppression? And how do you plan on
policing that since the images show us clearly large pieces of
equipment that were bought with your grants being used in that
riot suppression?
Mr. Kamoie. Senator Paul, that is----
Senator Paul. Or protest suppression, rather?
Mr. Kamoie. That is accurate. The categories of personal
protective equipment that include helmets, ear and eye
protection, ballistics, personal protective equipment, there is
a prohibition in the Authorized Equipment List that it is not
to be used for riot suppression.
Senator Paul. And what will you do about it?
Mr. Kamoie. We are going to follow the lead of the
Department of Justice's investigation about the facts. We are
going to work with the State of Missouri to determine what
pieces of equipment were grant funded. And then we have a range
of remedies available to us should there be any finding of
noncompliance with those requirements. Those include everything
from corrective action plans to ensure it does not happen
again, recoupment of funds. So we will look very closely at the
facts, but we are going to allow the investigation to run its
course and determine what the appropriate remedy is.
Senator Paul. But it gets back to that whole question. If
you are a police force anywhere in the country, from Dundee,
Michigan, of 3,900, which has an MRAP, to 25 other cities under
25,000 have MRAPs, they think these are for riot suppression--
well, I do not know what they think they are for in a city of
3,900 people. But many of the police forces actually think that
this is what the equipment would be good from, is riot
suppression in a big city, in an urban area. And you are
specifically instructed that it is not for that. And we have
talked about and we have had maybe two instances of terrorism.
There has been billions and billions of dollars and maybe two
instances of terrorism. So I think really by supplying all of
this free equipment, much of which is just, frankly,
inappropriate and really should not be on anybody's list of
authorized equipment.
Mr. Estevez, in the NPR investigation of the 1033 program,
they list that 12,000 bayonets have been given out. What
purpose are bayonets being given out for?
Mr. Estevez. Senator, bayonets are available under the
program. I cannot answer what a local police force would need a
bayonet----
Senator Paul. I can give you an answer: None.
Mr. Estevez. OK.
Senator Paul. So what is President Obama's Administration's
position on handing out bayonets to the police force? It is on
your list. You guys create the list. Are you going to take it
off the list or are we going to keep doing it?
Mr. Estevez. We are going to look at what we are providing
under the Administration's review of all these programs.
Senator Paul. So it is unclear at this point whether
President Obama approves of 12,000 bayonets being given out? I
would think you could make that decision last week.
Mr. Estevez. I think we need to review all the equipment
that we are providing, Senator, and as I said, we, the
Department of Defense, do not push any of this equipment on any
police force. The States decide what they need.
Senator Paul. My understanding is that 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-resistant ambush protection 20-ton vehicles
are not appropriate for cities in the United States, he could
decide tomorrow to take it off a 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?
Mr. Estevez. Obviously, we do it, Senator. We are going to
look at that. I will also say that--I can give you anecdotes
where mine-resistant ambush protection vehicles have protected
police forces in shootouts.
Senator Paul. But we have already been told they are only
supposed to be used for terrorism, right? Isn't that what the
rule is?
Mr. Estevez. Our rule is for counter-drug, which could have
been the shootout--I would have to look at the incident--
counter-narcotics, counterterrorism.
Senator Paul. I guess the point I wish to make is that
these are fairly simple problems, and common sense applied
years ago, we could have fixed these. We are going to maybe fix
them, although I have my doubts, because I have seen rarely
anything ever fixed in government. But I would say that we are
now responding to a tragic circumstance in Ferguson to do this.
But I find these decisions to be very easy to make. You just
should not be giving out mine-resistant vehicles. Bayonets--
there is no excuse. I do not understand why we have to get
together and have a study for months to decide bayonets are
inappropriate to be giving out. I cannot imagine any use for a
bayonet in an urban setting.
So, really, this has gotten out of control, and this has
largely been something that--the militarization of police is
something that has gotten so far out of control, and we have
allowed it to descend, along with not a great protection of our
civil liberties as well. So, we say we are going to do this. It
is OK if it is for drugs. Well, look at the instances of what
has happened in recent times, the instance in Georgia just a
couple of months ago of an infant in a crib getting a
percussion grenade thrown in through a window in a no-knock
raid. It turns out the infant obviously was not involved in the
drug trade, but neither was even the infant's family. Happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one has even
been indicted on this.
So, really, this is crazy out of control, and 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 concerned with what is going on here. And I see
the response so far to be lackluster, and I hope you will do a
more complete job in trying to fix this.
Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Ayotte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE
Senator Ayotte. Hi. I want to thank all the witnesses for
being here, and certainly thank Senator McCaskill, the
Chairman, and the Ranking Member for having this hearing.
What I wanted to understand in particular, Mr. Estevez, I
think as you have described the 1033 program, it is--you have a
State Coordinator, and then DOD does not decide what equipment
is needed. You are just relying on that State Coordinator for
those decisions.
Mr. Estevez. That is correct, and I should point out that
the Governor of the State has the State Coordinator, not us,
and we rely on the State to filter those decisions.
Senator Ayotte. So is there any followup in terms of what
the equipment is being used for and what type of training the
police departments that are receiving it have obtained when the
equipment is transferred?
Mr. Estevez. State Coordinators, in certifying that the
local agency needs that, certify that they are going to have
the available training and train themselves on that equipment.
Senator Ayotte. Do you do any types of followup other than
receiving the certification? Is there any kind of audit of what
is happening and how the equipment is being used?
Mr. Estevez. There is no followup on how the equipment is
being used. Our audits--for the controlled equipment, because
we provide--96 percent of what we provide is non-controlled
benign equipment. We followup on----
Senator Ayotte. Yes, when I am referring to this, I should
have been specific on the controlled equipment. Obviously,
office furniture you would not generally have a followup on.
Mr. Estevez. We followup on accountability of the
equipment. We retain title to that equipment, but we do not
followup on its use, Senator.
Senator Ayotte. OK. 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, DOD has some responsibility to not
just to have a follow-up in terms of what is being done with
this equipment?
Mr. Estevez. I think that that has to be part of the look
at what we are doing, the review. I think, speaking from the
Department of Defense's standpoint, it is very hard for us
because we do not have expertise in police forcing--it is not
what we do--on whether it is 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 are
going to do and how we are going to assess the use of
equipment.
Senator Ayotte. Mr. Kamoie, I wanted to ask the Homeland
Security role. I do not know if you are 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?
Mr. Kamoie. We do not, Senator.
Senator Ayotte. Is there any coordination between the
grants that Homeland is giving in light of what the departments
are receiving on the 1033 front?
Mr. Kamoie. We do not coordinate in the decisionmaking
about local law enforcement requests. The process that Mr.
Estevez has laid out, we do not coordinate that at all.
Senator Ayotte. So you would not necessarily even know on
issuing a homeland grant what the DOD has done in terms of
issuance of equipment to local agencies?
Mr. Kamoie. Correct.
Senator Ayotte. OK. So how do you then know, in terms of
the use of the homeland grants for this, that there should not
be some followup?
Mr. Kamoie. So that is an entirely different story. I will
say 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 is 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
percent 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, and 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
visibility.
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.
Senator Ayotte. I would like an opinion from all of you, if
you are able to answer. We have focused a lot, understandably
so, on these programs and the military-style equipment to
agencies in a Ferguson-type situation. What I would like to
know is the use of the equipment, whether it is 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?
Mr. Kamoie. Thanks for the question, Senator. So we work
with grantees and provide them tools to assess the risks that
they face and the hazards in their community. We try and
provide them guidance on how to estimate their capabilities for
addressing the threats that they have identified. They
certainly have discretion in terms of the kinds of equipment
that they think would best meet those needs. But 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 Tsarnaev.
And so we do work with communities in terms of their
assessments of their risk, and they are building to
capabilities to address them.
Senator Ayotte. Ms. Mason, I wanted to ask you about on the
Justice end with regard to the Byrne JAG grants. Do we know how
much of those grants are used for this type of equipment?
Because 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 is protecting children from online
predators or whether it is providing assistance to victims of
crime, even though there is obviously Victims of Crime Act
(VOCA) and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funds. But there
is all kinds of variety in terms of how those funds would be
used. Do you have a sense of how much is used for this in terms
of the equipment purchasing?
Ms. Mason. Yes, thank you for the question. As you
mentioned, the JAG money is available to address the full range
of criminal justice issues in a State, and what we have seen is
that of the money that is allocated for the law enforcement
category--because there are courts categories, victim
categories. But of the law enforcement category, about 40
percent of the money allocated in that category goes to
equipment, but most of the equipment that we are seeing people
buy are computers, technology, and things like that. And for
vehicles, the JAG money can only be used for cars, boats,
helicopters, without coming back to the Director for specific
approval, and we have only since 2005, we went back and did an
investigation. We have approved only seven armored vehicles
since 2005.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. My time is up.
Senator McCaskill. I think Senator Coburn has a few more
questions, and then we will get to the second panel.
Senator Coburn. I just want to introduce to the record an
article from October 16, 2013, the Boston Globe,\1\ which sets
the record straight. Tsarnaev was found because a guy went out
to check his boat because he saw the end of it up. It did not
have anything to do with money that we spent. It did not have
anything to do with anything other than he noticed it and he
was surprised by the fact that he found this guy in the fetal
position in his boat and called 911. So this needs to be in the
record to set the record straight about what that is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Boston Globe article appears in the Appendix on page 218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCaskill. Without objection.
Senator Coburn. I have one question for the three of you,
and then we will 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 at the Justice Department, at Homeland Security and
FEMA, and at the Department of Defense? What have you heard
directly from the White House?
Ms. Mason. We have already had meetings about the review,
and we have already been supplying information. So the review
is an active process at this time.
Senator Coburn. As far as the Justice Department is
concerned.
Ms. Mason. All of us are involved.
Senator Coburn. Well, let me get them to answer
specifically. What have you heard, Brian?
Mr. Kamoie. Senator Coburn, I have participated in the
first meeting of the review panel. It is a comprehensive review
of the programs, their operation, the very same kinds of
questions we have talked about here, training, our oversight,
auditing, compliance. 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----
Senator Coburn. Infrared camera.
Mr. Kamoie. The infrared camera was instrumental in
locating him. So I look forward to reading that article.
Senator Coburn. Here is the direct quote from the guy that
called 911 to tell them, ``There is somebody in my boat, and he
has been injured. I think he is Tsarnaev.''
Mr. Kamoie. I understand, Senator. I look forward to
reading it.
Mr. Estevez. My direct staff at the Assistant Secretary
level is participating in the review. My fellow colleague has
been over at the White House. We have been providing
information to the White House and are fully engaged. The only
reason I was not over there was because I was out of town at
the time.
Senator Coburn. Thank you. That is great to hear. That is
called appropriate response. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. We have a second panel with four
witnesses. Does anybody else have one or two questions that
they really want to ask these three witnesses before we move to
our second panel?
[No response.]
I have two simple questions. Before Ferguson, had the three
of you ever met?
Mr. Estevez. No.
Mr. Kamoie. No.
Ms. Mason. No.
Senator McCaskill. 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 are providing that is considered military grade? Yes or no.
Mr. Estevez. No.
Mr. Kamoie. No.
Ms. Mason. We do have activity reports that we require on a
quarterly basis from our grantees about how they use our JAG
funds.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I would like to see and put in the
record,\1\ since you are 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
the things we saw in Ferguson, and the data you have about how
that has actually been utilized by the recipients of your
funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report appears in the Appendix on page 493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Thank you all very much for being here.
[Pause.]
Thank you all for being here. I do not want to hurry you,
but I want to make sure--this is a large panel, and we have
people that want to ask questions. And time is ticking so I
want to get started. Let me introduce this panel.
Jim Bueermann is the president of the Washington, DC-based
Police Foundation. The foundation, established in 1970, has a
mission to advance policing through innovation and science. Mr.
Bueermann previously worked for the Redlands Police Department
for 33 years, serving in every unit within the department. He
served as its chief for 13 years from 1998 to 2011.
Dr. Peter Kraska is a professor and chair of graduate
studies and research within the School of Justice Studies at
Eastern Kentucky University. Dr. Kraska researches the changing
role of police in society, including the relationship between
the police and the military, as well as the special equipment,
tactics, and training used by police over the last several
decades.
Mark Lomax is executive director for the National Tactical
Officers Association (NTOA). Mr. Lomax previously served as a
program manager for the United Nations in Liberia, West Africa,
where he oversaw their police Special Weapons and Tactics Team
(SWAT) and crowd control units. Mr. Lomax served 27 years with
the Pennsylvania State Police, with a majority of his career in
special operations assignments. Mr. Lomax was invited to
participate in this hearing at the request of Chief Belmar of
the St. Louis County Police Department. Mr. Lomax is
accompanied by Major Ed Allen of the Seminole County Sheriff's
Office.
Wiley Price is a photojournalist, award-winning, I might
add, photojournalist for the St. Louis American newspaper. Mr.
Price is a native St. Louis resident who covered the police
presence in Ferguson firsthand.
And Hilary Shelton is the Washington Bureau Director and
Senior Vice President for advocacy for the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), where he has
worked on a wide variety of legislative and policy issues of
national importance. Mr. Shelton, while being an important
person with the NAACP, is also a St. Louis native. Welcome,
Hilary. We are glad you are here.
I would like to thank all of you for appearing today, and
we will begin with your testimony, Mr. Bueermann.
TESTIMONY OF JIM BUEERMANN,\1\ CHIEF (RET.), REDLANDS,
CALIFORNIA, AND PRESIDENT, POLICE FOUNDATION
Mr. Bueermann. Distinguished Members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss
this very important topic of Federal programs that provide
equipment to our civilian police forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Bueermann appears in the Appendix
on page 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Senator just mentioned, the Police Foundation's
mission is to advance democratic policing through innovation
and science. We conduct rigorous scientific research, provide
technical assistance, and conduct critical incident reviews
that help the police across the country become more effective.
Like many Americans, I have been closely following the
events in Missouri and the national discussion about the
militarization of American civilian police forces. Central to
this issue is the use of military-like equipment and tactics by
the police.
To many people, the use of armored vehicles, assault
rifles, or SWAT teams is unwarranted and highly inappropriate.
Conversely, to police officers, their use simply represents
safer, more effective ways of handling the dangerous situations
they are paid to resolve. I think both perspectives have merit.
The police use of military-like equipment and tactics can
either be appropriate or not depending entirely on the context
of their use. The antidote to militarizing our police is
community policing, transparency, accountability, and paying
close attention to the culture of policing.
While the Committee reviews these programs, I urge you to
consider their benefits along with needed programmatic changes.
There has been substantial positive impact on the public and
officer safety from the programs that provide equipment to law
enforcement.
For example, 2 weeks ago, in Illinois, the Cook County
Sheriff's Department used armored vehicles to get officers to
the scene and extract six children and two adults being held
hostage after a home invasion robbery. Two officers were shot
during the 20-hour standoff, but the equipment prevented
further injury to officers and helped with the safe recovery of
the hostages.
In West Bloomfield, Michigan, a suspect barricaded himself
in a residential neighborhood, engaged in a firefight with the
police, and killed a police officer. During the standoff, the
police used their armored vehicle to safely evacuate the
neighborhood.
And, finally, this summer, the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department used rescue helicopters obtained through the
1033 program 11 times during search and rescue missions in
mountainous terrain. They also used boats obtained through the
program six times for rescue missions on Lake Mead.
Based on my experience in local policing and familiarity
with the Federal programs that provide or fund local law
enforcement equipment, I offer the following suggestion that I
believe will strike a balance between the needs of the police
and compelling community interests.
Every policing agency that desires access to Federal
surplus property via DOD's 1033 program should be required, as
part of the application process, to provide proof that it has
received public input and local governing body approval of the
department's acquisition of the property; and that it has
adequate, publicly reviewable training, transparency, and
accountability policies in place.
I believe it is important that the 1033 program be retained
with appropriate transparency, accountability, and oversight
guidelines incorporated. Completely eliminating them could have
substantial impact on public safety, and doing so would make
taxpayers potentially pay again for the same equipment they
paid for while it was used by the military.
I also recommend that Congress appropriate funds to
adequately study this issue. There is a paucity of research
into the militarization of the police and the impact of the
Federal Government providing assistance to acquiring the
equipment that may encourage this.
In conclusion, I urge the Committee and Congress to examine
and consider the Federal implications for advancing the
following five guiding principles of sustaining democratic
policing.
First, the police and the community must constantly focus
on community policing framed around a set of organizational
values developed in concert with the community.
Second, police organizations should reflect the communities
they serve. When diverse communities see the police as not
reflecting their members, they can lose faith in the police to
understand their needs in meaningful ways.
Third, policing agencies must provide their officers with
appropriate and effective value-based training, accountability
technology like body-worn cameras, and less lethal tools.
Fourth, the police should utilize the best available
scientific evidence about what works to control crime and
disorder.
And, finally, critical incident reviews should be conducted
after every critical incident involving the police to capture
lessons learned and translate them to lessons applied so events
like those occurring in Ferguson do not happen again.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Bueermann. Dr. Kraska.
TESTIMONY OF PETER B. KRASKA, PH.D.,\1\ PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF
JUSTICE STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN KENTUCKY
Mr. Kraska. Senator McCaskill, Senator Coburn, Members of
the Committee, and wonderful staffers, thank you for inviting
me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kraska appears in the Appendix on
page 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me begin today's comments with two examples of police
militarization, one old--in fact, it predates 9/11-and one new,
this year in May.
In September 2000, Federal law enforcement conducted a
joint drug investigation with the Modesto, California, police
department. Employing the Military Special Operations model,
the Modesto P.D.'s SWAT team conducted a predawn dynamic entry
into a family's home--suspecting the father, it turned out
incorrectly, of being involved in low-level drug dealing. One
of the children in the home--Alberto--was 11 years old and
complied with all of the officers' screams to get into the
prone position on his bedroom floor. A paramilitary police
officer, standing over him with a 12-gauge shotgun, then
accidentally discharged his weapon into Alberto's back, killing
him.
Now move forward to May of this year. A Georgia police
department's SWAT team conducted a no-knock drug raid on a
family's private residence. The officers threw a percussion
grenade into the home, the device landed in an infant's crib
next to his face, and then it detonated. Despite being comatose
for a number of days and receiving severe lacerations and
burns, the baby did survive. Not that it should matter, but the
family was not involved in drug dealing.
Some might dismiss these cases as mere anecdotes, but the
facts, based on extensive national level scientific research,
are clear. These examples are emblematic of an historic--yet up
until recently little publicly noticed--shift in American
democratic governance. The clear distinction between our
civilian police and our military is blurring in significant and
consequential ways.
The research I have been conducting since 1989 has
documented quantitatively and qualitatively the steady and
certain march of U.S. civilian policing down the militarization
continuum, culturally, materially, operationally, and
organizationally--despite massive efforts at democratizing
police under the guise of community policing reforms.
The growth in militarized policing has been steep and deep.
In the mid-1980s, a mere 30 percent of police agencies had a
SWAT team. Today well over 80 percent of departments, large and
small, have one. In the early 1980s, these agencies conducted
approximately 3,000 deployments a year nationwide. Today I
estimate a very conservative figure of 60,000 per year. And it
is critical to recognize that these 60,000 deployments are
mostly for conducting drug searches on people's private
residences.
This is not to imply that all police, nearly 20,000 unique
departments across our great land, are heading in this
direction. But the research evidence along with militarized
tragedies in Modesto, Georgia, Ferguson, and tens of thousands
of other locations demonstrates a troubling and highly
consequential overall trend.
What we saw played out in the Ferguson protests was the
application of a very common mind-set: style of uniform and
appearance and weaponry used every day in the homes of private
residences during SWAT raids. Some departments conduct as many
as 500 SWAT team raids a year, and just as in the two examples
above, and in the Ferguson situation, it is the poor and
communities of color that are most impacted.
It is hard to imagine that anyone intended for the wars on
crime, drugs, and terrorism to devolve into widespread police
militarization. At the same time, it is also hard not to see
that by declaring war, we have opened the door for outfitting
our police to be soldiers with a warrior mind-set.
To conclude, I mentioned that police militarization
predates 9/11. This is not just an interesting historical fact.
It is critical because it illuminates the most important reason
or causal factor in this unfortunate term in American policing
and American democracy. It is the following: Our long-running
and intensely punitive self-proclaimed war on crime and drugs.
It is no coincidence that the skyrocketing number of police
paramilitary deployments on American citizens since the early
1980s coincides perfectly with the skyrocketing imprisonment
numbers. We now have 2.4 million people incarcerated in this
country, and almost 4 percent of the American public is now
under direct correctional supervision. These wars have been
devastating to minority communities and the marginalized and
have resulted in a self-perpetuating growth complex.
Cutting off the supply of military weaponry to our civilian
police is the least we could do to begin the process of reining
in police militarization, and attempting to make clear the
increasingly blurred distinction between the military and
police. Please do not underestimate the gravity of this
development. This is highly disturbing to most Americans, on
the left and the right.
Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Dr. Kraska. Mr. Lomax.
TESTIMONY OF MARK LOMAX,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
TACTICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MAJOR ED ALLEN,
SEMINOLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Mr. Lomax. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman
Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, Senator McCaskill, and Members
of this Committee to have the opportunity to speak with you
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax appears in the Appendix on
page 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since its inception in 1983, the NTOA has served as a not-
for-profit association representing law enforcement
professionals in special operations assignments in local,
State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. The mission of the
NTOA is to enhance the performance and professional status of
law enforcement personnel by providing a credible and proven
training resource as well as a forum for the development of
tactics and information exchange.
The American law enforcement officer recognizes, probably
more accurately than most, that they are not in conflict with
the citizens they serve. To the contrary, the brave men and
women of this profession willingly place themselves between
danger and the public every day at personal sacrifice to
themselves and their families. This is evident by the Law
Enforcement Memorial, walking distance from where we sit today.
Law enforcement agencies in the United States have taken
advantage of the 1033 program from its inception, but certainly
at a greater frequency after the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. DHS/DOJ grants, and the DOD 1033 program allow
agencies to acquire the necessary equipment rapidly and at
considerable cost savings to the local taxpaying public. The
1033 program has allowed local agencies to acquire heavy-duty
high-wheeled vehicles, forklifts, generators, and vehicles that
improve operational capabilities and responder safety.
The threat that firearms pose to law enforcement officers
and the public during violent critical incidents has proven
that armored rescue vehicles have become as essential as
individually worn body armor or helmets in saving lives.
Moreover, in the DHS, FEMA type resource definitions, law
enforcement and security resource document, it is recommended
that SWAT teams have tactical equipment, including armored
rescue vehicles, in the event of a disaster. Most tactical
commanders utilize these resources judiciously and are
sensitive to both their real and perceived appearance.
However, it is not uncommon for agencies to take receipt of
such equipment and receive little or no training on how to
utilize it, when to deploy it, and equally as important, when
not to deploy it. Prior to obtaining equipment from the 1033
program or purchasing commercially utilizing DHS grant money,
agencies are not mandated to demonstrate training levels for
the use of that equipment. It is incumbent upon that agency to
obtain the necessary training based upon regulatory or
voluntary compliance standards associated with such equipment.
Such training could take place at the requesting agency
location.
Another challenge is that there are not enough of the
specialized law enforcement teams developed, specifically
Mobile Field Force Teams, in every jurisdiction around the
country. Consequently, when a law enforcement administrator is
faced with a civil disorder event, they often deploy the only
resource they have immediate access to--the local SWAT team. It
is important to note that approximately 87 percent of law
enforcement agencies in the United States have fewer than 50
officers. With the exception of large metropolitan cities or
jurisdictions that have had prior civil disorder events, most
agencies have not invested in a mobile field force capability.
There is also a general lack of training, regarding civil
disorder events, for tactical commanders, planners, public
information officers, and first-line supervisors. This must
change.
The NTOA published the NTOA SWAT Standards in 2011, which
outlines the most basic requirements for tactical teams in
terms of operational capabilities, training management, policy
development, operational planning, and multi-jurisdictional
response. The standard, however, is a voluntary compliance
standard. Subsequently, many law enforcement leaders view them
as ``unfunded mandates.'' The NTOA's position, though, is that
when an agency makes the decision to develop a SWAT capability,
it should also make the investment in the training, equipment,
and best practices that are required to support such an effort.
Again, on behalf of the 40,000 law enforcement
professionals that the NTOA represents, I thank you for this
opportunity to speak to you today on these current issues and
challenges and look forward to answering any questions the
Committee may have.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Mr. Price.
TESTIMONY OF WILEY PRICE,\1\ PHOTOJOURNALIST, THE ST. LOUIS
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER
Mr. Price. Good afternoon. My name is Wiley Price, I am the
staff photojournalist at the St. Louis American newspaper in
St. Louis, Missouri. I would like to first thank Senator
McCaskill for inviting me here to this hearing today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Price appears in the Appendix on
page 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager,
by a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer on Saturday, August 9,
2014, may very well become the turning point in moving forward
in changing the way policing is conducted in this country,
especially in neighborhoods of people of color.
First, mandatory body cameras for officers patrolling our
streets to ensure accountability for the way citizens are
addressed during routine stops. This policy would allow us to
examine the methods police use during these stops. There are
special challenges to policing in urban areas where there are
strong feelings, often negative, about the conduct and role of
the police.
The uprisings in Ferguson are an example of inept and
insensitive police behavior at the highest decisionmaking
level. It raises the question of how much force is appropriate
to control a group of angry protesters armed initially with
rocks, bottles, and, later, Molotov cocktails.
What police used to defend themselves at the early stage of
the confrontation was a high level of military weaponry not
often seen on the streets in the United Sates. What we saw were
large military-style weapons including armored vehicles
normally seen on the national news during conflicts concerning
the Middle East war zones. Most Americans would not be so
shocked if this were a response to an overt terrorist attack on
an American city, but not during a spontaneous protest over the
shooting of a young African American male by a white police
officer while walking in the street in the middle of the day.
Most believe that if we can spend this kind of money on
weapons, why not use those same resources to better train the
police in community policing and train them also on the best
way to resolve conflict?
If heavy military weapons are to be deployed, they should
be in the hands of trained officers subject to competent high-
level police command. This show of military might in Ferguson
by the police only escalated the understandably strong feelings
felt by the very people that the police are sworn to serve and
protect. The days of unrest were followed by growing protest
from people who already felt disrespected and frustrated by the
local law enforcement on a daily basis.
That concludes my statement.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Shelton.
TESTIMONY OF HILARY O. SHELTON,\1\ WASHINGTON BUREAU DIRECTOR
AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY AND ADVOCACY, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE
Mr. Shelton. Thank you very much, Senator McCaskill. I want
to thank Senator Carper and Senator Coburn and all the others
that are gathered here today. I want to thank you so much for
inviting me here to testify and for soliciting the input of the
NAACP on this very important topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Shelton appears in the Appendix
on page 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you mentioned, my name is Hilary Shelton, and I am the
Director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau and serve as Senior
Vice President for policy and advocacy.
The NAACP deeply appreciates the needs of local
governments, including law enforcement agencies, to secure
equipment as cost-effectively as possible. We have supported
increased resources and personnel for local police departments
since the founding of the association 105 years ago. Over the
last couple of decades, given the shrinking State and Federal
budgets and the oftentimes increasing demands, the communities
represented and served by the NAACP seem to have suffered
disproportionately from reduced State and local funding.
Our concerns are when military equipment, weapons of war
which are commonly used to fight an avowed enemy of our
country, are transferred to local domestic law enforcement
agencies with little or no oversight, training, or specific and
clear integration when and how they are used in civilian
circumstances.
The tragic killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,
the ensuing protests, and the resulting demonstrations of force
by local law enforcement attracted the attention of many to a
heretofore little known program, the Defense Department's 1033
program, by which the Federal Government transfers excess
military equipment to State and local law enforcement agencies.
While many Americans were rightfully upset by the apparent
militarization of community-based law enforcement agencies, it
is a sad commentary on race in America that this is not a new
phenomenon to most Americans of color.
The war on drugs and the war on crime have been
predominantly waged in racial and ethnic minority communities,
and too often against African Americans. Since 1989, military
equipment has been used by law enforcement agencies to fight
the war on drugs. Thus, it should be no surprise that racial
and ethnic minorities have grown accustomed to seeing weapons
of war in our communities, on our streets, and even entering
our homes.
On Saturday, August 9, 2014, an unarmed, 18-year-old,
college-bound African American teenager named Michael Brown was
shot to death by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.
According to nearly every report, the ensuing protests began
peacefully. The people were angry, admittedly and
understandably outraged, but initially peaceful. Their protests
were met by local law enforcement agents in warfare type mine-
resistant ambush protected vehicles, or with military-style
assault weapons aimed at them.
The resulting impression on the people of Ferguson and on
people throughout our country and the world who were watching
these events is that these Americans were being marginalized,
that their concerns, their anger, and their protests were not
being valued or respected by local law enforcement.
One CNN reporter, as a matter of fact, even said it looked
more like Belfast or the Middle East than the heartland of
America.
Thus, the fact that the population of Ferguson is over 67
percent African American has not been lost on many of the
protesters, nor on the United States or international
observers. As a matter of fact, I was at the United Nations
when all this broke loose, and they were asking me questions
about Ferguson. Even people who could not speak English knew
the word ``Ferguson.''
So what steps does the NAACP recommend to solve the
problems associated with the overmilitarization of law
enforcement agencies and to build trust and security within
these communities?
First, we must change the paradigm which drives our
criminal justice system. We need to move away from the failed
war on drugs and war on crime scenarios, and law enforcement
needs to be trained to stop stereotyping people based on what
they look like, the clothes they wear, and the neighborhoods in
which they live.
If the Department of Defense's 1033 program is allowed to
continue, it should be restructured to emphasize non-lethal
equipment and that the equipment be used not to pursue the
flawed war on drugs or civilian protests and demonstrations,
but rather that it be used to promote the idea that law
enforcement is designed to protect and serve the citizens who
are within their jurisdiction.
Included in the requirements necessary to receive such
equipment must also be policies, training, and oversight which
includes the End Racial Profiling Act, which is pending in the
House and the Senate, and the Law Enforcement Trust and
Integrity Act, which is being prepared for reintroduction by
Congressman John Conyers.
Second, all domestic law enforcement agencies should also
develop their own internal policies calling for thoughtful
restraint, and proof of these policies should be a requirement
before any equipment transfer or funding occurs.
And, third, we need full transparency and disclosure. Not
only should the Department of Defense be required to disclose
what equipment they have distributed and to whom, but State and
local law enforcement agencies must also be required to
publicly report on the equipment they have requested and
received and the intended purpose.
And, finally, the NAACP would like to strongly advocate for
more programs such as the Department of Justice Community
Oriented Policing (COPS), program and for an increase in the
funding of COPS programs. The COPS program is intended to
incentivize better law enforcement practices through community
engagement. It remains the primary vehicle by which the Federal
Government rewards innovation and research on police
transparency and accountability.
In summation, American policing has become increasingly
militarized through the acquisition and use of weapons and
tactics designed for war. The lines between Federal military
force and civil law enforcement are becoming increasingly
blurred. Sadly, communities of color have historically borne
the brunt of this obfuscation. We need to correct this problem,
not just check it. We need to continue to strive for a
democracy under which all Americans can live. And we should not
allow any American community or government entity to be
considered at war with any other.
I thank you again, Chairman Carper, Senators Coburn and
McCaskill, and all the others that are here today, and I
certainly look forward to your questions.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you so much.
I am going to go ahead and defer my questions and allow the
other Senators who are here to go first. Senator Coburn.
Senator Coburn. Yes, thank you, and thanks for your
testimony.
Mr. Bueermann, at what point do you think the Federal
Government's obligation to local law enforcement begins?
Mr. Bueermann. Well, that is a great question. I think that
one of the benefits of the Federal Government is trying to
create a national coherence around what policing should look
like all across the United States, and that is a difficult
place for the Federal Government to be. There are leadership
training programs like the National Academy that the FBI puts
on at the FBI Academy that helps police leaders across the
United States better understand these kinds of issues that we
are talking about today. So certainly that would be an
appropriate role for the Federal Government.
As somebody who used to be a police chief, I really
appreciated the ability to acquire equipment. In my department
we used it primarily for vehicles and office equipment for our
community policing stations and our recreation programs that we
could not have afforded if the 1033 program had not existed.
So from a local perspective, I thought that was a wonderful
way for us to get a return on our Federal tax investment. But I
certainly understand the issues that are at play in this
discussion.
Senator Coburn. Dr. Kraska, I appreciate you coming, and I
appreciate you working with us.
Tell me what the difference is between a militarized and
increasingly Federalized police force and a standing army.
Mr. Kraska. It is actually a bit of a complicated history
that I will not get into too much, but we have to remember that
the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 had been in place untouched for
quite a long time until the 1980s drug war. And it was not
until the 1980s drug war--it was actually the Reagan
Administration that wanted to completely repeal Posse
Comitatus, but what instead happened is they just amended it
significantly to allow for cross-training and weapons
transference.
Just as an aside--I do not want to make too much of an
aside, but we also have to remember that the Department of
Defense has been very actively involved in training local
police departments as well, not just providing them equipment
but providing them training. I have a great quote--I am not
going to read it now, but if you ask me to read it, I will--
that talks about even having Navy SEALs and Army Rangers come
to a local police department and teach them things. So it is
not just weapons transference.
The Federal Government has increasingly since 9/11 played a
significant role in accelerating these trends toward
militarization, and, the extent to which the 1033 program, the
Department of Homeland Security funds, et cetera, have
contributed to it, I would certainly call it significant. But I
think we have to remember that the militarized culture of a
component of policing--and it is just a component of policing.
This is not a unified phenomenon in all the police of the
United States of America. We have a police department right
next to us, the Lexington P.D., very smart, very wise. They do
not do this kind of thing at all, and they would never do it.
So the policing community is a bit split over this, and I
do not want anybody to get the impression because of the
experts we have heard that policing is all for this stuff,
because it is just not true. There are lots of folks that are
not.
Anyway, back to Federalization. So I think the Federal
Government has played a significant role in probably the last
10 to 14 years.
Senator Coburn. All right. The rest of my questions I will
submit for the record so we can move on in our time.
Senator McCaskill. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Kraska, in
your testimony, what I have written down in my notes is
equipment versus procedures versus operations. How much of it
is really about procedures, responding to just events in
society versus the actual equipment? I mean, what is causing
what?
Mr. Kraska. Great question and, of course, difficult to
answer. I do know that the militarization trend began as part
of the drug war. It has not had anything to do with terrorism.
It has not had anything to do with threats to national
security. It has had everything to do with prosecuting the drug
war.
That is when we saw the precipitous rise in not only the
number of SWAT units, but their amount of activity. That is
when we saw departments doing 750 to 1,000 drug raids per year
on people's private residences. That is when we saw police
departments all over the country in small little localities
sending off two or three officers to a for-profit training
camp, like Smith & Wesson or Heckler & Koch, getting training
and coming back to the department and starting a 15-officer
police paramilitary unit with no clue what they were doing
whatsoever.
That all happened as a part of the drug war. So I have a
hard time making any sort of credible analysis that what we are
seeing is just a reaction to an increasing insecure homeland
situation. This stuff has been well in place and it is still
absolutely happening today in the same way it was in the 1990s
and the 2000s.
Senator Johnson. So again, I am coming from a manufacturing
background trying to solve problems going to the root cause.
What I am hearing, because again, in my briefing, this
equipment for transfer really first started from a Defense
authorization bill targeted at the drug war.
Mr. Kraska. Absolutely.
Senator Johnson. So I know in these last 3 years because of
another hearing, we spent $75 billion fighting the war on
drugs. We are not conquering it, are we? So what do we need to
do? And I will ask Mr. Lomax. What do we need to do
procedurally? What is the solution here?
Mr. Lomax. Thank you, Senator. The solution relative to
equipment and procedures----
Senator Johnson. If this was all really caused initially by
the drug war, the militarization buildup of this, is in
reaction to the drug war, these no-knock raids are about drugs,
what is the solution?
Mr. Lomax. I think the solution starts at the top,
leadership. The solution comes from decisionmaking, policy,
procedures. Getting back to what your initial question was to
Dr. Kraska, the nexus between equipment and procedures, I think
procedures come first, policy, documentation, transparency,
decisionmaking.
So again, it is not the equipment per se. It is who is
making those decisions on how to use it, how to deploy, or when
not to deploy it.
Senator Johnson. I mean, are we making any progress on the
war on drugs at all? We have been engaged in this for decades
now.
Mr. Lomax. Again, that is a question that needs to be taken
up by the legislators and Congress and the policymakers as far
as how we are doing on the war on drugs.
Senator Johnson. And I realize these questions are somewhat
removed from militarization of the police force, but again, I
am looking, based on the testimony, this is the reason this
militarization began. Mr. Shelton, what is your solution? I
mean, obviously, drugs have devastated communities. Crime has
devastated communities.
Mr. Shelton. It has to change. The paradigm that we are
utilizing now, criminalizing in the way that we are and
actually putting people in prison along these lines is
outrageous. Quite frankly, as mentioned by Dr. Kraska, we have
2.4 million Americans in jail, about 50 percent of those for
drug-related offenses. They are non-violent offenses.
You talk about a health care approach to problems of the
drug problem in the United States and get away from much of the
criminal, now military, approach to our drug problem in this
country. I should talk about problems with the police officers
and the over-aggression and even practices of racial profiling.
We have some strategies for that as well.
Senator Cardin here, one of your colleagues, has a bill
that is now pending before the U.S. Senate called the End
Racial Profiling Act that goes a long way to help restore the
trust and integrity necessary for law enforcement to be
effective. We know that will go many miles toward the direction
of fixing the crime problem in our society.
As we talk about these issues, it makes no sense to me that
we have 79,288 assault rifles that were actually given by the
Department of Defense to local police departments, 205 grenade
launchers, 11,959 bayonets. And I am trying to figure out what
they are going to do with 3,972 combat knives. But indeed, that
is what with local policy departments now. It makes no sense.
Senator Johnson. So again, war on drugs, but also war on
crime. Mr. Shelton, a recent article written by Walter
Williams, he lists the statistic from 1976 to 2011, there has
been 279,389 African-Americans murdered. It is a rate of about
7,000 per year. Ninety-four percent of those murders are black
on black. I mean, that is a real crime problem that you have to
be concerned about.
And by the way, I would think local police departments are
also concerned about it.
Mr. Shelton. Well, absolutely. As a matter of fact, the
issue dealing with crime in the African-American community goes
back to our founder 105 years ago, or one of our founders,
W.E.B. Du Bois. Clearly, the crime problem in the African-
American community has to be addressed, but it cannot be
addressed successfully if we have the distrust in police
officers that we are seeing because of programs like this one.
We are going to have to establish a new trust pattern in
our country. Also, I was very happy to hear Dr. Kraska mention
the issue of those who are most affected in addressing the
issues of crime in any community throughout this country are
those that are reflective of those communities in which they
are there to serve. All that has to be part of the paradigm.
The only time things begin to cool off, in Ferguson,
Missouri, quite frankly, is when the first African-American
Attorney General of the United States went to Ferguson to show
that the top law enforcement officer in our country was there
and that their concerns be taken very seriously. That works
across the board.
Senator Johnson. OK. My time is running out. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Senator Ayotte.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. One of the things that I am
trying to understand is everything depends on the situation--
would you agree with that--in terms of what is appropriate to
deploy, what is appropriate in terms of a response, and also I
think it all comes down to appropriate training as to how to
respond to a situation. Because would you all agree with me
that we are going to respond differently to a situation like
the Marathon bombing versus a situation like Ferguson and part
of that is training and what we need to respond to those
situations may be different.
Mr. Shelton. If I might begin? Just before training comes
policy. What we need is a clear policy on how to respond to
circumstances like that we experienced in Ferguson and other
places. Policy, then training, and then accountability. Those
are the triumvirate, I believe, that moves this issue along.
Senator Ayotte. So one of the things I wanted to followup
on this idea of, for example, SWAT teams, because having worked
with the police in my State in a number of settings, they have
had to respond to some pretty dangerous situations that did
involve, for example, a drug crime where you had, you know,
high level individuals who were quite dangerous, quite armed,
and that it was the most appropriate that a SWAT team respond
because they had the most training of how to deal with a
situation like that versus sending, you know, one patrol
officer or a handful of patrol officers that are not oriented
toward dealing with a situation where you have, for example, an
armed drug dealer, not necessarily a user, but someone who is
profiting off the situation.
Then I have been to situations where we had a hostage
situation and we had a SWAT team situation there where,
truthfully, I was glad that the SWAT team was there because
they had the training and they trained particularly for hostage
situations that would allow the police to have the right
training and to know how to negotiate, No. 1, to know how to
handle a situation, not to have bystanders harmed.
So what I am trying to understand is to make a broad brush
of saying, 60,000 SWAT operations. I think that is a pretty
broad brush. So I am trying to get at from maybe all three of
you and the first who have commented on this, it seems like it
is appropriate for us to have some individuals who have this
type of training because I have been there at these scenes with
them where I would have wanted the right SWAT team trained to
deal with the situation, and we successfully ended situations
because the people there had the right training and trained for
this specifically, were not just taking the patrol officer off
the street to address it.
So how do we distinguish from that and this situation
where, the public is--it is a protest situation where it is
people exercising their First Amendment rights? This is not an
easy question to answer, but I think this is what we are
grappling with here, particularly, particularly I think we have
asked a lot more of the police post-9/11 in terms of what
response we have asked of them as first responders, and maybe
we have sent mixed messages.
So I would like to get your comment. I know that is more of
a statement, but I would like to hear your comment on some of
those thoughts.
Mr. Bueermann. So, Senator, if I can start this off? What
you have just articulated, it is a great question that,
ultimately, I think is the crux of this discussion because
anybody who thinks that we are not going to have tactical teams
or high-powered weaponry in policing in the United States just
has not been paying attention to the realities of police
officers.
As Mr. Lomax said, the memorial not far from here has
20,000 names on it of heroic Americans who gave their life
trying to protect their own communities. So there is a time and
a place for any one of these particular tools. I made reference
to the FBI's national academy. One of the problems we have in
this country is there is not a national coherent about when we
should use these particular tools.
You can find out the hard way. This is the rationale for
doing critical incident reviews, to understand those learning
opportunities. But at the end of the day, it comes down to
leadership, whether that leadership is expressed by the local
city council that selects the police chief, by the police chief
himself or herself, that decides whether they should or should
not have a tactical team and under what circumstances they
should use that.
If you leave it to the police officers, like any of us,
they have a burning desire every day to go home to their
families. And so, much of their world is framed around the
perception that what I am about to do, the service of a search
warrant, could be dangerous. I have personally served lots of
search warrants and I understand----
Senator Ayotte. Well, not to interrupt you, but my own
State in the last few years, we lost one officer exercising a
search warrant in a drug situation and we lost another one in a
domestic violence, executing an arrest warrant.
Mr. Bueermann. And I do not know any police officer that
does not recognize that nobody made them become a cop, that
that is a voluntary occupation and they know the inherent risk
in that. The question comes in the balancing of this, and I
think many of the members of the panel have touched on this,
that ultimately, this leadership issue is a function of the
relationship that the police department has with the community.
Professor Kraska talked about the police department next
door to him that has a great relationship and they would not do
certain things. At the same time, if they needed a tactical
team, I have no doubt, to protect their citizens or their
officers they would employ that. It is when you use it and that
common sense and that wisdom that comes from leadership and the
proper training. That is where, I think, the Federal Government
should spend a lot of its attention on, how do you stimulate
that ability to do the right thing.
Mr. Kraska. Oftentimes these kind of conversations devolve
into an either/or type of argument and it is really critical to
recognize that there are absolutely lots of situations,
Columbine, for example, where you have to have a competent,
professional response. A use of force specialist, military
special operations folks, police specialists, whatever you want
to call them, you have to have that, no doubt.
What I was talking about was 60,000 deployments. I was not
talking about 60,000 deployments for those situations. Those
situations are incredibly rare. Thank goodness they are
incredibly rare. Those situations absolutely require a
competent response, active shooter, terrorist, whatever kind of
situation.
Our research demonstrated conclusively that 85 percent of
SWAT team operations today are proactive, choice-driven raids
on people's private residences, 85 percent. What that means is
that the original function of SWAT in the 1970s----
Senator Ayotte. Right.
Mr. Kraska [continuing]. Was the idea that SWAT teams were
to save lives. They were to respond in a laudable way to very
dangerous circumstances, to handle those circumstances well.
What happened during the 1980s and early 1990s drug war is that
function flipped on its head. We went from these teams
predominantly doing reactive deployments, maybe one to two of
these in an entire municipality, one to two a year. Smaller
jurisdictions, probably something like that would not happen in
a hundred years, but they were there to handle it.
This has devolved now into what I am talking about,
widespread misapplication of the paramilitary model,
misapplication. Unjustified growth, having many smaller police
departments. Most of these departments are small. Our research
showed that 50 percent of these small police departments, 50
percent of them, are receiving less than 50 hours of training
per year for their SWAT team. The recommended amount from the
NTOA used to be 250. I think they have reduced it to 200, 250
hours versus 50 hours.
These are not well-trained teams. These are a localized,
18,000 police departments all doing their own thing with no
oversight and no accountability. And that is why we are seeing
and we have seen hundreds of these kinds of tragedies that I
have mentioned, but also lots of terrorized families that have
been caught up in these drug operations and drug raids. Thank
you.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. Anybody else?
Mr. Lomax. Senator, just a couple of comments relative to
the SWAT that you saw. There is a need, like the panelists have
discussed in the last couple of minutes. The No. 1 priority of
SWAT is to preserve life, No. 1, and we think of a SWAT team--
most people just think of a tactical entry team. That is part
of a SWAT team. You have intelligence, you have negotiators,
you have security and so forth.
So again, the No. 1 goal of a SWAT team is to preserve
life, whether it is the hostages, civilians, even the suspect.
So again, like what Dr. Kraska said, over the many years, the
use of SWAT has been--outreached its main purpose. But going
back to the reason for a SWAT is those small particular
situations that you have personally observed where the
training, the equipment, the expertise saved lives.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. For Mr.
Bueermann and Mr. Lomax, I am very sensitive to the cry that
goes up about unfunded Federal mandates, but this is a little
bit of a different situation. We are pushing, in wholesale
fashion, military equipment to local police departments. Do you
sense that the police community would be offended if we put a
few more rules of the road on their ability to receive these
resources from the Federal Government?
Why would we not require that if you are going to get
Federal funding in this space, that you would have to have 200
hours worth of training and that the size of your police
department would be relevant to the decisions as to what you
would receive, and that a SWAT team on a very small community,
particularly one that is a suburb where there could be regional
access to specialists in the rare but very, very important
situation where that kind of training is absolutely essential
to protect lives of innocent people, and most importantly, the
lives of the police officers.
Why can we not begin to do more with--if we are going to
give you money, we are going to make you jump through a few
hoops. Is that something that you think the police community
would not accept and understand, that this has gone too far?
Mr. Bueermann. I have had this conversation with several
police chiefs since Ferguson erupted and I do not think that
they would be alarmed by this. I think there is an expectation
that there is going to be an adjustment in the program, and the
thoughtful police chiefs and sheriffs that I have spoken to
about this would agree with what you just said, that there
needs to be some governing effect on the transfer of some of
this equipment.
I do not think you have an objection, other than the one
you had earlier about if you are giving away equipment, you are
buying--how does that make sense about office equipment, but
certainly tactical equipment, whether that be armored vehicles
or guns, should be connected. I have made some suggestions.
With a local public input capacity, a public hearing about
this, and some guidance from the government relative to
accountability measures like that body-worn cameras or training
issues, because many of those arguments local police chiefs
would be making to their local city councils, and some of those
arguments fall on deaf ears. They cannot get the councils to
pay attention to it because there is a price tag attached to
that. I think you actually might be helping many police chiefs
in this country elevate the level of training that they would
like to see their people receive.
Senator McCaskill. Mr. Lomax, and then I will ask Dr.
Kraska.
Mr. Lomax. Yes, I agree with my colleague here that, No. 1,
for the vast majority of chiefs and sheriffs out there adding
extra steps as far as documentation, policy, and accountability
would not be a problem. I think in light of the fact that this
program has done tremendous contribution to police departments
in the last 20-plus years, that right now there definitely
needs to be a paradigm shift, a way of thinking differently,
because perception is reality.
Right now the perception is there is a militarization of
policing, which becomes reality to a lot of people. The added
steps, whatever they may be, for this 1033 program, I think,
would be a welcome sign, because also it would kind of ensure
training. And again, as Jim mentioned, it will give them more
power to say, we need more training in order to procure this
equipment.
And also, there needs to be local input. I believe Senator
Johnson mentioned it earlier, that this should be a local
issue, too. From the State to the locals, they should have
input into their police departments and how they are properly
equipped.
Senator McCaskill. Dr. Kraska.
Mr. Kraska. Excuse me for being a professor and talking on
and on, so I will actually read a thing that I had written
before, hopefully pretty quickly. If it were possible to
provide funds and programs that allowed a small, tightly
regulated component of U.S. police to obtain military grade
equipment for the extremely rare terrorist or active shooter
situation, perhaps these programs might be of some benefit.
However, the myriad and unavoidable unintended consequences
of such programs render them not just dubious, but dangerous.
Military gear and garb changes and reinforces a war fighting
mentality among civilian police where marginalized populations
become the enemy and the police perceive of themselves as a
thin blue line between order and chaos that can only be
controlled through military model power.
The ethic, the massive community policing reform programs
intended to instill in American policing, that is an ethic of
community empowerment, developing authentic trust between the
community and police, democratic accountability, all those
types of things, have been smoothly displaced by a military
paradigm.
A recent edition in COPS Magazine by the Director of COPS,
said very clearly. He said, We are seeing the growing
militarization of American policing lead to the destruction of
community policing. So it is a cultural problem. It is not just
a regulation, let us put a few tweaks and bumps here.
When you hand these departments this level of weaponry and
these goods, it changes their mindset. Remember, most of these
departments have 25, 30, 50 officers. Fifteen of them serve on
a SWAT team. Now they have an MRAP, an armored personnel
carrier, a $325,000 armored personnel carrier paid for by
Homeland Security. What do they say to themselves? Here is an
example.
``We have racial tensions at the basketball game. We are
going to bring the MRAP to the basketball game on Friday
night.'' That is a quote. Changes their mindset. So I cannot
see a way that the transference of military goods from wartime
to our civilian police agencies is ever a good idea.
Senator McCaskill. It is interesting you say that because
in preparing for this hearing, we took a look at a search on
Amazon for ``police officer toys.'' And what came up, and it is
in the packet of pictures,\1\ the next picture,\2\ the one with
the--yes. This is the first thing that came up. And this is a
military helmet. It is a hand grenade. Obviously, the kind of
weaponry that we have not traditionally thought of police
officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The pictures submitted by Senator McCaskill appear in the
Appendix on page 233.
\2\ The picture submitted by Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, these are what parents are buying for their children
who say they want to grow up and be police officers. So this is
something that has gotten, I think, into our culture that is
very damaging. Speaking of community policing, I have watched
as community policing has gone down and down and down--and by
the way, the Homeland Security grants have not gone down--in
fact, the Homeland Security grants are bigger now than
community policing.
So why is it that I do not hear as much from my police
communities and the lobbying organizations about the cuts to
community policing like I do when there is any talk about UASI
or the Homeland Security grants. Why is it that there does not
appear to be the hue and cry? We need the voices of the police
community lobbying for community policing money.
I watched community policing work as a prosecutor. I
watched it work with the drug problem, a serious drug problem.
That and drug court were two things that really were working in
Kansas City. So what do you attribute the fact that the
policing community does not seem to be as worried about the
funding for community policing as they are for some of these
streams of funding that are buying all of this weaponry?
Mr. Bueermann. This is a cultural aspect of policing. But
it also is the responsibility of every American, quite frankly,
to say to their locally elected people that this is what we
expect from our police department. We expect our police
department to be one that is fair and equitable, that treats
everybody with dignity and respect. At the same time, they
grapple with very difficult and challenging situations.
The best counter terrorism strategy in the United States
that the local police can do is community policing. There is an
absolute need, and you have heard it from everybody that is up
here today in front of you, to co-produce public safety between
the police and the community, and that will never happen if
there is distress, if the police departments do not reflect the
community they serve, if we do not have a constant discussion.
If there is any silver lining that comes out of the events
in Ferguson, it is that we will begin this discussion that
should have happened probably in 1997, not in 2014, about how
we use this equipment, whether it comes from a Federal program
or out of a city's general fund, in an appropriate way that
does not damage the relationship the police have with the
community.
If we do not do that, then we should not be surprised when
that becomes the norm sometime in the future.
Senator McCaskill. What about the idea that if this were an
active shooter situation or hostage situation or terrorism
situation, that some of this equipment be housed on a regional
basis under the control of the State National Guards to then
act as an access point that would provide more accountability
as to when it is utilized and would require that it would not
utilized by anyone who had not had appropriate training and it
would only be utilized in those circumstances where it really
would save lives and protect police officers, as opposed to the
incredible change we have seen that these are now, OK, we have
this thing in the shed, let us figure out some way to get out
and use it.
Mr. Bueermann. I think you have just articulated the reason
we should study this particular phenomenon more at the same
time we are trying to work on solutions, because we do not know
enough about how this equipment is used. We heard that from the
earlier panel.
Senator McCaskill. They have no idea. And by the way,
Justice Department said they do. They just know what they are
buying with it. They do not know how it is being utilized. None
of them know how it is being utilized.
Mr. Bueermann. We should spend more time and money
researching this. I think you make a great point about
regionalizing certain kinds of assets and there are lessons
that we could learn from other fields that do this. This could
easily be one of the guidelines that is attached to this kind
of program, that you have to demonstrate what the regional
approach is to using these kinds of equipment. And we see that
already in some other Federal programs. But this should be a
regional asset and not necessarily a localized asset.
The problem is there are 17,000 police departments in this
United States. Each one has a slightly different challenge in
front of them, and so there needs to be a thoughtful approach
to this that ties this stuff together. I think that ensuring
that the locally elected body weighs in on this, that local
communities have an opportunity to voice their opinion, whether
this makes sense or it does not make sense for us to have this
particular piece of equipment, means that there is a much
greater likelihood that you are going to see a regional
approach to these things and not necessarily an individual
department where a one-officer department has an MRAP. I mean,
there is a story there that we should know more about.
Senator McCaskill. Or 13 assault grade rifles----
Mr. Bueermann. We should know more about that.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. For one sworn officer. I
mean, that, obviously, is almost comical it is so out of
bounds. One of the things that I witnessed in Ferguson, and I
would like you to weigh in on this, Mr. Price, was the chicken
and egg situation that really occurred, where you had a
spontaneous demonstration, you had--the vast majority of which
was very peaceful beginning on Saturday.
We did have some looting on Sunday night. But aside from
the looting on Sunday night, the vast majority of it was
peaceful up until the following weekend when you began to see a
whole lot of people, embedded among the peaceful protesters,
that were there for a confrontation. There is no question in my
mind that the idea that all of this equipment was brought out
early in the week contributed to a mentality among the peaceful
protesters that they were being treated as the enemy.
Mr. Price. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill. That they were the enemy.
Mr. Price. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. That this was a military force and they
were facing down an enemy. These were peaceful protesters that,
in America, we are supposed to be celebrating as part of our
constitutional heritage. Talk about, Mr. Price, how the freedom
of the press worked in here. What were the challenges you faced
as you were there with your camera, day in and day out, from
being able to cover what was going on because of that mentality
that was almost a siege mentality that began really on Monday
following the shooting on Saturday.
Mr. Price. Well, Senator, one of the big problems I had
with the police was that sometimes they lumped the media in
with the protesters, particularly during the daylight hours
when they took on a policy of no standing protester or media
could be found stationary. And the problem I had with that was,
you already have us locked into a 2-point mile radius so we are
right here in front of you. But yet, they wanted us to keep in
motion. And I was thinking to myself, would it not be easier if
once they do slow down, you have them corralled in one
location, here we are, and there is 80 to 100 people standing
here. Why should we continue to move?
And particularly when you are also asking the photographers
to move with them. There was some tussle from time to time. I
even saw a couple of the CNN correspondents while they were
live on the air being forced, 20 or 30 feet down a certain
area. I felt like they were aggravating a peaceful stance.
Well, now they are tired of walking up and down the street. Now
they are going to stand and chant. But no, you want to keep
them in motion and you want the media to go with them.
I felt like they were aggravating the situation as opposed
to keeping it peaceful.
Senator McCaskill. I am assuming tactical officers receive
training about when putting in this kind of military presence
during daylight hours when you have lots of children and
elderly? I mean, this crowd. Yes, there were some young people
in the crowd, but it was the middle of the afternoon and you
had a mounted sniper weapon pointing at people that never ever
envisioned having someone point a sniper weapon.
This happened on Wednesday afternoon. It was about three
o'clock in the afternoon that that occurred. So is there
somewhere in the training that that would be appropriate under
those circumstances?
Mr. Lomax. Senator, I am not sure of the particulars of
what was going on at that time. Hopefully, the DOJ
investigation and other investigations will determine what was
going on, because a lot of times there may be intelligence out
there that something is going on that maybe we do not know what
is happening.
Senator McCaskill. Well, believe it or not, I was told that
the reason that happened is that he was using his scope in
order to observe the crowd. Well, have they heard of
binoculars? It seems to me there is a better way to monitor a
crowd that is peacefully protesting than pointing mounted
sniper weapons at them under those circumstances.
I mean, it seems common sense would tell you that is going
to make the situation much worse, not make it better.
Mr. Lomax. Yes, you are right.
Senator McCaskill. I was told that he was up there in order
to observe the crowd.
Mr. Lomax. Correct.
Mr. Kraska. Most police departments that handle civil
protests correctly know that the last thing you want to do is
instigate. There was just a wonderful article written in the
Washington Post that interviewed a whole bunch of chiefs of
police that understand this and how you sit back and you do not
antagonize and you certainly do not display this level of
weaponry.
If I might, I will just throw out a one quick speculation,
and I am willing to speculate before the DOJ report comes out.
I think what you saw was a high level of fear of victimization
among the police, and it is a huge cultural issue right now in
policing where so many for-profit training groups and training
academies are teaching this survivalist warrior mentality.
You never know whether the next person is going to kill you
and you have to go home at night, so you take every possible
precaution you can. Well, all of that sounds wonderful, but it
does lead to an intense fear of the other, of those people, of
the community you are serving, and I think----
Senator McCaskill. And there had been looting on Sunday
night and they burned down a store. I mean, let us be fair
here. It was not like that this activity was completely lawful.
There was a lot of unlawful activity that I think really--it
shook the bones of the law enforcement community in this area,
that they would have that kind of lawlessness. So that is
something that we have--to be very fair, we have to factor that
into their response.
Mr. Kraska. Absolutely, but I would have to say you have to
look at the situation. Look at Hurricane Katrina where the
initial response from FEMA was not what has been traditionally
done in this great country, which is humanitarian aid. The
initial response from FEMA, under the Department of Homeland
Security, was, this is a security threat, and they spent three,
almost four full days supposedly securing the area, later of
which we found out was false, that there was not an area to
secure.
People were in dire need of help. Securing the area before
they gave humanitarian aid. That is the kind of mentality I am
talking about. It is a security first, aid second mindset,
which is also what our good friend said down the table.
Senator McCaskill. Right Did you have something you wanted
to add, Mr. Price?
Mr. Price. Yes. In the picture that you just showed, the
distance between the police and the protesters was probably a
hundred feet.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The pictures submitted by Senator McCaskill appear in the
Appendix on page 233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCaskill. Very small.
Mr. Price. Very small. So, I mean, when they were standing
there, even when the police were shouting, it was like in that
photo, you could clearly hear what everyone was saying from the
police department as far as moving back, dispersing. So the use
of a scope, even when that truck rolled up, all the
photographers were looking around like, OK, what is this for?
We began to think that there was something else going on behind
the scenes that we did not know about. None of that took place.
Senator McCaskill. You just assumed it was not for you?
Mr. Price. Yes, exactly. And we were wondering, why the
truck was there because, again, it brought up suspect that
there was something going on that we did not know. Other
photographers were questioning each other about what was going
on. And this went on for 3 or 4 days.
And again, the police aggravated peaceful marchers when
they were just standing there chanting. Instead of just letting
them chant, and you have them in a stationary environment, they
moved them around, which irritated them. That is all they did.
Senator McCaskill. Right. Well, I want to thank all of you
for being here. We will follow up with another Subcommittee
hearing, I am sure, on this subject as we--and I would
certainly ask Mr. Bueermann and Mr. Lomax for you to begin
working on what you think, based on your knowledge of the
police community in this country, what would be reasonable
changes in policy that would begin to get us back to a place
where we have not done--where somebody, a young man who wants
to grow up to be a police officer, thinks what he needs to get
as part of his uniform is a hand grenade.
Obviously, that is a problem. And I would like us to work
on that together. We will continue to work with all of you who
have come today. Certainly, the NAACP is part of this national
discussion and obviously I am on the ground in Ferguson a lot
trying to figure out how we navigate through a still very
difficult road ahead as we figure out how to regain trust in
that community with that police department.
The great people of Ferguson deserve to have a police
department that they feel comfortable with, and so, there is a
lot of work yet to do.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until
September 24 at 5 p.m. for the submission of any other
statements and any other questions for the record. If there is
any information that you all would like to provide to the
record, be sure and get it to us before then. We will remain in
contact with you as we work on this problem. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]