>> as they come back -- >> why are we giving it away to police departments before the guard? >> we have more mraps than we need. >> why would the police departments be in line to get these before the national guard? >> the ones that we are excessing are the older -- they are not the best mraps. we maintain the best mraps. >> is there a reason any of you could give me why if we are going to continue funding -- by the way, i have seen a lot of good during my career from federal funding to state and local law enforcement. by the way, i want to be clear, i saw a vehicle extricate some police officers in a pretty dangerous situation in ferguson once some of the outsideers started coming in from other states that wanted confrontation with the police. having said all of that, has there been a discussion about

perhaps saying the first thing that we would fund before we begin to fund anything else, not a federal mandate but first on your list must be body cams? has that been discussed at doj or homeland security that these officers using this equipment that the best way to check whether or not it is being used appropriately is for every officer to wear a camera? >> senator, the office of justice programs funs are available for law enforcement agencies to use to purchase body cameras and we see value in it. our national institute of justice is studying the effectiveness of body cameras and appropriate use of body cameras. >> but they can buy them now? >> yes, ma'am. >> it wouldn't be hard if we decided before you get anything else we are going to insist you use our money for body cams before you buy other things like

full blown battle gear or camouflage uniforms or grenade launchers. >> the money is formula money and we do not control how state and local jurisdictions use the money. >> video cameras are on the authorized equipment list. if a grantee came forward and said they believe body cameras for law enforcement would serve purposes for which the program is authorized in terms of preparing capabilities for terrorism, operational coordination, situational awareness we would consider that an allowable expense. >> are you aware of local police department that is purchasing an mrap with their own funds? >> i'm not and i don't know how they would. >> or a .30 caliber weapon?

>> i couldn't answer that question. mraps are not available. >> i wasn't around here but according to my briefing here the first program was authorized in the defense authorization bill primarily about the drug wars, is that correct? >> correct. >> what were local police departments missing that they needed to be given from the defense department is combat war on drugs? >> we, the department, we do this because we are asked to do this. >> i understand. what equipment -- >> police departments were outgunned by drug gangs. they were looking for protection and fire power. >> then apparently this has expanded in 1997. my note says based on lobbying from police organizations. >> i can't answer why the authorization was expanded. at the time it was for counter terrorism. if it was lobbying from police

organizations. >> there is always a great desire to get free things from federal government, correct? >> of course. >> this program which apparently provided $5.1 billion of free equipment since 1997 has all been free. >> it is not free to the taxpayer. we bought it and used it. >> free to local governments, correct? >> correct. >> free to local police departments. do you know too many police departments that turn free things down? >> not in the position of a local police department but if something was available and they thought they needed it -- because they have to sustain the equipment. if they thought they needed it and it was useful to them, why not? >> the $41 billion that dhs granted under the program since 2002, that is grant money, correct? >> yes, senator. >> is there any cost sharing associated with that? >> in several of the programs, port security program for example in some years there is a

cost sharing requirement. >> how much? of the $41 billion, how much is that multiplied by by local budgets. >> we will have to follow up with you on that. i can tell you the emergency management performance is a 50% cost share in that every year. >> do you think we multiply that by another $40 billion? are we maybe talking -- we have granted $41 billion worth of funds for the purchase of this type of equipment and local governments have maybe contributed a billion? >> we will have to follow up with you on the numbers. just to be clear, the $40 billion is not just for law enforcement. there are a lot of other purposes if these programs, ports, that number includes our firefighter programs, staffing for emergency managers and firefighters. >> when people get things for free and get a lot of money one

of the first things my wife as an irs agent learned, first government phrase was use it or lose it. that is just concern in terms of how you put money to work. ms. mason, the $4.4 billion granted department of justice since 2005 has that had cost sharing requirements? >> the money is formula money that does not require cost sharing from local governments. for example, this year we allocated and awarded $280 million in grants. those were spread between 56 u.s. states and territories as well as local governments. for 80% of our grants the average award size is only 3 $30,000. >> are you aware of any piece of equipment that is either given away or allowed to be purchased -- really talking about defense department, any pieces of equipment given away that would not be available for purchase by a local police

department? are they all available on the open market? >> mrap is not available in open market because it is out of production. >> when it was in production was there restrictions in terms of people being able to buy that? >> i would have to go back and look at that. there were probably restrictions that it was unavailable. >> my point being is if we are making decision at the wrong level. if local police departments actually needed this equipment, if they felt it was necessary, isn't the proper way of doing this is to have them go through their city councils and make the political case for armoring up to protect themselves against drug lords or counter terrorism. i understand the federal role in terms of information sharing and devices to share information. hasn't this gone out of control simply because the federal government is there granting money and people are going to use it? >> i guess from my perspective,

senator, we have bought this stuff from the department of defense. it is no longer needed. the states need to make that decision on whether they need this type of equipment. in fact, they do. that is the funnel. the state coordinator appointed by a governor makes a decision on whether a local police force needs it or not. >> prior to programs in place did any police department have any type of this equipment? did they ever use their own funds and purchase this type of equipment? or is it only because it is available and given to them for free, i will take some of that? that would be a neat thing to have. >> police forces certainly have army vehicles and weapons. >> senator, in our port security grant program we do fund a lot of police boats that patrol the

water ways of our nation's over 100 ports. the cost share requirement for that has varied over year by year. in many years it has been 25%. so the local jurisdiction has to make a decision about those investments. and i don't have the entire history but i would imagine that in our port cities before the port security grant program was created that many of them likely did acquire. >> in terms of what type of equipment needs to be purchased needs to be made at the local level. they need to show their citizens we need that protection. i am all for protection of the police department. we attended a congressional badge of courage ceremony or badge of bravery for lieutenant

brian murphy in the oak creek massacre. we saw a video of these brave courageous public safety individuals just walk straight into danger. we are all about making sure that these officials are protected but the decision needs to be made at the local level and not here in the federal government. otherwise this is the problem we have when we make the decision of the lev of government. >> we will provide that information. >> thank you. i was pleased and somewhat relieved to see attorney general holder and the justice department announce that they will independently investigate not only the shooting of michael brown but also the policing practices of the ferguson and st. louis county police forces. i think that department of justice investigations like these serve a critical role in maintaining and in some cases

rebuilding public confidence in law enforcement. i would like to know from our panelists, then, if the grant programs administered by each agency look at whether a state or local law enforcement agency is under active investigation for civil rights or civil liberties violations or has a history of those violations. mr. estavez, the statute that authorizes the 1033 program requires the secretary of defense to carry out the program in consultation with the attorney general. so i wonder what is the nature of the consultation between the department of defense and the department of justice on this program and is there a discussion of whether a law enforcement agency is under investigation for the possible deprivation of constitutional rights. >> senator, baldwin, the

consultation with the department of justice is one of the areas that we are frankly lacking that we need to do a better job of that we will look at under the administration's review and will discuss with this committee. we need to do a better job there. i will say that -- >> currently, and i will accept your statement at face value that you can do better. currently in that consultation, is the matter of an open or closed investigation into civil rights or civil liberties deprivation a part of your discussion or consultation? >> no. >> is there any reason why it could not be in the future? >> of course, it could be. >> okay. is there coordination between the department of homeland security and the department of justice in the programs that you administer on these same questions?

>> we certainly coordinate on the risk elements of the allocation decisions and recommendations for the secretary. the risk formula is prescribed by statute. it is a combination of threat, vulnerability and consequence and the elements of each of those are laid out in statute. to answer your specific question, no, we do not take into account whether a law enforcement organization is under investigation for potential deprivation of civil rights and civil liberties. >> ms. mason, in administering the jag program, is that -- obviously within department consultation discussion. do those issues get discussed? >> thank you for the question, senator. the grants are formula money and we have very little discretion over how that money is used, but the civil rights division does

coordinate with our office when they are doing investigations and as they develop their consent decrees and we work closely with them in designing the content of the consent decrees. >> tell me a little more about the nature of the consultation and how that can come into play in decisions that you're entertaining. >> well, there are two factors in that. the office of justice programs has its own office of civil rights that makes sure that all of the grant programs for the department comply with civil rights laws. if the civil rights division is investigating one of our grantees, theytypically will coordinate with our office of civil rights. we will monitor things and as the process proceeds have input into whatever agreement is reached between the department with that agency. >> thank you. i want to move to the issue of

training especially in the 1033 program. we have heard in testimony that billions of dollars worth of surplus military equipment has been transferred to state and local law enforcement agencies including some significantly sophisticated materials previously operated by trained military personnel primarily in combat situations for some of that equipment. this includes as we have talked about mraps, armored vehicles, grenade launchers, assault rifles. we certainly have great confidence in the skills of our first responders but these pieces of equipment are not traditional police equipment and may be very unfamiliar to many

police officers and sheriff's deputies in communities across this country. so understand that the defense logistics agency conducts a biannual inventory. this effort appears to be focused simply on corroborating that the transferred equipment is accounted for. can you tell me if the dla review or the original application process makes any inquiry at all as to whether the agency has the appropriate training or access to the appropriate training to use and maintain this equipment or if after the fact the equipment is being properly used? >> dla, defense logistics agency does not have that capability and neither does the department of defense as a whole. we can't manage local police

forces even equipment we are trained to use is for combat separations and not for local policing operations. we do not provide grenade launchers. the training, the state coordinator certifies the police force that will receive the item has the ability to train themselves to use it. they are going to get a helicopter they have a pilot. the state coordinator certifies the local police force has the ability to sustain the equipment that they are going to be provided. >> and what confidence do you have that that level of inquiry is happening at the state coordinator level if it is not happening under your supervision? >> i think that frankly varies by state coordinator but i think state coordinators in the last number of years have put more attention and due diligence on that process. and we found that as we -- we did a full out review of the

whole program with state coordinator suspended in all of the states because of accountability issues. during that process we found state coordinators are focusing their attention on the issues, senator. >> mr. kamoie, are there similar requirements in either the application process or the audit process for training, for proper maintenance of equipment? what sort of accountability can you share with this committee and the department of homeland security? >> we encourage training for grantees. it is an allowable expense under our programs. we do not require training but we offer training for the department's center for domestic preparedness and federal law enforcement training center. we offer it and encourage it but

we do not require training. >> and ms. mason, i believe you already testified that training is one of the applicable, one of the things that can be funded through grants. can you talk about the training opportunities available? >> yes. the training opportunities, funds may be used for training but separate and apart from the jag funding the department of justice program provides full range of training for law enforcement. over the last three years we have put together approximately 100 online training courses. we also have many webinars on various issues. we survey the law enforcement to find out what training classes and things they would need but it is part of our mission to make sure that we provide a range of training opportunities for state and local governments.

>> thank you. >> senator paul. >> i think many of us are horrified by some of the images that came out of ferguson. we were horrified by seeing an unarmed being confronted by an armored personnel carrier. we're horrified by seeing an unarmed man with his hands over his head being confronted by a drawn assault weapon. we're horrified by images of tear gas being shot into the yards of people's personal homes who were protesting. one of the fundamental things about america is dissent, and the ability to dissent. it needs to be peaceful and there needs to be repercussions for those who do not act in a peaceful way. but confronting those with armored personnel. you sort of obscure that separation if you allow the police to become the military. in fema's authorized equipment

list there's actually written descriptions for how the equipment should be used. it says it's specifically not supposed to be used for riot suppression. is that true, it's not supposed to be used for riot suppression? how do you plan on policing that since the images clearly show us large pieces of equipment bought with your grant used in that riot suppression? >> senator, paul that is accurate. the categories of personal protective equipment helmets, ear and eye equipment, ballistics, prohibition in the authorized list not to be used for riot suppression. >> what will you do about it? >> we're going to follow the lead of the department of justice's investigation about the facts. we're going to work with the state of missouri to determine what pieces of equipment were grant funded. and then we have a range of recommend disavailable to us

should there be any finding of noncompliance with those requirements. those include everything from corrective action plans to ensure it doesn't happen again, recoupment of funds. we'll look closely at the facts, but we're going to allow the investigation to run its course and determine what the appropriate remedy is. >> but it gets back to the whole question. if you're a police force anywhere in the country from dundee, michigan, of 3900, when is mrap to 25 other cities under 25,000 have mraps, they think they are for right suppression. many police forces think this is what the equipment is good for, riot suppression in a big city, urban area. you're specifically instructing it's not for that. we've talked about we've had two instances of terrorism. we spend billions and billions of dollars and maybe two instances of terrorism. i think by supplying all of this

free equipment, much of which is, frankly, inappropriate, shouldn't be on anybody's list of authorized equipment. in the 1033 program they list 12,000 bayonets have been given out. what purpose are bayonets being given out for? >> senator, bayonets are available under the program. i can't answer what a local police force would need a bayonet for. >> i can give you an answer. none. so, what's president obama's administration's position of handing out bayonets? it's on your list. are you going to take it off the list? >> we're going to look at what we're providing under the administration's review -- >> so it's unclear whether president obama approves of 12,000 bayonets being given out? i would think you could make that decision last week. >> i think we need to review all the equipment we're providing, senator. we, the department of defense,

do not push any of this equipment on any police force. the states decide what they need. >>my understanding is you have the ability to decide what equipment is given out and what equipment is not given out. if you decided tomorrow, if president obama decided tomorrow that mine-resistance ambush protection 20-ton vehicles are not appropriate for cities in the united states, he could decide tomorrow to take it off the list. you could decide this tomorrow. my question is, what is the administration's opinion on giving out mine-resistant ambush protection 20-ton vehicles to towns across america -- are you for it or against it? >> obviously, we do it senator. we'll look at that. i can also say we can give you anecdotes for mine-resistant after buck protected vehicles for police shootouts. >> we've been told they're only supposed to be used for terrorism, right? isn't that what the rule is? >> it's for counterdrug, which could have been the shootout.

i would have to look at the incident. counternarcotics, counterterrorism. >> i guess the point i wish to make is that these are fairly simple problems and common sense applied years ago l years ago. you know, we could have fixed these. we'll maybe fix them, although i have my doubts. i've seen rarely anything fixed in government. i would say we're now responding to a tragic circumstance, you know, in ferguson to do this. but i think that i -- you know, i find these decisions to be very easy to make. you just shouldn't be giving out mine-resistant vehicles. bayonets, i don't know why we have to get together and have a study for months to decide bayonets are inappropriate to be given out. really, it's gotten out of control. and this is largely been something that the militarization of police is something that's gotten so far out of control, and we've allowed it to dissend along with

not a great protection of our civil liberties as well. so, we -- you know, we say we're going to do this. it's okay if it's for drugs. well, look at the instances of what have happened in recent times. the instance in georgia just a couple months ago of an infant in a crib getting a percussion grenade thrown through a window in a no-knock raid. turns out the infant, obviously, wasn't involved in the drug trade but either was the infant's family. happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. no one has even been indicted on this. really, this is crazy, out of control. giving military equipment and with the breakdown of the whole idea of due process of no-knock raids and not having judges issue warrants anymore, you can see how this gets out of control and people are very, very concerned with what is going on here. and i see the response so far to be lackluster. i hope you will do a more complete job in trying to fix this. thank you. >> senator ayotte. >> hi.

i want to thank all the witnesses for being here and certainly thank senator mccaskill and chairman and ranking member for having this will hearing. so, what i wanted to understand in particular, mr. estevez, i think as you described the 1033 program, you have a state coordinator and then d.o.d. does not decide what equipment is needed. you're just relying on that state coordinator for those decisions. >> that's correct. and i should point out that the governor of the state has the state coordinator, not us. we rely on the state to filter those decisions. >> so, is there any follow-up in terms of what the equipment is being used for and what type of training the police departments that are receiving it have been -- have obtained when the equipment is transferred? >> state coordinators in

certifying that the department -- that the local agency needs that certify they're going to have the available training and train themselves on that equipment. >> do you do any types of follow-up other than receiving the certification? is there any kind of audit of what's happening and what -- how the equipment's being used? >> there is no follow-up on how the equipment's being used. our audit for the controlled equipment because we provide 96% of what we provide is noncontrolled, benign equipment. we follow up -- >> when i'm referring to this, i should have been specific on the controlled equipment. obviously, office furniture you wouldn't generally have a follow up on. >> but we follow up on accountability of the equipment. we retain title to that equipment. but we do not follow up on it, senator. >> okay. so, do you think with this process that is being reviewed right now, not only the president but the congressional oversight that will be had here

that the way the system is working right now, that d.o.d. has some responsibility so not just have a follow-up in terms of what's being done with this equipment? >> i think there has to be a part of the look at what we're doing, review. i think from speaking from the department of defense's standpoint, it's very hard for us because we don't have expertise in police forcing. it's not what we do, on whether it's an appropriate use or not appropriate use. now, i can look at the pictures of ferguson and wince like everybody else in this room. but i think that has to be part of the dialogue and discussion of what we're going to do and how we're going to assess use of equipment. >> mr. kamoy, i wanted to ask -- don't know if i'm pronouncing your name correctly. >> you are. thank you, senator. >> i don't know if you're the appropriate person to ask this question, but on the homeland security front, what type of oversight is there in terms of

the 1033 equipment. does homeland have any oversight over the receipt of that? >> we do not, senator. >> is there any coordination between the grants that homeland is giving in light of what the departments are receiving on the 1033 front? >> we don't coordinate in the decision-making about local law enforcement requests. the process that mr. estevez has laid out, we don't coordinate that at all. >> you wouldn't know in issuing a homeland grant what the d.o.d. has done in issuance of equipment to local agencies? >> correct. >> so, how do you then know that in terms of the use of the homeland grants for this, that there isn't -- shouldn't be some follow-up? >> so, that's an entirely different story. i will say on the -- i know the defense department's equipment under the 1033 program is free.

grantees have paid for, i believe, transportation costs using grant funding. but it's a very small percentage of use of grant funds. so, in terms of how grantees use equipment that has been acquired with our programs, for the state program, even the urban area program, the grants pass through the state. 80% of the state program funding has to go to local jurisdictions within that state. so, we work with the state in oversight. in their applications they tell us more and more detail now about the projects they intend. certainly, we have the ability to drill down in as we are doing with the state of missouri and follow up on use of the equipment to ensure that it meets program requirements. so, we have this ability. we do not have real-time visibility on all acquisitions made at the local level. but working with our state partners, we can get pretty good

visibility. >> can i ask -- i would like opinion from all of you, if you're able to answer. so, we focused a lot understandably so on these programs and the military style equipment to agencies in a ferguson-type situation. what i'd like to know is the use of equipment, whether it's from homeland security, how have we evaluated the needs in a boston marathon bombing situation or a situation like that which seems to me quite different than obviously a ferguson situation. >> thanks for the question, senator. we work with grantees and provide them tools to assess the risks that they face and the hazards in their community. we try to provide them guidance on how to estimate their capabilities for addressing the threats they have identified.

they certainly have discretion in terms of the kinds of equipment they think would best meet those needs. as we did see in boston, the equipment that was purchased, including the law enforcement equipment, certainly facilitated the response. certainly facilitated the pursuit and apprehension of the tzarnaevs. >> miss mason, i wanted to ask you about on the justice end with regard to the burn jag grants. do we know how much of those grants are used for this type of equipment? having been attorney general of my state, a fair amount of those grants have gone to other things, i know, as well for example whether it's protecting children from online predators or providing assistance to victims of crime, even though there's voca and vowa funds, but

there are said for how much are used fof the funds. >> thank you for the question. as you mentioned the jag money is used to address a full range of criminal justice issues in a state. what we've seen is that of the money that's allocated for the law enforcement category, because there are courts categories, victims category, of the law enforcement category, 40% of the money allocated in that category goes to equipment. most of the equipment we're seeing people buy are computers, technology and things like that. and they're for vehicles, the jag money can only be used for cars, boats, helicopters without coming back to the director for specific approval. we're only in the last -- since 2005 we went back and did an investigation. we have approved only seven armored vehicles since 2005. >> thank you. my time is up.

>> i think senator coburn has a few more questions and then we'll get to the second panel. >> i want to introduce to the record an article in the -- from october 16, 2013, ""the boston globe,"" this sets the record straight. tzarnaev was found because the guy checked his boat. didn't have anything to do with money we spent. didn't have anything to do other than he was surprised to find this guy in fetal position in his boat and called 911. this needs to be in the record to set the record straight about what that is. >> thank you. >> i have one question for the three of you and then we'll go to the next panel. what have you heard directly from the administration in terms of review at your level about the review that the administration announced, based on what happened in ferguson? what information have you received that the justice department and homeland security

and fema and at the defense department? what have you heard directly from the white house? >> we have already had meetings on the -- about the review. we've already been supplying information. so the review is in the active process at this time. >> as far as the justice department is concerned? >> it's all -- all of us are involved. >> let me get them to answer specifically. what have you heard, brian? >> i participated in the first meeting of the review panel. it is a comprehensive review of the programs that are operation, the very same kinds of questions we talked about here. training, our oversight, auditing, noncompliance. senator, i look forward to reading that article. information that was provided to me by the massachusetts homeland security agency and the state police indicate that the -- >> and the infrared -- >> and the infrared camera was instrumental in locating him. i look forward to reading that article. >> here's the direct quote from the guy that called 911 to tell

him, there's someone in my boat, he's injured, i think it's tzarnaev. >> we've been providing information to the white house. we're fully engaged. the only reason i wasn't there is because i was out of town. >> that's great to hear. that's great to hear. that's called appropriate response. thank you. >> second panel with four witnesses. does anybody else have a question they really want to ask this -- one or two questions they really want to ask these three witnesses before we move to our second panel? >> i have two simple questions. before ferguson had the three of you ever met? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> not good. second question, do any of you now have any policy that requires you to track any kind of usage data for the equipment you're providing that is considered military grade?

yes or no. >> no. >> no. >> we do have activity reports we require on a quarterly basis from oush grantees about how they use our jag funds. >> well, i would like to see and put in the record, since you're the only one that says you claim you have usage data, i would like all the usage data that would show what military weaponry, camouflage, uniforms, helmets, all of the things we saw in ferguson, what data you have about how that has actually been utilized by the recipients of your funds. thank you. thank you all very much for being here.

if the witnesses will please be seated. we need to start the second panel. please. staff, if you will let the witnesses help them get seated so we can start.

>> thank you all for being here. i don't want to hurry you but this say large panel. we've got people that want to ask questions. and time is ticking so let's get started. jim berman, am i pronouncing it correctly? >> biermann. >> i can remember that. jim biermann is the president of the washington, d.c.-based police foundation. the foundation established in

1970 has a mission to advance policing through innovation and science. mr. bueermann worked for redland police department for 33 years. served as chief for 13 years from 1988 to 2011. dr. peter kraska is a professor of chair at eastern university of ken. researches changes role of police in society, including the relationship between the police and the military as well as the special equipment, tactics and training used by police over the last several decades. mark lomax director for national tactical officers association. previously served as program manager in west liberia, west africa, where he oversaw their police, s.w.a.t. and crowd control units. served 22 years with pennsylvania state police with majority of his career in special operations assignment. mr. lomax was invited to

participate in the hearing at the chief bellmar from st. louis. accompanied by. wily price is photo journalist, award-winning, i might add, for st. louis american newspaper. covered the price presence in ferguson firsthand. and hilary shelton, washington bureau director and senior vice president for advocacy for national association for the advancement of colored people where he has worked on a wide variety of legislative issues. mr. shelton, being an important person within the naacp, is also a st. louis native. we're glad you're here. i would like to thank you for being here. we'll begin with your testify, mr. bueermann. >> thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss this important topic. as the senator just mentioned, the police foundation's mission

is to advance democratic policing through innovation and science. we conduct rigorous scientific research, provide technical assistance that help police across the country become more effective. like many americans, i've been closely following the events in missouri and the national discussion about the militarization of american civil police forces. central to this issue is the use of military-like equipment and tactics of police. conversely, to police officers, their use simply represents safer, more effective ways of handling the dangerous situations they're paid to. both perspectives have merit. police use of military tactics can either be appropriate or not depending entirely on the context of their use. the anecdote to militarizing our police is community policing,

transparency, accountability and paying close attention to the culture of policing. while the committee reviews these programs, i urge you to consider their benefits along with needed programatic changes. there has been substantial positive impact on the public and officer safety from the programs that provide equipment to law enforcement. for example, two weeks ago in illinois, the cook county sheriff's department used armored vehicles to get officer it is to scene and extract six children and two adults being held hostage after a home invasion robbery. two officers were shot during the 20-hour standoff but the equipment prevented further injury to officers and helped the safe recovery of the hostages. in west bloomfield, michigan, a suspected barricaded -- a suspect barricaded himself in a residential neighborhood engaged in a fire fight with the police and killed a police officer. during the standoff, the police used their armored vehicle to safely evacuate the neighborhood. finally, this summer, the las vegas metropolitan police department used rescue helicopters obtained through the

1033 program 11 times during search and rescue in mountainous terrain and used boats six times on lake mead. my familiarity with federal programs that provide local law enforcement equipment, i offer the following suggestion and i -- that i believe will strike a balance between the needs of the police and compelling community interest. every policing agency that desires access to federal surplus property via d.o.d.'s 1033 program should be required as part of the application process to provide proof that it has received public input and local governing body approval of the department's acquisition of the property and that it has adequate publicly reviewable training, transparency and accountability policies in place. i think it's important the 1033 program be retained with appropriate transparency accountability and oversight guidelines incorporated.

completely eliminating it could have substantial impact on public safety. and doing so would make taxpayers potentially pay again for the same equipment they paid for while it was used by the military. i also recommend congress appropriate funds to adequately study this. the impact of the federal government provides assistance to arequiring the equipment that may encourage this. in conclusion, i urge the committee and congress to examine and consider the federal implications for advancing the following five guiding principles of sustaining democratic policing. first, the police and the community must constantly focus on community policing framed around a set of organizational values developed in concert with the community. second, police organizations should reflect the communities they serve. when diverse communities see the police as not reflecting their members, they can lose faith in the police to understand their needs in meaningful ways. third, policing agencies must

provide their officers with appropriate and effective value-based training, accountability technology like body-worn cameras and less lethal tubes. fourth, police should utilize best available scientific evidence about what works to control crime and disorder. finally, critical incident reviews should be conducted after every critical incident involving the police to capture lessons learned and translate them to lessons applied so events like those occurring in ferguson do not happen again. thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. >> thank you, mr. bueermann. dr. kraska. >> senator mccaskill, senator coburn, members of the committee and wonderful staffers, thank you for inviting me. let me begin today's comments with two examples of police militarization. one old. in fact, it predates 9/11 and one new this year in may.

in september of 2000 federal law enforcement conducted a joint drug with modesto, california, police department employing the model. the s.w.a.t. team conducted a dynamic entry a family's home suspecting the father, turned out incorrectly of being involved in low-level drug dealing. one of the children in the home, alberto, was 11 years old and complied with all of the officers' screams to get into the prone position on his bedroom floor. a paramilitary police officer standing over him with a 12-gauge shotgun then accidentally discharged his weapon into alberto's back, killing him. now move forward to may of this year. a poernlg george police department s.w.a.t. team concluded a no-knock drug raid on a family's private residence. the officers threw a percussion grenade into the home. the device landed on -- in an infant's crib next to his face and then it detonated. despite being comatose for a number of days and receiving

severe lacerations and burns, the baby did survive. not that it should matter, but the family was not involved in drug dealing. some might dismiss these cases as mere anecdotes but the facts, based on extensive national level scientific research are clear. these examples are emblematic of historic, up until recently little publicly noticed shift in american democratic governance. the clear distinction between our civilian police and military is blurring in significant and consequential ways. the research i've been conducting since 1989 has documented quantitatively and qualitatively the steady and certain march of u.s. civilian policing down the militarization continuum. culturally, materially, operationally and organizationally. despite massive efforts of democraticizing police under the

guise of policing. in mid-1980s a mere 30% of police agencies have-h a s.w.a.t. team. today well over 80% of departments, large and small, have one. in the early 1980s these agencies conducted approximately 3,000 deployments a year nationwide. today i estimate a very conservative figure of 60,000 per year. and it is critical to recognize that these 60,000 deployments are mostly for conducting drug searches on people's private residences. this is not to imply that all police, nearly 20,000 unique departments across our great land are heading in this direction. but the research evidence along with militarized tragedies in modesto, georgia, ferguson and tens of thousands of other locations demonstrates a troubling and highly consequential overall trend. what we saw played out in the ferguson protests was the

application of a very common mind set, style of uniform and appearance and weaponry used every day in the homes of private residences during s.w.a.t. raids. some departments conduct as many as 500 s.w.a.t. team raids a year. and just as in the two examples above and in the ferguson situation, it is the poor and communities of color that are most impacted. it is hard to imagine that anyone intended for the wars on crime, drugs and terrorism to devolve into widespread police militarization. at the same time, it is also hard not to see that by declaring war, we have opened the door for outfitting our police to be soldiers with a warrior mind set. i mentioned police militarization predates 9/11. this is not just an interesting historical fact. it is critical because it illuminates the most important reason or causal factor in this

unfortunate turn in american policing and american democracy. it is the following. our long-running and intensely punitive self-proclaimed war on crime and drugs. it is no coincidence that the skyrocketing number of police paramilitary deployments on american citizens since the early 1980s coincides perfectly with the skyrocketing imprisonment numbers. we now have 2.4 million people incarcerated in this country. and almost 4% of the american public is now under direct correctional supervision. these wars have been devastating to minority communities and the marginalized and have resulted in a self-perpetuating growth complex. cutting off the supply of military weaponry to our civilian police is the least we could do to begin the process of reining in police militarization and attempting to make clear the increasingly blurred distinction between the military and police.

please do not underestimate the gravity of this development. this is highly disturbing to most americans. on the left and the right. thank you. >> thank you. mr. lomax. >> i want to thank chairman -- >> you need to turn on your microphone. >> good afternoon. i would like to thank chairman, ranksing member coburn, sandra mccaskill, members of this community to have the opportunity to speak with you today. since its inception in 1983 the ntoa has served as not for profit representing law enforcement professionals and special assignment in local, state and federal law enforcement agency. 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 form for development of tactics and information exchange.

the american law enforcement officer recognizes probably more accurately than most they're not in conflict with the citizens they serve. to the con temporary, the brave men and women of this profession willingly place themselves between danger and the public every day, at personal sacrifices to themselves and their families. this is evident by the law enforcement memorial, walking distance from where we sit today. law enforcement agencies in the united states have taken advantage of the 1033 programs since its inception, but certainly at greater frequency after the terror attacks of september 11, 2001. dhs, doj grants and the d.o.d. 1033 program allows agencies to acquire the necessary equipment rapidly and at a considerable cost savings to the local tax-paying public. the 10e 33 program has allowed local agencies to acquire heavy

duty, high-wheeled vehicles, forklif forklifts, generators and vehicles that improve operational capabilities and responder safety. the threat that firearms pose to law enforcement officers and the public during violent, critical incidents have proven armored rescue vehicles have become as essential as individually worn body armor or helmets when saving lives. moreover in the dhs, fema type resource definitions, law enforcement document, it is recommended s.w.a.t. teams have tactical equipment, including armored rescue vehicles in the event of a disaster. most tactical commanders utilize these resources judiciously and are sensitive in the real and perceived appearance. it's not uncommon for agencies to take receipt of such equipment and receive little or no training on how to utilize it, when to deploy it and

equally as important, when not to deploy it. prior to obtaining equipment from 1033 program or utilized commercially through grant money, agencies are not mandated to demonstrate training levels for the use of that equipment. it is incumbent upon that agency to obtain the necessary training based upon regulatory or voluntary compliance standards associated with such equipment. such training could take place at the requesting agency location. another challenge is that there are not enough specialized law enforcement teams developed specifically mobile field force teams in every jurisdiction around the country. consequently when law enforcement is faced with civil event, they access what they have available, the local s.w.a.t. team. 87% of law enforcement agencies in the united states have fewer than 50 officers.

with the exception of large metropolitan cities or jurisdictions that have had prior civil disorder events, most agencies have not invested in a mobile field force capability. there's also lack of training for planners, public information officers and first-line supervisors. this must change. the mtoa published standards in 2011 which outlines the most basic requirements for tactical teams in terms of operational capabilities. training, management, policy development, operational planning and multijurisdictional response. the standard, however, is a voluntary compliance standard. subsequently many law enforcement leaders view them as unfunded mandates. the ntoa's position, though, is when an agency makes a decision to develop a s.w.a.t. capability, it should also make

the investment in training, equipment and best practices that are required to support such an effort. again on behalf of 40,000 law enforcement professionals the ntoa represents, i thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on these current issues and challenges and look forward to answering the questions the committee may have. >> mr. price. >> good afternoon. my name is wily price, staff photo journalist at st. louis american newspaper in st. louis, missouri. i would like to thank senator mccaskill for inviting me to the hearing today. the shooting death of michael brown, an unarmed teenager, by a ferguson, missouri, police officer on saturday, august 9, 2014, may very well become the turning point in moving forward in changing the way policing is conducted in this country. especially in neighborhoods of people of color.

first, mandatory body cameras to ensure account anlt for the way citizens are addressed during routine stops. this policy would allow us to examine the methods police use during these stops. these are special challenges to policing in urban areas where there are strong feelings, often negative, about the conduct and the role of the police. though strong feelings, often negative, about the conduct of the role of the police. the uprisings in ferguson are an example of inept and insensitive police behavior at the highest decision-making level. it raises the question of how much force is appropriate to control a group of angry protesters armed initially with rocks, bottles and later molotov cocktails. what police used to defend themselves at the early stage of the confrontation was a high level of military weaponry, not often seen on the streets in the united states.

what we saw were large military-style weapons, including armored vehicles, normally seen on national news during conflicts concerning the middle east war zone. most americans were -- would not be so shocked if this were a response to an overt terrorist attack on an american city. but not during a spontaneous protest over the shooting of a young african-american male by a white police officer while walking in the street in the middle of the day. most believe that we can spend this kind of money on weapons -- i'm sorry, most believe that if we request spend this is kind of money on weapons, why not use those same resources to better train the police in community policing and train them also in the best way to resolve conflict. if heavy military weapons are to be deployed, they should be in

the hands of trained officer subject to competent high-level police command. this show of might in ferguson escalated the understandably strong feelings by the very people the police are sworn to serve and protect. the days of unrest were followed by growing protest from people who already felt disrespected and frustrated by the local law enforcement on a daily basis. that concludes my statement. >> thank you, mr. price. mr. shelton. >> thank you very much, senator mccaskill. i want to thank senator harper, senator coburns and others gathered here today. i want to thank you for inviting me to testify and the naacp on this topic. i'll hilary shelton, director of washington's bureau. the naacp deeply appreciates the needs of local government, including law enforcement agencies to secure equipment as cost effectively as possible.

we have supported increased resources in personnel for local police departments since the founding of the association 105 years ago. over the last couple decades, given the slinking state and federal budgets and oftentimes increasing demands, the communities represented and served by the naacp suffered disproportionately from reduced state and local funding. our concern is when military equipment, weapons of war commonly used to fight a vowed enemy of our country, are transferred into local domestic law enforcement agencies with little or no oversight, training or specific and clear integration, when and how they are used in civilian circumstances. the tragic killing of michael brown in ferguson, missouri, the ensuing protests, and the resulting demonstrations of force by local law enforcement attracted the attention of many to a heretofore little known program, the defense department's 1033 program, by which the federal government transfers excess military equipment to state and local law

enforcement agencies. while americans were rightfully upset, it is a sad commentary on race in america that this is not a new phenomena to most americans of color. the war on drugs and war on crimes have been predominantly waged in racial and ethnic minority communities and too often against african americans. since 1989 military equipment has been used by law enforcement agencies to fight the war on drugs. thus, it should be of no surprise racial and ethnic minorities have grown accustomed to seeing weapons of wars in our communities, on our streets and even entering our homes. on saturday, august 9th an an unarmed college-bound african-american teenager michael brown was shot by a police officer in ferguson, missouri. the ensuing protests began peacefully. people were angry, admittedly outraged, but peaceful. protests were met by local law

enforcement agencies in ambush protected vemdz, mraps, with assault weapons aimed at them. the resulting impression on people in ferguson and throughout the country and world watching these events is that these americans were being marginalized. their concerns, protests were not valued or respected by local law enforcement. one cnn report said it looked more like belfast, or the middle east, than the heartland of middle america. the fact that population of ferguson is over 67% african-american has not been lost on many of the protesters nor on the u.s. or international observers. as a matter of fact, i was at the united nations when all this broke loose and they were asking me questions about ferguson. people who could not speak english knew the word ferguson. what steps does the naacp recommend so solve the problem with overmilitarization of local law enforcement agencies?

we need to move away from the war on crime to be trained to stop stereotyping people based on what they look like, the clothes they wear and the neighborhoods in which they live. if the department of defense's 1033 program is allowed to continue, it should be restructured to emphasize nonlethal equipment and that the equipment be used not to pursue the flawed war on drugs or civilian protests and demonstrations, but rather it be used to promote the idea that law enforcement is designed to protect and serve. the citizens who are within their jurisdiction. included in the requirements necessary to receive such equipment must also be policies, training and oversight which includes the racial profiling act, pending in the house and senate, and the law enforcement stuff and integrity act being introduced by senator john conyers. local agencies should develop policies calling for thoughtful

of restraint and should be a requirement before any equipment transfer or funding occurs. we need full transparency and disclosure. not only should the department of defense be required to disclose what equipment was distributed and to bhoem but state and local law enforcement agencies must be required to publicly report on the equipment they requested and received and the intended purpose. finally, the naacp would like to strongly advocate for more programs such as the department of justice's community policing, or cops program, and for increase in the funding of c.o.p.s. program. it's intended to incentivize better law enforcement practices through community engagement. it remains a primary vehicle through which the federal government awards on police transparen and accountability. in summation, american policing has become increasingly militarized through weapons and takttics designed for war. the lines between federal military force and civil law

enforcement has become increasingly blurred. sadly americans have born the brunt of this. we need to correct this program. not just check it. we need to continue to strive for a democracy under which all americans can live. we should not allow any american government entity to be considered at war with any other. i thank you again, chairman harper, coburn and mccaskill and all the others here today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much. i'm going to go ahead and defer my questions and allow the other senators who are here to go first. >> thanks for your testimony. mr. bueermann, at what point do you think the federal government's obligation to local law enforcement begins? >> that's a great question. i think that one of the benefits of the federal government is trying to create a national cohere answer around what policing should look like around the united states. that's a difficult place for the federal government to be.

there are leadership training programs like the national academy that the fbi puts on at the fbi academy that helps police leaders across the united states better understand these kinds of issues that we're talking about today. so, certainly that would be an appropriate role for the federal government. as somebody who used to be a police chief, i really appreciated the ability to acquire equipment in my department we used it primarily for vehicles and office equipment for our community policing stations or community recreation programs we could not have afforded if the 1033 program hadn't existed. from a local perspective, i thought that was a wonderful way for us to get a return on our federal tax investment. but i certainly understand the issues that are at play in this discussion. >> dr. kraska, appreciate you coming and appreciate you working with us. tell me what the difference is between a militarized and increasingly federalized police force and a standing army.

>> it's actually a bit of a complicated history i won't get into too much, but we have to remember that the posi act of 1878 had been in place, untouched for quite a long time, until the 1980s drug war. and it wasn't until the 1980's drug war -- it was actually the reagan administration that wanted to completely reveal posi, but what happened is they just amended it significantly to allow for cross-training and weapons transference. and just as an aside, i don't want to make too much of an aside, but we also have to remember that the department of defense has been very actively involved in training local police departments as well. not just providing them equipment, but providing them training. i've got a great quote -- i'm not going to read it now, bus if you ask me to read it, i will, that talks about even have navy s.e.a.l.s and army rangers come

to a local police department and teach them things. it's not just weapons transference. the federal government has increasingly, since 9/11, played a significant role in accelerating these trends towards militarization. and, you know, the extent to which the 1033 program, the department of homeland security funds, et cetera, have contributed to it, i would certainly call it significant. but i think we have to remember that the -- that the militarized culture of a component of policing, and it's just a component of policing. this isn't a unified phenomenon in all police in the united states of america. hell, we have a police department next to us, the lexington p.d., very smart, very wise, they don't do this kind of thing at all and they would never do it. the policing community is a bit split over this. i don't want anybody to get the impression because of the experts we've heard that policing is all for this stuff.

because it's just not true. there are lots of folks that aren't. anyway, back to federalization. so, i think the federal government has played a significant role in probably the last 10 to 14 years. >> the rest of my questions i'll submit for the record so we can move on in our time. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, madame chair. dr. kraska, in your testimony, what i have written down on my notes is equipment versdz procedures versus operations. how much of it is really about procedures responding to just the events in society versus the actual equipment? i mean, what is really -- what's causing what? >> great question. and, of course, difficult to answer. i do know that the militarization trend began as part of the drug war. it hasn't had anything to do

with terrorism. it hasn't had anything to do with threats to national security. it's had everything to do with prosecuting the drug war. and that's when we saw the precipitous rise in not only the number of s.w.a.t. units but their amount of activity. that's when we saw departments doing 750 to 1,000 drug raids per year on people's private residences. that's when we saw police departments all over the country, in small little localities, sending off two or three officers to a for-profit training camp like smith and wesson, getting training and coming back to the department and starting a 15-officer police paramilitary unit with no clue what they were doing whatsoever. that all happened as a part of the drug war. so, i have a hard time making any sort of credible analysis that what we're seeing is just a reaction to an increasing

insecure homeland situation. this stuff has been well in place and it's still absolutely happening today in the same way it was in the 1990s and the 2000s. >> so again, i'm -- i'm coming from a manufacturing background, trying to solve problems, going to the root cause. what i'm hearing, because again in my briefing, this equipment transfer really first started from a defense authorization bill targeting the drug war. >> absolutely. >> we spent -- i know the last three years, because of another hearing, we spent $75 billion fighting the war on drugs. we're not concreting it, are we? so, what do we need to do? i'll ask mr. lomax. what do we need to do procedurally -- what's the solution here? >> thank you, senator. the solution relative to

equipment and procedures or the drug war? >> i'm not -- if this is all really caused initially by the drug war, the militarization buildup is in reaction to the drug war, these no-knock raids are about drugs. what's the solution? >> i think the solution starts at the top, leadership. the solution comes from decision making, policy, procedures, getting back to what your initial question was to dr dr. kraska. the nexus between equipment and procedures, i think, procedures come first. policy, documentation, transparency, decision making. so, again, it's not the equipment, per se. it's who's making those decisions on how to use it, how to deploy or when not to deploy. >> i mean, is your -- are we making any progress on the war on drugs at all? been engaged in this for decades now. >> again, that's a question that needs to be taken up by the

legislators and congress and the policymakers as far as how we're doing on the war on drugs. >> and i realize these questions are somewhat removed of militarization of the police force, but i'm looking -- based on the testimony, this is the reason this militarization began. mr. shelton, what is your solution? i mean, obviously, drugs have devastated communities. you know, crime has devastated communities. >> it's got to change. the paradigm we're using now, criminalizing in the way we are and actually putting people in prison is outrageous. quite frankly, as mentioned by dr. kraska, 2.4 million in jail. most for nonhigh vent offenses. you talk about health care approach to the drug problem in the united states and get away from much of the criminal, now military approach, to the drug problem in this country. i should talk about problems with police officers and overaggression and even practices of racial profiling. we have strategies for that as

well. one of your colleagues has a bill before the u.s. senate, that goes a long way to restore the trust and integrity necessary for law enforcement to be necessary. we know that will go many, many miles toward fixing the crime problem in our society. as we talk about these issues, it makes no sense to me that we have 79,288 assault rifles that were given by the department of defense to local police departments. 205 grenade launchers, 11,959 bayonets. i'm trying to figure out what they're going to do with 3,972 combat knives. indeed, that is what is with local police departments now. it makes no sense. >> again, war on drugs but also war on crime. mr. sheldon, a recent article written by walter williams, he lists the statistic from 1976 to 2011. there's been 279,389 african-americans murdered.

a rate of about 7,000 per year. 94% of those murders are black-on-black. that's a real crime problem you have to be concerned about. and, by the way, i would think local police departments are also concerned about. >> absolutely. as a matter of fact, the issue of dealing well crime in the african-american community goes back to our founder over 105 years ago, w.b. dubois. the crime problem in the african-american community has to be addressed, but it cannot be addressed successfully if we have the distrust in police officers we're seeing because of programs like this one. we're going to have to establish a new trust pattern in our country. also, i was very happy to hear dr. kraska mentioned the issue of those who are most effected in addressing the issues of crime, are those reflective of those communities in which they're there to serve. all that has to be part of the paradigm. the only time things begin to cool off in ferguson, missouri, quite frankly s when the first african-american attorney general of the united states went to ferguson to show that

the top law enforcement officer in our country was there and that that their concerns would be taken very seriously. that works across the board. >> okay. my time's running out. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you. senator ayotte. >> thank you. one of the things that i'm trying to understand is everything depends on the situation. would you agree with that, in terms of what's appropriate to deploy, what is appropriate in terms of a response, and also, i think, it all comes down to appropriate training as to how to respond to a situation, because, would you all agree with me, that we're going to respond differently to a situation like the marathon bombing versus the situation like ferguson? and part of that is training and what we need to respond to those situations may be different.

>> if i might begin. just before -- we need clear policy on how to respond to circumstances like that we experienced in ferguson and other places. policy, then training -- i'm sorry. policy, then training and then accountability. those are the triumbrant to move this along. >> one of the things i wanted to follow up on this idea of, for example, s.w.a.t. teams, because having been -- worked with the police in my state in a number of settings, they've responded -- they've had to respond to some pretty dangerous situations that did involve, for example, a drug -- a drug crime, that where you had, you know, high-level individuals who were quite dangerous, quite armed. and that it was the most appropriate that a s.w.a.t. team respond because they had the most training of how to deal with a situation like that versus sending, you know, one patrol officer or a handful of

patrol officers that aren't oriented towards dealing with a situation where you have, for example, an armed drug dealer, not necessarily user, but someone profiting off the situation. you know, then i've been to situations where we had a hostage situation and we had a s.w.a.t. team situation there where, you know, truthfully, i was glad that the s.w.a.t. team was there, because they had the training and they trained particularly for hostage situations that would allow the police to have the right training and to know how to negotiate, number one, to know how to handle a situation, not to have bystanders harmed. what i'm trying to understand is to make a broad swath of saying 60,000 s.w.a.t. operations -- that's a broad brush. i'm trying to get at maybe from all three of you in the first to have commented on this is, what is it appropriate for us -- it seems like it's appropriate for

us to some have individuals who have this type of training, because i've been there at these scenes with them where i would have wanted the right s.w.a.t. team trained to deal with the situation. and we successfully ended situations because the people there had the right training and weren't -- and trained for this specifically, weren't just taking the patrol officer off the street to address it. how do we distinguish from that and this situation where, you know, the public -- it's a protest situation where it's people exercising their first amendment rights and this isn't an easy question to answer, but i think this is what we're grappling with here. particularly, we have asked a lot more of the police post 9/11 in terms of what response we have asked of them as first responders. maybe we have sent mixed messages. i'd like to get your comment. i know that's more of a statement of the but i'd like to hear your comment on some of those thoughts.

>> senator, if i can start this off. what you have just articulated -- it's a great question. it ultimately is the crux of this discussion, because anybody who thinks that we're not going to have tactical teams or high-powered weaponry in policing in the united states has not been paying attention to the realities of police officers. the memorial not far from here has 20,000 names of heroic americans who gave their life trying to protect their own communities. there is a time and a place for any one of these particular tools. i made reference to the fbi's national academy. one of the problems we have in this country is there is not a national co-here ens about when we should use these particular tools. you can find out the hard way, this is the rational for doing critical incident reviewed to understand those learning opportunities. but at the end of the day it comes downs to leadership, whether expressed by the local city council that selects the police chief, by the police

chief himself or herself that decides whether they should or shouldn't have a tactical team and under what circumstances they should use that. if you leave it to the police officers like any of us, they have a burning desire every day to go home to their families. so much of their world is framed around the perception that what -- what that what i'm about to do, the service of a search warrant could be dangerous. i have served lots of search warrants. i understand -- >> not to interrupt you. but ply own state in the last two years, we lost one officer exercising a search warrant in a drug situation. and we lost another one in a domestic violence executing an arrest warrant. >> i don't know any police officer that doesn't recognize that nobody made them become a cop. that is a voluntary of course tag -- the voluntary occupation. ultimately, this leadership issue is a function of the

relationship that the police department has with the community. the professor talked about the police department next door to him that has a great relationship and they wouldn't do certain things. if they needed a tactical team, have i no doubt to protect their citizens or their officers, they would employ that. it is when you use it and that common sense and that wisdom that comes from leadership and the proper training. that's where i think the federal government should spend a lot of its attention on how do you stimulate that and that ability to do the right thing. >> often times these kind of conversations devolve into an either/or argument. it's critical to recognize that there are absolutely lots of situations, kcolumbine, where yu have to have a professional response. military special operations, you have to have that. no doubt.

what i was talking about was 60,000 deployments, was i was not talking about 60,000 deployments for those swag situations. they are incredibly rare. those situations absolutely require a competent response, active shooter, terrorist, whatever kind of situation. our research demonstrated conclusively that 85% of s.w.a.t. team operations today are pro active, choice driven, raids on people's private residents. 85%. what that means is that the original function of s.w.a.t. in the 1970s was the idea that s.w.a.t. teams were to save lives. they were to respond in a way to very dangerous situations and handle circumstances well. what happened during the 1980s and early 1990s drug war is that

function flipped on its head. we went from these teams predominantly doing reactive deployments, maybe one to two of these in an entire mere muniti . this has devolved into what i'm talking about. widespread misapplication of the paramilitary model. misapplication. unjustified growth. having many, many, many, smaller police departments -- most of these departments are small. our research showed that 50% of these small police departments, 50% are receiving less than 50 hours of training per year for their s.w.a.t. team. the recommended amount from the ntoa used to be 250. i think they have reduced it to 200. 250 hours versus 50 hours. these are not well-trained

teams. these are a localized 18,000 police departments all doing their own thing with no oversight and no accountability. that's why we're seeing and we have seen hundreds of these kinds of tragedies that i have mentioned but lots of terrorized families that have been caught up in the drug operations and drug raids. thank you. >> thank you. anybody else? >> senator, a couple of comments relative to the s.w.a.t. that you saw. there is a need, like the panelists have discussed in the last couple minutes, that the number one priority of s.w.a.t. is preserve life. number one. when you think of a s.w.a.t. team, most people think of the tactical enter team. as part of the s.w.a.t. team you have intelligence. you have negotiators, you have security and so forth. the number one goal of a s.w.a.t. team, preserve life

whether it's pohostages, civilians, suspect. over the years, the use of s.w.a.t. has been -- out reached this main purpose. but going back to the reason for s.w.a.t. is those small particular situations that you have personally observed where the training, the equipment, the expertise saved lives. >> thanks. thank you. for mr. beerman and mr. lomax, i am very sensitive to the cry that goes up about unfunded federal mandates. this is a different situation. we are pushing in wholesale fashion military equipment to local police departments. do you sense that the police community would be offended if we put a few more rules of the

road on the ability to receive these resources from the federal government? why wouldn't we require that if you are going to get federal funding in this spags thce that would have to have 200 hours of training and that the size of your police department would be relevant to the decisions as to what you would receive and that a s.w.a.t. team on a very, very small community, particularly one that's a suburb, where there could be regional access to specialists in the rare but very, very important situation where that kind of training is absolutely essential to protect life of innocent people and most importantly the lives of the police officers? why can't we begin to do more with -- if we're going to give you money, we're going to make you jump through a few hoops.

is that something you think the police community would not accept and understand that this has gone too far? >> i've had this conversation with several police chiefs since ferguson erupted. i don't think that they would be alarmed by this. i think there's an expectation that there is going to be an adjustment in the program and the thoughtful police chiefs that have i spoken to about this would agree with what you said, that there needs to be some governing affect on the transfer of some of this equipment. i don't think you have an objection other than the one you had earlier if you are giving away equipment, how does that make sense about equipment? but tactical equipment, whether armored vehicles or guns, should be connected -- i made suggestio suggestions -- with a local public input capacity, a public hearing about this. some guidance from the government relative to accountability measures like the body warn cameras or training

issues. because many of those arguments, local police chiefs would make to their local city councils and some fall on deaf ears. they can't get the council to pay attention because there is a price tag. you may be helping many police chiefs elevate the level of training they would like to see their people receive. >> mr. lomax. >> yes. i agree with my colleague here that, number one, for the vast majority of chiefs and sheriffs out there, adding extra steps as far as documentation policy and accountability would not be a problem. i think in that affect, this program has done tremendous contribution to police departments in the last 25-plus years. that right now, there needs to be a paradigm shift, a way of thinking differently. perception is reality. right now, the perception is

there's a millization of this. it would kind of ensure training. and as jim mentions, it will give them more power to say we need more training to procure this equipment. also, there needs to be local input. i believe -- i think senator johnson mentioned it earlier that this should be a local issue, too. from the state to the local, they should have input into their police departments and how they are properly equipped. >> doctor? >> excuse me for being a professor and talking on and on. i will actually read a thing that i had written before, hopefully pretty quickly. if with respect to possible to allow a small component of u.s.

police to obtain military grade equipment for the extremely rare act of shooter situation, perhaps the programs might be of benefit. however, the unavoidable unintended consequences of such programs render them not just dubious but dangerous. military gear and garb changed a war-fighting civility among police are population become the enemy and the police perceive of themselves as a line between order and chaos that can be controlled through military model power. the ethic, the massive community policing reform programs intended to instill in american policing, that is an ethic of community empowerment, developing trust between the community and police, democratic accountability, all those things have been smoothly displaced by military paradigm. a recent addition in cops magazine by the director of cops

said very clearly, he said, we're seeing the growing mill tearization of policing lead to the destruction of community policing. so it's a cultural problem. it's not just a regulation, let's put a few tweaks and bumps here. when you hand these departments this level of weaponry and these goods, it changes their mindset. remember, most of these departments have 25, 30, 50 officers. 15 of them serve on a s.w.a.t. team. now they have an armored personnel carrier, a $325,000 armored personnel carrier paid for by homeland security. what do they say? here is an example. we have racial tensions at the basketball game. we're going to bring the m-rap to the basketball game friday night. that's a quote. changes their mindset. i can't see a way that the transfer ens of military goods from wartime to our civilian

police agencies is ever a good idea. >> it's interesting you say that. just in preparing to for this hearing, we took a look at -- a search and amazon for police officer toys. and what came up -- it's in the packet of pictures -- the next picture, the one with the -- yeah. this is the first thing that came up. this is a helmet, military helmet. it's a hand grenade. obviously, the kind of weaponry that we have not pra decisionally thought of police officers. these are what parents are buying for their children who say they want to grow up and be police officers. so this is something that has gotten, i think, into our culture that is very, very damaging. speaking of community policing,

i have watched as community policing has gone down and down and down. by the way, the homeland security grants have not gone -- the homeland security grants are bigger than community policing. so why is it that i don't hear as much about -- from my police communities and the lobbies organizations about the cuts to community policing like i do when there's any talk about the homeland security grants? why is it that there doesn't appear to be the cry -- we need the voices of the police community lobbying for community policing money. i watch community policing work as a prosecutor. i watched it work. with a drug problem, a serious drug problem. that and drug court were two things that were working in kansas city.

what do awe tribute the fact that the policing community doesn't seem to be as worried about the funding for community policing as they are for some of these streams of funding buying this weaponry? >> this is a cultural aspect of policing. it also is the responsible of every american, quite frankly to say to their locally elected people that this is what we expect from our police department. we expect our police department to be one that is fair and equitable, that treats everybody with dignity and respect. at the same time they grapple with different and challenging situations. the best count erterrorism strategy is community policing. there is an absolute need -- you heard it from everybody up here today in front of you -- to co-produce public safety between the police and the community. that will never happen if

there's distrust, if the police departments don't reflect the community they serve, if we don't have a constant discussion. if there is any silver lining that comes out of the events in ferguson, it's that we begin this discussion that should have happened probably in 1997, not in 2014, about how we use this equipment, whether it comes from a federal government or out of a city's general fund in an appropriate way that doesn't damage the relationship the police have with the community. if we do not do that, thun we shouldn't be surprised when that becomes a problem in the future. >> what about the idea that this be in the active shooter situation or hostage situation or te or terrorism situation that this be housed under the control of the state national guard to then as an access point that would provide more accountability and it was utilized and would require that it wouldn't be

utilized by anyone who hadn't had appropriate training and only utilized in circumstances where it really would save lives and protect police officers as opposed to the incredible change we have seen that these are now, okay, we have this thing in the shed, let's figure out how to get out and use it. >> you have just articulated the reason we should study this particular phenomena more. we're trying to work on solutions. because we don't know enough about how this equipment is used. we heard that from the earlier panel. >> they have no idea. justice department said they do. they just know what they're buying with it. they don't know how it's being utilized. >> we should spend more time and money researching. you make a great point about regionalizing certain kinds of assets. there are lessons we could learn from other fields that do this. this could -- i think, this could be one of the guidelines attached to this kind of programming that you have to demonstrate what the regional approach is to using these kinds of equipment. we see that already in some federal programs.

this should be a regional asset and not necessarily a localized asset. the problem is there's 17,000 police departments in this united states. each one has a slightly different challenge in front of them. so there needs to be a thoughtful approach to this that ties this stuff together. i think that ensuring that the locally elected body weighs in on this, local communities have an opportunity to voice their opinion, whether this makes sense or doesn't make sense for us to have this particular piece of equipment means there's a much more -- a greater likelihood that you will see a regional approach to these things and not necessarily an individual department with one officer department has an m-wrap. we should know -- >> or 13 assault grade rifles. that is almost comical it's so out of bounds. one of the things that i witnessed in ferguson and i

would like to you weigh in on this, mr. price, the chicken and egg situation that really occurred where you had a spontaneous demonstration, you had the vast majority of which was very peaceful beginning on saturday. we did have looting on sunday night. aside from the looting on sunday night, the vast majority was peaceful until the following weekend when you began do see a lot of people embedded among the peaceful protest tlerz for a confrontation. there's no question in my mind that the idea that all of this equipment was brought out early in the week contributed to a mentality among the peaceful protesters that they were being treated as the enemy. >> that's correct. >> that they were the enemy. >> yes. >> that this was a military force and they were facing down an enemy. these were peaceful protesters that in america were supposed to

be celebrating as part of our constitutional heritage. talk about, mr. price, how the freedom of the press worked in here. what were the challenges you faced as you were there with your camera day in and day out from being able to cover what was going on because of that mentality that were almost a siege mentality that began really on monday following the shooting on saturday. >> senator, one of the big problems i had with the police was that sometimes they lumped the media in with the protesters. particularly during the daylight hours whether they took on a policy of no standing protester or media could be found stationary. the problem i had with that was you have us locked into -- >> a pen? >> a 2-mile radius.

they wanted us to keep in motion. wouldn't it be easier if once they do slow down, you have them corralled and eled in one locat? there's there's 80 to 100 people here. why should we move? particularly when you ask photographers to move with them. there was tussle from time to time. you saw a couple of the cnn correspondents live on the air being forced 20 or 30 feet down a certain area. i felt like they were aggravating a peaceful stance. they are tired of walking up the street. now they will stand and chant. you want to keep them in motion and you want the media to go with them. i felt like they were aggravating the situation as opposed to keeping it peaceful. >> i'm assuming tactical officers receive training about when -- putting in this kind of military presence when -- during

daylight hours when you have lots of children and elderly. this crowd -- there were young people in the crowd. but it was the middle of the afternoon, and you had a mounted sniper weapon pointing at people that never, ever envisioned having someone point a sniper weapon -- this person was -- this happened on wednesday afternoon. it was about 3:00 in the afternoon. so, is there somewhere in the training that that would be appropriate under those circumstances? >> senator, i'm not sure the particulars of what was going on at that time. hopefully, the doj investigation and other investigations will determine what was going on. a lot of times there may be

intelligence out there that something is going on that maybe we don't know what's going -- what's happening. >> believe it or not, i was told the reason that happened is that he was using his scope in order to observe the crowd. have they heard of binoculars? you know, it seems there's a better way to monitor a crowd that is peacefully protesting than pointing moun ining mounte weapons at them. it seems common sense would tell you, that's going to make the situation worse, not make it better. >> you are right. >> i was told he was up there in order to observe the crowd. >> correct. >> most police departments that handle civil protests correctly know that the last thing you want do is instigate. it was a wonderful article in the "washington post" that interviewed chiefs of police that understand this and how you sit back and don't antagonize

and don't display this level of weaponry. if i might, i will throw out a one quick speculation. i'm willing to speculate before the doj report comes out. i think what you saw was a high level of fear of victimization among the police. it's a huge cultural issue right now in policing where so many for-profit training groups and training ak inging akad meecadi this. it does lead to an intense fear of the other, of those people, of the community you are serving. >> there had been looting on sunday night. they burned down a store. i mean, let's be fair here. it wasn't like this activity was completely lawful. there was a lot of unlawful activity that i think really shook the bones of the law

ennoe enforcement community that they would have that kind of lawlessness. that is something we have to be very fair, we have to factor that in to their response. >> absolutely. but i would have to say, you have to look at a situation like hurricane katrina where the initial response from fema was not what's been traditionally done in this great country, which is humanitarian aid. the initial response from fema under the department of homeland security was, this is a security threat. they spent almost four full days supposedly securing the area, later of which we found out was false, that there wasn't an area to secure. people were in dire need of help. securing the area before they gave humanitarian aid. that's the mentality i'm talking about. security first, aid second, mindset, which is our what our good friend said down the table. >> right.

did you have something you wanted to add, mr. price? >> yes. in the picture that you just showed, the distance between the police and the protesters was probably 100 feet. >> very small? >> very small. i mean, when they were standing there, even when the police were shouting to us like in that photo, you could hear what everyone was saying from the police department as far as moving back, disbursing. the use of a scope, even when that truck rolled up, all the photographers were looking around like, what is this for. we began to think that there was something else going on behind the scenes that we did not know about. >> you assumed it wasn't for you? >> yes. exactly. we were wondering why the truck was there, because, again, it brought up suspect that there was something going on that we did not know. other photographers were questioning each other about what was going on. this went on for three or four days. again, the police aggravated peaceful marchers when they were

just standing there chanting. instead of letting them chant and you have them in their environment, they moved them around. which irritated them. that's all they did. >> right. right. well, i want to thank all of you for being here. we will follow up with another subcommittee hearing, i'm sure, on this subject as we -- i would certainly ask you for you to begin working on what you think, based on your knowledge of the police community in this country, what would be reasonable changes in policy that would begin to get us back to a place where we have not done -- where somebody -- a young man who wants to grow up to a police officer thinks what he needs to get is a hand grenade. obviously, that's a problem. i would like us to work on that together. we will continue to work with all of you who have come

together. certainly, the naacp is part of this national discussion. obviously, i'm on the ground in ferguson a lot trying to figure out how we navigate through a still very, very difficult road ahead as we figure out how to regain trust in that community with that police department. the great people of ferguson deserve to have a police department that they feel comfortable with. so there's a lot of work yet to do. the hearing record with remain open for 15 days until september 24th at 5:00 p.m. for the submission of any other statements and any other questions for the record. if there is any information that you all would like to provide for the record, get it to us before then. we will replain in contact with you as we work on this praf. thank you very much.

if you missed any of this hear, you can watch it in c-span's library. we will show it tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern or on c-span 2. we have been asking your thoughts on whether or not local police should use military equipment in law enforcement.

jake says, no, the millization of what should be our peace officers must end. it only contributes to manufacturing and adversarial attitude by far too many in law enforcement. kathy writes, yes, there are criminals with military style weapons and the police need to be able to meet force with force. eric said, i think they should have an arm heed vehicle but only for extreme emergency situations like active shooters. ferguson is an example of how not to use an armored military vehicle. cops walking around the city in military combat gear is absolutely insane. if you want to play soldier, go join the military. you can continue to weigh in at facebook.com span. at 2:00, we will hear from vice president joe biden commemorating the 20th anniversary of violence against women agent signed in law on president clinton in 1994. he will speak at the national archives in washington, d.c. watch that live 2:00 eastern

right here on c-span3. members of congress have been tweeting about the 20th anniversary of the vawa and issues regarding violence against women. nancy pelosi tweets, on the an verse of the violence against women agent, i remain committed to strenennening protections for victims everywhere. i applaud the nfl and the ravers violence against women will not be tolerated. senator bob casey says we must recommit ourselves to strengthening those protections and provying support to all victims after bus. joe biden's remarks on the 20th anniversary of the act today at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. water, it makes up 75% of our bodies. take water away and humanity would perish within a week.

water is the most vital substance to the human body. 50% of all streams, lakes, bays and estuaries are unsuitable to use because of pollution. we have learned to take the water for granted. faucets, bottled water and flushed toilets reinforce the same idea, water is unlimited. step outside, and their condition tells a different story. water pollution kills marine life, destroyed ecosystems and disrupts a fragile food chain and animals are not the only ones that suffer the negative affects of water pollution. congress, in 2014, you must provide federal funding to waste water treatment agencies across the country. the life blood of our nation is tainted with the negligence of generations. it must stop here.

>> join us wednesday during washington journal for the theme of the 2015 c-span student cam documentary competition. yesterday we heard from health and human services second sylvia berwell. >> it's wonderful to be here this morning. as the dean of the only school of public health in the nation's capital, i'm delighted to introduce the 22nd secretary of health and human services, sill veer ya burwell. it's exciting that sylvia is with us today. she was awanded a healthcare innovation award. the $23.8 million award was the result of collaboration between the milk and institute school of

public health and 20 other community partners, including clinical care systems, hospitals, technology firms and the d.c. department of health. the project will develop a shared information technology system that will rely on mobile technologies, home testing and an integrated care system in order to prevent hiv infection and provide bert care for those who already have the virus right here in the district of columbia. it's an exciting opportunity and reflects the spirit of innovation and results driven approaches that have guided secretary burwell's career as well as her ensuring that every american has access to the building blocks of healthy lives. she was sworn in on june 9, 2014. she has called for the department to operate under three guiding principals. to deliver results on a wide

range of complex issues, to strengththen relationships to drive success, and to build strong teams with the talent and focus needed to deliver impact for the american people. most recently, secretary burwell served as direct of the office of management and budget where she worked with congress to help return to a more ordinarily budget and appropriations process bringing much needed stability to the economy and to middle class families. she led theed aminute strags's efforts to deliver a smarter more innovative and more accountable government. she oversaw the development of president obama's secretary term management agenda, including efforts to expedite high impact permitting projects, drive efficient says and improve customer service. additionally, she has worked to ensure that our regulatory system protects the health and safety of americans while promoting economic growth, job creation and innovation. prior to serving in the obama

admission, she served as president of the walmart foundation where she led efforts to fight hunger in america and empower women around the world. before joining the foundation in 2012, she was president of the global development program at the bill and melinda gates foundation in washington where she spent ten years working on some of the world's most pressing challenges. from vaccinations to children's health, to agricultural development. she also served as the foundation's first chief operating officer. d she served as deputy director of the omb, deputy chief of staff to the press, chief of staff to the secretary of the treasury and staff director of the national economic council. prior to joining the clinton administrati administration, she worked for a company and served on the board of council on foreign relations,

metlife and the university of washington medical center among other organizations. she received an ab from harvard university and a ba from oxford where she was a road scholar. she grew up in washington, she and her husband live in washington, d.c. with their two young children. an accomplished, a skilled manager, truly a wonderful new secretary of health and human services, it's my pleasure on behalf of the george washington university and the milken institute school of health to join me in welcoming secretary burwell. [ applause ] >> thank you, dean goldman. it's great to be here with you at gw today. this institution is a tremendous

leader on so many health and human services issues. from research that is revolutionizing the treatment of cancers to biomedical engineering, to your work training the next again rags of doctors, nurses, social workers and perhaps cabinet secretaries. i've had the privilege of working with many gw colonials, including many of the talented members of our staff at the department of health and human services. when you think of all the giants who have come through this university, it's astounding. the great robert c. bird from my home state, senator enzy and the founders of organizations as diverse as emily's list, espn and operation smile. all these people had two very big things in common. the first, of course, is