help save police lives. As a 23-year police veteran, that has been my single objective from the outset.

This new legislation, H.R. 5835, which I have introduced with more than 130 of my colleagues, was developed jointly by the U.S. Treasury and Justice Departments; it has the support of the law enforcement community; and it is my understanding that even the National Rifle Association has assured the administration they would not oppose this new language.

I am basically satisfied that this consensus legislation is a viable and effective alternative to my original bill, H.R. 953, which I introduced over 2 years ago. More precisely, both bills have the same two basic components: they would outlaw the manufacture and importation of armor-piercing handgun ammunition, with certain exceptions; and they would establish tough mandatory prison terms for persons who commit crimes with this ammunition.

However, let me offer a word of caution, Mr. Chairman. Unlike some who have urged the administration proposal on this issue be rapidly pushed through the Congress, presumably without careful scrutiny or changes, I would suggest a more deliberative approach. More succinctly, Mr. Chairman, haste makes waste, especially in the legislative process. Having spent much of the last 5 years working to enact a ban on cop killer bullets, there is nobody who wants a prompt solution anymore than I do. Yet, I find the administration's sudden sense of urgency to rush this proposal through the Congress rather strange, especially when we were forced to sit to wait more than 2 years for the administration to come forward with a proposal to ban these bullets. Based on the bandwagon of support this administration initiative has enjoyed over the past 2 weeks, it is obvious that a ban on cop killer bullets has widespread appeal. Personally, I cannot help wondering where some of that support was during my 5-year struggle to achieve such a ban. Nevertheless, I welcome the administration's long-awaited contribution to this worthy cause and I believe their proposal brings us much closer to a final solution.

I introduced their proposal as demonstration of that belief but I refuse to call for the immediate passage of this measure until it has received the careful scrutiny of this body, and until any technical improvements that might be necessary are made.

A ban on cop killer bullets has great political appeal but it is of no use to the law enforcement community unless it works. That test must be applied before we can pat ourselves on the back. I am thankful that today's hearings marks the beginning of that process. Under this new bill, armor-piercing ammunition would be defined by its design—namely, the harder metals these awesome projectiles are made from-rather than by a standard of penetration as used in H.R. 953. This is a significant difference since it had been argued that some bullets used for sporting purposes could have exceeded the standard set in H.R. 953.

The administration officials who drafted this new legislation and who will be responsible for its enforcement, have stated that this proposed definition would cover all armor-piercing ammunition which is currently known to exist. It also is intended to cover any new armor-piercing bullets that might be developed.

Especially significant are specific exemptions in the bill for "shotgun shot" used by hunters, "frangible projectiles designed for target shooting," and "any projectile which the Treasury Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes."

These exemptions are designed to ensure that ammunition used primarily for sporting purposes is not affected in any way by this leglslation. This had also been the intent of H.R. 953, but it was not specifically stated in the bill.

Several other differences between H.R. 5835 and H.R. 953 should be noted. First, this new legislation bans the future manufacture and importation of armor-piercing ammunition, but not the sale, as proposed under H.R. 953.

Second, unlike H.R. 953, the new bill would allow armor-piercing ammunition to be manufactured for export, in addition to providing unrestricted access to armor-piercing ammunition for Federal, State and local governmental units, which would include the law enforcement and military communities.

Third, unlike the old bill, H.R. 5835 would establish a new $1,000 license fee for those persons who wish to manufacture or import armor-piercing ammunition for the special purposes listed in the

bill.

Finally, the new bill establishes a minimum mandatory 5-year prison sentence for persons who use armor-piercing ammunition in a crime. H.R. 953 had proposed a 1- to 10-year mandatory penalty for such crimes.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not qualify my support for this new legislation. First, I would prefer to include a ban on the sale of cop-killer bullets, as well as manufacture and importation. However, administration officials have argued convincingly that the gun dealer does not have the ability or resources to determine whether a bullet is armor-piercing or not. Instead, they must depend on their supplier, either the manufacturer or importer, for that determination.

While that is sound logic, I would urge Treasury and Justice officials to encourage gund dealers to voluntarily do whatever is possible to keep those bullets out of the hands of criminals.

Further, I should point out that I have always been most concerned about the future, rather than present supply of and demand for armor-piercing bullets, and this new legislation addresses the meat of that concern.

Second, I am worried that the exemption in the bill for any projectile which the Treasury Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, is open to broad interpretation. Yet, I recognize the importance of this exemption and I am reassured by administration sentiment that even with this exemption, each of the original eight bullets I had identified as armor-piercing would be banned under the new proposal.

Finally, it is my hope that arrangements can be worked out under this new legislation which would allow law enforcement equipment suppliers, such as soft body armor manufacturers, to continue to have access to this ammunition for test purposes.

In addition, businesses, such as Forensic Ammunition Service of Spring Arbor, MI, which supply armor-piercing ammunition to law enforcement agencies around the country for forensic test purposes,

should be allowed to have continued access to this type of ammunition, but only with the consent and supervision of the Treasury Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, while H.R. 5835 may not offer the perfect solution to a very critical problem, I would like to suggest that there are very few perfect solutions to any problem. Frankly, having worked so long and hard for a Federal ban on cop-killer bullets, I am convinced that H.R. 5835 is about as good a solution as we can hope to get on this issue.

I believe it will accomplish the original goal I set out to achieve-namely, better police protection-without infringing upon the rights of legitimate gun users.

Just as important, it is a proposal that has a real chance for swift congressional action, especially considering the full support it has from the administration and the fact that a similar Senate proposal, S. 2766, has already received the cosponsorship of more than 80 Senators.

My bill, H.R. 5835, has more than 130 House cosponsors, both Republicans and Democrats, and I am further encouraged by your long stated commitment to resolving the cop killer bullet problem, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, I want to applaud your diligent and responsible efforts to secure a workable solution to this perplexing issue. I am convinced that if not for the constant pressure you placed on the administration to develop a workable proposal by the end of this month, we would not have reached this critical juncture today. Your outspoken support for a ban agianst cop killer bullets, and the support of other members of this subcommittee, demonstrates a high regard for the safety of all law enforcement personnel.

On behalf of the law enforcement community, with whom I have worked so closely on this issue, I wish to thank you for that support. I would hope that we can soon all sit back proudly with the knowledge that we have helped to protect police from the dangers posed by cop killer bullets. The passage of H.R. 5835, after careful deliberation, would allow that to happen.

[The statement of Mr. Biaggi follows:]

Mr. Chairman, nearly five years ago I initiated a legislative effort to outlaw armor-piercing "cop killer' bullets that can penetrate the bulletproof vests worn by more than half of our nation's 570,000 law enforcement officers. As I make my third appearance before your distinguished Subcommittee, I have the highest level of confidence that we are fast approaching successful completion of that task. This confidence is based on the fact that we have achieved a workable solution that can be supported by all. But, most importantly, the legislative product we are considering today would help save police lives. As a 23-year police veteran, that has been my single objective from the outset.

This new legislation, H.R. 5835, which I have introduced with more than 130 of my colleagues, was developed jointly by the U.S. Treasury and Justice Departments; it has the support of the law enforcement community; and it is my understanding that even the National Rifle Association has assured the Administration they would not oppose this new language.

Personally, I am satisfied that this consensus legislation is a viable and effective alternative to my original bill, H.R. 953, which I introduced over two years ago. More precisely, both bills have the same two basic components--they would outlaw the manufacture and importation of armor-piercing handgun ammunition, with certain exceptions; and they would establish tough mandatory prison terms for persons who commit crimes with this ammunition.

Under this new bill, armor-piercing ammunition would be defined by its design--namely, the harder metals these awesome projectiles are made from--rather than by a standard of penetration, as used in H.R. 953. This is a significant difference since, it had been argued that some bullets used for sporting purposes could have exceeded the standard set in H.R. 953. The new bill defines the term "armor piercing ammunition" as "solid projectiles or projectile cores constructed from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, depleted uranium. Administration officials who drafted this new legislation and who will be responsible for its enforcement have stated that this. proposed definition would cover all armor-piercing ammunition which is currently known to exist. It is also intended to cover any new armor-piercing bullets that might be developed.

"

I am pleased to report that this same approach was also recommended by Detective Richard Janelli, a firearms expert for the Nassau County (NY) Police Department, who has worked closely with the Grumman Corporation in arriving at a precise definition of armor-piercing ammunition. It should be noted that Det. Janelli's work was initiated after Nassau County police arrested a suspected bank robber, who possessed 32 armor-piercing handgun rounds.

(more)

2

These

Especially significant are specific exemptions in the bill for "shotgun shot" used by hunters, " "frangible projectiles designed for target shooting," and "any projectile which the (Treasury) Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes." exemptions are designed to ensure that ammunition 'used primarily for sporting purposes is not affected in any way by this legislation. This had also been the intent of H.R. 953, but it was not specifically stated in the bill.

Several other differences between H.R. 5835 and H.R. 953 should be noted. First, this new legislation bans the future manufacture and importation of armor-piercing ammunition, but not the sale, as proposed under H.R. 953. Second, unlike H.R. 953, the new bill would allow armor-piercing ammunition to be manufactured for export purposes, in addition to providing unrestricted access to armorpiercing ammunition for federal, state and local governmental units, which would include the law enforcement and military communities.

Third, unlike the old bill, H.R. 5835 would establish a new $1,000 license fee for those persons who wish to manufacture or import armor-piercing ammunition for the special purposes listed in the bill.

Finally, the new bill establishes a minimum mandatory five-year prison sentence for persons who use armor-piercing ammunition in a crime. H.R. 953 had proposed a one-to-10 year mandatory penalty for such crimes.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not qualify my support for this new legislation. First, I would prefer to include a ban on the sale of "cop killer" bullets, as well as manufacture and importation. However, Administration officials have argued convincingly that the gun dealer does not have the ability or resources to determine whether a bullet is armor-piercing or not. Instead, they must depend on their supplier, either the manufacture or importer for that determination. While that is sound logic, I would urge Treasury and Justice officials to encourage gun dealers to voluntarily do whatever is possible to keep those bullets out of the hands of criminals. Further, I should point out that I have always been most concerned about the future, rather than present supply of and demand for armor-piercing bullets and this new legislation addresses the meat of that concern.

Second, I am worried that the exemption in the bill for "any projectile which the (Treasury) Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes," is open to broad interpretation. Yet, I recognize the importance of this exemption and I am reassured by Administration sentiment that even with this exemption, each of the original eight bullets I had identified as armor-piercing would be banned under this new proposal.

Finally, it is my hope that arrangements can be worked out under this new legislation which would allow law enforcement equipment suppliers, such as soft body armor manufacturers, to continue to have access to this ammunition for test purposes. In addition, businesses, such as Forensic Ammunition Service of Spring Arbor, Michigan, which supply armor-piercing ammunition to law enforcement agencies around the country for forensic test purposes, should be allowed continued access to this type of ammunition, but only with the consent and supervision of the Treasury Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, while H.R. 5835 may not offer the perfect solution to a very critical problem, I would like to suggest that there are very few perfect solutions to any problem. Frankly, having worked so long and hard for a federal ban on "cop killer" bullets, I am convinced that H.R. 5835 is about as good a solution as we can hope to get on this issue. I believe it will accomplish the original goal I set out to achieve--namely, better police protection-without infringing upon the rights of legitimate gun users. as important, it is a proposal that has a real chance for swift congressional action, especially considering the full support it has from the Administration and the fact that a similar Senate proposal, S. 2766, has already received the cosponsorship of more

re)

Just