[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 62 (Friday, May 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4927-S4930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT OF 1998
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a
message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1605) to
establish a matching grant program to help States, units of local
government, and Indian tribes to purchase armor vests for use by law
enforcement officers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1605) entitled
``An Act to establish a matching grant program to help
States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to
purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers'',
do pass with the following amendments:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed
in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law
enforcement officer in the United States had the protection
of an armor vest;
(2) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law
enforcement officers in the United States were feloniously
killed in the line of duty;
(3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the
risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not
wearing an armor vest is 14 times higher than for officers
wearing an armor vest;
(4) the Department of Justice estimates that approximately
150,000 State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers,
nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor;
(5) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet-
resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000
law enforcement officers in the United States; and
(6) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian
country has risen sharply, despite a decrease in the national
crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety
crisis in Indian country''.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to save lives of
law enforcement officers by helping State, local, and tribal
law enforcement agencies provide officers with armor vests.
[[Page S4928]]
SEC. 3. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR
VESTS.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating part Y as part Z;
(2) by redesignating section 2501 as section 2601; and
(3) by inserting after part X the following new part:
``PART Y--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR VESTS
``SEC. 2501. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, units of
local government, and Indian tribes to purchase armor vests
for use by State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers.
``(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section
shall be--
``(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe; and
``(2) used for the purchase of armor vests for law
enforcement officers in the jurisdiction of the grantee.
``(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under
this part, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance
may give preferential consideration, if feasible, to an
application from a jurisdiction that--
``(1) has the greatest need for armor vests based on the
percentage of law enforcement officers in the department who
do not have access to a vest;
``(2) has, or will institute, a mandatory wear policy that
requires on-duty law enforcement officers to wear armor vests
whenever feasible; and
``(3) has a violent crime rate at or above the national
average as determined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
or
``(4) has not received a block grant under the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant program described under the heading
`Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance' of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-119).
``(d) Minimum Amount.--Unless all eligible applications
submitted by any State or unit of local government within
such State for a grant under this section have been funded,
such State, together with grantees within the State (other
than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year
under this section not less than 0.50 percent of the total
amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to
this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall
be each be allocated .25 percent.
``(e) Maximum Amount.--A qualifying State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe may not receive more than 5
percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year
for grants under this section, except that a State, together
with the grantees within the State may not receive more than
20 percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal
year for grants under this section.
``(f) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a
program provided by a grant under subsection (a) may not
exceed 50 percent. Any funds appropriated by Congress for the
activities of any agency of an Indian tribal government or
the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing law enforcement
functions on any Indian lands may be used to provide the non-
Federal share of a matching requirement funded under this
subsection.
``(g) Allocation of Funds.--At least half of the funds
available under this part shall be awarded to units of local
government with fewer than 100,000 residents.
``SEC. 2502. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, the
chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe shall submit an application to the Director of
the Bureau of Justice Assistance in such form and containing
such information as the Director may reasonably require.
``(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this part, the Director of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance shall promulgate regulations to implement
this section (including the information that must be included
and the requirements that the States, units of local
government, and Indian tribes must meet) in submitting the
applications required under this section.
``(c) Eligibility.--A unit of local government that
receives funding under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
program (described under the heading `Violent Crime Reduction
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance' of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law
105-119)) during a fiscal year in which it submits an
application under this part shall not be eligible for a grant
under this part unless the chief executive officer of such
unit of local government certifies and provides an
explanation to the Director that the unit of local government
considered or will consider using funding received under the
block grant program for any or all of the costs relating to
the purchase of armor vests, but did not, or does not expect
to use such funds for such purpose.
``SEC. 2503. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this part--
``(1) the term `armor vest' means body armor, no less than
Type I, which has been tested through the voluntary
compliance testing program operated by the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center of the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ), and found to meet or exceed the
requirements of NIJ Standard 0101.03, or any subsequent
revision of such standard;
``(2) the term `body armor' means any product sold or
offered for sale as personal protective body covering
intended to protect against gunfire, stabbing, or other
physical harm;
``(3) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands;
``(4) the term `unit of local government' means a county,
municipality, town, township, village, parish, borough, or
other unit of general government below the State level;
``(5) the term `Indian tribe' has the same meaning as in
section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)); and
``(6) the term `law enforcement officer' means any officer,
agent, or employee of a State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe authorized by law or by a government agency to
engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or
investigation of any violation of criminal law, or authorized
by law to supervise sentenced criminal offenders.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(23) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part Y, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2001.''.
SEC. 4 SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
In the case of any equipment or products that may be
authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided
using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this
Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving
the assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase
only American-made equipment and products.
Amend the title so as to read ``An Act to establish a
matching grant program to help State and local jurisdictions
purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement
departments.''.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, on March 11, 1998, the Senate passed S.
1605, the Bulletproof Vest and Partnership Grant Act of 1998 which I
introduced along with my colleagues Senators Leahy and Hatch. On May
12, 1998, with strong bipartisan support, the House passed this bill
and with mutually agreed upon modifications. Today, the Senate is about
to pass this legislation by a unanimous vote and send it to the
President for signature and enactment into law. I wish to thank the
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator
Hatch, and the Committee's ranking member Senator Leahy, for their help
and support with this important legislation.
Two nights ago, on Wednesday, May 13, 1998, in observance of National
Police Week, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund held
the Tenth Annual Memorial Candlelight Vigil and Reception honoring the
fallen men and women in the line of duty. My heart goes out to the
families and friends of these men and women and I am proud to be a part
of a potential solution to this tragedy that faces police officers in
the line of duty.
This legislation is endorsed by 38 Attorneys General, the Fraternal
Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International
Union of Police Associations, the Police Executive Research Forum, the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National
Associations of Police Organizations. They know this legislation will
benefit police and sheriffs' departments around the country.
There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our
streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against
violent criminals.
As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the risks which law
enforcement officers face everyday on the front lines protecting our
communities.
Today, more than ever, violent criminals have bulletproof vests and
deadly weapons at their disposal. In fact, figures from the U.S.
Department of Justice indicate that approximately 150,000 law
enforcement officers--or 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 state and
local officers--do not have access to bulletproof vests. Unfortunately,
many police departments just do not have the resources to purchase
vests on their own.
The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most
important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can
have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives
of more than 1,500 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In
fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers
who do not wear bulletproof vests are
[[Page S4929]]
14 times more likely to be killed by a firearm than those officers who
do wear vests. Simply put, bulletproof vests save lives.
This Friday afternoon, at the 17th annual National Peace Officers'
Memorial Service, the families, friends and colleagues of police
officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty this past year
will gather on the West Front of the Capitol to remember the courage
and sacrifice of their fallen loved ones.
This heartfelt ceremony marks the climax of National Police Week here
in Washington, DC. A perfect way to show tribute to these fallen men
and women is through passage of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Act of 1998 by both houses of Congress.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 will form a
partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies in order to
make sure that police officers who need bulletproof vests get one. It
will do so by authorizing up to $25 million per year for a new grant
program within the U.S. Department of Justice. The program will provide
50-50 matching grants to state and local law enforcement agencies and
Indian tribes to assist in purchasing bulletproof vests and body armor.
To ensure that the funding goes first to those police departments which
need it most, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance is given
discretion to give preferential consideration to smaller departments
whose budgets are scarce.
Additionally, those jurisdictions which do not receive any funding
under the local law enforcement block grant program will be given
preference. Furthermore, at least half of the funds available under
this program will be awarded to jurisdictions with less than 100,000
residents.
While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a
career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure
that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a
vest. Body armor often means the difference between life and death.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we complete the last step to enact
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 that I introduced
with Senator Hatch and Senator Campbell last January. Our bipartisan
legislation is intended to save the lives of law enforcement officers
across the country by helping state and local law enforcement agencies
provide their officers with body armor. When we began Senate
consideration I urged action by this week, National Police Week. It is
appropriate on the day of the Seventeenth Peace Officers' Memorial
Service that along with honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice
in the interest of preserving the public safety, we in Congress do all
that we can to protect our law enforcement officers.
Far too many police officers are needlessly killed each year while
serving to protect our citizens. Just yesterday, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation announced that 64 law enforcement officers were slain
feloniously in the line of duty in 1997, up from 56 in 1996. And some
of these deaths might have been prevented if officers were wearing body
armor.
According to the FBI, more than 30 percent of the 1,182 officers
killed by a firearm in the line of duty since 1980 could have been
saved if they had been wearing body armor. Indeed, the FBI estimates
that the risk of fatality to officers while not wearing body armor is
14 times higher than for officers wearing it.
Unfortunately, far too many state and local law enforcement agencies
cannot afford to provide every officer in their jurisdictions with the
protection of body armor. In fact, the Department of Justice estimates
that approximately 150,000 State and local law enforcement officers,
nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor.
A recent incident along the Vermont and New Hampshire border
underscores the need for the quick passage of this legislation to
provide maximum protection to those who protect us. On August 19, 1997,
Federal, State and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New
Hampshire had cornered Carl Drega, after hours of hot pursuit. This
madman had just shot to death two New Hampshire state troopers and two
other victims earlier in the day. In a massive exchange of gunfire with
the authorities, Drega lost his life.
During that shootout, all federal law enforcement officers wore
bulletproof vests, while some state and local officers did not. For
example, Federal Border Patrol Officer John Pfeifer, a Vermonter, who
was seriously wounded in the incident. If it was not for his
bulletproof vest, I would have been attending Officer Pfeifer's wake
instead of visiting him, and meeting his wife and young daughter in the
hospital a few days later.
The two New Hampshire state troopers who were killed by Carl Drega
were not so lucky. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. Protective
vests might not have been able to save the lives of those courageous
officers because of the high-powered assault weapons used by this
madman. But the tragedy underscores the point that all of our law
enforcement officers, whether federal, state or local, deserve the
protection of a bulletproof vest.
I am relieved that Officer John Pfeifer is doing well and is back on
duty. We all grieve for the two New Hampshire officers who were killed.
With that and lesser-known incidents as constant reminders, I will
continue to do all I can to help prevent loss of life among our law
enforcement officers.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 will create a new
partnership between the federal government and State and local law
enforcement agencies to help save the lives of police officers by
providing the resources for each and every law enforcement officer to
have a bulletproof vest. Our bipartisan bill would create a $25 million
matching grant program within the Department of Justice dedicated to
helping State and local law enforcement agencies purchase body armor.
Action today would not have been possible without the extraordinary
efforts of Congressman Visclosky, Congressman LoBiondo, and the more
than 300 bipartisan cosponsors they assembled for their companion
legislation in the House of Representatives. The endorsement and
support of many law enforcement organizations including the Fraternal
Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the International
Union of Police Associations, the Police Executive Research Forum, the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National
Association of Police Organizations have all been critical to focusing
attention on this important initiative. In my home State of Vermont,
the bill enjoys the strong support of Attorney General William Sorrell,
the Vermont State Police, the Vermont Police Chiefs Association and
many Vermont sheriffs, troopers, game wardens and other local and state
law enforcement officials.
Since my time as a State prosecutor, I have always taken a keen
interest in law enforcement in Vermont and around the country. Vermont
has the reputation of being one of the safest states in which to live,
work and visit, and rightly so. In no small part, this is due to the
hard work of those who have sworn to serve and protect us. And we
should do what we can to protect them, when a need like this one comes
to our attention.
Our nation's law enforcement officers put their lives at risk in the
line of duty everyday. No one knows when danger will appear.
Unfortunately, in today's violent world, even a traffic stop may not
necessarily be ``routine.'' Each and every law enforcement officer
across the nation deserves the protection of a bulletproof vest.
I am glad that the bill we enact today returns to the Senate bill
from the version hastily substituted in a House committee. We include
rather than exclude corrections officers. We include rather than
exclude Indian tribes. We include a small State minimum to ensure that
Vermont and other small States not lose out to their larger neighbors
but are enabled to participate to at least a minimum extend in the
program. We have been able to achieve quick passage because we have
compromised to achieve consensus. Earlier this week, the House of
Representatives passed our bill by a vote of 412-4.
I am also glad that we have been able to proceed this week to enact
the Care for Police Survivors Act, which I cosponsored with Senators
Hatch, Biden, DeWine and Sessions as S.1985. This measure will change a
ceiling into a
[[Page S4930]]
floor for the Public Safety Officers Benefits program. Counseling
services will not longer be capped at $150,000 a year.
The unfortunate reality of contemporary life is that we may still
lose upwards of 100 law enforcement officers a year nationwide. I wish
there were none and I will keep working to improve the assistance and
support we provide our law enforcement officers. For those families
that sacrifice a loved one in the line of duty I support the additional
counseling services that could be made available by the Care for Police
Survivors Act.
I hope the House of Representatives will also proceed this week to
provide the college education assistance that would be made possible
for the families of State and local law enforcement officers killed or
disabled in the line of duty by the Public Safety Officers Educational
Benefits Assistance Act, S. 1525. I am proud to have cosponsored the
Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996 and the
pending bill that would extend the educational benefits that we
previously provided to the children of federal law enforcement to the
families of State and local public safety officials who die or are
disabled in the line of duty. Those families make the ultimate
sacrifice for our public safety and deserve our support and assistance.
I commend Senator Specter and Senator Biden for their leadership on
this effort.
The Senate Judiciary Committee reported this bill to the Senate last
Thursday. I said then that I hoped it could be included in a package of
legislation passed this week. A fitting tribute to those who gave their
lives in preserving our public safety would be for Congress to enact
during National Police Week and in anticipation of the annual memorial
activities for law enforcement officers the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Act of 1998, S.1605; the Care for Police Survivors Act of
1998, S.1985 (or H.R. 3565 its House counterpart); and the Public
Safety Officers Educational Benefits Assistance Act, S.1525. Together
these make a significant package of legislation to benefit the families
of those who serve in law enforcement.
I am encouraged that we have been able to achieve enactment of two of
these three measures and look forward to enactment of the third, that
to provide educational opportunities to the families of State and local
law enforcement officers, as soon as the House is prepared to proceed.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, despite the respect that I have for
Members who are co-sponsors of this legislation, I must oppose S. 1605.
I do not oppose this legislation because I believe that encouraging
local law enforcement officers to be provided body armor is a poor
idea. Rather, it is not an appropriate activity of the federal
government.
If this new grant program passes, we will once again encourage people
in communities all across the country to drive on past city hall, drive
on past the state capitol, drive to the airport, fly to Washington and
ask the Congress to help them solve a local problem. I believe that
local problems can and should be solved by local people. There is
hardly any more local issue than the equipment of local law enforcement
officers.
Some localities are enlightened and have provided money for body
armor. This bill penalizes them. Under this bill, residents of those
communities, who have already paid taxed for body armor for their own
law enforcement agents, would be taxed to pay for 50 percent of the
cost of body armor of law enforcement in communities that have not
taxed their citizens to pay for it. Well, as George Bernard Shaw said,
``Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the
support of Paul.''
The only purpose for which this money can be used by local government
is to provide body armor. Communities that have not provided body armor
and communities that have not managed to reduce their crime rates
receive first preference for the award of the money. That certainly
creates an unfortunate incentive. And it means that in the future,
localities may forego important law enforcement efforts on the hope
that if they wait a bit, taxpayers in other parts of the country will
pay 50 percent of the cost.
Under this bill, taxpayer money will be returned to the people who
paid it, less the carrying charges and with strings attached. What if
the locality or state would like to spend the money on some other
purpose than body armor? They are prohibited from doing so. Even if a
community that has not provided body armor has a more pressing law
enforcement need, they cannot spend the money on anything but body
armor. This is an unwarranted intrusion on federalism. Maybe we would
help more if we left more tax money to remain in localities in the
first place.
This is exactly why the federal government should stay out of this.
The era of big government is over I keep hearing, but here is a
proposal to make it bigger. And somebody will have to pay for it with
money that could have stayed right in the community where it was
raised.
If this bill passes, there will be lots of opportunity to pass the
buck. Municipalities that do not provide body armor can pass the buck
to Washington, saying that the federal government now has the
responsibility of doing so. The federal government will point out that
most of the funds will have to come from the states and localities.
Fingers will point everywhere and accountability will rest nowhere.
This is undesirable in a democracy.
Therefore, I record my opposition to this legislation.
Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the
amendments of the House.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________