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

i 

91–813 2015

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–128] 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXCESS 

PROPERTY PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF 

U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: 

AN OVERVIEW OF DOD AUTHORITIES, 

ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND 

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 1033 

OF THE 1997 NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada, Chairman 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

CHRISTOPHER BRIGHT, Professional Staff Member 

HEATH BOPE, Professional Staff Member 

MICHAEL AMATO, Professional Staff Member 

ABIGAIL P. GAGE, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2014 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, November 13, 2014, The Department of Defense Excess Property 

Program in Support of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies: An Overview of 

DOD Authorities, Roles, Responsibilities, and Implementation of Section 

1033 of the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act ...................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, November 13, 2014 ................................................................................ 29 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXCESS PROPERTY PROGRAM IN 

SUPPORT OF U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: AN OVERVIEW 

OF DOD AUTHORITIES, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 1033 OF THE 1997 NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Heck, Hon. Joseph J., a Representative from Nevada, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ...................................................... 1 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Bueermann, Jim, President, Police Foundation .................................................... 16 

Estevez, Alan, Principal Deputy Under Secretary, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, U.S. Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 3 

Harnitchek, VADM Mark D., USN, Director, Defense Logistics Agency ............ 5 

Lomax, Mark E., Executive Director, National Tactical Officers Association .... 18 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bueermann, Jim ............................................................................................... 41 

Estevez, Alan, joint with VADM Mark D. Harnitchek .................................. 33 

Lomax, Mark E. ................................................................................................ 54 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

ACLU Written Statement on the 1033 program ............................................ 73 

Defense Logistics Agency Memorandum of Agreement with States ............ 83 

Major County Sheriffs’ Association letter on the 1033 program .................. 71 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Duckworth .................................................................................................. 101 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 101 

(1) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXCESS PROPERTY 

PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT 

AGENCIES: AN OVERVIEW OF DOD AUTHORITIES, 

ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION 

OF SECTION 1033 OF THE 1997 NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

Washington, DC, Thursday, November 13, 2014. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:59 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph J. Heck (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH J. HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Dr. HECK. Subcommittee will come to order. 

Before we begin, I would like to state upfront that I will not tolerate disturbances of these proceedings, including verbal disruptions, photography, standing, or holding of signs. Thank you all for 

your cooperation in this matter. 

I welcome the members of the subcommittee. We just finished a 

conference meeting so we expect other members to be trickling in, 

as well as other Members of the House and our distinguished witnesses testifying before us this morning. 

We meet to receive testimony from two panels of witnesses about 

the administration, oversight, and accountability mechanisms for 

the Department of Defense [DOD] program that provides excess 

property to selected State and local law enforcement agencies. The 

1033 program, as it is commonly known, was authorized by Congress in 1997 and subsequently enacted into law. The program 

makes available a large variety of surplus Department of Defense 

materiel to law enforcement agencies. The Department reports that 

this program has saved the 4,000 participating law enforcement 

agencies over $5 billion since the program’s inception. 

Personally, having worked in the past with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, I have personally witnessed the benefit 

and effectiveness of the 1033 program. I believe that law enforcement should have the tools to keep our communities safe. For the 

men and women who wear the badge, they need to have the tools 

they need to protect us and also protect their own lives. Nonetheless, I believe it is essential that agencies receiving materiel from 

the Department of Defense utilize it properly and efficiently. 
2 

Like other members, I look forward to learning how the Department administers the 1033 program. I am also interested in the details of the existing oversight mechanisms to ensure and enforce accountability and compliance by organizations that benefit from the 

1033 program. 

Please keep in mind that in light of the committee’s jurisdiction, 

the purpose of this hearing and the witnesses we have before us 

today, I note that policing tactics and related topics are outside the 

scope of today’s hearing. 

I now turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the 

gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas, for her opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MASSACHUSETTS, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And good afternoon, Vice Admiral Harnitchek and Mr. Estevez. 

Thank you both for taking the time to speak with this panel today. 

Additionally, I would like to thank Mr. Bueermann and Mr. Lomax 

from our second panel, who we will hear from later this afternoon. 

Like many Americans, I was shocked at the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri. One of the most troubling aspects of these events 

were the scenes of police officers approaching peaceful protesters in 

armored vehicles and pointing assault rifles at United States citizens. I recognize that the majority of the equipment used in Ferguson was not obtained through a Department of Defense initiative, known as a 1033 program, meant to transfer surplus military 

equipment to State and local police departments and the subject of 

our hearing today. But in light of these and other disturbing events 

from around the country, it is our responsibility to review this Department of Defense program. 

I have spoken with a number of Massachusetts police chiefs to 

get their sense of the program and have learned of instances and 

reports that provoke serious questions about the suitability of this 

program for local law enforcement efforts, but I have also learned 

of instances where it has been especially helpful, most notably during the Boston Marathon bombing. 

During this review, I see several key questions that need to be 

addressed regarding the 1033 program. At the forefront, I am concerned about what equipment is being transferred. While the DOD 

may have surplus equipment, not all of that equipment is necessarily appropriate for every State and local police unit. Among 

other things, we need to reexamine how the DOD determines what 

equipment can and cannot be transferred; how does a particular 

police unit qualify to receive a particular piece of surplus equipment; what oversight responsibilities does DOD maintain for equipment provided through this program; who is responsible for training in the use of donated items; how are law enforcement agencies 

that receive such equipment held accountable. 

Given the main questions, I thank you for being here, and I look 

forward to hearing your testimony. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. 
3 

I also want to inform the witnesses and the audience that we expect a vote series somewhere around 4:30 to 4:45, so we may need 

to break and then return. 

Before recognizing our first panel, I note that some committee 

members who serve on other subcommittees may be present, therefore I ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to participate 

and ask questions during this hearing after all members of the subcommittee have had an opportunity to ask questions. Without objection, so ordered. 

The committee has received a written statement conveyed by the 

Major County Sheriff’s Association. I ask that this statement be entered into the hearing record. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Without objection. 

Dr. HECK. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 71.] 

Dr. HECK. Now I welcome our first panel of witnesses. Representing the Department of Defense, we have Mr. Alan Estevez, 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency. 

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. 

Mr. Estevez, you are recognized for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN ESTEVEZ, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tsongas, members of the subcommittee when they come in, thank you 

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

agencies. I appreciate the subcommittee’s support for the Department and your continued interest in ensuring the success of our 

mission. 

Our joint and written statement has more detail, and I ask that 

it be submitted for the record. 

Dr. HECK. Without objection. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. The transfer of excess military 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 support during natural 

disasters. 

Approximately 8,000 Federal and State law enforcement agencies 

actively participate in the program across 49 States and 3 U.S. territories. More than $5.3 billion worth of property has been provided 

since 1990. The key element in both the structure and execution 

of the program is the State coordinator, who is appointed by the 

respective State governor. State coordinators approve local law enforcement agencies within their State to participate in the program 

and validate all requests for property. 
4 

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 

expertise in State and local law enforcement functions and cannot 

assess how equipment is used in the mission of individual law enforcement agencies. 

During the 12-month period ending August 2014, law enforcement agencies received approximately 1.9 million pieces of excess 

equipment; 1.8 million pieces of noncontrolled or general property; 

and 78,000 pieces of controlled property, that is property that is 

more tactical in nature. Noncontrolled items range from file cabinets to medical kits, generators to tool sets. Examples of controlled 

property include small arms, night vision devices, high-mobility 

multipurpose-wheeled vehicles or Humvees, and mine-resistant 

ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs. 

Law enforcement agencies currently possess approximately 

460,000 pieces of controlled property that they have received over 

time. The Department does not provide tanks, grenade launchers, 

sniper rifles, crew-served weapons or uniforms, and a slew of other 

type of offensive equipment. 

Property obtained through this program has been used extensively for protection of law enforcement officers and the public, as 

well as for disaster relief support. For example, during the height 

of Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey police drove two cargo trucks 

and three Humvees through water too deep for a commercial vehicle to save 64 people. In Texas, armored vehicles received through 

the program protected police officers during a standoff and a shootout with a gun. 

The Department of Defense 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. 

Although the interagency review is not complete, the Department 

is already pursuing changes to strengthen the program. The Department will increase consultation with the Department of Justice 

and the Department of Homeland Security, and will notify both 

Justice and Homeland Security when a law enforcement agency 

has been suspended or terminated from the 1033 program. 

The Department is also pursuing stronger implementation criteria with the States. We have informed State coordinators of the 

Department’s intent to amend the memorandum of agreement 

[MOA] with each State coordinator to ensure law enforcement 

agencies have a training plan in place if they request assets, such 

as armored vehicles, that require specialized training. 

In summary, the congressionally authorized 1033 program provides property that is excess to the needs of the Department for use 

by agencies in law enforcement, counterdrug, 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 
5 

they need and access our excess equipment through their respective State coordinator. While administrating the program does not 

further the Department’s mission, the program is a good use of taxpayer dollars and enables first responders and law enforcement. 

We are ready to work with Congress in a deliberate manner to review the program’s scope and mission. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department’s mission with this regard, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Estevez and Admiral 

Harnitchek can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. Thank you. 

Admiral Harnitchek, you are now recognized for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF VADM MARK D. HARNITCHEK, USN, 

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Tsongas, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss section 1033 of the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1033 allows the transfer of excess Department of Defense equipment to Federal and State law enforcement 

agencies in support of their law enforcement duties. 

As the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency [DLA], I am responsible for the disposal of excess property received from the military services. The excess property inventory includes thousands of 

items ranging from air conditioners to watercraft. The property is 

first offered for reuse in the Department of Defense, then to other 

Federal agencies, and finally to State and local governments. Reutilization results in substantial savings for the taxpayers with 

over $9 billion in property reused over the last 4 years. 

DLA also executes the 1033 program through our Law Enforcement Support Office in Battle Creek, Michigan. Today, over 8,000 

Federal and State law enforcement agencies in 49 States and 3 

U.S. territories take part in the program. To participate in the program, States must develop a plan of operation which details how 

they will comply with program guidance, policies, and procedures. 

Each State must also appoint a State coordinator, who is the liaison between DLA and the State’s law enforcement agencies. The 

State coordinator is responsible for approving program participation, requests for excess equipment, and providing the Law Enforcement Support Office with the justification of the intended use 

of the equipment. 

Approximately 95 percent of the equipment provided to the law 

enforcement agencies are common items like office furniture, blankets, first-aid kits, computers, and cold-weather clothing. Weapons, 

aircraft, boats, and vehicles account for the remaining 5 percent of 

the transfers. Controlled property, such as aircraft, weapons, and 

vehicles, are on conditional loan, meaning that this equipment 

must be returned to the Department of Defense at the end of its 

useful life or if the law enforcement agency is terminated from the 

program. DLA maintains accountability over all conditionally 

loaned equipment and may recall this property at any time. 
6 

Over the past several years, significant improvements have been 

made to strengthen the program. In early 2012, DLA imposed a nationwide suspension, with the exception of New Hampshire, for 

noncompliance with weapons inventory accountability requirements. This was done to ensure mandatory inventories of all issued 

firearms were provided by the law enforcement agencies as required by the memorandum of agreements. 

We also implemented a new inventory accounting system, replaced the program manager in Battle Creek, Michigan, increased 

the program staff by 30 percent, and added significant detail to the 

memorandums of agreements with the State. We also initiated a 

system of biannual performance compliance reviews, where 20 percent of a State’s weapons are physically inventoried by my staff. 

Finally, we increased the routine day-to-day focus on compliance 

and accountability. Currently, 2 States and 695 law enforcement 

agencies are suspended from the program. Additionally, 10 law enforcement agencies have been terminated since 2012. 

DLA is also supporting the administration’s interagency review. 

In the interim, we have engaged both the Department of Justice 

and the Department of Homeland Security, and implemented program changes to increase collaboration and oversight of the program. These changes include notifying the Department of Justice 

on all law enforcement agencies’ applications for enrollment in the 

program; on all suspended law enforcement requests for inclusion 

back into the program; and on allocations of weapons, armored vehicles, and aircraft. We have also agreed to notify the Department 

of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] when 

a law enforcement agency has been suspended or terminated from 

the 1033 program. 

Last week, I met with the State coordinators at our annual Law 

Enforcement Support Office conference in Battle Creek, Michigan, 

and discussed the importance of their role in strengthening the 

program. Representatives from the Departments of Justice and 

Homeland Security also participated in the conference. 

We also recently amended the memorandum of agreement with 

each State coordinator to require a training plan for an asset that 

requires specialized training, to include vehicles and aircraft. These 

initiatives expand our focus stepping beyond inventory accountability into further interagency coordination and oversight of the 

program. 

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the 1033 program, and 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Harnitchek and Mr. 

Estevez can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Dr. HECK. I thank you both for your opening comments. 

And understanding that you are approaching this without having 

the expertise of civilian policing tactics, who makes the final decision as to whether or not a particular Department should receive 

a specific type of equipment? For instance, a small, three-person 

rural sheriff’s office who puts in a request for an MRAP, is that the 

State coordinator or is it ultimately DOD or does it go through a 

process where either one can deny the equipment? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Sir, generally, it is the State coordinator. 

So, for example, the State coordinator in Georgia, a guy named Mr. 
7 

Don Sherrod, tells me that he reviews every request for an armored 

vehicle and basically makes the judgment in that, does the mission 

of that police department require such a vehicle? Is that police department staffed to man and operate that vehicle? And then do 

they have the funding to sustain it? So we generally rely on the 

expertise of the State coordinators to make those decisions, but we 

also review them as well. 

And I can tell you across the board these State coordinators take 

their duties very seriously, and in my view they run a pretty tight 

ship. 

Dr. HECK. Do you know off the top of your head, has there ever 

been an instance where a request came through the State coordinating office but the DOD reviewer thought that it was not appropriate and denied the materiel? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir, there have. Generally it’s—I remember we got one a couple months ago from a prison. And of 

course to be part of the program your primary duty has to be apprehension and basically regular law enforcement duties. And since 

their mission is corrections, we denied their request. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. Mr. Estevez, in your comments you talked 

about requiring agencies to now have a training plan in place for 

equipment they may receive that requires specialized training. 

Who is actually responsible for training on, and sustainment of, the 

items donated under the program? I mean, if they get a specific 

military piece of equipment that may not be commercially available, how do they go out and get the training? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. So the States and the local law enforcement are required for sustainment of that material and they are required to 

develop their training curriculum for that material. And I will give 

credit to Admiral Harnitchek for requiring that they now come in 

with the training plan. 

Most of what we provide, there are commercial versions of that, 

so we are not providing things like attack helicopters, jets, combat 

track vehicles. So things they are getting, even an MRAP, which 

is really just a truck, are things that there are commercial versions 

of that they can develop their training around. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. And then, Admiral, you talked about some programs that have been terminated—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HECK [continuing]. Some agencies that have been terminated 

from the program. Can you give us an example of what circumstances would result in an agency’s termination? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Of the 10, 4 of them were terminated at 

the request of the State coordinator. Basically, they weren’t abiding 

by the rules of the road, so the State requested that we terminate 

them. Probably the most recent one was a sheriff’s department in 

Arizona, and they were terminated over weapons accountability 

issues. We worked with them for quite some time and they just 

never quite got it. You are either accountable for your weapons or 

you are not, and if you choose not to be, you are out of the program. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. 

I now yield to Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 
8 

It is my understanding that the Defense Logistics Agency maintains a list of approved equipment that can be transferred under 

the 1033 provisions, and currently that that list contains many 

items that can be used as offensive weapons, such as bayonets and 

assault rifles. Can you tell me a little more about the process of 

determining what equipment is placed onto your list? Specifically, 

what are the criteria used to make that determination? Who is responsible for approving the list? And how often is the list updated? 

I know you have referenced some of what is on and what is not, 

but I am curious if there is sort of a template for figuring this out. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. Basically, if it is a piece of 

military equipment that is used for military offensive capabilities, 

armored vehicles, Bradleys, tanks, attack helicopters, crew-served 

weapons, .50-caliber machine guns, none of those are authorized for 

transfer. So we work that in conjunction with the service that owns 

that equipment, the Army, the Marine Corps. But pretty much, if 

it is an offensive military capability that the Armed Forces would 

use, that is not available for transfer. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So where do bayonets and assault rifles fall into 

that? Would you exclude that from that description? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. Bayonets, actually, they don’t 

stick them on the end of the rifles we give them. They put them 

in their go bags and in the trunks of their cars. They use them to 

cut belts. I mean, a bayonet is just a nice strong utility knife. They 

use it if they need to cut the windshield out of a car that has that 

membrane in between, so they will jam the bayonet in there, pull 

it down. They just basically use it as a knife. 

Assault rifles would be an M16 or an M14, that is an infantryman’s weapon, also applicable in our view and the view of the services and the police departments for law enforcement use. But in 

general, almost all of the police departments that I know convert 

automatic weapons to semiautomatic weapons because they really 

don’t have a requirement for a fully automatic weapon. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So as you are making this determination to create 

this list, is there a process for vetting it? What is that process? Is 

it somebody sitting in an office? What is the—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. It is a process that we work with the law 

enforcement agencies and we also work with the services. For example, we used to issue body armor and Kevlar helmets. The Army 

decided that wasn’t appropriate for law enforcement use, so we 

took them off. Prior to 2008, we used to issue uniforms, but we decided it is not appropriate for law enforcement agencies to be wearing, you know, in-use current military uniforms, so we took them 

off the list. So it is actually an iterative process that goes on all 

the time. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. And if I could jump in there, Congresswoman, this 

is also one of the topics that we are having in the interagency review right now, is how can we strengthen the process by which we 

say this is available or not available and what is the view of—you 

know, we have been talking about this. This isn’t settled, but, you 

know, looking for Justice and DHS’ view on that, who are closer 

to law enforcement than we are. 
9 

Ms. TSONGAS. I would like to also just address the issue of the 

State coordinator. How are the responsibilities of those coordinators defined? How are they defined? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. They are defined in a memorandum of agreement that DLA signs with each of the State coordinators. And it delineates in very specific details the duties and responsibilities of the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of 

Defense, and then, in turn, the State coordinators. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And is that a standard MOU [memorandum of understanding] across the country—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS [continuing]. Every State has signed the same? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. All 53. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And as you confront terminating or suspending 

States, are there different standards for a termination or suspension, or are they virtually the same thing? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. They are pretty much the same thing. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And how do you get back on? How do you reunite 

your relationship? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. You have to prove to the Defense Logistics 

Agency that you are worthy of participation in the program. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And what would that worthiness entail? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Worthiness would entail that you are 

aware of the rules and regulations of, for example, the State of 

Massachusetts, you know, the strictures in place by the memorandum of agreement. You have to have procedures in place locally 

to ensure that you can properly account for the weapons that we 

give you, that you are not asking for too much, you are asking for 

just the right amount. 

And, again, it is not sort of a cosmic bar of compliance there, but 

there is some minimum level of compliance, and if you don’t meet 

that, you are terminated from the program. And then to get back 

in you have to prove that you are ready to comply with the rules 

of the road of the LESO [Law Enforcement Support Office] program. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, thanks for being here. Appreciate it. 

Admiral, would you give us a quick difference between a belt-fed 

weapon and a crew-served weapon? And do you give them—are 

belt-fed weapons on your list? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. No, they are not. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Never mind, then. 

The role—it is one thing to have equipment, but the tactics, techniques, and procedures that a particular police force would use—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Right. 

Mr. CONAWAY [continuing]. The more militaristic they act, is that 

driven from your end or from their own end? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Sir, I think that is their end. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So your team would not be necessarily involved 

in developing techniques and tactics—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. No, sir. No. With regards to rules of engagement, we leave that to the police departments. 
10 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. In fact, we think that would be a very bad idea, 

to have—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Say again? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. We think that would be a bad idea, to have the 

military developing tactics for—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you. I think most of us here would agree 

with you. 

On your inventory violations, how many weapons are missing 

overall? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. 421 as of yesterday. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And those are all M16s, M4s? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. M16s, 1911, .45s, and M14s. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So you said 464? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. I am sorry, 421. 

Mr. CONAWAY. 421. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Right. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. And you believe now that you have got better attention to detail in terms of—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Oh, much better. 

Mr. CONAWAY [continuing]. Inventory control? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Since 2012. Right. We are pretty—— 

Mr. CONAWAY. Give me the stat again on how often you observe 

the inventory? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. We visit each State every other year and 

we physically inventory 20 percent of their weapons. So that is our 

eyes on their weapons. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. So 10 percent a year, per each State? You 

said every other year. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Every other year we visit every State, and 

then when we visit a State we inventory 20 percent of their weapons. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. And if I could jump in there, Congressman. They 

require an annual inventory by the States. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Right. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. State certified. 

Mr. CONAWAY. State coordinator is responsible for also observing 

it? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Yes. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Right. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. So annual inventory comes in. 

Mr. CONAWAY. And since then, you have not seen the same kind 

of sloppiness, for lack of a better phrase? I am a CPA [certified 

public accountant], so I understand inventory. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. No. No sir. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Same kind of issues that you had pre-2012? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. No. And, frankly, some of it was on our 

end. The system that we gave the States to account for the inventory was sort of a 1970s clunker. So the new system that we borrowed from the forestry department is much better in terms of ease 

of use. It allows pictures. So we are able to photograph every weapon. 
11 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Have any of these weapons showed up in 

a crime? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. No, sir. 

Mr. CONAWAY. You have got the serial numbers of all these 

weapons? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. We do. All 421 weapons are entered in 

NCIC [National Crime Information Center], so they are clearly out 

there. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Ok. I appreciate that. I will yield back. Thank 

you. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the—I guess my question gets back to what are we really talking about here with regard to the equipment. And if the goal is to 

prevent law enforcement from having certain kinds of equipment, 

wouldn’t it be better to just give that direction or pass that at the 

State level with the State coordinator to ban that particular equipment if State citizens didn’t want it in their State than to pass 

some broad restriction, either your level or through Congress? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir, absolutely. I mean, if the State of 

Texas, for example, decides that MRAPs are not appropriate for 

use in the State of Texas, the governor can give that direction to 

the State coordinator and we won’t issue any MRAPs, for example, 

to Texas. 

Mr. SCOTT. And they can do that right now? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you aware of any armored vehicles that have 

been misused? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. I am not. No, sir, I am not. 

Mr. SCOTT. If an armored vehicle was misused in a State, the 

governor and local officials would have the ability to resolve that, 

wouldn’t they? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. In fact—again, if I could jump in—I believe, just 

to be clear, I think there was an incident where someone was 

speeding with an armored vehicle, and I think that law enforcement got hammered by their State for doing that. 

Mr. SCOTT. I mean, well, with that equipment comes a responsibility. Most people are aware of that. I mean, I certainly don’t 

like—I will admit—I don’t like seeing any of my police agencies in 

military style uniforms. I just, as an American, I prefer that they 

be in the sheriff’s deputy uniform or State trooper or police. 

But, you know, when we talk about these rifles, I mean, what 

people refer to as assault rifle in this country is mostly cosmetic 

when you get right down to it. I mean, I can buy a Browning .30– 

06 BAR, and it basically functions the same way. It is a semiautomatic rifle. I guess I do have one question in that should we convert the rifles from fully automatic to semiautomatic before they 

are ever transferred to the local law enforcement agencies. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. We could probably do that. I mean, it is 

an easy fix. The States normally do that now, but, I mean, just to 

ensure that no automatic weapons are given to States. It would 

come at some cost, obviously, but that—I mean, because we have 
12 

about 94,000 weapons out there. So it would be hard to refit all 

those. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. But a 1911 is not an automatic. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. No, it would be M16s and 14s. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. And, again, if I could jump in, Congressman, and 

I mentioned this in my opening comments and so did Congresswoman Tsongas, if you look at the images that brought us to this 

hearing, we didn’t buy any of—none of those weapons that were in 

that came from the Department of Defense. So you can go out, police forces can certainly buy weapons that look like our weapons. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. I don’t have any further questions right 

now, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

And both you gentlemen have read the legislation that I have 

filed, and it does not ban State and local governments from actually going out on the market and purchasing whatever equipment 

they can find out there on the market, including that kind which 

is distributed under the 1033 program. Is that correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so we are not about banning, by this legislation, law enforcement agencies from having this equipment, but it 

is true that local and State law enforcement agencies and even 

Federal law enforcement agencies can acquire this equipment, surplus equipment, directly from the Department of Defense without 

having any civilian governing authority input into the process. Isn’t 

that correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is not correct. The State coordinator of the 

State, the governor-appointed, a civilian authority State coordinator is the person who makes those decisions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Well, let’s look at it like this then. A 

State agency official then put in charge of this program by a governor can decide that it is okay for a local government law enforcement agency to acquire this equipment directly from the Department of Defense, correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. They put in their request through that State coordinator. That State coordinator follows through with the request. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And that State coordinator has no legal requirement to confer with any State or local official about that law enforcement agency request, correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. He is appointed by the governor and that is his 

mission. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, but he does not work for a county or a city 

government, correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So that State authority can make a decision for a 

local municipality or county government without any input from 

that local government authority, correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. The local government authority, the police authority of that local government is requesting the equipment. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Let’s take the Ferguson Police Department, 

for example. The Ferguson Police Department would be able to fill 

out the paperwork and send it in and request a piece of equipment, 
13 

let’s say an armored vehicle, an MRAP, from the Department of 

Defense that has been declared surplus property. Isn’t that theoretically a possibility? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And they could do it without the input from the 

local governing authority there in Ferguson, correct? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Yes, I guess, that is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So you are bypassing your local governing authority—— 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Congressman, from the Department of Defense’s 

perspective, we are making excess equipment, taxpayer-procured 

equipment available. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. I understand. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am looking at the process by which—— 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. But how the States want to manage that process 

is up to the States, not to the Department of Defense. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it is actually a Federal Government program 

that allows these State and local law enforcement agencies to acquire this military-grade weaponry without any input from the civilian governing authority. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And that is the point that I am making. And I 

think that that is not good, when the citizens, through their local 

governing authorities, have not made a decision about whether or 

not they want this kind of equipment on their streets. 

Now, with respect to the qualifications of a State coordinator, the 

Federal Government has no qualifications that it insists that these 

coordinators have. Is that correct? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. The States appoint those coordinators. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so there is no requirement that that individual, that State coordinator, be a law enforcement officer? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Mr. Johnson, I am not sure. I can’t speak 

for all 52, but—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. So it can—Do you know the qualifications of the 

Georgia coordinator that you named earlier? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. I believe Mr. Sherrod has experience in 

law enforcement. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But it is not true that he has to have experience 

in law enforcement in order to be in that coordinator’s position, correct? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Sir, that is not a requirement by the government. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So anybody could be appointed and there can just 

be a rubber stamp and run the requests through without paying 

any attention to it whatsoever, just signing their name? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Sir, that could be, but that is not my experience with how the process works. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. And then that kind of setup could yield 

to the local law enforcement agency a fully automatic weapon that 

you would assume that they would turn it into a semiautomatic 

weapon before they would place it in use, but there is no guarantee 

or requirement that the local law enforcement agency do so. Isn’t 

that correct? 
14 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. That is correct. Sir, absolutely, you know, 

execution of the program is left to the State coordinators, and in 

my experience they are good public servants, they take their duties 

very seriously, and they run a pretty tight ship. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I tell you, in my State of Georgia—— 

Dr. HECK. Gentleman’s time has expired. Gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Dr. HECK. Gentlemen, you have referenced quite a few times the 

MOA or MOU that is the template that is used for all 50 states. 

Is that a public document? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HECK. Could we get a copy submitted for the record to the 

committee? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 83.] 

Dr. HECK. And then, Ms. Tsongas, you had a follow-up? 

Ms. TSONGAS. I would like to follow up on Mr. Johnson’s questions. The roles and responsibilities of the State coordinator are defined where? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. They are defined in the memorandum of 

agreement. 

Ms. TSONGAS. They are, okay. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So that would be something—thank you for submitting it for the record. 

And I think Mr. Johnson has raised an interesting question, because I have heard it from my constituents as well, which is that 

they are unaware of these various programs—and we are here to 

focus on the 1033 program—until the unfortunate events. And the 

question they have is how do they know what kinds of surplus materials have been made available to a particular police department 

in a particular community? Is there a record of that? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Is there a Web site of that—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS [continuing]. So that it is transparent, there is 

great transparency as to which weapons are making their way to 

which police departments in the communities across this country? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am, there is. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And where would that be? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. We have that in our database. 

Ms. TSONGAS. In your database. Is that easily accessible by—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Do you have a Web site? What do you have? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. I am not sure what the Web site is, but 

that data is available for anybody that would like to see it. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Could you submit to me—— 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Sure. 

Ms. TSONGAS [continuing]. Some reference point that I could convey to my constituents that says these kinds of materials have 

made their way. As I said, as I have talked to my various police 

departments, very few have taken advantage of the 1033 program. 
15 

That may not be the case with the Department of Justice or Homeland Security, but I do know that my constituents would like to 

know what it is that has been made available. 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. And I believe, Congresswoman, if my memory 

serves me, I think The Washington Post or New York Times, I 

want to give credit to the proper newspaper, did an assessment of 

that through a Freedom of Information Act request and published 

a pretty accurate list of what went where back in August when all 

this was breaking. 

Ms. TSONGAS. One other follow-on question. I understand that if 

equipment is not used by a particular law enforcement agency 

within a year that it has to return it. Is that the case? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And I can sort of see that as a double-edged sword. 

It makes sense that if equipment is not going to go to any particular use that you might bring it back in and send it back out. 

But I can also see how this kind of policy would encourage police 

departments to use something unnecessarily. So can you just give 

me a sense of your reasoning behind this policy, and is it serving 

the intended purpose? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, ma’am. One of the things that we 

found, that we had a few police departments that were getting a 

lot of excess noncontrolled equipment and selling it for their own 

use, in other words, to augment their department’s budgets. So the 

use within a year is sort of control, you know, buying everything 

they can possibly get their hands on. 

With regard to controlled equipment, we have certain rules, so 

that is one weapon per police officer. If we are going to give out 

a Humvee, it is one vehicle for every three officers. So we expect 

that their weapons, they are issued to officers, they are in their 

records, the officers are taking those weapons on patrol with them. 

So it is actually to control sort of—‘‘hoarding’’ is probably a strong 

term—but it is to prevent these law enforcement agencies from getting more than they actually need. 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. And, again, just to reiterate, uncontrolled is file 

cabinets, medical gear, not things that we retain title to. So weapons, Humvees, MRAPs, helicopters, we retain—night vision devices, the Department of Defense retains title to and we can pull 

that back at any time. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So what would the use of a Humvee entail to satisfy that requirement? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. They have to have it on their records, you 

know, it has to be maintained. Our folks will go out and look at 

it, talk to the law enforcement agency about how they use it, how 

they don’t use it. So it is just good old-fashioned leadership and 

management. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Has there ever been an instance in which a police 

department sold a Humvee? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. I don’t know of one, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was. In other words, when there is that many vehicles out there, I don’t know. We have had instances of law enforcement agencies selling weapons, and they are out of the program. 
16 

Mr. ESTEVEZ. That leads to suspension and termination. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

Dr. HECK. Gentlemen, I just want to follow up real quickly on a 

question Ms. Tsongas had to make sure that I am clear on it. When 

she refers to a Web site that is accessible, I want to know, we are 

not talking about a Web site that is on the Army network. What 

we are talking about is a publicly accessible Web site with a URL 

where somebody can go in and query their police agency and find 

out what they have received. That is available? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. That is not available, but we could probably make it available. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. So you have it on your net where you can run 

a query for someone, but it is not publicly available? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. Yes, sir. It is not publicly available, but 

we have the data. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. All right. 

Well, gentlemen, I appreciate both of you being here this evening 

to present your view on the 1033 program. We will take a short recess while the first panel is excused and the second panel is seated. 

[Recess.] 

Dr. HECK. Hearing will come back to order. 

I would like to welcome our second panel of witnesses. With us 

now we have Mr. Jim Bueermann, president of the Police Foundation, and Mr. Mark Lomax, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. 

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. And, Mr. Bueermann, 

we will begin with you. You are recognized for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JIM BUEERMANN, PRESIDENT, POLICE 

FOUNDATION 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this 

subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you 

to discuss the very important topic of the Department of Defense’s 

1033 program. 

My name is Jim Bueermann, and I am the president of the 

Washington DC-based Police Foundation. The Police Foundation, 

established in 1970 by the Ford Foundation, is America’s oldest 

nonmembership, nonpartisan police research organization. Our 

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 become more effective and responsive to the communities they 

serve. 

Prior to my work with the foundation, I was a police officer in 

Redlands, California, for 33 years, the last 3 years serving as the 

chief of police. I have extensive experience and expertise in advancing policing through science, innovation, and community policing. 

During my career in Redlands, I directed the police department’s 

use of the 1033 program to acquire surplus military equipment. 

This included M16 rifles, pickup trucks, utility vehicles, desks, tables, filing cabinets, and electronic office equipment. Since my retirement, the department has acquired a mine-resistant ambushprotected armored vehicle, otherwise known as an MRAP. 
17 

As have many Americans, I have been closely following the troubling events in Ferguson, Missouri. Among the many aspects of the 

national discussion regarding those events is the potential militarization of this country’s civilian police forces. A focal point of 

this discussion is the DOD’s 1033 program. 

I believe most community policing experts will agree that 1033 

equipment is not as problematic as the context and situation in 

which it is used. In fact, the 1033 program provides valuable equipment to law enforcement nationwide. But it needs to be closely examined to ensure appropriate surplus equipment is transferred in 

a thoughtful manner, with adequate guidelines in place. A law enforcement agency’s transparent, accountable, and collaborative relationship with its community relates to the degree to which people 

agree with the police position on the appropriate context of the use 

of tactical equipment. 

A principal function of the police is to respond to the public safety threats that face our communities. Adequate and updated equipment is a necessity to keep both officers and our citizens safe. For 

law enforcement leaders operating with highly constrained budgets, 

the 1033 program may be the only means by which they can acquire equipment they believe they need to enhance community 

safety. I believe it is important that the program be retained with 

appropriate transparency, accountability, and oversight guidelines 

incorporated. Completely eliminating it could have substantial impact on public safety and local budgets. The 1033 program ensures 

that taxpayers do not have to pay for resources twice, once for the 

military and another time if the police have to purchase the same 

equipment the military declares to be surplus. 

While you review it, I urge you to consider the program’s local 

public safety benefits. Based on my experience and familiarity with 

municipal government, contemporary policing, and the 1033 program, I propose the following changes to the program to ensure it 

continues to strike a balance between the needs of the police and 

community interests. 

I recommend that pursuant to Federal legislation or regulation 

every State and local police agency that desires access to surplus 

military armored vehicles or tactical military equipment via the 

1033 program should be required as part of the application process 

to provide proof to the DOD that, one, it has received public input 

regarding the possible acquisition of the equipment; two, it has obtained local governing body approval of the department’s acquisition of the property, except in the case of elected sheriffs; three, it 

has implemented a publicly accessible policy governing the use of 

armored vehicles and tactical equipment; and four, it makes publicly available the number of times and context it utilized the acquired armored vehicles and certain types of tactical equipment. 

In my opinion, these requirements would not be overly burdensome for the police because they already have to follow a similar 

procedure for expensive items they now purchase. In addition, this 

ensures that local communities have an opportunity to voice their 

support or opposition to the proposed acquisition, consider the police justification for the equipment, and have access to the number 

of times and the context the tactical equipment was used. 
18 

In addition, I believe the program needs to incorporate a training 

component for certain types of equipment. For example, that there 

should be some requirement that before a civilian police agency 

takes possession of an MRAP it must participate in a DOD training 

session on how to operate it and submit proof that the police driver 

is licensed to drive the vehicle. As I understand the process now, 

once an MRAP is cleared for release to a police civilian agency the 

DOD simply conveys the vehicle to the agency’s representative with 

little or no training how to operate it. Simply handing the untrained officer the keys to a surplus MRAP is a recipe for potential 

problems. 

In conclusion, I urge the committee members and Congress to 

implement the changes to the 1033 program I have outlined in my 

testimony. I believe they are fair and balanced. It is imperative the 

committee and Congress take a balanced view of Federal efforts to 

assist local law enforcement in controlling crime and disorder and 

doing so in a democratic manner. The notion of militarizing civilian 

police forces is problematic in this country and it should be addressed. However, it is important to remember that the police have 

a tough, dangerous job and need adequate resources to protect 

their communities and themselves. But in providing the police with 

these resources, we must never lose sight of the basic tenets of 

democratic, community-oriented policing that requires police transparency and accountability, public input, and the coproduction of 

public safety between the police and the communities they serve. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bueermann can be found in the 

Appendix on page 41.] 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. 

Mr. Lomax, you are recognized for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARK E. LOMAX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL TACTICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LOMAX. Thank you, Chairman. 

I would like to thank Chairman Heck, Ranking Member Tsongas, 

and the esteemed members of the subcommittee to have the opportunity to speak to you today. Since its inception in 1983, the National Tactical Officers Association [NTOA] has served as a not-forprofit association representing law enforcement professionals and 

special operation 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 NTOA believes 

that those law enforcement officers that are asked to conduct the 

most difficult and dangerous missions deserve the appropriate level 

of training and equipment to ensure as much as possible their success and safety. 

The Department of Defense 1033 program has supported that effort by providing much-needed rescue and emergency response 

equipment. The DOD 1033 program allows agencies to acquire the 

necessary equipment rapidly and at a considerable cost savings to 

the local taxpaying public. From developing a robust and capable 
19 

homeland security system to everyday patrolling, the 1033 program 

has benefitted law enforcement and the communities it serves. 

For example, ever since the 1999 Columbine school shooting, law 

enforcement has recognized that minutes and even seconds count 

in an active shooter situation. Lives are at risk if immediate police 

actions do not occur quickly and effectively. No longer can police 

departments wait for specialized units to respond to active shooter 

incidents. Therefore, many agencies across the country have also 

added the patrol rifle to their general issue inventory for officers. 

Numerous surplus rifles have been acquired by agencies through 

the 1033 program to supplement this effort. This is often the first 

line of rescue in saving lives for victims in mass casualty response 

by police. 

Moreover, after September 11, 2001, first responder agencies 

across the country willingly volunteered to collaborate with local 

Federal partners in domestic security. The 1033 program allowed 

local agencies to acquire necessary equipment to build out its 

homeland security capacity and to include heavy-duty high wheeled 

vehicles, forklifts, generators, and vehicles that improve operational capabilities and responder safety in disaster operations. 

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. The recent ambush murder of 

Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Byron Dickson and the shooting of Trooper Alex Douglass makes it real as to the weaponry— 

in this case, a .308-caliber rifle—criminals are using against our 

finest, the men and women of law enforcement. I trained Corporal 

Dickson, so I take this personal. 

The 1033 program has provided the necessary equipment to protect our brave officers and provide security and effective response 

to our communities. The DOD’s oversight of surplus equipment 

issued is adequate in the sense that an annual inventory is conducted at the State level and the recipient agencies are held accountable. The initial application and screening process that determines which agencies receive the equipment could be improved. It 

would be reasonable to have applying agencies demonstrate an articulated need based on current threat assessment matrices and 

that appropriate training and agency policies exist based on national standards prior to the receipt of such equipment. 

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 subcommittee has. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax can be found in the Appendix on page 54.] 

Dr. HECK. Thank you both for representing the law enforcement 

side of the 1033 program. I will pose this question to both of you 

since you both have had experience with receiving equipment 

through the 1033 program. How do you assess DOD’s current oversight and accountability mechanisms that are in place for the program? Do you think it is too much? It is too little? It is just right? 

How easy is it to get the equipment? What is your opinion of the 

oversight and accountability programs? 
20 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Well, I think that, just listening to the Admiral, it certainly changed since I retired in the summer of 2011. And 

I can tell you in my 33 years that we were there we never had a 

visit from the DOD. So it sounds like they have changed their policy where they show up on site to do audits about firearms, which 

I think is a very thoughtful approach. Firearms have a tendency 

to go missing either through misappropriation or through the inadvertent destruction of those kinds, the 1033 weapons, when they 

are destroying evidence. I think that is appropriate for them to do. 

I think most agencies, their interaction is really with the State 

coordinator, and that is probably the point that you should focus 

on if you want to really focus on this program. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. Lomax. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, I agree with Mr. Bueermann. I retired from the 

Pennsylvania State Police and our bureau emergency and special 

operations never acquired any 1033 equipment and currently does 

not have any 1033 equipment. But just speaking with law enforcements throughout the country, that there definitely is a need for 

some more oversight in this program, starting from the DOD side 

and all the way down to the State coordinator side. So I agree with 

Mr. Bueermann’s assessment of that. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. Bueermann, you mentioned in your statement the 

need for transparency in the program. And as we heard from the 

previous panel, while they may have data located on a server that 

is behind a firewall, there is no publicly available Web site where 

somebody can go to see what equipment has been put into their 

communities. Would either of you have concerns as law enforcement officers if that information was readily available, that your 

Department received so many rifles or so many armored vehicles 

or whatever equipment through the 1033 program, or would the 

Pennsylvania State Police have a similar concern if that information was made publicly available? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I would not, and I would like to point out that 

in some places it already is. I personally went to the State of California, went to the governor’s Web site and looked under the Office 

of Emergency Services, and found not only the Excel spreadsheet 

that delineated all of the California equipment, but my recollection 

is there was also a spreadsheet that delineated all of the equipment nationwide, at least for that particular year. So I think it is 

out there. 

This is one of the things I think this committee and Congress 

ought to seriously consider, is contracting or somehow funding an 

outside audit of the program and an evaluation, whether the program is achieving the goals and objectives that Congress intended 

when the program was created, that would also create a set of 

guidelines. Because I think there are questions here that an outside entity that doesn’t have a dog in the fight probably ought to 

answer for you. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes. We have no concerns that providing that list to 

the public will jeopardize any operational issues or anything like 

that. 

Dr. HECK. Great. I want to thank both of you. Obviously, law enforcement is an inherently dangerous occupation. As everybody is 

running away from the sounds of gunfire, you are the guys that are 
21 

running towards it. And we have seen our adversaries change, just 

like we have seen in the military. We have seen our adversaries, 

our criminals change their tactics, techniques, and procedures too 

over time. I remember, you can go as far back as 1966 when 

Charles Whitman climbed to the top of the UT [University of 

Texas] Austin, Texas, clock tower and took out 16 people with a 

high-powered rifle. And everybody responding, all they had were 

the old wheel guns and had to go and actually get hunting rifles 

from students on campus to try to mount a response. Or to the 

1997 Hollywood bank robbery where the law enforcement agencies 

were severely outgunned. 

So there has to be a balance, obviously, and I am glad that you 

gentlemen are here to present your side of the story on how we can 

achieve that balance. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Yes. Thank you both for being here. I think it is 

an important discussion we are having as we are trying to sort out 

what that balance might be. And one of the questions I have, and 

I saw it as I was having my conversations with the various police 

chiefs, a different point of view between police departments in 

major cities with their larger budgets as opposed to police departments in smaller towns where in many instances it was hard to 

imagine a need for some of the more concerning equipment. 

So do you see appropriate line drawing between what should be 

made available to one kind of community or another given the larger resources, the ability to better train, even to articulate a use 

that is more appropriate? I would sort of welcome your views on 

that. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I think there needs to be more thoughtful discussion about that. There are certainly some agencies that are 

very, very small that have acquired some equipment, I think, that 

would raise a red flag. It doesn’t mean that it is inappropriate, but 

I think somebody needs to ask that particular question, about 

whether that is justified. 

I think it would be difficult to draw a line between urban centers 

and suburban centers, for instance, or even rural centers. I come 

from a part of southern California that has all of those rolled up 

into one, and the policing issues there, while they may be different, 

are unfortunately becoming a reality in places that are rural, suburban, and urban. 

What I think I haven’t heard discussed here, I think, as part of 

this discussion is the need for regionalizing certain assets. So that 

may be a regionalized tactical team, it may be a regionalized set 

of armored vehicles, or an MRAP. As opposed to every agency 

needs an MRAP, maybe there needs to be one in a regional sense. 

I think not allowing smaller agencies, Watertown Police, for instance, found themselves right in the middle of a tremendously difficult situation for everybody there to handle. That is a small community in the outskirts of Boston. Obviously, I think, saying to 

Watertown that you shouldn’t have access to these things is not a 

thoughtful approach. Whether they need their own is a whole 

’nother discussion. 

And that becomes difficult for the Federal Government to do. I 

think that is a more appropriate discussion to be had at either the 
22 

State or the local level, but that could be part of some guidelines 

that are implemented, that there needs to be some discussion about 

whether you have thought this through at the local level or is there 

just this funnel of equipment that goes from the Feds down to the 

locals. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Lomax. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes. With approximately 87 percent of all law enforcement agencies had less than 50 officers and 60, 70 percent of 

those are less than 25 officers, there is a financial component to 

tactical equipment that larger agencies may not see a problem, but 

as—over the years we are seeing most smaller agencies requiring 

more and more 1033 equipment. 

I agree with Mr. Bueermann, and the National Tactical Officers 

Association developed standards for tactical teams years ago. And 

part of that is the multijurisdictional regional concept where we 

are not saying that you should not have access to a SWAT team, 

but maybe you don’t need a, you know, a 12-person department 

with a SWAT team, but you can have a regional team or a multijurisdictional team. So that way the assets or the equipment can 

be shared and the personnel and training can be shared also. 

So there is that divide, in a way, between the larger departments 

that have the financial capabilities, have full-time teams, and the 

smaller rural areas that may not have that advantage. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I thank you for your testimony. Thank you for 

being here this evening. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And one of the things I do hope we will stay on, you know, 

whether or not a community, if it is regional and/or multijurisdictional, that should be a decision for the local governments and for 

the States, not for us at the Federal level to make. 

And, Mr. Lomax, you were in uniform for 27 years with the 

Pennsylvania State Police. Is that right? 

Mr. LOMAX. That is correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you for your service. That is a long, long time. 

Mr. LOMAX. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. I want to—the question of automatic rifles, and when 

I say automatic I mean fully automatic rifles versus semiautomatic 

rifles, if we changed so that the rifles, before they were transferred 

to the States, were already converted back to the semiautomatic, 

would that have any type of detrimental impact on the local law 

enforcement agencies? 

Mr. LOMAX. I don’t think so, sir. I mean, those agencies that require an automatic weapon for whatever purpose can purchase that 

through the DOD and other sources. So I don’t think, as far as this 

program, the DOD program, by converting them to semiautomatic 

would have a significant impact on law enforcement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do most of the men who carry an M4 or a similar 

rifle in a patrol car, are most of those rifles semiautomatic, or are 

they fully automatic rifles? 

Mr. LOMAX. Most of them are semiautomatic, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is my understanding from the officers that I 

know. 
23 

And I just—you know, one is I want to thank both of you for testifying. And I just hope we keep this based on the facts. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if we keep it based on the facts, I think we can 

find that right balance. 

Thank you for being here. 

Mr. LOMAX. Thank you. 

Dr. HECK. Ms. Gabbard. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for your service and sacrifice to keeping people safe. 

Mr. Lomax, I understand that your organization has been compiling a national survey on SWAT operations and that you are expected to complete it by the end of this year. I think, as we have 

been looking at this, one of the major issues that I have found is 

that there is just not a lot of information available with regards to 

how our SWAT teams are deployed and exactly what tactics they 

are using. 

And I am wondering if you can speak to how often military-grade 

weapons are used, weapons, both weapons and equipment such as 

flash-bangs, are used by our SWAT teams and under what circumstances. 

Mr. LOMAX. Well, thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

And, yes, the NTOA hired the International Association of Chiefs 

of Police and also the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center to develop a SWAT survey. That was sent out about 

a month ago to over 800 agencies, small, large, east, west, sheriff’s 

departments, police departments. 

And one of the many reasons that the National Tactical Officer 

Association thought of this is just like what you said, Congresswoman, is that we did not have much information from the law enforcement side as far as how the equipment is being deployed, who 

is making those decisions, what is out there, and whether, you 

know, flash-bangs are being used or not. 

So hopefully at the end of this survey, which should be done by 

beginning of January, we should have the rough statistics. We will 

be looking at exactly what you are asking, looking at—one of the 

biggest concerns, and we have been working with the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] and with others out there, it is not the 

equipment, and it is not the personnel—it is the decisionmaking, 

it is who decides to deploy it, where it is being deployed, whatever. 

It is that. 

And so we were very fortunate, in developing our advisory panel 

that is leading this SWAT survey, to have other stakeholders outside of law enforcement to give us direction on what are the concerns out there. So part of that survey is decisionmaking and the 

leadership component and training component. 

So we are definitely willing to provide that to the subcommittee 

once that information is done. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. I think that is going to be of interest 

and important as, collectively, we look at this discussion. There is 

a lot of talk that is going on about SWAT teams being deployed for 

nonviolent offenders or also being deployed in situations where it 

is, you know, the wrong address at the wrong house or the other 
24 

Mr. Smith as opposed to the correct Mr. Smith. And, obviously, of 

great concern when these tactics are being used in that way. 

For both of you, I guess I know you touched on this a little bit 

earlier, but if you could just speak to any requirement that you already see of law enforcement agencies having to demonstrate proficiency on equipment requested prior to it being dispersed by the 

DOD. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I don’t—— 

Ms. GABBARD. If any. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I don’t think there is any. 

Ms. GABBARD. Okay. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I mean, I have recently spoken with police 

chiefs about MRAPs specifically, because my former agency has 

one, and I can tell you that they handed them the keys and didn’t 

have a good drive. 

Ms. GABBARD. Got it. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, and—— 

Mr. BUEERMANN. And that is problematic, you know. I—— 

Ms. GABBARD. Very problematic. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Right. And I don’t think the agencies wanted 

that. I think that there was an understanding on the part of the 

military officials that were giving them that that that was off limits to them. I don’t think that they were trying to not be helpful, 

but that is a specialized piece of equipment. It takes special driving, and it is a lot like a fire truck. And, in fact, that is who is driving them in my community right now when they take them out, because the police officers have not yet received training, so they 

have to get firefighters to drive those because they have training 

in that. And I think that doesn’t quite make sense. 

The other thing is that they probably know already how to use 

a lot of that equipment, but these specialized things are important. 

Mr. LOMAX. I agree. And there is a lack of training with this program. And it is not the 95 percent; it is the 5 percent. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Right. 

Mr. LOMAX. And so that is where, you know, there needs to be 

more training and accountability, for that 5 percent. 

Ms. GABBARD. Got it. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask that a paper written by the ACLU on the 1033 program for purposes of this hearing be submitted for the record, without objection, and also the ACLU report entitled ‘‘War Comes 

Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.’’ Both 

these documents for the record. 

Dr. HECK. Without objection. 

[The ACLU paper on the 1033 program can be found in the Appendix on page 73.] 

[The ACLU ‘‘War Comes Home’’ report is retained in the subcommittee files and can be viewed upon request.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

And, gentlemen, thank you all for being here today. 

You both have read the legislation that I have proposed? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I have not. 
25 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you agree that it does not call for a ban on 

the transfer of all firearms from under this program, it just—just 

for that which is 50-caliber or more. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you are both familiar with that? 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And—— 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I am not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. So I’ll let—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, would you think that that is an appropriate 

restriction on this program, to limit the amount, or to firepower of 

the weaponry to 50 calibers or below? 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, that is fine. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is reasonable? 

Do you think so also, Mr. Bueermann? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. That makes sense, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And, also, with respect to armored military vehicles, flash-bang grenades, drones, silencers, do either one of you 

have a reason that would justify the transfer of a silencer to civilian law enforcement? Is there a civilian law enforcement need for 

silencers? 

Mr. LOMAX. In certain situations, in tactical situations, there are, 

but that is very limited. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But under the current program, it is unlimited in 

terms of what agency can request and receive a silencer. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yeah. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And that should not be. 

Mr. LOMAX. No. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Don’t you agree? 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You, Mr. Bueermann? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I think it depends. I think it is very hard to 

come up with a broad rule that applies to all law enforcement 

agencies. Law enforcement agencies in this country can buy silencers—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, certainly. This legislation would not preclude 

a State or local law enforcement agency from going out and purchasing silencers. But the question is, should we be distributing 

them direct from the battlefield to the streets of our Nation? 

And you believe that the transfer of silencers is something that 

could be—that should be restricted under the 1033 program? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Sir, as my testimony indicated, I think that the 

program needs to be reexamined, and there needs to be some 

thoughtful decision about just that question, whether or not certain 

kinds of equipment should or should not be put on that list. As the 

Admiral said, you can’t get an F–16 off this program, you can’t get 

an Apache helicopter. 

Whoever makes that decision—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you should not be able to get an MRAP. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. And that may be a decision that other people 

can, but as long as it is on that list and as long as it is part of 
26 

that program, I think you have to look at an individual agency’s 

rationale for why they need—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, and—— 

Mr. BUEERMANN [continuing]. That piece of equipment. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Certainly, when a local governing authority can take that issue up and decide whether or not citizens 

of that jurisdiction want to have that kind of equipment on the 

streets, then they can go out and spend the money and purchase 

it. Correct? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I completely agree that the local authorities—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so—— 

Mr. BUEERMANN [continuing]. Local elected officials should have 

that input. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so what we are talking about here is not limiting a law enforcement agency from having this kind of equipment. We are just simply talking about the transfer of it from the 

military or DOD to the local law enforcement agency. And I want 

to make sure that we all agree that that is a reasonable course of 

action to take. 

And, you know, as far as flash-bang grenades are concerned, 

those require specialized training in terms of when, how, and 

where to use, correct? 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so, to ban the military from being able to 

transfer that kind of equipment directly to a State or local law enforcement agency or even to a State university law enforcement 

agency—I mean, we had the Kent State situation take place. Can 

you imagine what would have happened in 1970 if this program 

had been in existence and if the Kent State Police Department had 

all of this kind of weaponry that they could get under this program 

and then used it against the students? Can you all imagine what 

America would be like? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Absolutely. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so I think you must agree that we must have 

some limits on this 1033 program. And I look forward to working 

with you to fine-tune what we have put in place. But, you know, 

I think we really need to look seriously about this, and it is resulting in a militarization of our police forces. 

And I thank the chairman for his indulgence. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. Scott, you had a follow-up? 

Mr. SCOTT. I just want to—when we talk about Humvees or 

MRAPs, we are talking about an up-armored heavy truck. But the 

weapons are removed from those vehicles before they are transferred to local law enforcement agencies, is my understanding. Correct? 

Mr. BUEERMANN. That is correct. 

Mr. LOMAX. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. So it is an armored vehicle, not an armed vehicle. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Correct. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so, when our people see a picture of an MRAP 

in one of the fights that we are in now that has a belt-fed rifle on 
27 

top of it, that rifle is removed before it is ever transferred to any 

local law enforcement agency—— 

Mr. LOMAX. Correct. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. Here in the United States. And we don’t 

allow belt-fed rifles through this transfer. 

Mr. LOMAX. No, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And do we allow 50-calibers? 

Mr. LOMAX. Currently, I believe, yes. No. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. I don’t—I don’t know. I don’t know. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would—I would—if I might interject, I would say 

that, yeah, any caliber weapon is permissible under the 1033 program. 

Mr. LOMAX. I believe the admiral mentioned that that caliber 

was not transferrable. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That may be according to military policy, but in 

terms of law, legislation. 

Mr. SCOTT. With respect to my friend and colleague from Georgia, when you talk about an MRAP with a 50-caliber, the picture, 

I think, that people get in their mind is a belt-fed, heavy weapon 

on top of that vehicle. And that is not what is being transferred to 

our law enforcement officers. 

Mr. LOMAX. It is just—— 

Mr. SCOTT. It is the truck—— 

Mr. LOMAX. It is the vehicle. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. That is up-armored, but it is not an 

armed vehicle when it is transferred to our local law enforcement 

agencies. 

Mr. LOMAX. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield the remainder of my time. 

Dr. HECK. And just as a point of clarification, on the prohibited 

list is nothing larger than a 762 at the current time. So a 50-caliber would not be transferrable. 

Mr. LOMAX. Thank you. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. 

Ms. Tsongas, a closing statement? 

Ms. TSONGAS. Just to thank you both here. Between you and our 

previous panel, I think we have begun an important discussion 

around a lot of issues. And I appreciate very much your insights, 

given the world you come from and your experience in the law enforcement world. And I thank you for your service. 

Mr. LOMAX. Thank you. 

Mr. BUEERMANN. Thank you. 

Dr. HECK. Likewise, I want to add my thanks for your taking the 

time to be here and presenting the law enforcement perspective on 

the 1033 program. A lot of good information and food for thought 

as we look to try to strike the balance in maintaining this program 

but preventing the overmilitarization of our local law enforcement. 

I want to thank the ranking member, Ms. Tsongas, for requesting this hearing. 

There being no further business, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

(33) 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

(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 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

(101) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. TSONGAS. You stated in response to a question from Chairman Heck that four 

agencies were most recently terminated from the 1033 program, including one sheriff’s department in Arizona which was terminated for weapons accountability issues. 

When a law enforcement agency is terminated from the 1033 program, what efforts 

are made to recover the DOD equipment that was provided to the law enforcement 

agency through the 1033 program? How successful are those efforts, and how does 

DLA account for or make record of those items that cannot be recovered? 

Admiral HARNITCHEK. When a law enforcement agency (LEA) is terminated from 

the program, the LEA must turn in all controlled property to the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) within 60 days from the date of termination or, subject to the approval of DLA and the State Coordinator, transfer the property to another LEA 

within the State that has a valid requirement for the property. The Memorandum 

of Agreement, which is signed between DLA and each State (section XIV Part C1) 

specifies the responsibilities of the State and State Coordinator upon the termination of an LEA. With the exception of items previously reported missing, which 

may have led to the termination, DLA’s efforts recovering controlled property from 

terminated LEAs have been successful. For example, State Coordinators, in an effort to ensure their State remains in good standing with the Defense Logistics Agency, have obtained State Police escorts to assist in recovering Department of Defense 

property if necessary. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. DUCKWORTH 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. What constitutes non-compliance under the 1033 program? How 

does the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) identify instances of non-compliance? If 

found to be non-compliant, what corrective actions do states need to take in order 

to become compliant again? What actions result in a permanent suspension? 

Mr. ESTEVEZ and Admiral HARNITCHEK. Non-compliance is defined as a violation 

of the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and each State Coordinator. DLA identifies instances of non-compliance through Program Compliance Reviews (PCRs), which entail a physical inspection of at least 20 percent of the weapons and 10 percent of the general property 

for each state participating in the program on a biannual basis. Additionally, noncompliance can be determined through the Annual Inventory and Compliance Reviews required by the MOA to be performed by the State Coordinator. DLA also reserves the right to suspend a law enforcement agency (LEA) for any reason, suspect 

or actual. 

If non-compliance by an LEA is identified during a PCR, the LEA is suspended. 

If an LEA cannot account for a piece of high visibility property such as a weapon, 

aircraft, or tactical/armored vehicle, the entire state is suspended for a minimum 

of 30 days. Additionally, if the State Coordinator fails to complete an Annual Inventory as required by the MOA, the entire State is suspended. In order for an LEA 

or State to be reinstated, it must submit a signed memorandum that documents: 

(1) the events leading to the situation that resulted in the suspension; and (2) an 

acceptable corrective action plan that details how the LEA plans to mitigate further 

risk associated with the non-compliance, or (3) the State completes the annual inventory requirements. 

Grounds for a permanent suspension (referred to by DLA as termination) include 

failure by states and/or LEAs to comply with program requirements or to correct 

identified discrepancies after a suspension. Since 2012, 11 LEAs have had their participation terminated, including: (1) five requested by the State Coordinator (Arizona); (2) four as the result of missing weapons (Arizona, Georgia, West Virginia, 

and Minnesota); and 3) two agencies disbanded (Arizona/Ohio). 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Currently, what are the training requirements that law enforcement agencies must adhere to when receiving equipment under the 1033 program? 

Who establishes those standards and who ensures that the relevant police departments are actually trained according to standard? 
102 

Mr. ESTEVEZ and Admiral HARNITCHEK. The states are responsible for training on 

the use and sustainment of items. The Department of Defense does not have expertise in state and local police force functions and cannot assess how equipment is 

used in the mission of an individual law enforcement agency (LEA). 

In November 2014, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) amended the Memoranda 

of Agreement with each of the States requiring the State Coordinator and/or LEAs 

to certify that they have a training plan in place that covers use of equipment and 

to provide training plan documentation when making requests for Tactical Vehicles, 

Aircraft and/or Weapons. Additionally, DLA has modified its compliance review procedures to ensure verification that LEAs have and can provide copies of the required 

training plans. 

Æ