Senators: 'Police militarization'
needs more oversight
Deirdre Shesgreen, USATODAY
An earlier version of this
story included incorrect information from Sen. McCaskill about the status of an
Oklahoma county sheriff's department.
WASHINGTON — The federal
government is sending more than $1 billion a year to police departments across
the country — in the form of equipment and grants — with little assessment of
whether that aid is needed and with minimal follow-up on how the weapons or
money is used, according to testimony at a Senate committee on Tuesday.
The hearing — co-chaired by
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., to probe "police militarization" in the
wake of the police response to protests in Ferguson, Mo. — focused on three
federal programs designed to help local police departments respond to drug
crime and terrorist attacks. Lawmakers and witnesses suggested those programs
have run amok, haphazardly doling out military equipment and federal funds and
transforming some local police into paramilitary forces.
Pressed by McCaskill and others
on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, federal
officials who oversee the programs testified they had no way to track any
"military-grade" equipment supplied by the government or purchased
with federal dollars.
"How in the world can
anyone say that this program has one lick of oversight?" McCaskill
declared, specifically referring to a Pentagon program that gives surplus
military equipment to local police at little or no cost.
She said the Defense Department
has given away high-powered equipment — such as Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected
(MRAP) vehicles — without any evidence that such tools are needed and with no
assurance that local police know how to use them.
She said, for example, a
one-officer agency in Michigan received 13 military assault rifles.
"That is almost comical,
it's so out-of-bounds," she said.
Tuesday's hearing was sparked
by the military-style police response to protests in Ferguson, a St. Louis
suburb, after an officer there fatally shot an unarmed 18-year-old
African-American man. Images of the police in body armor and camouflage,
driving armored vehicles, and carrying assault rifles inflamed tensions in the
community and opened a national debate about "police militarization."
Tuesday's hearing focused on
three separate programs that provide money and equipment to local police. The
Pentagon program transfers extra equipment to local departments, while the
Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security provide grants to
state and local law enforcement agencies.
Top officials from each of
those agencies said the federal aid has helped law enforcement agencies prepare
for terrorist attacks, respond to natural disasters and protect officers who
would otherwise be outgunned by drug gangs and hostage-takers.
"During the height of
Superstorm Sandy, Jersey Shore police drove two cargo trucks and three Humvees
through water too deep for commercial vehicles to save 64 people," said
Alan Estevez, a Pentagon official who oversees the military surplus program.
"In Texas, armored vehicles received through the program protected police
officers during a standoff and shootout with a gang member."
Estevez added, "We are
buying down risk out there for our law enforcement agencies,"
Brian Kamoie, an administrator
with the Department of Homeland Security, said federal counterterrorism funds
provided to Boston proved to be critical when law enforcement there had to deal
with the Boston Marathon bombings.
At the same time, Kamoie and
others conceded that the three agencies have failed to coordinate with each
other on what tools and funding they are supplying. And they said they had
limited ability to assess how the weapons and money are used once it leaves
Washington.
"We cannot manage local
police forces," said Estevez, adding that the Pentagon doesn't have the
capacity to train local law enforcement officers on how to use military
equipment for civilian purposes.
He said the Defense Department
relies on state coordinators to oversee the program. Those officials certify
that local agencies need the items they're asking for and have "the
ability to train themselves to use it."
McCaskill said there was a
similar lack of oversight at Homeland Security and Justice, saying "it's
impossible to tell how these federal funds are being spent."
Other lawmakers said the three
programs have blurred the line between civilian police who are supposed to
protect their communities and military forces geared for war.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., noted
that the DOD has given out 12,000 bayonets and asked Estevez what purpose those
would serve local police.
"I can't answer what a
local police force would need a bayonet for," Estevez responded.
"I can answer: None,"
Paul said.
He and others suggested the
three federal programs needed to be dramatically revamped, with some weapons
taken off the available list.
"How did we ever get to
the point where we think states need MRAPs?" asked an incredulous Sen. Tom
Coburn, R-Okla. The vehicles are valued at about $500,000 to $1 million apiece.
Two local law enforcement
representatives testified that such items were necessary in certain situations,
but they agreed that Congress should add restrictions to the program — such as
training and accountability requirements.
"Anybody who thinks we're
not going to have tactical teams or high-powered weapons in American policing
is not paying attention to the reality of police officers," said Jim
Bueermann, president of the Police Foundation, a law enforcement advocacy
group.
He said Congress should tweak
the programs to promote leadership and training, so law enforcement officials
know when it's appropriate to use those tools and when it's not.
McCaskill said she would work
with her Senate colleagues to craft bipartisan legislation that puts some
limits on all three programs.
