statute the equivalent of the voluntary agreements that you have that bans ammunition." I think that has been accomplished in this definition, to the satisfaction, at least, of those individuals on the Senate side. Mr. HUGHES. Well, the Senate does their thing and we do our thing over here, you know, that is how it works. We have two bodies. I am interested in doing something substantial. I want to do something substantive to protect the lives of the law enforcement community. And I think it is important that we get on the table exactly what we are doing so that everybody knows what we are doing. Now, Mr. Walker, in your statement, which I want to tell you, I took some offense to, you say on page 7: I urge the committee to report favorably on H.R. 5845 in its present form so that we can, without further delay, provide statutory protection for police officersYou know- Mr. WALKER. Against the potential danger of armor-piercing ammunition. Mr. HUGHES [continuing]. "Against the potential danger of armor-piercing ammunition. I wonder at this point, why, in its present form, No. 1, I mean you would suggest that you don't want us to do anything to the bill. You suggest it has to be H.R. 5845. I mean, you don't want to change either the sponsor of that; you don't want to change any words in that; and without further delay. I wonder what happened between the last time that your agency was in to testify before us and today, which provides this urgency, when in fact the manufacturers have already agreed not to manufacture this stuff. And we are not beginning to deal with the risk that is out there; that is, that there is ammunition in the marketplace today that we are not going to touch with this legislation. Mr. WALKER. Well, this is your view, and it is your view- Mr. WALKER [continuing]. And I respect hearing your view, I don't believe it is shared by the six police organizations that have supported this bill, and they are not against this proposal. The other groups that we have talked to who support this bill also indicate their favorable support-and that is that we are talking about both sides of the gun issue, if you will. We have achieved 84 cosponsors in the Senate. We have achieved 160 cosponsors in the House. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Biaggi has over 120. Mr. WALKER. But Mr. Biaggi's bill, of course-I hope those 120, by the way, are in addition to our 160, because that would give us a majority right there, because the bills are identical. Mr. Biaggi introduced the Administration's bill. So I think that is why we canfrom a practical viewpoint, if the bill is not amended, we believe we can get the bill through now, in this session, in both houses, and it can be signed into law, and provide the protection that it does provide. It may not go as far as other bills in the future. It may not accomplish everything that you, Mr. Chairman, would like to see. But it is a practical, workable, solution to an immediate problem; and then if there is a future problem it can be addressed. I think it is far better to have this bill signed into law this year than no bill. And I would respectfully suggest that if there are changes made, that the wide support that currently exists for H.R. 5845 and for Mr. Biaggi's bill would dissipate. Mr. HUGHES. I don't believe that, that is nonsense. Mr. WALKER. I guess the proof would be in the pudding. Mr. HUGHES. I have yet to see a bill delivered, you know, by any administration-this administration or previous administrationswhere people, working in good faith, trying to fashion the best possible bill, didn't gather support if it in fact accomplished the ends. And the law enforcement community is only interested in developing legislation that makes abundant good sense and protects their officers. Let me just give you a minor example. Under your approach, then my committee could not even begin to deal with some of the problems I have already alluded to-the composition of the bullets. My committee couldn't begin to deal with the concerns that I have personally over the use of the word "solid." What your bill really defines is not solid, but "constructed from." I mean, you can consult the English dictionary and the word "solid" means just that: all one type. You are talking about constructed from, not solid. I mean, minor, yes, but we are talking about Mr. WALKER. We defined the word "solid" in the definition. Mr. HUGHES. The Fish bill had a major drafting problem dealing with sentence enhancement which, as you know, was corrected. If Mr. Brooks had not corrected that and you took the position that we should not really touch any aspect of the bill for fear of losing, you know, support Mr. WALKER. We are talking substance, though, Mr. Chairman. We are not obviously talking about rearranging commasMr. HUGHES. Isn't that substance? Mr. WALKER [continuing]. And any punctuation changes or paragraph numbering that the committee feels would be appropriate, would not be any kind of change as far as we are concerned. And, of course, this committee is free to do anything they want with this bill. It is just looking at the- Mr. HUGHES. I appreciate that. Mr. WALKER. You know, obviously. But I would hope that the practical passage of the bill would be kept in mind. Mr. HUGHES. How many times have you been before this committee? Mr. WALKER. Quite a number. Mr. HUGHES. I think you know by this time that this committee basically operates on the basis-in a bipartisan fashion-on the basis of what we think is best. Mr. WALKER. Sure. Mr. HUGHES. We fashion legislation that we think is going to serve the public good. We listen to everybody. Unfortunately, that is not the case as I see with Treasury these days, because they don't want to hear from those of us interested parties on the legis lative side until after they fashioned a bill which they say is the missile you have got to go with. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, it is normal practice, is it not, to report a bill up and have it referred to a committee and then have hearings of this sort? Mr. HUGHES. Yes; but it is also normal practice when an agency knows that a committee has a very decided interest in legislation to try to work with the committee. I have a staff that does an outstanding job, and we have expressed our interest to your agency on this issue. I thought we were working together on it but I find that it was a solo. Mr. WALKER. I think we are still working together. Mr. HUGHES. You weren't interested in working with the legislative partner to any process. You have developed a bill which you now tell us we have to swallow hook, line and sinker, no exceptions. Let me just tell you that that is not the way it works around here, that is not the way it works in this subcommittee. Mr. WALKER. Right. Mr. HUGHES. I just find the whole manner in which you have dealt with this issue to be absolutely, you know, reprehensible. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, for not working for the legislature, it is kind of remarkable that we have ended up with 160 cosponsors in the House and 84 cosponsors in the Senate. Mr. HUGHES. That is a lot of sex appeal, what can I tell you? Justice Assistance passed the Congress by 399 to 16, overwhelming bipartisan sentiment for that particular crime bill. But that is laying over in the Senate at the present time. That has a broad bipartisan support; and this has a lot of bipartisan support because people basically want to do what they can to protect police officers. I am not sure you have delivered a package to us that is going to do that, though. I think we have explored the areas that I am particularly interested in. I still want to work with Justice and the Treasury Department in trying to fashion legislation that makes good sense. I am anxious to hear from the law enforcement community because they have an important role to play in fashioning any legislation. But I can tell you that I am not about to be stampeded into reporting out legislation that I don't think is in the public interest, that is not going to serve the public interest, and is not going to do something substantive to protect the law enforcement community. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. STEPHENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I can assure you that we would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with this committee. Mr. HUGHES. I want to apologize to the second panel for being so late in reaching the second panel, and the third panel. I even going to be more apologetic when I tell you that I am going to have to recess because I am on the Bankruptcy Conference and there is a meeting that started 15 minutes ago to deal with the bankruptcy issue. So I am going to have to adjourn this hearing until 1:30 at this point. The hearing stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same day.] Mr. HUGHES. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order. Our next witnesses are also made up of a panel: Samuel Kramer, Deputy Director, National Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards, and George Kass, owner, Forensic Ammunition Service, Spring Arbor, MI. Gentlemen, we welcome you to the Subcommittee on Crime today. Your biographical information and prepared statements will be made a part of the hearing record, and you may proceed as you see fit. Welcome. Why don't we start with you first, Mr. Kramer? TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL KRAMER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL FRANK, LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS LABORATORY, NBS, AND JAMES G. EARLY, METALLURGIST SPECIALIST, METALLURGY DIVISION, CENTER FOR MATERIALS SCIENCE, NBS; AND GEORGE KASS, OWNER, FORENSIC AMMUNITION SERVICE, SPRING ARBOR, MI Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, since my prepared statement will be made part of the record, I will abbreviate my remarks and leave most of the time for questions and answers. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you. Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I am Samuel Kramer, Deputy Director of the National Engineering Laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards. I am accompanied today by Dr. Dan Frank of our Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, who is next to me; and Dr. James G. Early, a metallurgist specialist from our Metallurgy Division, Center for Materials Science. NBS has provided technical support to the National Institute of Justice since 1971. The support program is funded by the National Institute of Justice and is carried out by our Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory. The program focuses on the application of science and engineering to the problems of criminal justice and encompasses a variety of subjects, including weapons, communications systems, and protective equipment for use by the police community, such as the body armor. In fact, the first standard that the National Bureau of Standards developed for the National Institute of Justice was published in 1972 and that standard was for the "Ballistic Resistance of Police Body Armor." The NBS research relative to body armor centered on the establishment of ballistic threat level classifications and reliable test methods to evaluate the level of protection that a product provides when impacted with a projectile from a firearm. As such, the primary concern was that the body armor resist penetration from a given ballistic threat and also prevent injury as a consequence of blunt trauma. Since it will be pertinent to what I will be saying later, I want to note that the test method that was developed was a performance test method, it was not a prescriptive method. The NBS conducted this research in conjunction with other government agencies, the private sector, and the law enforcement community, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the U.S. Army Laboratories at Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and Natick, MA. Subsequent to developing the standard for body armor, the National Institute of Justice requested that the NBS develop a test method for identifying armor-piercing ammunition. The test method that was developed is described in NBS publication NBSIR 84-2884, entitled "Test Procedure for Armor-Piercing Handgun Ammunition." Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to offer a copy of that report for the record. Mr. HUGHES. Without objection, so received. [The report follows:] |