[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.

                          ____________________