U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–902 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 113–767 

OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

FOR EQUIPPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN. Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel 

JASON T. BARNOSKY, Senior Professional Staff Member 

ROBERT H. BRADLEY, Legislative Assistant 

CATHY C. YU, Counsel 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Counsel 

JUSTIN ROOD, Minority Director of Investigations 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 4 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 21 

Senator Baldwin ............................................................................................... 24 

Senator Paul ..................................................................................................... 27 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 29 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 55 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 57 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 58 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 62 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Hon. Alan F. Estevez, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, U.S. Department of Defense ....................... 8 

Brian E. Kamoie, Assistant Administrator for Grant Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ............. 9 

Karol V. Mason, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, 

U.S. Department of Justice ................................................................................. 11 

Jim Bueermann, Chief (Ret.), Redlands, California, and President, Police 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 34 

Peter B. Kraska, Ph.D., Professor, School of Justice Studies, University of 

Eastern Kentucky ................................................................................................ 35 

Mark Lomax, Executive Director, National Tactical Officers Association, accompanied by Major Ed Allen, Seminole County Sheriff’s Office .................... 37 

Wiley Price, Photojournalist, The St. Louis American Newspaper ..................... 39 

Hilary O. Shelton, Washington Bureau Director and Senior Vice President 

for Policy and Advocacy, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ........................................................................................................... 40 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bueerman, Jim: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

Estevez, Hon. Alan F.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Kamoie, Brian E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Kraska, Peter B. Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Lomax, Mark: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 107 

Mason, Karol V.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 
Page

IV 

Price, Wiley: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 209 

Shelton, Hilary O.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 210 

APPENDIX 

Additional statements for the Record: 

Boston Globe Article ......................................................................................... 218 

DOD 1033 Program Fact Sheet ....................................................................... 224 

Document submitted by Senator McCaskill ................................................... 230 

Pictures submitted by Senator McCaskill ...................................................... 233 

Information submitted by Senator Baldwin ................................................... 259 

American Civil Liberties Union ....................................................................... 267 

American Psychological Assocation ................................................................. 376 

Conference of Mayors ....................................................................................... 385 

Fraternal Order of Police ................................................................................. 387 

Major County Sheriffs ...................................................................................... 393 

Mound City Bar Association ............................................................................ 403 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. ...................................... 404 

National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. ........................................ 414 

Norm Stamper, Seattle Chief of Police (Ret.) ................................................. 416 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Estevez ....................................................................................................... 424 

Mr. Kamoie ....................................................................................................... 463 

Ms. Mason ......................................................................................................... 480 

Mr. Bueerman ................................................................................................... 510 

Mr. Kraska ........................................................................................................ 515 

Mr. Lomax ......................................................................................................... 520 

Ms. Shelton ....................................................................................................... 527 
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

FOR EQUIPPING STATE AND LOCAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Landrieu, McCaskill, Baldwin, 

Coburn, Johnson, Paul, and Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. The hearing will come to order. We want to 

welcome all of our guests this morning. We especially want to welcome our witnesses, the first panel and our second panel. 

One month ago today, an unarmed young man named Michael 

Brown was shot and killed by a local policeman in the town of Ferguson, Missouri. It has been stated that the officer was acting in 

self-defense. While the incident remains under investigation, this 

much is known. It has caused very real pain for Mr. Brown’s family, as well as for many residents of Ferguson and for others across 

our country. The events that unfolded in Ferguson have sparked a 

much needed national discussion on a range of issues, including police strategy, law enforcement response to civil protest and unrest, 

and race relations. The purpose of today’s hearing, though, is not 

to explore what happened in Ferguson on that fateful day or to assign blame. That is the responsibility of our judicial system. 

Rather, the purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the effectiveness of Federal programs that provide State and local police 

with surplus military equipment and grant funding for equipment, 

exercises, planning, and training. The issues we will be discussing 

today are not just about Ferguson. They affect communities across 

our Nation. As we take a deep dive into the Federal programs that 

help equip State and local law enforcement agencies, we want to 

explore the value of these programs to police, the communities they 

serve, and especially to taxpayers. 

I want to just start off by thanking Senator McCaskill and her 

staff for all of their efforts in organizing this hearing and for cochairing it with me. Our colleague from Missouri has spent a great 

deal of time in Ferguson this past month examining these issues, 
2 

and we look forward to learning from her firsthand experiences. 

Claire, I want to thank you for your leadership during this difficult 

time and, for all that you have done to help our country move forward and learn from what you and your fellow Missourians have 

been grappling with. 

During the weeks that followed the shooting of Michael Brown, 

national media attention focused on the protests, including the response by local law enforcement. Many questions rightfully have 

been posed by local leaders, by civil rights organizations, by police 

associations, law enforcement experts, and others on whether the 

police response was correct, measured, and appropriate. 

In thinking about these issues we will be discussing today, I cannot help but think about how, in my own home State of Delaware, 

we are learning all over again the value of our police spending 

more time outside of their police cars, working and talking every 

day with people in the community and engaging them in positive 

ways. As you might imagine, this helps build the bonds of trust 

that strengthen communities in ways that armored personnel vehicles and assault weapons never can. 

We have convened today to examine the Federal Government’s 

role in helping State and local police do their important work. 

Since 1997, Federal agencies have supplied over $5 billion in surplus Department of Defense (DOD) supplies and equipment to law 

enforcement. In addition, both the Departments of Justice (DOJ) 

and Homeland Security (DHS) administer grant programs that also 

can pay for military-style gear such as armored vests and vehicles. 

In light of the events in Ferguson, our Committee has reviewed 

the role of Federal agencies in providing equipment, supplies, and 

weapons to State and local law enforcement. Our staff has received 

briefings from the agencies and has reviewed key documents. This 

review by Congress is long overdue. The Federal witnesses with us 

today will describe the programs that can supply tactical and military-style equipment and weapons to law enforcement and the current oversight requirements and procedures. We will hear from a 

second panel of witnesses with critical knowledge and opinions on 

these programs, including some with law enforcement backgrounds. 

We will explore the proper roles and techniques for using this 

equipment. We will also examine whether Congress should do more 

to monitor and hold accountable the police departments that obtain 

sophisticated equipment. These programs were established with a 

very good intention: to provide equipment that would help law enforcement perform their duties. The question is whether what our 

police receive matches what they truly need to uphold the law. 

We need to acknowledge that there have been instances where 

police have been outgunned by heavily armed criminals, including 

organized crime and gangs. In addition, we all remember well how 

helpful some of these programs were to enable police to perform extraordinarily well in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. But for these programs, the response would not have been as 

fast or as effective. 

Of course, the job of law enforcement is to protect the lives and 

the well-being of the people of our Nation. Equally important, the 

job of law enforcement is the protection of our civil rights. So we 
3 

will also hear from witnesses with expertise on the civil rights 

issues that arise as a result of these programs. 

It is my hope that we in Congress and other government leaders 

learn from what is discussed during today’s hearing and from the 

ongoing developments in Ferguson and in similar situations across 

the country. In closing, we are here today because we have responsibility to ensure accountability of funds and equipment provided 

by the Federal Government to State and local police. It is our job 

to ensure that these programs provide value to police, to the communities they serve, and to taxpayers. 

Dr. Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses 

for appearing, both this panel and the second one. And thank you 

to the Chairman for convening this hearing. 

As I look at my short time left remaining in Congress, and having traveled for 2 weeks in Oklahoma in August, I am brought constantly and frequently back to the position of our Founders—and 

not only their vision but their wisdom. 

Protect and Serve. Our Founders saw no role for the Federal 

Government in State and local police forces. None. And yet what 

we have seen is, on the basis of what we saw on 9/11, what seems 

to be an overreaction and a progress toward the Federal Government and law enforcement is doing the same thing it has done in 

every other area when it comes to the General Welfare Clause and 

the Commerce Clause. And we are on dangerous ground of undermining the very principles that built the country. 

It is hard to see a difference between the militarized and increasingly federalized police force we see in towns across America today 

and the force that Madison had in mind when he said, ‘‘a standing 

military force with an overgrown executive will not long be a safe 

companion to liberty.’’ 

I have some real heartburn with not just the 1033 program, with 

the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants, with some of the 

Justice Department grants, and with a lot of the homeland security 

grants in terms of how they have been utilized, what they have 

been utilized for. And so I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I have some significant questions. The 1033 program has 

been around a long time. It was not just in response to 9/11. But 

I think we need to have a good airing. We need to re-center where 

we are. 

There is no role for the Federal Government in the local and 

State police forces in our country. And I hope we can winnow that 

out today to see where we have stepped across the line and actually have created some problems that would not have been there 

otherwise. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. 

Once she has given her opening statement, I am going to ask 

Senator McCaskill to introduce our witnesses, and we will look forward to that. I will lead off the questioning. I am going to have to 

leave just a little before 11:15 for a meeting in the Capitol. I am 
4 

going to try to get back. But in the meantime, you are chairing. 

Thanks very much. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I want to 

thank both you and Dr. Coburn for the interest you have shown in 

today’s hearing. I know your decision to elevate this hearing to the 

full Committee level is a sign of your commitment to oversight in 

these very important areas, and I am very appreciative of the fact 

that it has been elevated to the full Committee. 

I first approached Chairman Carper to hold this hearing because 

of the shock and sadness I felt as I saw events unfolding in Ferguson, Missouri, in the weeks following the death of Michael 

Brown. I heard reports and saw firsthand about aggressive police 

actions being used against protesters under the umbrella of ‘‘crowd 

control’’ and not in response to violence. Like many of you, I saw 

armored vehicles with a sniper pointing a rifle at an unarmed protester on a warm summer afternoon. 

I think most Americans were uncomfortable watching a suburban street in St. Louis being transformed with vivid images, powerful images, across this country into a war zone, complete with camouflage, tear gas, rubber bullets, armored vehicles, and laser sights 

on assault weapons. 

While this hearing may reveal many strong arguments why some 

of this equipment may be helpful for the safety of police officers in 

certain situations, I am confident that militarized policing tactics 

are not consistent with the peaceful exercise of First Amendment 

rights of free speech and free assembly. Those lawful, peaceful protesters on that Wednesday afternoon in Ferguson, Missouri, did not 

deserve to be treated like enemy combatants. I am hoping that 

what happened in Ferguson and what we learn at this hearing 

today will inform a better public policy that will protect our constitutional freedoms and also provide adequate public safety for the 

brave men and women who put on a uniform every day to protect 

the people of this great Nation through our very admirable rule of 

law. 

The Federal Government has played a significant role in enabling police departments across the country to acquire the military 

weapons, vehicles, and other types of equipment we saw used in 

Ferguson. The Department of Defense’s 1033 program, which was 

authorized in its current form in 1997, gives away DOD surplus 

equipment for free to State and local law enforcement. Much of the 

equipment from the program is as mundane as office furniture and 

microwaves. But the Department of Defense is also giving local law 

enforcement million dollar tactical vehicles, including its mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAPs). They are heavily armored vehicles built to withstand roadside bombs and improved explosive devices (IEDs). These are vehicles so heavy that they can 

tear up roads, and the Department of Defense knows this. Yet it 

continues to provide these vehicles to local law enforcement agencies across the Nation. 

According to information provided by the Department of Defense, 

in just the last 3 years, the Department of Defense has given 624 

MRAPs to State and local law enforcement agencies, seemingly 
5 

1The information provided by the Department of Defense appears in the Appendix on page 

224. 2The information from the Department of Justice and submitted by Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 230. 

without regard to need or size of the agency that has received 

them. At least 13 law enforcement agencies with fewer than 10 

full-time sworn officers received an MRAP in the last 3 years. The 

number of MRAPs in the possession of local police and sheriff departments is now far higher than the MRAPs in possession of our 

country’s National Guard. 

In Texas, for example, local law enforcement agencies have 73 

MRAPs. The National Guard has only six. In Florida, local law enforcement agencies have 45 MRAPs. The National Guard has zero. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that the information provided me from the Defense Department be included in the hearing 

record today.1

Chairman CARPER. Without objection. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And also, the Department of Justice information received about consent decrees into the record.2

Chairman CARPER. Without objection. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I question whether State and local law enforcement agencies need this kind of equipment and certainly 

whether they need it more than our States’ National Guards. One 

of the key lessons learned throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan 

wars was the idea that we had to win hearts and minds, and one 

of the ways the military tried to do that was by acting more like 

a police force, working with communities, helping to repair broken 

windows and damaged property, and trying to appear less militaristic with their presence in the communities. I, therefore, find it 

ironic that at the same time we are embracing those tactics as 

strong evidence of progress against a counterinsurgency, we are, in 

fact, underlining the militarization of our domestic police departments. 

I also have questions about why the Defense Department is giving away some of this material. According to the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA)—and we will have a witness from that agency testify 

momentarily—approximately 36 percent of the equipment that is 

given away to law enforcement is brand new. 

Now, we will give you a chance to counter that. That was in the 

information we received from DLA. 

Even if it is not 36 percent, if any of it is brand new, then there 

is a real question about what are we doing. Why are we buying 

things in the Department of Defense merely to turn around and 

give them away? 

All of it—weapons, tactical equipment, office supplies—is still usable, and identical or similar items will be needed and bought new 

by the Defense Department again. It does not appear that buying 

new equipment to give it away and then spending money to replace 

it is an effective use of the Defense Department’s resources. 

Local law enforcement agencies are also requiring military-type 

equipment using grants from the Department of Justice and the 

Department of Homeland Security. In fiscal year (FY) 2014, the 

Department of Homeland Security made available over $400 million under its State Homeland Security Program and another $587 
6 

million under its Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program. 

Although these grants cannot be used to buy weapons, they can 

and do fund the purchase of armored vehicles and tactical equipment. And the Department of Justice Byrne Justice Assistance 

Grant (JAG) Program, which received $376 million in appropriations in fiscal year 2014, gives State and local law enforcement 

agencies funding that can be used from everything from mobile 

data terminals, lethal and non-lethal weapons, to office supplies 

and uniforms, and to provide the maintenance funds to maintain 

the expensive vehicles that have been given them by the Department of Defense. 

These grant programs provide important assistance to State and 

local law enforcement agencies. However, it is impossible to tell 

how these Federal funds are being spent because Department of 

Homeland Security and Department of Justice do not track the 

purchases or keep adequate data. So we just cannot know from 

asking these agencies how much military equipment or anything 

else that local law enforcement agencies are actually buying. In 

fact, it is possible that either or both of these programs are funding 

police departments to, in fact, as I mentioned previously, maintain 

and sustain the same equipment they are getting for free from another Federal agency. 

I am confident that many police departments are creating policies and providing training to ensure that any use of force is necessary and appropriate, and we must do everything we can to make 

sure that our law enforcement officers—those brave men and 

women who have sworn to protect us—have the equipment they 

need to maximize their own safety. But we also have to acknowledge that giving military-grade vehicles and weapons to every police officer and police force in America comes with costs, both in 

ways officers are perceived and the way this equipment is used. 

Officers dressed in military fatigues will not be viewed as partners in any community. Armored military vehicles, even if they are 

painted black and used with the utmost discretion, are, by definition, intimidating. And supplying communities with the capacity to 

acquire military equipment with no requirement that the officers 

are trained on the proper use of the equipment, little visibility in 

he actually needs or capabilities of local forces, and inadequate 

guidelines directing their use may just be asking for the kind of 

overmilitarization that we saw on some days and evenings in Ferguson. 

I was happy to hear that the White House has launched its own 

review of the programs and policies that have driven police militarization in this country, and I look forward to the results of that 

review. However, I understand that many of these issues may only 

be solved by legislation. I plan to build on what I learn today, together with my colleagues on this Committee, and to work with my 

fellow Senators in the coming weeks on legislation that will address the many public policy concerns that I am confident will arise 

in today’s hearing. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. I certainly thank the 

Chairman and Ranking Member for their calling of this full Committee hearing, and we look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. 
7 

1The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator McCaskill, thank you again for your 

efforts in this whole incident and everything that flows from it. 

If you would go ahead and just briefly introduce the witnesses, 

they all can testify, and then I will ask the first question, yield to 

Dr. Coburn, and then Senator McCaskill will be on her way. Thank 

you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Our first witness is Alan Estevez. He is the 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics at the U.S. Department of Defense. Mr. 

Estevez has managed military logistics, acquisitions, and supplies 

for the Department of Defense in various capabilities since 2002 

and has overseen military acquisitions worth more than $170 billion. Mr. Estevez has worked with the Office of the Secretary of Defense since 1981. 

Brian Kamoie is the Assistant Administrator for Grant Programs 

for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Mr. 

Kamoie oversees more than $17 billion in grant programs to build, 

sustain, and improve our national capability to prepare for, protect 

against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. Mr. 

Kamoie previously served on the White House National Security 

staff and with the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) on hazard preparation. 

Karol Mason is the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP). Ms. Mason oversees an annual budget of more 

than $2 billion dedicated to supporting State, local, and tribal 

criminal justice agencies, an array of juvenile justice programs, a 

wide range of research, evaluation, and statistical efforts, and comprehensive services for crime victims. Ms. Mason previously 

oversaw the Office of Justice Grant Programs as Deputy Associate 

Attorney General. 

We would like to thank you for appearing today, and we look forward to your testimony. Mr. Estevez, you may begin. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Because I have a conflict later this morning, 

can I submit a statement for the record,1 please? 

Chairman CARPER. Certainly. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. And I want to associate myself 

with the remarks of Senator McCaskill and thank her for her leadership. 

Chairman CARPER. You bet. 

All right. Mr. Estevez, please proceed. Your entire statement will 

be made part of the record. Just feel free to summarize. If you go 

much over 5 minutes, we will have to rein you in. Thank you. We 

are glad you are here. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Estevez appears in the Appendix on page 66. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ALAN F. ESTEVEZ,1 PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, 

LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn, Senator McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before the Committee and discuss the Department’s transfer of excess military property to law enforcement 

agencies. I appreciate the Committee’s support of the Department 

and your continued interest in ensuring the success of our mission. 

Following the events in Ferguson, Missouri, I believe it is appropriate that we address the issues regarding the equipping of police 

forces. As you note, my written testimony has more detail, and I 

submit it to the record. 

The transfer of excess property to law enforcement agencies is a 

congressionally authorized program designed to ensure good stewardship over taxpayer resources. The program has provided property that ranges from office equipment and supplies to equipment 

that augments local law enforcement capabilities and enhances 

first responders during natural disasters. 

More than 8,000 Federal and State law enforcement agencies actively participate in the program across 49 States and three U.S. 

territories. More than $5.1 billion of property has been provided 

since 1990. 

A key element in both the structure and execution of the program is the State Coordinator, who is appointed by their respective 

State Governor. State Coordinators approve law enforcement agencies within their State to participate in the program and review all 

requests for property submitted by those agencies along with a 

statement of intended use. Working through State Coordinators, 

law enforcement agencies determine their need for different types 

of equipment, and they determine how it is used. The Department 

of Defense does not have the expertise in police force functions and 

cannot assess how equipment is used in the mission of individual 

law enforcement agencies. 

Within the past 12 months, law enforcement agencies received 

approximately 1.9 million pieces of excess equipment: 1.8 million 

pieces of non-controlled or general property—that would be officetype equipment—and 78,000 pieces of controlled property. That is 

property that is more tactical in nature. Non-controlled items range 

from file cabinets to medical kits, generators to tool sets. Law enforcement agencies currently posses 460,000 pieces of controlled 

property that they have received over time. Examples of controlled 

property include over 92,000 small arms, 44,000 night vision devices, 5,200 high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled vehicles 

(HMMWVs), and 617 mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles. 

The Department does not provide tanks, grenade launchers, sniper 

rifles, crew-served weapons, or uniforms. 

DOD has provided two HMMWV, one generator, and one cargo 

trailer to the Ferguson Police Department. Additionally, DOD has 

provided to St. Louis County Police Departments 6 pistols, 12 ri-
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kamoie appears in the Appendix on page 73. 

fles, 15 weapons sights, 1 explosive ordnance disposal robot, 3 helicopters, 7 HMMWVs, and 2 night vision devices. 

Property obtained through this program has been used extensively in both protection of law enforcement officers and the public 

as well as for first responder disaster relief support. For example, 

during the height of Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey police drove 

two cargo trucks and three HMMWVs through water too deep for 

commercial vehicles to save 64 people. In Wisconsin, Green Bay police used donated computers for forensic investigations. During a 

2013 flood in Louisiana, Livingston Parish police used six 

HMMWVs to rescue 137 people. In Texas, armored vehicles received through the program protected police officers during a 

standoff and shootout with gang members. 

The Department is participating in the administration’s Interagency Review of Federal Programs for Equipping State and Local 

Law Enforcement Agencies to ensure that equipment provided is 

appropriate to their needs, while enhancing the safety of law enforcement personnel and their communities. We will alter our procedures and propose any legislative changes we believe necessary 

that come as a result of that review. 

In summary, the congressionally authorized 1033 program provides property that is excess to the needs of the Department of Defense for use by agencies in law enforcement, counter-drug, and 

counterterrorism activities. It enables first responders and others 

to ensure the public’s safety and save lives. The Department of Defense does not push equipment on any police force. State and local 

law enforcement agencies decide what they need and access our excess equipment through their respective State Coordinators. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the Department’s 

transfer of excess military property. The Department is ready to 

work with Congress to review the program scope and mission. I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Estevez. Mr. Kamoie. 

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN E. KAMOIE,1 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR GRANT PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Mr. KAMOIE. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Chairman 

McCaskill, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee. I am Brian Kamoie, Assistant Administrator of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security. On behalf of Secretary Johnson and Administrator Fugate, 

it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Department’s Homeland Security preparedness grant programs. 

Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, have raised questions regarding the use of Federal grant funds by State and local authorities, especially the use of funds by law enforcement agencies. These 

events have also raised questions regarding the Department’s oversight of these funds. I hope that my appearance before you today 

will help answer those questions. 
10 

As you know, the Department’s preparedness grant programs assist communities across the Nation to build and sustain critical capabilities to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond to, and recover from 

acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. As a result of your 

support and investments and the work of our partners throughout 

our country, our national preparedness capabilities have matured, 

which is a key finding of the Department’s third annual National 

Preparedness Report released last month. 

The response to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing demonstrated how preparedness grant investments have improved capabilities. The activities supported by grant funding—the planning, 

organization, equipment, training, and exercises—all came together 

to enable the emergency response. Grant funded equipment such as 

the forward-looking infrared camera on a Massachusetts State Police helicopter enabled the apprehension of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 

while enhancing the personal safety of law enforcement officers and 

protecting public safety. 

What happened in Ferguson, Missouri, has prompted a national 

dialogue that goes well beyond the Department and its grant programs. In mid-August, President Obama ordered a review of Federal programs that support State, local, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies. We at the Department of Homeland Security look forward 

to contributing to this effort and to the insights it will provide. 

The Homeland Security Grant Program, including the State 

Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative, is the primary Homeland Security Grant Program that supports State, local, and tribal communities, including the law enforcement community. Funds under these programs are awarded 

directly to States or tribes, which in turn manage, distribute, and 

track the funding. Thus, we work closely with and rely upon States 

and tribes to conduct oversight of the programs, and we monitor 

compliance with reporting and other program requirements. These 

programs are also audited by the Department’s Inspector General 

(IG) and by States for the State and Urban Areas programs. 

Under the Homeland Security Act, States are required to distribute 80 percent of the funds awarded under the State program 

to local communities within their State. The act also requires the 

Department to ensure that at least 25 percent of the combined 

funds allocated under the State and Urban Areas programs are 

used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities. These activities include the purchase of equipment. Grant recipients must 

purchase equipment listed on the Department’s Authorized Equipment List, which outlines 21 categories of allowable equipment. 

The Department prohibits the use of grant funds for the purchase 

of lethal or non-lethal weapons and ammunition. These equipment 

categories are not on the Authorized Equipment List. 

Homeland Security grant funds may be used to purchase equipment that can be classified as personal protective equipment, such 

as ballistics protection equipment, helmets, body armor, and ear 

and eye protection. Response vehicles, such as Bearcats, are also 

allowed. The Homeland Security Act allows equipment purchased 

with grant funds, including personal protective equipment, to be 

used for purposes unrelated to terrorism so long as one purpose of 

the equipment is to build and sustain terrorism-based capabilities. 
11 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Mason appears in the Appendix on page 86. 

The Authorized Equipment List also notes that ballistic personal 

protective equipment purchased with grant funds is not for riot 

suppression. 

The Department has worked with Missouri officials and searched 

our own data to identify equipment purchased with preparedness 

grant funds. We will continue our discussions with Missouri officials to determine which specific items may have been deployed to 

Ferguson. 

In reviewing the use of those grant funds, the Department will 

make every effort to evaluate whether the use was appropriate 

under grant program rules. This includes the requirement and assurance that Federal grant funds not be used to engage in any conduct that is contrary to any Federal, State, or local law. 

The Department considers oversight of grant programs a priority 

and takes this responsibility very seriously. The Department’s financial and programmatic grant monitoring provides a systematic 

means of ensuring oversight, accountability, and proper management of preparedness funds. We strive continually to improve the 

Department’s oversight of these funds. 

Chairman Carper, Chairman McCaskill, Ranking Member 

Coburn, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my statement. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important 

issues with you, and I look forward to responding to any questions 

you may have. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Kamoie, thanks so much for that testimony. 

Ms. Mason, please proceed. Make sure that your mic is on, 

please. 

TESTIMONY OF KAROL V. MASON,1 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. MASON. Good morning. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Coburn, Senator McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today 

about the Department of Justice’s role in supporting State and 

local law enforcement agencies. 

Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, have raised concerns about 

whether State and local law enforcement’s use of military-type 

equipment and tactical training should be more closely examined. 

As President Obama has said, the laws of the United States mandate a clear distinction between our national armed forces and civilian State and local law enforcement. To help maintain that distinction while ensuring that civilian law enforcement departments 

have access to state-of-the-art equipment and training, Congress 

has authorized the Department of Justice to administer programs 

and funding to help State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies safeguard their communities, while also protecting the civil liberties of their citizens. 

As Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs, 

I am responsible for overseeing a range of activities designed to 

support law enforcement. Our work with law enforcement agencies 
12 

is part of our overall mission to provide leadership, information, 

and other assistance to strengthen community safety and ensure 

the fair administration of justice. 

One of our largest programs and the leading source of Federal 

funding for law enforcement is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant (JAG) program. JAG, a formula grant program, 

supports a wide range of activities intended to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system. 

Due to its importance in community crime prevention and reduction, we take great pains to see that funds are used appropriately 

and administered in the most transparent way possible. 

Our Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the office responsible for 

managing the JAG program, takes a number of steps to ensure 

compliance with program stipulations and prevent misuse of funds, 

including the requirement of quarterly financial and activity reports and an annual desk review of each of its active grants. These 

measures allow us to maximize our oversight of JAG grants and 

minimize the potential for inappropriate use of Federal funds. 

As we provide critical funding to State and local law enforcement 

agencies, our research and development standards and testing programs managed by the National Institute of Justice enable us to 

deploy state-of-the-art equipment and technology to aid them in 

their work. Much of the equipment and technology used in public 

safety is adapted from the military. A notable example is the police 

body armor, which has saved the lives of more than 3,100 officers. 

Our partnership with the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security has allowed us to collaborate on 

the research and development of these technologies and to help 

make them available to public safety agencies. We accomplish this 

by providing technical assistance to State and local agencies 

through the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. 

I wish to also add that through the Police-Public Contact Survey, 

our Bureau of Justice Statistics collects data on citizen-law enforcement interactions such as driver stops and requests for assistance. 

We are actively working to improve our understanding of the nature of these interactions and to bolster our collections of data on 

the excessive use of force by law enforcement. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice and my office, the Office of Justice Programs, are committed to using our resources to 

help America’s law enforcement agencies protect their communities 

while earning the trust and respect of the citizens they serve. We 

will continue to bring the latest knowledge and the best tools to 

this task. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

you today, and I look forward to working with this Committee to 

ensure that we are able to meet our collective goals of public safety 

and public trust. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Ms. Mason, thank you for that testimony, and 

again, to each of you, for what you have had to say. 

Dr. Coburn and I and the Members of this Committee spend a 

lot of time trying to figure out how do we make sure that the 

amount of resources that we are applying to a particular problem 

or challenge, particularly something that poses a risk to our Na-
13 

tion, to our homeland, how do we make sure that the resources 

that we apply are commensurate with the risk that exists. With 

that as a metric, with that as background, speak with us about 

each of these three programs. How well are we doing in terms of 

enabling law enforcement to have the resources, some of the resources that they need, to meet the level of risk that they face in 

their communities, public safety risks? Mr. Estevez, please. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. From a taxpayer perspective, we have bought 

equipment that is no longer needed by the Department of Defense 

for a variety of reasons, and I will say, Senator McCaskill, it is not 

that some of it is not new, ‘‘brand new’’ is the term that I was 

shaking my head at. And there is a variety of reasons why stuff 

would become excess. But when it is no longer needed, we make 

it available across the Department of Defense first, and law enforcement by congressional authorization has dibs early in that 

process, before it goes out to State agencies. And not all of the 

equipment that is provided to law enforcement is available to everyone else. 

I think we are providing equipment that is useful to law enforcement, both from a disaster relief and from a public protection utilization, and it is not for the Department to really judge how law enforcement—that is not our expertise. We rely on the State Coordinators appointed by the Governor of each of those States who vet 

incoming requests from their local law enforcement agencies. We do 

due diligence about numbers, if it is an agency requests, 100 rifles 

and there are only 10 law enforcement officers, they do not get 100, 

they get 10. But we rely on the State Coordinator. 

So I think we are buying down risk out there for our law enforcement agencies and the protection of the public and providing public 

safety and also, of course, disaster relief. 

Chairman CARPER. Excuse me. Mr. Kamoie, same question. How 

do we make sure that we are aligning risk with the resources that 

are being offered by these three agencies within the Federal Government? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I think it is appropriate to start the discussion with risk. As you know, the Homeland Security Grant Program, both the State program and the 

Urban Area Security Initiative, are risk-informed allocation decisions, meaning the Secretary of Homeland Security factors risk into 

the allocation of those funds, and the statute directs in the Urban 

Area Security Initiative program, for example, that he put the resources in the highest-risk urban areas in the United States. In 

this year, fiscal year 2014, the Secretary designated 39 high-risk 

urban areas to receive funding. 

The risk assessment is done in partnership with our colleagues 

at the Department’s Intelligence and Analysis Division, working 

with the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the intelligence community (IC). So we provide 

the Secretary with the best picture of risk we can. We recommend 

to him allocations based on those risk profiles. We communicate 

with the jurisdictions about their risk profiles, invite them to submit information to us that they believe we might not have or we 

might not have take into account. And then the Secretary makes 

those allocation decisions. 
14 

As to how well we are doing, what I would point to is the requirement vis-a-vis law enforcement that 25 percent of the annual 

appropriations for the State and Urban Areas programs go to law 

enforcement. For the 5-year period of fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 

2012, States—— 

Chairman CARPER. Go ahead and wrap it up, and I want to leave 

some time for Ms. Mason, please. 

Mr. KAMOIE. Absolutely. States exceeded that 25-percent require- ment by nearly $1 billion, and they spent 36 percent of the funding. So the funding is getting to the law enforcement as the statute 

intends. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. Ms. Mason, same question. Risk, resources, how are they aligned? 

Ms. MASON. Thank you, Senator. The JAG Program is a formula 

program and money is allocated to State and local jurisdictions 

based on a formula, based on the violent crime rates and population data. And the Office of Justice Programs has very little discretion over the use of that money by State and local jurisdictions. 

But what we do is provide them with training about various 

criminal justice issues, and we are in the process of pulling together a toolkit that will enable law enforcement to know how to, 

for example, control crowds while also protecting civil liberties. 

So one of our primary responsibilities is to make sure that we 

equip local law enforcement with the training that they need and 

that they request in order to use our best practices to protect their 

communities. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

The second question deals with coordination or the appeared lack 

thereof. In some cases you are directed to coordinate. You are directed by law to be coordinating from agency to agency. Give us 

some examples of maybe where you are coordinating well and, 

frankly, some areas where you need to coordinate better, please. 

Really succinct and right to the point, please. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. We need to do a better job in coordination. Let me 

start off there. There is probably a failure in coordination across 

the interagency regarding what we are providing. The Department 

is coordinating with the State Coordinators, coordinating with our 

colleagues, my fellow witnesses. We do, when, there is missing 

equipment, coordinate and let them know that kind of issue. But 

coordinating on what police forces could use, that could be better. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Kamoie. 

Mr. KAMOIE. Mr. Chairman, I think we are coordinating well in 

the risk assessment that I mentioned that informs the allocation of 

the programs. But I think through our discussion today and the 

White House review, I think we will have a lot of opportunity to 

improve how we coordinate on the downstream use of the equipment, perhaps discussion of training and what else we might do. 

So I think there is a lot of opportunity for improvement. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Ms. Mason. 

Ms. MASON. I concur with my colleagues, and we look forward to 

the results of the President’s review and information about how we 

can better coordinate our resources together. 

Chairman CARPER. Just give us, very briefly, some idea of how 

the review is going. Give us some idea of what the timeline is for 
15 

completion of the review, when we will have an opportunity to hear 

about it. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. It is in its preliminary stages, Senator. I am not 

sure what the outcome timeline is. 

Chairman CARPER. Are we talking this quarter? This year? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I am going to defer to Brian, who is actually sitting 

on that. 

Mr. KAMOIE. Sorry, Chairman. I do not know the timeline. What 

I can tell you is it is a comprehensive review that is looking at the 

very same kinds of data that you have requested, looking at how 

these programs operate and what the opportunity space might be 

for improvement. 

Chairman CARPER. If you would just answer that question for the 

record, think about it a little further and answer that question. 

Chairman CARPER. You do not have anything, Ms. Mason? 

Ms. MASON. No, I do not have any more information about the 

timeline, but I—— 

Chairman CARPER. We want a good, thoughtful, comprehensive 

review, but we want it sooner rather than later. 

The last thing I want to say before I turn the gavel over to Senator McCaskill and leave, my colleagues have heard me say more 

than a few times, one of the adages that my father often gave to 

my sister and me when we were kids growing up, we would do 

some bone-headed stunt, he was always saying, ‘‘Just use some 

common sense.’’ I would just hope, in addition to all the rules and 

regulations and oversight and laws we have in place dealing with 

these issues, I just hope we are using some common sense. I hope 

we are using it within certainly this Committee. I hope we are 

using it within the agencies that oversee these three programs. 

And I hope they are using it at the State and local level. 

I am going to run off to this meeting at the Capitol. If I can get 

back, I will. And if not, Senator McCaskill, you have it. Thank you 

all. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. Estevez, when was the last time that you can recall that the 

equipment from a 1033 transfer program was used in counterterrorism? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Senator, we do not have the capability of monitoring how the equipment that we have provided is—— 

Senator COBURN. I understand that, but do you have any recollection—other than Boston and the Tsarnaev and he is in the boat 

and maybe some equipment was used there, when—— 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I do not, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. Does anybody know when the last time in 

terms of true counterterrorism that equipment was used? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I am sure we could pulse the system for anecdotes 

on that, but I really would have to do that, sir. 

Senator COBURN. All right. I am not going to go through the 

audit and the lack of response or timely response by your organization to the audit, but how do you all determine what Federal supply classes are available to be transferred? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is done basically by our item managers who 

manage—— 
16 

Senator COBURN. I know, but tell me, how do they decide an 

MRAP is appropriate for a community of my hometown, 35,000 

people? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is done by the State Coordinator. 

Senator COBURN. I understand that, but how did you ever decide 

that an MRAP is an appropriate vehicle for local police forces? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. An MRAP is a truck, Senator, with—— 

Senator COBURN. No, it is not a truck. It is a 48,000-pound offensive weapon. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. It is not an offensive weapon, Senator. It—— 

Senator COBURN. It can be used as an offensive weapon. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. When we give an MRAP, it is stripped of all its 

electronic warfare capability. It does not have a .50-caliber weapon 

on it. It is not an offensive weapon. It is a protective vehicle. 

Senator COBURN. OK. I will just make a point. You all give out 

.30-caliber weapons. It is on your list. A .30 caliber is a 3-centimeter weapon. That is this big. That is the size of the shell. I just 

want to know how you come about to say that Muskogee, Oklahoma—and I know who makes the decision on whether equipment—but you make it available, and then a State through the 

Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) and the State Coordinator 

determines that they get one of those. There are six of them in 

Oklahoma, all right? How did we ever get to the point where we 

think States need MRAPs? How did that process come about? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. This is one of the areas that we are obviously going 

to look at, Senator, on how we decided what equipment is available. I mean, obviously we have made some big decisions. Fighter 

aircraft, tanks, Strykers, those types of things are not available. 

Sniper rifles, not available. Grenade launchers, not available. 

Senator COBURN. Drones are available. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. No. 

Senator COBURN. Airplanes are available. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Airplanes are available. 

Senator COBURN. Helicopters are—— 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Cargo helicopters, helicopters, not Apaches. 

Senator COBURN. OK. But, you cannot tell us today how we make 

those decisions of what goes on the list and off the list. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. It is basically a common-sense decision inside the 

Department, and then we do, as I keep saying, go back to the 

States. 

Senator COBURN. When something is removed from the list—and 

I do not know if you have any recent experience with this—are 

agencies required to return the restricted equipment? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is why we retain title for what we call controlled equipment, so that we can pull that equipment. 

Senator COBURN. So is a .30-caliber gun—— 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. A 7.62 weapon is available on the—7.62mm is 

available. 

Senator COBURN. I am talking 30—OK. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. No crew-served weapons, nothing that requires a 

belt for feeding ammunition. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Are you aware of any that have been 

previously authorized that are now restricted? 
17 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. The type of stuff that we have ended up further restricting, body armor. We used to provide body armor. We no 

longer do that. Part of that is for safety reasons. Once body armor 

becomes excess, we cannot guarantee its safety. Major equipment, 

I am not aware of any, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Kamoie, according to FEMA’s Authorized Equipment List, 

battle dress uniforms are an authorized purchase under preparedness grant programs, right? 

Mr. KAMOIE. I believe that is correct, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. Why? 

Mr. KAMOIE. The Authorized Equipment List is reviewed biannually, and we consult with State and local responders and stakeholders and the grantees who advise us on what it is they need to 

build the capabilities to support the national preparedness goals. 

Responders—— 

Senator COBURN. Let us get right down to the point—— 

Mr. KAMOIE. So responders have told us that—— 

Senator COBURN. So we need to have in the States, funded by the 

Federal Government, a militarized police force? I mean, that is a 

component of it. 

Mr. KAMOIE. Well, I think a lot more—— 

Senator COBURN. And that fits in with our goals? 

Mr. KAMOIE. We certainly can review the types of uniforms that 

our responders are requesting, but they have advised us, in the 

building of capabilities to fight terrorism, that this type of dress 

would be useful. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Let me ask you the same question I asked 

Mr. Estevez. When was the last time that you are aware, in terms 

of the grant money that is being given out, either the UASI grants 

or the Homeland Security grants—and, by the way, the Homeland 

Security grants are not based on risk. The UASI grants are. The 

others are based on a mandate that came through this Committee 

that said X State will get X percent, rather than doing it on risk 

like we should have. When was the last time we have seen what 

you have given being used, other than the response to the 

Tsarnaev brothers, used against counterterrorism? 

Mr. KAMOIE. That was the last time, the Tsarnaev—— 

Senator COBURN. When was another time? 

Mr. KAMOIE. I am quite sure that New York used its Domain 

Awareness System in the Times Square bombing attempt. That is 

a funded asset with these grant funds. 

Senator COBURN. OK. 

Mr. KAMOIE. So within the last—— 

Senator COBURN. With the Homeland Security grants, with the 

1033 program, with the Department of Justice grants, over the last 

5 years, we have put out $41 billion worth of money, and we know 

of really two times. 

The point I am getting to is that we will never have enough 

money to be totally prepared for everything, and so the question is, 

it is common sense, much like the Chairman said, and judgement, 

and I see I am about to run out of time. We need a reassessment, 

both of the 1033 and both the grant programs at Homeland Secu-
18 

rity as well as the Byrne Justice program. I will submit the rest 

of my questions for the record. 

And, Ms. Mason, I just want to extend, if I may, just for a moment. I did a complete oversight of the grant programs 31⁄2 years 

ago at the Justice Department, and what we saw was not pretty. 

And your testimony kind of inferred that you guys are really on top 

of all your grants right now. Would you kind of restate what you 

said in your opening testimony in terms of your grant management? 

Ms. MASON. Thank you for the question, Senator. What I would 

say is that we have done a very good job of implementing the 

things you suggested in your assessment of our grant programs, 

primarily through the creation of the Office of the Audit Assessment and Management, where we do a lot of internal self-assessment and looking at our programs. We have implemented risk assessment tools to determine which of our grants should get more 

in-depth monitoring. So we have also implemented that every single one of our grants gets a desk review every year. So we believe 

that we are doing a much better job in overseeing our grant programs. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. [Presiding.] I want to clear up and make 

sure that the record is clear. In response to a question from Congress to the Defense Logistics Agency, they responded that of the 

1033 programs, 36 percent of the property issued is new and not 

used. In other words, almost 40 percent of what you are giving 

away has never been used by the military. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. And I apologize for shaking my head when you 

said that earlier. What they said is that it is Condition Code A. 

Condition Code A is like new. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Well, so we can argue about brand new, 

new, or like new. What in the world are we doing buying things 

that we are not using? And isn’t that a fundamental problem that 

you need to get at? Before we even talk about whether all this stuff 

is being used appropriately or being used with training or being 

used in a way that makes common sense, how in the world are we 

buying that—and, by the way, we are going to—I guarantee you 

when I get this list—and I will, because this will not be the last 

hearing we have on this. I guarantee you the stuff you are giving 

away, you are continuing to buy. I guarantee it. So tell me how 

that happens. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Well, first of all, we will have to look at the type 

of stuff that is provided in new condition. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, give me an example of something that 

is provided in new condition. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Senator, I will have to go through—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. But 36 percent of what you are giving away, 

you have no idea what it is you are giving away that is new? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I will have to go through the list, Senator, and I 

will be happy to take your question for the record on that. So as 

force structure changes, as our budget changes, things that we 

thought we would need were no longer needed, or things that we 

bought for the war—and I am not talking about tactical rifles and 
19 

1The information provided by Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 224. 

the like. I am talking about basic medical kits, that type of stuff— 

may no longer be needed as we draw down force structure based 

on changing environment on the ground. 

The Budget Control Act (BCA) changes our force structure. 

Things that we required will no longer be needed as that force 

structure changes. That is the basic reason. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, this is actually totally in your wheelhouse because you have acquisitions. So if we are buying so much 

stuff—and what is going to drive me crazy is when I figure out that 

what you gave away last year, you bought this year. That is going 

to drive me crazy. So just be ready. It is going to drive me crazy. 

Let me look at how much you are giving away. I know that this 

is the State Coordinator, but I want to make sure that we are clear 

about how out of control some of this is. 

In Dr. Coburn’s State, the Payne City sheriff’s office has one fulltime sworn officer. One. They have gotten two MRAPs since 2011. 

Now, you gave the impression in your testimony that you all are 

at least doing the minimum about making sure what you give is 

somehow proportional to the size of a force. 

Before you answer that, let me give you this fact. In the Lake 

Angelus Police Department, in Michigan, you gave them 13 military assault weapons since 2011. They have one full-time sworn officer. So, one officer now has 13 military-grade assault weapons in 

their police department. 

How in the world can anyone say that this program has one lick 

of oversight if those two things are in existence? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I will have to look into the details on each of those. 

The rule of thumb is one MRAP validated by the State Coordinator 

for a police department that requests an MRAP, no more than one. 

So I would have to look at the incident in Senator Coburn’s State. 

And the same thing with rifles, weapons. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I will make part of the record the list.1 We 

have a long list of law enforcement agencies that received 3 times 

as many 5.56 and 7.62 military-grade weapons per full-time officer, 

and this is a long list. This is not a short list. So, I think we need 

to get to the bottom of that. 

The risk allocation you talked about, Mr. Kamoie, there is a formula that every State gets money, regardless of risk, right? It does 

not matter if you have zero risk in your State. Everyone gets 

money. 

Mr. KAMOIE. There are State minimums prescribed by the Homeland Security—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Which has nothing to do with risk. 

Mr. KAMOIE. Correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. I want to make sure we are clear on 

that. And isn’t it true now that rather than these communities 

coming and saying, ‘‘This is what we have figured out we need,’’ 

now you tell them how much money they get, and they give you 

a list of what they want to buy with it? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Well, we have actually moved more toward projectbased applications where we are asking grantees up front to identify the types of projects and the investment, really with an eye to-
20 

ward tighter fiscal management and oversight of the programs. We 

want to know more of this. I think the evolution of the program 

has gone from, at a time when they were pretty generic homeland 

security strategies at the State level, where we are trying to tighten the investment justifications and then telling us in advance. 

Senator MCCASKILL. MRAPs can be very dangerous, correct, Mr. 

Estevez? They flip? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. They are very heavy vehicles. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And yet there is no requirement for training 

for any of these departments that are getting these vehicles. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. We cannot provide training to police departments, 

Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, are you comfortable with the fact that 

Texas has received 73 MRAPs in 3 years while the entire National 

Guard of Texas only has six? How can you explain that? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Again, for excess material—and an MRAP was put 

on the list of available—we provided—and the States and State Coordinators are responsible for ensuring training. The military force 

is retaining about 12,000 MRAPs across the Army and the Marine 

Corps, a smattering in the Air Force and the Navy, and they are 

going to allocate those across the entire force structure. So I am not 

sure how they will be allocated across the Guard. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Could it be that the Guard does not want 

them because they know that they tear up the roads and they flip 

easily and have limited applicability? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. The Guard will—if the Guard requires an MRAP 

for deployment, they will be issued an MRAP. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Does it make you uncomfortable that there 

are States where the National Guard has no MRAPs, but police departments have them everywhere? Does that fact make you uncomfortable in any way? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I believe the Guard will be allocated the force 

structure that they are needed for their Federal role. So as I said, 

there are 12,000 MRAPs that will be allocated across the force 

structure as they come back from—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Why are we giving them away to police departments before we give them to the Guard? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Because we bought 24,000 MRAPs, so we have 

more MRAPs than we will need. And we bought—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. I understand. But why would the police departments be in line to get these before the National Guard? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. The ones that we are excessing are the older, they 

are not the best MRAPs. We have retained the best MRAPs in the 

force structure. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is there any reason that any of the three of 

you can give me why we would not, if we are going to continue 

funding State and local—and, by the way, I have seen a lot of good 

during my career from Federal funding to State and local law enforcement. And, by the way, I want to be clear. I saw a vehicle extricate some police officers in a pretty dangerous situation in Ferguson once some of the outsiders started coming in from other 

States that wanted a confrontation with the police. 

Having said all that, has there been a discussion about perhaps 

saying the first thing that we would fund before we begin to fund 
21 

anything else, not a Federal mandate but, rather, the first on your 

list must be body cams? Has that been discussed either at DOJ or 

at Homeland Security? That these officers that are going to be 

using some of this equipment, that the best way to check whether 

or not it is being used appropriately is for every officer to wear a 

camera? 

Ms. MASON. Senator, the Office of Justice Programs, our JAG 

funds are available for law enforcement agencies to use to purchase 

body cameras, and we do see value in body cameras. But as you 

know, our National Institute of Justice is studying the effectiveness 

of body cameras and the appropriate use of body cameras. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But they can buy them now? 

Ms. MASON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So it would not be hard if we decided, before 

you get anything else, we are going to insist you use our money for 

body cams before you buy other things, like full-blown battle gear 

or camouflage uniforms or grenade launchers that attach to rifles? 

Ms. MASON. The JAG money is formula money, and we do not 

control how State and local jurisdictions use that money. But it is 

a permissible use to buy body cameras. 

Mr. KAMOIE. Chairman McCaskill, video cameras are on the Authorized Equipment List, and if a grantee came forward and said 

to us that they believe that body cameras for law enforcement 

would serve purposes for which the program is authorized in terms 

of preparing capabilities for terrorism, operational coordination, situational awareness, we would consider that an allowable expense. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Senator Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Estevez, are you aware of any local police department 

that has purchased an MRAP with their own funds? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I am not, and I do not know how they would. 

Senator JOHNSON. Or a .30-caliber weapon? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I could not answer that question on what a local 

police department buys with their own funds, but MRAPs are not 

available, so that is why I know that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, I was not around here, but according 

to my briefing here, the first program was authorized in a defense 

authorization bill primarily about the drug wars. Is that correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. So what were local police departments missing 

that they needed to be funded or given from the Defense Department to combat the War on Drugs? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. First, let me be clear. We, the Department, we do 

this because we are asked to do this. 

Senator JOHNSON. I understand. Again, I am just asking for the 

history. What equipment were local—— 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. The police departments were outgunned by drug 

gangs, so they were looking for protection, and they were looking 

for fire power. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Then apparently this was expanded in 

1997, my note says, ‘‘based on lobbying from police organizations.’’ 
22 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Again, I cannot answer why the authorization was 

expanded. At the time it was for counterterrorism, but if it was lobbying from police organizations, OK. 

Senator JOHNSON. Of course, there is always a great desire to get 

free things from the Federal Government, correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Of course. 

Senator JOHNSON. This program, which has apparently provided about $5.1 billion of free equipment since 1997—it has all been 

free, correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Yes. It is not free to the taxpayer. We bought it, 

used it, and—— 

Senator JOHNSON. I understand, but free to the local governments, correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. Free to local police departments. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you know of too many police departments 

that turn free things down? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Again, I am not in the position of a local police department, but if something was available and they thought they 

needed it—because they have to sustain this equipment. If they 

thought they needed it and it was useful to them, why not? 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Kamoie, the $41 billion that DHS has 

granted under your program since 2002, has there been any—that 

is grant money, correct? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Yes, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. Is there any cost sharing associated with that? 

Mr. KAMOIE. In several of our programs, the Port Security Grant 

Program, for example, in some years there is a cost-sharing requirement in the—— 

Senator JOHNSON. How much? Of the $41 billion, how much is 

that multiplied by local budgets? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Given that the cost share requirement was imposed 

in some years and not, we will have to followup with you on that, 

but I can tell you the Emergency Management Performance Grant 

Program, about $350 million a year, is a 50-percent cost share in 

that every year. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think if we multiply that by another $40 billion, has there been a 50-percent cost share, we have basically granted $41 billion worth of funds for the purchase of this 

type of equipment, and local governments have maybe contributed 

$1 billion? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Well, we will have to followup with you on numbers. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. KAMOIE. But just to be clear, Senator, the over $40 billion 

is not just for law enforcement. I mean, there are a lot of other purposes for these programs: port security, transit security. That number includes our firefighter programs, staffing for emergency managers and firefighters. 

Senator JOHNSON. When people get things for free, when you get 

a lot of money, one of the first things my wife as an IRS agent 

learned, the first government phrase was, ‘‘Use it or lose it.’’ And 

that is just a concern in terms of how you put money to work. 
23 

Ms. Mason, the $4.4 billion granted by the Department of Justice 

since 2005, has that had any kind of cost-sharing requirement associate with it? 

Ms. MASON. The JAG money is formula money that does not require cost sharing from local governments. But, for example, this 

year we awarded $280 million in grants. Those are spread between 

the 56 U.S. States and territories as well as local governments. So 

for 80 percent of our grants, JAG grants, the average award size 

is only $30,000. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, all three of the witnesses, are you aware 

of any piece of equipment that is either given away or allowed to 

be purchased—I am really talking about the Defense Department. 

Are any of those pieces of equipment that have been given away 

that would not be available for purchase by a local police department? Or are they all available on the open market? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. An MRAP is not available on the open market because it is out of production. It was only made for the Department. 

Senator JOHNSON. But when it was in production, were there any 

restrictions in terms of people being able to buy that? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I would have to go back and look at that. It was 

probably the restriction it was unavailable. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I think my point being is if—we are making the decision at the wrong level here. If local police departments 

actually needed this equipment, if they felt it was necessary, isn’t 

the proper way of doing this to have them go through their city 

councils, go through their States, make the political case for armoring up to protect themselves, whether it is against drug lords or 

whether it is against counterterrorism? I can understand the Federal role in terms of information sharing and potentially communication devices so we can provide that information. But, I mean, 

hasn’t this gone out of control simply because the Federal Government is there, we are just granting money, and people are going 

to use it? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I guess from my perspective, Senator, we have 

bought this stuff for the Department of Defense. It is no longer 

needed. The States need to make that decision on whether they 

need this type of equipment. And, in fact, they do, and that is the 

funnel. So the State Coordinator, appointed by a Governor, makes 

the decision on whether a local police force, after a request by a 

local police force, needs it or not, not the Department of Defense. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, again, prior to these programs in place, 

did any police department have any type of this equipment? Did 

they ever use their own funds and purchase this type of equipment? Or is it only because it is available, it is given to them for 

free—‘‘Yes, I will take some of that,’’ ‘‘That would be kind of a neat 

thing to have parked in our garage.’’ 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I am not an expert in local policing, but police 

forces certainly had armored vehicles, police forces certainly had 

weapons. 

Mr. KAMOIE. Senator, in our Port Security Grant Program, we do 

fund a lot of police boats that patrol the waterways of our Nation’s 

over 100 ports. The cost-share requirement for that has varied over 

year by year, but in many years it has been 25 percent. And so, 

yes, a local jurisdiction has to make a decision about those invest-
24 

ments, and I do not have the entire history, but I would imagine 

that in our port cities, before the Port Security Grant Program was 

created, that many of them likely did acquire police vessels to secure the port. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. So, again, I really would like that information in terms of how much cost sharing, and if we are looking 

for a solution, I think that would be it right there. I think people 

need to have skin in the game. These decisions in terms of what 

type of equipment is going to be purchased need to be made at the 

local level. They have to show their citizens that we really do need 

that type of protection. 

And, by the way, I am all for protection of the police department. 

Senator Baldwin and I and her representative attended a congressional Badge of Courage ceremony, Badge of Bravery for Lieutenant Brian Murphy and Officer Sam Lenda in the Oak Creek Sikh 

massacre, and we saw a video of these brave, courageous public 

servants, public safety individuals, just walking straight into danger. So we are all about making sure that these officials are protected. But the decision needs to be made at the local level, not 

here in the Federal Government. Otherwise, this is exactly the 

problem we have when we make the decision at the wrong level of 

government. 

Mr. KAMOIE. Senator, we will provide you that information. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

I was pleased and somewhat relieved to see Attorney General 

Holder and the Justice Department announce that they will independently investigate not only the shooting of Michael Brown but 

also the policing practices of the Ferguson and St. Louis County police forces. I think that Department of Justice investigations like 

these serve a critical role in maintaining and in some cases rebuilding public confidence in law enforcement. 

I would like to know from our panelists then if the grant programs administered by each agency look at whether a State or 

local law enforcement agency is under active investigation for civil 

rights or civil liberties violations or has a history of those violations. 

Mr. Estevez, the statute that authorizes the 1033 program requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out the program in consultation with the Attorney General. So I wonder: What is the nature of the consultation between the Department of Defense and 

the Department of Justice on this program? And is there a discussion of whether a law enforcement agency is under investigation for 

the possible deprivation of constitutional rights? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Senator Baldwin, the consultation with the Department of Justice is one of the areas that we are frankly lacking, that 

we need to do a better job of, that we will look at under the administration’s review and we will discuss with this Committee. So we 

need to do a better job there. 

I will say that—— 
25 

Senator BALDWIN. Well, I accept your statement at face value 

that you can do better. But currently in that consultation is the 

matter of an open or closed investigation into civil rights or civil 

liberties deprivation a part of your discussion or consultation? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. No. 

Senator BALDWIN. And is there any reason why it could not be 

in the future? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Of course it could be. 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. Mr. Kamoie, is there coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department 

of Justice in the programs that you administer on these same questions? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. We certainly coordinate on the risk elements of the allocation decisions and recommendations for the Secretary. The risk formula is prescribed by 

statute. It is a combination of threat, vulnerability, and consequence, and the elements of each of those are laid out in statute. 

But to answer your specific question, no, we do not take into account whether a law enforcement organization is under investigation for potential deprivation of civil rights and civil liberties. 

Senator BALDWIN. Ms. Mason, in administering the Byrne JAG 

program—it is obviously a within-Department consultation discussion—do those issues get discussed? 

Ms. MASON. Thank you for the question, Senator. The Byrne 

JAG grants are formula money, and we have very little discretion 

over how that money is used. But the Civil Rights Division does 

coordinate with our office when they are doing investigations and 

as they develop their consent decrees, and we work closely with 

them in designing the content of the consent decrees. 

Senator BALDWIN. I understand what you said about the formula 

and the lack of discretion, but tell me a little bit more about the 

nature of that consultation and how that can come into play in decisions that you are entertaining. 

Ms. MASON. Well, there are two factors in that. The Office of Justice Programs has its own Office of Civil Rights that makes sure 

that all of the grant programs for the Department comply with civil 

rights laws. If the Civil Rights Division is investigating one of our 

grantees, they typically will coordinate with our Office of Civil 

Rights. We will monitor things and, as the process proceeds, have 

input into whatever agreement is reached between the Department 

with that agency. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. I want to move to the issue of 

training, especially in the 1033 program. We have heard in testimony that billions of dollars’ worth of surplus military equipment 

has been transferred to State and local law enforcement agencies, 

including some significantly sophisticated materials previously operated by trained military personnel, primarily in combat situations for some of that equipment. This includes, as we have talked 

about, MRAPs, armored vehicles, grenade launchers, assault rifles. 

We certainly have great confidence in the skills of our first responders, but these pieces of equipment are not traditional police 

equipment and may be very unfamiliar to many police officers and 

sheriff’s deputies in communities across this country. 
26 

So I understand that the Defense Logistics Agency conducts a biennial inventory review of the States that participate in the 1033 

program. But this effort appears to be focused simply on corroborating that the transferred equipment is accounted for. 

Can you tell me if the DLA review, Mr. Estevez, or even the 

original application process makes any inquiry at all as to whether 

the agency has the appropriate training or access to the appropriate training to use and maintain this equipment or if after the 

fact the equipment is being properly used? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Defense Logistics Agency, which facilitates this 

program, does not have that capability, and neither does the Department of Defense as a whole. We cannot manage local police 

forces. Even equipment that we are trained to use is trained to use 

for combat operations, not for local policing operations. And let me 

also say we do not provide grenade launchers, to be clear. 

So the training, the State Coordinator certifies that a local police 

force that is going to receive an item has the ability to train themselves to use it, so if they are going to get a helicopter, they have 

a pilot. And the State Coordinator certifies that the local police 

force has the ability to sustain the equipment that they are going 

to be provided. 

Senator BALDWIN. And what confidence do you have that that 

level of inquiry is happening at the State Coordinator level if it is 

not happening under your supervision? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I think that, frankly, varies by State Coordinator, 

but I think State Coordinators in the last number of years have actually put more attention and due diligence on that process. And 

we found that as we did a full-out review of the whole program 

with the State Coordinators, suspended all the States because of 

accountability issues, and during that process we found that State 

Coordinators are focusing their attention on those issues, Senator. 

Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Kamoie, are there similar requirements in 

either the application process or the audit process for training, for 

proper maintenance of equipment? What accountability can you 

share with this Committee in the Department of Homeland Security? 

Mr. KAMOIE. We encourage training for grantees. It is an allowable expense under our programs. We do not require training, but 

we do offer training through the Department’s Center for Domestic 

Preparedness for responders and the Department’s Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center. So we do offer it, we encourage it, 

but we do not require training. 

Senator BALDWIN. And, Ms. Mason, I believe you already testified that training is one of the things that can be funded through 

grants. But can you talk about the training opportunities available 

in Byrne JAG? 

Ms. MASON. Yes. The training opportunities, Byrne JAG funds 

may be used for training, but separate and apart from our JAG 

funding, the Office of Justice Programs provides a full range of 

training opportunities for law enforcement. Over the last 3 years, 

we have put together approximately 100 online training courses. 

We also have many webinars on various issues. We survey the law 

enforcement to find out what training classes and things they 

would need. But it is part of our mission to make sure that we pro-
27 

vide a range of training opportunities for State and local governments. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Paul. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 

Senator PAUL. I think many of us were horrified by some of the 

images that came out of Ferguson. We were horrified by seeing an 

unarmed man with his hands over his head being confronted by an 

armored personnel carrier. We were horrified by seeing an unarmed man with his hands over his head being confronted by a 

man with a draw on an assault weapon. We were horrified by images of tear gas being shot into the yards of people’s personal 

homes who were protesting. 

One of the fundamental things about America is dissent and the 

ability to have dissent, and it needs to be peaceful. There needs to 

be repercussions for people who do not act in a peaceful way. But 

confronting protesters with armored personnel carriers is thoroughly un-American, and for 150 years, we have had rules separating the military, keeping the military out of policing affairs. But 

you obscure that separation if you allow the police to become the 

military. 

In FEMA’s Authorized Equipment List, there is actually written 

descriptions for how the equipment should be used, and it says it 

is specifically not supposed to be used for riot suppression. Mr. 

Kamoie, is that true, that it is not supposed to be used for riot suppression? And how do you plan on policing that since the images 

show us clearly large pieces of equipment that were bought with 

your grants being used in that riot suppression? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Senator Paul, that is—— 

Senator PAUL. Or protest suppression, rather? 

Mr. KAMOIE. That is accurate. The categories of personal protective equipment that include helmets, ear and eye protection, ballistics, personal protective equipment, there is a prohibition in the 

Authorized Equipment List that it is not to be used for riot suppression. 

Senator PAUL. And what will you do about it? 

Mr. KAMOIE. We are going to follow the lead of the Department 

of Justice’s investigation about the facts. We are going to work with 

the State of Missouri to determine what pieces of equipment were 

grant funded. And then we have a range of remedies available to 

us should there be any finding of noncompliance with those requirements. Those include everything from corrective action plans 

to ensure it does not happen again, recoupment of funds. So we will 

look very closely at the facts, but we are going to allow the investigation to run its course and determine what the appropriate remedy is. 

Senator PAUL. But it gets back to that whole question. If you are 

a police force anywhere in the country, from Dundee, Michigan, of 

3,900, which has an MRAP, to 25 other cities under 25,000 have 

MRAPs, they think these are for riot suppression—well, I do not 

know what they think they are for in a city of 3,900 people. But 

many of the police forces actually think that this is what the equipment would be good from, is riot suppression in a big city, in an 
28 

urban area. And you are specifically instructed that it is not for 

that. And we have talked about and we have had maybe two instances of terrorism. There has been billions and billions of dollars 

and maybe two instances of terrorism. So I think really by supplying all of this free equipment, much of which is just, frankly, inappropriate and really should not be on anybody’s list of authorized 

equipment. 

Mr. Estevez, in the NPR investigation of the 1033 program, they 

list that 12,000 bayonets have been given out. What purpose are 

bayonets being given out for? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Senator, bayonets are available under the program. 

I cannot answer what a local police force would need a bayonet—— 

Senator PAUL. I can give you an answer: None. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. OK. 

Senator PAUL. So what is President Obama’s Administration’s 

position on handing out bayonets to the police force? It is on your 

list. You guys create the list. Are you going to take it off the list 

or are we going to keep doing it? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. We are going to look at what we are providing 

under the Administration’s review of all these programs. 

Senator PAUL. So it is unclear at this point whether President 

Obama approves of 12,000 bayonets being given out? I would think 

you could make that decision last week. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I think we need to review all the equipment that 

we are providing, Senator, and as I said, we, the Department of 

Defense, do not push any of this equipment on any police force. The 

States decide what they need. 

Senator PAUL. My understanding is that you have the ability to 

decide what equipment is given out and what equipment is not 

given out. If you decided tomorrow, if President Obama decided tomorrow that mine-resistant ambush protection 20-ton vehicles are 

not appropriate for cities in the United States, he could decide tomorrow to take it off a list; you could decide this tomorrow. My 

question is: What is the Administration’s opinion on giving out 

mine-resistant ambush protection 20-ton vehicles to towns across 

America? Are you for it or against it? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Obviously, we do it, Senator. We are going to look 

at that. I will also say that—I can give you anecdotes where mineresistant ambush protection vehicles have protected police forces in 

shootouts. 

Senator PAUL. But we have already been told they are only supposed to be used for terrorism, right? Isn’t that what the rule is? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Our rule is for counter-drug, which could have 

been the shootout—I would have to look at the incident—counternarcotics, counterterrorism. 

Senator PAUL. I guess the point I wish to make is that these are 

fairly simple problems, and common sense applied years ago, we 

could have fixed these. We are going to maybe fix them, although 

I have my doubts, because I have seen rarely anything ever fixed 

in government. But I would say that we are now responding to a 

tragic circumstance in Ferguson to do this. But I find these decisions to be very easy to make. You just should not be giving out 

mine-resistant vehicles. Bayonets—there is no excuse. I do not understand why we have to get together and have a study for months 
29 

to decide bayonets are inappropriate to be giving out. I cannot 

imagine any use for a bayonet in an urban setting. 

So, really, this has gotten out of control, and this has largely 

been something that—the militarization of police is something that 

has gotten so far out of control, and we have allowed it to descend, 

along with not a great protection of our civil liberties as well. So, 

we say we are going to do this. It is OK if it is for drugs. Well, 

look at the instances of what has happened in recent times, the instance in Georgia just a couple of months ago of an infant in a crib 

getting a percussion grenade thrown in through a window in a noknock raid. It turns out the infant obviously was not involved in 

the drug trade, but neither was even the infant’s family. Happened 

to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one has even been 

indicted on this. 

So, really, this is crazy out of control, and giving military equipment, and with the breakdown of the whole idea of due process, of 

no-knock raids and not having judges issue warrants anymore, you 

can see how this gets out of control, and people are very concerned 

with what is going on here. And I see the response so far to be 

lackluster, and I hope you will do a more complete job in trying to 

fix this. 

Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Hi. I want to thank all the witnesses for being 

here, and certainly thank Senator McCaskill, the Chairman, and 

the Ranking Member for having this hearing. 

What I wanted to understand in particular, Mr. Estevez, I think 

as you have described the 1033 program, it is—you have a State 

Coordinator, and then DOD does not decide what equipment is 

needed. You are just relying on that State Coordinator for those decisions. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is correct, and I should point out that the 

Governor of the State has the State Coordinator, not us, and we 

rely on the State to filter those decisions. 

Senator AYOTTE. So is there any followup in terms of what the 

equipment is being used for and what type of training the police 

departments that are receiving it have obtained when the equipment is transferred? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. State Coordinators, in certifying that the local 

agency needs that, certify that they are going to have the available 

training and train themselves on that equipment. 

Senator AYOTTE. Do you do any types of followup other than receiving the certification? Is there any kind of audit of what is happening and how the equipment is being used? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. There is no followup on how the equipment is 

being used. Our audits—for the controlled equipment, because we 

provide—96 percent of what we provide is non-controlled benign 

equipment. We followup on—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Yes, when I am referring to this, I should have 

been specific on the controlled equipment. Obviously, office furniture you would not generally have a followup on. 
30 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. We followup on accountability of the equipment. 

We retain title to that equipment, but we do not followup on its 

use, Senator. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. So do you think, with this process that is 

being reviewed right now, not only the President but the congressional oversight that will be had here, that the way the system is 

working right now, DOD has some responsibility to not just to have 

a follow-up in terms of what is being done with this equipment? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I think that that has to be part of the look at what 

we are doing, the review. I think, speaking from the Department 

of Defense’s standpoint, it is very hard for us because we do not 

have expertise in police forcing—it is not what we do—on whether 

it is an appropriate use or not appropriate use. Now, I can look at 

the pictures of Ferguson and wince like everybody else in this 

room, but I think that has to be part of the dialogue and discussion 

of what we are going to do and how we are going to assess the use 

of equipment. 

Senator AYOTTE. Mr. Kamoie, I wanted to ask the Homeland Security role. I do not know if you are the appropriate person to ask 

this question, but on the Homeland Security front, what type of 

oversight is there in terms of the 1033 equipment? Does Homeland 

have any oversight over the receipt of that? 

Mr. KAMOIE. We do not, Senator. 

Senator AYOTTE. Is there any coordination between the grants 

that Homeland is giving in light of what the departments are receiving on the 1033 front? 

Mr. KAMOIE. We do not coordinate in the decisionmaking about 

local law enforcement requests. The process that Mr. Estevez has 

laid out, we do not coordinate that at all. 

Senator AYOTTE. So you would not necessarily even know on 

issuing a homeland grant what the DOD has done in terms of 

issuance of equipment to local agencies? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. So how do you then know, in terms of the 

use of the homeland grants for this, that there should not be some 

followup? 

Mr. KAMOIE. So that is an entirely different story. I will say I 

know the Defense Department’s equipment under the 1033 program is free. Grantees have paid for, I believe, transportation costs 

using grant funding. But it is a very small percentage of use of 

grant funds. 

So in terms of how grantees use equipment that has been acquired with our programs, for the State program, even the Urban 

Area program, the grants pass through the State; 80 percent of the 

State program funding has to go to local jurisdictions within that 

State. So we work with the State in oversight. In their applications 

they tell us more and more detail now about the projects they intend, and certainly we have the ability to drill down in, as we are 

doing with the State of Missouri and follow up on use of the equipment to ensure that it meets program requirements. So we have 

visibility. 

We do not have real-time visibility on all acquisitions made at 

the local level, but working with our State partners, we can get 

pretty good visibility. 
31 

1The Boston Globe article appears in the Appendix on page 218. 

Senator AYOTTE. I would like an opinion from all of you, if you 

are able to answer. We have focused a lot, understandably so, on 

these programs and the military-style equipment to agencies in a 

Ferguson-type situation. What I would like to know is the use of 

the equipment, whether it is from Homeland Security, how have we 

evaluated the needs in a Boston Marathon bombing situation or a 

situation like that, which seems to me quite different than obviously a Ferguson situation? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Thanks for the question, Senator. So we work with 

grantees and provide them tools to assess the risks that they face 

and the hazards in their community. We try and provide them 

guidance on how to estimate their capabilities for addressing the 

threats that they have identified. They certainly have discretion in 

terms of the kinds of equipment that they think would best meet 

those needs. But as we did see in Boston, the equipment that was 

purchased, including the law enforcement equipment, certainly facilitated the response, certainly facilitated the pursuit and apprehension of Tsarnaev. And so we do work with communities in 

terms of their assessments of their risk, and they are building to 

capabilities to address them. 

Senator AYOTTE. Ms. Mason, I wanted to ask you about on the 

Justice end with regard to the Byrne JAG grants. Do we know how 

much of those grants are used for this type of equipment? Because 

having been Attorney General of my State, a fair amount of those 

grants have gone to other things, I know, as well, for example, 

whether it is protecting children from online predators or whether 

it is providing assistance to victims of crime, even though there is 

obviously Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and Violence Against 

Women Act (VAWA) funds. But there is all kinds of variety in 

terms of how those funds would be used. Do you have a sense of 

how much is used for this in terms of the equipment purchasing? 

Ms. MASON. Yes, thank you for the question. As you mentioned, 

the JAG money is available to address the full range of criminal 

justice issues in a State, and what we have seen is that of the 

money that is allocated for the law enforcement category—because 

there are courts categories, victim categories. But of the law enforcement category, about 40 percent of the money allocated in that 

category goes to equipment, but most of the equipment that we are 

seeing people buy are computers, technology, and things like that. 

And for vehicles, the JAG money can only be used for cars, boats, 

helicopters, without coming back to the Director for specific approval, and we have only since 2005, we went back and did an investigation. We have approved only seven armored vehicles since 

2005. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. My time is up. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I think Senator Coburn has a few more 

questions, and then we will get to the second panel. 

Senator COBURN. I just want to introduce to the record an article 

from October 16, 2013, the Boston Globe,1 which sets the record 

straight. Tsarnaev was found because a guy went out to check his 

boat because he saw the end of it up. It did not have anything to 

do with money that we spent. It did not have anything to do with 
32 

anything other than he noticed it and he was surprised by the fact 

that he found this guy in the fetal position in his boat and called 

911. So this needs to be in the record to set the record straight 

about what that is. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Without objection. 

Senator COBURN. I have one question for the three of you, and 

then we will go to the next panel. What have you heard directly 

from the Administration in terms of review at your level about the 

review that the Administration announced based on what happened in Ferguson? What information have you received at the 

Justice Department, at Homeland Security and FEMA, and at the 

Department of Defense? What have you heard directly from the 

White House? 

Ms. MASON. We have already had meetings about the review, 

and we have already been supplying information. So the review is 

an active process at this time. 

Senator COBURN. As far as the Justice Department is concerned. 

Ms. MASON. All of us are involved. 

Senator COBURN. Well, let me get them to answer specifically. 

What have you heard, Brian? 

Mr. KAMOIE. Senator Coburn, I have participated in the first 

meeting of the review panel. It is a comprehensive review of the 

programs, their operation, the very same kinds of questions we 

have talked about here, training, our oversight, auditing, compliance. Senator, I look forward to reading that article. Information 

that was provided to me by the Massachusetts Homeland Security 

Agency and the State Police indicate that—— 

Senator COBURN. Infrared camera. 

Mr. KAMOIE. The infrared camera was instrumental in locating 

him. So I look forward to reading that article. 

Senator COBURN. Here is the direct quote from the guy that 

called 911 to tell them, ‘‘There is somebody in my boat, and he has 

been injured. I think he is Tsarnaev.’’ 

Mr. KAMOIE. I understand, Senator. I look forward to reading it. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. My direct staff at the Assistant Secretary level is 

participating in the review. My fellow colleague has been over at 

the White House. We have been providing information to the White 

House and are fully engaged. The only reason I was not over there 

was because I was out of town at the time. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. That is great to hear. That is called 

appropriate response. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We have a second panel with four witnesses. Does anybody else have one or two questions that they really want to ask these three witnesses before we move to our second 

panel? 

[No response.] 

I have two simple questions. Before Ferguson, had the three of 

you ever met? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. No. 

Mr. KAMOIE. No. 

Ms. MASON. No. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Not good. 
33 

1The report appears in the Appendix on page 493. 

Second question, do any of you now have any policy that requires 

you to track any kind of usage data for the equipment you are providing that is considered military grade? Yes or no. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. No. 

Mr. KAMOIE. No. 

Ms. MASON. We do have activity reports that we require on a 

quarterly basis from our grantees about how they use our JAG 

funds. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I would like to see and put in the 

record,1 since you are the only one that says—you claim you have 

usage data, I would like all the usage data that would show what 

military weaponry, camouflage, uniforms, helmets, all the things 

we saw in Ferguson, and the data you have about how that has actually been utilized by the recipients of your funds. 

Thank you. Thank you all very much for being here. 

[Pause.] 

Thank you all for being here. I do not want to hurry you, but I 

want to make sure—this is a large panel, and we have people that 

want to ask questions. And time is ticking so I want to get started. 

Let me introduce this panel. 

Jim Bueermann is the president of the Washington, DC-based 

Police Foundation. The foundation, established in 1970, has a mission to advance policing through innovation and science. Mr. 

Bueermann previously worked for the Redlands Police Department 

for 33 years, serving in every unit within the department. He 

served as its chief for 13 years from 1998 to 2011. 

Dr. Peter Kraska is a professor and chair of graduate studies and 

research within the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky 

University. Dr. Kraska researches the changing role of police in society, including the relationship between the police and the military, as well as the special equipment, tactics, and training used 

by police over the last several decades. 

Mark Lomax is executive director for the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA). Mr. Lomax previously served as a program manager for the United Nations in Liberia, West Africa, 

where he oversaw their police Special Weapons and Tactics Team 

(SWAT) and crowd control units. Mr. Lomax served 27 years with 

the Pennsylvania State Police, with a majority of his career in special operations assignments. Mr. Lomax was invited to participate 

in this hearing at the request of Chief Belmar of the St. Louis 

County Police Department. Mr. Lomax is accompanied by Major Ed 

Allen of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. 

Wiley Price is a photojournalist, award-winning, I might add, 

photojournalist for the St. Louis American newspaper. Mr. Price is 

a native St. Louis resident who covered the police presence in Ferguson firsthand. 

And Hilary Shelton is the Washington Bureau Director and Senior Vice President for advocacy for the National Association for the 

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), where he has worked on 

a wide variety of legislative and policy issues of national importance. Mr. Shelton, while being an important person with the 
34 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Bueermann appears in the Appendix on page 91. 

NAACP, is also a St. Louis native. Welcome, Hilary. We are glad 

you are here. 

I would like to thank all of you for appearing today, and we will 

begin with your testimony, Mr. Bueermann. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM BUEERMANN,1 CHIEF (RET.), REDLANDS, 

CALIFORNIA, AND PRESIDENT, POLICE FOUNDATION 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Distinguished Members of the Committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss this 

very important topic of Federal programs that provide equipment 

to our civilian police forces. 

As the Senator just mentioned, the Police Foundation’s mission 

is to advance democratic policing through innovation and science. 

We conduct rigorous scientific research, provide technical assistance, and conduct critical incident reviews that help the police 

across the country become more effective. 

Like many Americans, I have been closely following the events 

in Missouri and the national discussion about the militarization of 

American civilian police forces. Central to this issue is the use of 

military-like equipment and tactics by the police. 

To many people, the use of armored vehicles, assault rifles, or 

SWAT teams is unwarranted and highly inappropriate. Conversely, 

to police officers, their use simply represents safer, more effective 

ways of handling the dangerous situations they are paid to resolve. 

I think both perspectives have merit. 

The police use of military-like equipment and tactics can either 

be appropriate or not depending entirely on the context of their 

use. The antidote to militarizing our police is community policing, 

transparency, accountability, and paying close attention to the culture of policing. 

While the Committee reviews these programs, I urge you to consider their benefits along with needed programmatic changes. 

There has been substantial positive impact on the public and officer safety from the programs that provide equipment to law enforcement. 

For example, 2 weeks ago, in Illinois, the Cook County Sheriff’s 

Department used armored vehicles to get officers to the scene and 

extract six children and two adults being held hostage after a home 

invasion robbery. Two officers were shot during the 20-hour standoff, but the equipment prevented further injury to officers and 

helped with the safe recovery of the hostages. 

In West Bloomfield, Michigan, a suspect barricaded himself in a 

residential neighborhood, engaged in a firefight with the police, 

and killed a police officer. During the standoff, the police used their 

armored vehicle to safely evacuate the neighborhood. 

And, finally, this summer, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department used rescue helicopters obtained through the 1033 program 11 times during search and rescue missions in mountainous 

terrain. They also used boats obtained through the program six 

times for rescue missions on Lake Mead. 

Based on my experience in local policing and familiarity with the 

Federal programs that provide or fund local law enforcement equip-
35 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kraska appears in the Appendix on page 99. 

ment, I offer the following suggestion that I believe will strike a 

balance between the needs of the police and compelling community 

interests. 

Every policing agency that desires access to Federal surplus 

property via DOD’s 1033 program should be required, as part of 

the application process, to provide proof that it has received public 

input and local governing body approval of the department’s acquisition of the property; and that it has adequate, publicly reviewable 

training, transparency, and accountability policies in place. 

I believe it is important that the 1033 program be retained with 

appropriate transparency, accountability, and oversight guidelines 

incorporated. Completely eliminating them could have substantial 

impact on public safety, and doing so would make taxpayers potentially pay again for the same equipment they paid for while it was 

used by the military. 

I also recommend that Congress appropriate funds to adequately 

study this issue. There is a paucity of research into the militarization of the police and the impact of the Federal Government providing assistance to acquiring the equipment that may encourage 

this. 

In conclusion, I urge the Committee and Congress to examine 

and consider the Federal implications for advancing the following 

five guiding principles of sustaining democratic policing. 

First, the police and the community must constantly focus on 

community policing framed around a set of organizational values 

developed in concert with the community. 

Second, police organizations should reflect the communities they 

serve. When diverse communities see the police as not reflecting 

their members, they can lose faith in the police to understand their 

needs in meaningful ways. 

Third, policing agencies must provide their officers with appropriate and effective value-based training, accountability technology 

like body-worn cameras, and less lethal tools. 

Fourth, the police should utilize the best available scientific evidence about what works to control crime and disorder. 

And, finally, critical incident reviews should be conducted after 

every critical incident involving the police to capture lessons 

learned and translate them to lessons applied so events like those 

occurring in Ferguson do not happen again. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Bueermann. Dr. Kraska. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER B. KRASKA, PH.D.,1 PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF JUSTICE STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN 

KENTUCKY 

Mr. KRASKA. Senator McCaskill, Senator Coburn, Members of the 

Committee, and wonderful staffers, thank you for inviting me. 

Let me begin today’s comments with two examples of police militarization, one old—in fact, it predates 9/11-and one new, this year 

in May. 

In September 2000, Federal law enforcement conducted a joint 

drug investigation with the Modesto, California, police department. 
36 

Employing the Military Special Operations model, the Modesto 

P.D.’s SWAT team conducted a predawn dynamic entry into a family’s home—suspecting the father, it turned out incorrectly, of being 

involved in low-level drug dealing. One of the children in the 

home—Alberto—was 11 years old and complied with all of the officers’ screams to get into the prone position on his bedroom floor. 

A paramilitary police officer, standing over him with a 12-gauge 

shotgun, then accidentally discharged his weapon into Alberto’s 

back, killing him. 

Now move forward to May of this year. A Georgia police department’s SWAT team conducted a no-knock drug raid on a family’s 

private residence. The officers threw a percussion grenade into the 

home, the device landed in an infant’s crib next to his face, and 

then it detonated. Despite being comatose for a number of days and 

receiving severe lacerations and burns, the baby did survive. Not 

that it should matter, but the family was not involved in drug dealing. 

Some might dismiss these cases as mere anecdotes, but the facts, 

based on extensive national level scientific research, are clear. 

These examples are emblematic of an historic—yet up until recently little publicly noticed—shift in American democratic governance. The clear distinction between our civilian police and our military is blurring in significant and consequential ways. 

The research I have been conducting since 1989 has documented 

quantitatively and qualitatively the steady and certain march of 

U.S. civilian policing down the militarization continuum, culturally, 

materially, operationally, and organizationally—despite massive efforts at democratizing police under the guise of community policing 

reforms. 

The growth in militarized policing has been steep and deep. In 

the mid-1980s, a mere 30 percent of police agencies had a SWAT 

team. Today well over 80 percent of departments, large and small, 

have one. In the early 1980s, these agencies conducted approximately 3,000 deployments a year nationwide. Today I estimate a 

very conservative figure of 60,000 per year. And it is critical to recognize that these 60,000 deployments are mostly for conducting 

drug searches on people’s private residences. 

This is not to imply that all police, nearly 20,000 unique departments across our great land, are heading in this direction. But the 

research evidence along with militarized tragedies in Modesto, 

Georgia, Ferguson, and tens of thousands of other locations demonstrates a troubling and highly consequential overall trend. 

What we saw played out in the Ferguson protests was the application of a very common mind-set: style of uniform and appearance 

and weaponry used every day in the homes of private residences 

during SWAT raids. Some departments conduct as many as 500 

SWAT team raids a year, and just as in the two examples above, 

and in the Ferguson situation, it is the poor and communities of 

color that are most impacted. 

It is hard to imagine that anyone intended for the wars on crime, 

drugs, and terrorism to devolve into widespread police militarization. At the same time, it is also hard not to see that by declaring 

war, we have opened the door for outfitting our police to be soldiers 

with a warrior mind-set. 
37 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax appears in the Appendix on page 107. 

To conclude, I mentioned that police militarization predates 9/11. 

This is not just an interesting historical fact. It is critical because 

it illuminates the most important reason or causal factor in this 

unfortunate term in American policing and American democracy. It 

is the following: Our long-running and intensely punitive self-proclaimed war on crime and drugs. 

It is no coincidence that the skyrocketing number of police paramilitary deployments on American citizens since the early 1980s 

coincides perfectly with the skyrocketing imprisonment numbers. 

We now have 2.4 million people incarcerated in this country, and 

almost 4 percent of the American public is now under direct correctional supervision. These wars have been devastating to minority 

communities and the marginalized and have resulted in a self-perpetuating growth complex. 

Cutting off the supply of military weaponry to our civilian police 

is the least we could do to begin the process of reining in police 

militarization, and attempting to make clear the increasingly 

blurred distinction between the military and police. Please do not 

underestimate the gravity of this development. This is highly disturbing to most Americans, on the left and the right. 

Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Dr. Kraska. Mr. Lomax. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK LOMAX,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TACTICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED 

BY MAJOR ED ALLEN, SEMINOLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 

Mr. LOMAX. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman 

Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, Senator McCaskill, and Members of this Committee to have the opportunity to speak with you 

today. 

Since its inception in 1983, the NTOA has served as a not-forprofit association representing law enforcement professionals in 

special operations assignments in local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. The mission of the NTOA is to enhance the 

performance and professional status of law enforcement personnel 

by providing a credible and proven training resource as well as a 

forum for the development of tactics and information exchange. 

The American law enforcement officer recognizes, probably more 

accurately than most, that they are not in conflict with the citizens 

they serve. To the contrary, the brave men and women of this profession willingly place themselves between danger and the public 

every day at personal sacrifice to themselves and their families. 

This is evident by the Law Enforcement Memorial, walking distance from where we sit today. 

Law enforcement agencies in the United States have taken advantage of the 1033 program from its inception, but certainly at a 

greater frequency after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 

DHS/DOJ grants, and the DOD 1033 program allow agencies to acquire the necessary equipment rapidly and at considerable cost 

savings to the local taxpaying public. The 1033 program has allowed local agencies to acquire heavy-duty high-wheeled vehicles, 
38 

forklifts, generators, and vehicles that improve operational capabilities and responder safety. 

The threat that firearms pose to law enforcement officers and the 

public during violent critical incidents has proven that armored 

rescue vehicles have become as essential as individually worn body 

armor or helmets in saving lives. Moreover, in the DHS, FEMA 

type resource definitions, law enforcement and security resource 

document, it is recommended that SWAT teams have tactical 

equipment, including armored rescue vehicles, in the event of a disaster. Most tactical commanders utilize these resources judiciously 

and are sensitive to both their real and perceived appearance. 

However, it is not uncommon for agencies to take receipt of such 

equipment and receive little or no training on how to utilize it, 

when to deploy it, and equally as important, when not to deploy it. 

Prior to obtaining equipment from the 1033 program or purchasing 

commercially utilizing DHS grant money, agencies are not mandated to demonstrate training levels for the use of that equipment. 

It is incumbent upon that agency to obtain the necessary training 

based upon regulatory or voluntary compliance standards associated with such equipment. Such training could take place at the requesting agency location. 

Another challenge is that there are not enough of the specialized 

law enforcement teams developed, specifically Mobile Field Force 

Teams, in every jurisdiction around the country. Consequently, 

when a law enforcement administrator is faced with a civil disorder 

event, they often deploy the only resource they have immediate access to—the local SWAT team. It is important to note that approximately 87 percent of law enforcement agencies in the United States 

have fewer than 50 officers. With the exception of large metropolitan cities or jurisdictions that have had prior civil disorder events, 

most agencies have not invested in a mobile field force capability. 

There is also a general lack of training, regarding civil disorder 

events, for tactical commanders, planners, public information officers, and first-line supervisors. This must change. 

The NTOA published the NTOA SWAT Standards in 2011, which 

outlines the most basic requirements for tactical teams in terms of 

operational capabilities, training management, policy development, 

operational planning, and multi-jurisdictional response. The standard, however, is a voluntary compliance standard. Subsequently, 

many law enforcement leaders view them as ‘‘unfunded mandates.’’ 

The NTOA’s position, though, is that when an agency makes the 

decision to develop a SWAT capability, it should also make the investment in the training, equipment, and best practices that are required to support such an effort. 

Again, on behalf of the 40,000 law enforcement professionals that 

the NTOA represents, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to 

you today on these current issues and challenges and look forward 

to answering any questions the Committee may have. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. Mr. Price. 
39 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Price appears in the Appendix on page 209. 

TESTIMONY OF WILEY PRICE,1 PHOTOJOURNALIST, THE ST. 

LOUIS AMERICAN NEWSPAPER 

Mr. PRICE. Good afternoon. My name is Wiley Price, I am the 

staff photojournalist at the St. Louis American newspaper in St. 

Louis, Missouri. I would like to first thank Senator McCaskill for 

inviting me here to this hearing today. 

The shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager, by 

a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer on Saturday, August 9, 2014, 

may very well become the turning point in moving forward in 

changing the way policing is conducted in this country, especially 

in neighborhoods of people of color. 

First, mandatory body cameras for officers patrolling our streets 

to ensure accountability for the way citizens are addressed during 

routine stops. This policy would allow us to examine the methods 

police use during these stops. There are special challenges to policing in urban areas where there are strong feelings, often negative, 

about the conduct and role of the police. 

The uprisings in Ferguson are an example of inept and insensitive police behavior at the highest decisionmaking level. It raises 

the question of how much force is appropriate to control a group 

of angry protesters armed initially with rocks, bottles, and, later, 

Molotov cocktails. 

What police used to defend themselves at the early stage of the 

confrontation was a high level of military weaponry not often seen 

on the streets in the United Sates. What we saw were large military-style weapons including armored vehicles normally seen on 

the national news during conflicts concerning the Middle East war 

zones. Most Americans would not be so shocked if this were a response to an overt terrorist attack on an American city, but not 

during a spontaneous protest over the shooting of a young African 

American male by a white police officer while walking in the street 

in the middle of the day. Most believe that if we can spend this 

kind of money on weapons, why not use those same resources to 

better train the police in community policing and train them also 

on the best way to resolve conflict? 

If heavy military weapons are to be deployed, they should be in 

the hands of trained officers subject to competent high-level police 

command. This show of military might in Ferguson by the police 

only escalated the understandably strong feelings felt by the very 

people that the police are sworn to serve and protect. The days of 

unrest were followed by growing protest from people who already 

felt disrespected and frustrated by the local law enforcement on a 

daily basis. 

That concludes my statement. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Shelton. 
40 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Shelton appears in the Appendix on page 210. 

TESTIMONY OF HILARY O. SHELTON,1 WASHINGTON BUREAU 

DIRECTOR AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY AND 

ADVOCACY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 

Mr. SHELTON. Thank you very much, Senator McCaskill. I want 

to thank Senator Carper and Senator Coburn and all the others 

that are gathered here today. I want to thank you so much for inviting me here to testify and for soliciting the input of the NAACP 

on this very important topic. 

As you mentioned, my name is Hilary Shelton, and I am the Director of the NAACP’s Washington Bureau and serve as Senior 

Vice President for policy and advocacy. 

The NAACP deeply appreciates the needs of local governments, 

including law enforcement agencies, to secure equipment as cost-effectively as possible. We have supported increased resources and 

personnel for local police departments since the founding of the association 105 years ago. Over the last couple of decades, given the 

shrinking State and Federal budgets and the oftentimes increasing 

demands, the communities represented and served by the NAACP 

seem to have suffered disproportionately from reduced State and 

local funding. 

Our concerns are when military equipment, weapons of war 

which are commonly used to fight an avowed enemy of our country, 

are transferred to local domestic law enforcement agencies with little or no oversight, training, or specific and clear integration when 

and how they are used in civilian circumstances. 

The tragic killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the 

ensuing protests, and the resulting demonstrations of force by local 

law enforcement attracted the attention of many to a heretofore little known program, the Defense Department’s 1033 program, by 

which the Federal Government transfers excess military equipment 

to State and local law enforcement agencies. While many Americans were rightfully upset by the apparent militarization of community-based law enforcement agencies, it is a sad commentary on 

race in America that this is not a new phenomenon to most Americans of color. 

The war on drugs and the war on crime have been predominantly waged in racial and ethnic minority communities, and too 

often against African Americans. Since 1989, military equipment 

has been used by law enforcement agencies to fight the war on 

drugs. Thus, it should be no surprise that racial and ethnic minorities have grown accustomed to seeing weapons of war in our communities, on our streets, and even entering our homes. 

On Saturday, August 9, 2014, an unarmed, 18-year-old, collegebound African American teenager named Michael Brown was shot 

to death by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. According to 

nearly every report, the ensuing protests began peacefully. The 

people were angry, admittedly and understandably outraged, but 

initially peaceful. Their protests were met by local law enforcement 

agents in warfare type mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, 

or with military-style assault weapons aimed at them. 
41 

The resulting impression on the people of Ferguson and on people throughout our country and the world who were watching these 

events is that these Americans were being marginalized, that their 

concerns, their anger, and their protests were not being valued or 

respected by local law enforcement. 

One CNN reporter, as a matter of fact, even said it looked more 

like Belfast or the Middle East than the heartland of America. 

Thus, the fact that the population of Ferguson is over 67 percent 

African American has not been lost on many of the protesters, nor 

on the United States or international observers. As a matter of 

fact, I was at the United Nations when all this broke loose, and 

they were asking me questions about Ferguson. Even people who 

could not speak English knew the word ‘‘Ferguson.’’ 

So what steps does the NAACP recommend to solve the problems 

associated with the overmilitarization of law enforcement agencies 

and to build trust and security within these communities? 

First, we must change the paradigm which drives our criminal 

justice system. We need to move away from the failed war on drugs 

and war on crime scenarios, and law enforcement needs to be 

trained to stop stereotyping people based on what they look like, 

the clothes they wear, and the neighborhoods in which they live. 

If the Department of Defense’s 1033 program is allowed to continue, it should be restructured to emphasize non-lethal equipment 

and that the equipment be used not to pursue the flawed war on 

drugs or civilian protests and demonstrations, but rather that it be 

used to promote the idea that law enforcement is designed to protect and serve the citizens who are within their jurisdiction. 

Included in the requirements necessary to receive such equipment must also be policies, training, and oversight which includes 

the End Racial Profiling Act, which is pending in the House and 

the Senate, and the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, 

which is being prepared for reintroduction by Congressman John 

Conyers. 

Second, all domestic law enforcement agencies should also develop their own internal policies calling for thoughtful restraint, 

and proof of these policies should be a requirement before any 

equipment transfer or funding occurs. 

And, third, we need full transparency and disclosure. Not only 

should the Department of Defense be required to disclose what 

equipment they have distributed and to whom, but State and local 

law enforcement agencies must also be required to publicly report 

on the equipment they have requested and received and the intended purpose. 

And, finally, the NAACP would like to strongly advocate for more 

programs such as the Department of Justice Community Oriented 

Policing (COPS), program and for an increase in the funding of 

COPS programs. The COPS program is intended to incentivize better law enforcement practices through community engagement. It 

remains the primary vehicle by which the Federal Government rewards innovation and research on police transparency and accountability. 

In summation, American policing has become increasingly militarized through the acquisition and use of weapons and tactics designed for war. The lines between Federal military force and civil 
42 

law enforcement are becoming increasingly blurred. Sadly, communities of color have historically borne the brunt of this obfuscation. 

We need to correct this problem, not just check it. We need to continue to strive for a democracy under which all Americans can live. 

And we should not allow any American community or government 

entity to be considered at war with any other. 

I thank you again, Chairman Carper, Senators Coburn and 

McCaskill, and all the others that are here today, and I certainly 

look forward to your questions. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you so much. 

I am going to go ahead and defer my questions and allow the 

other Senators who are here to go first. Senator Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Yes, thank you, and thanks for your testimony. 

Mr. Bueermann, at what point do you think the Federal Government’s obligation to local law enforcement begins? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Well, that is a great question. I think that one 

of the benefits of the Federal Government is trying to create a national coherence around what policing should look like all across 

the United States, and that is a difficult place for the Federal Government to be. There are leadership training programs like the National Academy that the FBI puts on at the FBI Academy that 

helps police leaders across the United States better understand 

these kinds of issues that we are talking about today. So certainly 

that would be an appropriate role for the Federal Government. 

As somebody who used to be a police chief, I really appreciated 

the ability to acquire equipment. In my department we used it primarily for vehicles and office equipment for our community policing 

stations and our recreation programs that we could not have afforded if the 1033 program had not existed. 

So from a local perspective, I thought that was a wonderful way 

for us to get a return on our Federal tax investment. But I certainly understand the issues that are at play in this discussion. 

Senator COBURN. Dr. Kraska, I appreciate you coming, and I appreciate you working with us. 

Tell me what the difference is between a militarized and increasingly Federalized police force and a standing army. 

Mr. KRASKA. It is actually a bit of a complicated history that I 

will not get into too much, but we have to remember that the Posse 

Comitatus Act of 1878 had been in place untouched for quite a long 

time until the 1980s drug war. And it was not until the 1980s drug 

war—it was actually the Reagan Administration that wanted to 

completely repeal Posse Comitatus, but what instead happened is 

they just amended it significantly to allow for cross-training and 

weapons transference. 

Just as an aside—I do not want to make too much of an aside, 

but we also have to remember that the Department of Defense has 

been very actively involved in training local police departments as 

well, not just providing them equipment but providing them training. I have a great quote—I am not going to read it now, but if you 

ask me to read it, I will—that talks about even having Navy 

SEALs and Army Rangers come to a local police department and 

teach them things. So it is not just weapons transference. 

The Federal Government has increasingly since 9/11 played a 

significant role in accelerating these trends toward militarization, 
43 

and, the extent to which the 1033 program, the Department of 

Homeland Security funds, et cetera, have contributed to it, I would 

certainly call it significant. But I think we have to remember that 

the militarized culture of a component of policing—and it is just a 

component of policing. This is not a unified phenomenon in all the 

police of the United States of America. We have a police department right next to us, the Lexington P.D., very smart, very wise. 

They do not do this kind of thing at all, and they would never do 

it. 

So the policing community is a bit split over this, and I do not 

want anybody to get the impression because of the experts we have 

heard that policing is all for this stuff, because it is just not true. 

There are lots of folks that are not. 

Anyway, back to Federalization. So I think the Federal Government has played a significant role in probably the last 10 to 14 

years. 

Senator COBURN. All right. The rest of my questions I will submit for the record so we can move on in our time. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Kraska, in 

your testimony, what I have written down in my notes is equipment versus procedures versus operations. How much of it is really 

about procedures, responding to just events in society versus the 

actual equipment? I mean, what is causing what? 

Mr. KRASKA. Great question and, of course, difficult to answer. 

I do know that the militarization trend began as part of the drug 

war. It has not had anything to do with terrorism. It has not had 

anything to do with threats to national security. It has had everything to do with prosecuting the drug war. 

That is when we saw the precipitous rise in not only the number 

of SWAT units, but their amount of activity. That is when we saw 

departments doing 750 to 1,000 drug raids per year on people’s private residences. That is when we saw police departments all over 

the country in small little localities sending off two or three officers 

to a for-profit training camp, like Smith & Wesson or Heckler & 

Koch, getting training and coming back to the department and 

starting a 15-officer police paramilitary unit with no clue what they 

were doing whatsoever. 

That all happened as a part of the drug war. So I have a hard 

time making any sort of credible analysis that what we are seeing 

is just a reaction to an increasing insecure homeland situation. 

This stuff has been well in place and it is still absolutely happening today in the same way it was in the 1990s and the 2000s. 

Senator JOHNSON. So again, I am coming from a manufacturing 

background trying to solve problems going to the root cause. What 

I am hearing, because again, in my briefing, this equipment for 

transfer really first started from a Defense authorization bill targeted at the drug war. 

Mr. KRASKA. Absolutely. 

Senator JOHNSON. So I know in these last 3 years because of an- other hearing, we spent $75 billion fighting the war on drugs. We 

are not conquering it, are we? So what do we need to do? And I 

will ask Mr. Lomax. What do we need to do procedurally? What is 

the solution here? 
44 

Mr. LOMAX. Thank you, Senator. The solution relative to equipment and procedures—— 

Senator JOHNSON. If this was all really caused initially by the 

drug war, the militarization buildup of this, is in reaction to the 

drug war, these no-knock raids are about drugs, what is the solution? 

Mr. LOMAX. I think the solution starts at the top, leadership. The 

solution comes from decisionmaking, policy, procedures. Getting 

back to what your initial question was to Dr. Kraska, the nexus between equipment and procedures, I think procedures come first, 

policy, documentation, transparency, decisionmaking. 

So again, it is not the equipment per se. It is who is making 

those decisions on how to use it, how to deploy, or when not to deploy it. 

Senator JOHNSON. I mean, are we making any progress on the 

war on drugs at all? We have been engaged in this for decades now. 

Mr. LOMAX. Again, that is a question that needs to be taken up 

by the legislators and Congress and the policymakers as far as how 

we are doing on the war on drugs. 

Senator JOHNSON. And I realize these questions are somewhat 

removed from militarization of the police force, but again, I am 

looking, based on the testimony, this is the reason this militarization began. Mr. Shelton, what is your solution? I mean, obviously, 

drugs have devastated communities. Crime has devastated communities. 

Mr. SHELTON. It has to change. The paradigm that we are utilizing now, criminalizing in the way that we are and actually putting people in prison along these lines is outrageous. Quite frankly, 

as mentioned by Dr. Kraska, we have 2.4 million Americans in jail, 

about 50 percent of those for drug-related offenses. They are nonviolent offenses. 

You talk about a health care approach to problems of the drug 

problem in the United States and get away from much of the criminal, now military, approach to our drug problem in this country. I 

should talk about problems with the police officers and the overaggression and even practices of racial profiling. We have some 

strategies for that as well. 

Senator Cardin here, one of your colleagues, has a bill that is 

now pending before the U.S. Senate called the End Racial Profiling 

Act that goes a long way to help restore the trust and integrity necessary for law enforcement to be effective. We know that will go 

many miles toward the direction of fixing the crime problem in our 

society. 

As we talk about these issues, it makes no sense to me that we 

have 79,288 assault rifles that were actually given by the Department of Defense to local police departments, 205 grenade launchers, 11,959 bayonets. And I am trying to figure out what they are 

going to do with 3,972 combat knives. But indeed, that is what 

with local policy departments now. It makes no sense. 

Senator JOHNSON. So again, war on drugs, but also war on crime. 

Mr. Shelton, a recent article written by Walter Williams, he lists 

the statistic from 1976 to 2011, there has been 279,389 AfricanAmericans murdered. It is a rate of about 7,000 per year. Ninety- 
45 

four percent of those murders are black on black. I mean, that is 

a real crime problem that you have to be concerned about. 

And by the way, I would think local police departments are also 

concerned about it. 

Mr. SHELTON. Well, absolutely. As a matter of fact, the issue 

dealing with crime in the African-American community goes back 

to our founder 105 years ago, or one of our founders, W.E.B. Du 

Bois. Clearly, the crime problem in the African-American community has to be addressed, but it cannot be addressed successfully 

if we have the distrust in police officers that we are seeing because 

of programs like this one. 

We are going to have to establish a new trust pattern in our 

country. Also, I was very happy to hear Dr. Kraska mention the 

issue of those who are most affected in addressing the issues of 

crime in any community throughout this country are those that are 

reflective of those communities in which they are there to serve. All 

that has to be part of the paradigm. 

The only time things begin to cool off, in Ferguson, Missouri, 

quite frankly, is when the first African-American Attorney General 

of the United States went to Ferguson to show that the top law enforcement officer in our country was there and that their concerns 

be taken very seriously. That works across the board. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. My time is running out. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. One of the things that I am trying 

to understand is everything depends on the situation—would you 

agree with that—in terms of what is appropriate to deploy, what 

is appropriate in terms of a response, and also I think it all comes 

down to appropriate training as to how to respond to a situation. 

Because would you all agree with me that we are going to respond 

differently to a situation like the Marathon bombing versus a situation like Ferguson and part of that is training and what we need 

to respond to those situations may be different. 

Mr. SHELTON. If I might begin? Just before training comes policy. 

What we need is a clear policy on how to respond to circumstances 

like that we experienced in Ferguson and other places. Policy, then 

training, and then accountability. Those are the triumvirate, I believe, that moves this issue along. 

Senator AYOTTE. So one of the things I wanted to followup on 

this idea of, for example, SWAT teams, because having worked 

with the police in my State in a number of settings, they have had 

to respond to some pretty dangerous situations that did involve, for 

example, a drug crime where you had, you know, high level individuals who were quite dangerous, quite armed, and that it was 

the most appropriate that a SWAT team respond because they had 

the most training of how to deal with a situation like that versus 

sending, you know, one patrol officer or a handful of patrol officers 

that are not oriented toward dealing with a situation where you 

have, for example, an armed drug dealer, not necessarily a user, 

but someone who is profiting off the situation. 

Then I have been to situations where we had a hostage situation 

and we had a SWAT team situation there where, truthfully, I was 

glad that the SWAT team was there because they had the training 
46 

and they trained particularly for hostage situations that would 

allow the police to have the right training and to know how to negotiate, No. 1, to know how to handle a situation, not to have bystanders harmed. 

So what I am trying to understand is to make a broad brush of 

saying, 60,000 SWAT operations. I think that is a pretty broad 

brush. So I am trying to get at from maybe all three of you and 

the first who have commented on this, it seems like it is appropriate for us to have some individuals who have this type of training because I have been there at these scenes with them where I 

would have wanted the right SWAT team trained to deal with the 

situation, and we successfully ended situations because the people 

there had the right training and trained for this specifically, were 

not just taking the patrol officer off the street to address it. 

So how do we distinguish from that and this situation where, the 

public is—it is a protest situation where it is people exercising 

their First Amendment rights? This is not an easy question to answer, but I think this is what we are grappling with here, particularly, particularly I think we have asked a lot more of the police 

post-9/11 in terms of what response we have asked of them as first 

responders, and maybe we have sent mixed messages. 

So I would like to get your comment. I know that is more of a 

statement, but I would like to hear your comment on some of those 

thoughts. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. So, Senator, if I can start this off? What you 

have just articulated, it is a great question that, ultimately, I think 

is the crux of this discussion because anybody who thinks that we 

are not going to have tactical teams or high-powered weaponry in 

policing in the United States just has not been paying attention to 

the realities of police officers. 

As Mr. Lomax said, the memorial not far from here has 20,000 

names on it of heroic Americans who gave their life trying to protect their own communities. So there is a time and a place for any 

one of these particular tools. I made reference to the FBI’s national 

academy. One of the problems we have in this country is there is 

not a national coherent about when we should use these particular 

tools. 

You can find out the hard way. This is the rationale for doing 

critical incident reviews, to understand those learning opportunities. But at the end of the day, it comes down to leadership, whether that leadership is expressed by the local city council that selects 

the police chief, by the police chief himself or herself, that decides 

whether they should or should not have a tactical team and under 

what circumstances they should use that. 

If you leave it to the police officers, like any of us, they have a 

burning desire every day to go home to their families. And so, 

much of their world is framed around the perception that what I 

am about to do, the service of a search warrant, could be dangerous. I have personally served lots of search warrants and I understand—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, not to interrupt you, but my own State in 

the last few years, we lost one officer exercising a search warrant 

in a drug situation and we lost another one in a domestic violence, 

executing an arrest warrant. 
47 

Mr. BUEERMANN. And I do not know any police officer that does 

not recognize that nobody made them become a cop, that that is 

a voluntary occupation and they know the inherent risk in that. 

The question comes in the balancing of this, and I think many of 

the members of the panel have touched on this, that ultimately, 

this leadership issue is a function of the relationship that the police 

department has with the community. 

Professor Kraska talked about the police department next door 

to him that has a great relationship and they would not do certain 

things. At the same time, if they needed a tactical team, I have no 

doubt, to protect their citizens or their officers they would employ 

that. It is when you use it and that common sense and that wisdom 

that comes from leadership and the proper training. That is where, 

I think, the Federal Government should spend a lot of its attention 

on, how do you stimulate that ability to do the right thing. 

Mr. KRASKA. Oftentimes these kind of conversations devolve into 

an either/or type of argument and it is really critical to recognize 

that there are absolutely lots of situations, Columbine, for example, 

where you have to have a competent, professional response. A use 

of force specialist, military special operations folks, police specialists, whatever you want to call them, you have to have that, no 

doubt. 

What I was talking about was 60,000 deployments. I was not 

talking about 60,000 deployments for those situations. Those situations are incredibly rare. Thank goodness they are incredibly rare. 

Those situations absolutely require a competent response, active 

shooter, terrorist, whatever kind of situation. 

Our research demonstrated conclusively that 85 percent of SWAT 

team operations today are proactive, choice-driven raids on people’s 

private residences, 85 percent. What that means is that the original function of SWAT in the 1970s—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Mr. KRASKA [continuing]. Was the idea that SWAT teams were 

to save lives. They were to respond in a laudable way to very dangerous circumstances, to handle those circumstances well. What 

happened during the 1980s and early 1990s drug war is that function flipped on its head. We went from these teams predominantly 

doing reactive deployments, maybe one to two of these in an entire 

municipality, one to two a year. Smaller jurisdictions, probably 

something like that would not happen in a hundred years, but they 

were there to handle it. 

This has devolved now into what I am talking about, widespread 

misapplication of the paramilitary model, misapplication. Unjustified growth, having many smaller police departments. Most of 

these departments are small. Our research showed that 50 percent 

of these small police departments, 50 percent of them, are receiving 

less than 50 hours of training per year for their SWAT team. The 

recommended amount from the NTOA used to be 250. I think they 

have reduced it to 200, 250 hours versus 50 hours. 

These are not well-trained teams. These are a localized, 18,000 

police departments all doing their own thing with no oversight and 

no accountability. And that is why we are seeing and we have seen 

hundreds of these kinds of tragedies that I have mentioned, but 
48 

also lots of terrorized families that have been caught up in these 

drug operations and drug raids. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. Anybody else? 

Mr. LOMAX. Senator, just a couple of comments relative to the 

SWAT that you saw. There is a need, like the panelists have discussed in the last couple of minutes. The No. 1 priority of SWAT 

is to preserve life, No. 1, and we think of a SWAT team—most people just think of a tactical entry team. That is part of a SWAT 

team. You have intelligence, you have negotiators, you have security and so forth. 

So again, the No. 1 goal of a SWAT team is to preserve life, 

whether it is the hostages, civilians, even the suspect. So again, 

like what Dr. Kraska said, over the many years, the use of SWAT 

has been—outreached its main purpose. But going back to the reason for a SWAT is those small particular situations that you have 

personally observed where the training, the equipment, the expertise saved lives. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. For Mr. 

Bueermann and Mr. Lomax, I am very sensitive to the cry that 

goes up about unfunded Federal mandates, but this is a little bit 

of a different situation. We are pushing, in wholesale fashion, military equipment to local police departments. Do you sense that the 

police community would be offended if we put a few more rules of 

the road on their ability to receive these resources from the Federal 

Government? 

Why would we not require that if you are going to get Federal 

funding in this space, that you would have to have 200 hours worth 

of training and that the size of your police department would be 

relevant to the decisions as to what you would receive, and that a 

SWAT team on a very small community, particularly one that is a 

suburb where there could be regional access to specialists in the 

rare but very, very important situation where that kind of training 

is absolutely essential to protect lives of innocent people, and most 

importantly, the lives of the police officers. 

Why can we not begin to do more with—if we are going to give 

you money, we are going to make you jump through a few hoops. 

Is that something that you think the police community would not 

accept and understand, that this has gone too far? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I have had this conversation with several police 

chiefs since Ferguson erupted and I do not think that they would 

be alarmed by this. I think there is an expectation that there is 

going to be an adjustment in the program, and the thoughtful police chiefs and sheriffs that I have spoken to about this would agree 

with what you just said, that there needs to be some governing effect on the transfer of some of this equipment. 

I do not think you have an objection, other than the one you had 

earlier about if you are giving away equipment, you are buying— 

how does that make sense about office equipment, but certainly 

tactical equipment, whether that be armored vehicles or guns, 

should be connected. I have made some suggestions. 

With a local public input capacity, a public hearing about this, 

and some guidance from the government relative to accountability 

measures like that body-worn cameras or training issues, because 

many of those arguments local police chiefs would be making to 
49 

their local city councils, and some of those arguments fall on deaf 

ears. They cannot get the councils to pay attention to it because 

there is a price tag attached to that. I think you actually might be 

helping many police chiefs in this country elevate the level of training that they would like to see their people receive. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Lomax, and then I will ask Dr. Kraska. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, I agree with my colleague here that, No. 1, for 

the vast majority of chiefs and sheriffs out there adding extra steps 

as far as documentation, policy, and accountability would not be a 

problem. I think in light of the fact that this program has done tremendous contribution to police departments in the last 20-plus 

years, that right now there definitely needs to be a paradigm shift, 

a way of thinking differently, because perception is reality. 

Right now the perception is there is a militarization of policing, 

which becomes reality to a lot of people. The added steps, whatever 

they may be, for this 1033 program, I think, would be a welcome 

sign, because also it would kind of ensure training. And again, as 

Jim mentioned, it will give them more power to say, we need more 

training in order to procure this equipment. 

And also, there needs to be local input. I believe Senator Johnson 

mentioned it earlier, that this should be a local issue, too. From the 

State to the locals, they should have input into their police departments and how they are properly equipped. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Dr. Kraska. 

Mr. KRASKA. Excuse me for being a professor and talking on and 

on, so I will actually read a thing that I had written before, hopefully pretty quickly. If it were possible to provide funds and programs that allowed a small, tightly regulated component of U.S. 

police to obtain military grade equipment for the extremely rare 

terrorist or active shooter situation, perhaps these programs might 

be of some benefit. 

However, the myriad and unavoidable unintended consequences 

of such programs render them not just dubious, but dangerous. 

Military gear and garb changes and reinforces a war fighting mentality among civilian police where marginalized populations become 

the enemy and the police perceive of themselves as a thin blue line 

between order and chaos that can only be controlled through military model power. 

The ethic, the massive community policing reform programs intended to instill in American policing, that is an ethic of community empowerment, developing authentic trust between the community and police, democratic accountability, all those types of things, 

have been smoothly displaced by a military paradigm. 

A recent edition in COPS Magazine by the Director of COPS, 

said very clearly. He said, We are seeing the growing militarization 

of American policing lead to the destruction of community policing. 

So it is a cultural problem. It is not just a regulation, let us put 

a few tweaks and bumps here. 

When you hand these departments this level of weaponry and 

these goods, it changes their mindset. Remember, most of these departments have 25, 30, 50 officers. Fifteen of them serve on a 

SWAT team. Now they have an MRAP, an armored personnel carrier, a $325,000 armored personnel carrier paid for by Homeland 

Security. What do they say to themselves? Here is an example. 
50 

1The pictures submitted by Senator McCaskill appear in the Appendix on page 233. 

2The picture submitted by Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 258. 

‘‘We have racial tensions at the basketball game. We are going 

to bring the MRAP to the basketball game on Friday night.’’ That 

is a quote. Changes their mindset. So I cannot see a way that the 

transference of military goods from wartime to our civilian police 

agencies is ever a good idea. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is interesting you say that because in preparing for this hearing, we took a look at a search on Amazon for 

‘‘police officer toys.’’ And what came up, and it is in the packet of 

pictures,1 the next picture,2 the one with the—yes. This is the first 

thing that came up. And this is a military helmet. It is a hand grenade. Obviously, the kind of weaponry that we have not traditionally thought of police officers. 

Now, these are what parents are buying for their children who 

say they want to grow up and be police officers. So this is something that has gotten, I think, into our culture that is very damaging. Speaking of community policing, I have watched as community policing has gone down and down and down—and by the way, 

the Homeland Security grants have not gone down—in fact, the 

Homeland Security grants are bigger now than community policing. 

So why is it that I do not hear as much from my police communities and the lobbying organizations about the cuts to community 

policing like I do when there is any talk about UASI or the Homeland Security grants. Why is it that there does not appear to be 

the hue and cry? We need the voices of the police community lobbying for community policing money. 

I watched community policing work as a prosecutor. I watched it 

work with the drug problem, a serious drug problem. That and 

drug court were two things that really were working in Kansas 

City. So what do you attribute the fact that the policing community 

does not seem to be as worried about the funding for community 

policing as they are for some of these streams of funding that are 

buying all of this weaponry? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. This is a cultural aspect of policing. But it also 

is the responsibility of every American, quite frankly, to say to 

their locally elected people that this is what we expect from our police department. We expect our police department to be one that is 

fair and equitable, that treats everybody with dignity and respect. 

At the same time, they grapple with very difficult and challenging 

situations. 

The best counter terrorism strategy in the United States that the 

local police can do is community policing. There is an absolute 

need, and you have heard it from everybody that is up here today 

in front of you, to co-produce public safety between the police and 

the community, and that will never happen if there is distress, if 

the police departments do not reflect the community they serve, if 

we do not have a constant discussion. 

If there is any silver lining that comes out of the events in Ferguson, it is that we will begin this discussion that should have happened probably in 1997, not in 2014, about how we use this equipment, whether it comes from a Federal program or out of a city’s 
51 

general fund, in an appropriate way that does not damage the relationship the police have with the community. 

If we do not do that, then we should not be surprised when that 

becomes the norm sometime in the future. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What about the idea that if this were an active shooter situation or hostage situation or terrorism situation, 

that some of this equipment be housed on a regional basis under 

the control of the State National Guards to then act as an access 

point that would provide more accountability as to when it is utilized and would require that it would not utilized by anyone who 

had not had appropriate training and it would only be utilized in 

those circumstances where it really would save lives and protect 

police officers, as opposed to the incredible change we have seen 

that these are now, OK, we have this thing in the shed, let us figure out some way to get out and use it. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I think you have just articulated the reason we 

should study this particular phenomenon more at the same time 

we are trying to work on solutions, because we do not know enough 

about how this equipment is used. We heard that from the earlier 

panel. 

Senator MCCASKILL. They have no idea. And by the way, Justice 

Department said they do. They just know what they are buying 

with it. They do not know how it is being utilized. None of them 

know how it is being utilized. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. We should spend more time and money researching this. I think you make a great point about regionalizing 

certain kinds of assets and there are lessons that we could learn 

from other fields that do this. This could easily be one of the guidelines that is attached to this kind of program, that you have to 

demonstrate what the regional approach is to using these kinds of 

equipment. And we see that already in some other Federal programs. But this should be a regional asset and not necessarily a 

localized asset. 

The problem is there are 17,000 police departments in this 

United States. Each one has a slightly different challenge in front 

of them, and so there needs to be a thoughtful approach to this 

that ties this stuff together. I think that ensuring that the locally 

elected body weighs in on this, that local communities have an opportunity to voice their opinion, whether this makes sense or it 

does not make sense for us to have this particular piece of equipment, means that there is a much greater likelihood that you are 

going to see a regional approach to these things and not necessarily 

an individual department where a one-officer department has an 

MRAP. I mean, there is a story there that we should know more 

about. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Or 13 assault grade rifles—— 

Mr. BUEERMANN. We should know more about that. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. For one sworn officer. I mean, 

that, obviously, is almost comical it is so out of bounds. One of the 

things that I witnessed in Ferguson, and I would like you to weigh 

in on this, Mr. Price, was the chicken and egg situation that really 

occurred, where you had a spontaneous demonstration, you had— 

the vast majority of which was very peaceful beginning on Saturday. 
52 

We did have some looting on Sunday night. But aside from the 

looting on Sunday night, the vast majority of it was peaceful up 

until the following weekend when you began to see a whole lot of 

people, embedded among the peaceful protesters, that were there 

for a confrontation. There is no question in my mind that the idea 

that all of this equipment was brought out early in the week contributed to a mentality among the peaceful protesters that they 

were being treated as the enemy. 

Mr. PRICE. That is correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That they were the enemy. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That this was a military force and they 

were facing down an enemy. These were peaceful protesters that, 

in America, we are supposed to be celebrating as part of our constitutional heritage. Talk about, Mr. Price, how the freedom of the 

press worked in here. What were the challenges you faced as you 

were there with your camera, day in and day out, from being able 

to cover what was going on because of that mentality that was almost a siege mentality that began really on Monday following the 

shooting on Saturday. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, Senator, one of the big problems I had with the 

police was that sometimes they lumped the media in with the protesters, particularly during the daylight hours when they took on 

a policy of no standing protester or media could be found stationary. And the problem I had with that was, you already have 

us locked into a 2-point mile radius so we are right here in front 

of you. But yet, they wanted us to keep in motion. And I was thinking to myself, would it not be easier if once they do slow down, you 

have them corralled in one location, here we are, and there is 80 

to 100 people standing here. Why should we continue to move? 

And particularly when you are also asking the photographers to 

move with them. There was some tussle from time to time. I even 

saw a couple of the CNN correspondents while they were live on 

the air being forced, 20 or 30 feet down a certain area. I felt like 

they were aggravating a peaceful stance. Well, now they are tired 

of walking up and down the street. Now they are going to stand 

and chant. But no, you want to keep them in motion and you want 

the media to go with them. 

I felt like they were aggravating the situation as opposed to 

keeping it peaceful. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I am assuming tactical officers receive 

training about when putting in this kind of military presence during daylight hours when you have lots of children and elderly? I 

mean, this crowd. Yes, there were some young people in the crowd, 

but it was the middle of the afternoon and you had a mounted 

sniper weapon pointing at people that never ever envisioned having 

someone point a sniper weapon. 

This happened on Wednesday afternoon. It was about three 

o’clock in the afternoon that that occurred. So is there somewhere 

in the training that that would be appropriate under those circumstances? 

Mr. LOMAX. Senator, I am not sure of the particulars of what was 

going on at that time. Hopefully, the DOJ investigation and other 

investigations will determine what was going on, because a lot of 
53 

times there may be intelligence out there that something is going 

on that maybe we do not know what is happening. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, believe it or not, I was told that the 

reason that happened is that he was using his scope in order to observe the crowd. Well, have they heard of binoculars? It seems to 

me there is a better way to monitor a crowd that is peacefully protesting than pointing mounted sniper weapons at them under those 

circumstances. 

I mean, it seems common sense would tell you that is going to 

make the situation much worse, not make it better. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, you are right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I was told that he was up there in order to 

observe the crowd. 

Mr. LOMAX. Correct. 

Mr. KRASKA. Most police departments that handle civil protests 

correctly know that the last thing you want to do is instigate. 

There was just a wonderful article written in the Washington Post 

that interviewed a whole bunch of chiefs of police that understand 

this and how you sit back and you do not antagonize and you certainly do not display this level of weaponry. 

If I might, I will just throw out a one quick speculation, and I 

am willing to speculate before the DOJ report comes out. I think 

what you saw was a high level of fear of victimization among the 

police, and it is a huge cultural issue right now in policing where 

so many for-profit training groups and training academies are 

teaching this survivalist warrior mentality. 

You never know whether the next person is going to kill you and 

you have to go home at night, so you take every possible precaution 

you can. Well, all of that sounds wonderful, but it does lead to an 

intense fear of the other, of those people, of the community you are 

serving, and I think—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. And there had been looting on Sunday night 

and they burned down a store. I mean, let us be fair here. It was 

not like that this activity was completely lawful. There was a lot 

of unlawful activity that I think really—it shook the bones of the 

law enforcement community in this area, that they would have that 

kind of lawlessness. So that is something that we have—to be very 

fair, we have to factor that into their response. 

Mr. KRASKA. Absolutely, but I would have to say you have to look 

at the situation. Look at Hurricane Katrina where the initial response from FEMA was not what has been traditionally done in 

this great country, which is humanitarian aid. The initial response 

from FEMA, under the Department of Homeland Security, was, 

this is a security threat, and they spent three, almost four full days 

supposedly securing the area, later of which we found out was 

false, that there was not an area to secure. 

People were in dire need of help. Securing the area before they 

gave humanitarian aid. That is the kind of mentality I am talking 

about. It is a security first, aid second mindset, which is also what 

our good friend said down the table. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right Did you have something you wanted 

to add, Mr. Price? 
54 

1The pictures submitted by Senator McCaskill appear in the Appendix on page 233. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. In the picture that you just showed, the distance 

between the police and the protesters was probably a hundred 

feet.1

Senator MCCASKILL. Very small. 

Mr. PRICE. Very small. So, I mean, when they were standing 

there, even when the police were shouting, it was like in that 

photo, you could clearly hear what everyone was saying from the 

police department as far as moving back, dispersing. So the use of 

a scope, even when that truck rolled up, all the photographers were 

looking around like, OK, what is this for? We began to think that 

there was something else going on behind the scenes that we did 

not know about. None of that took place. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You just assumed it was not for you? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, exactly. And we were wondering, why the truck 

was there because, again, it brought up suspect that there was 

something going on that we did not know. Other photographers 

were questioning each other about what was going on. And this 

went on for 3 or 4 days. 

And again, the police aggravated peaceful marchers when they 

were just standing there chanting. Instead of just letting them 

chant, and you have them in a stationary environment, they moved 

them around, which irritated them. That is all they did. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. Well, I want to thank all of you for 

being here. We will follow up with another Subcommittee hearing, 

I am sure, on this subject as we—and I would certainly ask Mr. 

Bueermann and Mr. Lomax for you to begin working on what you 

think, based on your knowledge of the police community in this 

country, what would be reasonable changes in policy that would 

begin to get us back to a place where we have not done—where 

somebody, a young man who wants to grow up to be a police officer, thinks what he needs to get as part of his uniform is a hand 

grenade. 

Obviously, that is a problem. And I would like us to work on that 

together. We will continue to work with all of you who have come 

today. Certainly, the NAACP is part of this national discussion and 

obviously I am on the ground in Ferguson a lot trying to figure out 

how we navigate through a still very difficult road ahead as we figure out how to regain trust in that community with that police department. 

The great people of Ferguson deserve to have a police department that they feel comfortable with, and so, there is a lot of work 

yet to do. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until September 

24 at 5 p.m. for the submission of any other statements and any 

other questions for the record. If there is any information that you 

all would like to provide to the record, be sure and get it to us before then. We will remain in contact with you as we work on this 

problem. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(55) 

A P P E N D I X 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 

Æ