<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:87413.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-935
S. 2480: LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2002
__________
Serial No. J-107-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
87-413 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
Bruce A. Cohen, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Sharon Prost, Minority Chief Counsel
Makan Delrahim, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa,
prepared statement............................................. 23
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah,
prepared statement............................................. 25
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 33
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky,
prepared statement............................................. 35
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina, prepared statement................................... 42
WITNESSES
Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana....... 9
Cunningham, Hon. Randy ``Duke'', a Representative in Congress
from the State of California................................... 3
Gordon, Arthur, National Executive Board Member, Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania..... 8
Johnson, David, Deputy Chief of Police, Cedar Rapids Police
Department, Cedar Rapids, Iowa................................. 13
Westphal, Colonel Lonnie J., Chief, Colorado State Patrol,
Denver, Colorado............................................... 11
Young, Lieutenant Steve, National President, Fraternal Order of
Police, Marion, Ohio........................................... 5
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana,
prepared statement............................................. 16
Cunningham, Hon. Randy ``Duke'', a Representatives in Congress
from the State of California, prepared statement............... 17
Glidden, Osburn, Chief of Police, Williston Police Department,
Williston, Vermont, letter..................................... 19
Gordon, Arthur, National Executive Board Officer, and Richard J.
Gallo, National President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, Lewisberry, PA, prepared statement................ 20
Johnson, David, Chief of Police, Cedar Rapids Police Department,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, prepared statement......................... 27
Johnson, Wade M., Community Police Officer, Hinesburg Community
Police, Hinesburg, Vermont, letter............................. 30
Kentucky State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Martin D. Scott,
Jr., State President, Louisville, Kentucky, letter............. 31
National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., Johnson,
William J., Executive Director, prepared statement............. 39
Westphal, Lonnie, J., Vice President, International Association
of Chiefs of Police, Cherokee, Iowa, prepared statement........ 47
Young, Lt. Steve, National President, fraternal Order of Police,
prepared statement and attachment.............................. 52
S. 2480: LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2002
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in
Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senator Leahy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. I am pleased to hold this hearing today on
the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002. This is
legislation to prevent current and retired Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officers to carry their firearms to be
prepared to assist in dangerous situations.
There are 29 Senators, including Senator Baucus, who I know
is coming from another matter and will be joining us on this,
as well as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who go
sort of across the spectrum. Senators Thurmond, McConnell,
Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Sessions, Brownback, Cantwell,
DeWine, and also Senator Harkin, the Chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, join with Senator Hatch and myself to
cosponsor this bill.
I introduced this measure as a companion to H.R. 218,
sponsored by Representative Cunningham, who is here with us
today. Congressman, I am told you have 267 cosponsors. I am not
sure you could get 267 cosponsors, as fractious as things have
been these days, to say the sun will rise in the East and set
in the West, so it shows there is strong bipartisan support for
this legislation. The Fraternal Order of Police strongly
support it.
There are currently 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers
currently serving in the United States. Since the first
recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 15,000
officers killed in the line of duty. A total of 1,647 died in
the line of duty over the last decade. That is an average of
165 deaths per year. Roughly 5 percent of the officers that die
are killed taking law enforcement action while in an off-duty
capacity. An average of more than 62,000 law enforcement
officers are assaulted each year.
Until last year, violent crime in this country declined in
each of the preceding 8 years. That has come at a high price,
though. It has meant far more police work, especially community
policing.
So this Act is designed to protect officers and their
families from vindictive criminals and to allow thousands of
equipped, trained, and certified law enforcement officers,
whether on or off duty or retired, to carry concealed firearms
in most situations, thus enabling them to respond immediately
to a crime.
I might point out for those who think that a law
enforcement officer either off-duty or retired ever faces a
threat. We all know that happens all the time. It has been 28
years since I was in law enforcement and I still run into
people who remember my kind words as they went off to the
slammer for 15 or 20 or 25 years. I thought they would never
live long enough to see them get out, but they are out. So I
know the feeling.
We have a number of letters of support from Vermont law
enforcement officials, including Chief Osburn Glidden of
Williston and Officer Wade Johnson of Hinesburg.
I received calls of support for this measure from Chief
Trevor Whipple of Barre, and I saw him on Saturday in Barre,
and Captain Robert Hawke, the President of the Vermont Police
Association. I have a statement endorsing this legislation from
the National Organization of Police Organizations and the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
This is not one of those things that costs any money. We
are just saying off-duty and retired officers should be
permitted to carry their firearms across State and other
jurisdictional lines. We are talking about qualified law
enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement
officers. Nobody is asking to just allow it. You have to hit
the basic qualifications. And it preserves any State law that
permits citizens from restricting a concealed firearm on
private property and preserves any State law that restricts the
possession of a firearm on State or local government policy.
But to qualify, a law enforcement officer has to be
authorized to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where
he or she works, be in good standing, and meet standards
established by the agency to regularly qualify to use a
firearm. The officer has to have been retired in good standing,
been employed at least 5 years as a law enforcement officer
unless forced to retire due to a service-related injury, have a
non-forfeitable right to benefits under their retirement plan,
and annually complete a State-approved firearms training
course. I mean, these are tough requirements. It is not as
though we are just going to arm half the world. You have to fit
these requirements.
I know that either current police officers or former police
officers are never really off-duty. I look forward to hearing
the testimony. I am delighted that Congressman Cunningham is
here and I know that Steve Young, a good friend, the President
of the Fraternal Order of Police, is here, who has spent a lot
of time on this. We have had private discussions and others.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Congressman Cunningham, I will give away no
secrets to mention the comment that the President made to the
two of us that we either had a pretty good piece of legislation
or one of us had not read it.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. But I think we have put together a good
coalition here and I am delighted and honored to have you here
at the Committee. Please go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would tell you
that besides the cosponsors of the bill, when we did have an
opportunity to vote on this bill in the House, it passed with
372 votes. It was tied to the juvenile justice bill, which
unfortunately was at the end of the year and then the Senate
was not able to take up. The gentlelady from New York, Mrs.
McCarthy, who lost her husband to a handgun, is supportive of
this bill. Mr. Schumer, who used to be in our body and is now
joining you, as I understand it, is speaking in favor of this.
So this has wide, not only bipartisan support, but support from
different sides of particular issues.
I cannot tell you how happy especially, Mr. Chairman, this
makes me. Since 1992, I have been working this issue, waiting
for you, not you specifically, but for this day to come where
we could have a hearing on this, and I know the law enforcement
agencies thank you, as well.
Why have I fought so long? It is three simple reasons. It
will make our community safer. It puts cops on the street, more
cops on the street, at no cost to the taxpayers. It is a good
piece of legislation. Many times, our law enforcement agents do
not deal with the best part of our civilization, and when they
put these guys away, sometimes these bad guys come back and
want retribution. This also protects the law enforcement agents
and their families, and I think you will see in the testimony
today there are thousands of cases where law enforcement agents
have been threatened, have been killed and maligned because
they were not allowed to carry a weapon.
This is so important. I think it was exemplified when we
had thousands of law enforcement agents here this summer. You
and I were invited among all the other Members of Congress to
stand on the podium with agents on Law Enforcement Memorial Day
with the President of the United States. That is how much they
thought of this bill and you and what you are doing here today,
and I again want to thank you.
The passage of this legislation will make our communities
safer by putting tens of thousands of law enforcement agents on
the street, armed and capable of disrupting criminal efforts at
places and times where there are currently not any.
Additionally, this legislation will make our law
enforcement officers themselves safer. I have heard testimony
that supports this from law enforcement officers across the
country, as I just previously mentioned.
Finally, enactment of this measure will cost nothing to the
taxpayer. It is a rarity these days to be able to have a
positive, measurable effect on our communities without spending
our tax dollars. When we do find a way, I believe it is
incumbent on us to do so. Any community would relish the
thought of being able to put more officers on the street. In
fact, that is often the main plank of any crime reduction
effort. Here is a way to do just that while preserving precious
resources for other legislation.
Again, I would like to offer you a challenge that we in the
House hope we will pass this before you. That might be a bad
bet on my side, but I think if you are able to pass this, it
will put pressure on the Chairman in the House Judiciary to do
so and I know the President will sign it right away.
It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, and God
bless you for having this hearing today.
Chairman Leahy. I thank you for that. If you send it over
here, I would ask the leader to hold it at the desk. I do not
care whether it comes over with a House number or a Senate
number, I just want to get it passed. So either way, we will
try to move it very quickly. I will very quickly be putting it
on the agenda in the Senate Judiciary Committee and we will
move it on.
I also know that you have got about 14 other places you are
supposed to be, so----
Mr. Cunningham. I have got to over and testify on the
supplemental that we are having on the floor right now,
Senator, but thank you for this opportunity, and on behalf of
law enforcement agencies, thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. The next panel will be Lieutenant Steve
Young, the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police,
and Congressman Cunningham talked about the honor we had to be
on the podium with Steve Young and the President. It was an
honor in both cases. We also have Arthur Gordon, National
Executive Board Member of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association from Woodbine, Maryland; Deputy Chief of Police
David Johnson, Cedar Rapids Police Department, Cedar Rapids,
Iowa; and Colonel Lonnie Westphal, Chief of the Colorado State
Patrol in Denver, Colorado.
Chief Westphal, I was recently out in Denver and received
some logistical help from some of your folks and they were
absolutely superb. I just wanted to mention that.
Senator Grassley had intended to be here, but he is stuck
on the floor, as sometimes happens. Especially because you are
here, Chief John, he wanted to be here, but the nature of the
bill that is on the floor, he is the ranking member and
required to be there, and I am going to put a statement from
him in the record in which, you will not be surprised to know,
he praises you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. I will also include in the record a
statement from Senator Thurmond.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. My good friend, Lieutenant Steve Young of
Marion, Ohio, is here, and Steve, why do we not start with you.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT STEVE YOUNG, NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MARION, OHIO
Lieutenant Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
afternoon. As you said, my name is Steve Young. I am the
National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the
largest law enforcement labor organization in the United
States, with more than 300,000 members.
I want to begin by extending the sincere gratitude of our
nation's rank-and-file officers to you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. The FOP is sincerely grateful to you and
to Ranking Member Hatch for authoring S. 2480, the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which is the subject of
today's hearing.
I also want to recognize and thank Representative Randy
``Duke'' Cunningham for all of his efforts and hard work on
this issue in the House. We have been working side by side with
Mr. Cunningham for many years now and his commitment to the
bill has never wavered.
This bill is not about firearms, it is about officer
safety, a fact recognized by you, Mr. Chairman, and the 11
members of this Committee who cosponsor it. I further believe
that on September 11, 2001, it became a critical public safety
and homeland security issue.
Immediately after the attacks, the ranks of volunteers in
New York City, Pennsylvania, Northern Virginia, and Washington,
D.C., were swelled by off-duty and retired law enforcement
officers and other emergency services personnel from every
region of the country who had come to volunteer their services.
Many of the law enforcement officers who did so may have been
in legal jeopardy.
For instance, the State of New York and New York City
restrict the ability of off-duty police officers from other
jurisdictions to carry firearms. Across the river in New
Jersey, officers not employed by that State were probably not
exempt from New Jersey's statute against unlawful possession of
a firearm. In Pennsylvania, there is no exemption for out-of-
State police officers.
No other emergency response professional who chose to
volunteer their professional expertise in response to the
attacks on the United States faced any legal jeopardy for
crossing a jurisdictional boundary, but law enforcement
officers did.
Among the many tools of a professional law enforcement
officer are the badge and the gun. The badge symbolizes the
officer's authority, and in worst case scenarios, the gun
enforces that authority. These tools are given to the officer
in trust by the public to enforce the peace and fight crime. In
asking Congress to pass this bill, we seek a measured extension
of that trust.
In certain situations, an officer's knowledge and training
would be rendered virtually useless without a firearm, as would
his ability to provide for his own self-defense or that of his
family. A police officer may not remember the name and face of
every criminal he or she has arrested, but a convicted felon
would certainly remember the officer who put them behind prison
bars. These violent felons can and do target police officers
and they do not care if the officer is in his or her own
jurisdiction, nor do they care if the officer is in uniform or
not, on duty or off, active or retired.
We have compiled the names of 54 officers, all of whom were
off-duty when they were killed. Yet despite not being on the
clock, the circumstances of their deaths qualified them as
having died in the line of duty. To the best of our knowledge,
these officers were unarmed when they answered the call. Some
were killed when they placed themselves in harm's way to help a
victim or stop a crime in progress. Others were recognized or
discovered to be police officers or identified themselves as
such, prompting their assailants to kill them.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like this
document to be entered into the record.
Chairman Leahy. It will be.
Lieutenant Young. The fate of these 54 officers should
remind all of us that law enforcement is a dangerous
profession. There is no legislation, Act of Congress, or
government regulation which will change this sobering fact.
However, the adoption of S. 2480 will, at the very least, give
officers who do choose to carry their firearms a chance to
defend themselves and their families whenever and wherever the
criminal may strike.
I also want to share with you a happier example about an
off-duty officer who was legally carrying a firearm off-duty.
His courage and heroism under fire earned him the recognition
of Parade Magazine and the IACP, who named him ``Police Officer
of the Year'' in 2000.
Police Officer Dennis Devitte, a 20-year veteran of the Las
Vegas Police Department, was off-duty at a sports bar late one
evening when the establishment was attacked by three armed
assailants, two of which opened fire on the crowd. Devitte did
not hesitate. He pulled his tiny .25-caliber pistol, and
knowing he would have to get very close to make sure he hit his
target, charged a man firing a .40-caliber semi-automatic.
Officer Devitte got within one foot, fired, and killed the
gunman, but not before he was shot eight times. The remaining
two gunmen fled the robbery and the robbery was thwarted.
All six civilians wounded by the gunman recovered. One
witness described Officer Devitte's action as ``the most
courageous thing I've ever seen.'' Although seriously injured,
Officer Devitte was back on the job 6 months later. So it is
ironic to me that the IACP would oppose this legislation when
their own choice for ``Police Officer of the Year'' for 2000
earned this recognition for his heroic actions while he was
off-duty and armed. Perhaps they will be able to explain this
contradiction today.
I also want to refute an argument raised by the bill's
opponents who object to this measure because it preempts State
law. In the view of the FOP, the Congress has the power under
the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to extend
full faith and credit to police officers who have met the
criteria to carry firearms set by one State and make those
credentials applicable in all States. The bill maintains the
States' power to set their own requirements for their officers
in training and qualifying in the use of weapons.
We believe that S. 2480 carefully defines who in law
enforcement will not be able to carry a weapon under this bill.
Active officers must admit to qualification standards
established by the agency, and retired officers must requalify
with their firearm at their own expense every 12 months and
meet the same standards as active officers in the State in
which they reside. This is a narrow universe of persons who are
qualified and worthy of the measured extension of the trust
that this legislation would provide.
Further, Congress has previously acted to force States to
recognize concealed carry permits by other States on the basis
of employment. In June 1993, Congress passed P.L. 103-55, the
Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act. This legislation mandated
reciprocity for weapons' licenses issued to armored car company
crew members. Similarly, 2 weeks ago, the House voted
overwhelmingly to create an exemption from State and local
prohibitions on the carrying of firearm for airline pilots who
volunteer to become Federal Flight Deck Officers. Mr. Chairman,
if Congress can mandate that private security guards and
airline pilots can carry in all States, I do not think it
should balk at extending the same authority to fully sworn,
fully trained law enforcement officers employed by government
agencies.
The aim of the bill, allowing qualified active and retired
law enforcement officers to carry their firearms outside their
jurisdiction, is not controversial. This legislation has
widespread bipartisan support. The companion bill to S. 2480,
H.R. 218, the Community Protection Act, currently has 261
sponsors.
Just 2 years ago, the House passed an amendment identical
to this bill on the floor by an overwhelming vote of 372 to 53.
Though the underlying measure was defeated, it is clear that
the House recognized the merits of this legislation and it is
my hope that this Committee will, as well.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is an
increasingly dangerous world that the men and women in blue are
asked to patrol. We need the ability to defend ourselves
against the very criminals that we pursue as part of our sworn
duty because the dangers inherent to our profession do not end
with the shift. Mr. Chairman and other Members of Congress and
the administration, you saw firsthand the support of the rank-
and-file officers for this measure on May 15 right here on the
West Front of the Capitol.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the Committee today on this issue and I would certainly
be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Lieutenant. I would note it was
not just the reaction of the officers on the West Front of the
Capitol on that, but it is your own dedication and your own
efforts on this, conversations you and I have had, my staff and
you have had, and others, and the fact that you are pushing
this as a basis to make our community safer and I appreciate
that very much.
Lieutenant Young. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Lt. Young appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Mr. Gordon wants to testify on behalf of
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and is an
officer in that organization's National Executive Board. He has
had 27 years as an ATF agent. He has been a firearms instructor
for the ATF for 17 years, which means he can shoot probably a
lot better than I can. He served in ATF's headquarters in
firearms training for two-and-a-half years. He has helped to
write many of the current firearms training courses currently
used by the agents nationwide, so I appreciate both your
service and your expertise. Welcome, Mr. Gordon. The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR GORDON, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER,
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, WOODBINE,
MARYLAND
Mr. Gordon. Thank you. On behalf of the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association, we thank the Chairman,
ranking member, and members of the Committee for inviting us.
We are pleased to be here today to express our support for S.
2480, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002, a common
sense, bipartisan legislative proposal that will enable retired
Federal agents to defend themselves and their families as well
as to continue to protect the American citizens.
My name is Art Gordon. I am a member of the National
Executive Board of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, a professional association made up of volunteers
exclusively representing criminal investigators, the special
agents from the Department of Justice, the Department of
Treasury, and many other Federal agencies. There are
approximately 32,000 Federal agents in America. Although I am
an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,
Baltimore Field Division, I am not here today representing the
agency, only FLEOA.
Personally, I have 27 years of service as an ATF agent and
have been a firearms instructor for ATF for 17 years. In
addition, I have served in ATF's headquarters firearms training
program for two-and-a-half years, where I assisted in writing
many of the current firearms training courses currently used by
ATF agents across the country. I have been eligible to retire
for the past 2 years.
FLEOA supports the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of
2002, S. 2480, for several reasons. One of these reasons is for
exactly what the title of the bill states, law enforcement
officer safety. Over the years, every Federal agent from every
single agency has arrested people who only remember the face of
the agent who arrested him or her. Being arrested means someone
getting into your face. We get into people's faces. We also
have to process the person through the criminal justice system
and sometimes testify against them in court.
Over the years, an agent can do this hundreds of times and
the face of the people arrested can blur. However, for the
people only getting arrested once, twice, or even a half-dozen
times, those days tend to stand out in their memory. The
ultimate nightmare for an agent is to be walking with his or
her family and be approached by someone who states, ``Hey,
agent, remember me?'' These are the words that would make any
cop's heart skip a beat until we learn if the person is friend
or foe. If the person has nefarious intentions and the agent is
retired, well, let us say that is a nightmare we do not want to
see the conclusion of.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 will give
the retired agent not only the chance to totally defend him or
herself, but will also permit them to protect any citizen if
they stumble across a crime occurring. Back in 1999, Senator
Grassley authored the Federal Law Enforcement Good Samaritan
Act. The Committee, under the leadership of Senators Hatch and
Leahy, approved the legislative proposal and it was signed into
law. This law allowed Federal agents to take reasonable action
for a crime that occurs in their presence while we are off-
duty.
S. 2480 is an extension of this common sense law, for if I
retired yesterday, is there any difference in me today? A
Federal agent usually qualifies with their everyday firearm at
least four times a year and qualifies with various other
weapons throughout each year. Also included in the training
exercise are shoot/don't shoot scenarios and the legal aspects
of using deadly force.
The current requirement for Federal agents hired before
1984 to retire is 20 years of service and to be the age of 50.
For agents hired after 1984, they can retire with 25 years of
service at any age or 20 years of service at the age of 50. I
am sure all present here today will agree that life does not
end at 50. There are many more productive years left. In fact,
many Federal agents continue in their profession either working
as private investigators, or with State or local criminal
justice agencies, or become teachers utilizing their expertise
in the field to instruct the next generation.
Once you count the initial training at Quantico, Virginia,
or Glynco, Georgia, add in four times a year firearms
qualification, plus the multitude of other training course,
this results in an investment that the American citizen
deserves to continue to get something back from.
At the start of every Congressional session, FLEOA surveys
its members, querying them on what issues are important to
them. For each of the past few Congressional sessions, this
issue has been in the top three. FLEOA has approximately 60
chapters across America, and over the years the President of
FLEOA has attended hundreds of chapter meetings. This issue has
always been one that members have brought up because they truly
have been concerned about this.
For all these reasons, FLEOA believes S. 2480 should be
approved in this Committee and on the full floor of the Senate
and signed into law.
On behalf of Mike Miskinis, Chapter President of FLEOA's
Utah Chapter, retired Secret Service agent; Frank Puleo,
Chapter President of FLEOA's Vermont Chapter, currently an
agent with HHS OIG but also a future retiree; and for all the
members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, I
thank you for holding this hearing today and I look forward to
answering any questions of the Committee.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you for your remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. I will now turn to Senator Baucus.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was
not too many years ago I was sitting next to you on this
Committee.
Chairman Leahy. We still miss you.
Senator Baucus. I miss this Committee. This Committee was
probably--I enjoyed as much and had more fun in just trying to
address just basic constitutional issues that really affect and
go to the heart of our country, and I thank you for the great
job you are doing in conducting and chairing this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I also thank you in the spirit of being a
great leader of this Committee for allowing me to testify on
the bill that you have introduced, which I think is very needed
and very important, particularly at this time.
This bill, I think, will pay enormous dividends for the
American people. It will allow qualified active duty and
retired law enforcement officers to carry their weapons
regardless of State and local restrictions on carrying
concealed weapons, to allow these officers to carry their
weapons across State and other jurisdictional lines.
The legislation also addresses a critical officer safety
and public safety need. Law enforcement officers are trained.
They are trained professionals. They are dedicated, dedicated
public servants, sworn to uphold the law and protect the
citizens of our country. They are always on duty, even when
they are not in uniform or patrolling a beat. After September
11, the role of law enforcement officers in our communities is
even more important as they constitute our front-line defense
against terrorism here at home.
It just makes sense to be sure that law enforcement
officers have the means to protect themselves and the public at
all times, because they could be called upon to protect
themselves or the public at any time. Particularly, it makes
sense in rural States like mine of Montana, where law
enforcement officers are stretched thin, there is so much
territory to cover.
Your bill also will enhance public safety by allowing the
nation to tap into the wealth of training and knowledge that is
our law enforcement community, without costing our Federal
taxpayers a dime. Law enforcement officers have training. They
have expertise in detecting and preventing the crime that
ordinary citizens just do not have. The bill also makes sure
that officers can maximize that training in the event of an
emergency, regardless of jurisdiction and regardless of whether
an officer was officially on duty.
And, it does a good job of balancing the rights of States
and private citizens by preserving State laws that permit
private citizens to prohibit concealed weapons on their own
property, and State laws that ban firearms on State or local
property.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your bill. I think it is
very timely, it is very important, and I hope that your
Committee, Mr. Chairman, can mark this up quickly and get it
out quickly on the floor because it is part of the major effort
that we now need to undertake just to better protect ourselves
in America, and I thank you again very much for what you are
doing.
Chairman Leahy. I thank you very much. I thank you for your
strong support of it and I am hoping we can get it out of the
Committee at our next markup and quickly on the consent
calendar. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Good. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. I know you are supposed to be, as I said
earlier, at another meeting. I appreciate you taking the time
to come by.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Colonel Westphal, you are here representing
the IACP and you are currently Vice President, am I correct in
that?
Col. Westphal. That is correct, Senator.
Chairman Leahy. You were appointed to the position of Chief
of the Colorado State Patrol in October 1995. You had served
with them for 21 years before that, since 1974, the year that I
was ending my law enforcement career. Please go ahead, Colonel.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL LONNIE J. WESTPHAL, CHIEF, COLORADO STATE
PATROL, DENVER, COLORADO
Col. Westphal. Good afternoon, Senator Leahy. I am pleased
to be here this afternoon to present the views of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police on S. 2480, the
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002.
As you know, the IACP is the world's oldest and largest
association of law enforcement executives, with more than
19,000 members in 100 countries. Before I address our concerns
with this legislation, I would like to express my gratitude and
the gratitude of the IACP to the Committee for your continuing
support of the nation's law enforcement agencies and law
enforcement officers.
I sort of feel like, Senator, the only red tree in a forest
of pine trees today----
[Laughter.]
Col. Westphal.--but as you know, the IACP has some serious
concerns with the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Our
opposition is based primarily on the fundamental belief that
States and localities should determine who is eligible to carry
firearms in their community.
Over the years, the IACP has consistently opposed any
Federal legislative proposals that would either preempt and/or
mandate the liberalization of an individual State's laws that
would allow citizens of other States to carry concealed weapons
in that State without meeting its requirements. The IACP
believes it is essential that State governments maintain the
ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the
needs of their community. This applies to the laws covering
private citizens as well as active and former law enforcement
personnel. The IACP also believes that each State should retain
the power to determine whether they want police officers that
are trained and supervised by agencies outside of their State
to carry weapons in their jurisdictions.
In addition, authority for police officers to carry
firearms when off duty, use of force policies, and firearms
training standards vary significantly from State to State. Why
should a police chief who has employed the most rigorous
training program with strict standards of accountability and
stringent policies be forced to permit officers who may not
meet those standards to carry a concealed weapon in his or her
jurisdiction?
However, in addition to these fundamental questions over
the preemption of State and local firearms laws, the IACP is
also concerned with the impact this legislation may have on the
safety of our officers and our community. There can be no doubt
that police executives are deeply concerned for the safety of
our officers. We understand the proponents of S. 2480 contend
that police officers need to protect themselves and their
families while traveling and that undercover officers may be
targets if recognized on vacation and travel. These are
certainly considerations, but they must be balanced against the
potential dangers involved.
In fact, one of the reasons that this legislation was
especially troubling to our nation's law enforcement executives
is because they could, in fact, threaten the safety of officers
by creating tragic situations where officers from other
jurisdictions are wounded or killed by local officers.
Police departments throughout the nation train their
officers to respond as a team to dangerous situations. This
teamwork requires months of training to develop and provides
the officers with an understanding of how their coworkers will
respond when faced with different situations. Injecting an
armed, unknown officer who has received different training and
is operating under different assumptions can turn an already
dangerous situation deadly.
In addition, the IACP believes that this legislation would
do little to improve the safety of communities. It is important
to remember that a police officer's authority to enforce the
law is limited to the jurisdiction in which they serve. An
officer, upon leaving his jurisdiction, has no arrest powers or
other authority to enforce the law. That is the responsibility
of the local law enforcement agencies.
In addition, the IACP is concerned that the legislation
specifies that only an officer who is not subject to a
disciplinary action is eligible. This provision raises several
concerns for law enforcement executives. For example, what
types of disciplinary actions does this cover? Does this
provision apply only to current investigations and actions? How
would officers ascertain that an out-of-State law enforcement
officer is subject to a disciplinary action and, therefore,
ineligible to carry a firearm?
Additionally, while the legislation does contain some
requirements to ensure that retirees qualify to have a
concealed weapon, they are insufficient and would be difficult
to implement. The legislation fails to take into account those
officers who have retired under the threat of disciplinary
action or dismissal for emotional problems that did not rise to
the level of mental instability. Officers who retire or quit
just prior to a disciplinary or competency hearing may still be
eligible for benefits and appear to have left the agency in
good standing. Even a police officer who retires with
exceptional skills today may be stricken with an illness or
other problem that makes him or her unfit to carry a concealed
weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police management
structure that identifies such problems in current officers.
Finally, the IACP is also concerned over the liability of
law enforcement agencies for the actions of an off-duty officer
who uses or misuses their weapon while out of State. If an off-
duty officer uses or misuses their weapon while in another
State, it is likely that their department will be forced to
defend itself against liability charges in that State. The
resources that mounting this defense would require could be
better spent serving the communities we represent.
In conclusion, I would like to state the IACP understands
that at first glace, this legislation may appear to be a simple
solution to a complex problem. However, a careful review of
these provisions reveals that it has the potential to
significantly and negatively impact the safety of communities
and our officers. It is my hope that this Committee will take
the concerns of the IACP into consideration before acting upon
this legislation.
This concludes my statement, Senator and Mr. Chairman, I
will respond to any questions.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Col. Westphal appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Next, we will hear from Deputy Chief of
Police David Johnson, from the Cedar Rapids Police Department
in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
STATEMENT OF DAVID JOHNSON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, CEDAR
RAPIDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary, my name is David Johnson and I am currently
the Deputy Chief of Police in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I have been a
police officer for over 30 years and my career as a cop started
right here in Washington, D.C.
In 1971, I logged my first patrol as a police officer in
the Washington Metropolitan Police Department in the Seventh
District. Since 1974, I have been with the Cedar Rapids Police
Department. I am a past President of the Iowa Association of
Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers and I am also a life member
of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 is an idea
first introduced to Congress 10 years ago. In 1992, H.R. 4897,
the first version of this legislation, was born with a
bipartisan introduction by Congressman Cunningham of California
and Congressman Ralph Hall of Texas.
In the decades since then, the support for this legislation
has grown dramatically. Today, it is still a bipartisan effort
with strong support from both sides of the aisle in the House,
the Senate, and in this very Committee, where a bipartisan
majority of ten Senators have signed on as cosponsors.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to
share with you a few examples of just how vital this
legislation is to the safety of police officers and our
community. Police officers like doctors, fire fighters, and
other emergency personnel are never really off-duty. In some
States, it is the law. These public servants perform countless
acts of courage and face many moments of danger well after they
have finished their shift, and some even after they have ended
their tour of duty.
Consider the story of Officer Wendell Smith, Jr., a veteran
of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department. Officer Smith
worked here in the District of Columbia, but he lived in the
State of Maryland. When returning home after his shift in
February 1997, Officer Smith was robbed at gunpoint. Just hours
before, this officer with his gun on his side might have been
able to have a fighting chance. But without legislation such as
S. 2480 in place, Officer Smith was barred from carrying his
firearm and had to secure it out of reach. When the robbers
discovered his badge and realized that he as a police officer,
they executed him in cold blood. Officer Smith was killed
because he was forced to be unarmed. On the day of this
officer's murder, the legislation that could have saved his
life had been sitting idle in Congress for 5 years. Now, 10
years after its introduction, it is still not law.
In March of 2001, a student opened fire at a high school in
San Diego, California. However, the shooter was not the only
person with a gun. Off-duty San Diego police officer Robert
Clark was also on campus, running an errand. When he heard the
shots, he immediately took action, drew his concealed firearm,
and ran to the scene of the crime. He confronted the shooter in
the school bathroom and held him at gunpoint, preventing the
shooter from entering the hallway and continuing the massacre.
When on-duty officers arrived for back-up, Officer Clark
worked with the two deputies--deputies from a different law
enforcement agency than his, I might add--to disarm the shooter
and take him into custody. Once the scene was secured, Officer
Clark then administered first aid to the two shooting victims
found in the bathroom. For his bravery, Officer Robert Clark
was given his department's highest honor.
There is not enough time left in this hearing or even in
this session of Congress to share with you every heroic story
of off-duty or retired officers intervening to save lives. You
have heard some from me, and certainly you have heard stories
from your constituents about how this legislation can and will
save lives.
Since September 11, our entire nation has been forced to
rethink our vigilance for the safety of our borders, our
communities, our families, and ourselves. We do not know if,
when, or how terror will strike again. What we do know is that
in any given time of day, roughly 70 percent of our nation's
police officers are off duty. S. 2480 can empower those off-
duty officers, plus the countless trained and qualified law
enforcement officers, with the tools they need to make a
difference.
This is homeland security that does not require us to
trample on civil liberties, homeland security that can be done
without playing musical chairs with Federal public safety
personnel, and homeland security that will not bust the budget.
That is one of the reasons why this bill is so widely supported
by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for
giving this legislation a hearing and allowing me to testify
today. On behalf of myself, fellow members of the Law
Enforcement Alliance of America, and police officers
everywhere, I would ask your help in seeing to it that S. 2480
becomes law this year. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. I need to remember to turn my microphone
on. We just had these new microphones installed. You turn them
on or off. Why do we turn them on or off? We sometimes found,
with Senator's very busy times, sometimes they only get
together actually during these Committee meetings and sometimes
there are those who have heard a new joke, and sometimes they
are whispering, and sometimes they get calls from their
constituents saying, what are you doing? This would never
happen to police officers.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. You would never have something over an open
microphone, like in a car or something, that you wish had not
been heard. So now we have to turn them on and off.
I have a statement by Senator Hatch which will go in the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. What I will do, because other Senators are
unable to come, we will take this testimony and submit
questions for the record.
I would note also that tomorrow marks the fourth
anniversary of the shooting of two Capitol Police Officers,
Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, who were
slain in the line of duty while protecting the Capitol in 1998.
I knew both those officers well. At 3 tomorrow afternoon, there
is a short memorial service at what we now call the Memorial
Door over at the Capitol. I intend to be there and others will.
What we have been doing is usually both the House and the
Senate pause for a moment of reflection, if we are having a
debate, for these two officers. It kind of reminds us right at
home, even in a place like the United States Capitol, which is
usually considered the most safe place anywhere, that dangers
lurk even here. In this case, it was the officers who died
defending the Members of Congress and those who come here. It
would be hard to know two better or nicer officers than those
two.
I recall the day very well. I was on the plane back to
Vermont and got off the plane and was met by a staff member in
my office in Vermont with a very shocked look on his face who
gave me the news. One of the officers, I had seen just that
morning. I said, this is not possible. Unfortunately, it was
possible.
So we know these things happen, and I appreciate the
service of all of you, Colonel, Deputy Chief, Mr. Gordon,
Lieutenant Young. Those of us in civilian life do not often
take time to say thank you. For those of us who had the
opportunity to serve in law enforcement, as I did, we know the
thanks are due, but let me say on behalf of the whole
Committee, again, is the one thing that every one of us would
join on this Committee, Republican and Democrat, is to say
thank you.
We will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7413.055