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 WHICH WILL PENETRATE SOFT BODY ARMOR BEING WORN BY POLICE OFFICERS. IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY "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 NUMEROUS CALLS FOR PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATION FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT THE ADMINISTRATION'S CRIME PACKAGE, PASSED BY THE SENATE MANDATORY SENTENCING. I HAVE NOTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PLEDGED TO WORK FROM THESE TWO FACTS, HOWEVER, THAT THE BLAME FOR LACK OF PROGRESS WORK. THIS SUBCOMMITTEE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY 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 ASSISTANT COULD BE DEVELOPED, SUBJECTED TO THE USUAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL 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 POSITION ON "COP KILLER BULLETS", OTHER THAN TO AGAIN ADVANCE THE YESTERDAY, LESS THAN I SUPPOSE WE COULD INSIST UPON THE APPEARANCE OF A BODY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEFORE US TODAY, BUT IT IS THEIR 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 ARE KNOWN TO US, IT IS A SHAME THAT JUSTICE CANNOT BE UNMUZZLED 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 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 |