```

[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.

                                  

```