institutional label or individual label. >> excellent. your question, please? my name is vickie -- >> can't hear you. speak up a little bit. >> my question is about the borders in the region where this epidemic is happening and the nature of mobility and traffic, you know, human traffic. i know some airlines stopped flying into these countries, but many people cross borders in places that are not well publ h published. how do you think that is treated considering the epidemic is spreading to places like nigeria which is hard on the continent. >> let me suggest process wise. i'm going to take two more questions from the larger audience. >> they will be at the end of the time. this is not fair at all. i'm going to try to take one from the left side.

no one is -- the lady in the middle there and i've got one -- how about the end here on the left side. we have two on the left side. sorry about that. i think that is all we'll be able to do between now and 3:20. let's go ahead with the question from over here. >> okay. >> please. >> do i need to stand-up? i'm a student in global health law so i'm taking this class. i would like to -- for inside out approach to the treatment of this epidemic. i'm just wondering why, if we are not already doing it, we are not going from the already existing experiences we have

with hiv and that we have had in africa. i watched a clip yesterday on bbc circulating in the social media about how the medical staff were recapturing a patient that had escaped from the facility and it seems to me that the approach needs to be implemented because you could see that the patient didn't understand what they had to be inside the facility and if people don't understand it, they don't realize how much of a danger they are to the community and being in a camp means they are sharing the love, protecting everybody, then it's a loss.

we cannot win the war. so, drawing from experiences with hiv, for instance. so, um, so, um, it made me think about the human rights aspect. did the person feel that it was their right to decide whether to be, you know, subjected to treatment? they have a right to be subject to treatment or because of the nature of the problem should then government have -- >> to engage the human rights of the dimension of the intervention. i think that's right. the final question? >> my question gets to the sovereignty issue and we have spoken about this, but how do you measure the risks and countries like liberia asking

for assistance, grateful to msf. everyone has alluded to the nature of liberia and sierra leone. they have great gains the last five years. they met their goals and set up financial mechanisms. suddenly, there's concern international doe nars fund them. in nine months or 12 months, there's going to be a shell of ministry left. how do you balance controlling the epidemic with maintaining the small, but important gains that have been made with the conflict in these countries? >> we have four questions. i'm not sure we'll be able to touch them all. i guess the one thing i would ask is if marty could talk about the borders and travel restrictions. larry, you and kevin could say a word about the human rights dimensions. on the issue of capacity and the

nations that maybe steve could speak to that, too. the end goal is to have strong functions states and we need to be sure that's where we end up. we have about three or four minutes. that may be the best. if people could take a couple quick. >> one minute per -- >> i think we can do this quickly. marty, do you want to tell us about the borders? >> the point is well taken. air connectivity, you know, fortunately from the three epidemic prone areas is relatively speaking more limited. it's a whole different story if you have an epidemic in other hub areas. i think the reduction in capacity of commercial airlines for a bunch of reasons, dollars, logistics, safe place for crew, many things we have been trying to actively combat. it's down about 50% in some of those countries and more in

others, 80% in others. it is choking the response. we need an alternative way to respond. your point about the lab borders is an important one and understanding the poorest nature and the potential reintroduction. the intersection of the three counties needs to be addressed, but needs to be addressed, again, through more creative approaches. human rights. >> i wanted to hear what larry had to say about that. >> please. >> i'm sure you could do a better job than me, but i think human rights are critical here. they are critical, one, because i think when you have significant rights violations, you realize the public health response. it's our instinct as people to fight or flee. there's been violence and

there's been fleeing. those are the two exact opposite things we want. the other thing is that human rights include social and economic rights, the right to health, the right to food security, to clean water, to all those things that really are part of a good public health community. we cannot forget about those in the midst of a disease crisis. in fact, we need to reinforce all of these rights during those crisis times because as we know from so many hundreds of years back, our worst instincts as human beings come forward when we feel threatened by an epidemic and we have to overcome that. >> i think that's what larry was saying. it's going to link nicely with steve. one of the remaining questions is how do we help without

creating any residual harms to the structures that are in place. >> steve, do you want to say something? >> i would like to address the point around protecting and balancing off those accomplishments, those programs and achievements that have been made as against this urgent requirement. we have seen, of the 3,000 cases and 1,500 deaths, over 1,500 deaths, 240 health workers infected, 120 killed. the disruption in services have huge implications for childbirth, for treatment of any number of other health needs where there have been gains. how do you take action in order to staunch the further erosion and that has to do, i believe,

with protection. the risk environment for exposure and the fear environment has become pervasive in many areas, particularly liberia and sierra leone. how do you push back to preverve the gains? on the border issues and the air links issue, we are moving toward a de facto of the region, right? that is what is happening here. de facto as air links cease and as governments put up as many of the regional governments have put up, bans on land, sea and air traffic into senegal, gone. other countriecountries. more remote countries. we are moving into that. the question is, how do you push back on that in a constructive

way to preserve and maintain the flow of goods and people that are so essential to the response? simply appealing, as has been the case up to now. not to do this has failed. so, what are the mesh surasures are going to do that? >> it's been aamazing two hours. i believe we, in some ways, are where we were at the beginning. this is a crisis that has a very real human personal dimension. we have seen this epidemic out of control in many places, certainly in parts of the three countries in west africa that are most impacted. as steve outlined in the last comments, the dynamics are extraordinary. i would ask everybody here to thank our panelists for joining us. [ applause ]

we at georgetown want to thank all of you that came here and are watching either on the internet or on tv. this is an issue that we can't take off the screen. this is one that our country plays an important role and all of you do, too. thank you for coming. this weekend on the c-span networks, american history tv is live from baltimore's ft. mchenry for the 200th anniversary of the star spang led banner. later at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, we'll four fort mchenry and hear how war game to baltimore in 1814, about the british barrage. saturday night at 8:00 on c-span, the presidential leadership scholars program with george w. bush and bill clinton and sunday afternoon at 3:30,

live coverage of the stake fry and q & a with rick pearlstein on the conservative movement in politics. on c-span 2, book tvs author ken silverstein on the world of oil. sunday at 6:45 eastern on book tv, democratic senator from new york kristin gillibrand on her life in politics and call on women to rise up and make a difference in the world. find the schedule at c-span.org and let us know. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail at comments@c-span.org. join the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> a hearing on the use of military equipment by local police. the senate homeland committee heard yesterday from defense justice and homeland security

department officials as well as former police officers, the naacp and photo journalist who covered the protests in ferguson, missouri. >> the room come to order. we want to welcome all our guests, especially or witnesses, first are first panel and second panel. one month ago today, an unarmed young man named michael brown was shot and killed by local policemen in the town of ferguson, missouri. it's been stated that the officer was acting in self-defense. while the incident remains under investigation, this much is known. it's caused a very real pain for mr. brown's family, as well as for many residents of ferguson and for others across our country. the events that unfolded in ferguson have sparked a much needed national discussion on a range of issues, including police strategy, law enforcement response to civil protests and unrest and race relations. the purpose the today's hearing, though, is not to explore what

happened in ferguson on that fateful day or to assign blame. that is the responsibility of our judicial system. rather, the purpose of today's hearing is to examine the effectiveness of programs that provide surplus military equipment and grant funding for equipment for exercises for planning and for training. the issues we'll be discussing today are not just about ferguson. they affect communities across our nation. as we take a deep dive into the federal programs that helped equip state and local law enforcement agencies that want to explore the value of these programs to police, to the communities they serve, and especially to taxpayers. i want to just really start off by thanking senator mccaskill and her staff for all of their efforts in organizing this hearing, for cochairing it with me. a colleague from missouri has spent a lot of time in ferguson this past month examining these issues, we look forward to learning from her firsthand experiences. clair, thank you for your

leadership during this difficult time and for all that you've done to help our country move forward and learn from what you and your fellow missouriens have been grappling with. during the weeks that followed, national media focused on the protests including response by local law enforcement. many question rightfully have been posed by local leaders, but civil rights organization, by police associations, law enforcement experts and others on whether the police responsible was correct, measured and appropriate. in thinking about these issues we'll be discussing today, i can't help but think about how in my own home state, learning all over again, the value of our police spending more time outside of their police cars, working, talking every day with people in the community, and engaging them in positive ways. as you might imagine, this helps build the bonds of trust and strengthen communities in the way that is armed personnel, vehicles and assault weapons never can.

we've convened in helping state and local police do their important work. since 1997, federal agencies supplied over $5 billion in surplus department of defense supplies and equipment to law enforcement. in addition, both the departments of justice and homeland security administration grant programs that also can pay for military-style gear such as armored vests and vehicles. in light of the events in ferguson, our committee has reviewed the role in providing equipment, supplies and weapons to state and local law enforcement. our staff has received briefings from the agencies and has reviewed key documents. this review by congress is long overdue. the federal witness with us today will describe the programs that can supply tactical and military style equipment, and weapons to law enforcement in the current oversight requirements and procedures. we'll hear from a second panel of witnesses with critical knowledge and opinions of these programs, including some with

law enforcement backgrounds. we'll explore the proper roles and techniques for use of this equipment. we'll also examine whether congress should do more to hold accountable the police department who obtain sophisticated equipment. these programs were established with a very good intention, to provide equipment that would help law enforcement perform their duties. the question is whether what our police receive match what they truly need to uphold the law. we need to acknowledge there have you been instances where police have been outgunned by heavily armed criminals. in addition we all remember well how helpful some of these programs were to enable to police to perform extraordinarily well in the aftermath from the boston bombings. without these programs, response would not have been as fast. of course the job of law enforcement it to protect the lives and well-being of the people of our nation. so we'll also hear from

witnesses with expertise on the civil rights issues that arise from these programs. it's my hope that we in congress and other government leaders learn from what is discussed in today's hearing and from the ongoing developments in ferguson and in similar situations across the country. in closing, we're here today because we have a responsible to ensure accountability of funds and equipment provided by the federal government to state and local police. it is our job to ensure that these programs provide value to police, to the community they serve, and to taxpayers. dr. coburn. >> good morning. thank you to our witnesses for appearing in both this panel and the second one. thank you to the chairman for convening this hearing. as i look at my short time left

remaining in congress and having traveled for two weeks in oklahoma in august, i am brought constantly and frequently back to the position of our founders, and not only their vision, but their wisdom. protect and serve. our founders saw no role for the federal government in state and local police forces. none. and yet what we have seen is, on the basis of what we saw on 9/11, what seems to be an overreaction and a progress to where the federal government in law enforcement is doing the same thing it's done in every

other area when it comes to the general welfare clause and the commerce claus. and we're on dangerous ground. of undermining the very principles that built the country. it's hard to see a difference between the militarized and increasingly federalized and the force that madison had in mind when he said a standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be a safe companion to liberty. i have some real heartburn with not just the 1033 program, with the grants, with some of the justice department grants and with a lot of the homeland security grants in terms of how they've been utilized, what they've been utilized for, so i

look forward to hearing from our witnesses. i have some significant questions. the 1033 program has been around a long time. it was not just in response to this, but i think we need to have a good airing. we need to recenter where we are. there is no role for the federal government in the local and state police forces in our ñ i hope we can winnow that out today to see where we've stepped across the line and actually have created some problems that wouldn't have been there otherwise. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, dr. coburn. i'm going to ask once she's given her opening statement, i'm going to ask senator mccaskill to introduce our witnesses, and i'd lead off the questions, then we'll have to leave before 11:15 for a meeting in the capitol. but in the meantime you're chairing. >> thank you.

thank you, chairman carper, i want to thank you and dr. coburn for the interests you have shown in today's hearing. i know your decision to elevate this hearing to the full committee level is a sign of your commitment to oversight in these very important areas. i'm appreciative of the fact it hanel vated to the full committee. i first approached chairman carper to hold this hearing because of the shock and sadness i felt as i saw events unfolding in ferguson, missouri in the weeks following the death of michael brown. i heard reports and saw firsthand about aggressive police actions being used against protesters under the umbrella of, quote, crowd control. not in response to violence, like many of you, i saw armored vehicles with ab# sniper point a rifle at an unarmed protester

on a warm, summer afternoon. i think most americans were ç uncomfortable watching a suburban street in st. louis being transformed with vivid images, powerful images across this country into a war zone, complete with camouflage, tear gas, rubber bullets, armored vehicles and laser sights on assault weapons. while this hearing may reveal many strong arguments why some of this equipment may be helpful for the safety of police officers in certain situations, i am confident that militarized policing tactics are not consistent with the peaceful exercise of first amendment rights of free speech and free assembly. those lawful peaceful protesters on that wednesday afternoon in ferguson, missouri did not deserve to be treated lie enemy

combatants. i am hoping that what happened in ferguson and what we learned at this hearing today will inform a better public policy that will protect our constitutional freedoms and also provide adequate public safety for the brave men and women who put on a uniform every day to protect the people of this great nation through our very admirable rule of law. the federal government has played a significant role in enabling police departments across the country to acquire the military weapons, vehicles and other types of equipment we saw used in ferguson. the department of defense's 1033 program, which was authorized in its current form in 1997, giving away dod surplus equipment for free to state and local law enforcement. much of the e quamt from -- equipment is as mundane as

office furniture and microwaves but the department of defense is also giving local law enforcement million dollar tactic vehicles including the mraps. they are heavily armored vehicle built to with withstand roadside bombs. these are vehicles so heavy that they can tear up roads and the department of defense knows this, yet it continue toss provide these vehicle toss local law enforcement agencies across the nation. according to information provided by department of defense, in just the last three years, the department of defense has given 624 mraps to state and local law enforcement agents seemingly without regard to need or size of the agency that has received them. at least 13 law enforcement agencies with fewer than ten full-time sworn officers received an mrap in the last three years. the number of mraps in the possession of local police and sheriffs is far higher than the mraps in possession of our country's national guard. in texas, for example, local law

enforcement agencies have 73 mraps, the national guard has only six. in florida local law enforcement agencies have 45 mraps. the national guard has zero. i would like to ask for unanimous consequence sent the information provided to me from the defense department by included in the record today. >> without objection. >> also the department of justice information received about con acceptability decrees into the record. >> without objection. >> i question whether state and local law enforcement agencies need this kind of equipment and certainly whether they need it more than our states' national guards. one of the key lessons learned throughout iraq and afghanistan wars is the idea we had to win the hearts and minds. one of the ways the military tried to do that was by acting more like a police force, working with communities, helping to repair broken windows, damaged property, and trying to appear less militaristic with their presents in the communities. i find it ironic that at the

same time we are embracing those tactics as strong evidence of progress against a counter insurgency, we are in fact under lining a militarization of our domestic police departments. i also have questions about i why the defense department -- about why the defense department is giving away some of these material. according to the defense lo jestics agency, and we'll have a witness to testify momentarily, approximately 36% of the equipment that is given away to law enforcement is brand new. let me say that again. 36% of the equipment that has been given away is brand new. now, we'll give you a chance to counter that. that was the information we vooef -- received from dla. even if it's not 36%, if any of it is brand new, then there's a real question about what are we doing? why are we buying thing and the

department of defense merely to turn around and give them away. all of it, weapons, tactical equipment, office supplies is still usable and identical or similar items will be needed or bought new by the defense department again. it doesn't appear that buying new equipment and spending money to replace is an an effayluq use of the defendant department's resources.ç local law enforcement agencies are requiring military grants. if fy2014, department of homeland security made available over 400 million under its state homeland security program, and another $587 million under its urban area security initiative grant program. though those these grants can't be used to buy weapons, they do fund armored veerks, nonlethal weapons and tactical equipment. the burn jag program which received 376 million proposes gives state and local law enforcement agencies for funding

from everything from mobile data terminals, lethal and nonlethal weapons to office supplies and uniforms and to provide the maintenance funds to maintain the expensive vehicles that have been given them by the department of defense. these grant programs provide important assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies. however, it is impossible to tell how these federal funds are being spent, because department of homeland security and department of justice don't track the purchases or keep adequate data, so we just can't know. from asking these agencies how much military equipment or anything else that local law enforcement agencies are actually buying. in fact, it is possible that either or both of these programs are funding police department in fact to maintain and sustain the same equipment they're getting for free from another federal agency. i'm confident that many police

departments are creating policies and providing training to ensure that any use of force : ÷xiñrçóñaa3 and we must do everything we can to make sure our law enforcement officers, the brave men and women have the equipment they need to maximize their own safety. but we also have to acknowledge that giving military-grade vehicles and weapons to every police officer and police force in america comes with cost both in ways officers are perceived and the way this equipment is used. officers dressed in military fatigues will not be viewed as partners in any community. armored military vehicles are by definition intimidating. and supplying communities with the capacity to acquire military equipment with no requirement that the officers are trained on the proper use of the equipment,

i thank witnesses for being here here today. i certainly thank the chairman and ranking member for their calling of this full committee hearing. we look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. >> senator mccaskill, thank you for your efforts in this. everything that flows from it, if you briefly introduce the witnesses and testify and i will ask the first question and yiely to dr. coburn and we will be on

our way. thank you. >> our first witness is ellen estavez, the principal deputy t, under self defense at the u.s. department of defense. efens he has managed military edefe logistics, acquisitions and supplies for department of defense in various capabilities since 2002 and vz overseen ov militaryer acquisitions worth me than $170 billion.wo he has worked with the offices of the secretary of defense since 1981. 1981. brian kamoy the assistant administrator for grant programn for the federal emergency program agency. a he oversees mr than 17 billion in grant programs to build, our sustain and naimprove our nation capability to prepare for, protect against and respond to recover from and mitigate hazards. t and he served on the white house national security staff and department of health and human services. carol mason, assistant attorney general and oversees annual oves

budget over $2 billion for an state, tribal, array of juvenile justice programs, a wide range of research and evaluation and statistical efforts and comprehensive services for crime victims and previously oversaw office of grant programs. we would like to thank you for appearing today and we look forward to your testimony. mr. estavez, you may begin. ou >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, because i have a conflict later this morning, can i submit a statement for th record, please? for t >> certainly. >> thank you.want i want to associate myself with the remarks of snar mccaskill and thank her for her leadership.heleader >> feel free to summarize. you go much over five minutes ih have to rein you in. >> thank you members of the committee. y tha thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee andh discuss the importance of transfer of excess military property to law enforcement agencies. ce

i appreciate the committee supporting the department and continued interest in insuring success of our mission. following events in ferguson, missouri, i think it is ssouri appropriate to address issues. as you know my written testimony has more detail and i will submit it to the record. the transfer of excess property to law enforcement agencies is congressionallyis authorized program to ensure stewardship of taxpayer resources. the program has provided property that ranges from office equipment and supplies to equipment that augmentes local i capabilities and enhances first responders during natural disasters.ca enhan more than 8,000 local and federal law enforcement agencies actively participate in the fede program across 49 states and three u.s. territories. more than $5.1 billion of property has been provided since 1990. n a key element in both the structure and execution of the l program is the state coordinatod who is appointed by the respective state governor.

state coordinators review all st properties submitted by the agencies along with the statement of intended use. working with state coordinators law enforcement agencies at determining need determine how it is used. department of defense does not d have the expertise in police force functions and cannot assess how equipment is used inu individual law enforcement agencies. within the past 12 months law enforcement agencies received approximately 1.9 million pieces of excess equipment. on 1.8 million pieces of noncontrolled or general property, office type equipmente and 78,000 pieces of controlled property. noncontrolled items range from file cabinets to tool sets. law enforcement agencies currently possess approximately 460,000 pieces of controlled property that they have received over time.

examples of controlled property include over 92,000 of small arms. 44,000 night vision devices. sm and 617 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. the department does not providet sniper rifles, uniforms. d.o.d. has provided two humvees and a cargo trail tore the ferguson police department. d.o.d. has provided to st. louis county police departments six pistols, 12 rifles, 15 weapon sights one d sights, one robot, three been u helicopters, two night vision devices. property obtained through this program has been used extensively for protection of law enforcement officers and the public as well as for first responder disaster relief spondr support. re for example, during the height of superstorm sandy new jersey

police drove cargo trucks to save 64 people. truck in wisconsin, green bay police used donated computers for forensic investigations. during 2013 flood in louisiana, livingston parish police rescued 137 people with six humvees. in texas, protected police officers during a stand off and shoot out with gang members. the department is participating in the administration review ofp federal programs for equipping state and local law enforcement agencies to ensure equipment provided is appropriate to their needs while enhancing the safetr of law enforcement personnel and their communities.nel we will alter procedures. in summary the congressionally y authorized 1033 program provides property in excess to needs of

the department for law enforcement and counter drug ans terrorism activities and enableo first responders to save lives. the department of defense does not push equipment on police en forces. state and local law enforcement agencies decide what they need n and access through respective state coordinators. me they thank you for the opportunity t discuss the department's transfer of excess military property and ready work with congress to review the scope of the mission. i look forward to working with you. >> good morning. i am brian kamoy. i'm assistant coordinator of department of homeland security. it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss ther department's homeland security preparedness programs. recent events in ferguson, missouri raszed questions regarding use of funds by state

and local authorities especially by law enforcement agencies.enes these events raised questions regarding the department's e oversight of the funds. i hope my appearance before you today will help answer those questions.ho as you know, the preparedness program assists communities across the nation to build and s sustain critical t capabilities and protect, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism. as a result of your support and the work of our partners throughout our country our national preparedness capabilities have matured whicho is a is a key finding of the national preparedness report released last month. the response to the 2013 bostonf marathon bombing demonstrated how preparedness grant investments improved capabilities. the planning, organization, equipment, training and es exercises all came together to l enable the emergency response. grant funded equipment such as the forward looking infrared

camera on a massachusetts polics state helicopter enabled the apprehension of dzhokhar tsarnaev why enhancing personal safety of law enforcement tsar officers and protecting public safety. na what happened in ferguson, missouri has prompted a national dialogue that goes well beyond the department and its grant programs. in mid august president obama ordered a review of programs id that support law enforcement agencies. bama o we at the department of homelant security look forward to contributing to the efforts. the homeland security grant program including state and ser urban area security initiative is the primary homeland security program that supports state, local and tribal communities including the law enforcement community funds under these programs are awarded to states and tribes that distribute to track the wt funding. thus, we work closely with and rely upon states and tribes to

conduct oversight of the programs and we monitor compliance with reporting and other program requirements. these programs are also audited by the department's inspector general and by states for the ns state and urban areas programs. under the homeland security act states are required to ty distribute 80% of the funds to local communities within their state. mmunitie the act also requires the department to ensure that at least 25% of the combined funds% allocated under the state and urban areas programs are used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities. these activities include law purchase of equipment. grant recipients must purchase equipment listed. it outlines 21 categories of allowable equipment. the department prohibits use ofh grant funds for purchase of lethal or nonlethal weapons and ammunition.am these are not on the authorizedt equipment list. homeland security grant funds e may be used to purchase equipment classified as personae

protective equipment such as helmets, body armor and ear and eye protection. response vehicles, such as beara cats are also allowed. the homeland security act allows equipment purchased with grant funds including personal protective equipment to be usedp for purposes unrelated to terrorism so long as one purposo of the equipment is to build and sustain terrorism based capabilities. the authorized equipment list notes ballistic personal person equipment purchased with grant funds is not for riot suppression. the department worked with the city of ferguson. we will continue our discussionh with missouri officials to determine which specific itemsnn may have been deployed to ferguson. to in reviewing the use of the grant funds the department willg make every effort to evaluate whether the use was appropriate under grant program rules use this includes the requirement and insurance that federal grang funds not be used to engage in conduct contrary to federal,

state or local law. the department takes this responsibility very seriously. the department's financial and y program grant monitoring provides a means for se ensuring oversight, accountability and proper management or service funds. we strive to improve the oversight of these funds. members of the committee, this concludes my statement. i appreciate the opportunity toy discuss these important issues discusou and i look forward to responding to questions you may have. >> thanks for that testimony. >t ms. mason, please proceed. make sure that your mic is on, please. >> good morning. p chairman carper, ranking membert coburn, distinguished members of the xhit tee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you about the department of justice's role in supporting state and local law enforcement agencies. up l recent events in ferguson, missouri have raised concerns vs about whether state and local law enforcement use of military

type equipment should be more closely examined. should as president obama has said the laws of the united states presi mandate a distinction between national armed forces and a civilian state and local law enforcement. to help maintain that distinction while insuring thatl civilian law enforcement departments have access to state-of-the-art equipment and training congress authorized department of justice to administer programs and fundingd to help state, local and triball law enforcement agencies safe as guard their communities while also protecting the civil liberties of their citizens. as assistant attorney general of office of justice programs i am responsible for overseeing a itf range of activities designed to support law enforcement. our work with law enforcement nd agencies is part of our mission to provide leadership, information and other assistanc to strengthen community safety and ensure the fair atio a administration of justice. one of our largest programs and the leading source of federal

funding for law enforcement is the justice assistance grant the program commonly known as jag. jag, a formula grant program lg supports a wide range of activities intended to improve e the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system. due to importance in community crime prevention we take great pains to see that funds are user appropriately and administered in the most transparent way possible. our bureau of justice assistants the office responsible for managing the jag programe takes the number of steps to ensure compliance and prevent se misuse of funds including requirement of quarterly mi financial and activity reports and an annual desk review of active grants. thesere measures allow us to maximum the oversight of jag grants and minimize the potential of inappropriate use of federal funds.fede federal funds. unds. as we provide critical funding to state and local law enforcement agencies our videtae

research and development and drds and testing programs managed by the national ev institute of justice enable us o to deploy state of the artemploy equipment and technology to aid in their work. uipmen much of the equipment and is adapted from the military. a notable example is the police body armor which has saved the lives of more than 3,100 lice officers. the our partnership with the department of defense and department of homeland security allows us to collaborate on the research and development -- we accomplish by providing technical assistance to state oh and local agencies through the national law enforcement and corrections technology center. i wish to also add that througho the police public contact survey our bureau of justice statistich collects data on citizen law enforcement interactions such as driver stops and request for assistance. tions we are working to improve our

understanding of the nature of these interactions and to bolster our collection of data. the department of justice and my office, the office of justice programs are committed to using our resources to help america's law enforcement agencies protect their communities while earning the trust and respect of the citizens they serve. we will continue to bring the latest knowledge and the best tools to this task. i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and i look forward to working with this committee to ensure that we are able to meet our collective goals of public safety and public trust. thank you. >> thank you for that testimony. dr. coburn and i and members of the committee spent a lot of time trying to figure out how we make sure the amount of resources we are applying to a particular problem or challenge, particularly something that poses a risk to our nation and our homeland, how do we make sure the resources we apply are commensurate with the risks that exists.

with that as a metric and that as a background, speak with us about each of these programs. how are we doing in terms of enabling law enforcement to have the resources, some of the resources that they need to meet the level of risk. public safety risks. please. >> you know, we have to, from a taxpayer perspective, we bought equipment that is no longer needed by the department of defense for a variety of reasons. i will say, senator mccaskill, some of it is not new, brand-new is the term i was shaking my head at. there is a variety of reasons why stuff would become excess. when it is no longer needed we make it available not just across levels across the department of defense first. law enforcement by congressional authorization has dibs early in

that process before it goes out to state agencies. and not all the equipment that is provided to law enforcement is available to everyone else. i think we are providing equipment that is useful to law enforcement both from a disaster relief and from a public

>> same question, how do we make sure we are aligning risk with o the resources being offered by g the three agencies within the federal government? ral go the resources being offered by the three agencies within the federal government? >> i think it is appropriate to start the discussion with risk. the state program and the urban areas security initiative are sn risk-informed allocation ity decisions meaning secretary of homeland security factors risk into the allocation of the fundo and the statute directs in the s urban area security initiative y program, for example, that he pr put the resources in the highest risk urban areas in the united states. in this year, fiscal '14, secretary designated 39 high risk urban areas to receive funding. the risk assessment is done in e partnership with our colleagues at the department's intelligence and analysis division working with the department of justice and the federal bureau of investigation and the intelligence communityis. we provide the secretary with ec the best picture of risk we canf

we recommend to him allegations -- allocations based on those risk profiles. we communicate with the jurisdictions about their risk profiles and invite them to submit information to us that h they believe we may not have or we might not have taken into tn account. nen the secretary makes those allocations. as to how well we're doing, whal i would point to is the req requirement vis-a-vis law enforcement that 25% of the annual appropriations for the state and urban areas program go to law enforcement. for the five year period of fiscal '08 to '12 states -- ceed >> go ahead and wrap it up. by >> states exceeded that 25% requirement by nearly $1 billion and spent 36% of the funding. the funding is getting to law enforcement as statute intends. >> risk, resources? >> same question. are they alined? >> thank you, senator. the j.a.g. program is a formulad program and the money allocated

to a state and local o sta jurisdictions based on a formula based on the crime rates and data. the office of administration program has little discretion v over idthat. what we do do is provide them with training about various w criminal justice issues. we are in the process of pullini together a tool kit that will enable law enforcement to know w how to, for example, control crowds while also protecting civil liberties. ds whi one of our primary responsibilities is to make sure that we equip local law s enforcement with the training a that they need and that they request in order to use our best practices to protect their communities. >> all right, thank you.comm second question deals with coordination or the appeared oh lack thereof. some cases you are directed to o coordinate and directed by law to coordinate from agency to agency. ency give us examples of where you e are coordinating well and areas where you need to coordinate cr better, please. diease.

get really succinct and right to the point, please. >> we need to do a better job in coordination. start it off there. probably a failure in coordination across the interagency regarding what we are providing. the department is coordinatingse with state coordinators and with our colleagues. g my fellow witnesses.our we do when there is missing whn equipment coordinate and let them know that kind of issue. et coordinating on what police ng forces could use, that could be better.wh >> i think we are coordinating w well in the risk assessment that that i mentioned that informs the alocationation of the programs. i think through our discussion today and white house review we will have a lot of opportunity a to improve how we coordinate on the downstream use of the equipment, perhaps discussion of training and what else we might else i think there is a lot of opportunity for improvement. of >> thank you. er wi >> i concur with my colleagues and we look forward to the

results of the president's review and information about how we can better coordinate our resources togethertt.er >> just give us very briefly some idea of how the review is going, give us idea of the timeline for completion of ive s review and we will have an the opportunity to hear about it. ae >> it's in its preliminary stages. senator, i'm not sure what the t outcome timeline is. ou >> are we talking this quarter, this year? >> i'm going to defer to brian who is actually sitting on that. >> sorry, chairman. i don't know the timeline.i dowh what i can tell you is it is a comprehensive review that is looking at the very same kinds d of data that you have requested, looking at how these programs o operate and what the opportunite space might be for improvement. >> if you will answer the im question for the record. think about it a little further and answer that question.ord. do you want to add anything, ms. mason? >> i don't have information fore the timeline. >> good thoughtful comprehensive review. compre we want it sooner rather than later.la last thing i want to say beforel

i turn the gavel over to senator mccaskill, my colleagues have e heard me say more than a few times onead of the adages that y father often gave my sister and me. we do some bone-headed stuff. he would always just say, just use common sense. hope i would hope in addition to rules and regulations i hope wee are using common sense. i hope we are using it within tn this committee and within the in agencies that oversee these rsee programs and i hope we are using it at the state and local levelg i have to run off to this meeting at the capitol. senator mccaskill, you got it. thank you all. >> thank you. when was the last time that you can recall that the equipment f from 1033 transfer program was used in counter terrorism?>>

>> senator, we don't have capability of monitoring how tht equipment that we've provided -d >> i understand that.and but do you have any recollection otherou than boston and tsarnaes and he's in the boat and maybe e some equipment was used there. does anybody know when the lastn time inyb terms of true counterterrorism that equipment was used?used? >> i'm sure we could pulse the system for anecdotes on that bun i really would have to do that, sir. to >> i'm not going to go through the audit and the lack of timely response by your organization to the audit. to how do you all determine what l federal supply classes are are available to be transferred?tra >> that is done basically by our item managers. >> i know, but tell me, how do they decide it is appropriate for a community of my hometown of 35,000 people? >> that is done by state coordinator.35 >> i understand that. but how did you ever decide that

an mrap is an appropriate vehicle for local police forcess >> an mrap is a truck, senator. >> no, it is not a truck. it is a 48,000 pound offensive weapon. >> it is not an offensive iveis weapon, senator. >> it can be used as an offensive weapon. >>of >> when we give an mrap it is stripped of all electronic warfare capability ty and does not have a weapon on it. it is not an offensive weapon.et it's a protective vehicle.it. >> i'll make a point. you all give out .30 caliber weapons. it is on your list. that's a this big. that's the size of the shell. so all i'm asking is i want to know how you come about to say that muskogee, oklahoma -- and i know who makes the decision on whether the equipment, but you make it available and then a state through the state coordinator determines that thee get one of those. de there's six of them in oklahoma, all right? oklaho how did we ever get to the point where we think states need

mraps?hi how did that process come about >> this is one of the areas thas we are obviously going to look at, senator, how we decided what equipment is available. obviously, we've made some big decisions, fighter aircraft, htr tanks, strikers, those type of things are not available. sniper rifle is not available. grenade launcher not available. >> drones are available? >> no. >> airplanes are available. >> >> airplanes are available. >> helicopters are available. >> helicopters, not apaches. >> but abreally, youle can't tes today how we make those decisions of what goes on the list? >> that's basically a commonsense decision inside the department and we do, as we keep saying, go back to the states. t >> when something is removed hes from the list -- and i don't know if you have any recent experience with this -- are

agencies required to return the restricted equipment?>> >> that's why we retain title rt for what we call controlled equipment so we can pull that equipment. we >> so is a .30 caliber gun -- >> a 762 weapon is available on the 762 millimeter's available. >> i'm talking .30 -- >> no cruise weapons, nothing that requires a belt for firing. >> are you aware of any that have been previously authorized that are now restricted? >> the type of stuff we have ended up further restricting for body armor. we used to provide body armor and we no longer do that. part of that's for safety reasons. once body armor becomes excess we can't guarantee safety. xcess major equipment i am not aware m of any, senator. >> thank you. mr. kamoi, according to fema's f authorized equipment list battle

dress uniforms are an authorized purchase under preparedness grant programs, right? >> i believe that's correct, senator.>> >> why?horize >> the authorized equipment list is reviewed biannually and we consult with state and local responders and the stakeholders and the grantees who advise us t on what it is they need to build capabilities to support national preparedness goals. >> let'spr get right down to th> point. >> so responders have told us - >> so we need to have in the states funded by the federal atf government a militarized police force?ice i mean, that's a component of it. and that fits in with our goalse >> we certainly can review the types of uniforms that our responders are requesting. resp but they have advised us in thed building of u capabilities to is fight terrorism, that this type

of dress would be useful.questi >> let me ask you the same time question i asked mr. estevez. at were çaware in terms of the grt money being given out, by the way, the homeland security grants aren't based on risks. the others are based on a mandate that came through this committee that said x state would get x percent. rather than doing it on risk th like we should have. x when was the last time we have seen what you have given and used other than the response to the tsarnaev brothers, been use against counterterrorism?terro >> that was the last time. the tsarnaev brothers. >> when was another time? >> i'm quite sure that new york used its domain awareness systea in the times square bombing attempt.bing that is a funded asset with tha

these grant funds. asset so within the last few years. >> so we -- with the homeland s security grants, with the 1033 i program, with the department of justice grants over the last five years, we've put out $41 billion worth of money, and we know of really two times -- and the point i'm getting to is that we will never have enough moneym to be totally prepared for everything. so the question is as common is sense much like the chairman said and judgment -- i see i'm n about to run out of time. and judgment, we need a relook. we need a reassessment of the 1033 and both grant programs atd homeland security as well as the burn justice program. i will submit the rest of my mie questions for the record. ms. mason, i just want to

extend, if i may nor a moment, i did a complete oversight of the grant programs 3 1/2 years ago at the justice department.ov what we saw wasn't pretty.er your testimony kind of inferred that you guys are on top of allf your grants right now. would you restate what you saidr in your opening testimony in yor terms of grant management? >> thank you for the question, senator. ques what i would say is that we have done a very good job of implementing the things you s suggested in your assessment of our grant programs primarily f through the creation of the t pa office of the audit assessment and managementwh where we do a lot of internal self-assessment and looking at our programs. we implemented risk assessment e tools to determine which of ourm grants should get more in-depth monitoring. we've also implemented that tha every single one of our grants gets a desk review every year. so we believe that we are doing a mhzm(rmuch better job in overseeing our grant programs.

>> thank you very much. lñ>> >> i want to clear up and make sure that the record is clear ir response to a question from congress to the defense logistics agency they responded that of the 1033 program 36% of the property issued is new and not used. way in other words, almost 40% of what you are giving away has e never been used by the militaryl >> i apologize for shaking my head when you said that earlierr what they said it is condition code "a." condition code "a" is like new.e >> well, so we can argue about prand-new, new or like new. what in the world are we doing o buying things that we are not ni using?ng isn't that a fundamental problem that you need to get at before e we even talk about whether all r the stuff is being used appropriately or being a used ws

training ored being used in a wa that makes sense, common sense,o how in the world are we buying -- and by the way, i guarantee you when i get this list -- and i will. because this won't be the last hearing we have on this. i guarantee the stuff you are ug giving away you are continuing to buy.b i guarantee it. tell me how that happens. have >> first of all, we will have tf look at the type of stuff that is provided in new condition. >> give me an example of dndition. something provided in new xample condition. ew 36% of what you are giving away you have no idea what you are ci giving away that is new? no >> i will have to go through the list, senator. and i'll be happy to take your question for the record on thato as structure changes, as our budget changes, things that we thought we would need are no we longer needed or things that wen bought for the war -- and i'm f not talking about tactical rifles and the like. i'm talking about basic medical kits and that type of is stuff may no longer be needed ao

we draw down force structure ne based on changing environment on the ground. bca changes our forestructure.eq things we require are no longer needed as that forestructure changes. b that is the basic reason. s is s >> this is absolutely totally in your wheelhouse. because you have acquisitions. if we are buying so much stuff -- and what is going to at drive me crazy is when i figurez out what you bought last year ca you gave awayzy this year. that will drive me crazy. just be ready. that will drive me crazy. let me look at how much you are giving away. ha i know that this is state coordinator. i want to make sure we are cleao about how out of control some of this is. in dr. coburn's state, the payne city sheriff's office has one u full-time sworn officer. one.wo they have gotten two mraps since 2011. now, you gave the impression int

your testimony that you all are at least doing the minimum about making sure what you give is ins somehow proportional to the size of a force. before you answer that, let me give you this fact. ang in the lake angeles police y department in michigan you gave3 them 13 military assault weapons since 2011. they have one full-time sworn officer. so one officer now has 13 assal military grade assault weapons in their police department. w how in the world can anyone say that this program has one lick s of oversight if those two things are in existence?in >> i will have to look into theo details on each of those. the rule of thumb is one mrap validated by the state coordinator for a police department that requests an mrap, no more than one. i woul i'd have to look at the incident in senator coburn's state.

and same thing with rifles. >> i will make part of the reco record the list. e a we have a long list of law agens enforcement agencies that a received three times as many 5.56 and 7.62 military grade mt weapons per full-time officer. and this is a long list. this isn't a short list. so i think we need to get to the bottom of that. the risk allocation you talked about, mr. kamoie, there is a ag formula that every state gets r, money regardless of risk, rightf it doesn't matter if you have zero risk in your state, everyone gets money?? are >> there are state minimums prescribed by the department of homeland security. >> which has nothing to do with risk. wi >> correct. >> i want to make sure we're clear on that.riskhat isn't it true that rather than communities saying this is what we figured out what we need, now you tell them how much money they get and you give them a list of what to buy with it. >> we have moved more towards

project based applications where we are asking grantees to identify the types of projects and the investment with an eye toward tighter fiscal managemenr and oversight of the programs.na we want to know more of this.gef i think the evolution of the i n program has gone from at a timen when there were generic programw homeland security strategies at the state level and we are trying to tighten the investment justifications and then telling us in advance.ment. >> mraps can be very dangerous, correct? mr. estevez. they flip? >> they're very heavy vehicles. >> there is no requirement for training for these departments getting these vehicles?ese >> we can't provide training to police departments, senator.>> w >> so are you comfortable with the fact that texas has receivev 73ed mraps in three years whilee the entire national guard in texas only has six?nayou how can you explain that? >> again, for excess material, an mrap was put on the list of l available.

we provided and the state coordinators are responsible for ensuring training.respon the military force is retaining mraps in the air force and the i navy and they're going to ill allocate those across the entire force structure. i'm not sure how they will be allocated across the guard. >> could it be the guard doesn't want them because they know they tear up the roads and they flip easily and have plimt limited applicability?>> >> if the guard is outside of its state role and they require an mrap. >> does it make you uncomfortable that there are state guard has no mraps but police departments have them? >> i believe the guard will be allocated the force structure they're needed for their federal role. so as i said, there's 12,000 mraps that will be allocated across the force structure.

>> why are we giving away to police departments before the guard? >> we have more mraps than we need. get >> why would the police l departments be in line to get these before the national guard? >> the ones that we are are excessing are the older -- they are not the best mraps. we retain the best mraps in the force structure. >> is there any reason any of > the three of you would give me f if we're going to continue nue funding state and local -- by the way, i've seen a lot of good during my career from federal funding to state and local law enforcement. ay, i wa by the way, i want to be clear,, i saw a vehicle extricate some police officers in a pretty dangerous situation in ferguson once some of the outsiders started coming in from other or states that wanted a confrontation with the police.hf having said all of that, has there been a discussion about d perhaps saying the first thing that we would fund before we begin to fund anything else, no a federal mandate but first on t

your list must be body cams? has that been discussed at doj or homeland security that these officers that will be using some of this equipment, that the besw way to check whether or not it't being used appropriately is fors every officer to wear a camera?m >> senator, the office of justice programs or j.a.g. funds are available to law enforcement agencies to use to purchase body cameras and we see value it.ju our national institute of justice is studying the st effectiveness of body cameras and appropriate use of body cameras. >> but they can buy them now? >> yes, ma'am. y can >> 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 ings l camouflage uniforms or grenade launchers that attach to rifles?

>> the j.a.g. money is formula money and we do not control how state and local jurisdictions use that money. but it is a permissible use to buy body cameras.e >> chairman mccaskill, video nt cameras are on the authorized equipment list. if a grantee came forward and said they believe body cameras e for law enforcement would serve purposes for which the program e is authorized in terms of preparing capabilities for terrorism, operational coordination, situational awareness, we would consider that an allowable expense. >> thank you, madam chair. secretary estevez, are you aware of any local police department that has purchased an mrap witht 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 on what a local police department buys with their own funds. but mraps are not available. wan >> i wasn't around here but g to according to my briefing here t

the first program was authorized in the defense authorization bill primarily about the drug ui wars, is that correct? ab >> that's correct.cor >> what were local police departments missing that they needed too be funded or give m e from the defense department to combat the war on drugs? >> first, let me be clear, we, the department, we do this because we're asked to do this. >> i understand. this what equipment -- nt -- >> police departments were outgunned by drug gangs. they were looking for protectiog and they were looking for firepower.anpower. >> then apparently this has reny expanded in 1997. my note says based on lobbying s from police organizations. >> i can't answer why the the authorization was expanded. at t athe the time it was for counterterrorism.er if it was lobbying from police organizations. >> there is always a great desire to get free things from

federal government, correct?. >> of course. appar >> this program which apparentln provided $5.1 billion of free equipment since 1997 has all fe been free, correct?>> it is >> yes. it's not free to the taxpayer.wb we bought it and used it. >> i understand.me free to local governments, correct? >> correct. depart >> free to local police ny departments. do you know too many police departments that turn free things down? >> not in the position of a dow local police department, but if something was available and they thought they needed it -- because they have to sustain tght thipment. if they thought they needed it and it was useful to them, why f not?ul >> the $41 billion that dhs granted under your program sincn 2002, that is grant money, correct? >> yes, senator. >> is there any cost sharing associated with that? >> in several of our programs, the port security grant program, for example, in some years, ex there is a cost sharing requirement. >> how much? of the $41 billion, how much is that multiplied by by local budgets?

>> given that the cost share requirement was imposed in some years and not, we'll have to follow up with you on that.e i i can tell you the emergency management program $35 million i year is a 50% cost share in that every year.qeee4ñ >> do you think we multiply thah by another $40 billion?at $40 is that a 50% cost share. we've granted had $41 billion worth of funds for the purchasei 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. ion is there are a lot of other n purposes for these programs. ports, security transit, that number includes our firefighter programs, staffing for emergency managers and firefighters. leoney >> 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 stas government phrase was use it or, lose it. that is just concern in terms on

how you put money to work. ms. mason, the $4.4 billion granted by the department of justice since>i" 2005, has thad any cost sharing requirements associated with it. quirem >> the j.a.g. money is formula money that does not require cost sharing from local governments.o for example, this year we allocated anú&pu(áqq" $280 million in grants. those were spread between 56 u.s. states and territories as 6 well as local governments. for 80% of our j.a.g. grants the average award size is only $30,000 frmg do any of the youa witnesses -- are you aware of s any piece of equipment that is either given away or allowed toe be purchased -- i'm really y talking about the defense out department. any pieces of equipment that pic have been given away that would not be available for purchase by local police department? are they all available on the la open market? >> mrap is not available in open market because it is out of production.

it was only made for the department. isproducti >> when it was in production was there restrictions in terms of h people being able to buy that? g >> i'd 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 isi level here.ision if local police departments ale actually needed this equipment,y if they felt it was necessary, isn't the proper way of doing na this is to have them go through their city councils, go through their castates and make the c political case for armoring up to protect themselves against drug lords or counter terrorisms 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 ut government is there granting money and people are going to e use it? >> i guess from my perspective, senator, we have bought this stuff from the department of defense. it's no longer needed.

the states need to make that decision on whether they need this type of equipment. and in fact they do. and that's the funnel.s the so the state coordinator appointed by a governor makes d the decision on whether a local police force, after a request bc a local police force, needs it or not. not the department. >> again, prior to these ams programs in place, did any police department have any type of this equipment? did they ever use their own funds and purchase this type ofe equipment? or is it only because it is available and given to them form free, i will take some of that? that would be a neat thing to have. ? parked in our garage. >> i'm not an experpt in local policing. but police forces certainly have vex and police forces certainly had weapons. >> senator, in our port security grant program we do fund a lot of police boats that patrol thec waterways of our nation's over 100 ports. the the cost share requirement for that has varied over year by

year. but in many years it has been 25%. so %yes, the local jurisdiction has to make a decision about those investments. and i don't have the entire wou history, but i would imagine that in our port cities before the port security grant program was created, that many of them likely did acquire police vessels to secure the port. >> so again, i really would likn that information in terms the of how much cost sharing. and if we're looking to a solution, i think that would be it right there. people need to have skin in the game. these decisions in terms of whan type of equipment is going to be purchased need to be made at the local level. they have to show their citizene that we really do need that typw of protection. by the way, i'm all for protection of the police department. a senator baldwin and i attended y congressional badge of courage ceremony or badge of bravery for lieutenant brian murphy and officer linda in the oak creek massacre. th

we saw a video of these brave as courageous public safety afety individuals just walk straight into danger. dualwe so we're all about making sure that these officials are ials protected, but the decision needs to be made at the local level, not here in the federal government.nt. otherwise this is the problem wm have when we make the decision at the wrong level of government.si >> we will provide that information. p >> thank you. n. >> senator baldwin. >> thank you, is was pleased ani somewhat relievedeved to see attorney general holder and the justice department announce thae they will independently investigate not only the inde shooting ofpe michael brown but also the policing practices of the ferguson and st. louis county police forces. i think that department of justice investigations like ca 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 agencyl is under active investigation for civil rights or civil liberties violations or has a history of those violations. mr. estevez, the statute that authorizes the 1033 program requires the secretary of defense to carry out the program in consultation with the attorney general. so i wonder what is the nature n of the consultation between thed department of defense and the department of justice on this program and is there a discussion of whether a law of n 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, o that we will look at under the

administration's review and will discuss with this committee.w s so we need to do a better job there. i will say that -- curr >> well, currently -- and i wil accept your statement at face value that you can do better. but currently in that consultation is the matter of an open closed investigation into civil rights or civil liberties deprivation a part of your discussion or consultation?a pa >> no. >> is there any reason why it could not be in the future? it >> of course, it could be. futu >> okay. >> mr. kamoie, is there coordination between the department of etwehomeland secu and the department of justice in the programs that you administer on these same admini questions? >> thank you, senator baldwin.> we certainly coordinate on the risk elements of theinat allocation decisions and of the recommendations for the secretary.

the risk formula is prescribed e by statute. it's a combination of threat, vulnerability and consequence f and the elements of each of those are laid out in statute. n to answer your specific , question, no, we do not take into account whether a law enforcement organization is ori under investigation for potential deprivation of civil f rights and civil liberties. >> ms. mason, in administering the j. -- burn j.a.g. program, is that obviously a rtment within-department consultation discussion.on dis do those issues get discussed? >> thank you for the question, senator. on, the burn j.a.g. grants are oney formula money and we have very little discretion over how thatw money is t used. but the civil rights division s does coordinate with our officeh when they're doing inve investigations and as they s develop their consent decrees and we work closely with them in

designing the content of the consent decrees.t >> and can you -- i understand what you said about the formulat and the lack of discretion, but tell me a little bit more about the nature of that consultationh and how that can come into play in decisions that you're entertaining?. >> well, there are two factors e in that. the office of justice programs e has its own office of civil rights that makes sure that all of the grant programs for the he department comply with civil rights laws. if the civil rights division is investigating one of our grantees, they typically will coordinate with our office of civil rights. we will monitor things and as the process proceeds have inputs into whatever agreement is reached between the department n with that agency. t >> thank you. i want to move to the issue of training especially in the 1033 program.

we've heard in testimony thatony billions of dollars worth of been transferred to state and including some significantly fiy sophisticated materials previously operated by trained military personnel primarily in combat situations for some of that equipment. this includes, as we've talkedmr 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 i police officers and sheriff's deputies in communities across this country. co so understand that the defense a logistics agency conducts a

biannual inventory. review of the states that participate in the 1033 program. but this effort appears to be focused simply on corroborating that the transferred equipment c is accounted for. or can you tell me if the dla dla review, mr. estevez, or even the original application process makes any inquiry at all as to t whether the agency has the o appropriate training or access t to thera appropriate training t use and maintain this equipment or if after the fact the equipment is being properly used? >> dla, defense logistics agency which facilitates this program doesn't have that capability, e neither does the department of defense as a whole. we can't manage local police forces. even equipment that we're training to use is for combat operations, not for local

policing operations. let me also state we do not provide grenade launchers, to be clear. the training, the state dinator coordinator sfis that the locall police department that will m receive the item has the abilite to train themselves to use it.tm if they're going to get a they e helicopter, they have a pilot.ee and the state coordinator e certifies that the local police force has the ability h to susto the equipment that they're going to be provided. >> and what confidence do you nn have that that level of inquiryf 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 t 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 suspllstat accountability issues. esduri doing that process we found

state coordinators are focusing their attention on those issues, senator.>> >> mr. kamoie, are there similar requirements in either the iremn 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? d >> we encourage training for grantees. it's an allowable expense under our programs.llo we do not require training but q we offer training for the department's center for domestic preparedness for responders and federal law enforcement training ndnter. we do offer it, we encourage it but we do not require training. >> and ms. mason, i believe you already testified that training

is one of the applicable -- is one of the things that can be dd funded through grants. but can you talk about the training opportunities available in burn j.a.g.? >> yes. the training opportunities, oppo burn j.a.g. funds may be used r for training but separate and apart from our j.a.g. funding, g the department of justice epartm program provides a full range of training opportunities for law enforcement.ent. over the last three years we we have put together approximately 100 online training courses. we also have many webinars on various issues. we we survey the law enforcement ta find out what training classes i and things they would need, butf it is part of our mission to make sure that we provide a range of training opportunities for state and local governmentsd >> 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 e

unarmed man with his hands overw his head 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 s >7hd7t 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 have dissent. it needs to be peaceful and there needs to be repercussions for people who do not act in a peaceful way. n but confronting protesters with armored personnel carriers is thoroughly un-american. and for 150 years we've had rules separating the military, keeping the military out of policing affairs.pers but you sort of obscure thatpnkó 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.7jkkçü>ozñii mr. kamoie, is that true, that a it's not supposed to be used for riot suppression? how do you plan on policing tha since the images show us clearle large pieces of equipment boughh with your grants being used in t that riot suppression or protest suppression, rather?n?, paul >> senator paul, that is accurate. the categories of personal protective equipment helmets, ear and eye equipment, nt, ballistics, personal protective equipment is a prohibition in the authorized list that it's not to be used for riot suppressionhat . >> what will you do about it? >> we're going to follow the lead of the department of ustice'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 remedies available to us should there be any finding of noncompliance with those requirements .those those include everything from corrective action plans to

ensure it doesn't happen again, recoupment of funds.we'll we'll look very closely at the o facts, but we're going to allowt the investigation toig run its o course and determine what the appropriate remedy is. the w >> but it gets back to the whole question. if you're a police force country anywhere in the country from dundee, michigan, of 3900, which has an mrap, to 25 other citiesy under 25,000 that have mraps, they think they are for riot suppression.what many police forces think this i, what the equipment is good for, riot suppression in a big city, urban area. you're specifically instructingr it's not for that. we've talked about we've had tw. instances of terrorism.two we spend billions and billions n of dollars and maybe two instances of terrorism.of i think really by supplying all of this free equipment, much of which is, just frankly, inappropriate. shouldn't be on anybody's list of authorized equipment.

mr. estev es in the npr investigation of the 1033 ram program, they list that 12,000 bayonettes have been given out. what purpose are bayonettes being given out for? >> senator, bayonettes are available under the program. i can't answer what a local police force would need a so, bayonet for.wh >> i can give you an answer. none.ad p so, what's president obama's administration's position ofos ? handing out bayonettes? it's on your list. it are you going to take it off the list? >> we're going to look at what t we're providing under the administration's review of all these programs.ewo >> so it's unclear whether u president obama approves of 12,0 12,000 bayonettes being given out?yoven i would think you could make t that decision last week. e >> 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.ts the states decide what they need. >> my understanding is that you>

have the ability to decide whatt equipment is given out and what equipment is not given outis.u if you decided tomorrow, if president obama decided tomorrow that mine-resistant ambush protection 20-ton vehicles are e not appropriate for cities in e the united states, he could decide tomorrow to take it off d 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? or ag >> obviously, we do it, senatora we'll look at that.ve i can also say we can give you anecdotes for mine-resistant pc vehicles have protected police forces and shoot-ins. >> we've been told they're only supposed to be used for terrorism, right?en isn't that what the rule is?sed >> our rule is for counter-drug, which could have been the to lo shoot-out. i'll have the look at the incident.in, counternarcotics, counterterrorism. >> i guess the point i wish to

make is that these are fairly simple problems and common sens. applied years ago, you know, we could have fixed these.l mayb we'll maybe fix them, although i have my doubts.y doub i've seen rarely anything fixed in government.hing i would say we're now respondinw to a tragic circumstance, you s know, in ferguson to do this. but i think that i -- you know,i i find these decisions to be try easy to make. you just shouldn't be giving out mine-resistant vehicles. buy on ets, there's no excuse. i don't understand why we have to get together and have a studr for months to decide and bayoney are inappropriate to be give mo out. use for a gine any bayonette in an urban setting. really, it's gotten out of s lag control. and this has largely been something that the militarization of police is zatn something that's gotten so far o out of control and we've allowed it to descend along withell. not a great protection of our civil liberties as well.re so, we -- you know, we say we're going to do this..

it's okay if it's for drugs.ok t well, look at the instances of what have happened in recent i times.the the instance in georgia just a n 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 the trade but either was the he infant's family. happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. no one has even been indicted on this.faon so really, this is crazy, out of control. giving military equipment and with the breakdown of the wholeh idea of due process of no-knock raids and not having judges issue warrants anymore, you cann 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 tt be lackluster. i hope you will do a more complete job in trying to fix this. y d thank you.o >> 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 ave coordinator and then d.o.d. does not decide what equipment is needed.you' you're just relying on that sta state coordinator for those decisions.on >> that's correct.t's and i should point out that the governor of the state has the s 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 state certifying that the department -- that the local t agency needs that certify they're going to have the available training and train themselves on that equipment.in >> do you do any types of d

follow-up other than receiving s the certification?ow-up is there any kind of audit of what's happening and what -- how the equipment's being used?ed? >> there is no follow-up on howw the equipment's being used. our audit for the controlled he equipment because we provide 96% of what we provide is noncontrolled, benign equipment- we follow up -- to >> when i'm referring to this, d should have been specific on the controlled equipment. obviously, office furniture you wouldn't generally have a follow-up on. f >> but we follow up on title accountability of the equipment. we retain title to that equipment.no but we do not follow up on its use, senator. >> okay. that so, do you think with this process that is being reviewed right now, not only the y t president but the congressionall oversight that will be had here that the way the system is syse working right now, that d.o.d. has some responsibility to notio

just have a follow-up in terms of what's being done with this equipment?>> i >> i think tha tt has to be part of the look at wa we're doing reviewdo.indepa i think from speaking from the department of defense's standpoint, it's very hard for t 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. o now, i can look at the picturesk of ferguson and wince like fe 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. kamoie, i wanted to know ask -- don't know if i'm pronouncing your name correctly >> you are. thank you, senator. >> i don't know if you're the n appropriate person to ask this n question, but on the homeland security front, what type of at oversight is there in terms of the 1033 equipment. does homeland have any oversighu over the receipt of that? >> we do not, senator.

>> is there any coordination at between the grants that homeland is giving in light of what the departments are receiving on th 1033 front? >> we don't coordinate in the decision-making about local law enforcement requests.ement the process that mr. estevez has laid out, we don't coordinate that at all. e >> you wouldn't know in issuing a homeland grant what the d.o.d. has done in terms of 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 so different story. on i will say on the -- i know thee 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 usb equipment that has been acquired with our programs, for the state program, even the urban area program, the grants pass througg the state. throug 80% of the state program funding has to go to local jurisdictiong within that state. so, we work with the state in wn oversight. in their applications they tells us more and more detail now about the projects they intend. certainly, we have the ability l to drill down in as we are doing with the state of missouri and follow up on use of the equi equipment to ensure that it pm meets program requirements.so so, we have this ability., we do not have real-time visibility on all acquisitions made at the local level.but but working with our state ith r partners, we can get pretty good visibility. >> can i ask -- i would like -- opinion from all of you, if you're able to answer.keall of 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 fromi homeland security, how have we evaluated the needs in a boston bombing marathon situation or a situation like that which seemst to me quite different than obviously a ferguson situation.f >> thanks for the question, senator.nks for we work with grantees and provide them tools to assess the risks that they face and the hazards in their community. t we try to provide them guidance on how to estimate their capabilities for addressing the threats they have identified. they certainly have discretion n in terms of the kinds of equipment they think would bestk meet those needs.ston,

as we did see in boston, the enh equipment that was purchased, at including the law enforcement y equipment, certainly facilitated the response.ainly certainly facilitated the pursuit and apprehension of the tsarnaevs. we do work with communities in terms of their assessments of the risk and their abilities to address them. >> miss mason, i wanted to ask you about on the justice end as with regard tok the burn j.a.go grants, do we know how much of s those grants are used for this a type of equipment? because having been attorney general of my state, a fair amount of those grants have gon to other things, i know, as well. for example, whetherple it's protecting children from online predators or whether it's or providing assistance to ctimf victims of crime, even though a there's boeckh and vowa funds, r

but do you know how much is use. in terms of purchasing? add >> thank you for the question. as you mentioned, the j.a.g. te money is used to address a fullr 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 tl that category goes to equipmento most of the equipment we're uy a seeing people buy are computers, technology and things like that. and they're for vehicles, the j.a.g. money can only be used ny for cars, boats, helicopters without coming back to the director for specific approval. and we've 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 thi >> i think senator coburn has a few more questions and then we'll get to the second panel. >> i want to introduce to the re record an article in the -- fro

october 16, 2013, the "boston s globe" which sets the record straight. tsarnaev was found by the guy went out to check his boat tzar becauseó(jévv:he saw the end of. didn't have anything to do with money we spent. didn't have anything to do othei than he was surprised to find o this guy in fetal position in ws his boat and called 911.sition this needs to be in the record to set the record straight abouó what that is. >> thank you. >> i have one question for the e three of you and then we'll go to the next panel. what have you heard directly from the administration in termw of review at your level about the review that the administration announced based receiv on what happened in ferguson? what information have you received that the justice an department and homeland security and fema and at the defense d me department? what have you heard directly ct from the white house? >> we have already had meetings

on the -- about the review.t the 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 ce involved. >> let me get them to answer specifically. are what have you heard, brian? >> senator coburn, i participated in the first meeting of the review panel. i com it is a comprehensive review of the programs, the operation, the very same kinds of questions we talked about here.noncompl training, our oversight, auditing, noncompliance. senator, i look forward to reading that article. artded to information that was provided to me by the massachusetts homeland security agency and the state e police indicate that the -- >> and the infrared. >> and the infrared camera was g instrumental in locating him. i look forward to reading that article. ading t >> here's the direct quote from the guy that called 911 to tell him, there's someone in my boat1 he's been injured. i think he's tsarnaev.him, >> i understand senator.at, pi look forward to reading it. >> my direct staff is

participating in the review. my fellow colleagues have been over to the white house and een providing information to the white house. they're fully engaged.hieason the only reason i wasn't there is because i was out of town at the time.s 's gre >> that's great to hear. that's great to hear. that's called appropriate response. thank you. >> second panel with four witnesses.d does anybody else have a question they really want to asa this -- one or two questions nyk they really want to ask these three witnesses before we move to our second panel?move >> i have two simple questions.i before ferguson had the three o you ever met? >> no. >> no. >> no.no. >> not good. second question, do any of you t now have any policy that usag requires you to track any kind e of usage data for the equipment you're providing that is itary considered military grade? yes or no. >> no. >> no.

>> we do have activity reports that we require on a quarterly h basis from our grantees about th how they use our j.a.g. funds. >> well, i would like to see an, put in the record, since you'rea the only one that says you claim you have usage data, i would a, 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 i want to make sure. this is large panel and we've got people that want to ask questions and time is ticking, so i want to get started. let me introduce the panel. jim biermann? >> biermann, ma'am. >> 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. biermann previously worked for the redland's police

department for 33 years. he served as its chief for 13 years from 1998 to 2011. dr. peter kraska is a proffers and chair of graduate studies and research within the school of studies at eastern university of kentucky. he researches the changing role of police in society including relationship between the prioli and the military as well as the special equipment, tactics and training used by the police in the last several decades. mark lomax is the national director for the tactical officers association. he previously served as a program manager for the nigethe. the majority of his career in special operations and science. mr. lomax was invited to participate in this. mr. lomax is companied by major ed allen of the seminole county

sheriff's office. wiley price is a photo journalist, award winning i might ask for the st. louis american newspaper. mr. price is a native st. louis resident who covered the police presence in ferguson firsthand and hillary shelton is the washington bureau director and senior vice president for the advocacy for the national association for the advancement of colored people where he has worked on a wide variety of legislative and policy issues of national importance. mr. shelton while being an important person with the ncaap is also a st. louis native. i'd like to thank you all for appearing here today and we'll begin with your testimony, mr. biermann. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss before you the federal topic that provides equipment to our civilian police forces. the mission is to advance dem crating policing through innovation and suz. we conduct rigorous describe tsk

research and conduct reviews across the country become more effective. like many americans i've been closely following the advancements in missouri. central to this issue is the use of military-like equipment and tactics by the police. to many people, the use of armored vehicles, assault rivals, or s.w.a.t. teams is unwarranted and highly inappropriately. conversely to police officers, their use simply represents safer more effective ways of handling the dangerous situations they're paid to resolve. i think both perspectives have mert. the police use of military like equipment and tactics can either be appropriate or not, depending entirely on the context of their use. theant dote to mill terizing our police is community policing, transpare transparency, ktsability, 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 program mattic changes. there's been substantial positive impact on the public of office safety from programs that provide equipment to law enforcement. for example two weeks ago in illinois the cook county police department used armored vehicles to extract two adults and their children during a home invasion robbery. two officers were shot but the equipment prevented further injury to officers and helped the recovery of the victims. in bloomfield hills, michigan, a suspect barricade himself in a residential neighborhood and engaged in fire and killed a police officer. and finally this summer the las vegas metropolitan police department used rescue helicopters obtained through the 1033 program 11 times during search and rescue missions in mountainous terrain.

they used boat rescues for rescues on lake mead. based on my flarmt with programs that provide law enforcement equipment i offer the following suggestion and i believe -- that i believe will strike a blan between the needs of the police and compelling community interest. it should be require 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. completely eliminated 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 issue. there's a paucity of issues in the mill terization of police and the impact of the federal government to acquiring the assistance of acquiring the equipment that would encourage this. in conclusion i urge the committee and congress to examine the 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. 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, the police should utilize the best available scientific evidence about what works to control crime and disorder. and finally, critical incident reviews should be conducted after every critical incident involved 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. buerrmann. doctor kraska. >> senate mccaskill, senate members of the committee and wonderful staffers, thank you for inviting me. let me begin today's comments with two examples of police mill i tearization. in 2000 federal law enforcement conducted a drug information

with the min is toe police department. suspecting the father it turned out incorrectly of being involved in low level drug dealing. one of the children in the home alberto was 11 years old and complied with all of the officers' screams to get into the prone position on his bedroom floor. a paramilitary police officer standing over him with a 12-gauge shotgun then accidentally discharged his weapon into alberto's back, killing him. now move forward to may of this year. a georgia police department s.w.a.t. team concluded a no-knock drug raid on a family's private residence. they through a percussion grenade into the home. the device landed in an infant's face next to his face and detonated. despite being comb toews for a number of days and severe lacerations and burns, the baby did survive. not that it should matter, the family was not involved in drug

dealing. some might dismiss these cases as mere antantedoetsz. they're emblematic historic but until recently little publicly noticed shift in governance. the severe distinction is blurring in significant and consequential chas. the research i've been conducting since 1989 has document minuted quantitatively and qualitatively the city and certain marks of u.s. military pleegs.f÷ culturally, materially, operationally and organizationally. despite massive efforts at democratizing police under the guise of community policing reforms. the growth in militarized policing has been steep and deep. in the mid-1980s, a mere 30% had

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 deployment as year nationwide. today i estimate a very conservative figure of 60,000 per year. this is mostly for conducting drug searches on people's private residences. this is not to imply that 20 dptss 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 protest was the application of a very common mindset, style of uniform, an appearance, and weaponry used every day i