[House Report 107-193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Rept. 107-193
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 1
======================================================================
JAMES GUELFF AND CHRIS MCCURLEY BODY ARMOR ACT OF 2001
_______
August 2, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1007]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1007) to limit access to body armor by violent
felons and to facilitate the donation of Federal surplus body
armor to State and local law enforcement agencies, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 1
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 4
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 4
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Vote of the Committee............................................ 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 6
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 7
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Markup Transcript................................................ 10
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body
Armor Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) nationally, police officers and ordinary citizens are
facing increased danger as criminals use more deadly weaponry,
body armor, and other sophisticated assault gear;
(2) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the
interstate movement of body armor and other assault gear;
(3) there is a traffic in body armor moving in or otherwise
affecting interstate commerce, and existing Federal controls
over such traffic do not adequately enable the States to
control this traffic within their own borders through the
exercise of their police power;
(4) recent incidents, such as the murder of San Francisco
Police Officer James Guelff by an assailant wearing 2 layers of
body armor, a 1997 bank shoot out in north Hollywood,
California, between police and 2 heavily armed suspects
outfitted in body armor, and the 1997 murder of Captain Chris
McCurley of the Etowah County, Alabama Drug Task Force by a
drug dealer shielded by protective body armor, demonstrate the
serious threat to community safety posed by criminals who wear
body armor during the commission of a violent crime;
(5) of the approximately 1,200 officers killed in the line
of duty since 1980, more than 30 percent could have been saved
by body armor, and the risk of dying from gunfire is 14 times
higher for an officer without a bulletproof vest;
(6) the Department of Justice has estimated that 25 percent
of State and local police are not issued body armor;
(7) the Federal Government is well-equipped to grant local
police departments access to body armor that is no longer
needed by Federal agencies; and
(8) Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce
clause and other provisions of the Constitution of the United
States, to enact legislation to regulate interstate commerce
that affects the integrity and safety of our communities.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Body armor.--The term ``body armor'' means any product
sold or offered for sale, in interstate or foreign commerce, as
personal protective body covering intended to protect against
gunfire, regardless of whether the product is to be worn alone
or is sold as a complement to another product or garment.
(2) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means an agency of the United States, a State, or a
political subdivision of a State, authorized by law or by a
government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention,
detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of
criminal law.
(3) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement
officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee of the United
States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State,
authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of any violation of criminal law.
SEC. 4. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO BODY ARMOR.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of
title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and the policy
statements of the Commission, as appropriate, to provide an appropriate
sentencing enhancement for any crime of violence (as defined in section
16 of title 18, United States Code) or drug trafficking crime (as
defined in section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code) (including a
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an
enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous
weapon or device) in which the defendant used body armor.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that any
sentencing enhancement under this section should be at least 2 levels.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF PURCHASE, USE, OR POSSESSION OF BODY ARMOR BY
VIOLENT FELONS.
(a) Definition of Body Armor.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(35) The term `body armor' means any product sold or offered for
sale, in interstate or foreign commerce, as personal protective body
covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether the
product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another
product or garment.''.
(b) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body
armor by violent felons
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall
be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor, if
that person has been convicted of a felony that is--
``(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or
``(2) an offense under State law that would constitute a
crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States.
``(b) Affirmative Defense.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be an affirmative defense under
this section that--
``(A) the defendant obtained prior written
certification from his or her employer that the
defendant's purchase, use, or possession of body armor
was necessary for the safe performance of lawful
business activity; and
``(B) the use and possession by the defendant were
limited to the course of such performance.
``(2) Employer.--In this subsection, the term `employer'
means any other individual employed by the defendant's business
that supervises defendant's activity. If that defendant has no
supervisor, prior written certification is acceptable from any
other employee of the business.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The analysis for chapter 44 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor
by violent felons.''.
(c) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 931 shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.''.
SEC. 6. DONATION OF FEDERAL SURPLUS BODY ARMOR TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Federal agency'' and
``surplus property'' have the meanings given such terms under section 3
of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 472).
(b) Donation of Body Armor.--Notwithstanding section 203 of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
484), the head of a Federal agency may donate body armor directly to
any State or local law enforcement agency, if such body armor--
(1) is in serviceable condition;
(2) is surplus property; and
(3) meets or exceeds the requirements of National Institute
of Justice Standard 0101.03 (as in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act).
(c) Notice to Administrator.--The head of a Federal agency who
donates body armor under this section shall submit to the Administrator
of General Services a written notice identifying the amount of body
armor donated and each State or local law enforcement agency that
received the body armor.
(d) Donation by Certain Officers.--
(1) Department of justice.--In the administration of this
section with respect to the Department of Justice, in addition
to any other officer of the Department of Justice designated by
the Attorney General, the following officers may act as the
head of a Federal agency:
(A) The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
(B) The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
(C) The Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
(D) The Director of the United States Marshals
Service.
(2) Department of the treasury.--In the administration of
this section with respect to the Department of the Treasury, in
addition to any other officer of the Department of the Treasury
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, the following
officers may act as the head of a Federal agency:
(A) The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms.
(B) The Commissioner of Customs.
(C) The Director of the United States Secret
Service.
(e) No Liability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
United States shall not be liable for any harm occurring in connection
with the use or misuse of any body armor donated under this section.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 1007, the ``James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor
Act of 2001,'' amends title 18, United States Code, by
establishing a prohibition on the purchase, ownership, or
possession of body armor by violent felons. Any person that is
convicted of violating this prohibition is subject to a fine or
imprisonment of not more than 3 years, or both. H.R. 1007 also
directs the United States Sentencing Commission to provide an
appropriate sentencing enhancement for any crime of violence or
drug trafficking in which the defendant used body armor. It is
the sense of Congress that any sentencing enhancement should be
at least two levels.
In addition, H.R. 1007 authorizes the head of a Federal
agency to donate body armor that is surplus property and in
serviceable condition directly to any State or local law
enforcement agency. The United States shall not be liable for
any harm occurring in connection with the use or misuse of any
body armor donated by the Federal agencies.
Background and Need for the Legislation
H.R. 1007 is named for Officer James Guelff and Captain
Chris McCurley who were both killed by gunmen wearing body
armor. On November 13, 1994, James Guelff, a highly decorated
10 year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department,
responded to a ``shots fired'' call. Officer Guelff, the first
to respond to the scene, returned fire but the bullets could
not penetrate the gunman's kevlar vest and bullet-proof helmet.
Because of the body armor, this one gunman was able to fire in
excess of 200 rounds of ammunition and hold off 120 police
officers for over half an hour. Several officers actually ran
out of ammunition in their attempt to stop the heavily
protected gunman. Officer Guelff was shot several times and
died the following morning.
Captain Chris McCurley of the Etowah County, Alabama Drug
Task Force was murdered in much the same way as Officer Guelff.
Captain McCurley was shot and killed by a drug dealer wearing
protective body armor when he and another officer were trying
to execute a search warrant on October 10, 1997.
Unfortunately, this scenario is not unique. There have been
several other similar shootings across the country including
the North Hollywood shootout in 1997 where eleven officers were
wounded despite both perpetrators being hit a total of 33 times
by police gunfire. Those two gunmen held off 350 police
officers for over an hour before the shooting ended. In July of
2000, another shooting took place in Crandon, Wisconsin where
Sgt. Todd Stamper lost his life to a gunman protected by a
kevlar vest and helmet. Also, in August 1997, there was a
shooting in Colebrook, New Hampshire where a gunman wearing a
bulletproof vest and armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, shot
and killed troopers Scott Phillips and Leslie Lord before
killing two other civilians. These are just a few examples of
many incidents where gunmen were able to prolong shootouts,
fire more rounds of ammunition, and cause more devastation
because they were shielded by body armor.
The Department of Justice has estimated that 25 percent of
State and local police are not issued body armor. Furthermore,
of the approximately 1,200 officers killed in the line of duty
since 1980, more than 30 percent could have been saved by body
armor. Also, it has been estimated that the risk of dying from
gunfire is 14 times higher for an officer without the benefit
of wearing a bulletproof vest. The FBI, DEA, ATF, INS, and U.S.
Marshals are just a few of the Federal agencies that have
surplus body armor and would be able to donate it to local
jurisdictions to provide greater protection to our Country's
law enforcement officers.
Body armor was created for one fundamental reason--to
protect the individuals who risk their lives protecting the
citizens of this country. Unfortunately, bulletproof body armor
is finding its way into the hands of violent criminals, placing
countless lives at risk. This equipment should be used to
protect police officers as they perform their daily duties, not
to protect violent criminals committing violent acts.
Hearings
No hearings were held on H.R. 1007 during the 107th
Congress.
Committee Consideration
On July 19, 2001, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1007 with
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On July 24,
2001, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably
reported the bill H.R. 1007 with amendment, by a voice vote, a
quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
1. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered
by Mr. Smith. The amendment would change the short title of the
bill to the ``James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act of
2001.'' The amendment also amends the findings of Congress to
include reference to the 1997 murder of Chris McCurley. This
would conform H.R. 1007 to the Senate version of the bill, S.
166, which passed the Senate on May 14, 2001, by unanimous
consent. The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed
to by voice vote.
2. Final Passage. The motion to report favorably the bill,
H.R. 1007, as amended by the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, was agreed to by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Performance Goals and Objectives
H.R. 1007 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
is inapplicable.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 1007, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 1, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1007, the James
Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act of 2001.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark
Grabowicz (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860,
and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-sector impact), who can
be reached at 226-2940.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 1007--James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act of 2001.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1007 would not result
in any significant cost to the Federal Government. Because
enactment of H.R. 1007 could affect direct spending and
receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
However, CBO estimates that any impact on direct spending and
receipts would not be significant.
H.R. 1007 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
costs on State, local, or tribal governments. The legislation
would impose a private-sector mandate as defined by UMRA. CBO
estimates that the direct cost of the mandate would fall well
below the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-
sector mandates ($113 million in 2001, adjusted annually for
inflation).
H.R. 1007 would make it a Federal crime for most violent
felons to purchase or possess body armor. The bill would direct
the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider increasing the
recommended prison sentence for certain offenses involving the
use of body armor. In addition, H.R. 1007 would permit Federal
agencies to donate surplus body armor to State or local law
enforcement agencies.
Because H.R. 1007 would establish a new Federal crime, the
government would be able to pursue cases that it otherwise
would not be able to prosecute. Based on information from the
U.S. Sentencing Commission, CBO estimates that the bill's
provisions would probably affect fewer than 10 cases each year.
Because H.R. 1007 would apply to such a small number of
offenders, any increase in costs for law enforcement, court
proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant. Any
such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated
funds.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1007
could be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted.
Collections of such fines are recorded in the budget as
governmental receipts (revenues), which are deposited in the
Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any
additional receipts and direct spending would be negligible
because of the small number of cases involved.
Under current law, Federal agencies transfer body armor
that is surplus to the needs of the Federal Government to the
General Services Administration, which then donates the
property to State and local agencies. Permitting Federal law
enforcement agencies to donate surplus body armor directly to
State and local agencies would not affect the Federal budget.
H.R. 1007 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined
by UMRA on persons who have been convicted of certain violent
felony offenses. The legislation would require such persons to
obtain prior written certification from their employer
indicating that their purchase, use, and possession of body
armor are necessary for the safe performance of lawful business
activity. The cost to obtain a written certification would be
minimal. CBO estimates, therefore, that the direct cost of the
mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established
by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($113 million in 2001,
adjusted annually for inflation).
On May 15, 2001, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
166, the James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act of
2001, as passed by the Senate on May 14, 2001. The two pieces
of legislation are identical, as are the cost estimates.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz
(for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and Paige
Piper/Bach (for the private-sector impact), who can be reached
at 226-2940. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. Short Title. The section states that the act may
be cited as the ``James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor
Act of 2001.''
Section 2. Findings. Congress finds that (1) nationally,
police officers and ordinary citizens are facing increased
danger as criminals use more deadly weaponry, body armor, and
other sophisticated assault gear; (2) crime at the local level
is exacerbated by the interstate movement of body armor and
other assault gear; (3) there is a traffic in body armor moving
in or otherwise affecting interstate commerce, and existing
Federal controls over such traffic do not adequately enable the
States to control this traffic within their own borders through
the exercise of their police power; (4) recent incidents, such
as the murder of San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff by
an assailant wearing two layers of body armor, a 1997 bank
shoot out in north Hollywood, California, between police and
two heavily armed suspects outfitted in body armor, and the
1997 murder of Captain Chris McCurley of the Etowah County,
Alabama Drug Task Force by a drug dealer shielded by protective
body armor, demonstrate the serious threat to community safety
posed by criminals who wear body armor during the commission of
a violent crime; (5) of the approximately 1,200 officers killed
in the line of duty since 1980, more than 30 percent could have
been saved by body armor, and the risk of dying from gunfire is
14 times higher for an officer without a bulletproof vest; (6)
the Department of Justice has estimated that 25 percent of
State and local police are not issued body armor; (7) the
Federal Government is well-equipped to grant local police
departments access to body armor that is no longer needed by
Federal agencies; and (8) Congress has the power, under the
interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the
Constitution of the United States, to enact legislation to
regulate interstate commerce that affects the integrity and
safety of our communities.
Section 3. Definitions. Section 3 of the bill defines the
terms ``body armor,'' ``law enforcement agency'' and ``law
enforcement officer'' as used in the bill.
Section 4. Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. Section
4 of the bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission
to review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to
provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement for any crime of
violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of
violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an
enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or
dangerous weapon or device) in which the defendant used body
armor. This section also expresses the sense of Congress that
any sentencing enhancement should be at least two levels.
Section 5. Prohibition of Purchase, Use, or Possession of
Body Armor by Violent Felons. This section amends chapter 44 of
title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the purchase,
ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons.
Specifically, this section would add a new Section 931 which
would make it unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or
possess body armor, if that person has been convicted of a
felony that is a crime of violence or an offense under State
law that would constitute a crime of violence if it occurred
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States. Anyone who knowingly violates this section shall
be fined, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
An affirmative defense to a violation of this section is
provided if a defendant has obtained prior written
certification from his or her employer that the defendant's
purchase, use, or possession of body armor was necessary for
the safe performance of lawful business activity and the use
and possession by the defendant were limited to the course of
such performance. The term ``employer'' is defined as any other
individual employed by the defendant's business that supervises
defendant's activity. If that defendant has no supervisor,
prior written certification is acceptable from any other
employee of the business.
Section 6. Donation of Federal Surplus Body Armor to State
and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. This section allows the
head of a Federal agency to donate body armor directly to any
State or local law enforcement agency, if such body armor is in
serviceable condition, is surplus property, and meets or
exceeds the requirements of the National Institute of Justice
Standards. The head of a Federal agency who donates body armor
under this section shall submit to the Administrator of General
Services a written notice identifying the amount of body armor
donated and each State or local law enforcement agency that
received the body armor. For the purposes of this section, the
Administrator of the DEA, the Director of the FBI, the
Commissioner of the INS, the Director of the U.S. Marshals
Service, the Director of the ATF, the Commissioner of Customs,
and the Director of the Secret Service may act as the head of a
Federal agency.
This section also provides that the United States shall not
be liable for any harm occurring in connection with the use or
misuse of any body armor donated under this section.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART I--CRIMES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
Sec.
921. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by
violent felons.
Sec. 921. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(35) The term ``body armor'' means any product sold or
offered for sale, in interstate or foreign commerce, as
personal protective body covering intended to protect against
gunfire, regardless of whether the product is to be worn alone
or is sold as a complement to another product or garment.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 924. Penalties
(a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 931 shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body
armor by violent felons
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), it
shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess
body armor, if that person has been convicted of a felony that
is--
(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16);
or
(2) an offense under State law that would
constitute a crime of violence under paragraph (1) if
it occurred within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.
(b) Affirmative Defense.--
(1) In general.--It shall be an affirmative defense
under this section that--
(A) the defendant obtained prior written
certification from his or her employer that the
defendant's purchase, use, or possession of
body armor was necessary for the safe
performance of lawful business activity; and
(B) the use and possession by the defendant
were limited to the course of such performance.
(2) Employer.--In this subsection, the term
``employer'' means any other individual employed by the
defendant's business that supervises defendant's
activity. If that defendant has no supervisor, prior
written certification is acceptable from any other
employee of the business.
* * * * * * *
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A
working quorum is present.
The next item on the agenda is H.R. 1007, the ``James
Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001.''
[The bill, H.R. 1007, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Smith, for purposes of a motion.
Mr. Smith of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime
reports favorably the bill H.R. 1007, with a single amendment
in the nature of a substitute, and moves its favorable
recommendation to the full House and asks unanimous consent to
have my statement made a part of the record.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas
Body armor was created for one fundamental reason--to protect the
individuals who risk their lives protecting the citizens of this
country. Unfortunately, bulletproof body armor is finding its way into
the hands of violent criminals, placing countless lives at risk.
H.R. 1007 was named for San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff
who was gunned down in 1994 by an assailant shielded by two layers of
body armor, a cache of assault weapons and more than 2,000 rounds of
ammunition. James Guelff, a highly decorated ten year veteran, was the
first to respond to the scene and returned fire, but the bullets could
not penetrate the gunman's kevlar vest and bullet-proof helmet. Because
of the body armor, this one gunman was able to hold off 120 police
officers for over half an hour.
Unfortunately, this scenario is not unique. There have been several
other similar shootings across the country including the North
Hollywood, California shootout in 1997 where eleven officers were
wounded despite both perpetrators being hit a total of 33 times by
police gunfire. Those two gunmen held off 350 police officers for over
an hour before the shooting ended.
Another problem facing our officers today is the availability of
body armor for their own protection. The Department of Justice has
estimated that 25 percent of State and local police are not issued body
armor. Furthermore, of the approximately 1,200 officers killed in the
line of duty since 1980, more than 30 percent could have been saved by
body armor.
H.R. 1007 addresses these problems by prohibiting the purchase,
ownership, or possession of body armor by convicted violent felons. The
bill also directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and
amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide an appropriate
enhancement for any crime of violence or drug trafficking in which the
defendant used body armor. Furthermore, the bill seeks to provide
additional protection to America's law enforcement officers by allowing
the head of a Federal agency to donate body armor that is surplus
property.
Body armor should be used to protect police officers as they
perform their daily duties, not to protect violent criminals committing
violent acts. I support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it
as well.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the statements
of all Members will be included in the record.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
The Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
which the Members have before them, will be considered as read
and considered as the original text for purposes of an
amendment.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of
the Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed
to.
The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The
question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 1007
favorably, as amended by the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the bill
is favorably reported.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to move to go to
conference pursuant to House rules.
Without objection, the staff is directed to make any
technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given
2 days, pursuant to House rules, in which to submit additional
dissenting supplemental or minority views.