    [Senate Hearing 107-935]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-935

                  S. 2480: LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 23, 2002

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-107-95

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    87-413              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
    EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
    JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware       STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
    HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin              CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
    RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin       JON KYL, Arizona
    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina         MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
           Bruce A. Cohen, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                      Sharon Prost, Minority Chief Counsel
                    Makan Delrahim, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

    Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa,
      prepared statement.............................................    23
    Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah,
      prepared statement.............................................    25
    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.     1
        prepared statement...........................................    33
    McConnell, Hon. Mitch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky,
      prepared statement.............................................    35
    Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
      Carolina, prepared statement...................................    42

                                   WITNESSES

    Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.......     9
    Cunningham, Hon. Randy ``Duke'', a Representative in Congress
      from the State of California...................................     3
    Gordon, Arthur, National Executive Board Member, Federal Law
      Enforcement Officers Association, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania.....     8
    Johnson, David, Deputy Chief of Police, Cedar Rapids Police
      Department, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.................................    13
    Westphal, Colonel Lonnie J., Chief, Colorado State Patrol,
      Denver, Colorado...............................................    11
    Young, Lieutenant Steve, National President, Fraternal Order of
      Police, Marion, Ohio...........................................     5

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana,
      prepared statement.............................................    16
    Cunningham, Hon. Randy ``Duke'', a Representatives in Congress
      from the State of California, prepared statement...............    17
    Glidden, Osburn, Chief of Police, Williston Police Department,
      Williston, Vermont, letter.....................................    19
    Gordon, Arthur, National Executive Board Officer, and Richard J.
      Gallo, National President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers
      Association, Lewisberry, PA, prepared statement................    20
    Johnson, David, Chief of Police, Cedar Rapids Police Department,
      Cedar Rapids, Iowa, prepared statement.........................    27
    Johnson, Wade M., Community Police Officer, Hinesburg Community
      Police, Hinesburg, Vermont, letter.............................    30
    Kentucky State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Martin D. Scott,
      Jr., State President, Louisville, Kentucky, letter.............    31
    National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., Johnson,
      William J., Executive Director, prepared statement.............    39
    Westphal, Lonnie, J., Vice President, International Association
      of Chiefs of Police, Cherokee, Iowa, prepared statement........    47
    Young, Lt. Steve, National President, fraternal Order of Police,
      prepared statement and attachment..............................    52

                  S. 2480: LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2002

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in
    Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick
    Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senator Leahy.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                          THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Chairman Leahy. I am pleased to hold this hearing today on
    the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002. This is
    legislation to prevent current and retired Federal, State, and
    local law enforcement officers to carry their firearms to be
    prepared to assist in dangerous situations.
        There are 29 Senators, including Senator Baucus, who I know
    is coming from another matter and will be joining us on this,
    as well as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who go
    sort of across the spectrum. Senators Thurmond, McConnell,
    Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Sessions, Brownback, Cantwell,
    DeWine, and also Senator Harkin, the Chairman of the Senate
    Agriculture Committee, join with Senator Hatch and myself to
    cosponsor this bill.
        I introduced this measure as a companion to H.R. 218,
    sponsored by Representative Cunningham, who is here with us
    today. Congressman, I am told you have 267 cosponsors. I am not
    sure you could get 267 cosponsors, as fractious as things have
    been these days, to say the sun will rise in the East and set
    in the West, so it shows there is strong bipartisan support for
    this legislation. The Fraternal Order of Police strongly
    support it.
        There are currently 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers
    currently serving in the United States. Since the first
    recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 15,000
    officers killed in the line of duty. A total of 1,647 died in
    the line of duty over the last decade. That is an average of
    165 deaths per year. Roughly 5 percent of the officers that die
    are killed taking law enforcement action while in an off-duty
    capacity. An average of more than 62,000 law enforcement
    officers are assaulted each year.
        Until last year, violent crime in this country declined in
    each of the preceding 8 years. That has come at a high price,
    though. It has meant far more police work, especially community
    policing.
        So this Act is designed to protect officers and their
    families from vindictive criminals and to allow thousands of
    equipped, trained, and certified law enforcement officers,
    whether on or off duty or retired, to carry concealed firearms
    in most situations, thus enabling them to respond immediately
    to a crime.
        I might point out for those who think that a law
    enforcement officer either off-duty or retired ever faces a
    threat. We all know that happens all the time. It has been 28
    years since I was in law enforcement and I still run into
    people who remember my kind words as they went off to the
    slammer for 15 or 20 or 25 years. I thought they would never
    live long enough to see them get out, but they are out. So I
    know the feeling.
        We have a number of letters of support from Vermont law
    enforcement officials, including Chief Osburn Glidden of
    Williston and Officer Wade Johnson of Hinesburg.
        I received calls of support for this measure from Chief
    Trevor Whipple of Barre, and I saw him on Saturday in Barre,
    and Captain Robert Hawke, the President of the Vermont Police
    Association. I have a statement endorsing this legislation from
    the National Organization of Police Organizations and the
    International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
        This is not one of those things that costs any money. We
    are just saying off-duty and retired officers should be
    permitted to carry their firearms across State and other
    jurisdictional lines. We are talking about qualified law
    enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement
    officers. Nobody is asking to just allow it. You have to hit
    the basic qualifications. And it preserves any State law that
    permits citizens from restricting a concealed firearm on
    private property and preserves any State law that restricts the
    possession of a firearm on State or local government policy.
        But to qualify, a law enforcement officer has to be
    authorized to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where
    he or she works, be in good standing, and meet standards
    established by the agency to regularly qualify to use a
    firearm. The officer has to have been retired in good standing,
    been employed at least 5 years as a law enforcement officer
    unless forced to retire due to a service-related injury, have a
    non-forfeitable right to benefits under their retirement plan,
    and annually complete a State-approved firearms training
    course. I mean, these are tough requirements. It is not as
    though we are just going to arm half the world. You have to fit
    these requirements.
        I know that either current police officers or former police
    officers are never really off-duty. I look forward to hearing
    the testimony. I am delighted that Congressman Cunningham is
    here and I know that Steve Young, a good friend, the President
    of the Fraternal Order of Police, is here, who has spent a lot
    of time on this. We have had private discussions and others.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Congressman Cunningham, I will give away no
    secrets to mention the comment that the President made to the
    two of us that we either had a pretty good piece of legislation
    or one of us had not read it.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Leahy. But I think we have put together a good
    coalition here and I am delighted and honored to have you here
    at the Committee. Please go ahead, sir.

     STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would tell you
    that besides the cosponsors of the bill, when we did have an
    opportunity to vote on this bill in the House, it passed with
    372 votes. It was tied to the juvenile justice bill, which
    unfortunately was at the end of the year and then the Senate
    was not able to take up. The gentlelady from New York, Mrs.
    McCarthy, who lost her husband to a handgun, is supportive of
    this bill. Mr. Schumer, who used to be in our body and is now
    joining you, as I understand it, is speaking in favor of this.
    So this has wide, not only bipartisan support, but support from
    different sides of particular issues.
        I cannot tell you how happy especially, Mr. Chairman, this
    makes me. Since 1992, I have been working this issue, waiting
    for you, not you specifically, but for this day to come where
    we could have a hearing on this, and I know the law enforcement
    agencies thank you, as well.
        Why have I fought so long? It is three simple reasons. It
    will make our community safer. It puts cops on the street, more
    cops on the street, at no cost to the taxpayers. It is a good
    piece of legislation. Many times, our law enforcement agents do
    not deal with the best part of our civilization, and when they
    put these guys away, sometimes these bad guys come back and
    want retribution. This also protects the law enforcement agents
    and their families, and I think you will see in the testimony
    today there are thousands of cases where law enforcement agents
    have been threatened, have been killed and maligned because
    they were not allowed to carry a weapon.
        This is so important. I think it was exemplified when we
    had thousands of law enforcement agents here this summer. You
    and I were invited among all the other Members of Congress to
    stand on the podium with agents on Law Enforcement Memorial Day
    with the President of the United States. That is how much they
    thought of this bill and you and what you are doing here today,
    and I again want to thank you.
        The passage of this legislation will make our communities
    safer by putting tens of thousands of law enforcement agents on
    the street, armed and capable of disrupting criminal efforts at
    places and times where there are currently not any.
        Additionally, this legislation will make our law
    enforcement officers themselves safer. I have heard testimony
    that supports this from law enforcement officers across the
    country, as I just previously mentioned.
        Finally, enactment of this measure will cost nothing to the
    taxpayer. It is a rarity these days to be able to have a
    positive, measurable effect on our communities without spending
    our tax dollars. When we do find a way, I believe it is
    incumbent on us to do so. Any community would relish the
    thought of being able to put more officers on the street. In
    fact, that is often the main plank of any crime reduction
    effort. Here is a way to do just that while preserving precious
    resources for other legislation.
        Again, I would like to offer you a challenge that we in the
    House hope we will pass this before you. That might be a bad
    bet on my side, but I think if you are able to pass this, it
    will put pressure on the Chairman in the House Judiciary to do
    so and I know the President will sign it right away.
        It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, and God
    bless you for having this hearing today.
        Chairman Leahy. I thank you for that. If you send it over
    here, I would ask the leader to hold it at the desk. I do not
    care whether it comes over with a House number or a Senate
    number, I just want to get it passed. So either way, we will
    try to move it very quickly. I will very quickly be putting it
    on the agenda in the Senate Judiciary Committee and we will
    move it on.
        I also know that you have got about 14 other places you are
    supposed to be, so----
        Mr. Cunningham. I have got to over and testify on the
    supplemental that we are having on the floor right now,
    Senator, but thank you for this opportunity, and on behalf of
    law enforcement agencies, thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very, very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. The next panel will be Lieutenant Steve
    Young, the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police,
    and Congressman Cunningham talked about the honor we had to be
    on the podium with Steve Young and the President. It was an
    honor in both cases. We also have Arthur Gordon, National
    Executive Board Member of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
    Association from Woodbine, Maryland; Deputy Chief of Police
    David Johnson, Cedar Rapids Police Department, Cedar Rapids,
    Iowa; and Colonel Lonnie Westphal, Chief of the Colorado State
    Patrol in Denver, Colorado.
        Chief Westphal, I was recently out in Denver and received
    some logistical help from some of your folks and they were
    absolutely superb. I just wanted to mention that.
        Senator Grassley had intended to be here, but he is stuck
    on the floor, as sometimes happens. Especially because you are
    here, Chief John, he wanted to be here, but the nature of the
    bill that is on the floor, he is the ranking member and
    required to be there, and I am going to put a statement from
    him in the record in which, you will not be surprised to know,
    he praises you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. I will also include in the record a
    statement from Senator Thurmond.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. My good friend, Lieutenant Steve Young of
    Marion, Ohio, is here, and Steve, why do we not start with you.

       STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT STEVE YOUNG, NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
                FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MARION, OHIO

        Lieutenant Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
    afternoon. As you said, my name is Steve Young. I am the
    National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the
    largest law enforcement labor organization in the United
    States, with more than 300,000 members.
        I want to begin by extending the sincere gratitude of our
    nation's rank-and-file officers to you, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this hearing. The FOP is sincerely grateful to you and
    to Ranking Member Hatch for authoring S. 2480, the Law
    Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which is the subject of
    today's hearing.
        I also want to recognize and thank Representative Randy
    ``Duke'' Cunningham for all of his efforts and hard work on
    this issue in the House. We have been working side by side with
    Mr. Cunningham for many years now and his commitment to the
    bill has never wavered.
        This bill is not about firearms, it is about officer
    safety, a fact recognized by you, Mr. Chairman, and the 11
    members of this Committee who cosponsor it. I further believe
    that on September 11, 2001, it became a critical public safety
    and homeland security issue.
        Immediately after the attacks, the ranks of volunteers in
    New York City, Pennsylvania, Northern Virginia, and Washington,
    D.C., were swelled by off-duty and retired law enforcement
    officers and other emergency services personnel from every
    region of the country who had come to volunteer their services.
    Many of the law enforcement officers who did so may have been
    in legal jeopardy.
        For instance, the State of New York and New York City
    restrict the ability of off-duty police officers from other
    jurisdictions to carry firearms. Across the river in New
    Jersey, officers not employed by that State were probably not
    exempt from New Jersey's statute against unlawful possession of
    a firearm. In Pennsylvania, there is no exemption for out-of-
    State police officers.
        No other emergency response professional who chose to
    volunteer their professional expertise in response to the
    attacks on the United States faced any legal jeopardy for
    crossing a jurisdictional boundary, but law enforcement
    officers did.
        Among the many tools of a professional law enforcement
    officer are the badge and the gun. The badge symbolizes the
    officer's authority, and in worst case scenarios, the gun
    enforces that authority. These tools are given to the officer
    in trust by the public to enforce the peace and fight crime. In
    asking Congress to pass this bill, we seek a measured extension
    of that trust.
        In certain situations, an officer's knowledge and training
    would be rendered virtually useless without a firearm, as would
    his ability to provide for his own self-defense or that of his
    family. A police officer may not remember the name and face of
    every criminal he or she has arrested, but a convicted felon
    would certainly remember the officer who put them behind prison
    bars. These violent felons can and do target police officers
    and they do not care if the officer is in his or her own
    jurisdiction, nor do they care if the officer is in uniform or
    not, on duty or off, active or retired.
        We have compiled the names of 54 officers, all of whom were
    off-duty when they were killed. Yet despite not being on the
    clock, the circumstances of their deaths qualified them as
    having died in the line of duty. To the best of our knowledge,
    these officers were unarmed when they answered the call. Some
    were killed when they placed themselves in harm's way to help a
    victim or stop a crime in progress. Others were recognized or
    discovered to be police officers or identified themselves as
    such, prompting their assailants to kill them.
        With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like this
    document to be entered into the record.
        Chairman Leahy. It will be.
        Lieutenant Young. The fate of these 54 officers should
    remind all of us that law enforcement is a dangerous
    profession. There is no legislation, Act of Congress, or
    government regulation which will change this sobering fact.
    However, the adoption of S. 2480 will, at the very least, give
    officers who do choose to carry their firearms a chance to
    defend themselves and their families whenever and wherever the
    criminal may strike.
        I also want to share with you a happier example about an
    off-duty officer who was legally carrying a firearm off-duty.
    His courage and heroism under fire earned him the recognition
    of Parade Magazine and the IACP, who named him ``Police Officer
    of the Year'' in 2000.
        Police Officer Dennis Devitte, a 20-year veteran of the Las
    Vegas Police Department, was off-duty at a sports bar late one
    evening when the establishment was attacked by three armed
    assailants, two of which opened fire on the crowd. Devitte did
    not hesitate. He pulled his tiny .25-caliber pistol, and
    knowing he would have to get very close to make sure he hit his
    target, charged a man firing a .40-caliber semi-automatic.
    Officer Devitte got within one foot, fired, and killed the
    gunman, but not before he was shot eight times. The remaining
    two gunmen fled the robbery and the robbery was thwarted.
        All six civilians wounded by the gunman recovered. One
    witness described Officer Devitte's action as ``the most
    courageous thing I've ever seen.'' Although seriously injured,
    Officer Devitte was back on the job 6 months later. So it is
    ironic to me that the IACP would oppose this legislation when
    their own choice for ``Police Officer of the Year'' for 2000
    earned this recognition for his heroic actions while he was
    off-duty and armed. Perhaps they will be able to explain this
    contradiction today.
        I also want to refute an argument raised by the bill's
    opponents who object to this measure because it preempts State
    law. In the view of the FOP, the Congress has the power under
    the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to extend
    full faith and credit to police officers who have met the
    criteria to carry firearms set by one State and make those
    credentials applicable in all States. The bill maintains the
    States' power to set their own requirements for their officers
    in training and qualifying in the use of weapons.
        We believe that S. 2480 carefully defines who in law
    enforcement will not be able to carry a weapon under this bill.
    Active officers must admit to qualification standards
    established by the agency, and retired officers must requalify
    with their firearm at their own expense every 12 months and
    meet the same standards as active officers in the State in
    which they reside. This is a narrow universe of persons who are
    qualified and worthy of the measured extension of the trust
    that this legislation would provide.
        Further, Congress has previously acted to force States to
    recognize concealed carry permits by other States on the basis
    of employment. In June 1993, Congress passed P.L. 103-55, the
    Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act. This legislation mandated
    reciprocity for weapons' licenses issued to armored car company
    crew members. Similarly, 2 weeks ago, the House voted
    overwhelmingly to create an exemption from State and local
    prohibitions on the carrying of firearm for airline pilots who
    volunteer to become Federal Flight Deck Officers. Mr. Chairman,
    if Congress can mandate that private security guards and
    airline pilots can carry in all States, I do not think it
    should balk at extending the same authority to fully sworn,
    fully trained law enforcement officers employed by government
    agencies.
        The aim of the bill, allowing qualified active and retired
    law enforcement officers to carry their firearms outside their
    jurisdiction, is not controversial. This legislation has
    widespread bipartisan support. The companion bill to S. 2480,
    H.R. 218, the Community Protection Act, currently has 261
    sponsors.
        Just 2 years ago, the House passed an amendment identical
    to this bill on the floor by an overwhelming vote of 372 to 53.
    Though the underlying measure was defeated, it is clear that
    the House recognized the merits of this legislation and it is
    my hope that this Committee will, as well.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is an
    increasingly dangerous world that the men and women in blue are
    asked to patrol. We need the ability to defend ourselves
    against the very criminals that we pursue as part of our sworn
    duty because the dangers inherent to our profession do not end
    with the shift. Mr. Chairman and other Members of Congress and
    the administration, you saw firsthand the support of the rank-
    and-file officers for this measure on May 15 right here on the
    West Front of the Capitol.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before the Committee today on this issue and I would certainly
    be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Lieutenant. I would note it was
    not just the reaction of the officers on the West Front of the
    Capitol on that, but it is your own dedication and your own
    efforts on this, conversations you and I have had, my staff and
    you have had, and others, and the fact that you are pushing
    this as a basis to make our community safer and I appreciate
    that very much.
        Lieutenant Young. Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Lt. Young appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Mr. Gordon wants to testify on behalf of
    the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and is an
    officer in that organization's National Executive Board. He has
    had 27 years as an ATF agent. He has been a firearms instructor
    for the ATF for 17 years, which means he can shoot probably a
    lot better than I can. He served in ATF's headquarters in
    firearms training for two-and-a-half years. He has helped to
    write many of the current firearms training courses currently
    used by the agents nationwide, so I appreciate both your
    service and your expertise. Welcome, Mr. Gordon. The floor is
    yours.

     STATEMENT OF ARTHUR GORDON, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER,
        FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, WOODBINE,
                                MARYLAND

        Mr. Gordon. Thank you. On behalf of the Federal Law
    Enforcement Officers Association, we thank the Chairman,
    ranking member, and members of the Committee for inviting us.
    We are pleased to be here today to express our support for S.
    2480, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002, a common
    sense, bipartisan legislative proposal that will enable retired
    Federal agents to defend themselves and their families as well
    as to continue to protect the American citizens.
        My name is Art Gordon. I am a member of the National
    Executive Board of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
    Association, a professional association made up of volunteers
    exclusively representing criminal investigators, the special
    agents from the Department of Justice, the Department of
    Treasury, and many other Federal agencies. There are
    approximately 32,000 Federal agents in America. Although I am
    an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
    Baltimore Field Division, I am not here today representing the
    agency, only FLEOA.
        Personally, I have 27 years of service as an ATF agent and
    have been a firearms instructor for ATF for 17 years. In
    addition, I have served in ATF's headquarters firearms training
    program for two-and-a-half years, where I assisted in writing
    many of the current firearms training courses currently used by
    ATF agents across the country. I have been eligible to retire
    for the past 2 years.
        FLEOA supports the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of
    2002, S. 2480, for several reasons. One of these reasons is for
    exactly what the title of the bill states, law enforcement
    officer safety. Over the years, every Federal agent from every
    single agency has arrested people who only remember the face of
    the agent who arrested him or her. Being arrested means someone
    getting into your face. We get into people's faces. We also
    have to process the person through the criminal justice system
    and sometimes testify against them in court.
        Over the years, an agent can do this hundreds of times and
    the face of the people arrested can blur. However, for the
    people only getting arrested once, twice, or even a half-dozen
    times, those days tend to stand out in their memory. The
    ultimate nightmare for an agent is to be walking with his or
    her family and be approached by someone who states, ``Hey,
    agent, remember me?'' These are the words that would make any
    cop's heart skip a beat until we learn if the person is friend
    or foe. If the person has nefarious intentions and the agent is
    retired, well, let us say that is a nightmare we do not want to
    see the conclusion of.
        The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 will give
    the retired agent not only the chance to totally defend him or
    herself, but will also permit them to protect any citizen if
    they stumble across a crime occurring. Back in 1999, Senator
    Grassley authored the Federal Law Enforcement Good Samaritan
    Act. The Committee, under the leadership of Senators Hatch and
    Leahy, approved the legislative proposal and it was signed into
    law. This law allowed Federal agents to take reasonable action
    for a crime that occurs in their presence while we are off-
    duty.
        S. 2480 is an extension of this common sense law, for if I
    retired yesterday, is there any difference in me today? A
    Federal agent usually qualifies with their everyday firearm at
    least four times a year and qualifies with various other
    weapons throughout each year. Also included in the training
    exercise are shoot/don't shoot scenarios and the legal aspects
    of using deadly force.
        The current requirement for Federal agents hired before
    1984 to retire is 20 years of service and to be the age of 50.
    For agents hired after 1984, they can retire with 25 years of
    service at any age or 20 years of service at the age of 50. I
    am sure all present here today will agree that life does not
    end at 50. There are many more productive years left. In fact,
    many Federal agents continue in their profession either working
    as private investigators, or with State or local criminal
    justice agencies, or become teachers utilizing their expertise
    in the field to instruct the next generation.
        Once you count the initial training at Quantico, Virginia,
    or Glynco, Georgia, add in four times a year firearms
    qualification, plus the multitude of other training course,
    this results in an investment that the American citizen
    deserves to continue to get something back from.
        At the start of every Congressional session, FLEOA surveys
    its members, querying them on what issues are important to
    them. For each of the past few Congressional sessions, this
    issue has been in the top three. FLEOA has approximately 60
    chapters across America, and over the years the President of
    FLEOA has attended hundreds of chapter meetings. This issue has
    always been one that members have brought up because they truly
    have been concerned about this.
        For all these reasons, FLEOA believes S. 2480 should be
    approved in this Committee and on the full floor of the Senate
    and signed into law.
        On behalf of Mike Miskinis, Chapter President of FLEOA's
    Utah Chapter, retired Secret Service agent; Frank Puleo,
    Chapter President of FLEOA's Vermont Chapter, currently an
    agent with HHS OIG but also a future retiree; and for all the
    members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, I
    thank you for holding this hearing today and I look forward to
    answering any questions of the Committee.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you for your remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. I will now turn to Senator Baucus.

    STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
                                MONTANA

        Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was
    not too many years ago I was sitting next to you on this
    Committee.
        Chairman Leahy. We still miss you.
        Senator Baucus. I miss this Committee. This Committee was
    probably--I enjoyed as much and had more fun in just trying to
    address just basic constitutional issues that really affect and
    go to the heart of our country, and I thank you for the great
    job you are doing in conducting and chairing this Committee.
        Mr. Chairman, I also thank you in the spirit of being a
    great leader of this Committee for allowing me to testify on
    the bill that you have introduced, which I think is very needed
    and very important, particularly at this time.
        This bill, I think, will pay enormous dividends for the
    American people. It will allow qualified active duty and
    retired law enforcement officers to carry their weapons
    regardless of State and local restrictions on carrying
    concealed weapons, to allow these officers to carry their
    weapons across State and other jurisdictional lines.
        The legislation also addresses a critical officer safety
    and public safety need. Law enforcement officers are trained.
    They are trained professionals. They are dedicated, dedicated
    public servants, sworn to uphold the law and protect the
    citizens of our country. They are always on duty, even when
    they are not in uniform or patrolling a beat. After September
    11, the role of law enforcement officers in our communities is
    even more important as they constitute our front-line defense
    against terrorism here at home.
        It just makes sense to be sure that law enforcement
    officers have the means to protect themselves and the public at
    all times, because they could be called upon to protect
    themselves or the public at any time. Particularly, it makes
    sense in rural States like mine of Montana, where law
    enforcement officers are stretched thin, there is so much
    territory to cover.
        Your bill also will enhance public safety by allowing the
    nation to tap into the wealth of training and knowledge that is
    our law enforcement community, without costing our Federal
    taxpayers a dime. Law enforcement officers have training. They
    have expertise in detecting and preventing the crime that
    ordinary citizens just do not have. The bill also makes sure
    that officers can maximize that training in the event of an
    emergency, regardless of jurisdiction and regardless of whether
    an officer was officially on duty.
        And, it does a good job of balancing the rights of States
    and private citizens by preserving State laws that permit
    private citizens to prohibit concealed weapons on their own
    property, and State laws that ban firearms on State or local
    property.
        Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your bill. I think it is
    very timely, it is very important, and I hope that your
    Committee, Mr. Chairman, can mark this up quickly and get it
    out quickly on the floor because it is part of the major effort
    that we now need to undertake just to better protect ourselves
    in America, and I thank you again very much for what you are
    doing.
        Chairman Leahy. I thank you very much. I thank you for your
    strong support of it and I am hoping we can get it out of the
    Committee at our next markup and quickly on the consent
    calendar. Thank you.
        Senator Baucus. Good. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. I know you are supposed to be, as I said
    earlier, at another meeting. I appreciate you taking the time
    to come by.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Baucus appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Colonel Westphal, you are here representing
    the IACP and you are currently Vice President, am I correct in
    that?
        Col. Westphal. That is correct, Senator.
        Chairman Leahy. You were appointed to the position of Chief
    of the Colorado State Patrol in October 1995. You had served
    with them for 21 years before that, since 1974, the year that I
    was ending my law enforcement career. Please go ahead, Colonel.

    STATEMENT OF COLONEL LONNIE J. WESTPHAL, CHIEF, COLORADO STATE
                        PATROL, DENVER, COLORADO

        Col. Westphal. Good afternoon, Senator Leahy. I am pleased
    to be here this afternoon to present the views of the
    International Association of Chiefs of Police on S. 2480, the
    Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002.
        As you know, the IACP is the world's oldest and largest
    association of law enforcement executives, with more than
    19,000 members in 100 countries. Before I address our concerns
    with this legislation, I would like to express my gratitude and
    the gratitude of the IACP to the Committee for your continuing
    support of the nation's law enforcement agencies and law
    enforcement officers.
        I sort of feel like, Senator, the only red tree in a forest
    of pine trees today----
        [Laughter.]
        Col. Westphal.--but as you know, the IACP has some serious
    concerns with the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Our
    opposition is based primarily on the fundamental belief that
    States and localities should determine who is eligible to carry
    firearms in their community.
        Over the years, the IACP has consistently opposed any
    Federal legislative proposals that would either preempt and/or
    mandate the liberalization of an individual State's laws that
    would allow citizens of other States to carry concealed weapons
    in that State without meeting its requirements. The IACP
    believes it is essential that State governments maintain the
    ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the
    needs of their community. This applies to the laws covering
    private citizens as well as active and former law enforcement
    personnel. The IACP also believes that each State should retain
    the power to determine whether they want police officers that
    are trained and supervised by agencies outside of their State
    to carry weapons in their jurisdictions.
        In addition, authority for police officers to carry
    firearms when off duty, use of force policies, and firearms
    training standards vary significantly from State to State. Why
    should a police chief who has employed the most rigorous
    training program with strict standards of accountability and
    stringent policies be forced to permit officers who may not
    meet those standards to carry a concealed weapon in his or her
    jurisdiction?
        However, in addition to these fundamental questions over
    the preemption of State and local firearms laws, the IACP is
    also concerned with the impact this legislation may have on the
    safety of our officers and our community. There can be no doubt
    that police executives are deeply concerned for the safety of
    our officers. We understand the proponents of S. 2480 contend
    that police officers need to protect themselves and their
    families while traveling and that undercover officers may be
    targets if recognized on vacation and travel. These are
    certainly considerations, but they must be balanced against the
    potential dangers involved.
        In fact, one of the reasons that this legislation was
    especially troubling to our nation's law enforcement executives
    is because they could, in fact, threaten the safety of officers
    by creating tragic situations where officers from other
    jurisdictions are wounded or killed by local officers.
        Police departments throughout the nation train their
    officers to respond as a team to dangerous situations. This
    teamwork requires months of training to develop and provides
    the officers with an understanding of how their coworkers will
    respond when faced with different situations. Injecting an
    armed, unknown officer who has received different training and
    is operating under different assumptions can turn an already
    dangerous situation deadly.
        In addition, the IACP believes that this legislation would
    do little to improve the safety of communities. It is important
    to remember that a police officer's authority to enforce the
    law is limited to the jurisdiction in which they serve. An
    officer, upon leaving his jurisdiction, has no arrest powers or
    other authority to enforce the law. That is the responsibility
    of the local law enforcement agencies.
        In addition, the IACP is concerned that the legislation
    specifies that only an officer who is not subject to a
    disciplinary action is eligible. This provision raises several
    concerns for law enforcement executives. For example, what
    types of disciplinary actions does this cover? Does this
    provision apply only to current investigations and actions? How
    would officers ascertain that an out-of-State law enforcement
    officer is subject to a disciplinary action and, therefore,
    ineligible to carry a firearm?
        Additionally, while the legislation does contain some
    requirements to ensure that retirees qualify to have a
    concealed weapon, they are insufficient and would be difficult
    to implement. The legislation fails to take into account those
    officers who have retired under the threat of disciplinary
    action or dismissal for emotional problems that did not rise to
    the level of mental instability. Officers who retire or quit
    just prior to a disciplinary or competency hearing may still be
    eligible for benefits and appear to have left the agency in
    good standing. Even a police officer who retires with
    exceptional skills today may be stricken with an illness or
    other problem that makes him or her unfit to carry a concealed
    weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police management
    structure that identifies such problems in current officers.
        Finally, the IACP is also concerned over the liability of
    law enforcement agencies for the actions of an off-duty officer
    who uses or misuses their weapon while out of State. If an off-
    duty officer uses or misuses their weapon while in another
    State, it is likely that their department will be forced to
    defend itself against liability charges in that State. The
    resources that mounting this defense would require could be
    better spent serving the communities we represent.
        In conclusion, I would like to state the IACP understands
    that at first glace, this legislation may appear to be a simple
    solution to a complex problem. However, a careful review of
    these provisions reveals that it has the potential to
    significantly and negatively impact the safety of communities
    and our officers. It is my hope that this Committee will take
    the concerns of the IACP into consideration before acting upon
    this legislation.
        This concludes my statement, Senator and Mr. Chairman, I
    will respond to any questions.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Col. Westphal appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Next, we will hear from Deputy Chief of
    Police David Johnson, from the Cedar Rapids Police Department
    in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

       STATEMENT OF DAVID JOHNSON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, CEDAR
              RAPIDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Committee
    on the Judiciary, my name is David Johnson and I am currently
    the Deputy Chief of Police in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I have been a
    police officer for over 30 years and my career as a cop started
    right here in Washington, D.C.
        In 1971, I logged my first patrol as a police officer in
    the Washington Metropolitan Police Department in the Seventh
    District. Since 1974, I have been with the Cedar Rapids Police
    Department. I am a past President of the Iowa Association of
    Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers and I am also a life member
    of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.
        The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 is an idea
    first introduced to Congress 10 years ago. In 1992, H.R. 4897,
    the first version of this legislation, was born with a
    bipartisan introduction by Congressman Cunningham of California
    and Congressman Ralph Hall of Texas.
        In the decades since then, the support for this legislation
    has grown dramatically. Today, it is still a bipartisan effort
    with strong support from both sides of the aisle in the House,
    the Senate, and in this very Committee, where a bipartisan
    majority of ten Senators have signed on as cosponsors.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to
    share with you a few examples of just how vital this
    legislation is to the safety of police officers and our
    community. Police officers like doctors, fire fighters, and
    other emergency personnel are never really off-duty. In some
    States, it is the law. These public servants perform countless
    acts of courage and face many moments of danger well after they
    have finished their shift, and some even after they have ended
    their tour of duty.
        Consider the story of Officer Wendell Smith, Jr., a veteran
    of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department. Officer Smith
    worked here in the District of Columbia, but he lived in the
    State of Maryland. When returning home after his shift in
    February 1997, Officer Smith was robbed at gunpoint. Just hours
    before, this officer with his gun on his side might have been
    able to have a fighting chance. But without legislation such as
    S. 2480 in place, Officer Smith was barred from carrying his
    firearm and had to secure it out of reach. When the robbers
    discovered his badge and realized that he as a police officer,
    they executed him in cold blood. Officer Smith was killed
    because he was forced to be unarmed. On the day of this
    officer's murder, the legislation that could have saved his
    life had been sitting idle in Congress for 5 years. Now, 10
    years after its introduction, it is still not law.
        In March of 2001, a student opened fire at a high school in
    San Diego, California. However, the shooter was not the only
    person with a gun. Off-duty San Diego police officer Robert
    Clark was also on campus, running an errand. When he heard the
    shots, he immediately took action, drew his concealed firearm,
    and ran to the scene of the crime. He confronted the shooter in
    the school bathroom and held him at gunpoint, preventing the
    shooter from entering the hallway and continuing the massacre.
        When on-duty officers arrived for back-up, Officer Clark
    worked with the two deputies--deputies from a different law
    enforcement agency than his, I might add--to disarm the shooter
    and take him into custody. Once the scene was secured, Officer
    Clark then administered first aid to the two shooting victims
    found in the bathroom. For his bravery, Officer Robert Clark
    was given his department's highest honor.
        There is not enough time left in this hearing or even in
    this session of Congress to share with you every heroic story
    of off-duty or retired officers intervening to save lives. You
    have heard some from me, and certainly you have heard stories
    from your constituents about how this legislation can and will
    save lives.
        Since September 11, our entire nation has been forced to
    rethink our vigilance for the safety of our borders, our
    communities, our families, and ourselves. We do not know if,
    when, or how terror will strike again. What we do know is that
    in any given time of day, roughly 70 percent of our nation's
    police officers are off duty. S. 2480 can empower those off-
    duty officers, plus the countless trained and qualified law
    enforcement officers, with the tools they need to make a
    difference.
        This is homeland security that does not require us to
    trample on civil liberties, homeland security that can be done
    without playing musical chairs with Federal public safety
    personnel, and homeland security that will not bust the budget.
    That is one of the reasons why this bill is so widely supported
    by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for
    giving this legislation a hearing and allowing me to testify
    today. On behalf of myself, fellow members of the Law
    Enforcement Alliance of America, and police officers
    everywhere, I would ask your help in seeing to it that S. 2480
    becomes law this year. Thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. I need to remember to turn my microphone
    on. We just had these new microphones installed. You turn them
    on or off. Why do we turn them on or off? We sometimes found,
    with Senator's very busy times, sometimes they only get
    together actually during these Committee meetings and sometimes
    there are those who have heard a new joke, and sometimes they
    are whispering, and sometimes they get calls from their
    constituents saying, what are you doing? This would never
    happen to police officers.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Leahy. You would never have something over an open
    microphone, like in a car or something, that you wish had not
    been heard. So now we have to turn them on and off.
        I have a statement by Senator Hatch which will go in the
    record.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. What I will do, because other Senators are
    unable to come, we will take this testimony and submit
    questions for the record.
        I would note also that tomorrow marks the fourth
    anniversary of the shooting of two Capitol Police Officers,
    Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, who were
    slain in the line of duty while protecting the Capitol in 1998.
    I knew both those officers well. At 3 tomorrow afternoon, there
    is a short memorial service at what we now call the Memorial
    Door over at the Capitol. I intend to be there and others will.
        What we have been doing is usually both the House and the
    Senate pause for a moment of reflection, if we are having a
    debate, for these two officers. It kind of reminds us right at
    home, even in a place like the United States Capitol, which is
    usually considered the most safe place anywhere, that dangers
    lurk even here. In this case, it was the officers who died
    defending the Members of Congress and those who come here. It
    would be hard to know two better or nicer officers than those
    two.
        I recall the day very well. I was on the plane back to
    Vermont and got off the plane and was met by a staff member in
    my office in Vermont with a very shocked look on his face who
    gave me the news. One of the officers, I had seen just that
    morning. I said, this is not possible. Unfortunately, it was
    possible.
        So we know these things happen, and I appreciate the
    service of all of you, Colonel, Deputy Chief, Mr. Gordon,
    Lieutenant Young. Those of us in civilian life do not often
    take time to say thank you. For those of us who had the
    opportunity to serve in law enforcement, as I did, we know the
    thanks are due, but let me say on behalf of the whole
    Committee, again, is the one thing that every one of us would
    join on this Committee, Republican and Democrat, is to say
    thank you.
        We will stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Submissions for the record follow.]

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.055