MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO, THIS SUBCOMMITTEE HELD THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON THE PROBLEM OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION, AND, FOR THE MOST PART, ON THESE SAME BILLS TO SAFEGAURD 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 GIULIANI ACCURATELY SUMMARIZED THE PROBLEM AS ONE OF

"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 THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAD, IN WORKING WITH THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS, BUT THAT, AND I QUOTE "WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO TRY TO DO THAT AND WE WILL." HE THEN PROPOSED WHAT THIS STOPGAP MEASURE

HE CALLED "A STOPGAP LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL.

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 THE GUN.

TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED, AND IT IS DISAPPOINTING HOW LITTLE VISIBLE PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS IMPORTANT MATTER. WHILE

THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL VOICES CALLING

FOR PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION TO BAN "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 THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED,
AND INVITED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR SOLUTION. I SENT SOME THIRTY
SUCH LETTERS, AND RECEIVED ONLY 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 TWO YEARS AGO, NAMELY

MANDATORY SENTENCING.

I HAVE NOTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PLEDGED TO WORK
TOWARD A SÕLUTION THAT WOULD SEPARATE BANNABLE HANDGUN AMMUNITION
FROM LEGITIMATE AMMUNITION, AND I HAVE NOTED THAT, TWO YEARS LATER,
WE HAVE RECEIVED NOTHING 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 CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY
CONGRESSMAN BIAGGI, HAVE RECEIVED 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 UNDERWAY. IN NOVEMBER WE WERE TOLD THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAD RECEIVED THE RESULTS OF THE WORK, AND THAT IT HAD REEN SENT BACK FOR WHAT SOUNDED LIKE SOME FINAL "DEBUGGING".

AS

ITS BEST ESTIMATE, JUSTICE AT THAT TIME TOLD US THEY FELT BOTH
THE TEST PROCEDURE AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR BAN LEGISLATION

ASSISTANT

COULD BE DEVELOPED, SUBJECTED TO THE USUAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL
PROCESS, AND SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS BY EARLY 1984.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB MCCONNELL NOTIFIED US, IN JANUARY, 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.

THESE WERE ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENTS, FOR BOB MCCONNELL IS WELL KNOWN IN THE CONGRESS FOR HIS PRAGMATISM, AND NOT KNOWN FOR FLIGHTS OF UNDUE OPTIMISM. 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 TWO YEARS BACK.

YESTERDAY, LESS THAN
24 HOURS BEFORE THIS SCHEDULED HEARING, WE WERE NOTIFIED THAT OMB
HAD NOT TAKEN A POSITION ON THE LONG STANDING JUSTICE PROPOSAL, THAT
NO POSITION WOULD BE TAKEN IN ADVANCE OF OUR HEARING, AND THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS INSTRUCTED TO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT.

I SUPPOSE WE COULD INSIST UPON THE APPEARANCE OF A BODY FROM THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEFORE US TODAY, BUT IT IS THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERED OPINION WE WANT AND NEED, AND IT
IS OBVIOUS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT AUTHORIZED JUSTICE TO

PRESENT TO US THEIR PROPOSAL.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MEASURE, ONE IN WHICH THERE ARE CLEARLY STRONG DIFFERENCES OF OPINION WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED, JUSTICE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS RARE THAT THE CONTENTS

AND TREASURY.

OF A PROPOSAL BEING KEPT BOTTLED UP BY OMB DO NOT LEAK OUT. IT

IS RARE, AND THIS IS NOT ONE OF THE 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 JUSTICE CANNOT BE UNMUZZLED
TO PRESENT IT TO US, EXPLAIN HOW THEY ARRIVED AT IT, AND HELP US
WORK TOWARD THE REST SOLUTION. 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 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 ON 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.

Mr. HUGHES. The Chair recognizes any other members that might have an opening statement.

The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure for me to join with you in welcoming our most distinguished witnesses, many of whom are our good colleagues and good friends.

All of the witnesses before us today share an increased duty to protect our law enforcement officers. Each day our police risk their own lives to protect all members of society. Certainly we owe them our greatest effort to reduce the dangers they face on a daily basis. One important aspect in our duty to protect these officers is the need to reduce the risk posed by armor-piercing bullets, and to do so in such a way that it does not interfere with the use of bullets for legitimate purposes, such as sporting events.

The distinguished witnesses today are here to comment on two ways in which to address the threat of armor-piercing bullets. Some proposals ban the availability of such bullets, while other proposals would severely punish the improper use of these bullets. I deeply appreciate this opportunity to address this serious issue and the proposals before us today.

I would like to join with you, Mr. Chairman, and pay special tribute to the two gentlemen at the desk before us today, Senator Moynihan and, of course, Congressman Biaggi. I don't know of any Member on either side, in either House, who knows more about the awful consequences of illegal ammunition or the illegal use of legal ammunition, or guns, than Congressman Biaggi, who, of course, certainly was most distinguished before coming to the Congress of the United States.

Before these gentlemen do start, I would like to, I think, clear up something that I consider to be a myth. I do not see that anything that was going to be before us today has one thing to do with gun control. What we are talking about is a missile that is designed to kill people, more particularly, designed to kill policemen. It is designed to pierce armor.

I do not see any legitimate use of these types of bullets. Even though I consider myself very strong in the area of the right to