[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 194 (Tuesday, December 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S15921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Shelby, Ms. 
        Milkulski, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2511. A bill to amend the grant program for law enforcement armor 
vests top provide for a waiver of or reduction in the matching funds 
requirements in the case of fiscal hardship; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that will 
help will build upon our efforts to improve the Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Act, which has had so much success in protecting the 
lives of law enforcement officers across the country. The bill 
introduced today provides a need-based waiver of matching requirements 
that will aid State and local law enforcement agencies in financial 
hardship purchase body armor for their officers. I thank Senators 
Clinton, Mikulski, Shelby, and Landrieu for joining me to introduce 
this bill to give our law enforcement officers the protection they 
need.
  I was proud to work with Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell to author 
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, which responded to 
the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire 
border when two state troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were 
killed. The Federal officers who responded to the scenes of the 
shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State 
and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of 
the cost. Since its inception in 1999, I have worked to reauthorize 
this program three times, most recently in the 2005 Violence Against 
Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization bill.
  Since 1999, the BVP program has provided $173 million to purchase an 
estimated 500,000 vests in more than 11,500 jurisdictions nationwide. 
Vermont has received more than $600,000 in bulletproof vest funding 
under this program, which has been used to purchase 2700 vests 
statewide.
  I want to thank Senators Mikulski and Shelby for continuing to 
recognize this program as a priority. As Chair and Ranking Member of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee that finalizes Justice Department 
spending priorities, they saw fit to include more than $25 million for 
the Bulletproof Vest Program in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated 
Omnibus Appropriations bill.
  Bulletproof vests remain one of the foremost defenses for our 
uniformed officers, but law enforcement agencies nationwide are 
struggling over how to find the funds necessary to replace either aged 
vests, which have a life expectancy of roughly 5 years, or purchase new 
vests for newly hired officers. We want to ensure that our law 
enforcement officers are outfitted with vests that will actually stop 
bullets and save lives. Vests cost between $500 and $1,000 each, 
depending on the style. Officers are being forced to dip into their own 
pockets to pay for new vests due to local and State agency budget 
shortfalls, and will continue to do so unless the Federal Government 
offers more help.
  The bill we introduce today will give discretion to the Director of 
the Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Justice Department to grant 
waivers or reductions in the match requirements for bulletproof vests 
awards to State and local law enforcement agencies that can demonstrate 
fiscal hardship. Our local law enforcement agencies are constantly 
responding to new challenges, from fighting a recent rise in violent 
crime to responding to threats of terrorism, and many localities lack 
the resources to effectively combat these challenges. Waiving the match 
requirement for life-saving body armor should be available for police 
agencies like those in New Orleans, on the Gulf Coast, or in other 
areas that experience disasters or other circumstances that create 
fiscal hardships.
  A tragic event in Tennessee in 2005 highlights the need for this 
legislation. Wayne ``Cotton'' Morgan, a Tennessee correctional officer 
was gunned down on August 9, 2005, outside the Kingston Court House by 
the wife of an inmate being escorted by Officer Morgan. He was killed, 
and the prisoner and his wife escaped. Officer Morgan was not wearing a 
bulletproof vest, although he repeatedly requested one from the warden 
at Brushy Mountain Prison. The Tennessee Department of Corrections 
Administrative Policies and Procedures memorandum required that fitted 
vests be provided to individuals assigned to transportation duties. 
Despite this requirement and Officer Morgan's repeated requests, he was 
not issued a vest due to lack of funding. This legislation will help 
ensure that no officer is left without a bulletproof vest for lack of 
resources in his or her department.
  Our law enforcement officers deserve the fundamental protection that 
bulletproof vests can provide. Few things mean more to me than when I 
meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests 
they wear were made possible because of the Bulletproof Vests 
Partnership Program. This is the least we should do for the officers on 
the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want 
to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest 
gets one.
  I look forward to working with the Senate to pass this bipartisan 
bill to better to protect our law enforcement officers.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2511

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR 
                   VESTS.

       Section 2501(f) of part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll(f)) is 
     amended by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(3) Waiver.--The Director may waive, in whole or in part, 
     the requirement of paragraph (1) in the case of fiscal 
     hardship, as determined by the Director.''.

                          ____________________