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.