U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

73–812 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–351 

PROTECTING THOSE WHO PROTECT US: THE 

BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT 

PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–60 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 57 

WITNESSES 

Canterbury, Chuck, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of 

Police, Washington, DC ....................................................................................... 7 

Maurer, David C., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Washington, DC .............................................................. 5 

Schirling, Michael E., Chief of Police, Burlington Police Department, Burlington, Vermont .................................................................................................. 4 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Chuck Canterbury to questions submitted by Senators Coons, 

Grassley and Coburn ........................................................................................... 26 

Responses of Michael E. Schirling to questions submitted by Senator Coburn . 36 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Canterbury, Chuck, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of 

Police, Washington, DC, statement .................................................................... 38 

Fackler, Jeff G., North America Marketing Manager, E.I. DU Pont De Nemours and Company, Depont Protection Technologies, Richarmond, Virginia, statement ................................................................................................... 44 

Fitzgerald, Sheriff Paul H., President, National Sheriffs’ Association, Alexandria, Virginia, February 8, 2012, letter .............................................................. 52 

Johnson, William J., Executive Director, National Association of Police Organizations, Arlington, Virginia, statement ........................................................... 60 

Maurer, David C., Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Washington, DC, statement ........................................... 65 

McBride, Ron, (retired Chief), IACP/DePont Kevlar Survivors’ Club, Alexandria, Virginia, statement ..................................................................................... 76 

Schirling, Michael E., Chief of Police, Burlington Police Department, Burlington, Vermont, statement ............................................................................... 83 

(1) 

PROTECTING THOSE WHO PROTECT US: THE 

BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT 

PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, 

Blumenthal, and Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. We have a distinguished foreign visitor in town, the Vice President of China, and I have just 

been advised he is going to be visiting Iowa, and so the Senator 

from Iowa is going to be a few minutes late. He is meeting with 

him, and I understand that. 

I was in Burlington on Monday with Chief Schirling, and now we 

are together in Washington, and I have to figure out where we will 

meet up next week. 

We are going to hear testimony about the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program and other key programs that provide Federal support for the men and women who serve in law enforcement. 

When I worked to introduce and pass the original bulletproof vest 

program in 1998, I joined with then-Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Republican from Colorado—I was the Democrat from 

Vermont. But we both had served in law enforcement, and we 

wanted to join together and make it a nonpartisan issue, and we 

passed it because we wanted to do all we could to protect the men 

and women in law enforcement as they are the people who protect 

all of us. Just as we should have the best equipped armed forces 

in the world and the best equipped National Guard units, I believe 

that our State and local law enforcement officers need the best and 

most modern equipment to fulfill their mission and protect us in 

our communities, whether they are large ones or small ones, across 

the country. 

You know, this program originated because we knew we needed 

Federal assistance. This happened after a tragic time when several 

law enforcement officers from Vermont and New Hampshire lost 

their lives bringing a killing rampage by Carl Drega along the borVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 May 08, 2012 Jkt 073812 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73812.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
2 

der between New Hampshire and Vermont to an end. Ironically, 

when that happened, the week that happened, the then-Director of 

the FBI, Louis Freeh, and his family were staying with my family 

and me at our home in Middlesex, Vermont. We came back here, 

and Senator Campbell and I joined together to ensure that such 

basic, life-saving equipment as the bulletproof vest would be available to State and local law enforcement officers. It was after that 

that we found how much they cost and how few departments had 

them. 

Now, I would like to say there is no need for this program today, 

but, tragically, law enforcement deaths are on the rise again. We 

discussed this in another context in Burlington on Monday. But 

last year, 177 Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers 

were killed in the line of duty. No one should question the sacrifices that our law enforcement officers and their families make. 

While dangers, injuries, and death are increasing, State and local 

law enforcement budgets are being cut. Nearly 12,000 police officers and sheriff’s deputies were laid off last year, and the Department of Justice’s Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services 

reports that approximately 30,000 law enforcement jobs remain unfilled. I bring this up because there is a reason to ask for important 

Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. It is a key 

investment in public safety. I was pleased to see the President’s fiscal year 2013 request for the bulletproof vest program is consistent 

with recent appropriations. 

During National Police Week in 2008, Detective David Azur of 

Baltimore testified before this Committee. Detective Azur was shot 

at point-blank range in the middle of the chest while apprehending 

a criminal. Every one of us remembers when the detective held up 

the armor plate from the vest that stopped the bullet that would 

have stopped his life. I remember his father sitting behind him and 

the look on his face just thinking how differently that could have 

turned out. 

Since we enacted the original Leahy-Campbell law, the vest program has contributed to the purchase of nearly 1 million ballistic 

vests to help protect our law enforcement officers. As I said earlier—and I saw Mr. Canterbury nod at this—I wish that this equipment was not needed at all, but we know better. I am often reminded of the importance of it when I run into police officers, 

whether in Vermont or around the country, and they tap their 

chests and point to the vest. 

I have told others the story of walking down the street in Denver, Colorado. A uniformed police officer comes up to me and says, 

‘‘Are you Senator Leahy?’’ And I said, ‘‘Yes, I am.’’ He just tapped 

his chest. I heard the thump, thump of the vest, and he said, 

‘‘Thank you,’’ and just walked off. It is kind of a nice feeling. 

We are going to hear from two outstanding representatives of 

law enforcement. Chief Michael Schirling of Burlington, Vermont, 

is one of the new generation of law enforcement leaders. I believe 

Vermonters really do look at him with pride. And Chuck Canterbury, a person who has served in law enforcement for 25 years and 

I have come to know him well, is the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police and a good friend. He is a strong voice for 

the men and women of law enforcement around the country. I see 

3 

Mr. Pasco sitting behind him, another strong voice for law enforcement. 

We are also going to hear suggestions from a representative of 

the GAO on how the Department of Justice might further improve 

its distribution of funding. I might say that I do not know how 

Congress would operate without the professionalism of the GAO, 

and I thank you for being here. 

Again, this has never been a partisan issue. Republicans and 

Democrats alike have joined in it. Longstanding Federal initiatives 

like the Violence Against Women Act, the Second Chance Act, the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act and other important programs 

have traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Senators Mikulski and Shelby, as the bipartisan leaders of the key Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee, and Senators on both sides 

of the aisle supported this program. 

I am holding the hearing today because the Bulletproof Vest 

Partnership Grant Act expires in September, and I want you to 

know I will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to reauthorize this program, and I am going to invite all Senators in both parties to join me in the effort. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant 

program increases officer safety and effectiveness, and it is a bipartisan tradition. I hope we can proceed to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program and other important law enforcement measures, and Congress will join together with one voice 

to send a strong, clear message to our Nation’s law enforcement officers that we will do all we can to protect them, as they protect 

us. 

I would say as an aside that when Senator Campbell was here, 

we always used to joke that in Colorado this was the CampbellLeahy program. In Vermont, it was the Leahy-Campbell program. 

Either way it is a darn good program, and we encourage every Senator to support this program for the benefit of law enforcement in 

their State. 

Now, our first witness—and, Senator Franken, thank you for 

being here, and Senator Kohl. Our first witness is Michael 

Schirling, who has been the chief of the Burlington Police Department since January of 2008. Previously, when I first knew him, he 

ran the Burlington Police Department’s Administrative Services 

Bureau. He oversaw important components, including emergency 

management and homeland security, the Detective Services Bureau 

and training and recruitment. He joined the department as a uniformed officer in 1993. In 1999, Chief Schirling helped found the 

Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force and has 

continued as the coordinator of that task force ever since, something we did not have in Vermont, and, unfortunately and tragically, we found that Vermont needed it as other States did. He has 

been a State leader in computer forensics, co-founder of the Digital 

Forensic Technology Program at Champlain College in Burlington. 

He received his bachelor’s degree in political science and his master’s of education, leadership, and policy development from the University of Vermont. 

Chief Schirling, good to have you here. Please go ahead, sir. 

4 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. SCHIRLING, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Chief SCHIRLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

Good morning, Senators. It is a pleasure to be with you again. 

As the Chairman indicated, my name is Michael Schirling. I have 

the privilege of serving as the chief of police for the city of Burlington, Vermont. 

Burlington is a community of about 40,000, located on the eastern shores of Lake Champlain about 35 miles south of the Canadian border. It is a small city by national standards, but one that 

shares in all of the challenges of contemporary government and 

contemporary law enforcement. It is the central hub of activity, 

education, commerce, and services for northwestern Vermont, 

which encompasses a population of about 150,000 residents. We 

have a 147-year history of providing law enforcement services to 

Vermont’s largest city and currently do that with a staff of about 

100 police officers and 36 civilian employees. 

Nationally, our 18,000 police departments and 800,000 police officers, including Burlington, confront increasingly complex challenges on our streets and in our neighborhoods. Twenty-first century law enforcement stands squarely at the crossroads of every 

contemporary social issue. Each day in the United States, law enforcement officers are thrust into a myriad of situations in which, 

despite their best efforts and skill, they lack full control of the 

events as they unfold and from time to time with increasing frequency are seriously injured or killed. In the roughly 1 million encounters they have each day, officers face far more complex and unpredictable scenarios than we could have imagined even 10 years 

ago. This results from a wide range of complicating factors including offenders released from our prisons, those with intractable substance abuse and addiction issues, and some in our communities 

with unmet mental health needs. 

Last year was a tragic one for law enforcement in the United 

States. For the first time, the number of officers killed by gunfire 

exceeded the number killed in traffic crashes. The overall number 

of officers killed in the line of duty rose 37 percent in 2010 followed 

by a 16-percent increase in 2011. The Nation’s police chiefs are vividly aware that we must continually evaluate and develop techniques that will protect our officers when confronted by those who 

will not hesitate to injure or even kill them. We owe this to those 

who put their lives on the line every day for the freedoms that we 

cherish in this Nation. 

Among the most basic strategies is the use of bulletproof vests. 

My agency has mandated the wearing of vests for all uniformed 

personnel, and in October of 2011, the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police stated that they believe mandatory wear should be 

a standard for all law enforcement agencies. As you are aware, the 

Attorney General has mandated that any agency receiving vest 

partnership funds must have a mandatory-wear policy as well. 

Vests are just one part of the equation. In 2002, the IACP Division of State Associations of Chiefs of Police created SafeShield, an 

initiative dedicated to protecting our Nation’s law enforcement officers and reducing the number of officers killed in the line of duty 

with a target of zero each year. With the recent surge in violence 

5 

against police, there are two noteworthy projects underway: The 

first is Reducing Officer Injuries: Developing Policy Responses 

project, and the other is the National Center for the Prevention of 

Violence Against the Police. And there is a little more detail about 

each of those initiatives in my written testimony. 

Federal, State, local, university, and tribal law enforcement are 

doing all we can to protect our communities from crime, disorder, 

and the specter of terrorism. I would be remiss if I did not take 

a moment to recognize the fiscal reality that faces our Nation 

today. We must be smart about the projects and initiatives that we 

choose to fund as our Nation works hard to recover from a devastating recession. The safety of our Nation’s law enforcement officers is such a wise and necessary investment. I urge you to continue to fund, continue to authorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Senators, for taking 

testimony on this important topic and for your continued leadership and assistance on criminal justice matters and the safety of 

our law enforcement officers nationwide. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Schirling appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Chief. 

David Maurer is the Director of the Government Accountability 

Office’s Homeland Security and Justice Team. He directs the GAO’s 

effort to examine and review Department of Homeland Security 

and Department of Justice management policies. He has been at 

the GAO since 1993. He led teams at GAO’s Natural Resource and 

Environment Section and also its International Affairs and Trade 

Section. He received a master’s in science and national resource 

strategy from the National Defense University, a master’s in international public policy from the University of Michigan, and his undergraduate degree in international relations from Michigan State 

University. 

Mr. Maurer, we are delighted to have you here. Please go ahead, 

sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. MAURER, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MAURER. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Leahy and 

other members and staff. I am pleased to be here today to talk 

about the Department of Justice’s efforts to support the use of body 

armor by local law enforcement officers. 

Now, in a minute you are going to hear me talk about grants 

management and internal controls. Those things are important to 

someone like me who has spent his career at GAO. But it is also 

important to recognize that body armor saves lives. Wearing a bulletproof or a stab-resistant vest helps police officers, sheriffs, State 

troopers, and correctional officers make a demanding and sometimes dangerous job safer. 

My statement for the record discusses the findings from our report being released today on DOJ’s efforts to support body armor 

use and manage the grants it provides for purchasing body armor. 

I will now briefly highlight some of the key points from our work. 

6 

First, DOJ is doing several things to support body armor, including conducting research, developing new standards, and testing for 

compliance. For example, the National Institute of Justice, or NIJ, 

is in the process of revising standards for ballistic-resistant and 

stab-resistant body armor. NIJ is also working to improve the fit 

and comfort of body armor for the estimated 100,000 women who 

work as law enforcement officers. 

DOJ also provides grant funding to State and local agencies 

through two different programs. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership, 

or BVP, is a very specific program that partially reimburses jurisdictions for the cost of body armor, and since 1999 this program 

has reimbursed grantees $247 million for the purchase of nearly 1 

million vests. 

The Justice Assistance Grant, or JAG program, is a broad program that provides money that can be used to buy body armor 

along with a wide variety of other criminal justice activities. Our 

work looked at the controls DOJ has in place to ensure that grant 

funds are being spent in compliance with program requirements. 

We found that DOJ has several controls in place for both programs, 

but needs to improve the management in some key areas, and I 

would like to highlight two of the areas we found where DOJ needs 

to improve. 

First, we recommended—and DOJ agreed—that it needed to do 

a better job tracking and reusing funds from grants that have 

closed because no one has sought reimbursement. We found that 

the BVP program currently has $27 million in unused funds from 

closed grants. All of this money can be reused. Given that Congress 

appropriated $24 million for the BVP program for this year, the 

$27 million our work identified could have significant benefits. DOJ 

could use these funds to provide additional grants or reduce the 

amount it requests from Congress. 

Second, we found important inconsistencies across the two DOJ 

grant programs that provide funding for body armor. Specifically, 

BVP grant recipients must have a mandatory-wear policy. If a police department wants BVP money for bulletproof vests, it needs to 

require officers to wear them. BVP grantees are also only allowed 

to purchase body armor that passes NIJ compliance testing. 

However, the JAG program currently does not have these requirements. JAG grantees do not need a mandatory-wear policy 

and do not have to purchase NIJ-compliant body armor. This creates a potential safety issue for officers, which is why we recommended that DOJ establish consistent requirements for both 

programs. DOJ said it would take action to do so. 

The Department’s willingness to take prompt action to address 

our recommendations is consistent with its overall effort to support 

the use of body armor. The DOJ staff we met with during the 

course of our review were clearly committed to getting better body 

armor in the hands of State and local law enforcement. The results 

of our work can help improve their ability to achieve this important 

goal. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

morning, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maurer appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

7 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, and thank you also for 

mentioning what you did about both the mandatory-wear policy 

and also the fact that if there is extra money there, being able to 

reallocate it. 

Chuck Canterbury is no stranger to this Committee. He is the 

national president of the Fraternal Order of Police. He represents 

the interests of over 330,000 members of law enforcement on a 

whole wide range of issues. He has served as president of the FOP 

since 2003, having been re-elected five times. Prior to becoming national president, Mr. Canterbury spent over 25 years in law enforcement. He served in the Patrol Division, Criminal Investigations Division, Training Division, and Operations Bureau of the 

Horry County Police Department in Conway, South Carolina. During his time in the Training Division, he certified instruction in 

basic law enforcement firearms, chemical weapons, and pursuit 

driving. He received his undergraduate degree from Coastal Carolina University. 

Mr. Canterbury, delighted to have you here as always. Please go 

ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today. I would like to thank Senator Franken and Senator Kohl 

and other members who will be present I am sure shortly. I want 

to thank you for allowing me to be here this morning to talk about 

this extremely important problem in law enforcement, and that is, 

the purchase of the bulletproof vest program. 

As you stated earlier, sir, you and then-Senator Ben Nighthorse 

Campbell, a former deputy sheriff, proposed a simple bill with a 

very simple goal: to increase the number of law enforcement officers wearing soft body armor by creating a program to provide 

matching Federal funds to State or local law enforcement agencies 

of any size seeking to purchase these vests. 

The legislation was written to ensure agencies which do not provide their officers with soft body armor would be able to do so and 

gave priority to those agencies where crime and violence are more 

prevalent. Additionally, agencies with outdated or ineffective body 

armor were given access to the grant, enabling them to upgrade 

their equipment and give maximum protection to their officers. 

There is no legislation, no Government program, no grant or public-private partnership that can erase the sad fact that law enforcement officers will die. They will die in the line of duty at the hands 

of armed and violent criminals. But this program, Mr. Chairman, 

saves lives. 

On December 23, 1975, Seattle Patrolman Raymond T. Johnson 

was shot. Fortunately, he was wearing soft body armor crafted 

through a partnership with the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, and he survived. Since that shooting, the 

IACP Dupont Survivors Club has certified 3,145 saves. That is 

3,145 law enforcement officers who went home to their families and 

3,145 names fewer on the Wall of Remembrance at Judiciary 

8 

Square. I do not know of any other programs that can quantify 

their success so starkly. 

The 1970s was the deadliest decade for law enforcement officers, 

with more than 2,200 officers killed in the line of duty. But as soft 

body armor became more common, more affordable, and more comfortable, it vastly improved the safety of law enforcement officers. 

Since 1970, firearm deaths are down 44 percent overall, and much 

of that credit goes to soft body armor. This improvement is tempered by the events of last year, when 71 law enforcement officers 

were killed by firearms. 

Overall, we lost 177 officers in the line of duty last year, the 

highest total since 2007. Of these slain heroes, 32 percent were not 

wearing their body armor when they died. 

Soft body armor not only provides ballistic protection but greatly 

increases the safety and survivability of other injuries from car 

crashes, physical fights, falls, and other trauma. Over the past 10 

years, law enforcement officers were assaulted nearly 60,000 times 

in the course of a year, resulting in the average of 16,000 injuries. 

In many cases, soft body armor is a factor in these officers’ escaping the assault without injury or reducing the impact of that injury. 

In many ways, the body armor is the single most important and 

effective piece of equipment a law enforcement officer can possess. 

Law enforcement officers are constantly in harm’s way. They 

work out of their police vehicle and are expected to go forward into 

the unknown, and most of the time unsupported when they do. 

What these officers do in the critical opening moments of an incident will shape the outcome of the incident. These officers live or 

die with what they have at that moment. If their equipment is not 

adequate, the outcome can be devastating. Their equipment must 

include soft body armor that is faithfully worn. Armor at the station or in the back of a scout car provides no protection. 

Yet, sadly, every year we lose officers in the line of duty who 

were not wearing their armor. We cannot stress to our officers 

enough just how important it is to wear. As the father of a police 

officer, I make sure my son goes to work every day wearing his 

vest. 

To increase the percentage of law enforcement officers that are 

wearing vests, the BVP program now requires officers to mandatory-wear vest policies in their Department. The FOP supports 

mandating that every agency have a policy about wearing soft body 

armor, but that policy is best set by the agency in conjunction with 

their collective bargaining unit and the rank-and-file officers. 

For instance, it may not be necessary to have a plainclothes detective in body armor when he is expected to be at his desk. Similarly, a chief or sheriff in uniform on official business appearing at 

a hearing or holding a press conference may not be required. But, 

generally speaking, the FOP supports the increased use of body 

armor. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to say that the support 

for this program through the Federal grant program has been deteriorating in recent years. Programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program and the hiring program administered by the Office of Community-Oriented Policing were once 

9 

regarded as critical in maintaining the Nation’s historically low 

crime rates. 

Members of Congress once held in high regard on law-and-order 

issues are now pushing deep and unsustainable cuts to these programs at a time when law enforcement agencies are facing cuts in 

manpower and equipment at every level. This is not fiscally responsible. It is totally irresponsible. 

We urge you to fund this program and for Congress to support 

you on it, and we thank you for everything that you have done personally for the law enforcement community over your long career 

in the Senate. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canterbury appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Canterbury. You can tell 

your son I agree with you. Be sure and wear it. If I had a son in 

law enforcement, I would be—a son or daughter, I would be telling 

them to do exactly that. 

Chief Schirling, when we enacted this vest program, both Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell and I felt strongly that it is important that 

every qualifying jurisdiction gets the funding provided by Congress. 

Then a couple years after we passed it, we expanded that to make 

sure that jurisdictions under 100,000 people were guaranteed the 

full 50-percent Federal match before funding went to larger jurisdictions. More recently, we have worked to make sure that in cases 

of financial hardship the Bureau of Justice Assistance could waive 

the grant program’s matching requirement. 

Now, you have to go to the city council and justify your budget 

every year. How would you characterize the assistance provided 

through the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program? 

Chief SCHIRLING. I think I can answer that question very simply. 

It has been an essential component of ensuring that we can maintain a robust program to keep officers in current vest technology. 

It is not just about an initial purchase. A firearm, for example, may 

last a police officer an entire career, but a vest only has a shelf life 

of about 5 years, depending on how it is exposed to elements and 

cared for and things of that nature. 

So it is an ongoing expense. It is one that is a challenge for 

smaller jurisdictions, and as other challenges continue to persist, 

both funding and operational challenges, the assistance in this 

realm has been essential. 

Chairman LEAHY. I think the thing that surprised most people— 

I know it did me when we first got into this—was the fact that 

these vests do wear out. We are used to the fact that weapons can 

last forever, but these can wear out. 

You are chief of the largest city in Vermont, but we are largely 

a rural State. The town I live in is about 1,600 people, and in land 

size it is half the size of the District of Columbia. But can you tell 

us how this Federal assistance works in rural areas? 

Chief SCHIRLING. I can. It is similar in its impact, I believe, in 

smaller areas as it is in Burlington. I think even more so in terms 

of its impact on the smaller towns’ budgets. 

In terms of its operational impact, we have seen over the last 

decade an interesting evolution in the challenges that face small 

10 

urban and rural law enforcement as policing in our larger urban 

areas has become more effective, markedly so in many of our larger 

jurisdictions. 

The issues have really become more diffuse in their geographic 

locations, so the issues that used to be inner-city issues in New 

York or Boston or some of the larger metropolitan areas in New 

England now make their way fully into Vermont as drug networks 

and other problems are spreading. 

Chairman LEAHY. The interstate is a double-edged sword, isn’t 

it? 

Chief SCHIRLING. It is. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Canterbury talked about the mandatorywear policy that he implemented, and you, of course, have that 

same policy at the Burlington Police Department. Attorney General 

Holder has implemented the requirement for recipients. Tell me, 

how do the officers feel about this? And be as candid as you wish. 

Chief SCHIRLING. A 21st century law enforcement officer for the 

most part understands the need to protect themselves with body 

armor. There are issues that need to be balanced. It is not the only 

piece of equipment that they are carrying. Today officers carry between 16 and 20 pounds of additional gear on their hips, and we 

are constantly looking for ways to alleviate the strain on their 

lower backs and hips and the nerves that run down the side of 

their legs as a result of carrying that extra weight. 

One of the latest innovations in vest technology in addition to the 

great strides that have been made in the content of the vest itself 

is external vest carriers. So you will see in news coverage or maybe 

in your home towns police officers wearing vests that are over their 

uniform shirts instead of under their shirts. They are still contemporary soft body armor. They are just in different carriers, and 

those carriers are designed to alleviate some of the weight that is 

being carried on the officers’ lower back and around the gun belt 

by moving some of the gear up onto the vest itself and then it can 

hang on the shoulders, which are much better equipped to carry 

that weight than hips are. 

Chairman LEAHY. And you do have some flexibility, depending 

upon what the situation would be. We have talked about sitting at 

the desk or things like that. 

Chief SCHIRLING. That is exactly right. With the external vest 

carriers if an officer is in doing 2 or 3 hours of paperwork on an 

arrest that was just made, they can take that carrier off and place 

it on the desk next to them and relieve all of that weight and all 

of the heat that is associated with wearing the vest for that period 

of time that they are doing paperwork. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, this goes into a little bit about what Mr. 

Maurer talked about, the fit and the durability of ballistic vests. 

Obviously, certainly I have seen a lot of advances. We recognize the 

fact we have a lot of women as police officers. Do you have any recommendations you would like to make? You mentioned this outside 

wear. Do you have any other recommendations? 

Chief SCHIRLING. I think continuing to explore better fit and better material and more effective vests, stab-resistant vests, vests 

that are thinner and lighter, and all of those things have been 

evolving over the last 20 years. If I were to have brought my origiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 May 08, 2012 Jkt 073812 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73812.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
11 

nal vest from roughly 20 years ago, its thickness and weight and 

its ability to move as I moved would bear no resemblance to the 

vest that I was issued just 2 or 3 years ago, which is much thinner, 

much lighter, has a much greater range of movement, and is a lot 

more viable as something that is worn for a 10-hour shift; and in 

the case of many officers, they are not controlling what is happening at the end of the shift, so an 8- or 10- hour shift or a 12- 

hour shift often go longer than that. So it is a fairly long time to 

wear a piece of equipment, and those evolutions, both for male officers and the evolutions in design for female officers, have made 

things more comfortable. But I think the further we get down the 

road of vest innovation, the more comfortable things will become. 

Chairman LEAHY. It is interesting because I remember issuing 

and getting search warrants for police to make a raid. I remember 

what they had: basically big steel plates to wear. I do not know 

how they even moved in them back then. That was a million years 

ago. You and I had the privilege of bringing the FBI Director, Bob 

Mueller, through the Burlington Police Department, and I recall 

some of the pictures—some of them I still chuckle about—showing 

the old equipment we had then. 

I would tell my colleagues, one of the things I think Chief 

Schirling is smiling about, when I was State’s attorney, I used to 

go out every year to the police outdoor pistol range and qualify 

with them, and they had a picture of me there. Mr. Mueller is— 

the chief somehow found this in the archives, and not only did I 

have hair, but I had long sideburns. But I also qualified each time. 

I will have other questions for the other members of the panel 

afterward, but let me yield to Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this hearing today. We owe our law enforcement officers a very 

great debt of gratitude for their work—the work that they do every 

day keeping our communities safe and enforcing the laws. 

I was a strong supporter of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act 

in 1999, and I am pleased that it continues to have an impact on 

the safety of our law enforcement officers. I will, of course, be supporting the reauthorization of this legislation and ensuring that we 

fund it at an adequate level. We need to do everything we can for 

the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. 

There is no question that bulletproof vests save lives. For instance, last March, a 9-year veteran of the Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, 

Police Department was shot twice in the chest as he responded to 

a call. Fortunately, the officer had chosen to wear a bulletproof vest 

even though his department did not require it, and the vest saved 

his life. 

I believe that no officer should be without a bulletproof vest. We 

need to do all we can to ensure that all jurisdictions, large and 

small, are able to buy them. We also need to ensure that the vests 

fit well and that they are comfortable enough for officers to wear 

them. These vests, in my opinion, are a fundamental part of keeping officers safe in the line of duty, and so the Federal Government 

needs to help State and local law enforcement provide this essential equipment to their officers. 

I would like to ask each one of you: Do you believe that just as 

officers wear all the necessary equipment that you have described 

12 

today, they should also wear—in the line of duty when they are out 

there in the field, they also should be required to wear a bulletproof vest? Chief? 

Chief SCHIRLING. Senator, thank you for the question. I think the 

answer is absolutely yes. Not only should they be wearing, in my 

opinion, soft body armor in their day-to-day operations, but anytime we go to a known threat scenario, we should do everything 

possible to deliver the next stage of armor, an external larger carrier that protects against an additional threat level, a more tactical 

vest. And I am not suggesting that relates directly to the Vest 

Partnership, but in some regard it does because in our case it frees 

up the limited resources that we do have so we can buy additional 

armor that they can wear when faced with a known armed assailant. 

Senator KOHL. But they should be required? 

Chief SCHIRLING. Absolutely. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Maurer. 

Mr. MAURER. Yes, the mandatory-wear policy that the Attorney 

General has in place is a good measure, in our view. It helps protect lives. One of the things that we recommend in our report, obviously, is that DOJ explore expanding this requirement to the JAG 

program as well. We are concerned that jurisdictions may be purchasing bulletproof vests with JAG money where they do not have 

mandatory-wear policies and where they do not meet NIJ compliance. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. 

Mr. Canterbury. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Senator, we support mandatory-wear policies 

as long as they take into consideration undercover operations, inside work. You know, a lot of these are governed by collective bargaining agreements. But for the police officer on the street engaged 

in active law enforcement and the acts of apprehension, yes, sir, we 

support mandatory wear. 

Senator KOHL. All right. And I agree with that. But if we are 

going to do that, how can we not provide the equipment? In many 

places—what?—the officer is supposed to pay himself? Can we on 

the one hand say you must wear this piece of equipment and on 

the other hand not provide it to him or her? How does that work, 

sir? 

Chief SCHIRLING. I should qualify my remarks that I agree with 

Mr. Canterbury that there are scenarios where wearing the vest, 

like in an undercover operation, may actually compromise the officer’s safety, so I am talking about uniformed officers in the standard course of duty. 

Senator KOHL. Yes. 

Chief SCHIRLING. I think you are right that, without assistance, 

many of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States 

would not be able to afford to provide vests for their officers. The 

first bulletproof vest that I purchased in Burlington in 1989, I purchased with my own funds. We did not have the money to—we did 

not have the money at the time to issue pads and pens. You went 

to the drugstore to get your pads and pens for your uniform. A lot 

has changed since then, but there is still a long way to go in terms 

of resource availability. And with changing technology, the need, 

13 

again, to replace things, to keep them contemporary against the 

contemporary threats that we face is just as challenging. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Maurer, if we are not going to provide the 

money, how can we insist that the officer wear the equipment? 

Mr. MAURER. I think you are absolutely right. If there is a requirement that the officers wear this type of equipment, it should 

be something that is purchased for them. They should not have to 

cover the costs out of their own pockets. Obviously, the policy issue 

is whether those funds come from Federal, State, and local, and on 

that, you know, GAO is going to be agnostic on that point. But we 

do think it is important that if it is going to be a requirement of 

the day-to-day responsibilities, it should be provided for the officers. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Canterbury. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. With the average police department being ten 

men or less in the United States—and that is the non-gender-specific ‘‘men’’—we would not have them. I purchased my first one in 

1979. It took a considerable amount of my $7,600 a year salary to 

purchase a $400 vest. But my family thought it was important, and 

we struggled for it. 

I have agencies in my county now that are currently wearing expired vests from my agency, and we see a lot of that. And during 

the Iraq conflict, many police agencies were sending their used, 

out-of-date vests to the Iraqi police academies. So, you know, some 

protection is better than none. 

So without Federal Government assistance, this program will not 

continue at the State and local level, period. 

Senator KOHL. So you think, one, we should have that mandatory wear, but, No. 2, in order for that to occur, the Federal Government is going to have to do a large part of the financing? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I think without the Federal Government financing the program, vest wear will go down considerably across 

the country. And as I said earlier, we do support a mandatory-wear 

policy, provided, however, you have the proper exclusions for when 

it is necessary or when it is not needed. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

Senator Blumenthal, And I should also note he is a former Attorney General of his State. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

all for being here today. 

In particular, Chief Schirling, thank you for your service in 

Vermont in the beautiful city of Burlington, which I have been 

privileged to visit. And thank you, Mr. Canterbury, for your service 

in South Carolina. And I am interested in your opinion, very valuable to this Committee, on the mandatory-wear policy, but as Attorney General, we actually investigated a number of deficiencies 

that occurred in the production of this body armor, deficiencies relating to the expiration or reduction in its effectiveness before the 

date that it was supposed to do. And I wonder if you could comment, particularly Chief Schirling and Mr. Canterbury—and, Mr. 

Maurer, if you have any observations—on problems that have arisen and possibly the need for better testing and earlier replacement 

14 

of this body armor so we do not rely on it past the point when it 

has been effective. And it really has helped save lives in Connecticut and around the country, as you know better than I. So I 

would welcome your comments on that point. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. The National Fraternal Order of Police has 

supported the NIJ guidelines going back before there were guidelines. Many years ago, there was a company that had manipulated 

their statistics, and we called for a criminal investigation of that 

company, as well as NIJ standards, and NIJ has produced vests 

that are a little bit thicker than some of the vests that were produced prior to NIJ standards, but traditional testing on those vests 

proved that they were not adequate. So we very much support the 

NIJ standards. They have used a lot of local law enforcement in 

their work with wearability. Obviously, if you wanted to stop a 

round, you could build a vest big enough to stop just about anything out there, but it would not be functional. So the NIJ standards we believe have been very helpful. 

Chief SCHIRLING. Thank you for the question, Senator. We would 

welcome you back to Burlington anytime you want to visit. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. I have to consult my Chairman first before I go back to Vermont. 

[Laughter.] 

Chief SCHIRLING. I would concur with Mr. Canterbury. We as an 

agency our size, which is relatively large by national standards, 

rely heavily on NIJ and other testing done by Federal agencies like 

the FBI on vests to know whether what is being advertised is accurate. Really the best we can hope for in terms of testing is after 

the fact. When we retire a vest, hopefully after the recommended 

5-year life span, we occasionally take a vest out to the training 

range and will fire our duty rounds into it to test its efficiency or 

efficacy. And to date, I am happy to report that I do not think we 

have found issues with too much penetration beyond what was advertised during those random tests. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Maurer. 

Mr. MAURER. Yes, we found that there is a lot going on at NIJ 

and its partners across the Federal Government on these important 

issues. NIJ is working with the Defense Department, for example, 

trying to gain the benefit of their experience with body armor from 

a military context and applying that to the law enforcement context, and there are issues associated with wear and fit. 

We also found that NIJ does these compliance tests to make sure 

that manufactured body armor meets the standards, and these are 

not rubber stamps. We found that in about half the cases the vests 

were failing the tests, and that was actually a good sign to us that 

these were stringent tests. And that is important for law enforcement to make sure that when something is NIJ compliant, they 

have gone through some standard and rigorous testing. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. We, by the way, settled the cases and the 

investigations involving these companies to the benefit of our police 

departments in Connecticut. But I think it highlights the need for 

this continued regimen of testing and vigilance to make sure that 

the body armor actually works, because it may actually be counterproductive to have body armor, obviously, as you know, that is relied on and then does not work. 

15 

Do you find, Mr. Canterbury, because you raised the issue of collective bargaining and so forth, increasing acceptance of body 

armor as necessary to wear? Or is there still some resistance to it? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Senator, I believe that without collective bargaining agreements, many of our agencies would not have vests 

today. It is the officers who bring those safety issues into question. 

When I first asked for a ballistic vest for my department, the question I got from a 30-year veteran chief was, ‘‘Are you scared to do 

your job? ’’ And I said, ‘‘No. But I want to go home to my family.’’ 

So I think actually the unions have greatly increased the use of 

safety equipment and probably were more of a catalyst to them becoming widely accepted than anything out there. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I would agree with you on the basis 

of my limited experience, and thank you for that observation. 

Thank you all for your great work, and thank you for your testimony. 

Chairman LEAHY. I should note, Senator Blumenthal, you are 

welcome in Vermont anytime. I suspect if you went to the Burlington Police Department, Chief Schirling would not resist the 

temptation to show you those old photographs. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That may be worth the trip. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. I am a strong supporter of the Bulletproof Vests Partnership program whose vests save lives. I will give an example. Fairmont, Minnesota, is a relatively small town of about 10,000 people 

just north of the Iowa border. It is a tight-knit community. 

On October 26, 2010, Fairmont police officer Chad Sanow finished dinner with his wife and kids and then left for work. Shortly 

thereafter, he responded to a call for a fire, a house fire. It turned 

out to be an ambush. A gunman was hiding among the flames. Officer Sanow was shot in the chest during the encounter. 

Two amazing things happened next. First, Officer Sanow received a call from his wife, and in the midst of the chaos, he answered the phone. He later said, ‘‘I knew I should not have answered it, but I did not know how bad my injuries were, and I 

wanted to talk to her because what if I did not make it and I wanted to hear her voice.’’ 

The other amazing thing was Officer Sanow survived. He was 

wearing a bulletproof vest the Fairmont Police Department had obtained through the BVP program; otherwise, he would have died. 

His lieutenant later said that the bulletproof vest absolutely saved 

Sanow’s life. Officer Sanow walked away with a deep purple bruise 

on his chest, and that is what this program is all about. 

Last year, about 180 towns in Minnesota acquired more than 

2,500 bulletproof vests through the BVP program. When I think of 

the BVP program, I do not think of statistics. I think about this 

story and I think of people like Officer Sanow. 

Not long after the shooting, Officer Sanow said that he wears his 

bulletproof vest for his family because ‘‘every night I want to be 

able to tuck my kids into bed.’’ I think you said that or something 

very similar, Officer Canterbury. And he said, ‘‘I want to share that 

meal at supper.’’ 

16 

Officer Sanow has been keeping his community safe for more 

than 15 years, and we are blessed that he is still with us and serving the people of Fairmont. 

Mr. Canterbury, you brought up the issue of wearability, and I 

think this is an interesting issue, which is that at a certain point 

you reach a point of diminishing returns. As you were saying, you 

can create something thick enough to stop anything. But it is really 

important that these things be comfortable enough that it does not 

incentivize not wearing it, right? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, sir, absolutely, especially in high-humidity situations, temperatures that you have in Phoenix every day in 

the summer, comfort and wearability are essential. They could be 

dangerous at some point with those kind of high-temperature situations if you did not have the NIJ testing and other ways for officers 

to—in those agencies, I believe the over-the-shirt vests work very 

well because at least when they are in their car they can loosen 

them, get air under them. When you are wearing that under your 

shirt and over a T-shirt and many times another shirt to keep it 

off your skin, it makes it very difficult. So the industry has done 

well to come up with new ways. 

Senator FRANKEN. When assessing the effectiveness of it, that 

wearability issue is actually an issue because it is counterproductive if you do not wear it. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely. 

Senator FRANKEN. Last week, I introduced the Local Courthouse 

Safety Act to codify the Justice Department’s Valor Initiative, 

which provides training and technical assistance to local law enforcement personnel and teaching them how to anticipate and prevent violent incidents. For example, the Valor Initiative teaches officers how to detect concealed weapons and to identify potential 

gunmen. 

Mr. Canterbury, I understand you have served as a training division supervisor with your police force. Do you agree that training 

is an important component of officer safety? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. The most essential part of officer safety, and, 

unfortunately, it is the first thing cut when money gets tight. So 

without programs like BVP, the next thing that is going to be cut 

is officer training. It is the first and easiest thing to stop in a budget. 

Senator FRANKEN. And you talked about those critical opening 

moments of an incident. This is one of the reasons I support the 

Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act. You are 

familiar with that. People with mental illnesses are disproportionately caught up in the criminal justice system, and encounters with 

this population present a unique set of challenges for police. 

The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act 

helps local police develop models for responding to incidents involving the mentally ill. Mr. Schirling, do you agree that specialized 

training for police can reduce injuries to not just officers but civilians during encounters with mentally ill individuals? And can you 

speak to the importance of that program? 

Chief SCHIRLING. I do believe that is true, Senator. I think that 

is an excellent topic for discussion here in 2012. One of the most 

challenging things that our officers face day to day is events in 

17 

which people with unmet needs in the realm of mental health are 

acting out in some fashion. And as State budgets continue to be reduced, services and programs for folks that suffer from mental illness are eroding, and when all else fails, the last resort is the 

three-digit phone number. It is 9–1–1. And the situations can be 

very unpredictable, and they can be very challenging to deal with. 

And we are spending a great deal of effort training law enforcement and building additional capacity through street outreach and 

intervention. It is working with law enforcement agencies and 

things of that nature to try to ensure that we can de-escalate those 

scenarios before a bulletproof vest becomes the last line of defense, 

or vice versa, that someone with a mental illness who is there not 

by their own choosing ends up injured or worse as a result of an 

encounter with law enforcement. 

So it is a huge challenge in an area where we need to spend significant focus. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, and thank you all for your testimony and thank you all for your work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. And we have been joined by the Ranking 

Member, Senator Grassley. I will yield to you. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much. I know it is not very 

courteous, my not being here, but I think the Chairman told you 

why I was not. And, besides, there were three other Committee 

meetings scheduled in these morning hours, so forgive me. 

I am going to put a statement in the record, but I want to refer 

to one paragraph from it. Officer safety is paramount, and we 

should do all we can to make sure officers on the streets have body 

armor. However, we must also ensure that taxpayers’ dollars are 

monitored and managed effectively by the Justice Department. We 

can and must do both. Reauthorizing this program affords us that 

opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Maurer, the report released today by 

GAO found that the Justice Department has been carrying forward 

a significant balance in this partnership program. Your audit found 

that $27 million dating back to fiscal year 2002 is currently held 

by the program. On top of that, GAO found that $14 million was 

previously deobligated from the program in 2009 and used to pay 

off a Congressional rescission to the Department’s budget. That is 

$41 million that could have been used to purchase vests for law enforcement agencies. Coupled with the program’s matching requirement, it could have funded up to $82 million worth of vests. 

So, Mr. Maurer, was GAO able to determine why the Department continues to carry over such a balance despite annual appropriations? 

Mr. MAURER. Yes, we talked to the Department of Justice about 

that, and in a nutshell, this is unfortunately not unusual in grant 

programs, not just at DOJ but across all the Government. 

Back in 2008, we issued a report talking about undisbursed 

grant balances, and at that time we found about $1 billion of funds 

like these that were sitting around basically unused. And what 

ends up happening is that awards are made, and for a variety of 

18 

reasons they are never actually acted on. And so the money builds 

up over a period of time. 

Senator GRASSLEY. A couple together here. Was the Department 

even aware that they were carrying such large balances before you 

pointed out? And when asked about the money, what did the Department say it planned to do with it? 

Mr. MAURER. Yes, when we talked to the Department about it, 

they were aware of these balances. Over the period of years, they 

were re-extending the grant award timeframes so that if localities 

had not used the money, they kept them active within the program. 

We also asked them about their plans in addressing this going 

forward, and they said they are going to act on our recommendation to take action to actually use these funds. 

Our point of departure on this is that, you know, whether you 

use these funds to purchase more bulletproof vests or use it to offset future appropriations, it does not serve anyone’s interest to 

have it sitting in a DOJ account not doing anything. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Your report includes a recommendation that the Department deobligate the $27 million. It also notes that 

the Department concurred with the recommendations and ‘‘in the 

absence of statutory restrictions stating otherwise, it intends to use 

the deobligated, undisbursed BVP program funds to supplement 

the appropriation amounts in fiscal year 2012 and 2013.’’ 

Did the Department indicate if this was to buy more vests or 

whether they would use it to pay down more rescissions? 

Mr. MAURER. My understanding of their response—and you can 

ask the Department this directly—is that their plan was to use it 

to purchase more vests. However, what you have read is what they 

provided us in writing. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Were agencies that should be reimbursed 

never awarded funding? 

Mr. MAURER. My understanding is that did not happen. 

Senator GRASSLEY. In your opinion, should Congress stop providing no-year money for this program? 

Mr. MAURER. I think that is a legitimate policy issue for Congress to consider, and we would be happy—I think our report helps 

inform those decisions, but we are not going to take a position on 

whether it should continue to be no-year funding or not. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Bulletproof and stab-proof vests that save the 

lives of our law enforcement officers are a very worthy use of our 

dollars. However, given the current fiscal situation, we must ensure that the program is operated as efficiently as possible. Based 

upon your testimony, it appears that money for body armor has not 

been used efficiently because the money is funneled through two 

different Department of Justice grant programs, each with different 

requirements for the recipients. As a result, funds from both programs for the same purpose may have been provided to the same 

recipients, and some vests bought with that money may not be up 

to the best standards. 

Of the two DOJ grant programs that provide funds for the purchase of vests, only the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, BVP, grant 

program has appropriate safeguards to ensure that the funds are 

used appropriately, such as 50-percent match. The GAO has stated—and I agree—that the matching requirements are crucial to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 May 08, 2012 Jkt 073812 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73812.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
19 

sure that grantees take care to use grant funds efficiently. Byrne/ 

JAG grantees who use funds for vests do not have matching requirements. 

More concerning, there is no guarantee that recipients of Byrne/ 

JAG grants did not use those funds to pay for the match requirements of Bulletproof Vest partnership programs, and Byrne/JAG 

grantees are not required to buy vests that meet DOJ’s own standards for quality and are not required to make sure that their officers actually wear the vests. 

Another difference is that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant 

program requires that grantees make their purchases before being 

reimbursed while the JAG programs provide grantee money up 

front. 

Why does Justice operate these programs differently? And what 

would be the benefits of combining the programs? And, second, 

does DOJ know how many grantees receive money from both of 

these programs in any given fiscal year? And do you know? 

Mr. MAURER. I will answer your last question first. GAO does not 

know nor does DOJ know all the recipients that have received 

funding through the JAG program for purchase of body armor, nor 

are they required to do so. I think that is important to point that 

out as well. 

The JAG program is a very broad program. It is a formula grant 

program. States and localities can use it for a wide variety of purposes, and there is no requirement that they report back to the Department of Justice specifically what they are doing with every dollar spent on that program. 

Obviously, BVP is different. It is a very specific and targeted program designed specifically for body armor. 

Senator GRASSLEY. This will have to be my last question. What 

changes to the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act would you suggest 

to account for these problems or other issues that you discovered 

in the course of your audit? 

Mr. MAURER. We think it is important for the Department to act 

on all the recommendations in our report, and whether that is 

handed through statute or through the Department’s own policies 

we will leave to the Congress and to the Department to work out. 

But I think as a general proposition, it is important that all Department of Justice grant money that is used for the purchase of 

body armor be used to purchase NIJ-compliant body armor, that it 

meets standards, and that it goes to jurisdictions that have mandatory-wear policies in place. We would like to see that consistency. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Quickly, could savings be achieved by consolidating the duplication between these two programs? 

Mr. MAURER. Again, I think that is something for the Congress 

to work out. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

In keeping with having former prosecutors here, we have Senator 

Klobuchar of Minnesota. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to all three of the witnesses. I may be the last one to 

20 

speak, so I am the only thing that stands between you and lunch, 

I guess, and I want to particularly thank Chief Schirling. 

I was very surprised that you would have a chief from Vermont 

here on this panel. You know, we are 50 States. 

Chairman LEAHY. We picked them alphabetically starting with 

‘‘V.’’ 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Very good. 

Also, Director Maurer and Mr. Canterbury, thank you for your 

work on behalf of the brave men and women that put themselves 

on the line every single day. The most moving thing I have seen 

in the last year was, sadly, a funeral for one of the fallen officers. 

Someone who had responded to a domestic violence call was shot 

in the head, so a vest would not have helped in this case. And 

being there at that funeral and seeing his widow with the three little children, two little boys and this girl with this bright blue dress 

on, walk down that aisle of that church was something I am never 

going to forget. And so it reminded me day in and day out how they 

are putting their lives on the line, and we have to do every single 

thing to help them. So thank you so much for your work. 

My first question was actually just about some of the statistics 

and what has been going on. In 2011, 71 police officers nationwide 

were killed by firearms, which is the highest number since 2007, 

and up 20 percent from 2010s total of 59. Do you think there are 

any factors that are contributing to this? Is there some kind of 

trend here? Is there any issue with the bulletproof vests, or is it 

just a statistical aberration? What do you think? Do you have any 

insight on what is going on? Mr. Canterbury, if you want to start. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. A lot of research is being done on that, and we 

do not know. We are dealing with our international partners as 

well, and violence is up all over the world against law enforcement. 

New Zealand, for instance, where police officers do not carry, had 

two officers killed in the line of duty by firearms last year. So we 

are in a lot of discussions. I know that IACP and a number of the 

other groups are trying to look at the statistics on assaults and see. 

Obviously, we think economic conditions play a role at some 

point, but we are hoping it was just an anomaly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Anyone else? Director? 

Mr. MAURER. We did not study that particular issue, but one of 

the things we did come across in our reviews was a RAND study 

that looked at the use of bulletproof vests and found that when officers are wearing bulletproof vests and if they are actually shot in 

the torso, they are almost 4 times as likely to survive. So it is a 

really important part of their equipment. Also, in their study they 

found no cases where there was actually a penetration of the bulletproof vest, so that is indicative of the quality of what is being 

provided. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. According to a National Law Enforcement 

Officers Memorial Fund report, in 2011 nine of the police officers 

killed by the firearms were killed while responding to domestic disturbances. This is an issue that resonates with me. We are trying 

very hard to move the VAWA reauthorization to the floor, and I 

guess my question is more about that. Are officers at some police 

departments required to wear vests while responding to domestic 

disturbance calls? Why are these calls more dangerous? And do you 

21 

have any insight on that? I do not know if you wanted to answer 

that one, Chief? 

Chief SCHIRLING. Certainly, Senator. Thank you. Domestic violence calls are historically an enhanced risk scenario. I think moreover, though, to weave this into your last question as well, we are 

facing, I think, increasingly complex circumstances on the street, 

and there are a variety of things feeding that: an increase in substance abuse, more intractable alcohol and addiction-related issues, 

an increase in the number of contacts with people with underlying 

mental illness, and an increasing number of folks who are in sort 

of overall crisis for a variety of reasons that are often co-occurring 

at the same time. And I think that is leading to more violent encounters and ultimately more officers killed. And domestic violence 

is certainly a thread in there. 

Chairman had a press conference in Vermont on Monday regarding VAWA funding, and one of the themes that we discussed there 

was the fact that in the last 15 years in Vermont, 51 percent of 

the homicides that have occurred were domestic violence related. 

So that level of violence translates directly to, I believe, the encounters that law enforcement officers have with alleged perpetrators of domestic violence, that there is just an enhanced risk that 

goes with that in all of those events. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. You mentioned drugs. I just cannot—I am obsessed with this right now. It is a little off topic, and 

no one is here so that is good. Have you seen an increase with synthetic drugs in Vermont like we have seen in Minnesota? 

Chief SCHIRLING. I am going to knock on wood because we have 

not. Our pervasive issue is addiction to prescription opiates. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. 

Chief SCHIRLING. It is rampant, and it is driving crime, it is driving violence, it is driving everything right now. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, and Senator Cornyn and I worked on 

a prescription take-back to try to make it easier for people to get 

things out of their medicine cabinets, and I know that is not the 

only solution, but we passed that and have been pushing to get the 

rules developed with DEA. 

Anyone else want to comment on the synthetics? 

Mr. Canterbury. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. In my home State, synthetics have been a 

problem. But just like the chief, it is prescription medication along 

with the ability to make cheap, quick methamphetamine. That is 

still a problem. The ingredients are different at times, which make 

them much more dangerous. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. This is a question I bet you were not 

asked by my fellow Senators. This is about women and bulletproof 

vests. More and more women are entering law enforcement. In fact, 

I recommended and the President appointed our first woman Federal Marshal in Minnesota, and she was the deputy police chief in 

the Minneapolis Police Department. 

We have received testimony in the record that suggests that female officers may not be getting bulletproof vests that fit properly 

and that they may be hesitant to requests vests made for women 

because those vests cost more. 

22 

We have also received testimony that suggests that officers may 

be less likely to wear their vests when the vests did not fit properly. 

Could you talk more about these dynamics and what is the issue 

and the impact on female law enforcement? Director? 

Mr. MAURER. Yes, we looked at that issue specifically as part of 

our review, and it is certainly one of the major issues that NIJ is 

studying right now. There are 100,000 female law enforcement officers in this country right now, so obviously having body armor that 

fits and that works is certainly in everyone’s best interest. 

Manufacturers are starting to rise to this challenge, but they 

definitely point to some—it is not an easy thing for them to do. 

They have to provide more contoured body armor for a female officer than for a male officer, and that creates technical challenges 

because there are more seams in the body armor and that makes 

it more difficult to produce something that is protective. 

But you are absolutely right. It needs to be comfortable, and it 

needs to fit well for an officer to have the right incentive to use it 

every single day in the line of duty. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Anyone else? Chief? 

Chief SCHIRLING. Thanks for that question, Senator. We actually 

did address that earlier, surprisingly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Oh, you did? 

Chief SCHIRLING. We did, briefly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Sorry. I was at a farm hearing, but you do 

not want to know all the details on that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chief SCHIRLING. Happy to go back through it, though, and actually add some additional detail. About 20 percent of our officers are 

female, a little bit higher than the national average, and we are 

doing all we can to do custom fitting. But one of the things we are 

also exploring the use of is external vest carriers, which do not require quite as much tailoring so that a uniform shirt has to go over 

them. The shirt is worn, and then the external carrier is worn over 

that. There are a variety of potential benefits, including relieving 

weight from hips and duty belts as well. 

So there is a lot of work being done in terms of enhancing comfort, not just for female officers but for all officers in this area. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Anything more? Mr. Canterbury? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. There is a lot of other equipment that needs 

to be tailored for our female officers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Kind of like the chairs in the Judiciary 

Committee room. That is why I moved over so I could see. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CANTERBURY. The gun belts, the uniform pants, but since my 

start in the career to today, that has changed dramatically. But 

there are a lot of those issues that we need to address. But I think 

the new technology is helping some, and they do cost a little bit 

more, but it is just required. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Well, very good. Thank you to all 

of you for your testimony. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. And you do not have to be a 

former prosecutor to serve on this Committee, but it does help, and 

we have one more, Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who was 

23 

both a U.S. Attorney and Attorney General of his State. I am going 

to turn the gavel over to him while I step back out of the room to 

another meeting. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Shall I recess at the end of my questioning 

or do you—— 

Chairman LEAHY. If there is nobody else here. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very well. 

Chairman LEAHY. Although, if I might, with your indulgence, I 

would ask Mr. Maurer just so we have it on the record: You know 

the DOJ has not deobligated the $27 million funds which we talked 

about earlier. I agree with GAO’s recommendation that the Department could use these funds for new grant awards. You said the Department plans to use these funds to supplement appropriations in 

fiscal years 2012 and 2013. Do you believe—and I assume you do— 

that the Department of Justice is capable of responding to your recommendations? 

Mr. MAURER. Yes, we believe they are capable of responding to 

our recommendation. 

Chairman LEAHY. And, President Canterbury, I think you would 

agree that this program itself has raised the awareness of the need 

for the use of bulletproof vests by police officers. Would you agree 

with that? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely, Senator, and we applaud you for 

continuing to have these hearings so that we can—you know, we 

do not like to advertise the use of bulletproof vests on the street. 

We do not want people to know we are wearing them. But, you 

know, without this type of funding, they will go back to doing bake 

sales and car washes to provide them. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I have told you privately before about the 

police officer in Denver tapping his chest and what he said to me, 

and that is one of the things I will remember all the time I am in 

the Senate. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate the testimony of all the witnesses. 

We lost 160 police officers in 2010 and 164 in 2011 to fatalities 

in the line of duty, so it both reflects on the importance of your 

service, but it also reflects on the importance of this issue. 

The mandatory-wear policies that the Department of Justice requires for those who are the beneficiaries of this program raise the 

question of what a mandatory-wear policy should look like given 

the wide variety of circumstances that present themselves to a police officer in the course of his or her career, and I am wondering 

if you all have developed enough experience in this that you have 

some sense of what would be good ingredients in a mandatory-wear 

policy. Are there best practices? Are there things to be avoided that 

people have discovered when they wrote a mandatory-wear policy 

and then realized, oops, that is a circumstance we did not think of? 

What is kind of the state-of-the-art right now with respect to mandatory-wear policies, if you know? 

Chief SCHIRLING. Thank you, Senator. It is good to see you again. 

I am not sure there is perfection out there relative to any law 

enforcement policy. As we continue to research best practice, what 

24 

we have found, I think, is that, by and large, for officers engaged 

in day-to-day patrol functions, what are called uniformed divisions, 

patrol divisions, whatever they may be called in whatever part of 

the country, the officer is wearing polyester. By and large, for agencies that have chosen to go with a mandatory-wear route, that is 

sort of—the unanimity seems to be there. It does become much 

more complicated for officers in plainclothes and on undercover assignments and administrative assignments. 

What we have done and chosen to do based on looking at other 

folks’ policies is, if you are in uniform serving an enforcement role, 

wear is mandatory. If you are in plainclothes, it is strongly encouraged in certain circumstance and it is mandatory in other circumstances. So it is event dependent. 

You are right in assessing that there is no way to ever ascertain 

all of the variables that could be in play, so it is really about creating the best categories and guidance possible with mandatory 

wear. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And learning as we go what the best policies are. 

Chief SCHIRLING. Exactly. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Maurer. 

Mr. MAURER. Yes, in our work we did not assess how well the 

different mandatory policies were relative to one another. We did 

notice that the International Association of Chiefs of Police has developed a model policy that I think a lot of the jurisdictions are 

using as a starting point. That seemed to be something that was 

a good way to get things started, particularly the smaller jurisdictions. But I would agree with my colleague that I think it is important to have some flexibility in how it is used on a day-to-day basis. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Canterbury. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Well, there are geographical issues that come 

into play. Standing in an intersection at 103 degrees, you have got 

to allow them to take them off. And I think that geography plays 

a role. In undercover positions obviously it would jeopardize. So 

they have to be somewhat flexible. But we support the mandatory 

wear for those people engaged in active law enforcement actions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, thank you. This is, I think, an issue 

we are going to need to keep an eye on as it goes forward, and I 

appreciate your interest in it. 

I have submissions for the hearing record from Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald, who is the president of the National Sheriffs Association; 

and from Chief Ron McBride of the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police; and from Dupont, who partners together with others in support of the Kevlar Survivors Club. Without objection, 

they will be made part of the record. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Klobuchar, would you like another round? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No. I just came back to say good-bye. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In that case, let me close out by describing 

the words of a great Rhode Island law enforcement officer, Chief 

Vin Vespia, who had an illustrious State police career chasing mobsters around Rhode Island back in the mob days and has for decVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:17 May 08, 2012 Jkt 073812 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73812.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
25 

ades now been the police chief of South Kingstown and is extremely well regarded by his peers. He was recently the emcee at 

the installation of Chief Pizarray, the new chief of the Rhode Island Municipal Police Chiefs’ Association, and what Chief Vespia 

says is, simply stated, ‘‘Body armor is the most important article 

of police equipment that an officer can have.’’ 

So on that note, I will conclude the hearing with my gratitude 

to all of the witnesses and my appreciation to the Chairman for his 

relentless attention on this important topic. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The record will remain open for 1 week for 

any further submissions. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record.] 

26 


73812.001
27 


73812.002
28 


73812.003
29 


73812.004
30 


73812.005
31 


73812.006
32 


73812.007
33 


73812.008
34 


73812.009
35 


73812.010
36 


73812.011
37 


73812.012
38 


73812.013
39 


73812.014
40 


73812.015
41 


73812.016
42 


73812.017
43 


73812.018
44 


73812.019
45 


73812.020
46 


73812.021
47 


73812.022
48 


73812.023
49 


73812.024
50 


73812.025
51 


73812.026
52 


73812.027
53 


73812.028
54 


73812.029
55 


73812.030
56 


73812.031
57 


73812.032
58 


73812.033
59 


73812.034
60 


73812.035
61 


73812.036
62 


73812.037
63 


73812.038
64 


73812.039
65 


73812.040
66 


73812.041
67 


73812.042
68 


73812.043
69 


73812.044
70 


73812.045
71 


73812.046
72 


73812.047
73 


73812.048
74 


73812.049
75 


73812.050
76 


73812.051
77 


73812.052
78 


73812.053
79 


73812.054
80 


73812.055
81 


73812.056
82 


73812.057
83 


73812.058
84 

Æ 


73812.059