5

6

PART E-ARMOR-PIERCING BULLETS

SEC. 1006. (a) Chapter 44 of title 18, United States

7 Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

8 "8 929. Use of restricted ammunition

9

"(a) Whoever, during and in relation to the commission 10 of a crime of violence including a crime of violence which 11 provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use 12 of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device for which he may 13 be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries 14 any handgun loaded with armor-piercing ammunition as de15 fined in subsection (b), shall, in addition to the punishment 16 provided for the commission of such crime of violence be sen17 tenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than five nor 18 more than ten years. Notwithstanding any other provision of 19 law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of any person 20 convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor place him on 21 probation, nor shall the term of imprisonment run concurrent22 ly with any other terms of imprisonment including that im23 posed for the felony in which the armor-piercing handgun 24 ammunition was used or carried. No person sentenced under

355

1 this subsection shall be eligible for parole during the term of

2 imprisonment imposed herein.

3

4

5

6

བ

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

"(b) For purposes of this section

"(1) 'armor-piercing ammunition' means ammuni

tion which, when or if fired from any handgun used or

carrried in violation of subsection (a) under the test procedure of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standard for the Ballistics Resistance of Police Body Armor promulgated December 1978, is determined to be capable of penetrating bullet-resistant apparel or body armor meeting the requirements of Type IIA of Standard NILECJ-STD0101.01 as formulated by the United States Department of Justice and published in December of 1978; and

"(2) 'handgun' means any firearm, including a pistol or revolver, originally designed to be fired by the use of a single hand.".

(b) The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18,

20 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof

Mr. HUGHES. More than 2 years ago, this subcommittee held the first congressional hearing on the problem of armor-piercing ammunition and, for the most part, on these same bills to safeguard our Nation's law enforcement officers while wearing protective armor.

At that time just about everyone involved agreed that we faced some tough technical, definitional problems that needed to be solved before we could legislate a ban on handgun ammunition which will penetrate soft body armor being worn by police officers. In his testimony before this subcommittee, Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani accurately summarized the problem as one of, and I quote, "coming up with a definition that would include armor-piercing bullets and exclude what might be regarded as bullets that can be used for other purposes, legitimate purposes."

He stated that the Justice Department had, in working with the Treasury Department, not yet been able to do this, but that, and I quote again, "We should continue to try to do that and we will."

He then proposed what he called a stopgap legislative proposal. This stopgap measure banned no ammunition, but provided additional penalties for carrying a handgun loaded with armor-piercing ammunition during the commission of a felony, much in the same manner as current law already provides additional penalties for carrying a handgun.

Two years have passed, and it is disappointing how little viable progress has been made on this most important matter. While the number of individual and institutional voices calling for passage of legislation to ban so-called cop killer bullets has grown dramatically, little seems to have been done to solve the definitional problems which have dogged this legislation from its inception.

For example, last fall, when my mail began to contain numerous calls for passage of the legislation from law enforcement officers and administrators from all parts of the country, I wrote back describing the technical problems we encountered, and invited recommendations for their solution. I sent some 30 such letters, and received one reply.

The administration's crime package, passed by the Senate earlier this year, addresses this problem with the same stopgap measure advanced by the Justice Department some 2 years ago, namely, mandatory sentencing.

I have noted that the Department of Justice pledged to work toward a solution that would separate bannable handgun ammunition from legitimate ammunition, and I have noted that 2 years later, we have received nothing from them in this regard.

It should not be inferred from these two facts, however, that the blame for lack of progress lies in the failure of the Department of Justice to do its promised work.

This subcommittee and other Members of the Congress, particularly Congressman Biaggi, my good friend from New York, have re

ceived periodic reports over the past several months which suggest that progress was being made.

More than a year ago, the Justice Department commissioned developmental work by the Bureau of Standards to develop a test procedure to measure the armor-piercing capacity of various ammunition, which would form the basis of a legislative proposal to ban certain armor-piercing ammunition.

In October, I received a briefing on this work, and it was obviously well under way at that time. In November, we were told that the Justice Department had received the results of the work, and that it had been sent back for what sounded like some debugging. As its best estimate, Justice, at that time, told us they felt both the test procedure and the legislative proposal for ban legislation could be developed, subjected to the usual review and approval process, and submitted to the Congress by early 1984.

Assistant Attorney General Bob McConnell notified us, in January of this year, that the armor-piercing bullet package had been submitted to OMB for approval, and that he was "optimistic that we have now resolved the definitional problems which have plagued this legislation in the past, and that we will have a proposal for submission to the Congress in the near future despite acrimonious public attacks upon our efforts," he stated.

These were encouraging developments to me and many others, particularly my friend Mario Biaggi, who twice a week asked me on the floor, what's happening? And I know right away he is talking about armor-piercing legislation.

Bob McConnell is well-known in the Congress for his pragmatism, and not known for flights of undue optimism, I might say. However, this appears to be one of the few occasions where he was wrong. Four months have passed, Senate hearings on the subject of armor-piercing bullets have come and gone, and still the highest echelons of this administration has refused to enunciate an administration position on cop-killer bullets other than to again advance the temporary stopgap measure from 2 years ago.

It was a comedy last night between Justice and Treasury trying to decide who was going to testify, whether they were going to testify, and what they were going to say. As of this morning at 8 o'clock, I still had not read a single statement from either Treasury or Justice.

Justice indicated they weren't going to come. Then they called back and they did want to come, without submitting a statement. Then they weren't sure they wanted to come. So they are here, and they will not be testifying, we have not received a statement from them. That has been the story now for months.

Yesterday, less than 24 hours before this scheduled hearing, as I have indicated, we were notified that OMB had not taken a position on the longstanding Justice proposal that no position will be

taken in advance of our hearing and the Department of Justice was instructed to ask for a postponement, which I refused to grant. This particular measure is an important one. One in which there are clearly strong differences of opinion within the administration, including differences between the two Departments involved, Justice and Treasury. Under these circumstances, it is rare that the contents of a proposal being kept bottled up by OMB do not leak out. It is rare, and this is not one of those rare occasions. Given the fact that the basic components of the Justice Department study and proposal are known to us, it is a shame that the Justice Department cannot be unmuzzled to present us this particular proposal, explain it, and explain how they arrived at it-then help us work toward a solution to whatever it agrees is a tough technical problem.

Or, if this is not to be the case, the White House should muster the political fortitude to figuratively bite the bullet, reject the proposal, and explain to the policemen of the country why this measure of protection should not be afforded to them.

In closing, let me say this: If there exists the necessary support of the members of this subcommittee, I intend to move forward with this legislation to provide the best possible protection for our police officers against armor-piercing bullets.

Agencies of the executive branch charged with enforcing laws of this nature have a lot of expertise to bring to bear in developing that protection, and a lot of time and taxpayers money has gone into such development.

We would like to have the benefit of that effort in our work; we think we can produce a better solution if we have it, and it would be a shame to have to proceed without it, but if we must, we will. [The statement of Mr. Hughes follows:]