[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION 
                              ACT OF 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. JUDY CHU

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 
Grant Program has been an invaluable source of funding for state and 
local law enforcement jurisdictions across the country, including in my 
district. Without this broad-based source of funding, safety in our 
communities would suffer. This invaluable grant program supports a wide 
range of areas including from crime prevention and education to 
technology improvements for police departments.
  In addition, the Byrne JAG Program provides resources for body armor, 
an area that I highlighted during action on H.R. 6062 in the Judiciary 
Committee, of which I am a Member. The grant program allows local law 
enforcement agencies and other grantees to purchase equipment, which 
can include bulletproof and stab-resistant vests. Although the Bureau 
of Justice Assistance (``BJA'') is not required to track body armor 
purchases with Byrne JAG funds, according to a Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) study released in February of this year, 
roughly 14 percent of grantees surveyed had used JAG funds to buy body 
armor in 2010.
  Without a doubt, personal body armor plays a critical role in saving 
law enforcement officers from disabilities and death. As a matter of 
fact, FBI data shows that the risk of death for officers who did not 
wear body armor was 14 times greater than those who did. Despite this 
finding, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that only 71% of 
local police departments require field officers to wear body armor at 
least some of the time, while only 59% of departments require the 
officers to wear protective armor at all times. The benefits from 
wearing body armor are evident, and yet . . . many departments still 
don't require it.
  Recently, the U.S. Attorney General instituted a new requirement for 
Fiscal Year 2011 grantees seeking matching funds from the Bulletproof 
Vest Partnership Act (BVPA)--grantees now need to have mandatory body 
armor wear policies in place. This means that uniformed officers on 
patrol are required to wear a protective vest. Unfortunately, this same 
mandate is not included in the Byrne JAG program.
  This is why I proposed an amendment in Committee--similar to an 
amendment proposed to the BVPA reauthorization by Senator Grassley, 
Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and accepted by that 
Committee--that would have unified this mandatory wear policy and 
extended it to the Byrne JAG program. Chairman Smith graciously noted 
his willingness to work with me on this front, and so I agreed to 
withdraw my amendment, but the issue is still worth mentioning on the 
floor since it is such an important issue. I welcome the interest of 
any of my colleagues who would also like to work with me on ensuring 
the extension of mandatory wear policies for body armor to additional 
federal grantees.
  I highlighted another issue when proposing my amendment in the 
Judiciary Committee, which is body armor fit--an issue that concerns 
all law enforcement officers, but particularly the growing number of 
women in law enforcement. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
the number of women in local law enforcement grew from 7.6% in 1987 to 
12% in 2007. In 2007, women accounted for 18% of sworn officers in 12 
of the 13 largest local police departments.
  The need for properly fitted body armor for women is extremely 
important. Much of the armor currently offered is designed for male 
officers and simply does not take into account the anatomical 
differences. This of course leads to poor fit and discomfort. Fit 
issues also apply to male officers, who we know also come in different 
shapes and sizes. And whenever officers put on body armor that is not 
properly fitted, they are exposing themselves to greater harm since 
they are not as protected as they could be.
  The International Association of Chiefs of Police/DuPont Kevlar 
Survivors' Club (Survivors' Club) has documented more than 3,150 saves 
from disability or death by wearing of or use of protective body armor. 
As noted in a July 19th letter to me from Retired Police Chief Ron 
McBride, Program Manager for Survivors' Club, ``It is appropriate to 
ensure that taxpayers' dollars expended on providing body armor results 
in consistent wear of an issued vest. Protective body armor left in an 
officer's locker provides zero protection. Unique fit is essential to 
optimizing protection. A well fitted armor provides best coverage of an 
officer's torso and is more comfortable to wear. These two issues 
equate to enhanced officer safety.''
  This is why the second part of my amendment offered in committee 
would have required that body armor purchased with Byrne JAG funding be 
uniquely fitted to each officer, including female officers.
  The issue of properly fitted body armor should not be taken lightly 
when considering the overall safety of law enforcement officers. Body 
armor saves lives, but only if it fits properly and is worn by 
officers. I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman, 
Ranking Member Conyers, and other interested Members in these areas.

                          ____________________