[Senate Hearing 112-351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-351
PROTECTING THOSE WHO PROTECT US: THE BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT
PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2012
__________
Serial No. J-112-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-812 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 63
Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa,
prepared statement............................................. 57
WITNESSES
Canterbury, Chuck, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal
Order of Police, Washington, DC................................ 7
Maurer, David C., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC............... 5
Schirling, Michael E., Chief of Police, Burlington Police
Department, Burlington, Vermont................................ 4
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Chuck Canterbury to questions submitted by Senators
Coons, Grassley and Coburn..................................... 26
Responses of Michael E. Schirling to questions submitted by
Senator Coburn................................................. 36
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Canterbury, Chuck, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal
Order of Police, Washington, DC, statement..................... 38
Fackler, Jeff G., North America Marketing Manager, E.I. DU Pont
De Nemours and Company, Depont Protection Technologies,
Richarmond, Virginia, statement................................ 44
Fitzgerald, Sheriff Paul H., President, National Sheriffs'
Association, Alexandria, Virginia, February 8, 2012, letter.... 52
Johnson, William J., Executive Director, National Association of
Police Organizations, Arlington, Virginia, statement........... 60
Maurer, David C., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, statement.... 65
McBride, Ron, (retired Chief), IACP/DePont Kevlar Survivors'
Club, Alexandria, Virginia, statement.......................... 76
Schirling, Michael E., Chief of Police, Burlington Police
Department, Burlington, Vermont, statement..................... 83
PROTECTING THOSE WHO PROTECT US: THE BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT
PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Whitehouse, Klobuchar,
Franken, Blumenthal, and Grassley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Good morning. We have a distinguished
foreign visitor in town, the Vice President of China, and I
have just been advised he is going to be visiting Iowa, and so
the Senator from Iowa is going to be a few minutes late. He is
meeting with him, and I understand that.
I was in Burlington on Monday with Chief Schirling, and now
we are together in Washington, and I have to figure out where
we will meet up next week.
We are going to hear testimony about the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership grant program and other key programs that provide
Federal support for the men and women who serve in law
enforcement. When I worked to introduce and pass the original
bulletproof vest program in 1998, I joined with then-Senator
Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Republican from Colorado--I was the
Democrat from Vermont. But we both had served in law
enforcement, and we wanted to join together and make it a
nonpartisan issue, and we passed it because we wanted to do all
we could to protect the men and women in law enforcement as
they are the people who protect all of us. Just as we should
have the best equipped armed forces in the world and the best
equipped National Guard units, I believe that our State and
local law enforcement officers need the best and most modern
equipment to fulfill their mission and protect us in our
communities, whether they are large ones or small ones, across
the country.
You know, this program originated because we knew we needed
Federal assistance. This happened after a tragic time when
several law enforcement officers from Vermont and New Hampshire
lost their lives bringing a killing rampage by Carl Drega along
the border between New Hampshire and Vermont to an end.
Ironically, when that happened, the week that happened, the
then-Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, and his family were
staying with my family and me at our home in Middlesex,
Vermont. We came back here, and Senator Campbell and I joined
together to ensure that such basic, life-saving equipment as
the bulletproof vest would be available to State and local law
enforcement officers. It was after that that we found how much
they cost and how few departments had them.
Now, I would like to say there is no need for this program
today, but, tragically, law enforcement deaths are on the rise
again. We discussed this in another context in Burlington on
Monday. But last year, 177 Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty. No one
should question the sacrifices that our law enforcement
officers and their families make. While dangers, injuries, and
death are increasing, State and local law enforcement budgets
are being cut. Nearly 12,000 police officers and sheriff's
deputies were laid off last year, and the Department of
Justice's Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services
reports that approximately 30,000 law enforcement jobs remain
unfilled. I bring this up because there is a reason to ask for
important Federal assistance to State and local law
enforcement. It is a key investment in public safety. I was
pleased to see the President's fiscal year 2013 request for the
bulletproof vest program is consistent with recent
appropriations.
During National Police Week in 2008, Detective David Azur
of Baltimore testified before this Committee. Detective Azur
was shot at point-blank range in the middle of the chest while
apprehending a criminal. Every one of us remembers when the
detective held up the armor plate from the vest that stopped
the bullet that would have stopped his life. I remember his
father sitting behind him and the look on his face just
thinking how differently that could have turned out.
Since we enacted the original Leahy-Campbell law, the vest
program has contributed to the purchase of nearly 1 million
ballistic vests to help protect our law enforcement officers.
As I said earlier--and I saw Mr. Canterbury nod at this--I wish
that this equipment was not needed at all, but we know better.
I am often reminded of the importance of it when I run into
police officers, whether in Vermont or around the country, and
they tap their chests and point to the vest.
I have told others the story of walking down the street in
Denver, Colorado. A uniformed police officer comes up to me and
says, ``Are you Senator Leahy?'' And I said, ``Yes, I am.'' He
just tapped his chest. I heard the thump, thump of the vest,
and he said, ``Thank you,'' and just walked off. It is kind of
a nice feeling.
We are going to hear from two outstanding representatives
of law enforcement. Chief Michael Schirling of Burlington,
Vermont, is one of the new generation of law enforcement
leaders. I believe Vermonters really do look at him with pride.
And Chuck Canterbury, a person who has served in law
enforcement for 25 years and I have come to know him well, is
the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police and a
good friend. He is a strong voice for the men and women of law
enforcement around the country. I see Mr. Pasco sitting behind
him, another strong voice for law enforcement.
We are also going to hear suggestions from a representative
of the GAO on how the Department of Justice might further
improve its distribution of funding. I might say that I do not
know how Congress would operate without the professionalism of
the GAO, and I thank you for being here.
Again, this has never been a partisan issue. Republicans
and Democrats alike have joined in it. Longstanding Federal
initiatives like the Violence Against Women Act, the Second
Chance Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and other
important programs have traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan
support. Senators Mikulski and Shelby, as the bipartisan
leaders of the key Senate Appropriations Committee
Subcommittee, and Senators on both sides of the aisle supported
this program.
I am holding the hearing today because the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act expires in September, and I want you to
know I will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to
reauthorize this program, and I am going to invite all Senators
in both parties to join me in the effort. The Bulletproof Vest
Partnership grant program increases officer safety and
effectiveness, and it is a bipartisan tradition. I hope we can
proceed to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant
program and other important law enforcement measures, and
Congress will join together with one voice to send a strong,
clear message to our Nation's law enforcement officers that we
will do all we can to protect them, as they protect us.
I would say as an aside that when Senator Campbell was
here, we always used to joke that in Colorado this was the
Campbell-Leahy program. In Vermont, it was the Leahy-Campbell
program. Either way it is a darn good program, and we encourage
every Senator to support this program for the benefit of law
enforcement in their State.
Now, our first witness--and, Senator Franken, thank you for
being here, and Senator Kohl. Our first witness is Michael
Schirling, who has been the chief of the Burlington Police
Department since January of 2008. Previously, when I first knew
him, he ran the Burlington Police Department's Administrative
Services Bureau. He oversaw important components, including
emergency management and homeland security, the Detective
Services Bureau and training and recruitment. He joined the
department as a uniformed officer in 1993. In 1999, Chief
Schirling helped found the Vermont Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force and has continued as the coordinator of
that task force ever since, something we did not have in
Vermont, and, unfortunately and tragically, we found that
Vermont needed it as other States did. He has been a State
leader in computer forensics, co-founder of the Digital
Forensic Technology Program at Champlain College in Burlington.
He received his bachelor's degree in political science and his
master's of education, leadership, and policy development from
the University of Vermont.
Chief Schirling, good to have you here. Please go ahead,
sir.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. SCHIRLING, CHIEF OF POLICE, BURLINGTON
POLICE DEPARTMENT, BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Chief Schirling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Good morning, Senators. It is a pleasure to be with you again.
As the Chairman indicated, my name is Michael Schirling. I
have the privilege of serving as the chief of police for the
city of Burlington, Vermont.
Burlington is a community of about 40,000, located on the
eastern shores of Lake Champlain about 35 miles south of the
Canadian border. It is a small city by national standards, but
one that shares in all of the challenges of contemporary
government and contemporary law enforcement. It is the central
hub of activity, education, commerce, and services for
northwestern Vermont, which encompasses a population of about
150,000 residents. We have a 147-year history of providing law
enforcement services to Vermont's largest city and currently do
that with a staff of about 100 police officers and 36 civilian
employees.
Nationally, our 18,000 police departments and 800,000
police officers, including Burlington, confront increasingly
complex challenges on our streets and in our neighborhoods.
Twenty-first century law enforcement stands squarely at the
crossroads of every contemporary social issue. Each day in the
United States, law enforcement officers are thrust into a
myriad of situations in which, despite their best efforts and
skill, they lack full control of the events as they unfold and
from time to time with increasing frequency are seriously
injured or killed. In the roughly 1 million encounters they
have each day, officers face far more complex and unpredictable
scenarios than we could have imagined even 10 years ago. This
results from a wide range of complicating factors including
offenders released from our prisons, those with intractable
substance abuse and addiction issues, and some in our
communities with unmet mental health needs.
Last year was a tragic one for law enforcement in the
United States. For the first time, the number of officers
killed by gunfire exceeded the number killed in traffic
crashes. The overall number of officers killed in the line of
duty rose 37 percent in 2010 followed by a 16-percent increase
in 2011. The Nation's police chiefs are vividly aware that we
must continually evaluate and develop techniques that will
protect our officers when confronted by those who will not
hesitate to injure or even kill them. We owe this to those who
put their lives on the line every day for the freedoms that we
cherish in this Nation.
Among the most basic strategies is the use of bulletproof
vests. My agency has mandated the wearing of vests for all
uniformed personnel, and in October of 2011, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police stated that they believe
mandatory wear should be a standard for all law enforcement
agencies. As you are aware, the Attorney General has mandated
that any agency receiving vest partnership funds must have a
mandatory-wear policy as well.
Vests are just one part of the equation. In 2002, the IACP
Division of State Associations of Chiefs of Police created
SafeShield, an initiative dedicated to protecting our Nation's
law enforcement officers and reducing the number of officers
killed in the line of duty with a target of zero each year.
With the recent surge in violence against police, there are two
noteworthy projects underway: The first is Reducing Officer
Injuries: Developing Policy Responses project, and the other is
the National Center for the Prevention of Violence Against the
Police. And there is a little more detail about each of those
initiatives in my written testimony.
Federal, State, local, university, and tribal law
enforcement are doing all we can to protect our communities
from crime, disorder, and the specter of terrorism. I would be
remiss if I did not take a moment to recognize the fiscal
reality that faces our Nation today. We must be smart about the
projects and initiatives that we choose to fund as our Nation
works hard to recover from a devastating recession. The safety
of our Nation's law enforcement officers is such a wise and
necessary investment. I urge you to continue to fund, continue
to authorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Senators, for
taking testimony on this important topic and for your continued
leadership and assistance on criminal justice matters and the
safety of our law enforcement officers nationwide.
[The prepared statement of Chief Schirling appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Chief.
David Maurer is the Director of the Government
Accountability Office's Homeland Security and Justice Team. He
directs the GAO's effort to examine and review Department of
Homeland Security and Department of Justice management
policies. He has been at the GAO since 1993. He led teams at
GAO's Natural Resource and Environment Section and also its
International Affairs and Trade Section. He received a master's
in science and national resource strategy from the National
Defense University, a master's in international public policy
from the University of Michigan, and his undergraduate degree
in international relations from Michigan State University.
Mr. Maurer, we are delighted to have you here. Please go
ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVID C. MAURER, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Maurer. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Leahy and
other members and staff. I am pleased to be here today to talk
about the Department of Justice's efforts to support the use of
body armor by local law enforcement officers.
Now, in a minute you are going to hear me talk about grants
management and internal controls. Those things are important to
someone like me who has spent his career at GAO. But it is also
important to recognize that body armor saves lives. Wearing a
bulletproof or a stab-resistant vest helps police officers,
sheriffs, State troopers, and correctional officers make a
demanding and sometimes dangerous job safer.
My statement for the record discusses the findings from our
report being released today on DOJ's efforts to support body
armor use and manage the grants it provides for purchasing body
armor. I will now briefly highlight some of the key points from
our work.
First, DOJ is doing several things to support body armor,
including conducting research, developing new standards, and
testing for compliance. For example, the National Institute of
Justice, or NIJ, is in the process of revising standards for
ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor. NIJ is also
working to improve the fit and comfort of body armor for the
estimated 100,000 women who work as law enforcement officers.
DOJ also provides grant funding to State and local agencies
through two different programs. The Bulletproof Vest
Partnership, or BVP, is a very specific program that partially
reimburses jurisdictions for the cost of body armor, and since
1999 this program has reimbursed grantees $247 million for the
purchase of nearly 1 million vests.
The Justice Assistance Grant, or JAG program, is a broad
program that provides money that can be used to buy body armor
along with a wide variety of other criminal justice activities.
Our work looked at the controls DOJ has in place to ensure that
grant funds are being spent in compliance with program
requirements. We found that DOJ has several controls in place
for both programs, but needs to improve the management in some
key areas, and I would like to highlight two of the areas we
found where DOJ needs to improve.
First, we recommended--and DOJ agreed--that it needed to do
a better job tracking and reusing funds from grants that have
closed because no one has sought reimbursement. We found that
the BVP program currently has $27 million in unused funds from
closed grants. All of this money can be reused. Given that
Congress appropriated $24 million for the BVP program for this
year, the $27 million our work identified could have
significant benefits. DOJ could use these funds to provide
additional grants or reduce the amount it requests from
Congress.
Second, we found important inconsistencies across the two
DOJ grant programs that provide funding for body armor.
Specifically, BVP grant recipients must have a mandatory-wear
policy. If a police department wants BVP money for bulletproof
vests, it needs to require officers to wear them. BVP grantees
are also only allowed to purchase body armor that passes NIJ
compliance testing.
However, the JAG program currently does not have these
requirements. JAG grantees do not need a mandatory-wear policy
and do not have to purchase NIJ-compliant body armor. This
creates a potential safety issue for officers, which is why we
recommended that DOJ establish consistent requirements for both
programs. DOJ said it would take action to do so.
The Department's willingness to take prompt action to
address our recommendations is consistent with its overall
effort to support the use of body armor. The DOJ staff we met
with during the course of our review were clearly committed to
getting better body armor in the hands of State and local law
enforcement. The results of our work can help improve their
ability to achieve this important goal.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maurer appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, and thank you also for
mentioning what you did about both the mandatory-wear policy
and also the fact that if there is extra money there, being
able to reallocate it.
Chuck Canterbury is no stranger to this Committee. He is
the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police. He
represents the interests of over 330,000 members of law
enforcement on a whole wide range of issues. He has served as
president of the FOP since 2003, having been re-elected five
times. Prior to becoming national president, Mr. Canterbury
spent over 25 years in law enforcement. He served in the Patrol
Division, Criminal Investigations Division, Training Division,
and Operations Bureau of the Horry County Police Department in
Conway, South Carolina. During his time in the Training
Division, he certified instruction in basic law enforcement
firearms, chemical weapons, and pursuit driving. He received
his undergraduate degree from Coastal Carolina University.
Mr. Canterbury, delighted to have you here as always.
Please go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, GRAND LODGE,
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Canterbury. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today. I would like to thank Senator Franken and Senator Kohl
and other members who will be present I am sure shortly. I want
to thank you for allowing me to be here this morning to talk
about this extremely important problem in law enforcement, and
that is, the purchase of the bulletproof vest program.
As you stated earlier, sir, you and then-Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell, a former deputy sheriff, proposed a simple
bill with a very simple goal: to increase the number of law
enforcement officers wearing soft body armor by creating a
program to provide matching Federal funds to State or local law
enforcement agencies of any size seeking to purchase these
vests.
The legislation was written to ensure agencies which do not
provide their officers with soft body armor would be able to do
so and gave priority to those agencies where crime and violence
are more prevalent. Additionally, agencies with outdated or
ineffective body armor were given access to the grant, enabling
them to upgrade their equipment and give maximum protection to
their officers.
There is no legislation, no Government program, no grant or
public-private partnership that can erase the sad fact that law
enforcement officers will die. They will die in the line of
duty at the hands of armed and violent criminals. But this
program, Mr. Chairman, saves lives.
On December 23, 1975, Seattle Patrolman Raymond T. Johnson
was shot. Fortunately, he was wearing soft body armor crafted
through a partnership with the Department of Defense and the
Department of Justice, and he survived. Since that shooting,
the IACP Dupont Survivors Club has certified 3,145 saves. That
is 3,145 law enforcement officers who went home to their
families and 3,145 names fewer on the Wall of Remembrance at
Judiciary Square. I do not know of any other programs that can
quantify their success so starkly.
The 1970s was the deadliest decade for law enforcement
officers, with more than 2,200 officers killed in the line of
duty. But as soft body armor became more common, more
affordable, and more comfortable, it vastly improved the safety
of law enforcement officers. Since 1970, firearm deaths are
down 44 percent overall, and much of that credit goes to soft
body armor. This improvement is tempered by the events of last
year, when 71 law enforcement officers were killed by firearms.
Overall, we lost 177 officers in the line of duty last
year, the highest total since 2007. Of these slain heroes, 32
percent were not wearing their body armor when they died.
Soft body armor not only provides ballistic protection but
greatly increases the safety and survivability of other
injuries from car crashes, physical fights, falls, and other
trauma. Over the past 10 years, law enforcement officers were
assaulted nearly 60,000 times in the course of a year,
resulting in the average of 16,000 injuries. In many cases,
soft body armor is a factor in these officers' escaping the
assault without injury or reducing the impact of that injury.
In many ways, the body armor is the single most important
and effective piece of equipment a law enforcement officer can
possess.
Law enforcement officers are constantly in harm's way. They
work out of their police vehicle and are expected to go forward
into the unknown, and most of the time unsupported when they
do. What these officers do in the critical opening moments of
an incident will shape the outcome of the incident. These
officers live or die with what they have at that moment. If
their equipment is not adequate, the outcome can be
devastating. Their equipment must include soft body armor that
is faithfully worn. Armor at the station or in the back of a
scout car provides no protection.
Yet, sadly, every year we lose officers in the line of duty
who were not wearing their armor. We cannot stress to our
officers enough just how important it is to wear. As the father
of a police officer, I make sure my son goes to work every day
wearing his vest.
To increase the percentage of law enforcement officers that
are wearing vests, the BVP program now requires officers to
mandatory-wear vest policies in their Department. The FOP
supports mandating that every agency have a policy about
wearing soft body armor, but that policy is best set by the
agency in conjunction with their collective bargaining unit and
the rank-and-file officers.
For instance, it may not be necessary to have a
plainclothes detective in body armor when he is expected to be
at his desk. Similarly, a chief or sheriff in uniform on
official business appearing at a hearing or holding a press
conference may not be required. But, generally speaking, the
FOP supports the increased use of body armor.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say that the
support for this program through the Federal grant program has
been deteriorating in recent years. Programs like the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program and the hiring
program administered by the Office of Community-Oriented
Policing were once regarded as critical in maintaining the
Nation's historically low crime rates.
Members of Congress once held in high regard on law-and-
order issues are now pushing deep and unsustainable cuts to
these programs at a time when law enforcement agencies are
facing cuts in manpower and equipment at every level. This is
not fiscally responsible. It is totally irresponsible.
We urge you to fund this program and for Congress to
support you on it, and we thank you for everything that you
have done personally for the law enforcement community over
your long career in the Senate.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Canterbury appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you, Mr. Canterbury. You can
tell your son I agree with you. Be sure and wear it. If I had a
son in law enforcement, I would be--a son or daughter, I would
be telling them to do exactly that.
Chief Schirling, when we enacted this vest program, both
Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I felt strongly that it is
important that every qualifying jurisdiction gets the funding
provided by Congress. Then a couple years after we passed it,
we expanded that to make sure that jurisdictions under 100,000
people were guaranteed the full 50-percent Federal match before
funding went to larger jurisdictions. More recently, we have
worked to make sure that in cases of financial hardship the
Bureau of Justice Assistance could waive the grant program's
matching requirement.
Now, you have to go to the city council and justify your
budget every year. How would you characterize the assistance
provided through the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program?
Chief Schirling. I think I can answer that question very
simply. It has been an essential component of ensuring that we
can maintain a robust program to keep officers in current vest
technology. It is not just about an initial purchase. A
firearm, for example, may last a police officer an entire
career, but a vest only has a shelf life of about 5 years,
depending on how it is exposed to elements and cared for and
things of that nature.
So it is an ongoing expense. It is one that is a challenge
for smaller jurisdictions, and as other challenges continue to
persist, both funding and operational challenges, the
assistance in this realm has been essential.
Chairman Leahy. I think the thing that surprised most
people--I know it did me when we first got into this--was the
fact that these vests do wear out. We are used to the fact that
weapons can last forever, but these can wear out.
You are chief of the largest city in Vermont, but we are
largely a rural State. The town I live in is about 1,600
people, and in land size it is half the size of the District of
Columbia. But can you tell us how this Federal assistance works
in rural areas?
Chief Schirling. I can. It is similar in its impact, I
believe, in smaller areas as it is in Burlington. I think even
more so in terms of its impact on the smaller towns' budgets.
In terms of its operational impact, we have seen over the
last decade an interesting evolution in the challenges that
face small urban and rural law enforcement as policing in our
larger urban areas has become more effective, markedly so in
many of our larger jurisdictions.
The issues have really become more diffuse in their
geographic locations, so the issues that used to be inner-city
issues in New York or Boston or some of the larger metropolitan
areas in New England now make their way fully into Vermont as
drug networks and other problems are spreading.
Chairman Leahy. The interstate is a double-edged sword,
isn't it?
Chief Schirling. It is.
Chairman Leahy. Mr. Canterbury talked about the mandatory-
wear policy that he implemented, and you, of course, have that
same policy at the Burlington Police Department. Attorney
General Holder has implemented the requirement for recipients.
Tell me, how do the officers feel about this? And be as candid
as you wish.
Chief Schirling. A 21st century law enforcement officer for
the most part understands the need to protect themselves with
body armor. There are issues that need to be balanced. It is
not the only piece of equipment that they are carrying. Today
officers carry between 16 and 20 pounds of additional gear on
their hips, and we are constantly looking for ways to alleviate
the strain on their lower backs and hips and the nerves that
run down the side of their legs as a result of carrying that
extra weight.
One of the latest innovations in vest technology in
addition to the great strides that have been made in the
content of the vest itself is external vest carriers. So you
will see in news coverage or maybe in your home towns police
officers wearing vests that are over their uniform shirts
instead of under their shirts. They are still contemporary soft
body armor. They are just in different carriers, and those
carriers are designed to alleviate some of the weight that is
being carried on the officers' lower back and around the gun
belt by moving some of the gear up onto the vest itself and
then it can hang on the shoulders, which are much better
equipped to carry that weight than hips are.
Chairman Leahy. And you do have some flexibility, depending
upon what the situation would be. We have talked about sitting
at the desk or things like that.
Chief Schirling. That is exactly right. With the external
vest carriers if an officer is in doing 2 or 3 hours of
paperwork on an arrest that was just made, they can take that
carrier off and place it on the desk next to them and relieve
all of that weight and all of the heat that is associated with
wearing the vest for that period of time that they are doing
paperwork.
Chairman Leahy. Well, this goes into a little bit about
what Mr. Maurer talked about, the fit and the durability of
ballistic vests. Obviously, certainly I have seen a lot of
advances. We recognize the fact we have a lot of women as
police officers. Do you have any recommendations you would like
to make? You mentioned this outside wear. Do you have any other
recommendations?
Chief Schirling. I think continuing to explore better fit
and better material and more effective vests, stab-resistant
vests, vests that are thinner and lighter, and all of those
things have been evolving over the last 20 years. If I were to
have brought my original vest from roughly 20 years ago, its
thickness and weight and its ability to move as I moved would
bear no resemblance to the vest that I was issued just 2 or 3
years ago, which is much thinner, much lighter, has a much
greater range of movement, and is a lot more viable as
something that is worn for a 10-hour shift; and in the case of
many officers, they are not controlling what is happening at
the end of the shift, so an 8- or 10- hour shift or a 12-hour
shift often go longer than that. So it is a fairly long time to
wear a piece of equipment, and those evolutions, both for male
officers and the evolutions in design for female officers, have
made things more comfortable. But I think the further we get
down the road of vest innovation, the more comfortable things
will become.
Chairman Leahy. It is interesting because I remember
issuing and getting search warrants for police to make a raid.
I remember what they had: basically big steel plates to wear. I
do not know how they even moved in them back then. That was a
million years ago. You and I had the privilege of bringing the
FBI Director, Bob Mueller, through the Burlington Police
Department, and I recall some of the pictures--some of them I
still chuckle about--showing the old equipment we had then.
I would tell my colleagues, one of the things I think Chief
Schirling is smiling about, when I was State's attorney, I used
to go out every year to the police outdoor pistol range and
qualify with them, and they had a picture of me there. Mr.
Mueller is--the chief somehow found this in the archives, and
not only did I have hair, but I had long sideburns. But I also
qualified each time.
I will have other questions for the other members of the
panel afterward, but let me yield to Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing today. We owe our law enforcement officers a very
great debt of gratitude for their work--the work that they do
every day keeping our communities safe and enforcing the laws.
I was a strong supporter of the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Act in 1999, and I am pleased that it continues to
have an impact on the safety of our law enforcement officers. I
will, of course, be supporting the reauthorization of this
legislation and ensuring that we fund it at an adequate level.
We need to do everything we can for the men and women who risk
their lives to protect us.
There is no question that bulletproof vests save lives. For
instance, last March, a 9-year veteran of the Fond du Lac,
Wisconsin, Police Department was shot twice in the chest as he
responded to a call. Fortunately, the officer had chosen to
wear a bulletproof vest even though his department did not
require it, and the vest saved his life.
I believe that no officer should be without a bulletproof
vest. We need to do all we can to ensure that all
jurisdictions, large and small, are able to buy them. We also
need to ensure that the vests fit well and that they are
comfortable enough for officers to wear them. These vests, in
my opinion, are a fundamental part of keeping officers safe in
the line of duty, and so the Federal Government needs to help
State and local law enforcement provide this essential
equipment to their officers.
I would like to ask each one of you: Do you believe that
just as officers wear all the necessary equipment that you have
described today, they should also wear--in the line of duty
when they are out there in the field, they also should be
required to wear a bulletproof vest? Chief?
Chief Schirling. Senator, thank you for the question. I
think the answer is absolutely yes. Not only should they be
wearing, in my opinion, soft body armor in their day-to-day
operations, but anytime we go to a known threat scenario, we
should do everything possible to deliver the next stage of
armor, an external larger carrier that protects against an
additional threat level, a more tactical vest. And I am not
suggesting that relates directly to the Vest Partnership, but
in some regard it does because in our case it frees up the
limited resources that we do have so we can buy additional
armor that they can wear when faced with a known armed
assailant.
Senator Kohl. But they should be required?
Chief Schirling. Absolutely.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Maurer.
Mr. Maurer. Yes, the mandatory-wear policy that the
Attorney General has in place is a good measure, in our view.
It helps protect lives. One of the things that we recommend in
our report, obviously, is that DOJ explore expanding this
requirement to the JAG program as well. We are concerned that
jurisdictions may be purchasing bulletproof vests with JAG
money where they do not have mandatory-wear policies and where
they do not meet NIJ compliance.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Mr. Canterbury.
Mr. Canterbury. Senator, we support mandatory-wear policies
as long as they take into consideration undercover operations,
inside work. You know, a lot of these are governed by
collective bargaining agreements. But for the police officer on
the street engaged in active law enforcement and the acts of
apprehension, yes, sir, we support mandatory wear.
Senator Kohl. All right. And I agree with that. But if we
are going to do that, how can we not provide the equipment? In
many places--what?--the officer is supposed to pay himself? Can
we on the one hand say you must wear this piece of equipment
and on the other hand not provide it to him or her? How does
that work, sir?
Chief Schirling. I should qualify my remarks that I agree
with Mr. Canterbury that there are scenarios where wearing the
vest, like in an undercover operation, may actually compromise
the officer's safety, so I am talking about uniformed officers
in the standard course of duty.
Senator Kohl. Yes.
Chief Schirling. I think you are right that, without
assistance, many of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the
United States would not be able to afford to provide vests for
their officers. The first bulletproof vest that I purchased in
Burlington in 1989, I purchased with my own funds. We did not
have the money to--we did not have the money at the time to
issue pads and pens. You went to the drugstore to get your pads
and pens for your uniform. A lot has changed since then, but
there is still a long way to go in terms of resource
availability. And with changing technology, the need, again, to
replace things, to keep them contemporary against the
contemporary threats that we face is just as challenging.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Maurer, if we are not going to provide
the money, how can we insist that the officer wear the
equipment?
Mr. Maurer. I think you are absolutely right. If there is a
requirement that the officers wear this type of equipment, it
should be something that is purchased for them. They should not
have to cover the costs out of their own pockets. Obviously,
the policy issue is whether those funds come from Federal,
State, and local, and on that, you know, GAO is going to be
agnostic on that point. But we do think it is important that if
it is going to be a requirement of the day-to-day
responsibilities, it should be provided for the officers.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Canterbury.
Mr. Canterbury. With the average police department being
ten men or less in the United States--and that is the non-
gender-specific ``men''--we would not have them. I purchased my
first one in 1979. It took a considerable amount of my $7,600 a
year salary to purchase a $400 vest. But my family thought it
was important, and we struggled for it.
I have agencies in my county now that are currently wearing
expired vests from my agency, and we see a lot of that. And
during the Iraq conflict, many police agencies were sending
their used, out-of-date vests to the Iraqi police academies.
So, you know, some protection is better than none.
So without Federal Government assistance, this program will
not continue at the State and local level, period.
Senator Kohl. So you think, one, we should have that
mandatory wear, but, No. 2, in order for that to occur, the
Federal Government is going to have to do a large part of the
financing?
Mr. Canterbury. I think without the Federal Government
financing the program, vest wear will go down considerably
across the country. And as I said earlier, we do support a
mandatory-wear policy, provided, however, you have the proper
exclusions for when it is necessary or when it is not needed.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
Senator Blumenthal, And I should also note he is a former
Attorney General of his State.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
all for being here today.
In particular, Chief Schirling, thank you for your service
in Vermont in the beautiful city of Burlington, which I have
been privileged to visit. And thank you, Mr. Canterbury, for
your service in South Carolina. And I am interested in your
opinion, very valuable to this Committee, on the mandatory-wear
policy, but as Attorney General, we actually investigated a
number of deficiencies that occurred in the production of this
body armor, deficiencies relating to the expiration or
reduction in its effectiveness before the date that it was
supposed to do. And I wonder if you could comment, particularly
Chief Schirling and Mr. Canterbury--and, Mr. Maurer, if you
have any observations--on problems that have arisen and
possibly the need for better testing and earlier replacement of
this body armor so we do not rely on it past the point when it
has been effective. And it really has helped save lives in
Connecticut and around the country, as you know better than I.
So I would welcome your comments on that point.
Mr. Canterbury. The National Fraternal Order of Police has
supported the NIJ guidelines going back before there were
guidelines. Many years ago, there was a company that had
manipulated their statistics, and we called for a criminal
investigation of that company, as well as NIJ standards, and
NIJ has produced vests that are a little bit thicker than some
of the vests that were produced prior to NIJ standards, but
traditional testing on those vests proved that they were not
adequate. So we very much support the NIJ standards. They have
used a lot of local law enforcement in their work with
wearability. Obviously, if you wanted to stop a round, you
could build a vest big enough to stop just about anything out
there, but it would not be functional. So the NIJ standards we
believe have been very helpful.
Chief Schirling. Thank you for the question, Senator. We
would welcome you back to Burlington anytime you want to visit.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. I have to consult my
Chairman first before I go back to Vermont.
[Laughter.]
Chief Schirling. I would concur with Mr. Canterbury. We as
an agency our size, which is relatively large by national
standards, rely heavily on NIJ and other testing done by
Federal agencies like the FBI on vests to know whether what is
being advertised is accurate. Really the best we can hope for
in terms of testing is after the fact. When we retire a vest,
hopefully after the recommended 5-year life span, we
occasionally take a vest out to the training range and will
fire our duty rounds into it to test its efficiency or
efficacy. And to date, I am happy to report that I do not think
we have found issues with too much penetration beyond what was
advertised during those random tests.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Maurer.
Mr. Maurer. Yes, we found that there is a lot going on at
NIJ and its partners across the Federal Government on these
important issues. NIJ is working with the Defense Department,
for example, trying to gain the benefit of their experience
with body armor from a military context and applying that to
the law enforcement context, and there are issues associated
with wear and fit.
We also found that NIJ does these compliance tests to make
sure that manufactured body armor meets the standards, and
these are not rubber stamps. We found that in about half the
cases the vests were failing the tests, and that was actually a
good sign to us that these were stringent tests. And that is
important for law enforcement to make sure that when something
is NIJ compliant, they have gone through some standard and
rigorous testing.
Senator Blumenthal. We, by the way, settled the cases and
the investigations involving these companies to the benefit of
our police departments in Connecticut. But I think it
highlights the need for this continued regimen of testing and
vigilance to make sure that the body armor actually works,
because it may actually be counterproductive to have body
armor, obviously, as you know, that is relied on and then does
not work.
Do you find, Mr. Canterbury, because you raised the issue
of collective bargaining and so forth, increasing acceptance of
body armor as necessary to wear? Or is there still some
resistance to it?
Mr. Canterbury. Senator, I believe that without collective
bargaining agreements, many of our agencies would not have
vests today. It is the officers who bring those safety issues
into question. When I first asked for a ballistic vest for my
department, the question I got from a 30-year veteran chief
was, ``Are you scared to do your job? '' And I said, ``No. But
I want to go home to my family.''
So I think actually the unions have greatly increased the
use of safety equipment and probably were more of a catalyst to
them becoming widely accepted than anything out there.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I would agree with you on the
basis of my limited experience, and thank you for that
observation.
Thank you all for your great work, and thank you for your
testimony.
Chairman Leahy. I should note, Senator Blumenthal, you are
welcome in Vermont anytime. I suspect if you went to the
Burlington Police Department, Chief Schirling would not resist
the temptation to show you those old photographs.
Senator Blumenthal. That may be worth the trip.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I am a strong supporter of the Bulletproof Vests
Partnership program whose vests save lives. I will give an
example. Fairmont, Minnesota, is a relatively small town of
about 10,000 people just north of the Iowa border. It is a
tight-knit community.
On October 26, 2010, Fairmont police officer Chad Sanow
finished dinner with his wife and kids and then left for work.
Shortly thereafter, he responded to a call for a fire, a house
fire. It turned out to be an ambush. A gunman was hiding among
the flames. Officer Sanow was shot in the chest during the
encounter.
Two amazing things happened next. First, Officer Sanow
received a call from his wife, and in the midst of the chaos,
he answered the phone. He later said, ``I knew I should not
have answered it, but I did not know how bad my injuries were,
and I wanted to talk to her because what if I did not make it
and I wanted to hear her voice.''
The other amazing thing was Officer Sanow survived. He was
wearing a bulletproof vest the Fairmont Police Department had
obtained through the BVP program; otherwise, he would have
died. His lieutenant later said that the bulletproof vest
absolutely saved Sanow's life. Officer Sanow walked away with a
deep purple bruise on his chest, and that is what this program
is all about.
Last year, about 180 towns in Minnesota acquired more than
2,500 bulletproof vests through the BVP program. When I think
of the BVP program, I do not think of statistics. I think about
this story and I think of people like Officer Sanow.
Not long after the shooting, Officer Sanow said that he
wears his bulletproof vest for his family because ``every night
I want to be able to tuck my kids into bed.'' I think you said
that or something very similar, Officer Canterbury. And he
said, ``I want to share that meal at supper.''
Officer Sanow has been keeping his community safe for more
than 15 years, and we are blessed that he is still with us and
serving the people of Fairmont.
Mr. Canterbury, you brought up the issue of wearability,
and I think this is an interesting issue, which is that at a
certain point you reach a point of diminishing returns. As you
were saying, you can create something thick enough to stop
anything. But it is really important that these things be
comfortable enough that it does not incentivize not wearing it,
right?
Mr. Canterbury. Yes, sir, absolutely, especially in high-
humidity situations, temperatures that you have in Phoenix
every day in the summer, comfort and wearability are essential.
They could be dangerous at some point with those kind of high-
temperature situations if you did not have the NIJ testing and
other ways for officers to--in those agencies, I believe the
over-the-shirt vests work very well because at least when they
are in their car they can loosen them, get air under them. When
you are wearing that under your shirt and over a T-shirt and
many times another shirt to keep it off your skin, it makes it
very difficult. So the industry has done well to come up with
new ways.
Senator Franken. When assessing the effectiveness of it,
that wearability issue is actually an issue because it is
counterproductive if you do not wear it.
Mr. Canterbury. Absolutely.
Senator Franken. Last week, I introduced the Local
Courthouse Safety Act to codify the Justice Department's Valor
Initiative, which provides training and technical assistance to
local law enforcement personnel and teaching them how to
anticipate and prevent violent incidents. For example, the
Valor Initiative teaches officers how to detect concealed
weapons and to identify potential gunmen.
Mr. Canterbury, I understand you have served as a training
division supervisor with your police force. Do you agree that
training is an important component of officer safety?
Mr. Canterbury. The most essential part of officer safety,
and, unfortunately, it is the first thing cut when money gets
tight. So without programs like BVP, the next thing that is
going to be cut is officer training. It is the first and
easiest thing to stop in a budget.
Senator Franken. And you talked about those critical
opening moments of an incident. This is one of the reasons I
support the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction
Act. You are familiar with that. People with mental illnesses
are disproportionately caught up in the criminal justice
system, and encounters with this population present a unique
set of challenges for police.
The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act
helps local police develop models for responding to incidents
involving the mentally ill. Mr. Schirling, do you agree that
specialized training for police can reduce injuries to not just
officers but civilians during encounters with mentally ill
individuals? And can you speak to the importance of that
program?
Chief Schirling. I do believe that is true, Senator. I
think that is an excellent topic for discussion here in 2012.
One of the most challenging things that our officers face day
to day is events in which people with unmet needs in the realm
of mental health are acting out in some fashion. And as State
budgets continue to be reduced, services and programs for folks
that suffer from mental illness are eroding, and when all else
fails, the last resort is the three-digit phone number. It is
9-1-1. And the situations can be very unpredictable, and they
can be very challenging to deal with. And we are spending a
great deal of effort training law enforcement and building
additional capacity through street outreach and intervention.
It is working with law enforcement agencies and things of that
nature to try to ensure that we can de-escalate those scenarios
before a bulletproof vest becomes the last line of defense, or
vice versa, that someone with a mental illness who is there not
by their own choosing ends up injured or worse as a result of
an encounter with law enforcement.
So it is a huge challenge in an area where we need to spend
significant focus.
Senator Franken. Thank you, and thank you all for your
testimony and thank you all for your work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. And we have been joined by the Ranking
Member, Senator Grassley. I will yield to you.
Senator Grassley. Thank you very much. I know it is not
very courteous, my not being here, but I think the Chairman
told you why I was not. And, besides, there were three other
Committee meetings scheduled in these morning hours, so forgive
me.
I am going to put a statement in the record, but I want to
refer to one paragraph from it. Officer safety is paramount,
and we should do all we can to make sure officers on the
streets have body armor. However, we must also ensure that
taxpayers' dollars are monitored and managed effectively by the
Justice Department. We can and must do both. Reauthorizing this
program affords us that opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Grassley. Mr. Maurer, the report released today by
GAO found that the Justice Department has been carrying forward
a significant balance in this partnership program. Your audit
found that $27 million dating back to fiscal year 2002 is
currently held by the program. On top of that, GAO found that
$14 million was previously deobligated from the program in 2009
and used to pay off a Congressional rescission to the
Department's budget. That is $41 million that could have been
used to purchase vests for law enforcement agencies. Coupled
with the program's matching requirement, it could have funded
up to $82 million worth of vests.
So, Mr. Maurer, was GAO able to determine why the
Department continues to carry over such a balance despite
annual appropriations?
Mr. Maurer. Yes, we talked to the Department of Justice
about that, and in a nutshell, this is unfortunately not
unusual in grant programs, not just at DOJ but across all the
Government.
Back in 2008, we issued a report talking about undisbursed
grant balances, and at that time we found about $1 billion of
funds like these that were sitting around basically unused. And
what ends up happening is that awards are made, and for a
variety of reasons they are never actually acted on. And so the
money builds up over a period of time.
Senator Grassley. A couple together here. Was the
Department even aware that they were carrying such large
balances before you pointed out? And when asked about the
money, what did the Department say it planned to do with it?
Mr. Maurer. Yes, when we talked to the Department about it,
they were aware of these balances. Over the period of years,
they were re-extending the grant award timeframes so that if
localities had not used the money, they kept them active within
the program.
We also asked them about their plans in addressing this
going forward, and they said they are going to act on our
recommendation to take action to actually use these funds.
Our point of departure on this is that, you know, whether
you use these funds to purchase more bulletproof vests or use
it to offset future appropriations, it does not serve anyone's
interest to have it sitting in a DOJ account not doing
anything.
Senator Grassley. OK. Your report includes a recommendation
that the Department deobligate the $27 million. It also notes
that the Department concurred with the recommendations and ``in
the absence of statutory restrictions stating otherwise, it
intends to use the deobligated, undisbursed BVP program funds
to supplement the appropriation amounts in fiscal year 2012 and
2013.''
Did the Department indicate if this was to buy more vests
or whether they would use it to pay down more rescissions?
Mr. Maurer. My understanding of their response--and you can
ask the Department this directly--is that their plan was to use
it to purchase more vests. However, what you have read is what
they provided us in writing.
Senator Grassley. Were agencies that should be reimbursed
never awarded funding?
Mr. Maurer. My understanding is that did not happen.
Senator Grassley. In your opinion, should Congress stop
providing no-year money for this program?
Mr. Maurer. I think that is a legitimate policy issue for
Congress to consider, and we would be happy--I think our report
helps inform those decisions, but we are not going to take a
position on whether it should continue to be no-year funding or
not.
Senator Grassley. Bulletproof and stab-proof vests that
save the lives of our law enforcement officers are a very
worthy use of our dollars. However, given the current fiscal
situation, we must ensure that the program is operated as
efficiently as possible. Based upon your testimony, it appears
that money for body armor has not been used efficiently because
the money is funneled through two different Department of
Justice grant programs, each with different requirements for
the recipients. As a result, funds from both programs for the
same purpose may have been provided to the same recipients, and
some vests bought with that money may not be up to the best
standards.
Of the two DOJ grant programs that provide funds for the
purchase of vests, only the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, BVP,
grant program has appropriate safeguards to ensure that the
funds are used appropriately, such as 50-percent match. The GAO
has stated--and I agree--that the matching requirements are
crucial to ensure that grantees take care to use grant funds
efficiently. Byrne/JAG grantees who use funds for vests do not
have matching requirements.
More concerning, there is no guarantee that recipients of
Byrne/JAG grants did not use those funds to pay for the match
requirements of Bulletproof Vest partnership programs, and
Byrne/JAG grantees are not required to buy vests that meet
DOJ's own standards for quality and are not required to make
sure that their officers actually wear the vests.
Another difference is that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
grant program requires that grantees make their purchases
before being reimbursed while the JAG programs provide grantee
money up front.
Why does Justice operate these programs differently? And
what would be the benefits of combining the programs? And,
second, does DOJ know how many grantees receive money from both
of these programs in any given fiscal year? And do you know?
Mr. Maurer. I will answer your last question first. GAO
does not know nor does DOJ know all the recipients that have
received funding through the JAG program for purchase of body
armor, nor are they required to do so. I think that is
important to point that out as well.
The JAG program is a very broad program. It is a formula
grant program. States and localities can use it for a wide
variety of purposes, and there is no requirement that they
report back to the Department of Justice specifically what they
are doing with every dollar spent on that program.
Obviously, BVP is different. It is a very specific and
targeted program designed specifically for body armor.
Senator Grassley. This will have to be my last question.
What changes to the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act would you
suggest to account for these problems or other issues that you
discovered in the course of your audit?
Mr. Maurer. We think it is important for the Department to
act on all the recommendations in our report, and whether that
is handed through statute or through the Department's own
policies we will leave to the Congress and to the Department to
work out. But I think as a general proposition, it is important
that all Department of Justice grant money that is used for the
purchase of body armor be used to purchase NIJ-compliant body
armor, that it meets standards, and that it goes to
jurisdictions that have mandatory-wear policies in place. We
would like to see that consistency.
Senator Grassley. Quickly, could savings be achieved by
consolidating the duplication between these two programs?
Mr. Maurer. Again, I think that is something for the
Congress to work out.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
In keeping with having former prosecutors here, we have
Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you to all three of the witnesses. I may be the last one to
speak, so I am the only thing that stands between you and
lunch, I guess, and I want to particularly thank Chief
Schirling.
I was very surprised that you would have a chief from
Vermont here on this panel. You know, we are 50 States.
Chairman Leahy. We picked them alphabetically starting with
``V.''
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Very good.
Also, Director Maurer and Mr. Canterbury, thank you for
your work on behalf of the brave men and women that put
themselves on the line every single day. The most moving thing
I have seen in the last year was, sadly, a funeral for one of
the fallen officers. Someone who had responded to a domestic
violence call was shot in the head, so a vest would not have
helped in this case. And being there at that funeral and seeing
his widow with the three little children, two little boys and
this girl with this bright blue dress on, walk down that aisle
of that church was something I am never going to forget. And so
it reminded me day in and day out how they are putting their
lives on the line, and we have to do every single thing to help
them. So thank you so much for your work.
My first question was actually just about some of the
statistics and what has been going on. In 2011, 71 police
officers nationwide were killed by firearms, which is the
highest number since 2007, and up 20 percent from 2010s total
of 59. Do you think there are any factors that are contributing
to this? Is there some kind of trend here? Is there any issue
with the bulletproof vests, or is it just a statistical
aberration? What do you think? Do you have any insight on what
is going on? Mr. Canterbury, if you want to start.
Mr. Canterbury. A lot of research is being done on that,
and we do not know. We are dealing with our international
partners as well, and violence is up all over the world against
law enforcement. New Zealand, for instance, where police
officers do not carry, had two officers killed in the line of
duty by firearms last year. So we are in a lot of discussions.
I know that IACP and a number of the other groups are trying to
look at the statistics on assaults and see.
Obviously, we think economic conditions play a role at some
point, but we are hoping it was just an anomaly.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Anyone else? Director?
Mr. Maurer. We did not study that particular issue, but one
of the things we did come across in our reviews was a RAND
study that looked at the use of bulletproof vests and found
that when officers are wearing bulletproof vests and if they
are actually shot in the torso, they are almost 4 times as
likely to survive. So it is a really important part of their
equipment. Also, in their study they found no cases where there
was actually a penetration of the bulletproof vest, so that is
indicative of the quality of what is being provided.
Senator Klobuchar. According to a National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial Fund report, in 2011 nine of the police
officers killed by the firearms were killed while responding to
domestic disturbances. This is an issue that resonates with me.
We are trying very hard to move the VAWA reauthorization to the
floor, and I guess my question is more about that. Are officers
at some police departments required to wear vests while
responding to domestic disturbance calls? Why are these calls
more dangerous? And do you have any insight on that? I do not
know if you wanted to answer that one, Chief?
Chief Schirling. Certainly, Senator. Thank you. Domestic
violence calls are historically an enhanced risk scenario. I
think moreover, though, to weave this into your last question
as well, we are facing, I think, increasingly complex
circumstances on the street, and there are a variety of things
feeding that: an increase in substance abuse, more intractable
alcohol and addiction-related issues, an increase in the number
of contacts with people with underlying mental illness, and an
increasing number of folks who are in sort of overall crisis
for a variety of reasons that are often co-occurring at the
same time. And I think that is leading to more violent
encounters and ultimately more officers killed. And domestic
violence is certainly a thread in there.
Chairman had a press conference in Vermont on Monday
regarding VAWA funding, and one of the themes that we discussed
there was the fact that in the last 15 years in Vermont, 51
percent of the homicides that have occurred were domestic
violence related. So that level of violence translates directly
to, I believe, the encounters that law enforcement officers
have with alleged perpetrators of domestic violence, that there
is just an enhanced risk that goes with that in all of those
events.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. You mentioned drugs. I just
cannot--I am obsessed with this right now. It is a little off
topic, and no one is here so that is good. Have you seen an
increase with synthetic drugs in Vermont like we have seen in
Minnesota?
Chief Schirling. I am going to knock on wood because we
have not. Our pervasive issue is addiction to prescription
opiates.
Senator Klobuchar. Right.
Chief Schirling. It is rampant, and it is driving crime, it
is driving violence, it is driving everything right now.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes, and Senator Cornyn and I worked on
a prescription take-back to try to make it easier for people to
get things out of their medicine cabinets, and I know that is
not the only solution, but we passed that and have been pushing
to get the rules developed with DEA.
Anyone else want to comment on the synthetics?
Mr. Canterbury.
Mr. Canterbury. In my home State, synthetics have been a
problem. But just like the chief, it is prescription medication
along with the ability to make cheap, quick methamphetamine.
That is still a problem. The ingredients are different at
times, which make them much more dangerous.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. This is a question I bet you were
not asked by my fellow Senators. This is about women and
bulletproof vests. More and more women are entering law
enforcement. In fact, I recommended and the President appointed
our first woman Federal Marshal in Minnesota, and she was the
deputy police chief in the Minneapolis Police Department.
We have received testimony in the record that suggests that
female officers may not be getting bulletproof vests that fit
properly and that they may be hesitant to requests vests made
for women because those vests cost more.
We have also received testimony that suggests that officers
may be less likely to wear their vests when the vests did not
fit properly.
Could you talk more about these dynamics and what is the
issue and the impact on female law enforcement? Director?
Mr. Maurer. Yes, we looked at that issue specifically as
part of our review, and it is certainly one of the major issues
that NIJ is studying right now. There are 100,000 female law
enforcement officers in this country right now, so obviously
having body armor that fits and that works is certainly in
everyone's best interest.
Manufacturers are starting to rise to this challenge, but
they definitely point to some--it is not an easy thing for them
to do. They have to provide more contoured body armor for a
female officer than for a male officer, and that creates
technical challenges because there are more seams in the body
armor and that makes it more difficult to produce something
that is protective.
But you are absolutely right. It needs to be comfortable,
and it needs to fit well for an officer to have the right
incentive to use it every single day in the line of duty.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Anyone else? Chief?
Chief Schirling. Thanks for that question, Senator. We
actually did address that earlier, surprisingly.
Senator Klobuchar. Oh, you did?
Chief Schirling. We did, briefly.
Senator Klobuchar. Sorry. I was at a farm hearing, but you
do not want to know all the details on that.
[Laughter.]
Chief Schirling. Happy to go back through it, though, and
actually add some additional detail. About 20 percent of our
officers are female, a little bit higher than the national
average, and we are doing all we can to do custom fitting. But
one of the things we are also exploring the use of is external
vest carriers, which do not require quite as much tailoring so
that a uniform shirt has to go over them. The shirt is worn,
and then the external carrier is worn over that. There are a
variety of potential benefits, including relieving weight from
hips and duty belts as well.
So there is a lot of work being done in terms of enhancing
comfort, not just for female officers but for all officers in
this area.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Anything more? Mr.
Canterbury?
Mr. Canterbury. There is a lot of other equipment that
needs to be tailored for our female officers.
Senator Klobuchar. Kind of like the chairs in the Judiciary
Committee room. That is why I moved over so I could see.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Canterbury. The gun belts, the uniform pants, but since
my start in the career to today, that has changed dramatically.
But there are a lot of those issues that we need to address.
But I think the new technology is helping some, and they do
cost a little bit more, but it is just required.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Well, very good. Thank you to
all of you for your testimony. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. And you do not have to be a
former prosecutor to serve on this Committee, but it does help,
and we have one more, Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who
was both a U.S. Attorney and Attorney General of his State. I
am going to turn the gavel over to him while I step back out of
the room to another meeting.
Senator Whitehouse. Shall I recess at the end of my
questioning or do you----
Chairman Leahy. If there is nobody else here.
Senator Whitehouse. Very well.
Chairman Leahy. Although, if I might, with your indulgence,
I would ask Mr. Maurer just so we have it on the record: You
know the DOJ has not deobligated the $27 million funds which we
talked about earlier. I agree with GAO's recommendation that
the Department could use these funds for new grant awards. You
said the Department plans to use these funds to supplement
appropriations in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. Do you believe--
and I assume you do--that the Department of Justice is capable
of responding to your recommendations?
Mr. Maurer. Yes, we believe they are capable of responding
to our recommendation.
Chairman Leahy. And, President Canterbury, I think you
would agree that this program itself has raised the awareness
of the need for the use of bulletproof vests by police
officers. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Canterbury. Absolutely, Senator, and we applaud you for
continuing to have these hearings so that we can--you know, we
do not like to advertise the use of bulletproof vests on the
street. We do not want people to know we are wearing them. But,
you know, without this type of funding, they will go back to
doing bake sales and car washes to provide them.
Chairman Leahy. And I have told you privately before about
the police officer in Denver tapping his chest and what he said
to me, and that is one of the things I will remember all the
time I am in the Senate.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. [Presiding.] Thank you very much,
Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate
the testimony of all the witnesses.
We lost 160 police officers in 2010 and 164 in 2011 to
fatalities in the line of duty, so it both reflects on the
importance of your service, but it also reflects on the
importance of this issue.
The mandatory-wear policies that the Department of Justice
requires for those who are the beneficiaries of this program
raise the question of what a mandatory-wear policy should look
like given the wide variety of circumstances that present
themselves to a police officer in the course of his or her
career, and I am wondering if you all have developed enough
experience in this that you have some sense of what would be
good ingredients in a mandatory-wear policy. Are there best
practices? Are there things to be avoided that people have
discovered when they wrote a mandatory-wear policy and then
realized, oops, that is a circumstance we did not think of?
What is kind of the state-of-the-art right now with respect to
mandatory-wear policies, if you know?
Chief Schirling. Thank you, Senator. It is good to see you
again.
I am not sure there is perfection out there relative to any
law enforcement policy. As we continue to research best
practice, what we have found, I think, is that, by and large,
for officers engaged in day-to-day patrol functions, what are
called uniformed divisions, patrol divisions, whatever they may
be called in whatever part of the country, the officer is
wearing polyester. By and large, for agencies that have chosen
to go with a mandatory-wear route, that is sort of--the
unanimity seems to be there. It does become much more
complicated for officers in plainclothes and on undercover
assignments and administrative assignments.
What we have done and chosen to do based on looking at
other folks' policies is, if you are in uniform serving an
enforcement role, wear is mandatory. If you are in
plainclothes, it is strongly encouraged in certain circumstance
and it is mandatory in other circumstances. So it is event
dependent.
You are right in assessing that there is no way to ever
ascertain all of the variables that could be in play, so it is
really about creating the best categories and guidance possible
with mandatory wear.
Senator Whitehouse. And learning as we go what the best
policies are.
Chief Schirling. Exactly.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Maurer.
Mr. Maurer. Yes, in our work we did not assess how well the
different mandatory policies were relative to one another. We
did notice that the International Association of Chiefs of
Police has developed a model policy that I think a lot of the
jurisdictions are using as a starting point. That seemed to be
something that was a good way to get things started,
particularly the smaller jurisdictions. But I would agree with
my colleague that I think it is important to have some
flexibility in how it is used on a day-to-day basis.
Chairman Leahy. Mr. Canterbury.
Mr. Canterbury. Well, there are geographical issues that
come into play. Standing in an intersection at 103 degrees, you
have got to allow them to take them off. And I think that
geography plays a role. In undercover positions obviously it
would jeopardize. So they have to be somewhat flexible. But we
support the mandatory wear for those people engaged in active
law enforcement actions.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, thank you. This is, I think, an
issue we are going to need to keep an eye on as it goes
forward, and I appreciate your interest in it.
I have submissions for the hearing record from Sheriff Paul
Fitzgerald, who is the president of the National Sheriffs
Association; and from Chief Ron McBride of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police; and from Dupont, who partners
together with others in support of the Kevlar Survivors Club.
Without objection, they will be made part of the record.
[The information referred to appears as a submission for
the record.]
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Klobuchar, would you like
another round?
Senator Klobuchar. No. I just came back to say good-bye.
Senator Whitehouse. In that case, let me close out by
describing the words of a great Rhode Island law enforcement
officer, Chief Vin Vespia, who had an illustrious State police
career chasing mobsters around Rhode Island back in the mob
days and has for decades now been the police chief of South
Kingstown and is extremely well regarded by his peers. He was
recently the emcee at the installation of Chief Pizarray, the
new chief of the Rhode Island Municipal Police Chiefs'
Association, and what Chief Vespia says is, simply stated,
``Body armor is the most important article of police equipment
that an officer can have.''
So on that note, I will conclude the hearing with my
gratitude to all of the witnesses and my appreciation to the
Chairman for his relentless attention on this important topic.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Senator Whitehouse. The record will remain open for 1 week
for any further submissions.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]