[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2670-S2672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am surely going to make a unanimous 
consent request, and I have notified the Republican leader of this, but 
before I do, I wish to make a statement on this issue. I am talking 
about the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization 
Act of 2015. That is a lot of words, but it is basically talking about 
the bulletproof vest bill Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell 
and I first put together 17 years ago. It is a lifesaving grant 
program.
  Senator Nighthorse Campbell and I both had the privilege of serving 
in various forms of law enforcement. We knew how things had changed. We 
knew a number of police officers, men and women, who died, were shot to 
death, who would have lived had they had bulletproof vests. We also 
knew a lot of them--especially small departments such as those in my 
State and many in Senator Nighthorse Campbell's State--could not afford 
them. That could be said of virtually every single State.
  The partnership we put together has provided 13,000 State and local 
law enforcement agencies with nearly 1.2 million bulletproof vests for 
their officers. When we pass it today, the Senate will move a step 
closer to ensuring that for the next 5 years thousands of agencies can 
purchase bulletproof vests for officers serving in their communities.
  These are not just empty words or an empty gesture. It is probably 
the most tangible support Congress can provide to law enforcement 
officers. It will help put vests on the backs of more than 200,000 
police officers and it will save lives.
  Just ask the chief of the Woodway, TX, police department, Yost 
Zakhary. Chief Zakhary testified at a Senate judiciary hearing last 
year. He brought

[[Page S2671]]

this vest with him to the hearing. The officer wearing it was shot at 
almost pointblank range during a roadside stop. The officer lost a lot 
of blood--we can see it on his vest--but he did not lose his life 
because this vest, purchased through this partnership grant program, 
caught the bullet aimed at his heart.
  Officer Ann Carrizales of the Stafford, TX, police department also 
testified at the hearing last year. She told us that her vest--because 
we are now beginning to buy vests that recognize the obvious 
differences between male and female officers--was uniquely fitted for 
her body. It saved her life when she was shot twice during a routine 
traffic stop. Her testimony was some of the most moving testimony I 
have heard in 40 years in the Senate. She brought with her nearly 200 
letters from her daughter's elementary school. They saw how a 
daughter's mother's life was saved, and they all called for the Senate 
to act.
  This bill is important to law enforcement around the Nation. It is 
certainly important to my little State of Vermont. Vermont law 
enforcement agencies have received nearly 4,400 protective vests from 
this program, and those officers throughout Vermont, as well as around 
the Nation, are better protected and better able to do their jobs. I am 
proud to share that recent recipients in Vermont include agencies in 
Addison County, Barre City, Barre Town, Bennington County, Berlin, 
Brattleboro, Burlington, Caledonia County, Chester, Dover, Essex 
County, Essex Junction, Franklin County, Grand Isle County, Hardwick, 
Hartford, Ludlow, Middlebury, Milton, Montpelier, Morristown, Newport, 
Northfield, Norwich, Orange County, Orleans County, Richmond, Rutland, 
Shelburne, South Burlington, Springfield, St. Albans, St. Johnsbury, 
Stowe, Waterbury Village, Weathersfield, Williston, Windsor County, 
Windsor, and Winooski.
  It has helped to make protective vests standard equipment for law 
enforcement agencies across the country. Yet, for far too many 
jurisdictions--especially smaller and rural agencies such as those in 
Vermont--they know the vests still cost too much and wear out too 
soon. They actually work.

  I remember to this day a young police officer who was in and 
testified before our Senate Judiciary Committee. He had his mother and 
his father, his wife and his children lined up behind him. He said to 
us: I love police work. The only thing I love more than that is my 
family. He said: There was a day when I thought I would never see my 
family again. Again, it was a routine traffic stop, but the man stepped 
out and shot him twice, pointblank. He reached under and pulled up the 
bulletproof vest, and we could see the two slugs embedded in the vest.
  He said: My mother and father and my wife and my children came to the 
hospital to see me. I had cracked ribs that day, but they knew they 
could bring me home to be with them the next day.
  They are not going to save every officer, of course, but they have 
saved more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. I have met 
with police officers such as the one I just described, who are alive 
today because of vests purchased through this program. They will tell 
us the program saves lives. But it is also for the members of their 
families, seeing them going off to work knowing they have put it on. 
That makes a difference.
  This bill also contains a number of improvements to the grant 
program. I want to thank Senator Feinstein for helping to improve the 
bill so that it provides incentives for agencies to provide uniquely 
fitted vests for female officers. The bill also ensures that agencies 
have mandatory-wear policies to ensure that the vests are used 
regularly.
  This is not a partisan issue. I remember walking down the street in 
Denver, CO, where Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I first started this. A 
police officer walked up to me and said: Are you Patrick Leahy of 
Vermont? And I said: Yes. He tapped his chest and said thank you and 
moved on.
  Senator Graham is a lead cosponsor of this legislation. I wish to 
thank Senator Graham for his important efforts to help pass this 
legislation.
  I am also thankful to the law enforcement community. They have long 
spoken with a single voice on this issue. They don't care whether we 
are Republicans or Democrats; they just care about this issue.
  So if we pass this bill today and move it to the House of 
Representatives, I would urge the Speaker to quickly take up the bill 
so the President can sign it next week as we approach National Police 
Week. Now is the time to honor the brave men and women of law 
enforcement who have lost their lives serving their communities. Let's 
put real meaning behind our words and tributes. It is time to pass this 
bill.
  I see my friend from Oklahoma on the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 32, S. 125; that a Lee amendment which is 
at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third 
time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 125) to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the 
     authorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant 
     Program through fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this is a great bill in many ways. There 
is a tremendous need. I have family members who are police officers, 
actually, in small, rural police forces. I have staff members who are 
former police officers. I understand the situation very well, how much 
of a difference it makes to so many people. But we have two different 
programs dealing with bulletproof vests, two different systems of 
actually distributing bulletproof vests from the Federal Government 
that in many ways are complementary and in some ways competing. We have 
two sets of applications with two different sets of personnel to 
actually approve those applications and two different processes to 
apply.
  My goal is that where we find duplication of effort, even if it is a 
good effort, that we as the Federal Government find ways to be able to 
streamline that process. Every dollar we spend on bureaucracy here, on 
a duplicative program, is a dollar less that we actually spend to buy 
the bulletproof vests and be able to get them out the door.
  I have had multiple conversations that have been very productive with 
Senator Leahy and with Senator Graham to talk about this particular 
issue of how we can combine the application process, how we can combine 
the administrative process to make sure a good program doesn't lose 
dollars. We have numerous reports all over the Federal Government on 
duplication in government.
  I look forward to the ongoing conversations. I have some assurances 
that we will deal with some of these issues as we go through the 
appropriations process in the days ahead, so I am willing to withdraw 
my objection. I know that we will resolve some of these issues in the 
days ahead to allow us to be able to move forward.
  So with that, I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The amendment(No. 1214) was agreed to, as follows:

        (Purpose: To modify the authorization of appropriations)

       On page 2, line 11, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$25,000,000''.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the bill having 
been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
  The bill (S. 125), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                 S. 125

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
     Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2015''.

[[Page S2672]]

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                   BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(23)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(23) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     part Y, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2020.''.

     SEC. 3. EXPIRATION OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS.

       Section 2501 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Expiration of Appropriated Funds.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `appropriated funds' means any amounts that are appropriated 
     for any of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 to carry out this 
     part.
       ``(2) Expiration.--All appropriated funds that are not 
     obligated on or before December 31, 2022 shall be transferred 
     to the General Fund of the Treasury not later than January 
     31, 2023.''.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON 2-YEAR LIMITATION ON FUNDS.

       It is the sense of Congress that amounts made available to 
     carry out part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll et seq.) should be 
     made available through the end of the first fiscal year 
     following the fiscal year for which the amounts are 
     appropriated and should not be made available until expended.

     SEC. 5. MATCHING FUNDS LIMITATION.

       Section 2501(f) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll(f)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Limitation on matching funds.--A State, unit of local 
     government, or Indian tribe may not use funding received 
     under any other Federal grant program to pay or defer the 
     cost, in whole or in part, of the matching requirement under 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 6. APPLICATION OF BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT 
                   PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS TO ANY ARMOR VEST OR BODY 
                   ARMOR PURCHASED WITH FEDERAL GRANT FUNDS.

       Section 521 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3766a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     grantee that uses funds made available under this part to 
     purchase an armor vest or body armor shall--
       ``(A) comply with any requirements established for the use 
     of grants made under part Y;
       ``(B) have a written policy requiring uniformed patrol 
     officers to wear an armor vest or body armor; and
       ``(C) use the funds to purchase armor vests or body armor 
     that meet any performance standards established by the 
     Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the terms `armor vest' and `body 
     armor' have the meanings given such terms in section 2503.''.

     SEC. 7. UNIQUELY FITTED ARMOR VESTS.

       Section 2501(c) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     ``; and'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) provides armor vests to law enforcement officers that 
     are uniquely fitted for such officers, including vests 
     uniquely fitted to individual female law enforcement 
     officers; or''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank all of the Senators who have 
cosponsored this bill. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
withdrawing his objection. I am hoping the other body will soon take 
this up so that we can try to have it passed before the police meet 
here at the Capitol for a memorial to fallen police officers and we can 
move forward.
  This has been underfunded over the years, and we have not been able 
to fill all of the requests. We have filled a lot of them, and we have 
saved a lot of lives. Of course, I will be willing to work with the 
Senator from Oklahoma or with any other Senator on this or any other 
law enforcement program. But I have always considered my years in law 
enforcement in many ways the high point of my career. I want to make 
sure we approve it as soon as we can.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________