[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 53 (Thursday, May 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       PUBLIC SAFETY AND RECREATIONAL FIREARMS USE PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 416 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 416

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4296) to make unlawful the transfer or 
     possession of assault weapons. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute and no other amendment to the bill 
     shall be in order. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendment as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 416 is a rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 4296, the Public Safety and Recreational 
Firearms Use Protection Act. The rule provides for 2 hours of general 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule provides that the 
Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed 
in the bill shall be considered as read. All points of order are waived 
against the committee substitute. The rule provides that no amendment 
to the committee substitute nor the bill shall be in order. Finally, 
the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Assault Weapons Ban Act would ban the manufacture, 
possession or sale of assault weapons. The bill exempts from the ban, 
weapons that are already legally owned at the time of enactment. In 
addition, the bill is very specific in defining which semiautomatic 
rifles, pistols, and shotguns would be prohibited. The bill exempts 650 
specified sporting guns including Browning and Remington rifles and all 
bolt, pump, slide, and level action guns from the ban. The legislation 
does not affect the use of these weapons by governmental agencies, such 
as law enforcement officials and the military. Finally, the bill's 
provisions contain penalties for those who violate the ban.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation is under siege. Our emergency rooms are 
overflowing with victims of gun violence from assault weapons. In Los 
Angeles military trauma physicians have been recruited in hospitals to 
relieve the workload resulting from gun violence. Physicians in these 
hospitals receive practice in treating wounds from high-velocity 
assault weapons--wounds similar to the type seen in the Vietnam War.
  Mr. Speaker, every year the problem of gun violence only seems to get 
worse as more assault weapons find their way into the hands of 
criminals. It is estimated that there are roughly one million assault 
weapons in the United States. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms between 1990 and 1993, reports of assault weapons 
increased by 35 percent. From 1990 to 1993, the percent of firearms 
traced that were assault weapons rose from 5.9 percent to 8.1 percent. 
Since studies show that assault weapons make up only 1 percent of the 
firearms in circulation, assault weapons are in proportion used more 
often to commit crimes. In fact, these weapons are 18 times more likely 
than other guns to be cop-killers, and 16 times more likely to be 
traced to crime than other firearms.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Assault weapons are used by 
criminals,not hunters or sport shooters. The sole purpose of these 
weapons is to kill a lot of people quickly. What was originally 
intended for military combat, has now become the weapon of choice for 
drug dealers and gangs.
  These large-capacity ammunition weapons have resulted in death and 
injury throughout our Nation. Last year alone assault weapons resulted 
in: The killing of 6 and the wounding of 19 on a Long Island commuter 
train; the killing of 2 CIA workers and the wounding of 3 others in 
McLean, VA; the killing of 8 and the wounding of 6 in a San Francisco 
high-rise office building, and the list goes on.
  Foreign nations are now issuing travel advisories to warn their 
citizens about traveling to our Nation due solely to the epidemic of 
gun violence. And foreign visitors are not the only ones fearful, most 
U.S. citizens experience this same fear daily. My own constituents who 
live in small rural towns now rate crime as the No. 1 issue.
  Mr. Speaker, according to a recent Washington Post editorial:

       One of the lamest excuses a House member can parrot from 
     the [assault weapons ban opponents] is that there's no 
     difference between assault-style weapons and the firearms of 
     sporting. If this is so, why are law enforcement groups from 
     coast to coast pleading for passage of a bill to ban the sale 
     of 19 specific models? Who's more believable--the cops who 
     are out there dealing with armed criminals everywhere, or 
     representatives of the weapons manufacturers worldwide who 
     promote anything with a trigger?

  The Assault Weapons Ban Act has the support of every major law 
enforcement group including the National Association of Police 
Organization, the National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive 
Research Forum, Police Foundation, Police Management Association, the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers.
  In addition, organizations representing education, children, the 
medical community, social services providers, civic groups, lawyers, 
clergy, and government have voiced their support for a ban on assault 
weapons. Groups such as the American Bar Association, American Nurses 
Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of 
Pediatrics, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, 
League of Women Voters, AFL-CIO, National Urban League, NAACP, Handgun 
Control, and the National Education Association all support the bill.
  The bill has also been endorsed by three former Presidents including 
Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding an end to the growing 
epidemic of gun violence. H.R. 4296 cannot end all the violence brought 
on by guns, but it is a step in the right direction. In California 
where assault weapons are now banned, preliminary statistics indicate 
that it has slowed down the growth in the use of these weapons as 
compared to the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to take back our streets from the criminals 
and to end the carnage that has made us all prisoners of our own fear. 
We cannot wait any longer. House Resolution 416 is a fair rule that 
will enable us to consider this very important legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the 
bill it makes in order.
  This bill is misguided because it penalizes good law-abiding American 
citizens, not the criminals who are the cause of the problem. The 
criminals will ignore this law. The law abiding will have their rights 
taken away.
  In the Rules Committee yesterday I moved to make in order a 
substitute for this bill offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum].
  The McCollum substitute is a rational solution to the problem of gun 
violence. It provides mandatory prison terms for use of a firearm 
during a State crime of violence or State drug trafficking crime.
  This approach penalizes the criminal who is guilty of abusing a gun, 
not law-abiding American citizens.
  My motion was turned down in the Rules Committee and the main 
objection was that the substitute would have required a waiver of 
points of order. But, Mr. Speaker, this rule before us today waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill and also waives all 
points of order against the committee substitute.
  Why should our substitute not have been given the same waiver? The 
rule also prohibits all other amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is the second shoe to drop on the way to 
taking away the right of Americans to bear arms. The first shoe to drop 
was the Brady bill which was signed into law last November. Mark my 
words, this will turn out to be a centipede with a lot of shoes.
  If this bill is passed, there will soon be another one cutting away a 
little more of the right to bear arms provided under the second 
amendment to the Constitution.
  The ironic part of this is that many of the same people who are 
cutting away our rights under the second amendment, are the ones who 
would be most insistent about protecting rights under the first 
amendment, like free speech. All of our rights under the U.S. 
Constitution should be protected, not just ones that the current 
President happens to favor.
  Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill have given the impression that 
weapons banned by this bill produce a spray of bullets. This is just 
not the case. The firearms banned in this bill are not machine guns. 
Machine guns are already restricted by law. The guns being banned in 
this bill are semiautomatic and fire only one shot with each pull of 
the trigger.
  They are useful for target shooting, self-defense, and hunting, just 
as other firearms are.
  Moreover, the supporters of this bill repeatedly make reference to 
the 19 weapons which are specifically banned under this bill. But the 
actual number which would be banned is much greater than that.
  In the Congressional Record of May 2 Senator Larry Craig inserted 
correspondence with the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms, concluding that the actual number of weapons banned under 
Senate language similar to this bill is approximately 180, not just the 
19 often cited by supporters of this bill.
  Some supporters of this bill give the impression that so-called 
assault weapons are used in a large percentage of crimes. But I would 
like to cite an unimpeachable source, namely the chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee, my good friend Jack Brooks, who in dissenting 
views accompanying this bill notes a number of relevant facts.
  For example, Chairman Brooks points out that most of the firearms 
labeled as assault weapons in this bill are rifles--yet rifles are the 
category of firearms used least often in the commission of violent 
crimes.
  The next fact which should be kept in mind is this. The FBI Uniform 
Crime Reports, 1992, the most recent comprehensive data available, 
shows that rifles of any description are used in only 3.1 percent of 
homicides, while knives are used in 14.5 percent of homicides. This 
means that knives are used in more than four times as many homicides as 
all rifles, not just rifles banned in this bill.
  But there is more. It turns out that fists and feet are used in 5 
percent of all homicides. When are we going to ban those? Also blunt 
objects are used in another 5 percent of homicides. Are we going to ban 
rocks, for example?
  Professor Gary Kleck, of Florida State University, the 1993 recipient 
of the American Society of Criminology's Hindelang Award, estimates 
that only one half of one percent of violent crimes are committed with 
assault weapons. This bill is clearly missing the target, Mr. Speaker.
  But there is more. Right here in Washington, DC, which has the 
highest per capita rate of homicides of any major city in the United 
States, between 1980 and 1993 there occurred only four rifle related 
homicides out of a total of more than 4,200 homicides in the period 
according to the metropolitan police.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with crime out there, but this bill 
is not the solution. It is not even a meaningful part of the solution.
  Mr. Speaker, the actual purpose of this bill is to direct attention 
away from the real cause of crime, namely, the criminal. This bill is 
part of an agenda which advances the notion that things other than the 
criminal--such as guns, root causes, or sociological conditions--are 
the cause of crime.
  If Congress adopts the theory that limiting access to firearms 
reduces crime, there will be increasing pressure to ban more and more 
of them. Eventually the right to bear arms will be nullified.
  At the same time murder and mayhem will continue, because we are 
failing to do the things that need to be done to deter crime, take 
criminals off the street and keep them off the street.
  The House had an opportunity to get tough on crime when the 
Republican anticrime agenda was offered a few weeks ago.
  It included such things as prison construction combined with truth in 
sentencing, a workable death penalty, and reform of the exclusionary 
rule. That bill was the way to reduce crime. This bill is not.
  In the Rules Committee yesterday there was another opportunity to do 
something real about crime, when the McCollum substitute was offered. 
But that opportunity was voted down.
  This bill is a step in the wrong direction, that is, taking away the 
constitutional rights of American citizens. And the sad part is that 
crime will still be just as much of a problem if this bill is passed as 
it is now. This bill should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           62      13         21       49         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 4, 1994.                                                          


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  .................................
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  (Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, There is an old joke about a lawyer who 
is representing the owner of a dog that bit somebody. First, he says 
the dog did not bite the man. When that does not work, he says that the 
client did not own a dog. And when that does not work, he says that the 
dog was not a dog.
  That is exactly what the National Rifle Association is doing. First, 
they said that assault weapons do not kill people, people kill people. 
When that did not work, they said that these assault weapons are not 
assault weapons. When that did not work, they said that there is no 
such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon.
  Well, to go back to that old expression: These dogs won't hunt.
  It is so rare that we deal with issues that are so clear cut, that 
make such basic common sense. These are weapons of war and now the 
artillery of the drug trade. Let me tell you about one story from my 
city I heard from my district attorney. It happened last year. Four 
men, three of them brothers, were standing on a corner in west 
Philadelphia. They were not involved in crime; they were just on the 
wrong corner at the wrong time. Because, it was a drug corner, and they 
were getting in the way of business.
  Four of the men who controlled the corner arrived, all armed, one 
with an M-11. They opened fire. Nineteen shells were recovered from the 
M-11. Two men died. One brother is confined to a wheelchair. One man 
was shot eight times and, remarkably, survived.
  I have said enough. Let us vote for the rule, and then vote to rid 
our streets of these killing machines.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very 
distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], who has to go back up to the Committee on Rules, 
which is meeting right now.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today's discussion presents a unique 
legislative situation. While technically H.R. 4296 is a free-standing 
bill, there are many strings attached. The fact is, H.R. 4296 is a 
vehicle for this House to clearly state its will on a selective assault 
weapon ban, not to tinker with the fine print of such a proposal. I 
understand the benefits of focusing on the broad philosophical issue: 
Will this ban on selected assault weapons help to reduce violent crime 
in our communities? Statistics and evidentiary experience show the 
answer is no. But this rule precludes discussion of the other half of 
this crucial question: Wouldn't the guarantee of tougher penalties do 
more to reduce violent crime in our communities? I am convinced the 
answer to that question is a resounding yes. Many of us who feel this 
selective gun ban will prove ineffective in combating crime believe 
very strongly that tough and consistent penalties for abuse of firearms 
will work. Yet, under this rule, the House is denied the chance to 
debate Mr. McCollum's proposal to ensure tough, mandatory, minimum 
sentences for possession and use of guns in the commission of a crime.
  Most law enforcement officials tell us that assault weapons are not 
the key to crime in this country--in fact, even proponents of this bill 
know that assault weapons are responsible for only a small fraction of 
all violent crimes. We have failed to hold people accountable for their 
actions--we have failed to guarantee that heinous crimes and violence 
will lead to sure, swift, and stringent penalties. We have failed to 
make sure that crime in this country will not pay. In the Rules 
Committee, we were told that Mr. McCollum's proposal for mandating 
tough minimum sentences in cases of unlawful activity with guns is 
nongermane or, not relevant to this discussion. In my view, this ban on 
certain, selected assault weapons is nongermane and not relevant to 
solving our very serious crime problem in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, a 1990 Florida commission studied the merits of a ban on 
assault weapons, and concluded that such a ban would have no impact on 
crime-related deaths in our State. In fact, an informal survey of law-
enforcement officials in southwest Florida confirms that only three 
deaths can be traced to assault weapons--although they are not 
necessarily those on the select ban list--and one of those deaths was a 
suicide. Americans have a constitutional right to own guns for self-
protection, for deterence, for hunting, for target sport shooting, for 
collection, and for other lawful activity. I make a very clear 
distinction between ownership and use of those weapons. Sadly, a 
selective ban on assault weapons will not stop criminals from getting 
their hands on deadly weapons and committing deadly crimes. What it 
will do is further restrict law-abiding folks from going about their 
business.
  Mr. Speaker, the understandable passions and thoughtful, sincere 
concern on both sides of this debate demonstrate the true problem: 
Americans are fed up with being afraid--we have had enough of our 
misguided and ineffective criminal justice system, which is sending the 
signal that crime in America still does pay.
  So as we struggle to make our neighborhoods safe once again for law-
abiding citizens--let us not be fooled by high-profile, but 
unfulfillable promises.
  I wish I could believe that this ban will reduce violent crime. But 
after listening to the arguments on both sides and looking at the facts 
of crime in this country, I am convinced the criminals will go right on 
committing violent crimes and they will still be able to get their 
hands on guns--selective ban or no selective ban. Who knows, some may 
actually become emboldened by knowing that their law-abiding victims 
will not be able to match their firepower. In the end, this bill asks 
Americans to give up part of their freedom. But what do Americans get 
in return? I am afraid it will be little and we will have once again 
missed the chance to do something significant to stop crime. I oppose 
this rule and will vote ``no'' on H.R. 4296.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Politics of guns. Politics of guns. Tough issue. 
Congress has traditionally put this sensitive and tough political issue 
on automatic pilot.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is today Air Force One has taken leadership 
and they are bringing it down to Earth by calling for a vote. I want to 
give President Clinton credit today. He is going out politically on a 
limb and, Congress, if you are not prepared at some time in your life 
to go out on a limb, you will never collect the fruit and if there is a 
time to go out on the limb politically, today, is that day.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a former sheriff and let me say this: The second 
amendment to the Constitution makes sure that Americans can bear arms 
and have the right to protect themselves, but the Constitution never 
intended for individuals to strap a stinger missile on their back and 
then cite the second amendment privilege.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reality here, a real reality. I have a gun, 
and if I catch somebody in my house at 3 o'clock in the morning, I hope 
I have the drop on them and I am not going to ask them if they are 
there from the local welcome wagon. But there is a limit here, folks. 
You do not have to give up your assault weapon, America. If you have 
one, you can keep it. And if you decide to sell it to another 
sportsman, there are provisions that you can do that. But I am going to 
submit a bill and ask our Congress to authorize that the President, the 
NRA, the police, and the Congress all get together and develop a plan 
about guns that America can live with, live with.
  Mr. Speaker, we are getting phone calls from people who say ``no'' 
and they mean well, and they are good Americans, but we are not getting 
calls from the grave sites and cemeteries all over America today.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have got to stand up, we have a President who 
has come out and shown some courage. Let us stand with the President 
today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], the distinguished ranking member emeritus of 
our Committee on Rules.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill itself. I think it will 
be another foot in the door if it passes to do away with all guns, any 
brand, any kind whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are entitled by the second 
amendment of the Constitution to bear arms. I oppose the measure on its 
final vote and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. Speaker, I said on the floor when the Brady bill was up that I 
believed we would have other measures before us to ban any kind of guns 
and weapons. These assault weapons are used by many people for target 
practice, sports competitions, collections, and for other good 
purposes. It is a shame and a disgrace to kill anybody, and I do not 
condone that, nobody does.
  Mr. Speaker, again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the final 
passage of this measure.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber is very, very close 
to doing the right thing and passing the assault weapons ban. This vote 
could very well be decided this afternoon by those in this body who 
want to do the right thing and vote for this bill but who are feeling 
enormous political pressure from some very powerful interests. My 
colleagues have probably heard from these interests, have probably 
heard the passage of this bill is a slippery slope that could end up in 
the banning of hunting rifles from law-abiding citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that nothing could be farther from the 
truth. Hunting is a strong tradition and heritage in my State of Maine. 
There are many thousands of hunting sportsmen and women who own and use 
firearms, they are responsible citizens and should not have to worry if 
politicians or bureaucrats from Washington are going to deny them or 
their children the right to own their firearm and carry on this proud 
tradition and heritage. But let us be clear. This vote is not about the 
firearms used by hunters in Maine and America. It is a vote to ban from 
our streets military assault weapons that were designed to kill 
onrushing enemy troops in close combat, killing machines designed to 
kill large numbers of people in very short periods of time.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Rifle Association provides some very 
important services. Growing up I learned to shoot safely and 
responsibly through an NRA gun safety instruction program, but on this 
issue they are dead wrong. There is a great deal of difference between 
responsible sportsmen and women of Maine and America and the gangs, 
drug dealers, and drug-crazed criminals that roam the main streets of 
America, turning them into killing fields with these powerful assault 
weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, the line must be drawn; protecting the rights and 
heritage of sportsmen and women in States like Maine while addressing 
the terror of military assault weapons on our streets. That is exactly 
what this bill is designed to do. I urge its passage.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Miami, FL, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a very distinguished new Member of 
this House.
  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, this bill reminds me of the anecdote, 
the man gets home, finds his wife being unfaithful on the sofa, 
mobilizes to sell the sofa and prohibit all sofas.
  The issue, Mr. Speaker, is not to sell or prohibit the sofa where 3 
percent of the matter occurs or to prohibit the beds where 97 percent 
of the matter may occur. The issue is the need to take strong and 
nonhypocritical measures to prevent the action from occurring, not this 
fatally flawed legislation which is in effect hypocritical.
  Mr. Speaker, let me show two photographs here. One of these weapons 
is prohibited by this bill; the other one is not. The crucial issue 
here is that the weapon that is prohibited by this bill is made in the 
United States of America. The other one is a Chinese Communist 
produced, with slave labor, weapon. This very lethal weapon produced in 
Communist China, the SKS, will continue to be available, and few 
measures would help the Communist Chinese weapons manufacturing 
business that, as I said, utilizes slave labor and takes advantage of 
most-favored-nation status with the United States more than this 
hypocritical legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to call this legislation what it really is: The 
Communist Chinese Slave Labor Gun Manufacturing Relief Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not serious crime fighting legislation. There 
are serious business undercurrents in this legislation; serious 
business undercurrents. People that apparently do not have the power 
here, the business power to have gotten out of the legislation are in 
the legislation. I know the Communist Chinese whom we are being very 
nice to in our commercial dealings in the United States, they are not 
prohibited, and I have here the photograph of the Communist Chinese 
weapon, and there are others. There are others that I have not been 
able to get a straight answer about that also will be able to be 
imported and sold in this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious measure. I have supported all 
serious gun control legislation like the Brady bill to keep guns out of 
the hands of felons and to prevent crimes of passion, but this is 
hypocritical. This is window dressing and it should be defeated.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good first step toward what I 
hope will one day be a more comprehensive Federal system of gun control 
legislation--a system that does not prohibit sportsmen from hunting but 
does protect our citizens from mayhem in the streets. This bill 
prohibits military style assault weapons that spray a large number of 
rounds in a relatively short period of time. These weapons and large-
capacity clips have no legitimate civilian use, period. They are 
useless to hunters--five rounds fired into a duck will only make duck 
soup. They are military weapons designed for use against people--they 
are perfect for wiping out an opposing gang, arming a paramilitary 
organization, or shooting yeshiva students on a bridge.
  These weapons of war are the guns of choice of terrorists and 
criminals. They have names like ``Striker 12'' and ``Street Sweeper.'' 
I can assure my colleagues that these military style weapons are not 
being used to sweep the streets of New York City of deer. ``Street 
Sweepers,'' Uzis, AK-47's, and similar assault weapons are sweeping our 
children off street corners.
  Mr. Speaker, the people I represent are tired of attending the 
funerals of children murdered with these legally available weapons of 
war. We have been subjected to a lot of rhetoric about the rights of 
gunowners. On behalf of my neighbors, I am here today to speak on 
behalf of the right of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens to go to work, 
to school, and to the corner store without being slaughtered by weapons 
of war.
  In Brooklyn, just last week, a gun battle erupted in which police 
officers were outgunned by narcotics dealers, one carrying a TEC-9. In 
Buffalo, there have been four assault weapons incidents and two deaths 
from assault weapons in the first 4 months of 1994. Firearm deaths now 
surpass motor vehicle fatalities in my home State of New York.
  Polls have consistently shown that between 77 and 80 percent of 
Americans support this bill, as do more than 90 percent of New York 
City residents. Former Presidents Carter, Ford, and Reagan support this 
bill. In my State, all those charged with law enforcement, from the 
attorney general to the Association of New York State District 
Attorneys, to the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, to 
the New York County District Attorney, support this bill. Let us stop 
the killing. Let us take the first step. Let us pass this bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  (Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule.
  Too often, the House has a closed rule, allowing for no amendments, 
even in situations when legislation has not been considered before the 
House.
  With an issue of this significance it is particularly egregious. It 
is clear that there are significant concerns in this bill that must be 
addressed and with this rule those concerns cannot be considered.
  In fact, the Chairman has circulated a letter to Members of the House 
from the conference committee supporting a reporting change that needs 
to be made in this legislation. While I support this reporting change 
by the conference committee, this should have been done by amendment on 
the House floor. Additionally, other concerns should be equally 
considered by the Members on the floor. Therefore, it is important that 
we vote down this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a very distinguished former prosecutor, a Member 
of this House and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct five misstatements about 
this bill and the weapons it contains that have already been made on 
the House floor this morning.
  First, these are not assault weapons. True assault weapons are true 
military weapons. That means pull the trigger once, or they have the 
capacity to set and pull the trigger once, and it continuously fires. 
Such weapons are already banned.
  These are semiautomatic weapons. That means pull the trigger once, it 
fires once.
  Second, these are not battlefield or combat weapons. None of these 
weapons are issued by any standing army on Earth.
  Third, the claim is that this bill bans 19 and only 19 weapons. That 
is not correct. This bill bans a specific list of 19 weapons plus any 
other firearm that meets certain other criteria. Such criteria can be 
that it has the capacity for holding a bayonet.
  When was the last time criminals launched a bayonet charge at 
anybody?
  Fourth, these weapons are not more effective at killing than any 
other kind of weapon. Obviously whether a weapon has a bayonet mount or 
not has nothing to do with how it fires. The proof could have been 
arranged by the proponents of this bill, and it was not. They could 
have staged a range test. They could have publicly demonstrated in a 
comparison between what they call assault weapons and other weapons how 
the assault weapon is able to fire better, faster, more accurately. 
They have not done it, because they cannot do it.
  Finally, the claim has been made there is no valid use for these 
weapons other than committing crimes. This may become the most 
important part of the bill, because if the proponents believe their 
rhetoric, why do they exempt all of what they call assault weapons from 
confiscation today? What this bill is, is the future manufacture of 
these weapons is banned.
  If these weapons were only used by criminals, if these weapons had no 
law-abiding purpose, which we have just heard over and over again, 
would it not be logical to say they should be banned right now? They do 
not say it, because a million law-abiding Americans do own them right 
now.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that more New Yorkers die on a 
yearly basis from gunshot wounds than die from vehicular accidents, and 
that the cost to the American health care system from gunshot wounds is 
$1.4 billion a year and rising.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever the gun advocates say, the facts prove a 
different story: when a firearm is used for crime, it is 19 times more 
likely to be an assault weapon than some other type of gun. When a 
police officer is shot to death, it is 18 times more likely that an 
assault weapon was used. These deadly machines are the armament of 
choice for the gangsters and the drug dealers infesting our 
neighborhoods.
  It is clear why criminals prefer assault weapons. Their rapid rate of 
fire and their random spray make them the most dangerous and fearsome 
guns around. In just five horrible seconds, an Uzi can fire 30 bullets. 
In the underworld of gang warfare, this destructive power is the key to 
success.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are fed up with teenaged tyrants 
packing AK-47's. They are fed up with the crazed loners who randomly 
fire assault weapons to terrorize schoolyards and offices and commuter 
trains. Parents are fed up with sending their children out into streets 
that have become war zones.
  Assault weapons are not used primarily for target shooting or for 
hunting.
  Mr. Speaker, hunters in my district say they would certainly not go 
hunting with one unless they were hunting for hamburger.
  They are used to intimidate and to murder. They were designed for 
combat. They have no place in our society.
  Banning them means saving lives, and do not let anyone tell you 
otherwise.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me say I think this is a very sad day 
for this House on two standards. It is a sad day procedurally, and it 
is a sad day in substance.
  Let me talk first about procedure. After 40 years of the Democrats 
controlling the House, as they get further and further away from normal 
Americans and from the average citizens, they more and more rig the 
game by restricting rules.
  Back in 1977 and 1978, only 15 percent of the rules were restrictive; 
85 percent were open. Today in this Congress so far, 79 percent of the 
rules, virtually 4 out of every 5, are restricted by the Democrats 
because they are afraid.
  Let us take this bill. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, of great standing, a man who 
knows the subject, had a very powerful amendment which would have 
focused on violent criminals, which would have, in fact, added a new 
felony for possessing one of these firearms in the commission of a 
crime, would have counted it as the second strike towards a three 
strikes and you go to life imprisonment, would have made this bill not 
just harass the middle class, irritate people who honestly own a gun, 
but actually go after violent criminals: lock them up, do something 
real about the dangerous people who haunt our streets. Because the 
truth is if you were to take every weapon mentioned today off the 
street, you would have pistols, you would have guns that work precisely 
like these, that are in fact specifically exempted by this bill, 650 
kinds of guns specifically exempted, and the dangerous criminal, the 
one who shoots everybody in the liquor store, and I just want to 
continue to make the point that after 40 years of Democratic Party 
control of this House, the Committee on Rules and the Democratic 
leadership were so afraid that an amendment aimed at locking up violent 
criminals would pass, that the people in this country would insist that 
we focus on the people who are violent, that we take them off the 
street, that we lock them up permanently, that they refused to make it 
in order.

                              {time}  1250

  Not only do they refuse to make it in order under the normal amending 
process, but they restricted the Republicans from their right to offer 
a motion to recommit with instructions.
  Now, why is the Democratic leadership so afraid that we will focus on 
locking up real criminals? Because they know that what they brought to 
the floor today is a press release; it is not involving real crimes, 
involving real people, because real murderers, such as the man who 
killed Polly Klaas can use a variety of weapons. For Polly Klaas the 
knife that that man held was an assault weapon.
  The fact is that real criminals, real murders, real rapists do a 
variety of evil things because we refuse to build prisons, we refuse to 
pass the sentences, we refuse to insist on locking them up. I think 
that it is sad commentary on the Democratic leadership, after 40 years, 
that they were afraid to allow their Members to face a vote on locking 
up violent criminals, and I think it is a fatal flaw of this bill that 
it does not focus on the criminal, it does not focus on the act of 
violence, it does not focus on the people who are doing things wrong; 
it just tries to give those people who have refused to do that a nice 
press release to send back home saying, ``Oh, I am really tough.'' The 
truth is no people are going to be saved by this because the really 
violent are going to get other weapons and are going to do what they do 
as long as we allow them to stay on the street.
  I think there are two crimes involved: The violent crime on the 
street, and the crime against decent participatory legislation by this 
Committee on Rules once again passing a closed rule out that blocks the 
Members from having an honest chance to amend.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the bill 
and hope that it will meet final passage. We have here a lot of 
rhetoric today from the other side about the fact that we want to be 
concerned about the criminals and if in fact we are serious about 
crime, that we should be concerned about the criminals. Just a couple 
of weeks ago, when we had a crime bill here on the floor of the House, 
Mr. Speaker, the same people who are giving us that rhetoric today were 
very hesitant about providing prevention money. They think that the 
answer to the concerns for the criminal is just to build more prisons. 
Mind you, if we have more crime and more criminals, we have to have 
more prisons.
  But if we are really concerned about the crime in this country, 
certainly we should be trying to treat crime futuristically and 
prospectively and providing more prevention money so that we can get to 
the root cause of crime instead of just housing more criminals in 
prisons, which are a festering hole for crime, so that when they get 
back out on the streets they are just more hardened than they were when 
they got in.
  What this bill is really about is not the criminals, whether 
criminals are going to have access to AK-47's in a black market. What 
it is really about is those people who want the right to bear arms. 
This bill does not prevent those who are already existing gun owners of 
street sweepers and AK-47's from relinquishing those guns; they can 
still continue to own them, it is grandfathered in.
  What it is talking about is a cessation and a rescission of the 
manufacturing, so that we will stop the continuation of all these guns 
proliferating out on our streets.
  If one or two lives can be saved, Mr. Speaker, then it is certainly 
worth it. The Constitution is not in jeopardy, their rights are not in 
jeopardy, but certainly crime and violence can be abated by the passage 
of this bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of our newer 
Members, the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  (Mr. DICKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  We have before us this gun control amendment. In the backdrop, let us 
imagine that there is a special interest lobbyist group that we will 
call the Right to Crime. This group is made up of criminals everywhere, 
past and present, and new members are being recruited every day even as 
we speak. Now, what does this Right to Crime organization have to sell? 
Well, they really have some momentum going for them. They have not had 
to work too hard to accomplish the following in 5 or 6 short years:
  First, assert and reinforce the impression that they are victims; 
second, completely submerge the absence of rights they gave to the 
victims at the time of the crime; third, lessen the consequences of 
their acts by making it hard to get conviction, give the criminal, the 
members of this lobbyist group an easy time in prison, gymnasiums, 
weight rooms, college scholarships, color TV's, Walkmans, access to the 
courts at will, and medical care, the very finest, on demand, and an 
early release from their sentence after their minor inconveniences, and 
also the freedom to do it again.
  What diversion does this group, the Right to Crime, use? First, they 
direct attention to emotionalism rather than justice, they give high 
visibility to Jim Brady and others rather than talking about justice. 
Second, they direct attention to less than 1 percent of the crime as 
being caused by these semiautomatic weapons rather than enforcing the 
laws when people violate them with guns. Third, they direct attention 
to the NRA when they cannot explain the failure of the gun control laws 
in Washington, DC, New York City, or when they are faced with the 
statement of the proposition that the second amendment is being 
abolished.
  Fourth, try to get us to believe that guns kill people, not people 
killing people. Fifth, try to describe the guns as ugly while hiding 
the fact that it is the criminal who is ugly.
  Sixth, try to say that this is not a progression toward full gun 
registration and control, when in fact we have not forgotten the same 
words when they were said about the Brady bill.
  For the people who feel estranged from this Government, for the 
respect of our Constitution, and for our rights and control of our 
lives, vote against this bill and the amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman who has the privilege of representing, among other parts of 
Kentucky, Southgate, his home town in Kentucky, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the bill, H.R. 
4296.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4296, the misguided attempt 
to ban so-called assault weapons.
  A couple weeks ago, when we were considering the crime bill, we had 
an opportunity to do something about crime--to get tough on crime--but 
the majority of the Members of this body weaseled out.
  We had the chance to enact truth in sentencing guidelines, reform of 
the exclusionary rule, real habeous corpus reform and a workable death 
penalty--changes that would have made a difference. This body refused 
to do that. This body refused to get tough on criminals and now it 
wants to change the subject and get tough on guns.
  H.R. 4296, is a circus sideshow. It will do nothing to reduce crime. 
It is simply one more bite into personal freedom, one more expansion of 
the Federal Government's role in our personal lives and one more nibble 
into the right to bear arms.
  The notion that assault weapons are disproportionately used in crime 
is unsubstantiated. Criminals rarely use semiautomatic rifles. The ATF 
recently estimated that there was roughly one assault weapon trace for 
every 4,000 violent crimes reported to the police. Clearly these are 
not the weapons of choice for criminals.
  Gun bans do not work. They disarm the law-abiding citizens--not the 
criminals.
  And make no mistake about it, this is not the last we will hear from 
the gun-control crowd. If we pass this measure, they are not going to 
fold their tents and go home satisfied. They are going to be back 
wanting more and more and ever more restrictions on guns. Their 
eventual goal is registration and confiscation.
  If we pass this bill today, we will be setting a dangerous precedent 
that could lead us down a very slippery slope. Once Congress adopts the 
theory that limiting access to firearms reduces crime, there will be 
tremendous pressure to ban more and more of them until the right to 
bear arms is effectively nullified.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Let's not try to 
blame crime on weapons. Let's put the blame where it belongs--on a 
criminal justice system that worries more about protecting the rights 
of criminals than the rights of victims and on a U.S. Congress that 
wastes its time on gun bans instead of getting tough on crime.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, ``this bill is vague, broad and an indiscriminate ban on 
firearms in this country that leaves our Second Amendment rights in the 
hands of Federal bureaucrats.''
  Those were my words in 1991 when this chamber debated a proposal to 
ban certain semiautomatic weapons. H.R. 4296 is not the bill we 
considered in 1991, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
legislation before us today.
  This bill is tightly focussed. It prohibits by name the manufacture 
and sale of 19 specific semiautomatic weapons. Instead of the sweeping 
authority contained in the 1991 bill, the legislation before us today 
limits the ban to those guns with characteristics useful only for 
military combat and violent crime.
  It is unthinkable that in our society, we continue to allow citizens 
to walk the streets with guns that have grenade launchers, flash 
suppressors, and bayonet mounts. What legitimate recreational purpose 
could these characteristics possibly serve? As a hunter, I tell you 
assuredly: ``none.''
  Opponents of this bill cite statistics which indicate that assault 
weapons account for only 1 percent of the guns in circulation. What 
they neglect to point out is that this 1 percent is used for over 8 
percent of criminal activity. From 1986 to 1991, 20,526 semiautomatic 
weapons were traced to criminal activity, and of those, 1,349 were 
specifically traced to murders and 4,031 were linked to drug 
trafficking activities.
  The simple fact is that we will not completely stop the violence on 
our streets with this ban. What we are doing with this bill is finally 
taking a definitive stand against violence in our streets and in our 
schools. We are letting the American people know that we have listened 
to their concerns about escalating and indiscriminate violence by 
prohibiting companies to manufacture and sell these assault.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
this time to me.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule 
for H.R. 4296, the ban on military style assault weapons, and to urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no legitimate reason for any individual to own 
an Uzi, an AK-47 or a TEC-9. These are the vicious instruments of war, 
the implements of death. They are inviting and inflicting a reign of 
terror on the people of this land, on the people of New York, Los 
Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta.
  There are those who would have us believe that this is an issue of 
sport and freedom, but it is not, this issue, this vote today, is an 
issue of war and the loss of security in the cities and in the streets 
of America. Let us take this step, this small step, to restore a sense 
of peace and tranquillity to our communities by removing these 
instruments of violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I am tired, tired of attending the funerals of young men 
and young women killed by the hail of bullets spewed from these 
instruments of mass destruction. I am tired of consoling the weeping 
mothers and bereaved fathers of innocents caught up in the slaughter, 
in this madness. We must stop this insanity.
  I appeal to my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to summon up 
the courage, to stand up and be strong, to do what in your hearts, you 
know to be right. Support this bill, support the ban on assault 
weapons.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Brooks].
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule crafted 
by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 4296.
  Some of you might legitimately wonder why I am here today instead of 
negotiating with the Senate in a conference meeting on the crime bill--
the No. 1 issue concerning all Americans across this country. I am here 
because of the delay sought by proponents of H.R. 4296 from having a 
simple up or down vote on the assault weapon issue immediately 
following the April 21 passage of the crime bill. That certainly was my 
preference. At the very least, I had hoped that we could have a 
separate vote the following week--the week of April 25. That also was 
not to be.
  The proponents sought additional time to try to convince all who 
might listen that this ill-conceived initiative would, in a single 
stroke, stop all violent crime in America. Whether it would infringe on 
the second amendment rights of honest American gun owners who use arms 
for lawful purposes such as target shooting, hunting, and self-defense, 
never entered their minds, and now 2 weeks after the crime bill passed, 
the House finally has before it a bill, H.R. 4296, that closely tracks 
the Feinstein amendment appearing in the Senate crime bill. Given this 
history, I think it is appropriate that the Rules Committee, after 
careful deliberation, chose to adopt a closed rule not allowing any 
perfecting amendments that favor one side or the other.
  The opponents of H.R. 4296--of which I am proud to include myself--
have bent over backwards to be fair in every way. At both the Judiciary 
Crime Subcommittee and then again at full committee, the proponents of 
this bill were given full opportunity to offer any amendments they 
wished. And they did so. Some other Members came to the Rules Committee 
seeking further amendments. But the pro's and con's of this issue have 
been laid out exhaustively in a number of Congresses.
  For this and other reasons, I believe the rule before us making no 
additional amendments in order is the proper rule. The rule provides 
for a generous amount of time for general debate and then the House can 
get on with the vote. And after the vote, the House will then have a 
position on the issue, and the crime bill conferees--finally--can begin 
to do the real work of the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], a very distinguished Member of this House, and a 
former marine. The gentleman is from Casper, and he is the single 
Representative of the entire State of Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, my wife always reacts to that 
single Member business, but, at any rate, I appreciate the opportunity, 
and I rise in opposition to the rule and to the bill.
  Despite Secretary Bentsen's comments otherwise, the battle to protect 
the second amendment is indeed a grassroots campaign. I have heard from 
hundreds of law-abiding citizens and gun owners in Wyoming that are 
opposed to this legislation: Sportsmen, law enforcement officers, and 
citizens who want to protect their rights.
  For example, let me read a little bit from a grassroots group, and I 
quote:

       We've got to get serious about crime. But a weapons ban is 
     like shooting in the dark. History assures us the only people 
     affected by the ban are honest folks--the potential victims--
     not the criminals. In reality, we're disarming the law-
     abiding, making them easy targets for violent criminals who 
     roam our streets at will.

  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely as this debate has gone 
on, and I just want to make a couple of points, kind of deviating from 
my previous thought. First of all, this is not a specific bill. I quote 
here and show my colleagues the correspondence from Senator Larry Craig 
and the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and they list--
they list the following firearms up here that meet the general 
characteristics of this bill. It is not specific. Indeed there is a 
long list of weapons that could very well be.
  The other one is that, if anyone in this place thinks that the bad 
guys are not going to get a weapon to do what they want to do, that is 
the greatest fallacy I have ever heard. If we thought for a minute that 
banning some arms was going to keep people who wanted to commit crimes 
with weapons from doing that, everyone would be for that. We know that 
is not the case. We know that is not going to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the 
bill.

               Statement Opposing Ban on Assault Weapons

 (By Joel Carlston, Wyoming President of Americans Against Gun Control 
                                [AAGC])

       Right now this body is considering a ban on certain semi-
     automatic weapons. This begs the question, ``Why a ban?''
       The answer, obviously a political one, is ``We need to 
     address crime in this Nation and protect the people of the 
     United States. Banning semi-automatic weapons is a step in 
     the right direction.''
       The facts differ with this political answer. Ninety-eight 
     percent of serious crimes do not involve firearms. Thus, a 
     complete weapons ban could at best address only 2 percent of 
     the problem. In fact, more kids get killed playing little 
     league baseball than from assault weapons. Should we ban 
     little league baseball?
       What about assault weapons and crime? Florida State 
     University criminology professor Gary Kleck estimates that 
     less than .5 percent of all violent crimes involve so-called 
     assault weapons.
       Chicago is a case in point. In 1993, there were over 940 
     homicides. More than 30 percent were police shootings, 
     another 30 percent were suicides, and not one homicide 
     involved the use of a semiautomatic rifle. Further, over one 
     hundred homicides were committed with the use of duct tape 
     and hose, i.e. strangulation. Perhaps, we would be more 
     effective in addressing crime if we were to ban hose or at 
     least specify a five-day waiting period for the purchase 
     thereof.
       Consider this. Of all weapons confiscated by law 
     enforcement in this Nation, only 4 percent were assault 
     weapons. Of that 4 percent, 87 percent were confiscated in 
     searches, not used in the commission of any crime.
       We've got to get serious about crime. But a weapons ban is 
     like shooting in the dark. History assures us the only people 
     affected by the ban are honest folks--the potential victims--
     not the criminals. In reality, we're disarming the law-
     abiding, making them easy targets for violent criminals who 
     roam our streets at will.
       Why do criminals roam the streets? Because we waste our 
     valuable time on useless Brady bills, weapons bans and other 
     gun confiscation measures instead of addressing crime as 
     constituents demand.
       Patrick Purdy is an example of the ineffectiveness of gun 
     control laws and the need to address crime itself. Purdy, you 
     will recall, was the crazed madman who gunned down students 
     in a California school playground.
       Mr. Purdy's record speaks for itself. He spent several 
     months in a California psychiatric hospital. He had seven 
     prior felony arrests, four of which were firearms related. On 
     Purdy's last arrest, a police psychiatrist stated that Purdy 
     was a menace to himself and to society. Yet, each of these 
     felonies were plea-bargained down to misdemeanors and Purdy 
     was released. Consequently, as a result of our revolving door 
     justice system, Mr. Purdy was legally allowed to purchase 
     weapons--having complied with California's 15-day waiting 
     period--even though his record clearly showed his instability 
     and criminal intent. The rest is history--a tragic but real 
     example of the ineffectiveness of gun control laws.
       To further illustrate, let's look at States which have 
     implemented some form of gun control:
       New Jersey: 1967-1989--violent crime has increased 223 
     percent. The Attorney General's office reports ``There is not 
     a really high percentage of crimes committed with assault 
     weapons.'' Only 1 percent of any kind of rifle was used in 
     homicides from 1987-1992, compared to knives (28 percent), 
     and feet (11 percent). This tells us that it is not the 
     configuration of the weapon which makes it an assault weapon, 
     but the intent of the assailant wielding it.
       Massachusetts: 1967-89--violent crime has increased 429%. 
     1986-91--only 0.5% of homicides involved are ``assault 
     rifles.''
       Connecticut: 1967-89--violent crime has increased 434 
     percent. Connecticut law enforcement reports no assault 
     weapons homicides through 1991. And of the 11,000 weapons 
     seized by police between 1988 and 1992, only 1.8 percent were 
     assault weapons.
       ``Has crime decreased anywhere in the United States?'' you 
     ask.
       Yes.
       In April 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring 
     every household to own a firearm, with the exception of 
     criminals and those with religious objections. In only 10 
     months, residential burglary dropped an astounding 89 
     percent. In 1991, not one murder occurred in this suburb of 
     Atlanta.
       In contrast, our city here in the District of Columbia has 
     one of the most restrictive gun laws making it virtually 
     impossible for law-abiding citizens to own guns. From 1975 to 
     1991, Washington, DC's murder rate rose 134 percent while the 
     rest of the Nation experienced a 2-percent decline.
       Why, then, if gun control laws are so ineffective at 
     stopping crime, are we spending so much time on such bills? I 
     don't know.
       Perhaps it's the politically correct thing to do. Pass laws 
     banning weapons, attempting to convince our constituents 
     we're tough on crime. I'm afraid they won't buy that 
     argument, especially when they find out we took their most 
     effective means of self-defense away.
       Perhaps there are other agencies. In a previous attempt to 
     pass legislation similar to what we're considering here, 
     Sarah Brady told Howard Metzenbaum, ``Our task of creating a 
     socialist America can only succeed when those who would 
     resist us have been totally disarmed.''
       Those are strong words. Frightening words. But Brady's 
     right. The protection of the American citizen's rights, 
     including yours and my rights, is directly linked to our 
     Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
       Mind you, Brady is not the first to realize the importance 
     of gun ownership. Thomas Jefferson said, ``No free man shall 
     ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for 
     the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as 
     a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in 
     government.'' James Madison said, ``Americans need never fear 
     their government because of the advantage of being armed, 
     which the Americans posses over the people of almost every 
     other nation.''
       Former President Reagan said, ``there are only two things 
     that make people do right--love of God and fear of 
     punishment.'' Criminals don't regard God, so we must instill 
     the fear of punishment in them.
       The reason crime is so rampant is because is pays and pays 
     big. It's our job to remove the profit, not the victim's most 
     effective means of defense.
       Our problem is we don't punish the criminal. According to a 
     study by the National Center of Policy Analysis, a person who 
     committed a serious crime in 1990 could expect to spend only 
     eight days in prison on the average.
       Here's the breakdown: A person committing murder could 
     expect to spend 1.8 years in prison; for rape--60 days; 
     robbery--23 days; arson--6.7 days; aggravated assault--6.4 
     days and for auto theft--a measly day and a half!
       It's a known fact that repeat offenders commit the majority 
     of violent crimes. It's been reported that murder is mainly 
     one criminal killing another. 85% of the murders have past 
     arrest records and 61% of the victims have past arrest 
     records, too.
       Why is this happening? Because our criminal justice system 
     is turning 90% of the felons loose without them having to 
     spend a single day in jail. Each year, 60,000 felons, like 
     Patrick Purdy, are plea-bargained, placed on probation and 
     never incarcerated.
       Additionally, Reader's Digest reports that only 2.8 cents 
     of every dollar we allocate for building prisons actually 
     goes toward prison construction. I suggest we find ways to 
     put more actual dollars into prison buildings and get 
     predators like Patrick Purdy off the streets permanently.
       No ``assault'' or any other type of firearms has ever, of 
     it's own volition, committed a crime. Therefore to ban a tool 
     will only result in the criminal finding another tool and 
     using it. And it's doubtful any ban would stop criminals from 
     getting the weapons they want. As the saying goes. ``When 
     guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.''
       If we foolishly persist in banning these weapons from law-
     abiding citizens (which is exactly what this bill will do), 
     we are playing right into the hands of criminals by disarming 
     millions of law-abiding Americans, making them extremely 
     vulnerable to criminal attack.
       Further, we are depriving these same law-abiding Americans 
     a constitutional right--a right each of us here swore to 
     protect when members took office.
       So if you vote for this gun prohibition bill, when you know 
     this ban/prohibition will do nothing to stop crime, then be 
     honest enough to tell your constituents you voted for gun 
     prohibition for no good reason other than you wanted . . . 
     you wanted . . . to take firearms away from the American 
     public.
       Thank you.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Klein].
  (Mr. KLEIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to save American 
lives. The 19 specific weapons we seek to ban are all copies of 
military-style submachineguns; they were designed to kill people at 
close quarters with rapid fire lethal bursts and they have succeeded.
  These guns have been connected with more than 1,100 murders; they are 
the weapons of choice for drug dealers, and they have been linked to 
approximately 2,000 narcotics arrests.
  Ninety percent of these weapons are in the hands of criminals. 
Although they are only 1 percent of all guns, they account for nearly 
10 percent of violent crimes.
  Let us take a look at some typical examples of how these weapons have 
been used by violent criminals, drug dealers, and murderers:
  A suspect was arrested in St. Louis for dealing in cocaine. He had 30 
assault weapons in his possession, including an FN/FNC, banned under 
this bill.
  A self-styled survivalist was arrested in Dallas for possession of a 
large quantity of cocaine--they also found two Steyr AUG's and Two AR-
15's with a grenade launcher attachment plus equipment to convert them 
to fully automatic guns.
  In New Orleans, a known gang member and multiple conviction felon 
with a conviction for a drive-by shootings was found in possession of a 
street sweeper and a TEC-22.
  In Minneapolis, authorities confiscated a tax protester's street 
sweeper shotgun decorated with swastikas and ``White Power'' insignias.
  A vanload of Hasidic Jews on the Brooklyn Bridge were fired upon with 
absolutely no provocation. Five innocent pedestrians were brutally 
murdered on the Long Island Railroad. The list of assault gun 
atrocities goes on and on and on.
  Today we do not seek gun control--simply gun sanity.
  We can save many American lives merely by passing this bill. And if 
we fail to act, the criminal world will be laughing and the rest of the 
free world will think we don't have the backbone to be tough on crime.
  Let us show both that they're wrong. Let's get rid of these weapons 
of destruction and pass this bill.
  I have traveled all across my own State and I know that New Jerseyans 
are tough on crime and tough on guns. My constituents are tired of 
seeing the streets controlled by heavily armed criminals. In Essex 
County, a typical New Jersey county, more people died in gun-related 
deaths in 1 year than in Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden combined. 
And that's just one country.
  Americans are horrified at the skyrocketing, gun-related death tolls 
and it's time for Congress to do something about it. New Jersey has the 
toughest assault weapon ban in the country, but it does no good if 
criminals can buy assault weapons in neighboring States and sell them 
on the streets of Newark and Paterson.
  I say to my friends, it is high time for America to follow our lead 
and pass a national assault weapons ban. It is the least we can do for 
our Nation's next generation. Support H.R. 4296.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Ocala, FL [Mr. Stearns].

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, today we consider a further erosion of every citizen's 
right to keep and bear arms. This bill is about honest Americans 
exercising a precious right but being forced into the same category of 
punishment as the criminal.
  The argument for this bill is that the banning of semiautomatic 
weapons will have a significant impact on the reduction of crime and 
won't effect sportsmen. I disagree. Let's get some facts straight about 
what the bill really does.
  It bans over 180 different types of firearms and leaves the door open 
for the banning of hundreds of others.
  It does affect sporting guns such as the Springfield M1A rifle. The 
rifle is used by the highpower rifle target shooter in national 
matches, which incidentally were established by an act of Congress in 
1903.
  The bill supposedly exempts 670 hunting and recreational rifles and 
shotguns, but 586 of these firearms are not even semiautomatics.
  The Bureau of Justice statistics reported in 1993 that violent 
criminals only carry or use a military-type gun in about 1 percent of 
the crimes nationwide.
  However, according to the FBI, people have a much greater chance of 
being killed by a knife, 14.5 percent, or fists, 5 percent, or clubs, 5 
percent, than by any kind of rifle, including an assault rifle.
  A recent FBI report from 1989-92 showed that police are almost two 
times more likely to be injured today by stabbing and beatings, than 
they are by an assault weapon.
  Banning firearms and concentrating on gun control should not be the 
business of this House. There are already over 20,000 gun control laws 
on the books:
  It is a crime punishable with 10-years imprisonment for anyone to 
trade or sell such a converted semiautomatic firearm.
  It is a crime punishable with 10-years imprisonment for a convicted 
felon to possess any firearm.
  It is a crime punishable with a mandatory 15-year imprisonment for a 
criminal with three prior violent or drug-related felonies to possess 
any firearm.
  It is a crime punishable with 10-years imprisonment to transfer a 
firearm knowing that it will be used to commit a violent or drug-
trafficking crime.
  It is a crime punishable with 10-years imprisonment to travel from 
one State to another and acquire, or attempt to acquire, a firearm with 
the intent to use it in a violent felony.
  Obviously, the lack of determined enforcement of our country's laws 
are what are, in part, at the bottom of our Nation's crime problem. 
Concentrating on enforcement, strict incarceration, absence of parole, 
and the death penalty where appropriate would do more to protect our 
citizens and clean up our streets than this feel-good yet ineffective 
measure that ignores the real problems.
  For example, the people of Union County, FL, have been trying for 
over a year to build a prison in their county. They have donated the 
land and offered to pay for the prison's construction. They will build 
it to Federal specifications and are willing to turn it over to Federal 
control, if only the Federal Government will say they will use the 
prison. Yet, incredibly the Justice Department has repeatedly turned 
down the offer. What a waste of innovation and community ingenuity to 
fight crime.
  The FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that from 1980-91, the 10 States 
with the greatest increases in criminal incarceration rates experienced 
the greatest decreases in the rates of crime. If we want to reduce 
crime, then the common sense approach is to put them behind bars and 
not back out on the street.
  The Congress must abandon the flawed and emotional reasoning behind 
H.R. 4296 and look at the facts and start making real choices on how to 
stop crime.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk].
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the assault weapons ban 
because it is smart, sensible legislation that will make our streets 
safer. Our common sense tells us that.
  They say, ``Guns don't kill people, people kill people.'' Tell that 
to the parents of my 24-year-old constituent who was gunned down Sunday 
night by a spray of bullets as he was coming out of a theater in a very 
popular park. Lest you think it cannot happen to someone you know or it 
cannot happen to you, I was in that exact spot 1\1/2\ hours before he 
was killed. But for the fact of the time element of 1\1/2\ hours, it 
could have been me.
  With innocent people being gunned down weekly by these weapons, this 
country cannot afford complacency. Let me again paraphrase last year's 
campaign phrase: ``It is the guns, stupid.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, will their vote belong to the NRA 
or to the American people? I think the answer is clear.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we seem to be overwhelmed by Californians. 
Let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. 
Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California who 
comes from the district next to mine well knows that that weapon used 
in San Diego was not 1 of these 19 weapons.
  Second, I empathize with folks who are not aware of the problems we 
have or what the real issues are. They are talking about weapons of 
war. Not a single 1 of these 19 weapons was used by any military in any 
war. They were not designed as weapons for criminals, yet consistently 
people say that over and over again.
  I have flown an F-14 over this Capitol with a 20-millimeter gun that 
could shoot 6,000 rounds a minute. I could disintegrate this Hall in a 
half-a-second burst. Yet the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] 
would tell me that I cannot carry a 10-shot .22. So it does go beyond 
this.
  Let us take a look at the problem. There are too many guns on the 
streets. We need to get rid of them. We need instant check systems; we 
need to limit the number of people who can sell these weapons, and we 
should find ways to put stiffer penalties on criminals. A drive-by 
shooter should be charged with first-degree, not second-degree murder, 
and anyone in a car involved should automatically go to boot camp.
  Mr. Speaker, let us look at meaningful legislation, not just 
rhetoric.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  This is a very important day in this House. I believe that every 
Member is diligently considering this issue and talking to their 
constituents and their supporters and their friends. This is not a 
debate where we are likely to persuade each other, but I urge the 
Members to talk to their law enforcement officers in their communities, 
talk to the prosecutors, and talk to the police. They are calling me. 
They are beginning the House to pass this bill. They are asking us to 
take the weapons off the streets so they will stop being outgunned day 
after day by the criminals.
  Yes, criminals are the problem, but right now they have greater fire-
power than our law enforcement officers. Let us support our law 
enforcement officers. Vote for the rule and for the bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4296, and urge 
my colleagues to defeat the rule which allows for consideration of this 
bill.
  Once again, this House, through this semi-automatic weapons ban, is 
advocating symbolism instead of substances. This bill is an insult not 
only to the millions of law-abiding gun owners throughout our Nation, 
but also to the hundreds of millions of Americans who are demanding 
substantive action be taken to end our rampant crime problems. This 
measure, along with other efforts which make it impossible for this 
body to pass truth-in-sentencing and address nearly 80 percent of all 
violent crimes, Congress is skirting the true assault weapon--the 
criminal.
  Data from several States which already have banned these types of 
weapons show that this measures will do nothing to stop the 
proliferation of crime. Criminals will always find a way to arm 
themselves. The supporters of this measure are holding up these deadly-
looking weapons and proclaiming they will stop a significant amount of 
our violent crimes.
  The semi-automatic firearms which would be banned by this measure are 
used in less than 1 percent of all violent crimes. Knives account for 
14.5 percent of all homicides in the United States, and fists and feet 
account for another 5 percent. Unfortunately, Congress' debate on the 
crime issue is continuing to focus the majority of its efforts on the 
outer edges of this problem.
  Last weekend, I held two crime forums in my district where 
I discussed the issues involved with Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement officials. The overwhelming consensus from them was that 
Congress does not need to address gun control, but needs to get tough 
on criminals.

  We already have Federal laws which prohibit convicted criminals from 
possessing firearms, and, since 1934, have highly regulated and 
restricted the possession and manufacture of assault weapons, which are 
those that are fully automatic, have the ability to spray bullets, fire 
faster and fire more powerfully as well as destructive ammunition. 
These weapons do not have these capabilities. These weapons are no more 
destructive than many semi-automatic firearms which are widely accepted 
as having legitimate uses--for hunting, sporting, and self-defense.
  The criminal is the true assault weapon, with the deadliest being 
those repeat offenders which commit three-quarters of all rapes and 
robberies and almost all murders. It has been difficult for Congress to 
focus its efforts instead on correcting the reality that these 
criminals serve only about one-third of their sentences. It has also 
been difficult for this Congress to stop coddling the criminals and 
advocating ineffective measures.
  Supporters of this measure constantly argue that law-abiding citizens 
don't need these weapons and that these weapons are primarily used by 
criminals. Well, we've already proven criminals rarely use these 
weapons. And, we should realize Congress' purpose is to uphold the 
Constitution and protect the rights and privileges of the American 
citizens, not to determine what they need and don't need.
  As this debate has surely argued, we are all well award that the 
second amendment to the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of 
Rights, reads: ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the 
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
Arms, shall not be infringed.'' Congress' support for this amendment 
should be as unyielding as our efforts to end our Nation's crime 
problems.
  I urge my colleagues to stop the symbolism, and to devote our time to 
those efforts which will substantively deter crime. I urge my 
colleagues to fulfill their duty of upholding and preserving the 
Constitution of the United States by defeating this most definite 
infringement on law-abiding Americans.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another Californian, 
the gentleman from Huntington Beach, CA [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to 
the bill. Mr. Speaker, preventing honest hard-working citizens from 
owning certain semi-automatic weapons will not bring down crime any 
more than the last liberal-left fantasy that passed this House: Namely, 
a so-called anti-crime bill that guts the death penalty.
  Three police chiefs came to lobby me for this bill. I asked each: Has 
anyone in your city ever been murdered by an assault weapon? The answer 
was ``no, no, no.''
  One did point out that his department had confiscated 253 such semi-
automatic weapons from drug dealers and other criminals.
  That is the point. It is already illegal for criminals to possess 
these weapons. Today, liberals want us to mandate that the police spend 
their limited time and resources to ensure that innocent citizens who 
have never committed a crime can not possess these weapons.
  It is a fraud, against victims who are crying out for safety against 
criminals who murder, rape and rob. And after the liberals make our 
criminal justice system a joke, with procedural and evidentiary rules 
that prevent the conviction of the guilty, they now move to limit the 
right of honest citizens to own weapons to protect themselves.
  Let us not perpetuate this travesty. Vote no on this abominable 
closed rule, and vote against this misdirected weapons ban.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Members that I want to 
respond to the previous speaker, who is one of those Members on the 
floor who is fortunate not to have had a police officer murdered in his 
district by an assault weapon. I take the floor to say that I am sorry 
to say I am not that fortunate.
  Last Thursday Captain Lutz of the Waukeshau police department was in 
pursuit of two robbers in Waukeshau, WI.

                              {time}  1320

  One of the robbers stole the van they were in, got out, sprayed the 
officer with his assault weapon, hitting him 20 times. The officer did 
not have a chance to get out of his squad car, to unharness his 
seatbelt or get out his service revolver.
  Yes, it is happening across this country. I am proud it has not 
happened in your district. It is sad to say, gentlemen, it happened in 
mine this last Thursday.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule 
and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a rare opportunity today. We have a rare 
opportunity to pass legislation that will save lives in this country. 
The 19 weapons we are discussing today were designed with one purpose 
and one purpose only--to kill people. Unfortunately, they are far too 
efficient in reaching that goal. They are extremely effective in 
killing people.
  We should pass this legislation today, for if we do so, we will save 
lives in Milwaukee, WI, in Waukesha, WI, throughout the Midwest and 
throughout this entire country. We should not let this opportunity 
pass. For the people of this country and for the police officers who 
are outgunned by drug dealers, we should pass this legislation.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution does not permit Americans 
to own bazookas. It does not permit Americans to own antitank weapons. 
And it does not permit Americans to own assault weapons.
  Terrorized Americans in their neighborhoods across this country are 
right. The National Rifle Association is wrong. We should ban these 
weapons, to disarm the criminals and the teenagers in this country that 
are terrorizing citizens of this country right now on every 
neighborhood corner in this country.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Ramsey, MN [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this rule I must voice my strong 
opposition to H.R. 4296.
  With the recent passage of the Brady bill the camel's nose finally 
made it inside the tent. And the camel's long neck, not too unlike the 
long arm of Government, will be in the tent too if we continue to 
assault the constitution by banning semiautomatic firearms.
  The people of this country have sent a strong message to Congress: Do 
something about crime. Now.
  And our response? A wimpy crime bill that lets drug criminals out 
early and a proposal that could lead to the banning of 200 
semiautomatic firearms that will do nothing, let me repeat, nothing, to 
address the serious issue of crime in this country.
  The proponents of this bill have two objectives: Long term they want 
to ban guns altogether by taking chunks out of the second amendment; 
and short term they want to fool Americans into thinking Congress is 
addressing their concerns about crime.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want and deserve real protection 
from crime, not political cover for politicians. Instead of focussing 
on the cosmetics of firearms, let's concentrate on meaningful crime 
legislation that punishes criminals and not law-abiding citizens.
  We must kick that camel completely out of the tent before we make a 
mockery of the second amendment to the Constitution and the citizens of 
this country.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to a very 
distinguished Member, formerly from La Verne, CA, but not from 
Claremont, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Glens Falls 
for his very generous introduction.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past hour, I have been listening to some 
extraordinarily emotional stories about crimes that have been 
perpetrated which concern every single one of us. I believe we have 
shared goals with this. But the question is, what route are we going to 
take?
  I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the American people want 
us to address the issue of violent crime.
  Now, clearly, if we defeat this rule, what will we do? We will bring 
out an amendment which gets at the root of this. It is called the 
McCollum amendment. The McCollum amendment does what we want. It 
addresses the person who is using the gun, not the person who legally 
owns the gun.
  What we need to do is we need to tackle those criminals. We do not 
need to tackle law abiding citizens. Unfortunately, this measure opens 
the door for further movement against law abiding citizens.
  Vote against this rule. And, if the rule by chance passes, vote 
against this measure.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a peculiar situation in the world today. The 
United States of America does not wish to send its Armed Forces to 
Bosnia, because they are scared they are going to get killed. The rest 
of the world does not want to send their citizens to the United States, 
because they are afraid they will get killed over here.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us know what the problem is. There are large 
parts of our country today that government can no longer protect its 
citizens in. You know, if we want to see the route that we are headed 
for out in the future, what we need to look at is the places of crisis 
in the world today, to look at Bosnia, to look at Somalia, to look at 
Haiti, to look at other places around the world where guns have gotten 
out of control and government can no longer protect its citizens.
  The longer we fail to deal with this problem, the more certain it is 
that one of these days, our country is going to be another Bosnia, 
another Somalia, another Haiti, where we cannot protect our citizens, 
government cannot protect our citizens. And we all know what it is.
  I talk to Members. I talked to a Member this morning who has been up 
here on the floor and other places against this resolution. I said, 
``Surely you do not believe that.'' He said, ``Well, you know, I really 
do not. I am having a hard time with it. But I am getting these 
telephone calls in my office.''
  Well, 80 percent of the people in this country want to ban assault 
weapons. You have got another 10 or 15 percent that do not, and of that 
you have got another 5 or 6 percent that are very active.
  My colleagues, what they are doing is working that 5 or 6 percent by 
calling your offices. They are intimidating this legislative body. They 
are intimidating you into believing that the average citizen out there 
does not want to do away with assault weapons.
  The average citizen out there has a lot more sense than this body 
has. The average citizen out there is not going to be intimidated, as 
many Members of this body are, by these calls.
  You know, there comes a time I would suspect in everyone's political 
career--man, woman--that you have to pull up your britches, buckle your 
britches and say this is right. And I do not care what the special 
interest groups want, I am going to vote for what is right.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time for this country, now is the time for 
this House, now is the time to vote for this rule and to vote for this 
ban on assault weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 209, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               YEAS--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--209

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Long
     Rangel
     Rogers

                              {time}  1349

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Rogers against.

  Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. 
LEACH, and Mr. LAZIO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan and Mr. LAUGHLIN changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1350

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). Pursuant to House Resolution 
416, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4296.
  In this instance, the Chair appoints the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer] to preside over the Committee of the Whole for the first hour 
of debate and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] to preside over 
the Committee of the Whole for the second hour of debate.

                              {time}  1351


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4296) to make unlawful the transfer or possession of assault 
weapons, with Mr. Volkmer in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be 
recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer] and I ask unanimous consent that he may control 
that period of time and yield such blocks of time within that as he 
desires.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and that he 
be allowed to yield such time as he desires to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield the 
30 minutes that has just been assigned to me to the gentleman from 
Connecticut, Mr. Chris Shays, and that he may be authorized to yield 
such time as he may control under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4296, the so-
called Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. It 
is time we set the record straight and after doing so, vote down this 
misguided effort. If ever the name of a bill was misleading, this one 
is classic.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4296 does nothing to ensure public safety or 
recreational use of firearms. Rather, it places unnecessary, 
unjustified restrictions on the legitimate use of certain weapons. The 
sole purpose of this legislation is to ban certain semiautomatic 
weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, why is it we are doing this thing? Well, during last 
week's subcommittee hearing, supporters of H.R. 4296, such as Mr. 
Magaw, the new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms, said that specified guns should be banned because--and listen 
carefully--because they are intimidating.
  Mr. Chairman, under that line of reasoning, I am surprised that they 
are not just proposing to do away with the second amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution, for as a hunter and sportsman myself, I can assure each 
Member that any gun, even a dart gun or BB gun or 22 rifle is very 
intimidating when the barrel of that gun is pointed directly at you. 
Accessories found on some semiautomatic weapons, such as folding 
stocks, flash suppressors, pistol grabs, bayonet mounts, detachable 
magazines, may look menacing to persons unfamiliar with firearms, but 
there is no evidence that any one of them provides any advantage to the 
criminal. Semiautomatic weapons function in the same manner as any 
other firearm. They fire once when the trigger is pulled. They use the 
same ammunition. They are useful for target shooting, for self-defense, 
for hunting, for other legitimate purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, let us remember that H.R. 4296 bans not only certain 
types of weapons, it also bans any automatic feeding device that holds 
more than 10 rounds of ammunition. If one has a Smith and Wesson 9-
millimeter pistol that holds more than 10 rounds in it because they 
stagger the rounds, then that is illegal, as well as a combination of 
parts that can make up such a device, such as a spring or a roll pin or 
a piece of sheet metal. All of these are defined as firearms under this 
bill. The penalty for having such device, or any combination of these 
parts, is to up 5 years in prison as well as a fine.
  Mr. Chairman, the drafters of the legislation find the pieces of 
sheet metal just as intimidating as they do the actual guns themselves, 
which carry the same penalty.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4296 misidentifies the causes of violent crime. It 
diverts national priorities away from meaningful solutions to the 
problem of violent crime and punishes honest American gunowners who buy 
and use firearms for legitimate, lawful purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, the criminals do not mind. This will not bother them, 
not one lick. They can steal them or buy them on the black market, and 
everybody knows that is the fact. Go outside and put up about $200 or 
$300, and you can get a weapon without a problem. If my colleagues do 
not believe it, go do it.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no need to belabor the flaws in this proposal. 
The entire premise is fatally flawed. Most fundamentally, 4296 unduly 
infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of honest, law-
abiding Americans on the basis of myth and misinformation.
  Mr. Chairman, let us put an end to this mockery of our Bill of 
Rights. Let us stand up for the millions of law-abiding citizens who 
are not criminals.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say this: The criminals will not worry a bit 
about this bill. It is only honest, hard-working American people that 
will be bothered and harassed by this legislation. Let us vote no today 
once and for all.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Before the gentleman begins, the Chair would like to 
remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the 
House, that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings 
is in violation of the rules of the House. The Chair would rather that 
the people in the gallery respect the House and the decorum of the 
House.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. 
It is before us today as pretend crime control.
  The other side has shown us scary guns, used the emotion of fear and 
the tragedy of others for political purposes.
  On our side, all we have are the facts and common sense. The fact is 
that this will not fight crime.
  Assault weapons are not the weapon of choice by killers. These guns 
are used in less than 1 percent of all murders, according to the FBI. 
The public knows that the real causes of crime are the breakdown of the 
family, drugs, and lenient sentencing.
  Two of my colleagues from Wisconsin earlier today have attempted to 
use the tragic killing of a police officer to whip up support for this 
bill. I extend my condolences to the officer's family, but the fact is 
that the weapon that was used in this tragedy would not have been 
banned if this bill were law a month ago. It was grandfathered in under 
the grandfather clause.
  Chief Donald Steingraber of Menomonee Falls, WI, my 
hometown, who stood beside the President on Monday seeking passage of 
this bill, has admitted to me that if this bill were law a month ago it 
would have no effect on the tragic killing of Captain Lutz of Waukesha 
last Thursday.
  Two-thirds of all violent crime is committed by 3 percent of the 
people. That same 3 percent commit three-quarters of all rapes and 
robberies and virtually every murder.
  Let us arrest those people, not law-abiding gun owners who may own 
one of these weapons for self-defense or any other legitimate reason.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does not distinguish between criminals and 
honest citizens. You may recall that I supported the Brady bill because 
I thought it would help keep handguns away from criminals. The NRA 
attacked me for that.
  But this is a different debate. I support laws that keep guns away 
from criminals, but, on the other hand, this bill will take away 
everyone's right.
  Ironically, while the bill does not distinguish between law-abiding 
gunowners and criminals, it does distinguish between good 
guns and bad guns, and unfortunately it fails even at that. Look at the 
text of the bill. Many of the bad guns, although they look different, 
perform exactly the same as the good guns. They shoot the same, they 
use the same bullets, and the only difference is how they look.
  A man in his home or a woman on her farm should be able to defend 
themselves and their family even with scary-looking guns.
  Let us look at the facts; let us use common sense. If a criminal has 
a gun, arrest him. If law-abiding citizens want to use guns to defend 
their families and homes, let them decide what kind of gun they want to 
use.
  The millions of honest gunowners know they are not criminals, and 
they should not be treated as such by the Congress of the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  Automatic weapons are nothing more than an efficient way of killing 
people, a task that is already being done too efficiently by too many 
people in too many American cities.
  Automatic weapons greatly increase the odds that what begins as an 
uncomfortable incident will result in a fatality.
  Mr. Chairman, I have seen the carnage they cause in my neighborhood. 
Just a few weeks ago, on Easter, within a stone's throw of my own home 
in Chicago, a young man was murdered on the steps of a church while a 
thousand parishioners were inside praying. In the parking lot, two more 
young men were shot, and in the other parking lot, two children were 
shot and injured.
  These automatic weapons must be abandoned. We must come to our 
senses. We must stop adding to the weapons already on our streets. 
Crime is out of control. The killing has got to end. It must stop.
  It is time to take a step to reverse the tide of violence that 
threatens to destroy our cities. It is time to get these guns off our 
streets. We must stop them before they kill again.
  My colleagues, I urge you to vote in favor of this important measure.
  Mrs. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the final version of this bill, when it goes to 
conference, will ban the manufacture and sale of specific assault 
weapons that are only used to kill people. These are weapons with no 
hunting, sporting, or other legitimate purposes and for which there is 
no reason for anyone to own except to aid in the commission of crime.
  Is a constitutional right being impinged by this legislation? No. The 
Supreme Court throughout our entire history has held repeatedly that 
the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable police power 
to regulate the type of weapon that is being owned.
  Seventy-five to eighty percent of the American people favor a ban on 
assault weapons, while 20 to 25 percent, perhaps, oppose it and say 
that they have a right to own and use any weapon they choose. And they 
stress over and over their right.
  Mr. Chairman, we are balkanizing America in so many ways, with so 
many special interests insisting that their rights, their needs, and 
their desires must be addressed. We heard so often in the debate on the 
deficit, we want to bring down the deficit, yes, but we do not want to 
give anything of ourselves to accomplish that end. We want to address 
the crime problem, yes, but do not ask us to give anything of ourselves 
to actually do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I am chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, 
but believe me, it is time that we talked in America not just about 
rights but also about responsibilities, what we individually owe to 
make this country work.
  Our police say to us, please, please, put controls on these kinds of 
weapons. We are the people that have to face them. Please, do something 
and rein them in.
  And are we to say, no, no, we insist upon our rights even though you 
face the firepower?
  Yes, we need tough and effective law enforcement and, yes, we need a 
criminal justice system that works to deter criminals. That certainly 
is a part of it.
  But we also need reasonable controls on the ready access to weapons, 
especially weapons of this type that have no other purpose except to 
kill people. We need both.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, we need the courage to pass a tough crime bill, 
and we have shown that courage, but we also need the courage to tell 
the 20 percent who want any gun at any price to society that they have 
responsibilities, too, and it is time they lived up to them. Vote aye.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I must regretfully rise in 
opposition to H.R. 4296. The supporters of this legislation argue that 
this bill will ban 19 specific types of assault weapons, however, they 
fail to mention that aside from these 19 specifically named weapons 
this bill also contains a far reaching ban of other guns and allows the 
Treasury Department to determine which of these guns would be banned. I 
agree that we should restrict access to guns such as the Uzi, the Tec 9 
and the AK-47 assault rifle. These guns have become the gun of choice 
for gangs and drug dealers and they have no other legitimate use other 
than to kill people.
  There are two sides to this debate and both sides have legitimate 
fears. One side sees its right to keep and bear arms slipping away and 
the other sees its right to a safe and secure neighborhood slipping 
away. There has to be a middle ground that addresses the concerns of 
both sides and for that reason I offered an amendment to this bill that 
would have only banned the 19 assault weapons listed in the bill. 
However, due to the restrictive rule that was issued on this bill I am 
not allowed to offer this compromise amendment. Had this amendment 
passed I could have voted for this bill.
  The issue of gun control is not an easy issue since it involves 
weighing the concern for public safety against the rights of 
individuals. These individual rights are guaranteed in the Constitution 
and we should be extremely careful when the legislation we consider 
might affect these rights. A broad based gun ban infringes on these 
rights and while the need for public safety justifies the restriction 
of specific weapons it does not justify this broad based ban.
  Both sides of this issue have shown an unwillingness to compromise 
and it is apparent that they both are taking an ``all or nothing'' 
approach. This is an unfortunate commentary on what our political 
system has become and it represents a significant loss for the American 
people no matter which side of this issue they are on.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  (Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4296 is a public relations approach 
to crime prevention, election year valium to calm constituents' fear of 
crime. But nothing in this bill will take a single gun out of the hands 
of criminals.
  I have heard people smugly declare that true hunters don't need these 
weapons, so therefore they should be banned.
  This is not about hunting, or target practice. This is about 
protection. This is about giving people the chance to protect their 
families from criminals with a proven disregard for human life or 
property. Just like police, who are exempt from this bill, private 
citizens protecting their families deserve a fighting chance.
  The proponents of this bill claim support from law enforcement. The 
sheriffs I know do not support this legislation. People are crying out 
to us to do something about crime and punish those who misuse firearms.
  In Florida, in 1975, we impose a 3-year minimum mandatory sentence on 
anyone committing a crime with a handgun.
  Large billboards with an orange background and a black silhouette of 
a handgun were placed along our highways and posters were placed in 
convenience store windows and retail establishment in high-crime areas.
  The message was simple: Do the Crime--Do the Time. Florida imposes a 
mandatory 3-year prison term for using a gun in a crime.
  The results were dramatic. During the first year following passage of 
the 3-year mandatory, gun crimes were down and the armed robbery rate 
alone was down 40 percent.
  We were clearly on the right track to reducing crime. The word was 
out: Stay out of Florida if you use a gun because Florida will throw 
you in prison for 3 years. The impact was dramatic--until word got out 
that Florida was only joking. Criminals quickly learned they could plea 
bargain out and it was back to business as usual.

  The Florida House Criminal Justice Committee recently researched the 
incidence of plea bargaining on the 3-year mandatory sentence for using 
a gun in a crime and reported that in 80 to 90 percent of the cases, 
the 3-year mandatory is plea-bargained away.
  In 1989, the Florida Legislature passed an 8-year minimum mandatory 
penalty for possession of any semiautomatic firearm with a high 
capacity magazine during the commission or attempted commission of a 
crime.
  However, if you check with the State Court Administrators Statistical 
section, you will find that practically no one has been sentenced under 
that provision. That says one of two things--either semiautomatics are 
not the problem that some would have you believe, or they're simply 
refusing to send the really bad guys to prison for a minimum of 8 
years.
  In 1989, faced with the emotional fire storm of assault weapon 
rhetoric, the Florida Legislature formed the Florida Assault Weapons 
Commission to study the issue. The commission surveyed 415 Florida law 
enforcement departments on the use of assault weapons in crime in their 
jurisdiction over the past 4 years. Responding jurisdictions 
experienced a total of less than 50 assault weapons used in crimes, 
while other weapons--guns, knives, hands, etc.--were used in 108,600 
crimes, .0004 percent. Even the Metro Dade Police survey shows no 
assault weapons experience in 1986-87-88 and only 5 assault weapons in 
over 36,000 weapons crimes, .0001 percent, during 1989.
  The 8-year minimum mandatory sentence for using a so-called assault 
weapon in the commission of a crime was the obvious answer in 1989 and 
it is the obvious answer today. Banning guns never works. Look at 
Washington, DC, New York City, California, and New Jersey. Criminals 
will always get guns regardless of the law.
  What will work is less plea bargaining, stiffer penalties, more 
judges, prosecutors, police officers, and prisons. Get criminals off 
the street--then and only then will our streets be safe.
  It's time to bite the bullet and spend the money to build the prison 
beds necessary to incarcerate violent criminals.
  Everyone in this Chamber loves the Constitution. So do the people who 
are opposed to this bill. They feel just as strongly about the right to 
bear arms as others do about free speech. Let's not foolishly 
compromise a constitutionally protected right of free people when 
aiming at criminals.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think that a police officer in Michigan 
stated the problem to me very well a couple of months ago when he said 
the real issue in crime this year is not repeating rifles, it is 
repeating offenders. The truth of the matter is that there are less 
than 1 percent of violent crime committed in this country by assault 
weapons described in this bill. The truth of the matter is that if we 
ban all these weapons that are listed in this bill, still hundreds more 
than function exactly the same way with the same killing power that 
these guns have will still be on the streets, still available to the 
criminals and nothing will have been solved by passing this except to 
absolve some people in the political world we live in today from this 
next year's election.
  The fact of the matter is 6 percent of the criminals in this country 
commit 70 percent of the violent crimes and are serving less than a 
third of their sentences. The answer to the violent crime problem in 
this country is not banning the few assault weapons in this bill, it is 
taking the repeat violent offenders off the streets, locking then up, 
and throwing away the keys. It is forming the Federal-State partnership 
with the States to build sufficient prison space and then doing what 
this House did not do in its crime bill, and we need to have come out 
of the conference, requiring for the States to get these monies that 
they guarantee that they abolish parole for the violent repeat 
offenders and serve 85 percent of their sentences, at least. And it is 
doing things we were not allowed to do in offering the amendment I 
wanted to offer here on the floor today that would say to those who 
commit crimes with guns of any sort that if you do so, then you are 
going to have a separate Federal crime in addition to the underlying 
crime that carries with it minimum mandatory sentences for the first 
offense, 10 years, for the second offense 20 years, and for the third 
offense 30 years. That would put certainty and swiftness of punishment 
back in our criminal justice system and to put some kind of effort in 
the deterrence again to send the message out there to the violent 
criminal. That is what the real answer is to the violent crime crisis 
in our country. The bill before us should be voted down, it does not do 
the job, and it affects only law-abiding people who would like to 
continue to be able to possess guns for legitimate purposes. We have no 
business today passing this sham, and that is exactly what it is. Let 
us get tough with the criminals, lock them up, throw away the key, and 
let us make sure that we do something significant to stop the wave of 
violent crime; not this bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  (Mr. COPPERSMITH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I support law-abiding citizens' rights to keep and to 
bear arms for personal protection and for recreation. But I also 
believe we need to keep Uzis and AK-47s off our streets and out of the 
hands of cop-killers and driveby shooters. These weapons are not 
designed for hunting or to protect people's homes. They are military 
weapons that can carry dozens of bullets, guns designed to do one thing 
and one thing only--kill a lot of people fast.
  Yesterday, my office in Arizona was targeted by citizens opposed to 
taking assault weapons off the street and out of the hands of gangs and 
violent criminals. They wanted to pressure me. But I have already been 
affected by the pressure of grieving families and police officers 
mourning their fallen colleagues. I have been persuaded by too many 
killings and too many children cut down by these weapons of war.
  It's time for mainstream Americans to draw the line and say enough. 
This vote is not about rights, it's about responsibilities. Talk is 
cheap when it comes to fighting crime. We need to support our local 
police. We must stand up to the NRA and others who oppose this overdue 
and reasonable step to prevent crime. We need to fight crime, a step at 
a time. Vote ``yes''.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett].
  (Mr. SWETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, after months of serious deliberation and discussion 
with Members on both sides of the aisle, conservatives and liberals, I 
have decided that this ban on a limited and specific group of violent 
assault weapons adequately protects Second Amendment rights while 
recognizing that there is absolutely no justification or need for 
anyone to have ready access to Uzi's and street sweepers nor any other 
semiautomatic weapons designed exclusively for mass murder.
  Times are changing in our country. I fear not all for the best. The 
growing violence, murders of our law enforcement officers and innocent 
children cannot be ignored. That is why I voted against the rule, 
because I felt we needed to have stricter punishments for those who use 
guns in crimes. But the fact is that true sportsmen and sportswomen do 
not use sophisticated war machines to mow down animals. Average 
citizens, protecting their property and family, do not use Uzis and 
street sweepers to defend their homes. These weapons are used by 
criminals to overcome the innocent and to overcome our police officers 
in the line of their duty. I am committed to defending the second 
amendment rights, and that is why I struggled with this ban. 3 years 
ago I voted against the semiautomatic weapons ban because it did not 
address the important second amendment rights. However, after 
discussion with staunch defenders of the second amendment, such as 
President Reagan and President Ford, Members of Congress, such as Henry 
Hyde, I have been convinced that these rights are adequately protected.
  I ask the Members to support this ban on semiautomatic weapons.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Lazio.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I appear nervous, it might be because I 
am a first-term Congressman, it might be because this may be a close 
vote, but probably because people are relying on me to make the right 
choice.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 4296. Several factors affected my 
recent decision to support this legislation which would ban the 
continued manufacturing of semiautomatic assault weapons. The most 
significant of these factors was the overwhelming support of this ban 
by both national and local law enforcement organizations and officials. 
In New York, this includes the Suffolk County Policeman's Benevolent 
Association, the Deputy Sheriff's Benevolent Association, the Superior 
Officers Association of Suffolk, the Police Conference of New York, as 
well as New York City's police commissioner and the president of New 
York City's Patrolman's Benevolent Association. National groups include 
the Fraternal Order of Police, with over 230,000 members, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officer's 
Association. All are experts on crime, and as a former criminal 
prosecutor, I respect their collective judgment that H.R. 4296 is 
necessary for the public safety.
  According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, while 
semiautomatic weapons comprise only 1 percent of privately owned guns 
in America, they account for more than 9 percent of guns used during a 
crime and traced. Between 1986 through 1992, ATF statistics show that 
these particular weapons were used in 1,578 homicides, 940 assaults, 
224 robberies, and over 4,500 narcotics offenses. Since only about 10 
percent of all firearms used in crimes are traced, the number of crimes 
involving these weapons could be more than 10 times as high. These 
statistics are unacceptable and demonstrate the number of these weapons 
that are making it onto our streets and into the hands of criminals. 
Our police cannot, and should not, have to face these weapons in the 
line of duty.
  Also supporting the ban on assault-style weapons are former 
Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. In 1989, 
President Bush was instrumental in banning the import of 43 types of 
foreign-made assault weapons. Closer to home, New York City Mayor 
Rudolph Giuliani has also stated his support of this legislation.
  H.R. 4296, unlike some proposals in the past, designates 19 specific 
weapons to be banned by name, while explicitly exempting over 670 
hunting and recreational weapons. At the same time, this bill includes 
provisions to control the spread of so-called copycat weapons as well 
as a grandfather clause, permitting owners of banned weapons, or large 
capacity magazines, acquired before enactment of this legislation to 
keep their firearm(s).
  Although opponents of this bill claim these weapons have a sporting 
purpose, I disagree with that argument. I have seen firsthand the 
carnage and mayhem these weapons can cause. A chilling example is 
illustrated by last December's massacre aboard the Long Island Railroad 
commuter train. I was recently contacted by the widow of one of those 
victims. Her husband was killed and her son seriously wounded. I also 
spoke with one of the actual victims. Their message was how anyone 
could vote against this ban if they'd seen what took place when the 
killer went down the aisle methodically executing person after person. 
Had this legislation been in effect at that time, the ammunition 
feeding device used by Colin Ferguson would have been banned, and fewer 
lives may have been lost.
  Opponents also claim that this bill will ban all hunting and 
recreational semiautomatic weapons. This is untrue. While all assault 
weapons are semiautomatics, all semiautomatics are not all assault 
weapons, an example being the popular Winchester Model 1400 
semiautomatic shotgun.
  I have been, and I remain, a staunch supporter of the second 
amendment. But as a lawyer, I simply do not believe that these 
weapons--whose functions are so adaptable to the destruction of human 
life--are protected under second amendment rights. If they were, I 
would oppose this bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Strickland].
  (Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Last week a very offensive event took place in my hometown; the Ku 
Klux Klan held a rally. While I was offended by their presence and 
despise their brand of hate mongering, I will defend their right to 
exercise their first amendment freedoms.
  I oppose this bill because, however inconvenient it may be, we must 
adhere to the principles contained within our Constitution and our Bill 
of Rights.
  The first amendment leads the list of our constitutional freedoms by 
guaranteeing rights that we all embrace: The freedom of religion; 
freedom of speech; freedom of the press; and the freedom to peaceably 
assemble.
  We revere and value these rights and at times die for the 
preservation of them. They embody the right of the minority to be 
protected against the tyranny of the majority.
  Following the first amendment in the Bill of Rights is the often-
forgotten and much-maligned second amendment, that guarantees the right 
to keep and bear arms. In fact, the phrase used by the drafters is, 
``shall not be infringed.''
  So, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum--
conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat--if you are one who 
values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you should not pick and 
choose from among these constitutional rights under the temptation to 
vote for this hollow promise of false security.
  Do not vote for this misdirected effort aimed at law-abiding 
gunowners, rather than dealing with the real causes of violence in our 
society.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my fellow colleagues, I rise in 
opposition to this legislation.
  With freedom comes responsibility; with responsibility comes freedom. 
What we are doing today in asking us to vote for this legislation is to 
take the responsibility from those who would like to take the freedom 
away from us, the law-abiding citizens.
  We heard much about the NRA, and yes, I am an NRA member. But I am 
also a proud gunowner in order to defend myself and the lives of my 
children. I ask my colleagues, ``If you really want to think about 
changing things--and I heard other speakers saying this is a chance to 
do something that is correct--I ask you was it correct about Waco when 
the Government overstepped its bounds and killed innocent people?''
  And I cannot understand someone like the gentleman from New York that 
could support this legislation. Maybe he has not gone to the Holocaust 
museum in Israel. I have done that three times, and I asked the 
question, ``How could 6 million people have been herded and walked to 
their deaths?'' I asked, ``Why didn't they protest?''
  Mr. Chairman, my guide said, ``With what? They had nothing to protest 
with. The citizenry was disarmed. The government was the one that did 
the great carnage.''
  I heard the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] today say, 
``The Government must protect its people. It is not a criminal I fear; 
it is, in fact, the Government.'' The Government should not have the 
right to protect me; I should have the right to protect myself, and 
yes, to own, and operate, and have those firearms as long as I am a 
law-abiding citizen.
  And many speakers before me talked about the criminal, and that is 
what we are not addressing. The person that commits the crime, the 7 
percent that commits 90 percent of the violent crimes, we are not 
addressing, nor are we given the opportunity to do so.
  But I will tell my colleagues and everybody that will listen to me: 
It is my right, my constitutional right, to pick that weapon which I 
think I can defend my family with, and I should do so. It will be a hot 
day in Fort Yukon in January before this Government takes my firearms.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have always believed in the old 
Texas saying that gun control means steady aim. As such, I have always 
opposed gun control. Today, however, the House of Representatives is 
expected to vote on legislation that would make it illegal to 
manufacture or sell specified military-style semiautomatic assault 
weapons in the United States, and I intend to vote for the assault 
weapons ban.
  I did not reach this decision easily. In the last Congress I opposed 
a similar assault weapons ban bill because it was too vague and 
undefined. That bill could have included my shotgun and the weapons of 
other legitimate sportsmen. It simply left too much to the discretion 
of the Federal Government. This bill, however, protects hunters' 
rights.
  The bill has drawn tremendous attention because it specifically 
targets high-velocity, rapid-fire weapons--like Uzi's, AK-47's, TEC-
9's, MAC-10's, and AR-15's--that have become the weapons of choice for 
drug dealers, street gangs, and hate groups. The telephone lines and 
fax machines in my office are working overtime to respond to concerned 
citizens on both sides of this emotional and important issue.
  I am a lifelong hunter; gun ownership is a way of life for my family, 
as it is for most Texans. During my tenure in Congress, I have resisted 
attempts to restrict the rights of law-abiding Texans to own firearms 
for sport or to defend their families and homes. I believe that gun 
control laws hamper legitimate sportsmen far more than criminals, and 
my votes have consistently supported this position.
  At the same time, as a former Harris County prosecutor and a father 
of two teenage daughters, I cannot help but be appalled at the rising 
number of random violent crimes that are occurring on our streets. In 
our own city of Houston, a teenage boy was slain by a rival gang member 
with an AK-47 at a Halloween party. The problems we have experienced in 
Houston mirror those in other cities and towns across this country.
  Federal statistics show that, although semiautomatic assault weapons 
account for only 0.5 percent of privately owned firearms in this 
country, they are involved in 8.4 percent of crimes involving firearms. 
In other words, assault weapons are 17 times more likely to be traced 
to crimes than conventional firearms. Between 1986 to 1990, 1,088 
assault weapons were traced to murders in the United States. Another 
3,505 were linked to drug traffickers. For every assault weapon 
confiscated by law enforcement officers, many more are manufactured and 
sold on our streets.
  Police say that just one of the weapons that would be banned, the 
TEC-9, has been involved in 319 murder cases, 234 instances of assault, 
and over 600 narcotics investigations. The TEC-9 can fire 32 rounds in 
30 seconds. At a time when there is a very real and palpable fear of 
violent crime in this country, when law enforcement officials are 
outgunned by the offenders they hope to apprehend, and when driveby 
shootings and murder of innocent bystanders have become a weekly 
occurrence, we must do something significant to protect our families 
and children.
  The assault weapons ban we are debating today is different from 
previous proposals. Legitimate sportsmen can be assured that 650 
hunting rifles and shotguns are specifically exempted from the ban. In 
addition, the bill specifically defines hunting and sporting weapons as 
those operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; or a 
semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds 
more than five rounds of ammunition. That assures that my shotgun, your 
deer rifle, or your son's or daughter's .22-caliber rifle are not 
considered under the ban.
  The bill is equally specific on what weapons are to be prohibited. 
For example, semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines would be 
included under the ban if they possess at least two of the following 
features: a folding telescoping stock, a pistol grip that sticks out 
conspicuously beneath the rifle's action, a bayonet mount, a flash 
suppressor, or a grenade launcher. Who can in good conscience defend 
such weapons as appropriate for hunters or sportsmen? Anyone that needs 
a 20-round clip of high-velocity ammunition to fell a duck or kill a 
deer needs to take up golf.
  The bill's ``grandfather'' provision will allow existing weapons 
owners to keep their weapons without any recordkeeping requirements, 
unless the weapon is sold or transferred after the bill is enacted. The 
bill also contains a ``sunset'' provision: The ban will automatically 
expire 10 years after its enactment.
  Supporters of the ban make a convincing argument on its ability to 
reduce violent crimes. Previous experience in cutting off access of 
these deadly weapons to criminals--as in California, New Jersey, and 
Connecticut, for example--has shown that it does reduce their use in 
violent crimes. Likewise, the use of assault rifles in crimes dropped 
by 40 percent the first year after President Bush banned their 
importation in 1989. States and municipalities that have banned assault 
weapons have experienced similar results.
  That is why support for an assault weapons ban in this country is 
strong, particularly among law enforcement organizations, such as the 
International Association of Police Chiefs, the National Sheriff's 
Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the 
Fraternal Order of Police. And despite the denial of its organizational 
leadership, a significant number of NRA members recognize that the 
weapons targeted under the bill are dangerous and unnecessary. This 
bill will not stop all crime on Houston's streets, but it will help our 
local police fight crime and it will save lives.
  Gun ownership has a long and proud tradition in Texas--but so does 
public safety and respect for law and order. Our individual right to 
keep and bear firearms is based on responsibility and common sense. We 
have laws that seek to guarantee the safety of our citizens: people 
cannot fish with dynamite, scream fire in a crowded theater, or 
purchase many kinds of military weapons. I am convinced that if we 
limit the availability of military-style assault weapons, we will be 
taking a meaningful and prudent step toward improving the safety of our 
streets without trampling on our constitutional rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Assault 
Weapons Ban Act of 1994.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], a former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays] for yielding this time to me. I would just like to share my 
thoughts on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation, the ban on 
assault weapons in the United States of America, and I know this is a 
very difficult issue for a lot of Members here today and who are 
watching back in their offices, and it probably should be, but it is 
one I wrestled with quite a while ago as Governor of a State and with 
the Governors of New Jersey and Virginia among others. I have called 
for a ban on assault weapons. I have introduced legislation in 
Delaware. We have not achieved where I would like to go with that, but 
it was a relatively simple issue, working with our police officers, and 
others, who believe so strongly in this, and I have looked at this 
legislation, and a lot of people will look at this legislation, and 
they will say: ``Well, we can go beyond this because it's going to give 
the ability to Federal officials to ban other kinds of weapons.''
  And all variety of arguments come up with respect to that, but I 
think this whole thing is relatively simple, and there are just a few 
points, perhaps, we should look at as we try to reach our decisions as 
to whether we are going to vote for this or not.
  First of all, and I do not necessarily agree with this, but this is a 
future bill. This does not include weapons which people presently own 
and under which they have control. That is a significant point, I 
think, in determining whether we should vote for it or not.
  The question then becomes: is this an appropriate piece of 
legislation? What are these assault weapons or semiautomatic weapons? 
How are they used?
  Well, we hear they are used in target practice. I do not know of a 
lot of target practice, frankly, in which these are used, and, quite 
frankly, I do not know of a lot of hunting in which these kinds of 
weapons are used. It just is not something which is very prevalent in 
the United States of America, and I suggest we look very carefully at 
what these weapons are and exactly what their uses are in the United 
States of America.
  Some people have gotten up today and said they have not had any 
incidents in their districts. I hope we do not have to have an incident 
in a majority of our districts involving an assault weapon before we 
can pass this legislation. The bottom line is that there have been 
incidents across the United States of America. More than incidents of 
the use of assault weapons there have been a lot of crimes committed 
with assault weapons in which they have not actually been used. Let us 
keep that in mind as well. These are expanding in the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, our law enforcement officers are strongly for this 
piece of legislation, and I think that is also very, very significant. 
They are the ones who are on the firing line, and they are the ones who 
are saying, ``Do something to help protect us.''
  And then there is the whole issue of, I say to my colleagues, Well, 
if you are for this ban on assault weapons, you are not tough on crime. 
I would like to think I am as tough on crime as anyone else here. As a 
matter of fact, when I was Governor, we in Delaware did a lot of things 
that include mandatory minimums for using weapons in crimes. We have 
truth in sentencing in the State of Delaware. We have looked at all 
these issues, and my belief is that we can still have those very strong 
measures.

                              {time}  1430

  I wish we perhaps could have amended this bill to put in some 
stronger measures with respect to what the penalties would be if one 
had assault weapons. but the bottom line is that we can be very tough 
on crime but we can also be against assault weapons because they expand 
the crime that we see in the United States of America.
  There was a young man who was caned today by our time in Singapore. 
That individual was caned in a city or a state which basically does not 
allow any weapons at all. I tried to find out, but I do not know what 
the penalties there may be. But the bottom line is that they have 
stronger penalties but they also ban the use of these weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we should start by supporting this legislation.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Pete Geren].
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill to ban ugly guns.
  This debate is perhaps a perfect metaphor for politics today. It is 
all about form and appearance, little about substance. This bill is the 
proverbial blow-dried, golden-maned, straight-teeth, red tie, blue 
shirt, game show host, good-looking politician. How could anyone be 
against it? Who could be against a bill that bans ugly guns?
  To confirm that this bill is all and only about appearance, let us 
look at the criteria that the bill's authors use as a basis for banning 
these guns. But first let us note what they do not use. They do not 
consider how fast a gun can shoot, the size or speed of its projectile, 
how hard it hits the target, or how accurate a weapon is. They do not 
use that type of criteria because there is no difference in the fire 
power of the guns they ban and those they do not.
  Let us look at the criteria they do use. The bill bans a gun if it 
has two of the following five criteria: A folding stock, a pistol grip 
that protrudes conspicuously--yes, conspicuously, a bayonet mount, a 
flash suppressor attachment, or a grenade launcher attachment.
  Not one deals with fire power. We talk of stopping the shooting, and 
we ban bayonet mounts. A gun with all five criteria may be mud-fence 
ugly, but it is not more deadly.
  And these criteria have nothing at all to do with crime. Eighty-eight 
percent of our police chiefs agree.
  When was the last time we heard of a crime that involved a fixed 
bayonet or a launched grenade? If the criminals of America for some 
reason agreed to abide by this bill and removed their flash suppressors 
and bayonet mounts, would we save a single life?
  If our Government is going to take anything away, anything even ugly 
things, from anyone, it has the burden to prove that it is more than 
ugly. It has the heavy burden of proving the furtherance of a public 
purpose.
  For many and probably most Americans, this debate is bewildering. Why 
would anyone oppose a ban on these ugly weapons? Because ugly is not 
enough.
  In a democracy that cherishes liberty, yes, even eccentric 
expressions of liberty, the burden is on the bill's proponents to 
prove, not that this bill will not hurt, but that it will advance a 
legitimate and overriding social purpose, a purpose that overrides the 
liberty that it takes away, however trivial some may consider that 
liberty to be.
  The proponents have not done this, and they cannot, because ugly is 
not enough.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal is a golden-maned, talk show host, good-
looking measure, and in spite of those boasting of their courage in 
supporting it, it is popular, very popular. The politically unpopular 
vote is no. It is the right vote. Ugly is not enough.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, this proposed ban aids the criminal and hits 
the law-abiding citizen squarely in the face, and the criminal sprints 
away laughing at the whole scene, because it is the law-abiding citizen 
whose rights have been hurt.
  To what avail is this ban to that criminal who has just escaped the 
thrust of this bill? That criminal can look at the 650 other weapons 
that are exempted by this very same piece of legislation and commit any 
crime that criminally intended mind sets out to commit.
  On the other hand, let us ask ourselves this question. Can the law-
abiding citizen utilize one of the 19 banned weapons for lawful 
purposes? The answer is, yes, for self-defense, collection, hunting, 
and sports activities. But conversely, is it not true that the criminal 
mind, the criminal who is intent on committing a crime, can use any of 
the 650 items that are exempted here to commit a crime?
  The priorities are completely reversed, and the effort to ban guns 
makes the criminal laugh at us.
  The criminal will find ways and means, if he intends to do so, to rob 
a convenience store. We should aim at that criminal, aim at the one who 
intends to commit a crime and does. Our aim is way off here. In the 
meantime the criminal is cackling, chortling, laughing all the way to 
the next spot where he can pick up a semiautomatic, if he wants to, and 
use it for unlawful purposes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lehman].
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the other night a constituent called my 
office and asked me to vote against this bill. I could tell that he was 
knowledgeable about guns. So he read me the list of weapons that would 
be banned. He said, ``Those are not legitimate weapons.''
  Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, on a school playground in my district, 5 
children were murdered and dozens injured because they could not get 
out of the way fast enough. The weapon that was involved was purchased 
legally.
  Mr. Chairman, people do have the right to keep and bear arms. We 
should resist any attempt to deny law-abiding citizens weapons for 
personal protection, sport, and pleasure. Banning the continued 
manufacture of these tools of mass destruction does not ban that right. 
Let us sum up the courage today to end the policy that give street 
gangs, criminals, and deranged killers access to more fire power than 
our police, and let us give our children on our school playgrounds a 
fighting chance to get out of the way.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this initiative to ban certain 
types of semiautomatic assault weapons that fire rapidly with ease.
  These weapons have no sporting use. They are suitable for combat.
  Recently we received support for the banning of assault weapons by 
former Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan, and this support reflects 
their experience in leading the American people. It is also indicative 
of the bipartisan support which exists for getting these murderous 
weapons off the streets.
  We just recently passed the crime bill. The assault weapons ban, 
together with the crime bill, represents the kind of comprehensive 
approach needed to address the problems of crime and violence in our 
society.
  I would also like to stress again the fact that our colleagues should 
bear in mind that this is not a partisan issue. We remember that with 
the support of former President Reagan, President Bush imposed a ban on 
the importing of assault weapons. Well, following that ban, imported 
assault weapons traced to crime declined by 45 percent, whereas the 
domestic assault weapons traced to crime remained the same.
  Barry Goldwater has affirmed that assault weapons ``have no place in 
anybody's arsenal.'' Jack Kemp endorsed the ban last year, and Gov. 
William Weld has endorsed legislation to ban assault weapons and high-
capacity magazines.
  In my State of Maryland, the State Police have endorsed this ban. I 
am pleased that the Governor of Maryland has supported the ban, and the 
State Legislature just recently passed very similar legislation.
  Yes, each side of this debate has its statistics bolstering its point 
of view, but how could anyone honestly think that the banning of 
assault weapons will not save lives and reduce violence? After all, 
although semiautomatic assault weapons are less than 1 percent of this 
Nation's privately owned guns, they accounted for 8.4 percent of all 
violence traced to crime from 1988 to 1991. And also I do believe that 
this legislation makes fair, reasonable accommodations to the interests 
of hunters and sportsmen. It specifically exempts 670 hunting and 
recreational rifles and shotguns. It bans only 19 assault weapons which 
are the weapons of choice for gangs, drug dealers, and organized crime.
  It is time to act to get these rifles off the streets and protect our 
families, our children, and our communities. Ask the parents of a child 
killed in a drive-by shooting, the children of a police officer gunned 
down with an AK-47, or a young man permanently paralyzed because he 
went to the grocery store when gang members swept through his 
neighborhood, how they would vote on assault weapons. We know the 
answer. They would vote, yes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington, [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, the violence that is ripping apart our 
families, classrooms, and communities is nothing short of a crisis. No 
one can feel good about society's collective impotence in lessening the 
impact violence has on our everyday lives--and the siren call for 
stricter gun control measures may on the surface sound ``oh so 
appealing.'' But we must ask ourselves if a ban on so-called ``assault 
weapons'' will actually be effective or fair. The proponents of this 
ban would eliminate in one fell swoop an entire class of legitimate 
firearms based solely on its looks: from military look-alikes to 
sporting guns like the Springfield M1A, the firearm used by the 
majority of this country's most successful competitive shooters. 
Banning this gun or that gun based solely on cosmetic appearance and 
subtle mechanics is a tragic misplacement of legislative priorities 
sure to lead to greater disillusionment for those who yearn for a 
greater sense of security.
  The proponents also claim that passage of this bill will go a long 
way toward ending violent crime yet auto-loading arms are involved in 
less than 1 percent of all serious crimes in this country. Responsible 
use of firearms by responsible owners would be prohibited because of 
the false premise that gun bans are the cure-alls of the crime 
problem--all the while this body looks away from the roots of the 
antisocial behavior that truly cause crime. Guns are not at the root of 
criminal behavior. Rather, their use in criminal acts is a derivative 
of criminal behavior--and banning them doesn't solve the problem. 
Stemming the rise in crime takes a Congress dedicated to preventing 
crime at its roots--not taking rights away from law-abiding citizens.
  There is nothing more important to our Nation than how we rear our 
children. We must break this cycle of unloved, neglected, and abandoned 
children who mindlessly lash out in their own form of self-hatred and 
destruction.
  Last month I held forums in my district on early childhood education 
and violence prevention. The overwhelming testimony expressed by expert 
panelists and attendees alike was that crime begins from failed human 
relations at a very early age--when conscience and compassion have not 
been taught. We must help families with young children and more must be 
done to help children and families avoid the problems that lead our 
youth to gangs, drugs, and senseless violence. In April I introduced a 
bill to help do just that. If we assist struggling families with young 
children, we help all families and all children. Parents will be given 
the opportunity to interact with other parents and to learn more about 
basic child development, positive discipline techniques, and parent-
child communication skills. The foundation of anti-social behavior is 
laid in those very early years of childhood so it is not only wise to 
invest in children and families, it is incumbent on elected officials 
to do so.
  That does not mean we should ignore gun controls that are already 
law, we should throw the book at anyone who uses a firearm in the 
commission of a crime. We should demand maximum punishment under the 
law for anyone who traffics in stolen weapons and demand unequivocally 
at least 30 years for any supplier of firearms to juveniles. These are 
heinous crimes that deserve every ounce of determined enforcement.
  I want to end with this thought: the emotions we have expressed today 
over this issue are as strong as any I have witnessed in this great 
body. Fear. Anger. Frustration. Despair. And at the pit of it all, in 
the gut, the need to do something about it!! I understand--I feel that, 
too. So I reach out to all of you, I urge you, not settle on 
ineffective and unconstitutional firearm restrictions, but rather to 
fight with me to get the real roots of violence, the anti-social 
behavior that leads to tragedies in our families and on our streets.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to this bill, which will do nothing to fight crime and infringe on our 
second amendment rights.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  (Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to legislate through 
label. By mistakenly placing the title ``assault weapons'' arbitrarily 
on this group of firearms, and having the term ``assault weapons'' 
repeated over and over and over again in much of the media, it has 
served to totally confuse the issue about what weapons we are talking 
about here.
  It has even confused matters on the House floor. I heard a senior 
Member of the House just a moment ago say we need to ban automatic 
weapons. There is not a single automatic weapon in this bill. That is 
because automatic weapons--these are the true military combat weapons 
which can be set for constant fire with one pull of the trigger--are 
banned today.
  The weapons we are actually talking about do not fire any differently 
than the weapons that are not banned. If there were a difference 
between them, the proponents of this bill would have demonstrated that 
on the range by placing one against the other in a test that the media 
and the public could see.
  But I think that the real crux of this bill, the real way to know if 
this is legitimate law enforcement, in which I consider certain gun 
control proposals apart, or just grandstanding is the fact that this 
bill, if it becomes law today, will not ban a single weapon today. The 
law exempts all of the weapons that are called assault weapons today. 
Every one who owns one legally can keep one legally.
  If the proponents believed all the rhetoric they have been stating, 
if they believed these weapons have no useful purpose in society, then 
they would ban them today. The reason they do not do that is that they 
know that over one million Americans, law-abiding Americans, have 
chosen to own these weapons, and the Government does not relish the 
thought of confiscating these weapons from so many law-abiding 
Americans and all the bad publicity that would bring to the proponents' 
argument that these weapons are supposedly owned by criminals and drug 
dealers.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the NRA apparently has never seen a gun 
it didn't like.
  The ``R'' in NRA clearly no longer stands for rifle; I say it stands 
for reprehensible.
  It managed to hold Congress hostage for years over the Brady bill. 
Now the NRA is really insulting our intelligence. It's suggesting that 
it would be a blow to democracy for Congress to regulate guns whose 
sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as 
possible.
  Violent crime in our country has reached atrocity proportions when in 
a few seconds of gunfire, a violent and deranged person can slaughter 
dozens of innocent people.
  Doctors from all over the world come to America's major cities for 
intensive training in emergency medicine. It is a sad commentary on our 
American way of life--and death--that in our emergency rooms, they will 
receive more experience in treating penetration wounds in one night 
than they would in a whole year back home.
  It boggles the mind to imagine how we can fail to limit the 
availability of weapons and ammunition which have no legitimate 
sporting purpose.
  The American people and the people of New York City that I represent 
want safe streets and neighborhoods for themselves and their children. 
They don't buy the NRA argument that the second amendment should allow 
some screwball with a street sweeper to blow away whole playgrounds 
full of their children.
  This Congress had the courage to break the stranglehold of the NRA 
over the Brady bill, and its more than high time for us to do the 
obvious today.
  Mr. Chairman, the assault weapons included in this bill are not 
instruments of sport or self-defense; they're instruments of murder--
and I don't want to be an accomplice. Vote for the assault weapons ban.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy].
  (Mr. McCURDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of common sense. My 
colleagues, what kind of country do we want?
  The first time I went to a foreign country and saw uniformed police 
in the airports and street corners with military assault weapons, I 
shuddered. And yet today, we are now manufacturing and selling these 
very weapons not for our military, but for public use.
  In 1991, Mr. Chairman, I voted against a ban that I considered was 
worded too broadly. But this bill is narrower and specifically protects 
sporting guns. I own two shotguns that are even on the list of the 670. 
This ban does not affect a single weapon legally owned.
  Mr. Chairman, every one in this Chamber also knows that this ban is 
not going to solve crime and is not going to eliminate all the 
violence. But I voted for the toughest prevention, punishment, and 
police provisions in the recent crime bill. I successfully offered the 
police corps amendment that will add 100,000 police officers to our 
cities and towns.
  But we should not let them be outgunned. The police chief in my 
hometown said, ``It is just to easy to purchase these high capacity 
assault weapons. They have become an officer's worst nightmare.''
  There is much talk about individual rights. But we as citizens also 
have a responsibility to our community and our Nation. We do not need 
these military-style assault weapons on our streets. I urge passage of 
the bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I grew up on a ranch near San Juan Bautista, 
CA. I was taught to shoot at a very young age. If the guns we are 
banning in this particular piece of legislation had been in existence, 
any hunter that used them to shoot a deer or to shoot at rabbits, would 
have been laughed out of San Benito County.
  I now live in urban America. My policy consistently has been if you 
want a gun in your home, have one in your home. If you want a gun at 
your business, have one at your business. However, if you have a gun in 
a car and you are driving around urban America, as far as I am 
concerned, you better have a permit or off to jail you go. You should 
live in urban America, where we have people shot by the thousands, by 
teenagers, by young hoods, from all walks of life and all ethnic 
groups.
  I happen to have taken a stand against assault weapons several years 
ago. It was in the Republican primary. My seven opponents got up and 
parroted the NRA. I won.
  I remember an issues survey we did of Republicans during the 1992 
primary. That survey cost $10,000. One of the questions was on banning 
guns, on banning assault weapons.

                              {time}  1450

  Sixty-five percent of the Republicans in my district favored that 
ban. I suggest that a few of my colleagues ought to get in touch with 
what the grassroots in urban and suburban America really thinks.
  On February 22, a Los Angeles police officer and mother of two, 
Christy Lynne Hamilton, was gunned down in the line of duty. The weapon 
used was an AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 assault rifle. The 
shooter was not a hardened criminal. The implication by some in this 
debate has been ``If only those hardened criminals were put away, then 
we would solve the problem.'' Sure, those criminals ought to be put 
away. I support the proposals of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum]; I voted against the rule which precluded him from having a 
vote on his amendment. The Committee on Rules should have permitted his 
amendment. It did not. That decision was shameful.
  But the hardened criminal, the drug dealer, or the gang member was 
not the individual shooting at Christy Lynn Hamilton. It was a 17-year-
old former honor student. The assault rifle used in this crime was not 
stolen. It was not transferred illegally. It was a gift from his 
father, who also was killed in the incident.
  Now, if this legislation has no effect, as many of those in 
opposition have said, why do they not humor us? Why do they not pass 
it? Maybe we can save a few lives.

  Just yesterday I was visited in my office by Stephen Sposato, whose 
beloved wife, mother of his 10-month-old daughter, Meghan Marie was 
tragically killed by a spray of automatic fire in an office in San 
Francisco. She was not killed in the cross fire of two gang members. 
That happened in Long Beach.
  One of our staff at California State University Long Beach, lost his 
daughter who was innocently sitting in the back of a pickup truck going 
down the street. One gang member was driving east. The member of a 
rival gang was driving west. When one of them shot at the other, they 
killed the daughter of the university employee.
  Now, the tragedy occurred while Mrs. Sposato mother of Meghan Marie, 
was at work in a San Francisco law firm.
  What we are talking about here are banning weapons that have 
absolutely no valid purpose, but to kill others very rapidly.
  I can recall Tom Likus' call-in radio show in Los Angeles. The issue 
was the second amendment. Two very articulate individuals phoned in and 
claimed that they had a constitutional right under the second amendment 
to have nuclear weapons in their home.
  Now, think about it, folks. How silly can some of this get?
  What we are prohibiting in terms of new purchases are weapons that no 
legitimate hunter and no citizen who wants to defend his or her home 
needs or would use. Since May 1st, 369 constituents have telephoned 
supporting this measure, 286 constituents have telephoned their 
opposition. It is clear that those in the 38th Congressional District 
in 1992 and 1994, by a majority, want reasonable, limited restrictions 
on these weapons designed to kill many people very rapidly. Those 
weapons need to be taken off of our streets. So for those who think 
this bill will be ineffective in reducing crimes where guns are used, 
humor us. Pass this much-needed, long overdue legislation. Maybe, as I 
have said, just maybe we can save a few lives.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Valentine].
  Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I have many fond memories of hunting 
ducks and geese with my sons in eastern North Carolina.
  My father taught me the joys of hunting. He also gave me a healthy 
respect for the sanctity of life. I hope that I have done the same for 
my children, and that they will be able to do the same for their 
children.
  No one on this floor today, and no one who has ever served in this 
august body, has ever believed more strongly in preserving a citizen's 
constitutional rights than do I.
  But, no one in this body is more aware than I am of the daily 
escalation of weaponry facing our law enforcement officials and other 
citizens. No one is more concerned about the children of this country 
who, instead of playing dodge ball, are having to learn to dodge 
bullets fired from semi-automatic weapons.
  We, in Congress, have the sworn responsibility to preserve and defend 
the Constitution and the rights it bestows on our citizens. We also 
have a responsibility to promote the safety and well-being of our 
citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no place in this country where it is legal to 
carry a sawed-off shotgun. The right to bear arm does not give an 
American the right to park a Howitzer in the garage.
  It is time to put a stop to the proliferation of dangerous weapons 
such as the AK-47, the Street Sweeper, and the Striker 12. These 
weapons serve no reasonable, lawful purpose except to kill people.
  God help us all if we do not seek to bring sanity back to our cities 
and towns, to get these weapons of war off of our streets.
  Recently, I received a letter from a Federal judge in North Carolina. 
In his letter, Judge Earl Britt writes,

was raised in the country * * *. I have been a lifelong hunter. I am an 
active quail and deer hunter. I value and cherish the hunting heritage 
and have passed it on to my two sons, and hope to pass it on to my 
       present and future grandsons.However, something must be 
     done about the proliferation of assault weapons and handguns. 
     The carnage in our society from these type weapons has 
     reached crisis proportions. For the sake of our children and 
     grandchildren, please cast your vote for this sensible 
     legislation.

  I urge my colleagues, especially those concerned about the rights of 
gunowners and innocent citizens, to listen to the wisdom of Judge Britt 
and join me in support of this legislation.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courageous 
stand.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Johnson], whose district constitutes southern rural 
Georgia.
  (Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I support the assault weapon 
ban because very simply, I believe that it will save lives. Let me be 
clear, I do not think it will reduce crime in America. Hopefully the 
measures in the crime bill will do that.
  What this bill does is to reduce the number of victims of violent 
crime. This measure simply saves lives.
  The most important thing this bill does is to ban large capacity 
clips like those used in the recent California schoolyard and New York 
commuter train killings in which dozens of people died. In fact, the 
madman in New York was subdued only when he stopped to reload.
  We cannot stop sick individuals from getting guns, but what we can do 
is make it harder for them to get weapons equipped to fire dozens of 
shots without reloading. This is the real effect of this legislation.
  I support the second amendment. I grew up in a culture that values 
and respects guns. I enjoy hunting and have guns in my own home for 
protection. Hunting and home protection are not the issue in this case. 
Killing people is the issue.
  I firmly believe that if these guns are banned, the effect will be to 
reduce the potential for mass killings in America.
  I will leave Members with this question: If a madman walks into a 
fast food restaurant where your wife and children are eating, would you 
rather he have a six-shooter or a weapon that can wipe out every person 
in the building? That is what this bill is about. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4296.
  This bill bans a class of commonly owned firearms based on technology 
that has been in use for more than a century. We know about the 19 
weapons banned by the bill. We also know about the 670 hunting and 
recreational rifles and shotguns specifically exempted by the bill. But 
let us look at all the facts:
  First, 585 of the 670 firearms ``protected'' by the bill are not 
semiautomatics. They are bolt and slide action weapons that have noting 
to do with the substance of this bill. For what purposes are those 585 
guns listed, and why are only currently manufactured makes and models 
listed?
  Second, the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns certainly do not 
have the assault features listed in the bill--but not one handgun is 
protected under the bill.
  Third, the gentleman from New York says his bill would not affect 
sporting guns. That is contradicted by ATF Director John Magaw who told 
our colleagues in the other body that the Springfield M1A would be 
affected. That rifle is the most popular rifle used by high power 
target shooters in matches, including the National Matches, which were 
established by Congress in 1903.
  Fourth, ammunition magazines holding over 10 bullets would be treated 
as banned and treated as ``firearm'' in the bill, but we are told 
magazines manufactured prior to enactment of this bill would be 
grandfathered. How does someone in possession of one of these magazines 
prove it was manufactured prior to the date of enactment so as to avoid 
criminal prosecution?

                              {time}  1500

  Fifth, the bill says that anyone owning a weapon banned by this bill 
prior its enactment is not affected if a form 4473 is filled out and 
kept and that the form is transferred with the weapon. Yet, under the 
bill, the Secretary has the authority to require additional forms and 
additional information to be filled out and maintained. There is no 
guidance whether this form, or forms, are to be filed with anyone, or 
how these forms are to be maintained.
  Completing a Federal form 4473 to prove compliance is not required 
under H.R. 4296 until the firearm is transferred. Under the 
legislation, if a father gives his son a gun that is classified as an 
assault weapon under this legislation, in order to comply with 
regulations to be written by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms [ATF], the son must complete a form 4473 and both parties must 
keep a copy. The legislation leaves the details of the availability of 
these forms as well as any filing requirements with Federal or local 
authorities to the discretion of the ATF. This is the first incursion 
of the Federal Government into private firearms transfers, because all 
swaps, sales, gifts, and inheritances would require the completion of a 
form 4473, thereby leading to the registration of all firearms.
  However, the provisions dealing with previously owned, lawful 
firearms covered by this legislation are even more alarming. According 
to the legislation, previously owned guns are grandfathered and not 
subject to registration. But proving a firearm was owned prior to 
enactment without a form 4473 is virtually impossible without 
registration. Additionally, although high capacity magazines are 
grandfathered under the bill, it will be equally difficult to prove 
that the magazine was owned prior to enactment. This would lead to de 
facto gun registration of both firearms and magazines.
  Without a completed form 4473, an owner of a banned gun or restricted 
magazine could not prove that he or she owned the firearm prior to 
enactment. And without proving compliance--by forcing law-abiding 
citizens to fill out and maintain Federal Government forms--a gun owner 
could face a 6 month prison sentence and a $1,000 fine.
  Sixth, it is said by proponents that the legislation provides no 
additional authority to ATF to ban more guns. Yet, the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has said that virtually any semiautomatic 
could be included on the list of banned guns by making cosmetic 
changes, or removed from the list for the same reason.
  And additional firearms may be added by the Secretary of the Treasury 
if the semiautomatic firearm in question meets the criteria in the 
bill--an act which can instantly convert hundreds of thousands of 
innocent law abiding Americans into criminals.
  How this bill would affect crime in this country. No reputable 
research done to date, including statistics gathered by the FBI, the 
Department of Justice, in the States, or by ATF, suggests that even the 
broadest definition of that class of firearms loosely defined as 
assault weapons occupy other than a statistically insignificant portion 
of the crimes committed with all firearms.
  I have in hand a study conducted by ATF and other law enforcement 
offices in the Detroit area completed in 1992 which focused on narcotic 
related firearms seizures and shows that:

       Thirteen of the 19 firearms listed in H.R. 4296 were not 
     even represented among the 2359 firearms examined.
       Of the firearms in the ``top 24'' by volume, only one of 
     the firearms named on this bill is present.
       The ``firearm of choice'' of narcotics violators is not an 
     assault weapon at all, nor is the second or the third.
       In fact, there were more Winchester model 1894 30-30's 
     recovered, a 100 year old gun everyone would immediately 
     recognize as the gun cowboys used to fight off rustlers in 
     the movies, than the two more popular frequently mentioned 
     firearm in this debate the Colt AR-15 or the TEC-9.

  This same conclusion is reflected around the country and I urge you 
to contact your local law enforcement office to ask them to show you 
the data related to the use of any of the firearms in this bill in 
crime. In at least several instances such as with the Steyr Aug, the 
Beretta AR-70, or any Galil, your local law enforcement will never even 
see these firearms.
  The majority of the other guns on this list will figure only 
marginally at worst. The lipservice paid to those who currently own 
these firearms by the sponsor of this bill that will be grandfathered 
is little more that a fig leaf hiding a much broader agenda. It has 
been suggested that because this bill does not immediately seize these 
firearms, or criminalize possession by current owners that those who 
now own them will be protected. I think that proves that there is a 
wider agenda here. That is the registration and licensing of all 
firearms owners, the primary purpose of which has historically been to 
locate and identify firearms for confiscation.
  It is not difficult to surmise what the next step will be.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  (Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in ardent opposition to the 
adoption of the so-called assault weapons ban legislation. I rise today 
not to speak eloquently like so many of my colleagues have on whether 
this bill will reduce crime, because it will not. I do not seek the 
House's attention on whether this bill will keep guns out of the hands 
of criminals, because it will not. I need not comment on whether there 
are any meaningful distinctions between these semiautomatic firearms 
and all the other semiautomatic firearms, because there are none. I am 
not obligated to explain if these rifles are truly weapons of war, 
because we all know they are not.
  There are many good reasons why this legislation should be soundly 
defeated. But perhaps the most important one of all has been kept from 
plain view. Yesterday, Charlton Heston, one of the most beloved 
performing artists in the Nation, and a long time civil rights leader 
and spokesperson, summed up quite well what this ban is all about. He 
pointed out that movie studios often use back lots, such as in 
Westerns, that certainly look real on camera, but are simply facades. 
That, Mr. Chairman, is what this is all about. It's simply a facade 
with no substance behind it. But I will tell you what is behind it, and 
I hope that every Member listening at this moment reflects with care 
upon what their vote means.
  When the Brady bill, now the Brady law, was passed, what you heard 
most frequently on the part of those who had long campaigned for it was 
the comment, ``Yes we know it will not really reduce crime at all, but 
it's a good first step.'' I can assure you that what you will hear from 
the supporters of this legislation, many of whom have testified before 
representative Schumer, like Jim and Sarah Brady, is the statement: 
``Yes, we know that it may not be a terribly effective crime reduction 
measure, but it is another good step.'' Mr. Chairman, how many steps 
will it take? As every Member in this body is aware, the Brady's 
Handgun Control Inc., and some Members are now supporting in part or in 
whole legislative efforts to:
  First, reduce the number of guns in this country as much as is 
feasible; second, require the licensing and registration of firearms 
owners and firearms; third, impose stiff and confiscatory taxation 
rates on law abiding purchasers of firearms and ammunitions; fourth, 
eliminate certain types of firearms from civilian possession, such as 
that proposed in this bill, as well as severely limiting how many 
cartridges a firearm can hold and use; and fifth, imposing an ever 
expanding zone of tort and product liability on the part of firearm 
owners, manufacturers, dealers, and others for engaging in lawful 
ownership and sales activities.

  So, Mr. Chairman, what is behind the facade of this legislation? What 
is the real point of this bill? I submit to you and every Member of 
this Chamber that since there is no substance behind this bill, there 
must be a very good political reason. Oh yes, to be sure, the 
President, the attorney general, and some Members of the Congress would 
like to be seen as tough on crime. There will be Americans, and I'm 
sure there are some watching now, that genuinely and sincerely believe 
that this political reason is both valid and sufficient one for the 
legislation.
  But there is also another reason that the President and others want 
this bill, and it too is a political one. It is a part of a political 
agenda which the President does not want to share fully with the 
American people. The truth in this case is that we have a President, an 
administration, and some Member of this Congress who believe that this 
country would be much better off if the law-abiding citizens of this 
Nation were essentially disarmed.
  An unreleased section of the report to the President and the Domestic 
Policy Council from the interdepartmental working group on violence 
ought to disturb most law abiding citizens in this country. The report 
recommends, among other items that:
  The Federal Government should study the effectiveness of strict 
licensing on reducing firearm deaths.
  We should consider further limiting production of certain new 
firearms and ammunition.
  In addition to bans on assault weapons, consideration should be given 
to placing much higher taxes on handguns.
  Excise taxes on handguns and particularly dangerous ammunition could 
help offset the cost of providing medical care to gunshot victims.
  Impose requirements on firearm purchasers to be licensed and/or 
mandated to register their firearms.
  Increase firearms dealer liability for negligent sales.
  Require firearm purchasers to pass a gun safety test and background 
check to receive a permit to purchase any firearms or ammunition.
  Create a class of restricted firearms. This list would include all 
handguns and semi-automatic long guns that are not otherwise outlawed 
and could be purchased or carried only by persons holding valid 
registration certificates. These restricted weapons certificates could 
be issued by the local police or local licensing authorities only after 
applicants have passed a background check for felonies, violent 
misdemeanors, or mental illness; demonstrated the satisfactory 
knowledge of the safe and responsible use of firearms; accepted 
liability for injury for negligent use or storage of these weapons; and 
show that the firearms would only be used for specified legitimate 
purposes.
  If you had a restricted firearm, you could only have it in your home, 
your place of business, or a target range, and the unlawful public 
carrying of a restricted firearm would be punishable as a Federal 
offense.
  Set up three classes of firearms: banned, restricted and 
unrestricted.
  The Federal Government would regulate secondary transfers of all 
firearms to prevent their delivery to those prohibited by law to have 
weapons. To transfer or sell a firearm to another resident, an 
unlicensed person, meaning a typical gun owner, would have to go 
through a licensed gun dealer and document the transfer in the dealers' 
records or mail a transfer application to the local police.
  Impose new requirements on gun owners before they could acquire 
firearms regarding safe carriage, storage and use.
  Regulate firearms under design and safety standards as dangerous 
consumer products.
  Perhaps the most insidious part of the firearms section concerns 
recommendation No. 5, which recommends reframing the public debate of 
firearms. That, Mr. Chairman, is precisely what this assault weapons 
ban is all about. And perhaps the damning statement in the section of 
this report reads as follows; ``We have learned a lot of lessons about 
how to change behaviors as well as focusing on the firearms themselves. 
You can't take guns away from men who are frightened, from women who 
are scared or from communities which are scared without giving them 
reassurance and a sense of security.''
  Every American should mark those words well, because there are really 
only two elements to that statement. The first is that there are many 
men and women across this country that are frightened. Frightened by 
what they confront on a daily basis. They lead good lives. They attempt 
to raise their children in a healthy and loving manner, they pay taxes, 
and yet they must suffer the indignity and the pain of being crime 
victims. But this administration wants them to suffer a further 
indignity. And that is to take away a civil liberty. They will be a 
victim twice--once from crime and the second time from their own 
government.

  Ask yourself one simple question: Do you really think that the real 
purpose of this legislation is to reduce crime and to help our 
citizens? On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial that 
deserves a response from this President. Why is the President 
concentrating his efforts on assault weapons, firearms that are 
involved in less than one-half of 1 percent of all violent crime, when 
the largest cause of our truly violent era of crime is drugs? He has 
cut his drug control staff by 80 percent; he has endorsed a strategy of 
cutting 600 or more Federal drug enforcement positions; he has proposed 
cutting more than 100 Federal drug prosecution positions. His attorney 
general wants to moderate mandatory minimum sentences for drug 
trafficking, and his Surgeon General wants to study drug legalization. 
That's no anti-drug or anticrime strategy.
  So for those of you who are receiving phone calls from the President, 
and are having your arms twisted by the White House staff, or by other 
Members of Congress, why don't you ask them some simple questions: 
First, does it end here, Mr. President, or will you ask for 
confiscatory gun and ammunition taxes? Will you propose and support 
licensing and registration for all firearms owners? Will you ask for 
more banned guns? Will you have more restricted firearms? And in the 
end, also ask the President this question: If the police cannot provide 
a full measure of protection to myself and my family, will you?
  I say to my colleagues--mark this question well--because these are 
the words that all citizens will ask us when we return home. It will be 
a simple question for them. Did you help us or did you hurt us? If you 
want to know why the public is fed up with legislation that masquerades 
as crime control, you need to really understand that the rest of the 
story behind the tragedy President Clinton cited this week to support 
adopting this bill.
  Capt. James Lutz, a veteran Wisconsin police officer was killed last 
week. Among the suspects is James Oswald. What is remarkable about this 
terrible death is not that Captain Lutz was killed by a semiautomatic 
firearm, but that Mr. Oswald was never prosecuted by Federal 
authorities months before last week's shooting for Federal firearms 
violations. And while reasonable men and women can disagree over much 
of what passes through these Chambers, I think the case here is very 
clear; this bill will not protect anyone, and the true agenda it 
supports will hurt the American people and all our freedoms.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Reynolds], one of the lead 
cosponsors of this bill.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, today I come before this body and say we 
must pass 4296. First, we must pass this bill because of what is 
happening in our streets, neighborhoods, and towns in this country.
  Second, we must pass this bill because the way in which our society 
has changed demands that all of us reexamine our consciences on these 
tough issues.
  For myself, when I came here as a freshman this term, I never thought 
that I would be voting for the death penalty, but I voted for a crime 
bill that added over 60 crimes to the list of those that are death-
eligible. I did so because the nature of violence in our society 
demands that our response to this be assertive, tough, and absolute.
  Third, we must pass this bill if we are to be at all consistent in 
our approach on crime. I strongly contend that one cannot be tough on 
crime, yet exempt assault weapons from that approach. Such an approach 
tells the American public that we are not truly serious about being 
tough on crime. We punish the crime, but we hold the weapons of 
destruction sacred.
  Recently, we were so tough on crime in this body that we took away 
the weights that prisoners use to exercise with. We were so tough on 
crime that we wanted to ban Pell grants for prisoners to get education. 
I voted for that.
  We voted to make drive-by shooters eligible for the death penalty, 
because we wanted to be tough on crime. Yet, many of the people who 
went back home and told their constituents how tough they were on crime 
would allow that same gun that was used in the drive-by shooting to 
continue to exist in our society.
  In other words, we will take a 17-year-old, we will try them as an 
adult if they drive by and shoot and kill someone. We will possibly 
send them to their death, but we will not do anything about the MAC-10 
or the Uzi or the TEC-9 that they use. That is hypocrisy, and we ought 
to be ashamed of it. Let us have some courage and stand up and pass 
this bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I will take this opportunity to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Connecticut, Mrs. Barbara 
Kennelly, the sister of the chief State's attorney.
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult debate, for so many a tough vote. 
And as so often happens, with difficult situations, things get 
exaggerated or diminished.
  There are those who say ``pass this bill and we will have dealt with 
our serious crime problem in America.'' Of course that is not true. 
There are those who say these weapons are being given an unduly bad 
reputation, and taking them away from sportsmen is like taking away my 
new golf high-tech driver. Of course that is not true.
  What is happening here today is what happened with the Brady bill. We 
are beginning to face the truth--that guns in the wrong hands are 
devastating the cities of our country.
  I vote for this bill because we have to begin to end the insanity of 
innocent bystanders being caught in the crossfire of criminals.
  I vote for this bill in memory of Marcellina Delgado, shot dead on 
the way to visit her grandmother in Hartford, CT.
  I vote for this bill in memory of Samuel Arroyo, shot dead while 
picking up his pregnant wife at her mother's.
  I vote for this bill in memory of Jacqueline Booth, shot dead pushing 
her 1-year-old daughter's stroller in Hartford.
  These deaths all occurred in the last few months. These people were 
not drug dealers, they did not belong to gangs. They were just in the 
wrong place at the wrong time, and a gun was there too.
  This country cannot sustain itself with this type of insanity going 
on in the streets.
  (At this point Mr. MFUME assumed the chair as Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole.)
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 13 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has 17 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] has 18\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, this debate has sure aroused the attention 
of this country, and it needs to. Recently we debated and voted on a 
tough crime bill, but I rise today to encourage my colleagues to oppose 
this bill. I am one of those that were in the undecided category.
  During the long debate over the Brady bill, which I supported, along 
with other colleagues, I received assurances that our States would be 
exempted from the Brady bill. Tennessee already had an even stricter 
15-day waiting period which had successfully been in place for over 10 
years.
  To our surprise, on March 1 of this year, the long arm of the law, in 
the case the ATF, enforced the Brady law in Tennessee and other States, 
regardless of the fact that our current laws were even stricter. Now 
Tennesseans have to fill out both a Federal form and a State form that 
only causes bureaucratic delay and confusion.
  I wonder why we did not get a cooling-off period? The ATF now has 
asked us to trust that this is only a ban on 19 weapons, only a ban on 
military-style weapons, only a ban on guns that are not used for 
sporting purposes, only a ban on magazines with a capacity greater than 
10 rounds. Why, they even go as far as specifically protecting 650 guns 
by name, but only as long as they do not look like assault weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here today to say that I am of the opinion that 
this will only be the beginning of a long list of semiautomatic weapons 
that will be banned. As a matter of fact, the bill clearly allows the 
ATF to stop copycat models, but allows open-ended definitions of 
copycatting.

                              {time}  1510

  What assurances do we have that the 19 weapons banned in this bill 
will not eventually be 119 or 1,900 after the ATF has had a chance to 
interpret, define and even change the classification.
  Mr. Chairman, I am continuously sickened by the number of violent and 
heinous crimes that are committed in this country. I know everyone else 
is as well. We live in a country with rights guaranteed by our 
Constitution, and let us work to preserve those rights. People need 
peace of mind, not a fear of losing their rights.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter].
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, it is a tragedy that we are not debating a 
real bill to ban real assault weapons today.
  Let me show you an assault weapon. This is Russell Obremski. He is an 
assault weapon who was allowed out on our streets. After having served 
1 year of a 20-year term for statutory rape, he was allowed to go back 
on our streets, back in our neighborhoods; after the brutal slaying of 
two women, he was sentenced to two life terms but he was paroled, and 
Mr. Obremski completed his criminal career sodomizing a 4-year-old 
girl.
  Mr. Chairman, the point is our streets are not safe today because 
real assault weapons are on the streets and these real assault weapons 
are criminals and the one thing that this House of Representatives 
cannot do, and pardon me if I disagree with my colleague who said we 
are tough on crime because we have deprived criminals of their weight-
lifting apparatus in prisons, the one thing we cannot do is warehouse 
criminals, and this is a contest between those who want to confiscate 
weapons because they want to defer the warehousing of criminals and 
people who want to confiscate criminals.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to say to my friend, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer] and his compadres in this debate, they are not going to 
get a phone call from Russell Obremski and his colleagues, serious 
felons, saying, ``You know, we saw that legislation pass and we are 
ready to turn our guns in.'' What you are going to do is initiate a 
string of citations and arrests of plumbers, of service station owners, 
of businesswomen, of people who unknowingly now have violated this list 
which we are told now can be extended to some 160 weapons. That is what 
we are doing.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no common sense in this bill. In San Diego 
County, the M-1 rifle, the match rifle that our guys brought back some 
50 years ago from World War II will be included on this list according 
to the authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had tens of thousands of these guns, but San 
Diego is not unsafe because those guns are there, it is unsafe because 
people like this, murderers and criminals, are turned right back on the 
street, and the average time a convicted murderer spends in jail in 
this country is 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the man pictured on this chart is an assault weapon.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the whole idea of our bill, if the gentleman would 
leave that chart there, is very simple: To prevent people like Mr. 
Obremski from getting assault weapons. He should be locked up, but if 
he is not and people like him are not, they should not have assault 
weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, we need both. We need tough punishment and we do not 
want the criminals to have assault weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers], the distinguished senior member of our committee.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], chairman of the Committee on Government 
Operations.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I support this assault weapons ban because 
the time has come to halt the arms race in the United States and a ban 
be placed on these weapons of war. Semiautomatic assault weapons are 
lethal killing machines, designed to tear the life out of another human 
being as quickly and efficiently as possible. Street gang members, drug 
traffickers, and other criminal elements prefer these weapons because 
they intimidate as well as they perform.
  That we are even having to debate whether people should have access 
to these machines of death is a sign of how irrational this issue has 
become. These weapons do not belong on the streets, because if people 
have assault weapons, they are going to use assault weapons.
  Yesterday, Mrs. Gloria Ghee, a mother in my district told me of the 
death of her son Yrral who was shot over 30 times with an AK-47 in 
broad daylight on a lovely morning in September. His body was so 
mutilated that she could barely recognize the person in the coffin as 
her son. Who is willing to tell her that the life of her child is not 
worth our taking action to prevent the manufacture and importation of 
these kinds of weapons?
  Who will tell Mrs. Geneva Reiley, yet another mother in Detroit that 
the gun that killed her child is a sporting weapon? Her son was shot 18 
times with a semiautomatic assault pistol. A model student set to 
graduate from high school will never realize his dream of going to 
college.
  When I spoke with Mrs. Reiley, she urged me to help get guns off the 
streets so that other families would not have to suffer as hers has. 
For her, every day and night serves as a reminder of what was lost.
  This debate is not about target shooting or hunting, it is about the 
safety of our children. This legislation will in no way encroach upon 
the legitimate gun ownership of game hunters or those citizens who 
believe they need personal firearm protection.
  An assault weapon is 20 times more likely to be used in crime than a 
conventional firearm. We will only ban 19 specific weapons, and the few 
others with specific military characteristics that have been found to 
disproportionately affect crime.
  The senseless slaughter and madness must stop for life is too 
precious to be snuffed out.
  For 30 years I have stood in this Chamber and participated in this 
debate about the increasing proliferation of guns in our society. This 
is an important moment as we continue the regulation of weapons that 
are too numerous and too available in our Nation. We must send a 
message that lethal, destructive, assault weapons that are used to kill 
or maim people will not be tolerated.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the ban on semiautomatic assault 
weapons. Future generations depend on it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], the only West Point graduate in our Chamber.
  (Mr. REED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. 
I spent 12 years in the U.S. Army, I commanded infantry, paratroopers, 
qualified as Army Ranger, and I was issued an assault weapon.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not under any illusions as to why the Army gave 
me that weapon. It was not for target shooting, it was not for hunting. 
It was in defense of my country to kill people. That is why this weapon 
was designed, that is why this whole class of weapons were designed. 
The characteristics of high rates of fire, portability, being able to 
affix bayonets, all these things are designed for one purpose, a 
military purpose, and we should ban these weapons as we have banned 
other military weapons, like the machinegun, like Claymore mines, like 
a whole range of military weapons because in an ordered society where 
the rule of law should prevail and not who have the fastest draw or the 
most firepower, these weapons are not appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the most 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wayne Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment about the M-1 target rifle 
that was mentioned earlier to be considered illegal. It is my 
understanding after looking at the list that the M-1 rifle is still and 
remains legal.
  Mr. Chairman, when I served in Vietnam, my fellow Marines and I 
carried some of the most sophisticated assault weapons in the world. 
They were M-14 and M-16 rifles and could fire 20 rounds at lightning 
speeds. We generally fired them on semiautomatic. Some could also fire 
like machineguns.
  The enemy carried AK-47's, which was the Soviet-made gun-of-choice in 
all of the Communist countries at the time. They functioned in 
essentially the same manner, and were capable of rapid fire. I took a 
bullet from an AK-47; I can attest to their deadliness.
  Today, just about anyone can go to a gun store and buy guns which are 
just as sophisticated as the ones we carried in Vietnam, if not more 
so, with the only difference being the automatic fire function. I 
remember the 18- and 19-year-old soldiers in Vietnam and how they 
seemed too young to carry such powerful weapons. Today, 14- and 15-
year-old kids are getting assault weapons through gangs and they are 
killing each other.
  Police generally carry service revolvers--six-shot pistols which fire 
much less rapidly than semiautomatics. In too many cases, police are 
going up against criminals who are armed like infantry soldiers, 
leaving police out-gunned. A few years ago, in Stockton, CA, a gunman 
armed with an AK-47 killed or wounded dozens of children, some of whom 
might be alive were it not for the AK's rapid fire and long-range 
capabilities.
  The House of Representatives has been considering H.R. 4296, a bill 
to ban the manufacture and sale and 19 specific types of assault 
weapons. Anyone who owns one of these guns now is grandfathered, and no 
one would be required to turn in their guns or register them. The bill 
simply requires that the manufacturers of these guns can no longer make 
them available for civilian use.
  What are these guns? The AK-47, used on the school children in 
Stockton, is the military weapon used by most former Communist 
countries. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16, the standard 
rifle of the U.S. Armed Forces. The TEC-9, MAC-10, and Uzi are all 
semiautomatic versions of submachine guns. The Street Sweeper/Striker 
12 is a rapid fire, semiautomatic shotgun designed for riot control for 
the South African police. These are not hunting rifles--they are 
designed to kill people and nothing else. I doubt you'll find any of 
these in a duck blind.
  Some opponents of this measure have argued the bill will ban hundreds 
of guns--not just the 19 specific types. What the legislation attempts 
to do is prevent the manufacturers from simply changing the name and 
selling the same gun. It sets up assault weapon characteristics that 
will not be allowed on any future gun. These include grenade launcher, 
bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors designed to prevent detection in 
night firing.
  The bill also bans the future manufacture of ammunition magazines 
which hold more than 10 rounds. Many of these guns can accommodate 
magazines that can hold up to 50 rounds of ammunition before having to 
reload.
  The bill does not affect firearms which are used primarily for 
hunting. I own hunting rifles, and I hunt from time to time. Instead, 
the bill specifically protects 650 sporting rifles and specifies that 
none of these weapons may be banned while the assault weapon ban is in 
effect. Contrary to a popular rumor, the bill does not involve 
registration of any firearm. People will still be able to buy guns to 
protect themselves and their families, but not guns that were designed 
to mow down enemy platoons.
  I don't believe that crime control should focus solely on gun 
control. We will only control crime when we are willing to put 
criminals away, and I have supported tough anticrime measures.
  I voted for truth-in-sentencing measures to ensure that convicts 
serve at least 85 percent of their sentences before becoming eligible 
for parole. I voted for efforts to streamline the appeals process for 
death row inmates. And I voted for the ``3 Strikes and You're Out'' 
bill that calls for criminals convicted of three violent felonies to 
serve life in prison without the possibility of parole.
  Many of my constituents have suggested that this proposal is 
inconsistent with the conservative agenda that I usually support. I 
might mention that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan--the fathers of 
modern conservatism--have both formally endorsed a ban on assault 
weapons. But both of these men, as hunters, recognize the difference 
between weapons of war and sporting rifles.
  It is true that crime control should focus on criminals and not guns. 
But when a 15-year-old gang member is armed like a commando, or when a 
police officer is the most poorly armed person on the street, it's time 
to exercise a little common sense.
  I urge support for the bill.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  (Mr. YATES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very important 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I can remember well standing in this Chamber talking 
about gun control. That was back in 1968. My how time flies. It's 26 
years later and we are still talking about gun control. Although the 
issues have changed over the years, now our topic is assault weapons, 
the arguments have remained the same. Mr. Chairman, have we really 
progressed so little in all these years?
  Today we are here discussing man's cruelty to man. Our ability and 
apparent willingness to design, manufacture and use weapons of 
destruction on one another. We have failed to live up to our sworn duty 
and obligation to protect the American people and insure domestic 
tranquility. It is ironic: As our trees grow and the rivers flow our 
children die in the streets from the gunfire of semiautomatic assault 
weapons.
  Now we must make the hard choices. Now we must take the necessary 
steps and protect the American people from this wave of violence 
washing over our Nation. The time to take decisive action is at hand. 
Society demands it.
  It is not my intention, at this time, to relate the grim details of 
the dreadful casualty lists resulting from a lack of such control, 
except to say they are there for all to see. I hope it will not be 
necessary for me to recite the long list of public opinion polls, 
conducted among gunowners alike, that show overwhelming support for a 
ban on assault weapons. Nor should it be necessary for me to remind us 
all of the flood of mail now passing through our offices demanding 
strong and effective gun control.
  I have read and heard the NRA's arguments and I find them very 
difficult to take seriously. Nowhere in the basic document of the 
United States is there a constitutional right, written or implied, 
giving an individual a separate right to bear arms. Many have made 
arguments to the contrary, stating that the second amendment gives an 
individual the right to bear arms. This is untrue. The entire provision 
reads as follows: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the 
security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, 
shall not be infringed.'' This legislation will not infringe on the 
rights of any law-abiding American. The right to bear arms is not 
absolute. The second amendment relates to the organization of a 
militia; not the organization of thugs and gangsters.
  The rhetoric that resounds throughout this Chamber, deploring the 
violence in our streets, is made hollow and meaningless by the 
reluctance of this body to take substantive action in restricting the 
use of assault weapons. How can we justify the easy availability of 
these ``gangster'' weapons to those families that have lost a father, 
or a mother, a son or a daughter. Our refusal to enact this legislation 
will have the effect of sanctioning further violence.
  In no other civilized nation does the assault weapon enjoy such 
freedom as it does in the United States. It is our shame that we have 
done nothing to stop the proliferation of these deadly weapons over the 
years.
  I will be voting for H.R. 4296 and I ask all my distinguished 
colleagues to do the same. This legislation will be the greatest 
inconvenience to the criminals, who have thus far virtually unlimited 
access to assault weapons, which, in their hands, become instruments of 
death and destruction. This bill, over the long run, will have the 
effect of steadily eroding the supply of assault weapons that find 
their way into criminal hands. Assault weapons are not necessary for 
hunters or sportsmen. They were designed for warfare with the specific 
intent to maim and kill an enemy. They should be banned for use by the 
general public.

  Although I can understand the reluctance on the part of this Congress 
to limit in any way the freedom of responsible sportsmen to purchase 
weapons for hunting and target shooting. The fact remains that those 
same weapons can be used to perpetrate crimes of all descriptions.
  It would, indeed, be fortunate for sportsmen and legislators alike if 
those weapons, generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes, 
could be relegated to a specific category entirely exclusive of weapons 
used in violent crimes. This is difficult to achieve, but I believe 
this is exactly what this bill sets out to do.
  Unfortunately, weapons that kill game or obliterate bulls-eyes are 
just as efficient as instruments of human destruction, as those weapons 
designed especially for that purpose. But that is an argument for 
another day.
  In closing, I would like to quote an old Kenyan proverb, ``treat the 
Earth well. It was not given to you by your parents * * *. It is loaned 
to you by your children.'' Is it not time for us to start repaying the 
loan. Let us vote today to give our children a safer world in which to 
grow. Vote yes on the assault weapons ban. It is long overdue.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this gun ban. 
This legislation is misguided; it is not about crime control. This is 
not about taking guns out the hands of criminals. This is about 
limiting the freedom and choices for law abiding Americans.
  This argument over banning guns cheats the American people out of the 
real issue: that our criminal justice system is broken.
  We must take a hard look at the conditions that breed disrespect for 
the law and disrespect for the rights of others. This false debate over 
gun control gives Congress an easy out and lets us abdicate our 
responsibility. As a society we must find alternatives to crime for 
young people. When we waste our energy and resources fighting over a 
simple, but wrong, solution to a complex problem, we cheat our 
constituents out of an honest debate over real solutions to our crime 
problem.
  Sheriff Don Hass, the president of the Oklahoma Sheriffs' 
Association, faxed me a letter that clearly defines the crime problem 
in our country and the real solution. From his vantage point on the 
front line against crime, Sheriff Hass tells me that ``a ban on weapons 
will not solve the crime problem.'' If we can put criminals away and 
keep them away we will reduce crime. We must provide our law 
enforcement officers with the tools to ensure that criminals will be 
brought to justice. That is the only effective deterrent to crime.
  According to Federal crime statistics, less than one-half of 1 
percent of all violent crimes committed last year involved these so-
called assault weapons.
  The bottom line is that this gun ban is part of a political agenda to 
reduce lawful ownership of guns in America.
  This vote is not about protecting people or taking guns out of the 
hands of criminals. It is the political marker in a wholesale effort to 
reduce the lawful ownership of guns.
  There are 94 bills pending in Congress to take guns out of the hands 
of law-abiding citizens. These 61 House bills and 33 Senate bills would 
take guns away from working Americans by outright bans, registration, 
or taxes.
  Sixty-five million law-abiding American gunowners are not the cause 
of crime, denying their rights is not the solution.
  Each year, 60,000 felons are placed on probation rather than 
incarcerated. Ninety percent of felons never spend a day in jail. That 
is the problem.
  To deter crime we must make hard choices and spend tax dollars to 
punish criminals for criminal acts. Let us stop this useless debate 
over guns and let us work together to solve our real problem.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], who has worked so hard on this bill.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
assault weapons ban, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this crucial measure.
  This ban is not the same bill that the House defeated in 1991. It is 
stronger and more narrowly drafted. It strictly defines semi-automatic 
assault weapons by an objective features-based test. It exempts 670 
hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns, while explicitly banning 19 
weapons that are clearly patterned after machine guns used by military 
forces for combat use. These weapons are not hunting and sporting 
firearms. They are weapons of war that are falling into the hands of 
dangerous criminals and being used everyday to kill and maim innocent 
people.
  Let the statistics speak for themselves: Assault weapons comprise 
less than 1 percent of the guns in circulation in the United States, 
yet they account for 8 percent of the guns traced in the investigation 
of criminal activity. Assault weapons are 18 times more likely to kill 
police than conventional firearms. Since October 1993, there have been 
59 shootings in 37 States involving semi-automatic assault weapons. The 
result: 34 people were killed and more than half were children or 
teenagers.
  These weapons are designed for killing people. They do their job 
well. And for that reason alone they should be taken off the streets 
now. If not, it is on our conscience when they show up in our streets, 
school yards, and neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to take a stand 
and support the bill we have before us today.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards].
  (Mr. EDWARDS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, the bill offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] should be supported. I rise in 
enthusiastic support for it and thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer] and the members of the subcommittee, the President, and the 
Attorney General.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney .
  (Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4296, the ban 
of 19 specific guns made explicitly for the taking of human life. It 
seems reasonable, that weapons made for the battlefield stay on the 
battlefield. Today, however, the battlefield has shifted to the urban 
and rural warfare on street corners, school yards, and in organized 
crime.
  Guns have been part of American folklore and culture from John Wayne 
to Nat Turner. I would not have supported this bill if it also had not 
protected over 600 weapons that are commonly used for sport. There are 
many responsible people for whom hunting and sports shooting are not 
only recreation, but a way of life.
  Congress has a great debate ahead over what role guns should play in 
the future of our society. But today, we face a test of courage greater 
than any John Wayne shootout. Are we going to act responsibly and in 
the public's interest or are we going to bow to the king of special 
interest groups. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4296.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  (Mr. ZIMMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill because it is essentially a sham, 
addressing the appearances rather than the realities of crime.
  It would ban certain firearms on the basis of their fearsome 
appearance while protecting others that are functionally identical, but 
which just look different.
  As a result, the bill is an exercise in political appearances as 
well. Semiautomatic firearms are used in a tiny fraction of U.S. 
homicides; criminals who currently use the designs that would be banned 
will simply use one of the many equivalent models that will remain 
legal or will use a banned gun in violation of the law.
  Supporters of this bill usually begin their justification of it by 
asking why anyone should be permitted to own one of the ugly firearms 
that would be banned. As a conservative who believes in the protection 
of personal liberties, I begin my analysis by asking what compelling 
public interest would be advanced by limiting the freedom of Americans.
  If the purpose of this legislation is to reduce the incidence of 
crime committed with firearms, that objective would be far more 
effectively addressed by the legislation I introduced last year that 
would increase the criminal penalties for those who use firearms in the 
commission of a crime, as well as those who possess, transport, or sell 
guns in violation of the law.
  Unfortunately, that legislation, along with many other sensible 
proposals to reduce the illegal use of firearms, were not allowed to be 
voted on during consideration of the crime bill passed by the house in 
April.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a problem with banning weapons 
that are not used for legitimate hunting or sporting. In fact, I voted 
for the Brady bill before it was popular, and I supported the 
President's crime bill as well.
  I was appalled, in fact, by those who opposed the President's crime 
bill because it had too much in it for prevention.
  I happened to speak to the President twice this week, and I reminded 
him of his work during this year's State of the Union Address when he 
said this: ``What we have to do is build upon the Brady bill, the Brady 
law, to take further steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. 
I want to say something about this issue. Hunters must always be free 
to hunt. Law-abiding adults should always be free to own guns and to 
protect their homes.'' That night, in fact, I was on my feet applauding 
those words, but despite those words, this bill, in fact, bans some 
legitimate hunting and sporting weapons as they are on the list.
  The Colt AR-15 Sporter, I am told, in fact, is the most popular 
target rifle in the country and is even officially sanctioned by our 
Government in competition.
  I do not have a problem banning the Uzi, the grenade launcher, the 
AK-47, or the Street Sweeper, and I have talked to law enforcement 
officers, probation officers, prosecutors, and the cops on the beat, 
the rank and the file. This is not politics for me. I have not accepted 
a dime from the NRA or the Handgun Control, either.
  But I have tried to offer an amendment today that would remove the 
AR-15 Sporter from the list, and was denied regrettably. Not being a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am opposed to the process 
of bringing a fairly controversial bill to this House floor in a take-
it-or-leave-it fashion. I do not know whether this bill is going to 
pass this afternoon or not, but I do know that if my amendment had been 
allowed to have been offered and it would have passed, this bill would 
have passed in double digits.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would simply say to the gentleman from Michigan two things: First, 
he seems to agree with 80 percent of the bill, 90 percent of the bill, 
he says, and to vote ``no'' because he does not agree with 10 percent 
seems to me not to be the way to legislate.
  Second, I would remind the gentleman that the closed rule was not 
suggested by the side that wants to pass this. So I would urge him not 
to take out his anger at that closed rule on us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support 
the ban on selling assault rifles.
  This is not an issue of gun control.
  Legitimate hunters do not use them; assault rifles are not a target 
rifle; they have no place in a home or business, other than to kill 
people--a lot of people.
  This is not an issue of second amendment rights.
  In fact, when the California legislature banned these rifles after a 
long debate, just like today, the NRA testified that they would not 
appeal a court ruling upholding the California law.
  This is not a political re-election issue.
  The California election results show that every member of the 
California legislature who voted in favor of the assault ban was re-
elected.
  The U.S. Senate has placed this issue in conference. I urge my 
colleagues in this house to do the same. Support H.R. 4296!
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that I rise in strong support of 
this legislation. We must take action to end the proliferation of 
assault weapons, and the epidemic of gun violence in our streets and 
cities. We know it, our law enforcement officers know it, and the 
American people know it.
  Make no mistake: This debate is not about hunters, or sportsmen, or 
gun collectors.
  This debate is no more about the second amendment, or subverting the 
Constitution, than anti-pornography laws violate our first amendment 
rights.
  This legislation is about crime control and controlling the national 
epidemic of gun violence. We cannot begin to total the cost that the 
ready and easy access to high-power firearms has had on our society. 
Today, our cities are war zones, and our hospital emergency rooms are 
MASH units. Our health care system is ready to collapse under the 
burden of providing medical care for the victims of this war in the 
streets.
  Moreover, the cost of the loss of security and safety for every 
American cannot be imagined. Citizens are not safe in their homes, and 
children cannot walk to school or play in the yard without fear of 
mounting crime and gun violence. We must take back our streets. We must 
take action today.
  We do not pretend that an assault weapon ban will end all crime, or 
even all gun violence. But taken in step with a strong crime bill, this 
can start to end the national epidemic of violence.
  It is important to note for the record exactly what this bill would 
do. Take note, my colleagues: This measure would ban the future 
manufacture and possession of specifically named weapons of war--
semiautomatic assault rifles, and large-size magazines and clips. It 
exempts hundreds of legitimate hunting and sporting weapons, safeguards 
the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and does not take one gun out of 
the hands of a law-abiding owner.
  Do not be fooled: As the distinguished gentlemen from Illinois, and 
countless others, have taken note, these guns are not designed for 
hunting or sporting, but to kill a lot of people very quickly.
  Just listen to that, and realize what we are saying: In our country, 
extensive State laws presently regulate the weapons hunters and 
sportsmen use for shooting deer, but we are afraid to give the same 
protection to human beings. That's lunacy.
  Let me note also that this is not a partisan issue--Republicans and 
Democrats alike support this bill. Former Republican Presidents Gerald 
Ford and Ronald Reagan earlier this week endorsed a ban on military 
style assault weapons. So has former Senator (and NRA member) Barry 
Goldwater, who noted,

       I don't see why they ever made semi-automatics. I've been a 
     member of the NRA, I collect, make, and shoot guns. I've 
     never used an automatic or a semiautomatic for hunting. 
     There's no need to. They have no place in anybody's arsenal. 
     If any SOB can't hit a deer with one shot, then he ought to 
     quit shooting.

  Finally, I support this bill in memory of Amy Locicero Federici, 
daughter of Jacob and Arlene Locicero of Hawthorne, NJ. Amy was killed 
in the Long Island commuter train massacre.
  I pledged to her bereaving parents that Amy would not be just another 
statistic. We do this in her name and to benefit all of mainstream 
America--our neighbors, our towns, our districts, the man in the street 
and the cop on the beat.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4296.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4296 and urge each and 
every one of my colleagues to support our Nation's police officers by 
voting for this bill.
  Not long ago, I stood here in support of the Brady bill. At that 
time, the National Rifle Association was telling us that the Brady bill 
would not stop a single criminal. Well, the NRA was wrong. In the 10 
weeks since the Brady law has been in effect, it has stopped over 1,000 
convicted felons from purchasing firearms. If the NRA had gotten their 
way on that vote, these criminals would be walking our streets with 
firearms today.
  So as we consider this bill we have to ask ourselves again, whose 
advice are we going to take; the NRA's or our Nation's police officers?
  Again today, my vote will be with the people we rely on to fight 
crime on our streets every day. They have suffered the consequences of 
these assault weapons, and they are pleading with us to give them a 
fighting chance.
  And my vote will also be with the firearms experts at the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The ATF has compiled tracing data that 
shows that these 19 specific weapons are used disproportionately in 
violent crimes. If only one percent of all guns held by the public are 
assault weapons, why are they used in seven percent of all crimes? 
While the NRA peddles the myth that these guns are used by 
hunters, we know the truth--these assault weapons are 
killing machines that are only used to hunt people.
  Finally my vote will be with the victims of assault weapon attacks 
and their families. How can we look the survivors of the Long Island 
train massacre in the eye and say, ``sorry, hunters need 
these assault weapons to shoot deer''?
  I urge my colleagues to use common sense as you cast your votes and 
remember the voices of police, firearms experts, and victims of crime. 
Do not be misled by the gun lobby. It's time to call the NRA's bluff. 
Let us stand up to the NRA, stand up for our constituents, and pass 
this bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, honorable esteemed leaders of this Nation, I rise not 
to engage in a dispassionate intellectual debate about weapons of death 
but rather to unashamedly make an emotional plea to my colleagues to 
vote to save human lives. I rise as a mother, a grandmother, a woman, a 
Member of the highest public policymaking body of this Nation. Please 
vote to stop the gun violence, the violence, the murders, the killing 
of human beings on the streets of the most advanced Nation in the 
world.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no place in a civilized society for AK-47's, 
Uzis, street sweepers, and TEC-10's. They are not needed for hunting 
purposes, their only purpose is to kill human beings.
  The killing of children in America is breaking my heart and the 
hearts of our citizens. The drive-by shootings in my own district and 
in many of your districts are draining my optimism and hope for our 
Nation.
  The grieving mothers and traumatized families are relegating us all 
to shame and sorrow.
  We cannot, as a Nation, survive, we cannot survive in a society that 
does not protect its children and its families.
  Please vote to ban these dangerous and unnecessary weapons.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4296, 
legislation to ban so-called assault weapons.
  George Washington referred to firearms as the ``American People's 
liberty teeth and keystone under independence.'' Yet, today we are 
faced with modifying the rights of lawful people to keep and bear arms. 
We are asked to divide guns into groups of ``good'' and ``bad,'' based 
upon Hollywood's portrayal of certain semiautomatic weapons as the 
``weapon of choice'' among criminals.
  Mr. Chairman, we would better serve the cause of crime fighting by 
dividing people into groups. To truly fight crime and end violence, we 
must concentrate not on guns or types of guns, but upon who is using, 
or misusing them.
  Those in this body who promote the nonsense that guns cause crime and 
that the poor criminals just somehow can't help themselves are aiding 
and abetting our crime problem by misdirecting our time and resources 
away from real solutions.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the ban.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this piece of legislation, and I can speak with authority on this 
particular issue. I own a mini-14 Ruger with a collapsible stock. I 
even have a 30-shot clip.
  Do I own this weapon, this firearm, for home protection? The answer 
is ``no.'' Do I hunt with this weapon? The answer is ``no.'' But I do 
like to shoot this particular firearm.
  I feel I have a protected second amendment constitutional right. Now, 
to show you how poorly defined this particular piece of legislation is, 
the firearm I just described is banned under this legislation, and the 
mini-14 with a fixed stock is not banned. There is no functional 
difference between the two firearms.
  Unfortunately, the majority of the people in this Chamber do not want 
to get tough on criminals. They view criminals as victims of society.
  So, to look tough, they have to make multishot firearms the perceived 
problem. These are firearms that actually cause less than 1 percent of 
the homicides in this country. Firearms that are metal, they are wood, 
they are inanimate objects. Our focus should be on punishing and 
depriving those people who break the laws of America. The compelling 
question today is: Should we erode a constitutional right, my 
constitutional right along with my fellow Americans', because of an 
inanimate object? I say to my colleagues, do not provide cover for 
those people in this Chamber who view criminals as victims of society.
  But I also give a warning and a reminder to my colleagues, this is 
one more incremental staff in eroding the second amendment. Brady-I was 
passed last year. Today we are dealing with multishot firearms. Brady-
II is now pending. Our next gun issue, Brady-II, says if you own more 
than 20 guns, you have to be licensed because you have an arsenal and 
you are going to be subject to unannounced checks by the Federal 
Government.
  This legislation is absolutely wrong. It is morally wrong. This is 
constitutionally wrong.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Sarpalius].
  Mr. SARPALIUS. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  I want to commend him on his opening remarks because I think he was 
right on target when he stated this was one of the most misleading 
pieces of legislation that this body has ever undertaken. We are being 
led to believe that by passing this bill you are going to reduce crime 
and you are going to stop people from killing people.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing further from the truth. Right here in 
this city of Washington, DC, there was an outrage. People were furious 
about murders that were going on in the 1970s. So in 1977 they passed 
the toughest gun control laws in the Nation. In this city one could not 
even own a hand gun. But yet from 1980 to 1993 there were 4,200 
homicides. Murders tripled in this city. Out of that 4,200 homicides I 
ask, ``Do you know how many of those deaths were caused by 
semiautomatic weapons?'' Four.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``You are not going to stop 
people from killing people by passing this law. The answer is tougher 
punishment. Today in this country for a person that commits murder 
their average stay in prison is 5 years and 5 months, one-third of 
their sentence. We ought to increase the punishment for those people 
that commit crimes while using a gun.
  Another misleading factor about this bill is, as we have been told by 
some of my colleagues, that this will only affect 19 guns. Well, I want 
to show my colleagues a list that has already been approved by the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of guns that will be outlawed 
if this bill passes. There it is, almost 200 guns that will be 
outlawed.
  Mr. Chairman, outlawing these guns is not going to stop people from 
killing people, so I challenge my colleagues and say, ``If you want to 
get tough on crime, vote this bill down. Increase the punishment for 
those people who kill somebody while using a gun.''
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the ATF letter did not refer to this bill. It is a 
letter of February 17. It is another bill. And that list should not 
have been used in reference to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4296, the Assault 
Weapons Ban Act.
  California, along with three other States and more than thirty cities 
and counties, already has its own assault weapons ban in place. The 
Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, which is currently in effect 
in California, is the Nation's oldest assault weapons ban. It was 
enacted in 1989 in response to the shooting spree at a Stockton 
schoolyard, where a gunman armed with an AK-47 and several 
semiautomatic pistols fired over one hundred rounds, killing five 
children and wounding 30 other people before killing himself. Because 
it bans weapon names, instead of weapon features, however, the 
California ban has not been as effective as necessary in preventing the 
sale and use of new weapons. We are finding that some domestic 
manufacturers get around the ban by producing copy-cat weapons under 
different names.
  On a national level, we are faced with a similar challenge. As a 
result of the current ban on the import of 43 foreign-made assault 
weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [ATF] estimates 
that 750,000 assault weapons have been kept out of the country--that 
the number of imported assault weapons traced to crime declined by 40 
percent. Unfortunately, domestic manufacturers are also producing 
copies of these banned weapons, so the number of domestic assault 
weapons traced to crime remains the same.
  The Assault Weapons Ban Act that is now before us closes this 
loophole because it bans assault weapons by feature, rather than name. 
It imposes a ten year ban on the manufacture and possession of certain 
assault weapons and copies of assault weapons. Also prohibited are 
firearms that have certain features--like grenade launchers and bayonet 
mounts--as well as large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  Law enforcement and the military are not included in the ban, and 
weapons that are currently legally owned are exempted, as are 650 
specified sporting guns, none of which can be banned while the bill is 
in effect. Last, the bill requires that the Justice Department conduct 
a study of the impact that the ban has had on violent and drug 
trafficking crime 1 year after it is enacted, and that the Department 
submit the results of this study to Congress.
  This legislation will have very little affect on the right of the 
average American to bear arms. They include weapons used almost 
exclusively by organized crime, gangs and drug cartels. They do not 
include any weapons, semiautomatic or otherwise, used for hunting.
  In spite of claims that assault weapons bans do not work, the fact 
indicate otherwise. Although we do not have detailed, nationwide 
statistics on the misuses of these weapons, the Oakland Police 
Department weapons unit reports that criminal misuses of assault 
weapons in Oakland fell by virtually half since the enactment of the 
California ban. Additionally, the Atlanta Constitution found in a 1989 
study that, although assault weapons make up only 2 to 3 percent of all 
guns owned by Americans, they show up in 30 percent of all firearms 
traced to organized crime, gun trafficking and terrorism. And the ATF 
reports in 1989, assault weapons made up 10 percent of guns traced in 
crimes. Police in virtually every city in this country will tell you 
that they are outgunned and that an assault weapons ban would help them 
fight gun violence.
  The further restrictions on the sales and ownership of assault 
weapons that are in this bill will not cause a major reduction in 
crime. However, they will make it much more difficult for drug dealers, 
violent criminals and psychopaths to get their hands on military-style 
semiautomatic rifles and certain shotguns and pistols.
  Perhaps, with provisions like these in effect, disasters like the 
1993 tragedy when a gunman with an assault pistol walked into a San 
Francisco law office, murdered eight innocent, unarmed people and 
wounded another six can be prevented. Just prior to testifying before 
the House Judiciary Committee in support of a ban on assault weapons, 
the widower of one of the victims of this massacre wrote:

       It's been almost one year since my beloved wife was 
     brutally murdered . . . by a psychotic possessing an assault 
     weapon with fifty round clips. These weapons of war have 
     absolutely no place in our society and the all too common 
     tragedies in which they are used must be stopped. Too many 
     citizens dead; too many friends and family gone. . . . This 
     is not a partisan issue. Violence and assault weapons affect 
     all citizens . . . . As a Republican, I am calling on members 
     of . . . my party and Democrats to see that this bill becomes 
     law. Hopefully no other ten month old girls will place dirt 
     on their mommy's grave as my daughter Meghan did. Hopefully 
     no other single parent will be left the task of telling their 
     infant how their mother was brutally murdered with an assault 
     weapon.

  I like to recall the words and wisdom of my esteemed colleague from 
Illinois, Mr. Hyde, in his address to newly-elected Members of the 
102nd Congress back in 1990. I feel that Mr. Hyde's advice to that 
freshman class is appropriate for all of us now, as we face a vote that 
is controversial, political, and hits close to home for many of us who 
have constituents on both sides of this issue--constituents who are 
passionate in their feelings about what we are going to decide.
  Mr. Hyde told his audience that our responsibility as Members of this 
House is often greater than just representing our constituents--that we 
also have a responsibility to all Americans. This broader obligation 
and accountability demand that we take a national view on certain 
issues--even if it means risking the disfavor of the folks back home. 
We must look beyond the politics of career and be willing to take a 
principled stand for what we believe to be right and in the best 
interests of our Nation, as a whole, even if it means we risk losing an 
election. Mr. Hyde reminds us of why we are here in the first place--to 
serve not just our immediate constituents, but our country, as well.
  This vote on the assault weapons ban is such a stand, and it is a 
small price to pay to help curb the unnecessary and senseless violence 
that plagues communities throughout our country. If one life or one 
thousand lives are saved because we are able to keep an assault weapon 
out of the wrong hands, it is worth the effort.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my objections and 
opposition to this ill-advised piece of legislation, and I challenge 
the administration's intellectually honest about its real purposes with 
this legislation. This bill is just the beginning of a more expensive 
and more intrusive dictate on our second amendment rights. That's 
right, this administration has no intention of stopping at the current 
list of banned semi-automatic weapons. I refer to them as semi-
automatic weapons because that is what they are. They are not assault 
weapons, they are not machine guns, they are not military-style fire 
power, and they don't spray bullets. The name assault rifle is merely 
hype by the anti-gun lobby and the liberal media to make them seem more 
deadly. They may look more powerful, but the fact is they're not. In 
fact, there is no functional difference between what proponents of this 
bill call assault weapons and those they claim to protect through the 
exemptions.
  So essentially, Mr. Speaker, we are beginning a process here for 
banning certain firearms because of how they look. They might have a 
folding stock or they might be mounted with a tripod, but these items 
affect the appearance, not the performance of the gun. I challenge 
anyone here to tell me how a tripod or a folding stock makes the gun 
more lethal.
  Frankly, I just don't believe proponents of this bill who claim and 
profess that this bill is only intended to go after the most lethal 
weapons and that they have no designs to further restrict the rights of 
law-abiding citizens. Let's be truthful here, this bill is designed for 
one reason and one reason only--and that is to eventually take take 
away the rights of law-abiding gun owners. And that is exactly what 
will happen if this bill is enacted. The definition of what constitutes 
a so-called assault rifle will continue to get more narrow. Soon, like 
many things that aren't politically correct around here, it will be so 
burdensome, so expensive, and so out of fashion, to be a legitimate gun 
owner and shooter that the anti-gun lobby will finally claim victory. 
That Mr. Speaker, is where we are heading if this legislation is 
passed.
  There is a gun problem in this country. It is not perpetrated by the 
law abiding folks who hunt, shoot and collect. It is perpetrated by 
people who commit crimes with firearms, who won't give a hoot about 
what laws we pass about making certain guns illegal. They'll steal what 
guns they want and commit their crimes and it will be the law abiding 
citizen who will be at a disadvantage. The answer to the gun problem is 
to have mandatory sentencing of people who commit crimes with guns. Why 
were we denied the opportunity to offer an amendment to this bill to 
deal with the gun problem in that way, rather than to lay the onus on 
law abiding folks?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, let us get it clear what this debate is 
about. The question is whether we should try to stop crime or whether 
we should stop the ownership of firearms, and the first point that 
needs to be made is, if this legislation is far overbroad, as was 
mentioned by one of the previous speakers, it is not just 19 assault, 
battlefield-type weapons we are talking about. It is legitimate weapons 
being used for sporting, and hunting, and target purposes.
  I recently visited with the police in my hometown in Idaho, and I 
asked them directly whether they thought that a gun control measure 
like this would impact their ability to control crime, would cause 
criminals not to have guns, and they indicated to me, no, they did not 
feel that that would be the case. And then recently the National 
Association of Police Chiefs surveyed their membership. Resoundingly 
they answered that this kind of legislation will not keep guns out of 
the hands of criminals.
  What will it do? It will keep guns out of the hand of law-abiding 
citizens. It is those who obey the law who would not have the guns, and 
it is those who break the law who will have the guns.
  Another thing that this piece of legislation does is help divert 
attention from America to the real kinds of solutions that we ought to 
be addressing, the kinds of solutions that we are not allowed to 
discuss on the floor today because of the closed rules, and that is 
getting tough in terms of putting stiff sentences on those who do 
commit crimes with firearms.
  I say, let's address the real issues. Let's get tough on criminals, 
and let's not make law-abiding citizens face a restriction of their 
constitutionally protected rights.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] a distinguished former chairman 
of this subcommittee who initially introduced this legislation a while 
ago.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is about common sense. It is not about 
eliminating crime because there is nothing we can do to eliminate 
crime.
  I own weapons. I am a sportsman, a lifetime member of the sporting 
community in my district, and I do not need an assault, military-type 
assault weapon, and I say, ``Neither do you, or neither does any other 
citizen of this country.''
  One can argue that we should allow tactical nuclear devices under the 
second amendment. That is just ludicrous. We have to draw the line 
somewhere.
  I say to my colleagues, ``It's a very easy decision for us today. 
It's whether you are going to stand with the police in this country or 
whether you're going to stand with the NRA.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is an easy choice for me.
  It has been suggested that eliminating military-type assault weapons 
will do nothing. Why do we have so many police around this Capitol 
today here talking about banning assault weapons? It is because they 
view the assault weapon as their enemy. After all, Mr. Chairman, they 
are the ones that are facing the assault weapons out there in the 
communities day in and day out.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Let's get real around this place. We have 
seen our communities turned into shooting galleries. They are 
nightmares. The reason assault weapons are so vicious is because they 
can kill as many people as can pull a trigger. And, if you have 50 
rounds, you can, in many instances in about 50 seconds, kill that many 
people. And you can survive a shot from a thirty-eight, but, if you're 
hit with five rounds from a military-type assault weapon, the chances 
of your survival are minimal.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is why we need to pass this particular 
legislation. It is a well-crafted bill. It will eliminate 19 weapons, 
not as many as have been suggested. We already ban their importation, 
and I say, ``Come on, let's get real, and let's ban their domestic 
manufacture. It doesn't make any difference whether you're looking at 
the end of a weapon that's been imported or made here.''
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, in a recent Washington Post article 
entitled, ``The Triumph of Psycho-fact,'' Mr. Robert Samuelson points 
out a phenomenon that is blatantly evident in our country today; that 
is, if people feel something is true, then it is, even if it is not.
  Mr. Chairman, this administration has done an excellent job of 
scaring the American people into supporting their every proposal, 
whether it be government controlled health care or the ban on assault 
weapons. And, more to the point, the bill before the House today is one 
of the bills that depends on this concept called ``psycho-fact.'' As 
Mr. Samuelson points out, good judgment requires good information, and 
consciousness-raising can be truth-lowering.

                              {time}  1550

  We have heard all the arguments, the hunting arguments, and the 
second amendment arguments. Let me tell you why it is important to me 
and why you do need these kinds of semiautomatic weapons, I tell the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  A constituent of mine, Donald Lee, called me, who happens to be 
Korean, and has relatives and friends that own stores and live above 
their stores in Los Angeles. During the L.A. riots, when the government 
and the L.A. police abandoned those store owners, the only way they 
could defend themselves, their families, and their stores, was to stand 
out in front of them with semiautomatic weapons.
  So let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen and my colleagues, that you 
do sometimes need these kinds of weapons for instance, to hold off the 
mobs of rioters exemplified in the L.A. riots. You do need them, to 
protect yourselves.
  So I tell my colleagues, when you can guarantee me that the 
Government will not abandon me, or that the Government will protect me 
and my family, then I will discuss with you the idea of taking away my 
guns and my right to protect that same family.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to concerns that have 
been expressed about second amendment rights, but I must point out that 
our rights are not absolute. Courts have long ruled that there are 
limits to the freedoms of speech and press--our first amendment rights, 
the ones the Framers saw as most precious. I fail to see how there can 
be limitations on the rights of free speech, but none on the right to 
keep, and bear arms.
  In perhaps the most famous discussions of the limitations on free 
speech, Justice Holmes allowed that speech could be limited when it 
posed a clear and present danger. The right to free speech, he noted, 
did not give someone the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.
  There is a clear and present danger on our streets. Sadly we live in 
a time when someone could fire into a crowded theater.
  I don't think that limiting such clear and present dangers violates 
the second amendment.
  One of the enduring strengths of this institution, the strength which 
enhances the truly representational characteristics of this peoples' 
house, is that we all come here with different perspectives.
  I represent a district in which a good percentage of the residents 
think that the first day of hunting season should qualify as a national 
holiday.
  I represent a district where 1,200 of my neighbors earn their daily 
bread by making firearms for one of the world's premier manufacturers 
of sporting weapons, the Remington Arms Co.
  And I also represent a district where the majority clearly favors 
less rather than more government intrusion into our daily lives.
  The people I am privileged to represent send me to Washington to do 
my homework on the issues, to listen to all sides of an argument, 
carefully weigh the pros and cons and then do what is best, not just 
for them, but for all America.
  I have faithfully followed their instructions and now is the hour for 
a decision.
  Like all of you, my offices, both here and at home, have been deluged 
with calls from concerned citizens doing exactly what we ask of them in 
a representative democracy--passing along their views on the issue 
before us. Many of them have been quite spirited--the kind that 
conclude ``I'll never vote for you if you don't agree with me.'' They 
have come both from opponents and proponents, neither side has an 
exclusive on this approach.
  I couldn't live with myself, let alone all those callers, on both 
sides of the issue, if I didn't respond to the dictates of my 
conscience.
  This measure deserves our support. It deserves our support for a 
variety of reasons, but most of all because we must give to our 
Nation's law enforcement officials all the support we can as they wage 
war on the crime that is so devastating to our society. But we can't be 
cavalier in our action, we must be considerate of the concerns and 
interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans who are fine, 
decent, law-abiding citizens.
  The measure is tightly crafted and very precise, dealing with 
military assault weapons and not the traditional sporting weapons of 
choice.
  This is a balancing act between the legitimate rights of American 
sports people and a very widely held desire on the part of the American 
people to find ways to keep weapons of the types covered out of the 
hands of criminals.
  It is a logical and necessary follow-on to the tough crime bill 
passed earlier in the year.
  Everyone should understand that the crime bill is the toughest, most 
comprehensive effort the Congress has ever made to help communities 
fight crime. But more police, more jails, and tougher sentences--as 
critical as they are--are not enough. We need this measure. We need it 
now.
  We are reliably informed that these assault weapons represent nearly 
30 percent of the guns traced to organized crime, drug trafficking and 
crimes involving terrorists. It makes no sense to me to fail to get 
these weapons off the street. Being tough on criminals and being tough 
on their weapons of choice go hand in hand.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Hoagland.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. 
Hoagland.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland] is 
recognized for three quarters of a minute.
  (Mr. HOAGLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I have long felt, as has 
the vast majority of my constituents, that these sorts of reasonable 
measures ought to pass. This is an easy issue on the merits, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this weapons ban. Let me just make three 
points.
  First, there is plenty of evidence that this kind of ban will work. 
Back in 1989, the Bush administration banned the importation of 
foreign-made assault weapons, resulting in a 40 percent drop of such 
weapons used in crime.
  Second, this is a weapon of choice by criminals. As our Omaha World 
Herald newspaper pointed out in an editorial, they make up less than 1 
percent of guns in circulation, but a disproportionately larger number 
of guns used in crimes.
  Third, I have a letter here, Mr. Speaker, from 11 eighth graders at 
Westside Elementary School in Omaha. Let me read one sentence: ``Guns 
of this nature are of no use to hunters and only endanger innocent 
bystanders and others who unfortunately feel power by possessing and 
possibly using such weapons. Let's ban them.''
                                        Omaha, NE, April 29, 1994.
     Hon. Peter Hoagland,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hoagland; Through recent media reports, we 
     have heard of the upcoming vote on the bill which seeks to 
     ban several types of hand-guns and semi-automatic weapons. We 
     would like to urge you to vote in favor of this ban. Guns of 
     this nature are of no use to hunters and only endanger 
     innocent bystanders and others who unfortunately feel power 
     by possessing or possibly using such weapons. Please remove 
     these from the market-place!! We are aware that most 
     legislation can be inadequate to eliminate problems from our 
     society, but we hope you will support such an effort to begin 
     the process. We are also aware of the tremendous pressure 
     often applied by the lobbyists, who would try to downplay the 
     significance of such a ban; we urge you to listen to the 
     people of Nebraska, who want these weapons to disappear. We 
     feel there should be stiff penalties for those possessing 
     such weapons, when discovered in police proceedings. The 
     future of our lives depends on courageous action by you, our 
     representative in Washington.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
         Homeroom Students and their teacher, Mrs. Karen Mullen, 
           Westside Middle School.
         Andrew S. Weston,
         Amanda L. Richman,
         Sara Davis,
         Paul Brown,
         Nicole K. Rossi,
         Lindsey Hubert,
         Cherish M.R. Briest,
         Pat Kelly.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota, [Mr. Penny.]
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer], if he would engage in a colloquy. The House will not have an 
opportunity to vote on an amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Synar] and myself, to strike section 3 of this bill. I understand the 
gentleman is willing to work in conference to enact what our amendment 
intended, which is to remove the inconvenient record keeping and 
paperwork aspects of the bill. Is that correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is correct. I guarantee the gentleman from 
Minnesota that before this legislation comes back from the conference, 
we will have removed section 3, thereby having eliminated all record 
keeping of the grandfathered weapons. All record keeping that is in 
this bill will go if we pass it.
  Mr. PENNY. I thank the gentleman for that response.
  Mr. Chairman, I must admit I lack enthusiasm for this bill. Frankly, 
I think the rhetoric on both sides has been overblown. Based on the 
assurance just given by my colleague from New York, I intend to vote 
for the bill on final passage.
  I represent a rural district where guns are prevalent and gun crimes 
are rare. Consequently, I have always been skeptical of gun control 
legislation, feeling that the focus should be on the criminal, not the 
legitimate gun owner.
  I voted against an assault weapon ban a few years ago because of the 
open-ended definitions in that bill. Today's measure is much tighter 
and more defensible, listing 19 specific weapons and prohibiting 
certain features which are not essential to hunting and competition 
shooting.
  Will this bill make an appreciable difference in the incidence of gun 
crimes in America? Probably not. On the other hand, do the provisions 
of this bill represent a hardship for legitimate gun owners? Most 
certainly not. This bill protects all currently owned guns. This bill 
restricts only a handful of weapons possessed of certain features. This 
bill does focus on the criminal by imposing a mandatory prison sentence 
on those who commit crimes with semiautomatic weapons. This bill is not 
a solution to the bloody crime culture that stains the streets of so 
many communities in our Nation, and it may be true that this vote today 
is largely symbolic.
  But symbols can carry a message. I think the message is that any 
right carried to an extreme can create problems. No one today suggests 
again legalizing automatic machine guns. Certainly we should be able to 
agree on a reasonable definition to restrict semiautomatic guns. This 
is the commonsense goal of the bill before us today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to advise Members that the gentleman 
from Texas, [Mr. Brooks] has 7 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from New York, [Mr. Schumer] has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. Shays] has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The chair will remind Members controlling the debate that the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Brooks] the chairman of the 
committee, retains the right to close debate.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California, [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, well, we have heard time and time 
again that there is no legitimate purpose for these weapons, these 
semi-automatic rifles. Well, how about protecting our homes and 
families? I do not care if it is an ugly weapon, which seems to be the 
only designation of what makes it an illegal weapon. If somebody is 
protecting their home and their family, it is their business what kind 
of weapon they have. And we should not be aimed at trying to disarm 
them.
  If a criminal breaks into your home and you shoot him in defense of 
your home and family, your Government should be on your side.
  We have heard a lot of talk about, are Members going to be on the 
police' side or the NRA side. Government should be on the side of 
honest citizens. And if they use any kind of gun in defense of their 
homes and families and they have never committed another crime, why are 
we trying to disarm them?
  The public wants criminals off the street. It is a travesty to use 
criminals as an excuse to disarm honest citizens.
  This bill is a crime against victims. It is based on the liberal 
pretense that the way to limit crime is to control the behavior of 
honest citizens rather than punish criminals and execute murderers.
  Those Members who think that we can just outlaw behavior of honest 
citizens and it will not have an impact on the police and their ability 
to do their job, just remember, there is limited resources by the 
police, limited time. We should not be focusing them on people who 
simply want to defend their homes and have never committed another 
crime. That is what happens.
  I tell Members what happens with laws like this, we end up with 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI and Justice Department burning 
out a religious order down in Waco, rather than coming into our urban 
areas where criminal gangs of terrorists are terrorizing our 
population.
  The whole priority is off. We should be focusing on the criminal 
element, on punishing people rather than focusing the time and limited 
resources of our Government on honest citizens.
  Defeat this ban.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I come from rural central Texas. 
It is a land where guns and hunting are a way of life. I believe in the 
2d amendment. But my colleagues, the constitutions was never intended 
to make efficient killing machines out of drug dealers, criminals and 
crazed individuals.
  To my rural and conservative colleagues, I urge them to consider this 
bill. Less than 3 years ago, like many of my colleagues, I thought mass 
killings were a big city problem, not a rural one. Yet since then in my 
rural district, George Hennard gunned down 23 innocent victims in a 
neighborhood cafeteria and David Koresh built a brutal arsenal that 
became part of a terrible tragedy.
  I have said very little about these tragedies in public, but today, 
in good conscience, I must plead with my colleagues to learn the lesson 
I have painfully learned. Mass murders can occur anywhere, anytime, in 
good, decent cities, urban, rural or suburban.
  I know we cannot stop all crazed individuals, such as Hennard and 
Koresh, from killing, any more than speed limits can stop all traffic 
deaths. But common sense dictates we can and we should make it more 
difficult for killers to get their hands on weapons that can kill so 
many, so fast.
  Surely in a civilized society, the right to bear arms does not mean 
that Al Capone, David Koresh, George Hennard or anyone like them should 
be able to legally buy any weapon of mass destruction.
  Unless Members genuinely believe that hunters absolutely must use AK-
47's, Street Sweepers, and Uzis, I plead with my colleagues to draw the 
line today in favor of protecting school children and innocent citizens 
who could some day themselves be the victims of mass murder.
  I know this is a difficult vote for many Members. Two years ago I 
voted for this ban on assault weapons. After being reelected by 66 
percent in a rural conservation district, I am back today to proudly 
vote for this ban on assault weapons. This is not about losing votes 
back home. It is about saving lives all across America.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 30 
seconds to me.
  There are a lot of things I would like to say. I want to bring out 
just one point that has not been brought out. This was delivered to me 
by Preston Covey, a Ph.D. and Associate Professor of Philosophy of the 
Carnegie Mellon University. He wrote a letter to me today.
  He said,

       I am a civilian member of the Training Criteria Committee 
     of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms 
     Instructors. I specialize in law and ethics of deadly force 
     and one-handed weaponcraft for officer survival over the full 
     spectrum of police firearms.
       This ban would put pro bono services to law enforcement 
     flat out of business.

  Mr. Convey continues to say,

       I am a handicapped person for whom semi-automatic firearms 
     are as crucial as an automatic transmission of a car. Semi-
     automatic weapons are my best option in self-defense. In 
     addition, every long gun I own has been modified with a 
     pistol-grip stock as an accessory which is banned by this 
     bill.

  This bill is ill-conceived, and I urge Members to vote against the 
bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if I take this dime and throw it into the 
Atlantic Ocean, the impact of the ripples will be the same as the 
results of this confused and artificial attempt to reduce murder in 
America.
  Point 5 percent of all murders are caused by assault weapons. That is 
compared to 16 percent by knives, 5 percent by physicians and 4 percent 
by clubs. Each year 2.4 million Americans defend themselves with 
firearms that now the proponents of this bill are saying they will not 
need anymore because we have midnight basketball leagues.
  Meanwhile, in Switzerland every male age 20 to 45 is issued an 
assault rifle which he takes home, uses it to defend the nation and 
himself. Are they a nation of marauders, no. It has one of the lowest 
murder rates in the world.
  Washington, DC, Jamaica, strict gun control, high murder rates. What 
is the difference? Family values and a penal system that punishes the 
criminal, not law abiding citizens.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I stand here to support this ban.
  I was somebody who was on the fence for a long period of time. I made 
up my mind last night. It is difficult for me. I am a member of the 
NRA. I respect that organization. I think it has been much maligned. I 
respect the people who are members of that organization in the area in 
which I live. So, therefore, it was difficult.
  And I hear all the arguments that it is a phoney issue and the 
statistics do not add up and it is the camel's nose under the tent, all 
the things like that.
  But I think every so often people like myself who come from rural 
areas, where there are not a lot of murders, there is not a lot of 
abuse of weapons like this, ought to stand side by side with our 
compatriots in the cities. There is a crisis in the cities. It is 
clear, whether it is drugs, whether it is killings, whether it is 
unemployment. These weapons have no place there.
  Therefore, reluctantly, against all those people that I have dealt 
with over the years, I feel that this ban is important and we should do 
it. I, frankly, think it is going to hurt me politically, but that is 
okay. I guess the only thing I can ask of the people in my district is 
not that they necessarily agree with me but they think that I am trying 
to think through something and do the right thing in terms of my own 
heart. I think this is the right thing to do.
  I ask anyone who is hearing to support this ban.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I only have two speakers remaining, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker in addition to myself, 
so I reserve the balance of my time
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce to Members controlling the 
debate time that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 6 minutes 
remaining, and reserves the right to close debate; the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has 5 minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Schumer] has 4\3/4\ minutes remaining; and the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the President's own State, Arkansas [Mr. 
Dickey].
  (Mr. DICKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am standing here today probably inadequately trying 
to express what the little people want done in my district. This is the 
Fourth District of Arkansas. I am in it every weekend and I am talking 
and listening, and I read the letters. I talk to them on the phone. 
What they are saying is enough is enough. What is happening is not just 
the gun control. They say that gun control is just one other means of 
trying to get control of their lives.
  Taxes takes care of the bank, the bank accounts. The school efforts 
to come into their homes and tell them how they can teach their kids if 
they are home schoolers, or private school, is another part of it. The 
health care bill, the aura of the health care bill, coming in and 
taking 14 percent of the gross national product and telling them when 
they can go to the doctor and when they cannot.
  Then here comes gun control. It is a front. It is a deception, in 
their minds. They say,

       People are not concerned about gun control so much as they 
     are concerned about taking control of the lives of the people 
     who are making this Nation what it is and who have made this 
     Nation what it is.

  I am here speaking for the little person. I am here saying I am not 
necessarily that type of person, a little person, but to be considered 
about one part of a percent of what our national violent crime rate is, 
and not put those people in person, is wrong, by these people. They are 
the victims, but the criminals, we are putting them in prison, we are 
building gymnasiums they do not have, giving them TV's they do not 
have. We are giving them benefits in the medical field they do not 
have, benefits in the legal field.
  They say, ``You can have all the appeals you want.''
  These people are paying the taxes, and there is bitterness that is 
coming, bitterness and bitterness and bitterness. What they want is the 
Government to stay off their back, and this particular bill is 
symbolic. It is nothing but up there at the top, it is a small 
percentage, but they see it as a very large intrusion.
  I ask the Members, if it is equal, go with the little person. Protect 
their rights, protect what they want to have for their own, and not 
have the Government take away.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick]. My understanding is that he will need more time 
than that, but I have only 1 minute to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, if this bill fails today, we are no longer 
a democracy. Eighty percent of the people in this country want to see a 
ban on assault weapons. This debate is not being controlled by our 
constituents, it is not being controlled by the 80 percent out there. 
It is being controlled by a minority here inside the beltway that are 
again controlled by gun dealers and gun manufacturers, primarily.
  Mr. Speaker, if this bill does not pass we are no longer a free 
Nation. Let me tell the Members, they do not have to be in jail. They 
do not have to be incarcerated to not be free. We as a Nation are not 
free when we cannot walk down our streets and feel safe. We as a Nation 
are not free when we cannot stop at a public telephone booth without 
fear of being molested. We are not free as a Nation if we cannot pull 
up to a stop light and worry about someone with a gun sitting next to 
us that is going to blow us away just for the heck of it.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is any one time that I have seen since I have 
been in this body, this is an opportunity for us as a body to throw off 
the shackles, the shackles of special interests, and do what is right 
for this Nation, what 80 percent of the people in our country know is 
right for this Nation. It is now.
  I beg of you, I plead for you to fight for our country, because if we 
do not do it now and we do not do it good this afternoon, we, our 
children, and our grandchildren are going to regret it for years to 
come.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my very strong 
support for H.R. 4296--a bill that will ban the manufacture and 
possession of 19 semi-automatic assault weapons.
  I commend my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee for bringing 
this bill to the floor, and I also wish to commend the President and 
his Cabinet for the excellent support they provided in helping us to 
gain passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most significant votes of the year, 
and I am proud to cast my vote in favor of the assault weapon ban. We 
have shown a willingness to be tough on criminals. Now we have to be 
willing to show that we can take the weapons out of the hands of these 
criminals.
  Countless police officers in my district have called me--have come by 
my office--have stopped me on the street to express their support for 
H.R. 4296. I am glad that today I have the opportunity to stand up on 
this floor and say that I support banning these weapons of war.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] to ban certain 
semiautomatic weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the ban on the manufacture of 
semi-automatic assault weapons. I am here representing my constituents 
and along with my women colleagues to give voice to the concerns of 
women in America. Our message to the House--pass legislation banning 
assault weapons now!
  The Intra TEC DC-9, the UZI, the MAC 10, and the AK-47, these are the 
types of weapons we seek to ban. They come standard with ammunition 
magazines capable of holding 30 rounds and more, they can be fired as 
fast as the trigger can be pulled and they can be purchased over the 
counter. They are the weapons our kids face on the streets every day.
  A gun in the hands of anyone whose goal it is to kill people poses a 
great threat to all of us, however, when an individual is armed with 
one of these assault weapons, that individual's ability to kill many 
people in a short period of time is significantly enhanced.
  Last July, in San Francisco, because Gian Luigi Ferri was armed with 
two Intra TEC DC-9 firearms--like this one here--with 50-round 
magazines, he was able to fire between 75 and 100 rounds, killing 8 
people and wounding 6 others. Mr. Ferri's victims were shot not once, 
twice, three, or even four times, but five and six times. Judy Sposato 
was shot five times that day. She left behind her 18-month-old 
daughter, Meghan, and her loving husband, Stephen.
  In 1989, because Patrick Purdy used an AK-47 equipped with 75- and 
30-round magazines, he was able to kill 5 and wound 30 schoolchildren 
in a matter of minutes.
  It will be difficult to prevent these tragedies from ever happening 
again, but let us not make the killer's job any easier by allowing 
access to these weapons.
  We are faced by an urgent need to find a balance between our rights. 
A balance between the right of someone like Gian Luigi Ferri to bear a 
weapon with the capability of killing so many people so quickly and the 
right of someone like Jody Sposato to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness.
  The best interest of society at large is not served by making 
available to the public this kind of firepower. As long as these 
weapons are being manufactured in our country and put out on the 
streets of our cities, the deck will be stacked against our children 
and families.
  Let us give a Mother's Day present to the mothers of America by 
passing the ban and making our country safer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4296, the Assault Weapons Ban.
  In fairness to legal gun-owners, it exempts 2,650 types of firearms 
created for hunting or homes protection and bans 19 types of deadly, 
semiautomatic assault weapons originally designed by the military for 
one purpose--deadly combat.
  These guns are the weapons of choice for drug traffickers, mass 
murderers and hate groups. They are frequently linked to the injury or 
death of police officers in the line of duty. In my district, as in the 
rest of the Nation, these weapons are the most frequent cause of 
random, senseless deaths associated with gang violence.
  It is this random violence which has created a climate of fear 
throughout America and leads our children to plan their funerals, 
instead of their graduations.
  H.R. 4296 will make our communities safer, and restore hope in our 
children for the chance to learn and play and grow up in a society not 
imprisoned by fear.
  We must not ignore this historic opportunity to reduce violent crime 
on American streets.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to close on this side. I 
would ask the Chair, do I have the right to close immediately before 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], as the manager on this side of 
the aisle?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a conscience vote for each and every one of us. 
I would like to thank my leadership for allowing every Member on the 
Republican side of the aisle to come to his or her own conclusion. I 
would also like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for yielding 
me control of 30 minutes of time to allocate to the Republican 
supporters of the bill.
  Americans have the constitutional right and protection to bear arms. 
It is there and it must be maintained. Their Government has the 
constitutional responsibility to regulate that right.
  Mr. Chairman, we need stronger crime control laws and enforcement. We 
also need stronger gun control laws and enforcement.
  If I had only one choice, it is obvious, I want stronger crime 
control. There is no contest. I think it is about 97 percent of the 
solution. But, that is not a choice we have to make. We do not have to 
choose between one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive. It is 
logical to pass rational gun control legislation as well.
  Some of my constituents called our office in opposition to this bill. 
When I spoke to them, it was clear they did not all oppose the law as 
it was written, but what the law might become. What they fear is the 
concept of the slippery slope. They fear the camel's head under the 
tent. My only comment to them is that we have to take each piece of 
legislation on its merit, not judge it on what might happen some time 
in the future. On its merit, this legislation makes sense.
  Mr. Chairman, if this bill, on its merit, cannot pass, there will be 
such pent up desire for gun control legislation that the next piece 
that comes before us will not be as meritorious, will not be as 
rational. It will attempt to do too much, and threaten people's 
legitimate rights to bear arms.
  Go with this rational approach to gun control, and recognize, this is 
only three percent of the solution, but it is not mutually exclusive. I 
believe we need much stronger crime control legislation. Voting for 
this bill does not prevent me from voting for that legislation as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and first want to 
thank our chairman for his fairness, and my colleagues on that side of 
the aisle, for what I consider an excellent debate on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Let me say to my colleagues that as I have studied this issue, the 
gun control issue, I realize it is not a simple one. We are concerned, 
greatly concerned, about the killing on our streets and the easy 
availability of guns.
  I also have come to understand that in large parts of this country 
having a gun, being able to go out and hunt, having a gun to protect 
your home, target shooting, all of that is very important to a way of 
life.

                              {time}  1620

  That is why this debate is a debate that goes back and forth in this 
Chamber. That is why on so many issues, many of us internally are 
deeply divided. But I would argue to my colleagues, particularly those 
who are undecided because those who have not made up their minds yet 
will determine the outcome today, I would say that this legislation, 
this particular narrowly crafted and very limited bill, the balance is 
in its favor.
  Mr. Chairman, we know what these weapons do on the one side. They are 
not all killing that is going around, but they are 1 percent of the 
weapons with 8 percent of the killing, and if we ask law enforcement 
officers, that number will go up and up and up. So they certainly do 
damage as we have heard from victim after victim after victim. They do 
the damage more quickly and more lethally than other guns. And on the 
other side, the right of people to have guns, let us not fool anybody, 
we know that these guns are not used for hunting, we know that these 
guns are not used for self-defense, and we know in only very limited 
cases are they used for target shooting and can be easily replaced by 
comparable weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, it is true, my colleague from Arkansas said that 
if they do not make a difference in the cities, but they do, why 
impinge on our way of life, the rural way of life, and I would argue 
the opposite. There is some minor impingement on the rural way of life, 
but it will do much more good in terms of the cities.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also say to my colleagues very simply that this 
will work. We banned machine guns in 1937. Do criminals now get machine 
guns? One cannot find a crime where a machine gun is used. They just do 
not get them and they will not get semiautomatics. And on the other 
side, are our sportsmen and our hunters and our target practice people 
and people who want guns for self-defense less inconvenienced because 
there are not machine guns on our street? I would argue no.
  Mr. Chairman, this minor change in the law, and it is a relatively 
minor change, adding 19 weapons to those that are already abolished, it 
will not end the killing, but we know it will do some good and very 
minimal bad.
  Mr. Chairman, these guns are plainly and simply killing machines. 
They are not made for hunting, they are not made for target practice, 
they are made simply to kill as many people, people, people as possible 
as fast as possible. They have no place, no place at all in a civilized 
society.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] who served with great distinction 
on the Committee on the Judiciary and helped to formulate the 1986 law.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to correct two things stated 
by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer, about the 19 weapons. I 
suggest for Members that do not know the truth between what the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sarpalius, showed you, the long list, or the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer, that they read page 20 of the 
report of this committee and they will find that there are many 
additional semiautomatic weapons that are banned, not just the 19.
  No. 2, correction of the gentleman from New York who just spoke in 
this well. He said that we banned all machine guns. If he meant machine 
guns by automatic weapons in 1934, he is way off base. He again does 
not know what he is talking about. In 1986 was when automatic weapons 
were banned. And why were they banned? Because before that time, the 
media and the gun control incorporated, hand gun control were all 
calling them the weapon of choice of the criminal.
  These were the assault weapons. And automatics were assault weapons, 
and they still are. They are the only assault weapons. They are the 
ones that are used by the military. And they have been banned since 
1986. But do the criminals still have them? Heck, yes, they have them, 
folks, and they still use them. Those drug pushers still have them and 
they will continue to have them.
  Mr. Chairman, what have they banned in here? They have banned the 
same thing as my 3030 rifle. They have banned the same thing as my 3006 
deer rifle, as my 12-gauge shotgun. They have banned the very same 
thing that works identically.
  Mr. Chairman, one other thing: This shows a banned gun and a non-
banned gun made by the same people, the same caliber, the same way it 
works, and it kills just as much whether used in hunting or used on 
people.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  (Mr SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin. [Mr. Sensenbrenner] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that has made our 
American Constitution so unique and so enduring is that our Bill of 
Rights was designed to protect the people of this country against 
government action. There are few who would argue that the Second 
Amendment protects individual possession of nuclear devices or machine 
guns or bazookas or grenade launchers. But what we are talking about 
here is a balancing of rights and a balancing of interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate for the last 2 
hours, and it seems to me that balancing those equities requires a no 
vote. We heard the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, say that 
he saw on television Korean American store owners protecting their 
lives and their property during the Los Angeles riots, and that was 
because the police did not show up. And they used semiautomatic weapons 
that are banned on this list. Self-defense is a legitimate purpose and 
this bill would take those guns away from those Korean Americans.
  Secondly, we have to remember that it is already a Federal felony for 
someone who has been convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally 
incompetent to possess any type of firearm, any type of firearm. If 
the Justice Department were doing its job adequately, those people 
would be arrested and indicted and prosecuted, and that is the 
organized criminal element that is shooting up our streets today, and 
they do not belong out on parole, they belong in jail, because just a 
small number of the criminals commit the vast percentage of the violent 
crimes in our country.

  Mr. Chairman, let us face it. The semiautomatic weapon is not the 
weapon of choice by the killers. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro] on the other side said that there were only 19 murders since 
October that used the type of semiautomatic weapons that are to be 
banned by this particular piece of legislation. I estimate that the 
total number of murders unfortunately is 10,000 during the same period 
of time. This is just a small percentage of the murders.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to take weapons that have been used for a 
small percentage of the murders out of the hands of those who would use 
them illegally, the Korean American shop owner who needed that weapon 
to protect lives and property, the hunter that uses these weapons for 
legitimate hunting purposes, the target shooter who uses an M-1A or an 
AR-15 will end up getting legislated our of business.
  Vote for the honest people. Vote no. Then let us pass a tough crime 
bill that will put those crooks in jail.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murphy].
  (Mr. MURPHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
  (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, as one who has had the responsibility for 
burying and eulogizing children as young as 11 years old, victims of 
gunshot, I rise in favor of this particular legislation and ask my 
colleagues to join in supporting it.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4296, the 
Assault Weapons Ban Act of 1994. I think that it is time that when we 
use the word ``street sweeper,'' we know that we are talking about 
public works projects and not South African designed shotguns.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise before the House to urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 4296, the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 1994.
  This ban is not just an inner city issue. Today's Wall Street Journal 
provides new polls showing vast majorities of Americans supporting this 
ban. This overwhelming support is found in urban, suburban, and rural 
areas of America.
  Every major national law enforcement organization in American 
supports the ban including the National Association of Police 
Organizations and the National Sheriffs' Association.
  The ban is also supported by our former Presidents Ronald Reagan, 
Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford.
  The weapons this bill bans are not sporting weapons, they are weapons 
of death. The bill bans 19 specific semiautomatic weapons, none of 
which are used for hunting or other sporting purposes and exempts 670 
specific weapons that are used for legitimate purposes.
  Moreover, this bill does not take away any weapons from people who 
already legally own them. It addresses only those weapons designed to 
kill human beings. America and this Congress needs to get to a point 
that when we say the words ``street sweeper'' we are talking about a 
public works project and not a South African-designed shotgun. Support 
this gun ban as an important step to provide for the safety of all 
Americans. It is time to stop the killing.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes, the 
remainder of my time.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, we have now reached the end of the day on 
the issue before us. The general debate time has allowed every possible 
argument to be aired by the proponents who seem to have no qualms 
whatsoever about taking a simplistic approach to a very complicated 
issue.
  Where the debate has veered off into what I consider an unacceptable 
and mean area is where the self-anointed arbiters of morality have 
attempted to paint legitimate, law-abiding gunowners as part of the 
dark force in America who aid and abet the proliferation of violence in 
our society. Some would have you believe that to vote against this ill-
conceived, overbroad, and unbelievably vague piece of draftsmanship is 
to sanction the terrible scenes of carnage that we all witness on the 
late news before going to bed at night. This is a terrible falsehood 
and worthy of the description of the ``big lie''--that if repeated 
often enough, can cloud reason and clear-headed thinking.
  Well, it hasn't swayed my mind one bit or the many other Members in 
this body who know that the problem of violence has to do with the 
roots of crime, with the pervasiveness of drugs, with violent impulses 
and malice of heart that leads individuals with no moorings in 
civilized life to commit unspeakable acts.
  It is very easy for us sitting here in the Northeast corridor to 
forget about the rest of the continental United States and the citizens 
who live there. Across this country in our towns and communities, 
fathers and sons know how to properly handle weapons for the legitimate 
purposes of hunting, self-defense, and target shooting. This 
legislation insults the dignity of their lives by attempting to lump 
them in the same category of deranged sociopaths, who could get any 
weapon described in this bill in an hour's time. To the frenzied 
advocates, that is a mere detail. To them, the vagueness of the bill's 
language is someone else's problem that can be taken care of later.
  Well, I am not going to subscribe to that cavalier approach. I am not 
going to subscribe to the broadbrush painting of our good citizens as 
potential criminals--nor of sincere, dedicated lawmakers in this body 
who oppose H.R. 4296 as somehow advocating violence in America.
  If you want to fight crime, then support the tough crime bill. Let's 
put an end to the demagoguery and twisted logic. Let's vote this down, 
and get on with the real business of fighting crime.
  Mr. Chairman, let us put an end to the demagoguery and the twisted 
logic that this bill is going to do anything useful. Let us vote this 
down and get on with the real business of fighting crime.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
bill. I share the frustration of many Americans in that there are too 
many weapons in the wrong hands on the streets of our cities. There are 
too many killings by any method, and the United States sadly leads all 
civilized nations in violent crime. Citizens and politicians need to 
direct meaningful solutions and actions to resolve or at least diminish 
crime.
  But, let's be frank. This isn't a crime control bill. It's a gun 
control bill and is another step by the anti-gun crowd to chip away at 
the second amendment. We know that 80 percent of all violent crime is 
committed by 6 percent of felons. That's why ``three strikes, you're 
out'' makes sense.
  This bill gives cover to a Congress that failed to adopt truly tough 
legislation against violent crime. Just last month, the Rules Committee 
denied amendments to the crime bill such as the McCollum amendment that 
would increase the jail sentence for anyone using any kind of weapon in 
the commission of a crime. Numerous amendments to provide stiffer 
penalties for criminals were not allowed to be debated. We should 
classify drive-by shootings as first degree murder and any youthful 
offender in the vehicle should receive at a minimum a 1-year sentence 
in a boot camp. We should insure that there's truth in sentencing, with 
no parole for second time criminals, and mandate that convicted 
criminals should serve a minimum of 85 percent of time, as recommended 
by the father of Polly Klaus, the young Californian who was murdered by 
a child molester who was released early.
  Instead, the focus in this bill is placed on 19 semiautomatic rifles 
and the size of an ammunition clip. Supporters of this bill call these 
firearms weapons of war or assault weapons, saying they are made only 
to kill, only used by criminals. They don't tell you it is already 
illegal for convicted criminals to own any gun.
  They don't tell you that these assault weapons aren't the preferred 
weapons of violent criminals. Here in Washington, DC, the murder 
capital, of the 4,200 homicides committed between 1990 and 1993, only 
four involved the use of a rifle. The FBI reports that nationally only 
3 percent of homicides involve rifles. Ninety-nine percent of today's 
criminals prefer weapons other than those so-called assault weapons.
  Not one of the 19 semiautomatic rifles was used in the military in 
any country. They were not built for the military or used by the 
military. Real assault weapons, that is, automatic weapons should not 
be used by anyone except the military and law enforcement.
  I have flown an F-14 with a 20mm Gatling gun that could disintegrate 
a tank with a \1/2\ second burst, but this bill would deny me from 
carrying a 10-shot, 22 target pistol. We ought to remember that it's 
not the weapon, but who's using the weapon. These 19 semiautomatic 
rifles were not designed to kill people but for use by lawful citizens.
  Rather than getting tough on guns, we ought to get tough on 
criminals. Criminals who use a gun, or for that matter a knife or a 
rock, ought to face swift, severe, and certain punishment. If we are 
frustrated with illegal weapons proliferation, then we ought to pass a 
national computerized instant check system that can identify those with 
a criminal past or mental history that should preclude them from buying 
a gun. Instead, we pass the Brady bill, a feel good unfunded mandate. 
We should deal with fly-by-night gun dealers that flood the streets 
with weapons. We should deal with those illegally carrying a concealed 
weapon.
  We should pass tough measures, not take away the rights of law 
abiding citizens. We ought to lock away those core criminals for these 
6 percent that commit the majority of crime locked up forever.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I support the 
second amendment, which provides Americans with right to keep and bear 
arms. Many of my constituents have a great love for the land and a 
tradition of sportsmanship. I have long maintained that abiding 
citizens have constitutional guarantees to own firearms and that these 
guarantees should be upheld.
  However, I do not believe that in crafting the Constitution, our 
Founding Fathers intended to give citizens the right to bear arms of 
mass destruction. Every day I turn on the news or read the newspaper, I 
find yet another gun related death. Our streets, playgrounds, and 
schools have become shooting ranges. The very fabric of American 
society is being torn apart by a pull of the trigger. Let me qualify, 
that each pull of the trigger on an semiautomatic assault weapon can 
mean 30 shots emptied in just 5 seconds. Semiautomatic assault weapons 
are specifically engineered for the purpose of killing. These weapons 
are simply tools used to enhance criminal activity.
  In 1991, I voted against proposed legislation to ban assault weapons, 
because of its ambiguous language and broad definition of the 
configuration of an assault weapon. However, the legislation before us 
is quite different than the 1991 legislation. First, H.R. 4296 is not 
retroactive. The legislation is grandfathered, to allow law abiding 
citizens to keep currently owned semiautomatic weapon(s). The bill 
discontinues the manufacture and sale of new semiautomatic weapons. 
Second, H.R. 4296 bans 19 specific guns and includes a narrowly 
tailored two part test to safeguard against duplicate versions of the 
banned weapons. Finally, and most importantly, H.R. 4296 specifies the 
exemption of 650 hunting and sporting rifles.
  As it is written, it is apparent that this legislation is not 
intended to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens. This 
legislation is intended to prevent the random killings of people with 
assault weapons, such as the five children mowed down in the Stockton 
schoolyard massacre in 1989, and the eight people killed in the law 
firm in San Francisco in 1993. Incidentally, both these incidents 
involved semiautomatic assault weapons purchased by a gun dealer.
  Mr. Chairman, according to ATF statistics, during 1986-90, 1,088 
assault weapons were traced to murders in the United States and 3,505 
were connected with drug trafficking. After reviewing homicide 
statistics and seeing these daily incidents involving semiautomatic 
assault weapons, I cannot justify their existence. I realize that this 
measure will not eliminate the problem of violence in America, but it 
will certainly create a major obstacle in accessing these destructive 
weapons. I urge my colleagues to support the measure and take a 
fundamental step in saving lives.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of 
the Sportsman Caucus in strong opposition to H.R. 4296, the so-called 
assault weapon ban. I am a firm believer in the second amendment right 
to keep and bear arms. While many in Congress feel the way to control 
crime is to eliminate guns, I do not.
  In my judgment, eliminating guns will not alleviate the crime 
epidemic. The cause of the outbreak is the criminal. I believe we can 
better deter criminals by imposing strict penalties for those who 
commit crimes. Ultimately, the most effective way to deter crime is to 
send a message to the criminal that the punishment will be severe and 
swift.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is just another example of political 
posturing by the U.S. Congress. More people are killed each year with 
fists and feet than with these so-called assault weapons. The vast 
majority of murders involve handguns or some other form of a gun, but 
not assault weapons. According to FBI statistics, fists and feet 
represent about 5 percent of all homicides while assault rifles account 
for less that 1 percent of all murders.
  There are a number of methods which cause injury or death to another 
individual. Knives, ropes, bullets, fists, feet, blunt objects, and 
motor vehicles have all led to the deaths of far too many people in our 
society. Yet I do not believe anyone here would advocate the banning of 
these items. No, instead we would seek to appropriately punish those 
individuals involved in these heinous crimes.
  We are duping the American people by claiming that this legislation 
will help combat the crime epidemic facing our Nation. Like most gun 
control legislation, this bill will do nothing more than impose on the 
constitutional rights or our citizenry. This legislation will disarm 
law-abiding citizens and strengthen the criminal. I have introduced 
legislation that punishes the criminal and not law-abiding citizens. My 
bill would double the Federal mandatory sentences for individuals who 
commit the most heinous crimes with a firearm in their possession.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that this legislation has nothing 
to do with fully automatic weapons. Automatic weapons have been banned 
since 1986. So what we're talking about is semiautomatic weapons. For 
those of you not familiar with firearms, semiautomatic means that every 
time you pull the trigger one round is fired.
  Every one of the 670 weapons exempted by this bill is a semiautomatic 
weapon. They fire the same ammunition at the same rate that these so-
called assault weapons fire. The only difference is that exempted 
weapons do not contain features like a pistol grip or bayonet lug. Mr. 
Chairman, these features may make these guns look more intimidating, 
but they do not increase the firepower or lethalness of the weapon.
  If the barrel of a BB gun or a .22 is staring you in the face, that 
is intimidating. There is no question that a gun of any kind in the 
wrong hands is dangerous. Gun control is not the answer to this 
problem. Tough mandatory minimum sentences are.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that the list of weapons banned is 
not limited to the 19 firearms listed in this legislation. Some 
estimates show that as many as 150 rifles may be banned by this bill. 
In my opinion, this sets a dangerous precedent. Once the Congress 
adopts the theory that limiting access to firearms reduces crime, I 
believe there will be tremendous pressure to ban more and more guns--
until the right to bear arms is effectively nullified.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4296 is a bad bill, let's defeat this legislation 
and get tough on the criminal, not law-abiding citizens.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, to those who preceded me in this 
debate today to say that a TEC-9 semiautomatic assault weapon or any 
one of the other 18 weapons specifically banned by this legislation has 
never been used to kill anyone in a town in their congressional 
district, I say you should be thankful. It is my hope and prayer that 
one of these weapons never will be brandished during the commission of 
a crime in those districts.
  Unfortunately, not every congressional district has been so 
fortunate. There has been case after case reported and documented where 
these weapons have been used to injure or kill innocent children, 
husbands and wives, mothers and fathers in their schoolyards, their 
homes, their offices, and on the streets of their hometowns.
  I know of these tragic stories because I have met survivors of these 
crimes. The semiautomatic weapons banned by this legislation were used 
in a way that has forever changed the lives of these families. For 
those who say these weapons are not used in crimes, I say tell that to 
Stephen Sposato, whose wife was killed by a man who walked into her San 
Francisco law firm carrying two TEC DC-9's he purchased in Nevada, 
because they were outlawed in California. After shooting her five times 
he turned his weapon on others in her office, killing seven more and 
wounding many others. Tell that to the survivors of this horror and to 
their loved ones.
  The fact is that the guns the Assault Weapons Ban Act seeks to end 
production of are used in criminal violence. They are used 
disproportionately to their prevalence in the gun population and they 
are used with one purpose in mind--to kill as many people as possible.
  As a gun owner myself, and a member of the House Appropriations 
Subcommittee on National Defense, I have fired just about every kind of 
weapon conceivable. There is no doubt in my mind that the type of 
weapons we are discussing here today have no legitimate sporting 
purpose. No true sportsman would ever use one of these weapons for the 
hunting of game.
  The only people who should possess these weapons are the men and 
women of our Nation's uniformed services and law enforcement agencies 
who are charged with protecting the American people.
  There are those who say that banning these weapons will not prevent 
crime. There is no doubt this ban will not prevent all criminal 
activities, but if it saves the life of one innocent victim or protects 
one police officer patrolling our streets, then this ban is worth 
enacting today.
  This legislation does not ban the ownership of these weapons. It does 
not require them to be turned in or registered. It does not even ban 
their sale or transfer. It simply bans their future production which 
will help dry up the supply available to the criminals who use them. We 
have already seen this to be the case as the number of murders, 
assaults, drug crimes and property crimes linked to imported assault 
weapons has declined since the imposition of an import ban established 
by President Bush in 1989 on a select number of weapons.
  It is unfortunate that the legislation we consider today will not put 
an end to killing and murders in our towns and cities. No legislation 
we enact in Congress, no matter how tough, will do that.
  This legislation, however, makes it more difficult for those who 
might commit these heinous crimes from acquiring weapons whose sole 
purpose is to maim and kill another human being. It does this while 
still protecting the fundamental second amendment rights of the 
American people.
  Even Bill Jackson, of Pinellas Park, FL, the owner of Shop for 
Adventure, one of our Nation's largest sporting goods stores which 
sells guns, has written me in support of this bill saying these guns 
``have no need in the sports world, nor for personal defense.''

  Mr. Chairman, contrary to many of the assertions we have heard during 
this debate, the intent of this legislation is simply to stop the 
future manufacture of these killing machines. The legislation 
grandfathers any weapon in the act that is presently owned. It does not 
prohibit a gun owner from transferring their weapon to their son or 
daughter or to any other law abiding citizen. It does not require them 
to register their gun with local authorities, and it specifically 
exempts more than 650 hunting and sporting rifles. The legislation also 
make clear that a gun does not have to be on the list of exemptions to 
also be exempt.
  People opposed to this act say this is the first step towards gun 
registration and gun confiscation. Well I am a gun owner, and I have 
used a gun to protect my family from criminals in my own home and I 
strongly defend the right of Americans to own guns, but I cannot 
support allowing the continued production of these 19 specific types 
weapons for use by any one other than a member of our Nation's 
uniformed services or law enforcement agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past few weeks I have searched my conscience 
at length and talked to many people from all sides of this issue. In 
the course of the debate I have received much input from my 
constituents, and, quite frankly, I have received threats of political 
retribution from both sides if I did not vote their way. To cast my 
vote for or against any legislation based on the threat of retaliation 
at the polls would be no different than casting a vote for or against 
an issue based on promised financial or political support.
  In casting my vote today, I must decide what is in the best interests 
of the people I represent and all the American people. For those who 
have lost a loved one through a violent act committed by one of these 
specific types of assault weapons, or for those who patrol our streets 
and run the risk of encountering a criminal armed with one these 
weapons, I can only conclude that this legislation is in their best 
interest and the best interest of future victims of these weapons.
  Just as those who believe this legislation is a panacea to prevent 
crime and violence in our streets are wrong, those who believe this 
legislation represents an erosion of our second amendment rights to 
keep and bear arms are also wrong. During this debate today, no one 
stood up to advocate that the second amendment covers the right of 
people to keep and bear machine guns or other military style weaponry. 
This legislation simply adds 19 specific types of weapons to a list of 
weapons that cannot be produced for anyone other than a member of our 
uniformed or law enforcement services. It does not confiscate or ban 
possession by those people who already legally own them.
  This is an attempt to protect the lives of those who may one day run 
astray of a criminal in possession of one of these weapons of death. 
For those who would refer to the constitutional protection of the 
American people to keep and bear arms, and their is no greater 
proponent of this second amendment right than this Congressman, I would 
refer to the preamble of our Constitution which charges that ``We the 
people, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, and 
insure domestic Tranquility * * *'' This legislation is one step in 
trying to help insure domestic tranquility and the preservation of 
innocent life.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, Americans are sick and tired of hearing 
about crimes that are being committed in their neighborhoods. It is our 
duty as U.S. Representatives to prevent criminals from controlling the 
lives of law-abiding citizens. The strong punishment and smart 
prevention measures found in the crime bill, which recently passed the 
House, lets criminals know that they will no longer be tolerated.
  However, any attempt to take away the rights of law abiding citizens 
to own firearms is not the answer to stopping crime. In fact, the 
National Association of Chiefs of Police oppose the ban. Criminals by 
nature will break the law, and if Congress bans various assault 
weapons, criminals will simply choose to illegally obtain these or 
other weapons to perpetrate their crimes.
  Furthermore, the second amendment clearly states that people have the 
right to keep and bear arms. The idea of banning certain guns is an 
infringement on the rights of citizens to protect their own families. 
If the assault weapon ban is passed, gun control advocates will seek 
further ways to violate the rights of gun owners. The focus should 
instead be on finding new ways to help kids say no to gangs and drugs 
through crime prevention programs as well as measures which keep repeat 
offenders off the streets. These are the measures which will keep all 
Americans safe. At the very least, the idea of banning certain guns 
should be left to each State. Therefore, States which are less urban 
and more rural should have the right to allow their own citizens to 
purchase guns for hunting, gun collecting, and other various purposes 
common in their own culture.
  In addition, the legislation would also ban popular sporting rifles 
such as the Springfield M1A which is used by highpower rifle target 
shooters in competition. It is unfair to deny law abiding sportsmen 
their rights to own rifles which they use in competition. The ban also 
imposes penalties of up to 5 years in prison as well as a possible fine 
of up to $5,000 for those who own the banned guns. However, there are 
many citizens who legally have guns in their possession, and these law 
abiding citizens could be subject to penalties if they do not have 
proof that they purchased the gun prior to enactment of the gun ban. 
Since many guns lack serial numbers and other forms proving the date of 
purchase, many innocent individuals could be accused of violating the 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, military-style weapons are involved in less than 1 
percent of all serious crime, and the assault weapons ban will not keep 
crime off the streets. I therefore hope that Congress and the President 
pay less attention to gun bans and more attention to tough punishments 
and smart prevention measures.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4269, the 
Assault Weapons Ban Act. As a cosponsor of this bill, I believe that it 
can only decrease our country's crime rate and ensure the safety of the 
American public.
  The violent incidents in the United States which have been a result 
of assault weapons have not discriminated against any one region or age 
group. Since 1991 over 5,000 young Americans, ages 1-19, have died as a 
result of guns and tens of thousands more have been injured. In the 
United States today, a young man is more likely to die due to handgun 
violence than by any other means. We now have a chance to not only save 
the young men and women of our country but to also shield the hundreds 
of thousands of Americans who are in some way affected by guns each 
year.
  Many organizations who do not support this bill advocate that a ban 
on assault weapons will infringe upon the American public's 
constitutional rights. In addition, they argue that there is no 
difference between which guns are proposed to be banned and which are 
not, and claim that this proposed ban will affect hunter's firearms. 
All of these allegations are false, as supporters of this bill already 
know.
  The American Bar Association has clearly and continually stated that 
there is no credible constitutional ban on enacting strong, 
comprehensive assault weapon legislation. The ABA emphasizes that the 
Supreme Court, as well as lower Federal courts, have never struck down 
any regulation of private firearm ownership in our Nation's history.
  It is almost unbelievable that, given the violent statistics, 
Congress has not devoted more attention to this issue until recently. 
The Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has 
stated that the narrow range of assault weapons which this bill would 
affect are not like ordinary guns. Rather, the weapons to be banned 
are, in effect, efficient killing machines. Hunters who fear that their 
weapons will be banned should not be concerned. The 19 specific guns 
which will be outlawed are those designed to kill humans, not to hunt 
animals.
  Some 77 percent of Americans and two-thirds of gun owners polled are 
in favor of this ban. The fact remains that guns banned under H.R. 4296 
make up only 1 percent of all privately owned firearms in the United 
States. Yet, in 1993 assault weapons accounted for 9 percent of the 
guns used by cop killers and over 8 percent of all firearm related 
crimes. This can not be tolerated.
  In 1991, California passed the Nation's first assault weapons ban as 
an outcome of the tragic 1989 Stockton school massacre. As a result of 
this ban, California has held firm against the drastic Nation-wide 
growth of assault weapons. From 1991 through 1993, California requests 
for assault weapons rose less than half of the national average. This 
ban is an example of a proven method of reducing assault weapon 
violence.
  Numerous bipartisan organizations, including major law enforcement 
organizations, who only have the public's best interests and safety in 
mind support H.R. 4296. I urge my colleagues to reflect the will of the 
American public and to vote in favor of this ban. Together we can win 
this battle against crime.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Assault Weapons Ban Act. The increase in violence in our Nation's 
communities is an issue that deeply concerns me. As a Representative 
from my district of Dayton, OH, I have heard from many constituents who 
have expressed outrage and fear at the type of violence they face on a 
daily basis, and who have urged Congress to keep these guns out of the 
reach of criminals.
  As a parent, I have listened to my children who have told me 
disturbing stories of how many young people get involved with guns and 
drugs in schools. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more 
than 50,000 American children have been killed by guns between 1979 and 
1991. In 1991 alone, over 5,000 children between the ages of 1 to 19 
died from gunshot wounds, and over 26,000 children were injured by 
guns. Mr. Chairman, action must be taken to ensure that children are 
safe in their neighborhoods and can attend schools in a learning 
environment. It is disturbing to hear that so many young people know 
the horror of such violence at an early age, and are planning their 
funerals instead of planning for their future.
  I am not antigun, and I respect the rights of those who are hunters, 
sportsmen, and collectors. The bill before us does not pertain to these 
law-abiding citizens. Instead, it bans 19 assault weapons which are 
specifically designed to kill people in large numbers.
  Obviously, this ban is not the only solution to the increase in gun-
related violence. But, if we can curb the senseless killing of many 
individuals by banning these assault weapons, then I believe we in 
Congress have made one important step forward in addressing the 
violence in our country. I urge my colleagues to vote for the assault 
weapon ban.
  Mr. RAHALL. I rise today Mr. Chairman, to oppose H.R. 4296, the bill 
to ban so-called assault weapons and to tell you how the people whom I 
am proud to represent feel about this effort to erode their rights.
  I have heard from countless constituents who value the right to own 
the firearms of their choice so that they may participate in hunting or 
sporting activities or to be able to protect their homes or their 
families. They understand the facts that those who advocate gun control 
do not understand--gun control only restricts the rights of honest 
citizens, it has no effect on criminals. And that is what we are 
talking about here--gun control instead of criminal control or 
prevention who believe, for a moment that if successful today, this 
will be the end. Who are we kidding?
  Let me tell you a little bit about West Virginia. We have very little 
restriction on our second amendment rights and yet we are not overrun 
by gun crime. We do not have shoot-outs on our streets. People do not 
barricade themselves in their homes, afraid to go out into their 
neighborhoods. On the contrary, West Virginia, a State with little gun 
control, enjoys one of the lowest crime rates of this Nation.
  We should get one thing clear, Mr. Chairman, the debate here today is 
not about guns, it is not about assault weapons. What we are really 
talking about is prohibiting ordinary, peaceable Americans from owning 
private property of their choosing. As one of my constituents from 
Huntington, WV, wrote to me recently,

       Proposed antigun laws do not impact the criminal nearly as 
     much as they impact me, the law-abiding, voting, proud West 
     Virginia and United States citizen * * * . Our freedoms here 
     in America are very precious. However, I feel that my 
     freedoms are slowly but surely being erased.

  We cannot go about legislating that some guns are good and some are 
evil without jeopardizing the rights of citizens to own guns at all. 
Those advocating gun control will not be satisfied until all weapons 
are on the evil list. Last year a little of the value of the second 
amendment was eroded when a waiting period for all handgun purchases 
was instituted. This year you are seeking to ban semiautomatic weapons 
that have certain arbitrary cosmetic features. Next year it will be 
something else and the process won't stop until the second amendment is 
a deflated ballon lying wasted in the trail of the parade bound to 
trample all of our personal freedoms.
  I urge all my colleagues to pause for a moment to reflect on the 
impact of your actions here today and have the courage to support the 
rights of honest citizens. You cannot control crime in the streets by 
slapping handcuffs on the second amendment. Oppose H.R. 4296.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, the ban on assault weapons will not stop 
criminals from committing crimes, nor will it stop them from obtaining 
guns. The only thing this legislation will do is keep law-abiding 
citizens from owning the rifle, shotgun, or pistol of their choice.
  I am alarmed at the panic that has been caused by the proponents of 
this legislation. The semiautomatic firearms that the assault weapon 
legislation seeks to ban make up less than 1 percent of all guns in 
circulation. Laws already exist that forbid convicted felons from 
owning firearms. Laws also exist that govern when a gun may be used and 
how it may be carried.
  The only true military-style assault weapons are fully automatic and 
have been stringently controlled since 1934. This legislation will have 
no effect on the sale or ownership of automatic firearms which fire 
multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger.
  This legislation deals with the semiautomatic firearm which fires one 
shot with one pull of the trigger--just like any other firearm. There 
is no difference in the action of a semiautomatic hunting rifle and the 
action of a semiautomatic rifle that would be banned except for the 
outward appearance of military hardware such as a folding stock or 
bayonet lug. With these items, it is considered an assault weapon and 
without these items, it is a sporting rifle. The firearm will still use 
the same bullets, fire at the same speed, and hit the same target, but 
those simple cosmetic changes are the difference between a legal and 
illegal weapon.
  While gun control advocates label the ``assault weapon'' as the 
weapon of choice for criminals, it is important to note that assault 
rifles were used in less than 1 percent of all homicides. If we really 
want to help protect police officers, we need to fight crime--not 
infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, on the morning of October 13, 
1992, Annette Freeman prepared her 7-year-old son Dantrell Davis for 
first grade. As was her custom, she had planned to walk with him the 
few blocks to school through the Cabrini-Green Housing Development in 
which they lived, but as they emerged from their building, Dantrell was 
killed instantly by an AR-15 assault weapon shot by a sniper.
  According to the Chicago Tribune, which ran a series of articles on 
the children killed by gunfire, Dantrell's mother told jurors at the 
trial that when she heard the shots she ducked and saw sparks coming 
from a 9th- or 10th-floor window of a nearby building. ``I went 
crawling to Danny'' she said. ``He was laying on the ground. I just was 
asking him to get up, but he wouldn't get up. He wouldn't get up.''
  The weapon that enabled the sniper nine floors up at his perch in the 
adjacent high-rise building, to shoot and kill little Dantrell is a 
semiautomatic version of the M-16 machineguns used by the military. 
This weapon was traced by law enforcement agents in crime 
investigations more than 1,800 times between 1990 and 1993. There is 
absolutely no legitimate reason for this weapon of war to be available 
and as easy to purchase as the bookbag that Dantrell carried to school. 
This is a national disgrace.
  In 1989 we banned the AR-15 from re-importation into the United 
States because it did not meet the sporting purpose criteria under the 
Gun Control Act. Obviously if these weapons should not be imported or 
re-imported then we certainly should not allow 400,000 of them to be 
manufactured here in this country. This lunacy must end.
  This past December, 16-year-old, Gerome Allen who played basketball 
for Westinghouse High School was standing outside Banner Supermarket on 
Chicago's westside, holding a box of doughnuts, waiting for his brother 
who was still inside the store, when gunfire erupted from a building 
across the street. One of the bullets from an AK-47 assault weapon 
fatally struck him in the back of the head.
  Over the course of this debate I am sure that we will hear from a 
chorus of assault weapons promoters backed by the NRA, or the not 
really attuned, who will say that the list of weapons included in the 
ban includes guns which are used by sportsmen. They will argue that the 
ban would prohibit these law-abiding citizens from enjoying their 
sport. While I believe that the bill has been crafted in such a way as 
to avoid this problem, I must say that as a mother I find it hard to 
listen to arguments about inconvenience when regularly innocent 
children are being killed because of the existence of these weapons on 
our streets. Guns which cause completely unnecessary destruction and 
death in their wake. There is no question that the lives saved by this 
ban more than justify any possible inconvenience that it may impose.
  The NRA should realize that they are doomed to failure. Nobody really 
agrees with their views because Americans know that the NRA stands for 
Not Really Aware, or in Need of a Reality Adjustment. They must be 
stopped before these John-Wayne-wannabes misuse the second amendment to 
turn America into a shooting gallery.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill comes too late for Dantrell's mother or the 
mother of Gerome Allen, but as Mother's Day approaches let us allow a 
few other mothers the chance to see their children live. H.R. 4296 is a 
measured, and reasonable approach to control a category of weapon which 
has no business being on our streets. If ever there was an important 
and rational piece of legislation this is it. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 4296.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I want to express today my strong support 
for H.R. 4296, a bill to ban certain, specified military-style assault 
weapons. Passage of this bill to ban assault weapons is a vital element 
of our Nation's campaign to control crime and address the most 
dangerous types of violence in the streets of local communities.
  Recently, I voted along with a majority of the House to pass H.R. 
4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, also known as 
the crime bill. This legislation committed a record $28 billion to the 
war on crime and provides significant increases in federal grants to 
states and local governments for anti-crime efforts. More prisons will 
be built to keep convicted criminals in jail for longer periods. More 
police officers will be hired to patrol local communities. More 
resources will be committed to the prevention of crime.
  The House bill, however, did not address the issue of gun violence in 
an aggressive manner. Today, the House has an opportunity to show the 
Nation that reasonable men and women can take action to stem the 
availability of assault weapons. We can respond to the outcry against 
the use of military-style weapons on neighborhood streets and school 
play grounds. We can help local police officers who are at risk to 
facing criminals with MAC-11 assault pistols loaded with 32 rounds of 
ammunition.
  There is strong support in Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania for 
restrictions on assault weapons. Both the city of Pittsburgh and the 
city of Philadelphia have passed local laws banning the sale of assault 
weapons. A recent poll conducted by Mansfield University Rural Services 
Institute showed that 77 percent of southwestern Pennsylvania supported 
prohibiting the sale of guns classified as semiautomatic assault 
weapons.
  The House Judiciary has reported responsible legislation to prohibit 
the sale of assault weapons. This bill bans the future manufacture or 
sale of 19 specific assault weapons, including the AK-47, the Uzi, the 
TEC-9, the Colt AR-15, and the street sweeper revolving cylinder 
shotgun. Also covered would be assault weapons which have two or more 
military style features, such as folding stocks, protruding pistol 
grips, or bayonet mounts.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation to prohibit the sale of 
assault weapons. This responsible bill promotes public safety by 
restricting the sale of military-style assault weapons while 
specifically exempting by name 670 of the guns most commonly used by 
hunters and recreational gun owners. In addition, this bill will not 
result in the confiscation of any gun. Legal gun owners are 
grandfathered under this proposal.

  This effort to ban assault weapons has widespread support among law 
enforcement groups who want to diminish the dangers confronting police 
officers who serve and protect our communities. Groups supporting the 
ban include the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association, the International Brotherhood of Chiefs of 
Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' 
Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
Executives, and the Police Foundation.
  A ban on assault weapons is also supported by a broad coalition of 
civic, labor, education and community groups, including the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National Urban League, the National League of 
Cities, the National Association of Counties, the AFL-CIO, the National 
Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the 
National Congress of Parents and Teachers.
  In addition, this legislation is supported by health care 
professionals who must attempt to treat individuals wounded by assault 
weapons. Medical groups such as the American Medical Association, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Emergency 
Physicians all support a ban on assault weapons.
  Opponents of this legislation say that a ban on assault weapons will 
not stop violent crime. An end to all violent crime may not be within 
our reach. I believe, however, that this ban on assault weapons will 
help reduce violent crime. There comes a time when it is better to take 
action even on a modest scale rather than throw up our hands in defeat. 
It is time to act against criminals who enjoy unrestricted access to 
the most dangerous weapons currently in widespread production for the 
retail marketplace.
  Mr. Chairman, the crime bill recently passed by the House will be 
incomplete without approval of this law to ban assault weapons. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for this provision. A ban on assault weapons must 
be part of the final crime bill to be sent to President Clinton later 
this year.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the assault weapons 
bill.
  My belief is that the measure pending before us today will do little 
if anything to halt the very real problem of crime in this country. The 
weapons that are identified in this legislation are involved in only a 
very small percentage of crimes. In fact, the Bureau of Justice 
statistics reported in 1993 that violent criminals use a ``military-
type gun'' in only 1 percent of crimes nationwide.
  Rather, this legislation is an attempt to provide a fig leaf to those 
in this body who do not want to see real crime control measures put 
into place. The Rules Committee has disallowed an amendment that would 
have imposed mandatory minimum sentences on those using guns in the 
commission of a violent felony or drug crime as an alternative to this 
measure. Just a few weeks ago the House defeated measures that would 
have made a real difference in the fight against crime--measures like 
requiring States to ensure that no less than 85 percent of convicts' 
sentences are served in order to obtain Federal prison construction 
grants, allowing the use of evidence that is obtained in good faith but 
thrown out of court due to technicalities, and reforming our Nation's 
habeas corpus laws to prevent endless death sentence appeals.
  The fact is this bill is little more than a feel-good band-aid for 
politicians who want to say they're tough on crime but are afraid to be 
tough on the criminals. It will do little to halt the real crime 
problem that exists in this country. At the same time, it purports to 
address the crime problem without regard for the rights of law-abiding 
citizens who wish to use popular rifles like the Colt Sporter--which 
would be banned under this bill--in legitimate shooting competitions.
  It is my hope that this body will defeat the measure before us today, 
move on to a conference with the Senate on the crime bill, and bring a 
crime bill back to this House that provides real teeth in the fight 
against crime.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, due to a personal tragedy, the death of my 
closest friend, Dr. Stephen Kelley, I will be unable to cast my vote 
today against H.R. 4296, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, so that I may 
attend his funeral in Somerset, KY. While I loathe to miss any vote, 
particularly one as important as this, there are rare and extraordinary 
occasions when we must put family and friends above all else. This is 
one of those occasions.
  However, I want to reiterate to my colleagues my continuing staunch 
opposition of H.R. 4296, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Had I been 
able to cast my vote today, my vote would have been an unequivocal no. 
My position has remained unchanged since I cast my vote against the 
assault weapons ban in 1991.
  I remain opposed to the assault weapons ban for the following 
reasons:
  First, it is clearly unconstitutional. The second amendment gives 
every law-abiding citizen the right to bear arms. Once again, Congress 
is intent on trampling the constitutional rights of every law-abiding 
American citizen.
  Second, gun control is not crime control. One needs to look no 
further than our Nation's capitol to see that this is true. Washington, 
DC has the strictest gun control laws in the country, and the highest 
per capita murder rate of any city in this country.
  Third, contrary to the antigun lobby's claims, assault weapons are 
not the weapon of choice for violent criminals. Less than one half of 1 
percent of all violent crimes involve assault weapons. In contrast, 15 
percent of all violent crimes involve knives, and 5 percent involve 
fists and feet. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
has stated that for every 4,000 violent crimes reported to the police, 
only one involves an assault weapon. Clearly, an assault weapons ban is 
not the answer to violent crime.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we got tough on crime. In order to do that 
we must take away the freedom of criminals, instead of attacking the 
freedom every law-abiding citizen is given under the Constitution. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that restricting the 
legal purchase of guns will curb crime. The firearms listed in this 
bill--despite their outward appearance--operate the same as, and are 
mechanically no different than, popular sport and hunting firearms. So 
I have to ask what is the agenda of the supporters of this ban and 
where will this Federal intrusion on constitutional rights end? If 
these firearms are being banned due solely for their looks, what is the 
point? Or rather what is the objective? Are sport and hunting rifles to 
be next?
  Banning these firearms would only be a cosmetic approach to crime 
prevention. According to FBI statistics more crimes are committed using 
fists and feet--5 percent--than with these firearms which account for 
less than 1 percent.
  This ban is the wrong approach. We can best address the illegal use 
of firearms by concentrating our efforts on the actions of criminals. 
According to the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
only 6 percent of criminals commit approximately 70 percent of violent 
crimes. A Rand Corp. survey found that the average career criminal--
just the average criminal--commits between 187 and 287 crimes a year, 
with each crime costing an average of $2,300. In one recent study of 
State prisoners, it was found that 10 percent of criminals committed 
600 crimes a year. This ban is misdirected because it targets the 
people who live within the law not those who break it.
  Gun control laws have proven largely ineffective in fighting crime. 
Instead, we should pursue stiffer penalties for criminals in order to 
deter future acts of violence. We should also ensure that convicted 
criminals serve their full sentences. Although violent offenders 
released from prison in 1990 received an average sentence of 7.8 years, 
the time actually served is usually only 3.1 years. In fact, for every 
100 violent crimes reported, only four criminals go to prison. Even 
more heinous is the fact that this year over 1,100 convicted murders 
will not even go to prison. Clearly, we need criminal control, not gun 
control. Please join me and vote against this legislation.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I hear every day from my constitutents who 
are afraid to go out at night into their once quiet suburban 
neighborhoods because they are afraid of crime. It is a sad day when 
peaceful citizens are locked up and the criminals run free.
  Unfortunately, the bill now before the House will only perpetuate 
this trend. Instead of putting killers behind bars, it makes criminals 
out of law-abiding Americans.
  We do not need another gun control bill. Chicago has some of the most 
restrictive gun bans in the Nation, yet the homicide rate there 
continues to rise. The so-called assault weapons named in H.R. 4296 are 
rarely used in crimes, yet this bill is being touted as the beginning 
of the end of crime. I submit to my colleagues that passage of H.R. 
4296 will mean only the beginning of the end of our inalienable and 
constitutionally protected right to defend our homes and families.
  We need legislation which will send criminals to jail with swift and 
certain punishment. We have 7 percent of criminals committing 80 
percent of crime in the United States, certainly we need to ban 
criminals, not guns.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this ill conceived 
legislation, H.R. 4296.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the assault weapons 
ban.
  Today we are going to hear compelling arguments from both sides of 
this issue. I suggest that instead of focusing on our differences, we 
look to what I think is our common goal--to eliminate the use of these 
weapons during the commission of a crime.
  This legislation will only affect law-abiding citizens who use these 
sporting rifles in competition as skilled marksmen and collectors. This 
legislation will not affect the criminals who use firearms during the 
commission of heinous crimes.
  Law-abiding citizens agree that there is absolutely no place for 
these weapons on the streets of America. Only criminals are using these 
weapons on the streets and most of them get their firearms illegally. 
We must enforce the laws we already have to keep guns out of the hands 
of these thugs. We must prosecute these criminals and lock them in jail 
for a long time. We must eliminate early release from prison and reform 
the endless appeals process. We must go after the gang leaders and drug 
dealers who perpetuate these violent crimes. We can start by better 
enforcing the laws we already have on the books.
  Passing more guns laws will do nothing to keep criminals from 
committing crimes with guns. Cities in this country which have the 
toughest gun control laws, such as Chicago and Washington, DC., have 
the highest rates of gun violence. If you disarm the people, criminals 
have the upper-hand and the toughest weapons. In fact, a constituent 
called me just this afternoon to report an incident in my district this 
week in which a gentleman scared off two burglars because he had a gun 
to defend himself.
  While any crime committed with a firearm is a terrible tragedy, 
assault rifles are less than 1 percent of the weapons used in homicides 
in the United States.
  Gun control is not crime control. This legislation is a feel good 
bill that makes us feel like we are actually doing something to make 
our streets safer. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ban and support 
tough anticrime legislation to lock up violent criminals and truly make 
our streets safer.
  I am submitting to the Record a statement from Jacquie Miller which 
appeared in today's Wall Street Journal. Jacquie was shot by a coworker 
with an AK-47. In spite of her tragedy, she believes that disarming 
innocent people will give criminals the upperhand. We can learn a lot 
from her experience.

          [From the Wall Street Journal, Thurs., May 5, 1994]

                          Notable and Quotable

       The House is expected to vote today on an assault-weapon 
     ban backed by the administration. Last week, Jacquie Miller 
     of Louisville, Ky., who was shot four times in 1989 during a 
     co-worker's attack with an AK-47 (one of the weapons targeted 
     by the ban), testified against the bill before a House 
     subcommittee. Here are some excerpts:
       [The killer] used an AK-47. Because of that 12 people lived 
     instead of 20 dying. If he had used a shotgun or a various 
     model of hunting rifle, none of us would have made it.
       It completely enrages me that my tragedy is being used 
     against me to deny me and all the law-abiding citizens of 
     this country the right to the firearm of our choosing. I 
     refuse in return to use my tragedy for retribution against 
     innocent people just to make myself feel better for having 
     this misfortune.
       Enforce the laws against the criminals already on the 
     books. After all, there are already over 20,000 of them. More 
     won't do a thing for crime control without everything working 
     together for the common good. Plea bargaining, early release 
     from prison and the way juvenile crime is being handled are 
     killing our society. If we don't start practicing mortality 
     and decency and worshiping God instead of ourselves, all the 
     new laws in the world won't help. You cannot ban everything 
     in the world that can be used as a weapon because you fear 
     it, don't understand it or don't agree with it. This is 
     America, not Lithuania or China. Our most cherished 
     possession is our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Let's not 
     sell those down the river or we could one day find ourselves 
     in a boat without a paddle against the criminals who think 
     we're easy pickings.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 days, I have heard many 
compelling arguments both in support of the assault weapons ban and 
those opposed to it. While I respect the views of my colleagues on both 
sides of this issue, I believe there is a far greater issue at stake 
here.
  As an immigrant, I wasn't born with the same rights as children born 
in this country. I came to America as a young man with no money and 
little education. I earned my American citizenship and the rights that 
go with it. Thus, I am very reluctant to have a right that I worked 
hard to earn taken away in one fell swoop.
  Today, in this Chamber, we will vote on a measure that will greatly 
restrict one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Specifically, 
the second amendment. If this measure passes, I am confident there will 
be additional measures to further restrict this right. There have been 
in the past, and I'm sure more will follow.
  My fear is that restriction of this right will lead to restriction or 
outright repeal of other rights. If today Congress can tell us what 
kind of weapons we can or cannot own, I fear that tomorrow they will 
begin to tell us what religion we may or may not practice. If we can 
chip away at the second amendment, then why not the first, third, or 
any other amendment when it becomes politically popular to do so?
  But let's get to the heart of the issue, which we all know is not 
guns, but crime. Two weeks ago, Members of this body had a perfect 
opportunity to pass a tough crime bill; to keep violent criminals 
behind bars; to streamline the habeas corpus process; in short, to make 
our streets and cities safer. But this body knuckled under to the 
political pressure of the liberal media. As a legislative body, we 
failed. And the American people will suffer because of our lack of 
will.
  Instead, Congress is offering midnight basketball and gun control to 
the American people as real solutions to crime. These popular feel good 
provisions demonstrate to me that Congress is not serious about crime. 
Instead, it is more concerned about headlines.
  Until Congress makes a firm commitment to put the rights of law 
abiding citizens before the rights of criminals, we should keep our 
hands off of the Constitution.
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, today we are being asked to 
cast a most important vote. We are being asked to risk taking action in 
violation of the second amendment in order to provide a dangerously 
false sense of security about needed crime control.
  I deplore violent crime. I deplore the use of assault weapons in 
crime. I deplore the use of single shot weapons in crime. I deplore the 
use of knives in crime. I deplore the use of physical violence in 
crime.
  The bill before us today suggests that if we ban certain weapons, the 
crime will somehow magically disappear. There are some people who like 
to believe in fairy tales, but I am not one of them.
  If we are concerned about crime, then we need to make punishment 
swift and certain. We need to give police the resources they need to 
deal with criminals. We need to make the courts work faster. We need to 
protect witnesses so that they do not shy away from testifying about 
crimes they have witnessed, as was the case here in the District of 
Columbia recently when people who witnessed assaults on a police 
officer in a school decided they did not want to testify.
  I have had police officers tell me that this bill is unenforceable. 
It makes criminals of law-abiding gun owners, while doing nothing about 
the illegally obtained weapons that are already out there. It does 
nothing about crimes that are committed with guns that are not banned 
in this bill. If gun control laws could control the problem, then those 
communities that have adopted ownership restrictions should have little 
or no problem with the use of guns in the commission of a crime. But we 
all know for a fact that this is not the case. Ladies and gentlemen, I 
and many of my constituents are responsible gun owners. We do not use 
these weapons illegally. We store them properly. We take training in 
their proper use. If the legislation before us today is adopted, how 
long will it be before some other well-intentioned but misguided soul 
says ``let's add only a few more guns to the list''? It is precisely 
because of concerns about a heavy-handed government infringing upon the 
rights of responsible individuals that the second amendment, along with 
the rest of the Bill of Rights, was adopted. I see no real willingness 
in my constituency to give up second amendment rights. In fact, I have 
had many constituents call me to tell me that they do not own guns and 
they oppose this bill because they do not want to have the right of 
law-abiding citizens to own guns lessened in any way.
  And if it is second amendment rights that the proponents of the 
assault weapon ban want given up, then why not propose a constitutional 
amendment to redefine the second amendment? Could it be that the 
proponents of the bill know that there is little true public support 
for such a radical change in our constitutional liberties?
  As I said, I want crime controlled for the benefit of all of us. This 
bill does not achieve this goal. I cannot support flim-flam and tell my 
constituents with a straight face that today the House of 
Representatives voted to make a real difference. I urge a ``No'' vote 
on this bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4296, the 
assault weapon ban. This kind of legislation will not solve America's 
violent crime problem and may actually exacerbate it.
  My colleagues need only look right outside the doors of this Chamber 
to see the evidence. After the District of Columbia banned handgun 
ownership in 1976, its homicide rate tripled. Our Nation's Capital now 
has the infamous distinction of the ``Murder Capital of the World.''
  Furthermore, as my constituents in California know, California 
assault ban has done nothing to curb violent crime. Since 1989, when 
the California's assault weapon ban when into effect, the State's 
homicide rate jumped 44 percent above the rest of the Nation's.
  These kinds of statistics confirm that gun control legislation only 
puts law-abiding citizens at risk. People use firearms to thwart 
criminal attack more than 2 million times a year--that is three times 
the number of times criminals use their illegal guns to inflict 
violence on innocent Americans.
  So, if gun bans don't work, what will? The data shows that 
incarceration does. States where criminals are kept locked up and 
citizens own guns without Government intrusion enjoy less crime than 
places where guns are banned.
  The Nation already has a national gun policy--a tangled web of 20,000 
local, State, and Federal laws. What the country lacks is a national 
crime policy that takes violent criminals off the streets and locks 
them up.
  President Clinton urges Members to support this legislation in an 
effort to outlaw firearms ``designed for the battlefield.'' However, 
the semiautomatic weapons listed in this legislation only look like 
military firearms. True military weapons are fully automatic. The guns 
outlawed in this bill function no differently than the so-called good 
guns not yet listed in the bill.
  Passage of this legislation opens the door for further abridgement of 
our second amendment rights. This bill is clearly unconstitutional. It 
puts Congress in the position of granting or denying permission to 
exercise a liberty specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not confuse ``privilege'' with ``right.'' Gun 
ownership is a right for law-abiding citizens of this country.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4296. 
This legislation will do nothing to curtail the violence that plagues 
our Nation.
  In fact, the military-looking semiautomatic weapons targeted by this 
legislation are involved in less than 1 percent of homicides 
nationwide. Frankly the proponents of this legislation have been 
involved in a massive attempt to mislead the public as to what exactly 
an assault weapon is. It is not an automatic machinegun. It is not a 
weapon used by the U.S. military. It is not a weapon any more or less 
deadly than the rifles my family had at the ranch I grew up on in 
southeastern Arizona. The fact is these so-called assault weapons are 
merely cosmetically altered, semiautomatic weapons.
  Additionally, there is a constitutional issue raised by this Federal 
legislation. The second amendment of the Constitution read: ``A well 
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' I 
believe this provision could be read as a prohibition against the 
Federal Government denying citizens the right to bear arms.
  Besides the constitutional limitation on gun control, I have seen no 
evidence that demonstrates its effectiveness. In fact, many areas of 
the country that have the strictest gun control measures, such as 
Washington, DC, and New York City, also have some of the highest levels 
of violent crime. Unfortunately, the vast majority of violent crimes 
are committed with weapons obtained illegally. Such crimes would not be 
prevented by any form of gun control. As a result, gun control laws 
regulate the behavior of law-abiding gunowners, while having no real 
impact on criminals. Frankly, many of our most violent criminals on the 
street have weapons that are more powerful than any of the guns that 
would be banned under this legislation.
  What the House has failed to do is pass meaningful anticrime 
legislation that will truly reform our crippled judicial system, get 
violent offenders of the streets, and not infringe on the rights of 
law-abiding gunowners.
  When I hear about incidents of crime from constituents--stories about 
gang violence in South Tucson, border robberies in Naco, and drug-
related violence in the Catalina Foothills--one fact becomes 
increasingly apparent: This Nation has a dysfunctional criminal justice 
system. We have a system that releases dangerous criminals into the 
community when they should be serving their sentences, that gives more 
weight to the rights of criminals than to victims, and makes it 
impossible to carry out the death penalty when it is imposed.
  On April 21, 1994, the House passed H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act. I voted against this bill. Frankly, it 
is a sham. While accompanied by much fanfare and anticrime rhetoric, 
the reality is that it will do almost nothing to stop violent crime.
  The House crime bill has several defects, but perhaps the worst is 
the inclusion of the Racial Justice Act [RJA] which emasculates the 
death penalty, and frankly could mean that there will never be another 
death penalty carried out in this country again. The RJA will establish 
a quota system for capital punishment which will lead to the perverse 
result of making race the most important factor when a prosecutor 
decides to seek the death penalty. If a death row inmate shows there is 
a statistical disparity based on his or her own race or the race of the 
victim, the RJA could invalidate a death sentence based on information 
that has nothing to do with the case.
  Worst of all, the RJA would apply retroactively--potentially freeing 
from death row some 3,800 convicted murderers on death row. While all 
may not succeed in voiding their capital sentence, the information from 
these cases will take many hours, and millions of dollars, to 
reassemble. If such information is no longer available, the applicable 
death sentences could all be dismissed. All in all, RJA seriously 
undermines the perception and reality of a color-blind system of 
justice.
  Additionally, the bill targets $8 billion, not to law enforcement, 
but to social-welfare programs. President Clinton says this will 
prevent crime by raising self-esteem of prospective criminals. While 
there is a kernel of truth in that statement, $8 billion is a lot to 
spend on some dubious prevention measures. The real way to stop violent 
crime is to keep criminals off the street by assuring there is 
sufficient prison space, and by enacting ``truth-in-sentencing'' laws 
which would require violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of 
their sentences.
  Regrettably, the crime bill we just passed is a hoax, and the bill we 
will vote on today, H.R. 4296, is also a hoax. They are examples of the 
Democrat's schizophrenia: on one hand they talk tough about crime and 
the criminal, on the other hand they rely on social-welfare remedies 
and on infringing upon the second amendment rights of law-abiding 
citizens.
  I want to insert into the Record testimony given by a constituent of 
mine, Phillip W. Murphy, on April 25, 1994. He testified before the 
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, and I encourage Members to read 
his comments. His testimony illuminates the misguided nature of the 
bill before us today.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

  Prepared Testimony By Phillip W. Murphy Before The House Judiciary 
                 Subcommittee on Crime, April 25, 1994

       In thanking the Chair and members of this committee for 
     inviting me to testify this morning, it is important that 
     this committee understands exactly what event brought me 
     here. Simply put, I made a choice not to be a victim.
       I exercised this choice on a conscious level, but my choice 
     to purchase the firearm which would hold the potential of 
     saving my life and help me bring a convicted felon back to 
     justice was purely pedestrian. Hopefully, this testimony will 
     make my visit to the Capitol more than an exercise in 
     futility. You see, in the eyes of the media, this 
     administration and the majority of the members of this 
     committee, my choice of a defensive weapon in this instance 
     was so politically incorrect that my government may no longer 
     trust me with this firearm. Indeed, I could be considered a 
     potential felon.
       I mentioned the pedestrian manner in which I made my 
     decision to buy the long-arm in question because, frankly, my 
     decision was driven by only two factors: pragmatism and 
     pride. In February of 1986, I purchased a Colt AR-15A2 H-BAR 
     Sporter, a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223 Remington. 
     I chose this very practical rifle for a variety of purposes: 
     competitive target shooting, varmint hunting, inexpensive 
     plinking (it converts to a .22) and yes, home defense. This 
     rifle serves my needs while remaining an utterly reliable, 
     easy handling, and nearly recoil-free precision instrument . 
     . . qualities I have come to appreciate more and more as my 
     physical condition deteriorates due to Multiple Sclerosis. So 
     much for my pragmatic concerns.
       The matter of pride comes into play in my desire to honor 
     our military by doing what countless millions of Americans 
     have done since the Revolution. I bought a civilian version 
     of the weapon currently in use by our nation's armed forces. 
     And there's the rub. I bought a rifle that merely looks like 
     an M-16, not one that works like an M-16.
       It is what makes my rifle so unremarkable in function that 
     makes me so infuriated to have to defend my choice of this 
     quality firearm at this hearing today. My rifle shares its 
     caliber, magazine capacity and century-old technology with 
     the Ruger Mini 14; an equally capable tool which is not seen 
     as worth banning by this administration because of some very 
     politically incorrect reasoning--a Mini 14 is not as ugly as 
     an AR-15. Hard to believe, but true. Two inanimate objects 
     identical in function and capability are given different so-
     called ``personalities'' by the same legislative body 
     because one gun is ``prettier'' than the other. As a 
     matter of fact, until the comely Ruger is affixed with a 
     pistol grip like my Colt, no menacing label can be applied 
     to it which could preclude its sale as will be the case 
     for my rifle. Pistol grips don't give a rifle or shotgun a 
     ``personality'', they make them easier to control. A 
     Benelli Super 90 shotgun, President Clinton's duck hunting 
     ``weapon of choice'', will fall out of favor with Congress 
     by merely adding a pistol grip. But I digress. I'm here to 
     convince this committee that I made the right choice in a 
     defensive arm.
       In late August of 1989, Johnny Johnson (a convicted burglar 
     with a penchant for crack cocaine) was also making some 
     personal choices. On the afternoon of the 28th, Johnny 
     decided to rob my parent's home. He stole guns, jewelry, 
     coins, and irreplaceable valuables which my mother treasured. 
     I'm certain that Johnny considered my parent's home a good 
     choice because three days later he came back to finish the 
     job. That proved to be what Johnny would call, ``a bad 
     choice''.
       The investigating officer who took my parent's burglary 
     report mentioned that, because only the bedroom had been 
     violated and the point of entry was not yet adequately 
     secured, the chances of my folks being robbed again within 
     the week were better than 50/50. They worked days. The house 
     wasn't secure. The police could not offer them protection. I 
     could.
       I arrived at their home every morning armed with a weapon I 
     could control with one hand while I spoke to 911 with the 
     other. I brought a weapon so intimidating that I might 
     preclude any aggressive action taken against me by its 
     appearance alone--a weapon with which I could control a 
     situation against possibly numerous antagonists who by now 
     were almost certainly armed. I brought a weapon to help me 
     win.
       The confrontation was brief and noisy. He said he didn't 
     want to die. I said I didn't want to be forced to kill him. 
     By the time I picked up the phone upon which I had already 
     dialed 911 so the police could hear and understand my 
     situation, I realized I'd won. Mr. Johnson's arresting 
     officers were not the least bit critical of my choice of 
     defensive weapon. They couldn't care less. Cops on the street 
     know that the honest citizens are the victims, not the 
     perpetrators. They were just delighted I bagged one of 
     Tucson's most wanted, and so were the courts.
       Johnny Johnson was already a three-time loser with 34 
     priors who was violating his third adult parole for a knife 
     assault when we were ``formally'' introduced. We were told by 
     the County Attorney that since Johnson was a ``targeted 
     offender'' he could not plea bargain his way out of this one 
     and would have to stand trial, but he didn't. He pled guilty 
     to one charge for every charge that was dropped and, 
     unfortunately, the very burglary where I was the intended 
     victim was pled away as well.
       Of course, this rap sheet is fairly typical, but Mr. 
     Johnson was only 19 when I caught him. For those of you who 
     may have spent your formative years inside of the beltway, 
     this means all of his 34 transgressions and supposed 
     punishment took place since Mr. Johnson was 18. And yet I'm 
     the one who is under scrutiny by this proposed legislation.
       I respectfully urge this committee and the Congress of 
     these United States to restrain themselves from forcing tens 
     of millions of law-abiding Americans like me to choose 
     between the law and their lives.
       Thank you for your attention,
                                                Phillip W. Murphy.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me today in 
support of H.R. 4296, the Assault Weapons Ban Act. A vote in favor of 
H.R. 4296 is a vote in favor of a safer and saner society that will no 
longer tolerate the carnage these firearms have brought to our streets.
  The legislation before us today will begin to take off the streets 
the most deadly of all firearms--military-style assault weapons 
designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings quickly, and in 
large numbers. There is no compelling sporting purpose to any weapon 
having an ammunition magazine holding a dozen rounds of ammunition. No 
hunter needs a weapon with a threaded barrel for a flash suppressor or 
a silencer. And attachments for grenade launchers are not necessary for 
home defense. This is just common sense.
  I think it's important for opponents of this legislation to keep that 
in mind when they defend their position by claiming these weapons have 
legitimate sporting purposes. But I also think those of us who support 
banning these weapons should clearly and directly address the issues 
raised by opponents of this proposal. I'd like to take this opportunity 
to answer some of the questions I've heard from my constituents.
  Some have asked, ``Why ban these weapons when they only account for a 
small percentage of the crimes committed in this country every year?'' 
That may be true, but when you look at the figures, it becomes clear 
that the amount of crime related to these weapons is disproportionately 
high. Assault weapons of the type covered by this legislation account 
for somewhere between 0.5 and 1 percent of all the privately-owned guns 
in America. But they're 10 to 20 times more likely to be involved in a 
crime than a conventional weapon. And that's just the weapons that are 
traced to crimes. We have no idea how many are used that we can't 
trace.
  Clearly, these weapons are used far too often in violent and deadly 
crime. And we know from experience that banning them will have an 
impact on that crime. My evidence? President Bush, by executive order, 
banned the importation of 43 models of semiautomatic assault rifles in 
1989. Since then, the number of imported assault weapons traced to 
crime declined by 45 percent, while the number of domestic assault 
weapons traced to crime remained the same. The lesson we learned then 
is the principle we should remember today: dry up the supply of these 
weapons, and you start to dry up their use in the crime.
  Some respond to these facts by saying, ``Well, that may be true, but 
why pass legislation banning guns instead of just going after the 
criminals that use them?'' The answers are simple. First, we are going 
after the criminals. Just a couple weeks ago, the House passed a crime 
bill that commits more Federal funds than ever before to putting more 
cops on the street and providing more resources for State and Federal 
law enforcement officials to combat crime.

  Second, we know from experience that one of the things we need to do 
to fight crime is to take away the tools criminals use to commit those 
crimes. In the past we've taken such measures as banning fully 
automatic weapons, so-called ``cop killer'' bullets, and other 
destructive devices that have no legitimate place in our society. These 
and other steps to outlaw the instruments of crime--along with tougher 
sentencing, better funding, and more prevention--are critical parts of 
the crime-fighting equation.
  Enactment of this legislation isn't the end of the fight. More needs 
to be done on a number of fronts. We need to pass meaningful welfare 
reform, improve our Nation's education system, and take steps to 
strengthen the economy and create jobs. All this and more must be done.
  But one thing we can and must do is restrict access to the most 
deadly firearms so criminals don't have access to them.
  OK, some ask, but why take firearms away from law-abiding citizens 
who want to use them for legitimate purposes? The answer is simple--
this bill doesn't do that. No firearm will be taken away from its 
lawful owner. All existing weapons, no matter what their 
characteristics, are grandfathered by the law. That means that if you 
lawfully own them now, you can lawfully own them after this bill 
becomes law. And if you don't own one, you can still lawfully buy one.
  All this bill does is prohibit the future domestic manufacture and 
import of the weapons covered by this bill. Sure, that will mean that 
the supply of these weapons will be reduced in the future--and that's 
exactly the point. And yes, that means getting actress to them will be 
more difficult for law-abiding citizens. But gun control, like so many 
issues, involves a balancing test between public safety and individual 
rights and privileges. I believe reasonable regulation of this 
particularly deadly class of weapons both preserves the rights of 
legitimate gun owners and makes us all safer from the crime that 
threatens our communities.
  Finally, I've been told that this bill would ban legitimate hunting 
and sporting rifles, not just the assault weapons that its sponsors 
claim. That's just not true. In addition to the 19 types of 
semiautomatic assault weapons specifically listed in the bill to be 
banned, there is a list of 650 types of hunting and sporting rifles and 
shotguns which would be explicitly exempted from the ban. But neither 
of these lists is all inclusive. The bill also includes a very specific 
set of criteria that will allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms to decide which other weapons are to be banned and which 
are not. There is no guess work here. Either a weapon meets the 
description of a banned semiautomatic weapon or it doesn't.

  And what's on this list? Well, for one thing, a rifle must be 
semiautomatic, and able to accept a detachable magazine, and have at 
least two of the following five features: First, a folding or 
telescoping stock; second, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously 
beneath the rifle's action; third, a bayonet mount; fourth, a flash 
suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash 
suppressor; or fifth, a grenade launcher. None of these five features 
are necessary for hunting or sport shooting--but they sure help 
criminals looking to intimidate, wound or kill. Banning weapons with 
these characteristics will have no effect on hunters or sportsmen, and 
won't impinge on anyone's ability to lawfully protect themselves, their 
loved ones, or their homes with a firearm, should they choose to do so.
  Ultimately, I have to agree with nearly every major police 
organization in the United States--and around 80 percent of the 
American public, no matter what their age, or sex, or income, or where 
they live--who believe this will be an effective way of fighting 
violent crime.
  I know that opponents of this legislation have made a concerted 
effort to defeat it. They've rallied a small, very vocal minority to 
register their opposition in an organized campaign designed to 
intimidate us into voting against this bill today. But we should not be 
deterred by tactics designed to intimidate us in the same way these 
weapons are designed to intimidate their victims. There is absolutely 
no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of my constituents support 
this ban, and that's one of the reasons I will be voting yes.
  While I'm under no illusion that this bill will end the crime problem 
plaguing our Nation, I believe it will cut down on the amount of combat 
we see on our streets every day. That alone merits our support, and I 
strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4296.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
legislation. The bill before us is both effective and fair; it will 
make it harder for criminals or mentally deranged individuals to get 
their hands on these destructive weapons, yet it protects the rights of 
legitimate, law-abiding Americans.
  In addition to outlawing 19 assault weapons, the legislation before 
us also specifically protects, by name, 650 of the most common 
recreational rifles and shotguns now being produced. If this 
legislation is enacted, hunters and gun enthusiasts will have 650 
weapons, including over 60 semiautomatic guns, specifically protected 
by law. I would think that this provision alone would cause some 
sportsmen to at least consider supporting this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I will admit I am not a hunter. I do, however, listen 
to the hunters in my district as well as across the Nation. I have 
listened, in fact, to one nationally known hunter, with whom I rarely 
agree, Mr. Barry Goldwater. According to Mr. Goldwater, semiautomatic 
weapons ``* * * have no place in anybody's arsenal. If anyone can't hit 
a deer with one shot, then he ought to quit shooting.''
  I have been to the funerals of innocent children and adults who have 
been killed, needlessly, by stray gunfire. I have seen firsthand the 
impact of these and other weapons on our streets, in our communities, 
in our neighborhoods, and in our schools.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard it before today, and we will hear it 
again, because it is true. Military assault weapons have no place in 
our society.
  I strongly support the right of all Americans to protect themselves 
and to pursue endeavors such as hunting in which they indulge for 
sustenance.
  I also strongly support the rights of all Americans to pursue life, 
liberty, and happiness. Assault weapons can indiscriminately take away 
all ambition for life or happiness in just seconds.
  Let's take the case of Lawrence Miller, who died on November 22, 
1993.
  At the time, Lawrence was 13 years old.
  Lawrence was a resident of Baltimore. At 1 o'clock in the afternoon--
on a Monday afternoon--there was a knock on the door. Before Lawrence 
or anybody else had a chance to open a door or a window, his house was 
sprayed by ammunition from an AK-47.
  Lawrence died almost right away. Some of the many, many bullets that 
came from this gun came through a window and killed him. The murderer 
was a 16 year old boy who lived nearby. He had been involved in an 
argument with someone who lived near Lawrence--not Lawrence--and had 
gone home, gotten the AK-47 that he had purchased on the street, and 
decided to settle the argument.
  What he settled was Lawrence's life.
  Earlier during this debate, my esteemed colleague from Georgia stated 
that this bill was not about real people or real crimes. I disagree, as 
I am sure would the family of Lawrence Miller.
  Because of their rapid fire capabilities, semiautomatic assault 
weapons, which can fire dozens of bullets in just seconds, have become 
the weapon of choice for drug traffickers, gangs, and hate groups.
  I fully believe that eventually, the destruction caused by these 
weapons will force the majority of the Members of this body to see the 
need for a ban. As crime and random violence spread from the inner city 
to the suburbs, so will the cry to control the most destructive 
offenders.
  Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I urge you to support this legislation. 
Support this legislation for Lawrence Miller, and for all of the other 
victims of these horrible machines.
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, today's vote on assault weapons is about 
personal responsibility. It is about the personal responsibility each 
one of us as legislators wrestles with each day we show up for work. 
Every day we come here to this House and we gather data, we listen to 
the witnesses, read the testimony, study the bills and the law and we 
consult with the friends, constituents, and the experts we respect. And 
in the end, we use our heads, our hearts, and the common sense God gave 
us to cast our vote.
  Make no mistake we take personal responsibility for every vote we 
cast. We are judged by it politically but more importantly we judge 
each vote by our own personal standards. Every single one of us comes 
here to represent our constituents and improve the lives of the 
citizens of this Nation and we ask ourselves after each vote--will the 
vote we just cast make our homes, our States, our Nation a better place 
to live.
  What is our personal responsibility for today's vote on today's 
assault weapons ban legislation? Two of my colleagues in the last 2 
days put their own sense of personal responsibility in very sharp 
focus.
  In this morning's Washington Post the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman] is quoted as saying that if voting for this bill ``is a 
political offense that costs me my job to try and take Uzis out of the 
hands of schoolkids * * * then so be it.'' And yesterday, when the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] was asked why he was so strongly 
in favor of banning assault weapons he said it was because in his 
district 15-year-olds were killing 15-year-olds with these weapons.
  These two Members know that the question today is whether we are 
going to take personal responsibility for our actions.
  By voting for this bill we will help keep schoolkids from killing 
schoolkids, and keep crooks from killing the police. Perhaps more 
importantly, we will improve the lives of our citizens fulfill the 
promise of why each one of us came to Congress, and live up to our 
personal responsibility.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill today, not 
just as an advocate of sensible gun control, but also as a proud 
citizen of the State with the Nation's oldest assault weapons ban.
  The California Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act passed in 
1989 after Patrick Purdy killed 5 and wounded 30 schoolchildren in 
Stockton, CA.
  Since 1989, this law has slowed the growing criminal popularity of 
these guns in my State.
  Statistics provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
show that, from 1991 to 1993, local law enforcement requests for traces 
of criminally used guns grew much more quickly for the Nation than in 
California. In fact, the national increase in requests has more than 
doubled California's.
  And this ban we consider today would be more effective than 
California law because it would also prevent copy-cat versions of these 
guns by banning a list of features, not just a list of names.
  Although California law allows the State attorney general to add more 
weapons to the banned list, not one assault weapon has been added since 
the law went into effect on July 1, 1989.
  I urge my colleagues to examine the letter I inserted into the Record 
yesterday, detailing the effectiveness of California's law.
  I hope my colleagues will join me and pass this bill and reduce the 
criminal misuse of these weapons across our Nation.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4296, the 
Assault Weapons Ban Act, for several reasons.
  I believe the supporters of this measure are looking through the 
wrong end of the binoculars on this issue. the problem is not these 
guns; it's the criminals.
  According to the FBI, the types of weapons proposed to be banned in 
this bill are responsible for less than 1 percent of all murders and 
less than 1 percent of all serious crime.
  This law proposes to punish hundreds of thousands of law-abiding 
citizens for the actions of law-breaking criminals.
  We know from experience that gun ban laws do not reduce crime. Every 
type of gun control law proposed in Congress has already been tried and 
no one can show any correlation between gun restrictions and lower 
crime rates in localities with gun restriction laws.
  Gun restriction laws don't work because law breakers don't follow 
them. That's why they're called criminals. No law passed by the 
Congress can compel criminals to obey laws.
  What Congress can do to reduce crime is to lock up the criminals. The 
FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that from 1981 to 1991, the 10 States 
with the greatest increases in criminal incarceration rates experienced 
the greatest decreases in the rates of crime.
  The answer to America's violent crime problem is simple: Lock up the 
violent criminals, because they cannot disturb and disrupt the lives of 
innocent citizens when they are behind bars and in jail.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4296, the 
Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. I commend 
Chairman Schumer and his subcommittee for drafting a bill which is 
narrowly drawn and focused. This bill targets only a small number of 
weapons which have no legitimate place in an ordered and civilized 
society.
  Let me be unequivocal in saying that I strongly support the right of 
every American citizen to own a gun. Everyone should be able to protect 
themselves within their home and their business and use weapons which 
are designed for legitimate sport and recreational use. However, the 
weapons which we are attempting to ban are high firepower weapons which 
are designed for military purposes and have no place in sport or 
recreational use.
  Opponents of this ban often argue that the ban will have no effect 
upon crime in this country. However, since the Bush administration 
banned the importation of assault weapons in 1989, the number of 
imported assault weapons traced to crime has declined by 45 percent. On 
the other hand, the number of domestic assault weapons traced to crime 
has remained the same.
  Moreover, these guns comprise only one-half to 1 percent of the 
firearms in this country, yet they accounted for 8.4 percent of all 
firearms traced to crime from 1986-91.
  I could stand here and talk about statistics with you because they 
are important in this debate. However, more important is the simple 
fact that we are losing lives to these weapons of rapid and mass 
destruction.
  Statistics mean nothing to the families of the five children killed 
by Patrick Purdy, who used a semiautomatic AK-47 with a 75 round 
magazine. Statistics mean nothing to the families of the individuals 
killed by Gian Ferri using two TEC-DC9's with a 50 round magazine. 
Statistics mean nothing to the families of the two bank tellers who 
were killed in Sykesville, MD, by two gunmen using a MAC firearm.
  Moreover, statistics mean nothing to this Nation's law enforcement 
officers, the vast majority of whom support this bill. In fact, they 
have been pleading with us to pass this bill because they are on the 
front lines everyday in battles against criminals armed with these 
weapons. From coast to coast, tragic stories about the devastation 
caused by semiautomatic assault weapons are filling the headlines.
  If there is a way to begin putting an end to these types of 
tragedies, it is the passage of this bill today.
  Before closing, I must reemphasize that I wholeheartedly support the 
right of Americans to own guns to protect themselves in their home and 
in their business and own guns used and designed for legitimate, 
recreational uses.
  I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak today and I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman I rise today in strong support on H.R. 
4296, the bill to ban assault weapons.
  Although I voiced my support for this legislation months ago, the 
tragedy that took place in my district last week merely confirmed my 
beliefs that voting for this bill is the right thing to do.
  The deadly impact of assault weapons is pretty obvious. A 29 year, 
decorated veteran of the Waukesha Police Force, Captain James Lutz had 
no chance to defend himself when confronted by two bank robbers armed 
with M1-A assault rifles. Captain Lutz was cut down in hail of 20 
rounds in just a matter of seconds as this bill was being voted in 
committee last Thursday.
  The guns effected by this legislation have no other purpose but to 
kill people in a hurry. The majority of legitimate hunters and 
sportsmen will find that their guns are specifically protected by this 
bill. It lists over 670 of them.
  The differences between sporting and assault weapons are hardly 
cosmetic, as the opponents of the ban suggest. This is like saying that 
a Schwinn bicycle is the same thing as a Harley Davidson motorcycle. 
Both have two wheels and will get you where you want to go. But a 
reality check tells us that the distinctions are obvious. The same is 
true between assault weapons and legitimate hunting and sporting 
rifles.
  Critics are quick to say that bans won't work. However, when the Bush 
administration banned the importation of certain assault weapons, the 
number of imported assault weapons traced to crime declined by 45 
percent. At the same time, the number of domestic assault weapons 
traced to crime remained the same.
  Still, even if an assault weapon was traced to just 1 violent crime, 
that crime might by the one in Waukesha that also wounded 3 other 
officers, or the 1 crime in San Francisco that resulted in the deaths 
of 8 innocent people; or the 1 crime in Stockton, CA, where 5 children 
were killed and 29 others were wounded. One crime per assault weapon is 
plenty.
  For my colleagues who are not satisfied because these guns have not 
been used in enough crimes, I must ask them how many crimes would they 
like to occur before we take them off the street? How many more people 
have to die before we act?
  Mr. Chairman and Members, the time has come to act positively on this 
measure. How many more Waukesha or Kileen, TX incidents does this 
country need before this Congress wakes up.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, over the last few days, I've contacted 
local law enforcement in my congressional district and asked them this 
question: During the last 3 years, how many killings in your 
jurisdiction have involved the use of a semi-automatic assault weapon? 
The answer I received was ``zero''.
  While I realize that on rare occasions, killings have occurred as a 
result of a semiautomatic assault weapon, bottom line is the passage of 
this bill will have no impact on the growing crime problems we have in 
this country.
  Instead of demagoging about gun control, we should be focusing our 
energy on passing laws that will have an impact on crime. Like truth-
in-sentencing reform, habeas corpus reform, and a workable death 
penalty. But the White House and the leadership in Congress won't hear 
of it. Instead they're trying to use this issue to posture.
  The crime bill that just passed the House is not the answer this 
country is looking for to solve the problems we face. Neither is gun 
control.
  I think the American people will see we are not serious about crime.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4296, the Assault Weapons Ban Act. As the Representative of one of the 
poorest districts in the country, I know what it's like for my 
constituents to live in constant fear of crime, and the violence 
brought about by drug trafficking and drug use. Assault weapons, which 
are particularly appealing to gangs, drug dealers and organized 
criminals, are intimidating and deadly instruments of terror.
  Opponents of the bill, such as the NRA, claim that this bill will 
eliminate semiautomatic hunting rifles used by gun enthusiasts and 
hunters. This is simply not true. The 19 semiautomatic weapons that 
this bill does ban, are designed not for sport, but for killing. No 
wonder my constituents live in fear of their lives--they live in a war 
zone. What will it take for this body to understand that our young 
adults are mercilessly killing themselves and others with these 
instruments of war.
  Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this bill, I urge this House to stop 
the violence and the killing. Don't listen to foolish and false 
propaganda, support H.R. 4296.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4296, the 
Assault Weapons Ban Act. After intensive study of this bill, the 
Constitution, the Federalist Papers and a wide range of research 
materials dealing with the second amendment, I have come to believe 
that the second amendment does guarantee Americans the right to bear 
arms, and that this legislation infringes on the rights of law-abiding 
citizens.
  I represent the 19th District of Illinois, 27 counties in America's 
heartland which encompasses large communities such as Decatur and small 
towns of no more than a few families. I have traveled my district, some 
260 miles north to south hundreds of times, and talked with thousands 
of people on this and other issues. I have tried my best to explain how 
crucial this issue is and how we must view it in its proper context.
  I reject the notion that opposing this ban somehow means one favors 
the violence resulting from the illegal use of firearms. Nothing is 
further from the truth. Throughout my career in public service I have 
supported strong crime control measures. Anyone who steps outside the 
boundaries of a civilized society and harms people in his or her 
community should be punished severely. If they commit a crime with a 
firearm then we should remove them from society. And I am willing to 
pay for the prisons and jails which will help us keep such persons from 
causing this destruction ever again, and perhaps provide a deterrent to 
others.
  In this debate, we face the classic confrontation between rights and 
responsibilities, and it is our duty to decide where the balance exists 
between those elements. My conclusion is that as we continue to further 
and further restrict our rights under the second amendment--waiting 
periods for certain purchases, ever-expanding lists of firearms which 
are banned--then we do serious damage to the amendment itself.
  And my fear extends beyond the second amendment to the entire Bill of 
Rights. I truly fear the slow but irreversible trend toward more limits 
on our freedoms, limits which may apply one day to firearms but in the 
next applies to the rights of people to speak or be protected from 
illegal search and seizure. Because I value those freedoms so deeply I 
must oppose this ban.
  In this political climate, I think it's important to point out that I 
don't take any political action committee donations. I'm not beholden 
to any special interest group to finance my campaign or provide any 
political cover in my district. I find myself on the opposite side of a 
terribly important issue from friends and colleagues for whom I hold 
tremendous respect. If I thought this bill would reduce crime and still 
protect the rights of Americans I would be the first to vote for it. 
But because I truly believe we will fail the people on both counts, I 
am compelled to vote against it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4296, 
legislation which would take a small but desperately needed and 
significant step toward reducing crime in our country by barring 19 
types of battlefield weapons. With this legislation, we answer the 
anguished cry of the American people for relief from civilian gunfire.
  We are tired of the gun-toting talk in this country that has 
protected assault weapons and left unprotected unarmed children who 
have fallen like non-combatants caught on battlefields disguised as 
city streets. In the district more than 10 percent of those shot and 
killed last year were youngsters under 18. In the name of Devaughn 
Phillips, shot at age 5, Cecilia Rushing, shot at age 2, Reginiya 
Trippett shot at age 1, and 49 kids like them, assault weapon 
legislation must pass this week.
  The NRA says, ``Get the criminals.'' We say, ``Right on.'' But would 
you mind getting their guns first before they use them on us? The NRA 
strategy revises the notion of locking the barn door after the horse is 
gone. They lock the casket and move on to the next one. We are fed up 
with their manly mantras. We want combat weapons out of here!
  Kids are showing up in school with assault weapons, preferred today 
by street gangs, drug traffickers and paramilitary extremists. Yet, 
your Nation's Capital bans all guns. We nevertheless are drowning in 
assault weapons. Only a national ban on war-zone guns can stop the 
carnage in civilian streets. When President Bush banned 43 types of 
imported semiautomatic non-sporting assault weapons, their use in 
crimes dropped 40 percent in the first year. Our problem now is the 
deadly domestic varieties that are 10-20 times more traceable to crime 
than conventional firearms.
  Let us stand with the major national law enforcement organizations. 
Like them, let us support the ban on 19 combat weapons used on city 
streets and country roads against cops and kids.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I support an assault weapons 
ban because, very simply, I believe that it will save lives. Let me be 
clear--it will not reduce crime in America. Hopefully, the tough 
measures in the Crime bill will do that. But what this bill will do is 
reduce the number of victims of violent crime. This measure simply 
saves lives.
  The most important thing it does is to ban large-capacity clips like 
those used in the recent California schoolyard and New York commuter 
train killings in which dozens of people died. In fact, the madman in 
New York was subdued only when he stopped to reload. We can't stop 
these sick individuals from getting guns, but what we can do is make it 
harder for them to get weapons equipped to fire dozens of shots without 
reloading. This is the real effect of this legislation.
  I have heard from a lot of my constituents on this issue. Some of 
them supported the ban; others didn't. I talked to police officers who 
said they wanted to maintain their ability to get these kinds of 
weapons for protecting the public. This bill allows them to do that. I 
heard from hunters and sportsmen who told me of the guns they use for 
those pastimes. This bill protects 650 specific weapons that they use. 
I have also heard from people who cannot understand what legitimate 
purpose guns that fire 150 rounds without reloading can possibly serve.
  I do not vote for much gun control legislation. I support background 
checks because I think they are effective, and I do not support waiting 
periods because I do not think they are effective.
  I support the second amendment. I grew up in a culture that values 
and respects guns. I enjoy hunting and have guns in my home for 
protection. Hunting and home protection are not the issue in this case. 
Killing people is the issue. I firmly believe that if these guns are 
banned, the effect will be to reduce the potential for mass killings in 
America.
  I leave with this question: If a madman walks into a fast food 
restaurant where your wife and children are eating, would you rather he 
have a six-shooter or a weapon that can wipe out every person in the 
building? That's what this bill is about, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4296, the Assault 
Weapons Ban Act.
  California, along with 3 other States and more than 30 cities and 
counties, already has its own assault weapons ban in place. The 
Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, which is currently in effect 
in California, is the Nation's oldest assault weapons ban. It was 
enacted in 1989 in response to the shooting spree at a Stockton 
schoolyard, where a gunman armed with an AK-47 and several 
semiautomatic pistols fired over 100 rounds, killing 5 children and 
wounding 30 other people before killing himself. Because it bans weapon 
names, instead of weapons features, however, the California ban has 
been effective in preventing the sale and use of new weapons. We are 
finding that some domestic manufacturers get around the ban by 
producing copy-cat weapons under different names.
  On a national level, we are faced with a similar challenge. As a 
result of the current ban on the import of 43 foreign-made assault 
weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [ATF] estimates 
that 750,000 assault weapons have been kept out of the country--that 
the number of imported assault weapons traced to crime declined by 40 
percent. Unfortunately, domestic manufacturers are also producing 
copies of these banned weapons, so the number of domestic assault 
weapons traced to crime remains the same.
  The Assault Weapons Ban Act that is now before us closes this 
loophole because it bans assault weapons by feature, rather than name. 
It imposes a 10-year ban on the manufacture and possession of certain 
assault weapons and copies of assault weapons. Also prohibited are 
firearms that have certain features--like grenade launchers and bayonet 
mounts--as well as large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  Law enforcement and the military are not included in the ban, and 
weapons that are currently legally owned are exempted, as are 650 
specified sporting guns, none of which can be banned while the bill is 
in effect. Lastly, the bill requires that the Justice Department 
conduct a study of the impact that the ban has had on violent and drug 
trafficking crime 1 year after it is enacted, and that the Department 
submit the results of this study to Congress.
  This legislation will have very little effect on the right of the 
average American to bear arms. They include weapons used almost 
exclusively by organized crime, gangs, and drug cartels. They do not 
include any weapons, semiautomatic or otherwise, used for hunting.
  In spite of claims that assault weapons bans do not work, the facts 
indicate otherwise. Although we do not have detailed, nationwide 
statistics on the misuses of these weapons, the Oakland Police 
Department Weapons Unit reports that criminal misuses of assault 
weapons in Oakland fell by virtually half since the enactment of the 
California ban. Additionally, the Atlanta Constitution found in a 1989 
study that, although assault weapons make up only 2 to 3 percent of all 
guns owned by Americans, they show up in 30 percent of all firearms 
traced to organized crime, gun trafficking, and terrorism. And the ATF 
reports that in 1989, assault weapons made up 10 percent of guns traced 
in crimes. Police in virtually every city in this country will tell you 
that they are outgunned and that an assault weapons ban would help them 
fight gun violence.
  The further restrictions on the sales and ownership of assault 
weapons that are in this bill will not cause a major reduction in 
crime. However, they will make it much more difficult for drug dealers, 
violent criminals, and psychopaths to get their hands on a military-
style semiautomatic rifles and certain shotguns and pistols.
  Perhaps, with provisions like these in effect, disasters like the 
1993 tragedy when a gunman with an assault pistol walked into a San 
Francisco law office, murdered eight innocent, unarmed people and 
wounded another six can be prevented. Just prior to testifying before 
the House Judiciary Committee in support of a ban on assault weapons, 
the widower of one of the victims of this massacre wrote:

       It's been almost one year since my beloved wife was 
     brutally murdered * * * by a psychotic possessing an assault 
     weapon with 50 round clips. These weapons of war have 
     absolutely no place in our society and the all too common 
     tragedies in which they are used must be stopped. Too many 
     citizens dead; too many friends and family gone * * * This is 
     not a partisan issue. Violence and assault weapons affect all 
     citizens * * * As a Republican, I am calling on members of * 
     * * my party and Democrats to see that this bill becomes law. 
     Hopefully no other 10-month-old girls will place dirt on 
     their mommys' grave as my daughter Meghan did. Hopefully no 
     other single parent will be left the task of telling their 
     infant how their mother was brutally murdered with an assault 
     weapon.

  I'd like to recall the words and wisdom of my esteemed colleagues 
from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, in his address to newly elected Members of the 
102d Congress back in 1990. I feel that Mr. Hyde's advice to that 
freshman class is appropriate for all of us now, as we face a vote that 
is controversial, political, and hits close to home for many of us who 
have constituents on both sides of this issue--constituents who are 
passionate in their feelings about what we are going to decide.
  Mr. Hyde told his audience that our responsibility as Members of this 
House is often greater than just representing our constituents--that we 
also have a responsibility to all Americans. This broader obligation 
and accountability demand that we take a national view on certain 
issues--even if it means risking the disfavor of the folks back home. 
We must look beyond the politics of career and be willing to take a 
principled stand for what we believe to be right and in the best 
interests of our Nation, as a whole, even if it means we risk losing an 
election. Mr. Hyde reminds us of why we are here in the first place--to 
serve not just our immediate constituents, but our country, as well.
  This vote on the assault weapons ban is such a stand, and it is a 
small price to pay to help curb the unnecessary and senseless violence 
that plagues communities throughout our country. If 1 life or 1,000 
lives are saved because we are able to keep an assault weapon out of 
the wrong hands, it is worth the effort.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
of H.R. 4296, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use 
Protection Act. I commend my colleague from New York, Representative 
Chuck Schumer for his effort in bringing this piece of legislation to 
the floor and addressing an issue which is pertinent to all Americans, 
the issue of gun control.
  I am certain my colleagues would agree that Americans from all walks 
of life are looking for action on this problem. H.R. 4296 makes it 
illegal for a person to own, manufacture or sell specified 
semiautomatic assault weapons, exempting those weapons which are 
already legally owned. In addition, there are 650 specified sporting 
guns which are exempted from the ban. Of the 19 specified weapons 
included in this bill, none are used for hunting or other sporting 
purposes. These are military-style assault weapons designed to injure 
as many human beings as quickly as possible.
  Increasingly, these weapons are becoming the weapon of choice for 
violent criminals and drug dealers. Although these weapons represent 
only 1 percent of privately owned firearms in this country, they 
represent 8 percent of the firearms traced to a crime, and are 18 times 
more likely to be used to kill police officers than any other gun. From 
1990 to 1993, law enforcement officials reported a 37-percent increase 
in the use of assault weapons. How can we ensure the security of our 
citizens, when police officers, are being outgunned, and often times 
murdered by violent criminals wielding AK-47s and other military style 
weapons.
  In the last several years, we have witnessed gun violence take a 
devastating toll on our Nation. Although many may think that the 
violence associated with semiautomatic assault weapons occurs 
exclusively in the inner city; is a gang problem; or only affects 
certain areas of the country; the grim reality of this violence is that 
it occurs throughout America. One day a child may be caught in a cross-
fire, on another day an out of control member of society may unleash 
his rage in a convenience store, gas station or fast food restaurant.
  In 1990 no nation had a higher murder rate than ours. The United 
States murder rate was quadruple that of the entire Continent of Europe 
and was 11 times higher than Japan. Americans are dying from 
unnecessary violent deaths in unprecedented numbers. While it is not 
realistic to expect the ban to lead to the cessation of violence, 
California's assault weapons ban demonstrates that a ban will decrease 
the usage of assault weapons in violent crimes.
  Nearly 77 percent of all Americans are in support of the assault 
weapons ban. We all agree that there needs to be an immediate response 
to this dilemma. Too many lives have been lost to violence. The grim 
reality demands our immediate response.
  Mr. Chairman, this measure takes a significant step in curbing the 
rising tide of our Nation's violence. H.R. 4296 will help to restore 
safety and sanity to our communities and I strongly urge all of my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 4296, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use 
Protection Act. In conjunction with the crime bill and the Brady Law, 
this legislation is an essential step in ensuring the safety of our 
community, our law enforcement officers, and especially our families.
  Mr. Chairman, assault weapons were designed for only one purpose--
killing people. These weapons were designed for war, specifically 
manufactured to make as many wounds as possible with a maximum number 
of bullets. Unfortunately, the rapid-firing capability and large bullet 
capacity of these deadly weapons are quite useful as instruments of 
terror for the criminals of our country.
  There is an ongoing war on the streets between the law enforcement 
and the criminals. The fact remains that in the city of Philadelphia, 
our local police are not armed with assault weapons, but the criminals 
are. Mr. Chairman, opponents to this legislation have stated that a ban 
on any firearm is an infringement upon their second amendment rights. 
Let me remind my colleagues that the Preamble of the Constitution 
clearly states that it is our constitutional duty to ``insure domestic 
Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, [and to] promote the 
general Welfare [of] ourselves and our Posterity.'' H.R. 4296 is an 
important step in upholding our vows to ensure these ``God-given'' 
liberties.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that current laws are inadequate to ensure 
these liberties. Criminals are winning the war on crime in this 
country. The law enforcement officers charged with protection of our 
citizens are outgunned and outnumbered by criminals who can easily 
obtain deadly weapons. The House has already taken steps to aid the law 
enforcement officials with the passage of H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The crime bill provides local 
law enforcement officials with much needed financial assistance for 
recruitment of 50,000 additional police officers, requires three-time 
violent criminals to be locked up for life and provides funding for the 
construction of new prisons. Yet, law enforcement officials continue to 
begin each day with the fear that they will face a well-armed 
``street'' militia armed with only their service revolver.
  H.R. 4296 will ban the manufacture and importation of these weapons 
of war which will cut off the production and, thus, the supply of these 
deadly weapons to criminals. The assault weapons banned in this 
legislation are used every day by criminals to kill other human beings. 
These guns are not hunting rifles, these guns are not target shooters, 
these guns were designed to harm other humans. Criminals with rapid-
firing capabilities and large capacity ammunition clips can potentially 
kill as many human beings as they have bullets.
  H.R. 4296 specifically targets the most dangerous weapons present on 
our streets today: AK-47's, UZI's and street sweepers. H.R. 4296 will 
only ban semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable 
ammunition clip, and two or more of the following military features: 
flash suppressors, grenade launchers, bayonet attachments, folding or 
telescoping stocks, and pistol grips.
  Mr. Chairman, I see no legitimate reason why this legislation should 
not be passed. It is time to stop the madness of gun-warfare on our 
city streets. It is time to protect our Nation's law enforcement 
officers, our families and our children from the crossfire. It is time 
to pass this measure and prevent these guns from entering into the 
hands of the criminals of this country.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Mfume). All the time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 4296

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public Safety and 
     Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION 
                   OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

       (a) Restriction.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, 
     transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or 
     transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise 
     lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the 
     firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such 
     firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
       ``(B) any firearm that--
       ``(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide 
     action;
       ``(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
       ``(iii) is an antique firearm;
       ``(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a 
     detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of 
     ammunition; or
       ``(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 
     5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

     The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not 
     be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such 
     firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be 
     deleted from Appendix A so long as this Act is in effect.
       ``(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the United States or a department or agency of the 
     United States or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State;
       ``(B) the transfer of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a 
     licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer 
     to an entity referred to in subparagraph (A) or to a law 
     enforcement officer authorized by such an entity to purchase 
     firearms for official use;
       ``(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from 
     service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise 
     prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic 
     assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency 
     upon such retirement; or
       ``(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a 
     semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or 
     licensed importer for the purposes of testing or 
     experimentation authorized by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Definition of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon.--Section 
     921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
       ``(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the 
     firearms, known as--
       ``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat 
     Kalashnikovs (all models);
       ``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and 
     Galil;
       ``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
       ``(iv) Colt AR-15;
       ``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
       ``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
       ``(vii) Steyr AUG;
       ``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
       ``(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) 
     the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
       ``(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a 
     detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
       ``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
       ``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath 
     the action of the weapon;
       ``(iii) a bayonet mount;
       ``(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to 
     accommodate a flash suppressor; and
       ``(v) a grenade launcher;
       ``(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept 
     a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
       ``(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol 
     outside of the pistol grip;
       ``(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel 
     extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
       ``(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or 
     completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter 
     to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being 
     burned;
       ``(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the 
     pistol is unloaded; and
       ``(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
       ``(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
       ``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
       ``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath 
     the action of the weapon;
       ``(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; 
     and
       ``(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.''.
       (c) Penalties.--
       (1) Violation of section 922(v).--Section 924(a)(1)(B) of 
     such title is amended by striking ``or (q) of section 922'' 
     and inserting ``(r), or (v) of section 922''.
       (2) Use or possession during crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking crime.--Section 924(c)(1) of such title is 
     amended in the first sentence by inserting ``, or 
     semiautomatic assault weapon,'' after ``short-barreled 
     shotgun,''.
       (d) Identification Markings for Semiautomatic Assault 
     Weapons.--Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``The serial number of any 
     semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of 
     the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on 
     which the weapon was manufactured.''.

     SEC. 3. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSFERS OF 
                   GRANDFATHERED FIREARMS.

       (a) Offense.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, 
     as amended by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(w)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, ship, 
     or deliver a semiautomatic assault weapon to a person who has 
     not completed a form 4473 in connection with the transfer of 
     the semiautomatic assault weapon.
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to receive a 
     semiautomatic assault weapon unless the person has completed 
     a form 4473 in connection with the transfer of the 
     semiautomatic assault weapon.
       ``(3) If a person receives a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     from anyone other than a licensed dealer, both the person and 
     the transferor shall retain a copy of the form 4473 completed 
     in connection with the transfer.
       ``(4) Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations 
     ensuring the availability of form 4473 to owners of 
     semiautomatic assault weapons.
       ``(5) As used in this subsection, the term `form 4473' 
     means--
       ``(A) the form which, as of the date of the enactment of 
     this subsection, is designated by the Secretary as form 4473; 
     or
       ``(B) any other form which--
       ``(i) is required by the Secretary, in lieu of the form 
     described in subparagraph (A), to be completed in connection 
     with the transfer of a semiautomatic assault weapon; and
       ``(ii) when completed, contains, at a minimum, the 
     information that, as of the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, is required to be provided on the form described 
     in subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) A person who knowingly violates section 922(w) shall 
     be fined not more than $1,000, imprisoned not more than 6 
     months, or both. Section 3571 shall not apply to any offense 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 4. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by sections 2 and 3 of this Act, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(x)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be 
     unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or 
     transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device 
     otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of 
     this subsection.
       ``(3) This subsection shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the United States or a department or agency of the 
     United States or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State;
       ``(B) the transfer of a large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or 
     licensed dealer to an entity referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     or to a law enforcement officer authorized by such an entity 
     to purchase large capacity ammunition feeding devices for 
     official use;
       ``(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from 
     service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise 
     prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by 
     the agency upon such retirement; or
       ``(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer 
     or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or 
     experimentation authorized by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Definition of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding 
     Device.--Section 921(a) of such title, as amended by section 
     2(b) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device'--
       ``(A) means--
       ``(i) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device 
     that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or 
     converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
       ``(ii) any combination of parts from which a device 
     described in clause (i) can be assembled; but
       ``(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed 
     to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber 
     rimfire ammunition.''.
       (c) Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices Treated as 
     Firearms.--Section 921(a)(3) of such title is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``or (D) any destructive device.'' 
     and inserting ``(D) any destructive device; or (E) any large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device.''.
       (d) Penalty.--Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title, as 
     amended by section 2(c) of this Act, is amended by striking 
     ``or (v)'' and inserting ``(v), or (x)''.
       (e) Identification Markings for Large Capacity Ammunition 
     Feeding Devices.--Section 923(i) of such title, as amended by 
     section 2(d) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``A large capacity ammunition feeding device 
     manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence 
     shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows 
     that the device was manufactured or imported after the 
     effective date of this subsection, and such other 
     identification as the Secretary may by regulation 
     prescribe.''.

     SEC. 5. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) Study.--The Attorney General shall investigate and 
     study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, 
     on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be 
     conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 30 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and 
     submit to the Congress a report setting forth in detail the 
     findings and determinations made in the study under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act--
       (1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years 
     after that date.

     SEC. 7. APPENDIX A TO SECTION 922 OF TITLE 18.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following appendix:

                              ``APPENDIX A

                     Centerfire Rifles--Autoloaders

Browning BAR Mark II Safari Semi-Auto Rifle

Browning BAR Mark II Safari Magnum Rifle

Browning High-Power Rifle

Heckler & Koch Model 300 Rifle

Iver Johnson M-1 Carbine

Iver Johnson 50th Anniversary M-1 Carbine

Marlin Model 9 Camp Carbine

Marlin Model 45 Carbine

Remington Nylon 66 Auto-Loading Rifle

Remington Model 7400 Auto Rifle

Remington Model 7400 Rifle

Remington Model 7400 Special Purpose Auto Rifle

Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifle (w/o folding stock)

Ruger Mini Thirty Rifle

                    Centerfire Rifles--Lever & Slide

Browning Model 81 BLR Lever-Action Rifle

Browning Model 81 Long Action BLR

Browning Model 1886 Lever-Action Carbine

Browning Model 1886 High Grade Carbine

Cimarron 1860 Henry Replica

Cimarron 1866 Winchester Replicas

Cimarron 1873 Short Rifle

Cimarron 1873 Sporting Rifle

Cimarron 1873 30" Express Rifle

Dixie Engraved 1873 Rifle

E.M.F. 1866 Yellowboy Lever Actions

E.M.F. 1860 Henry Rifle

E.M.F. Model 73 Lever-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 336CS Lever-Action Carbine

Marlin Model 30AS Lever-Action Carbine

Marlin Model 444SS Lever-Action Sporter

Marlin Model 1894S Lever-Action Carbine

Marlin Model 1894CS Carbine

Marlin Model 1894CL Classic

Marlin Model 1895SS Lever-Action Rifle

Mitchell 1858 Henry Replica

Mitchell 1866 Winchester Replica

Mitchell 1873 Winchester Replica

Navy Arms Military Henry Rifle

Navy Arms Henry Trapper

Navy Arms Iron Frame Henry

Navy Arms Henry Carbine

Navy Arms 1866 Yellowboy Rifle

Navy Arms 1873 Winchester-Style Rifle

Navy Arms 1873 Sporting Rifle

Remington 7600 Slide Action

Remington Model 7600 Special Purpose Slide Action

Rossi M92 SRC Saddle-Ring Carbine

Rossi M92 SRS Short Carbine

Savage 99C Lever-Action Rifle

Uberti Henry Rifle

Uberti 1866 Sporting Rilfe

Uberti 1873 Sporting Rifle

Winchester Model 94 Side Eject Lever-Action Rifle

Winchester Model 94 Trapper Side Eject

Winchester Model 94 Big Bore Side Eject

Winchester Model 94 Ranger Side Eject Lever-Action Rifle

Winchester Model 94 Wrangler Side Eject

                     Centerfire Rifles--Bolt Action

Alpine Bolt-Action Rifle

A-Square Caesar Bolt-Action Rifle

A-Square Hannibal Bolt-Action Rifle

Anschutz 1700D Classic Rifles

Anschutz 1700D Custom Rifles

Anschutz 1700D Bavarian Bolt-Action Rifle

Anschutz 1733D Mannlicher Rifle

Barret Model 90 Bolt-Action Rifle

Beeman/HW 60J Bolt-Action Rifle

Blaser R84 Bolt-Action Rifle

BRNO 537 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle

BRNO ZKB 527 Fox Bolt-Action Rifle

BRNO ZKK 600, 601, 602 Bolt-Action Rifles

Browning A-Bolt Rifle

Browning A-Bolt Stainless Stalker

Browning A-Bolt Left Hand

Browning A-Bolt Short Action

Browning Euro-Bolt Rifle

Browning A-Bolt Gold Medallion

Browning A-Bolt Micro Medallion

Century Centurion 14 Sporter

Century Enfield Sporter #4

Century Swedish Sporter #38

Century Mauser 98 Sporter

Cooper Model 38 Centerfire Sporter

Dakota 22 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle

Dakota 76 Classic Bolt-Action Rifle

Dakota 76 Short Action Rifles

Dakota 76 Safari Bolt-Action Rifle

Dakota 416 Rigby African

E.A.A./Sabatti Rover 870 Bolt-Action Rifle

Auguste Francotte Bolt-Action Rifles

Carl Gustaf 2000 Bolt-Action Rifle

Heym Magnum Express Series Rifle

Howa Lightning Bolt-Action Rifle

Howa Realtree Camo Rifle

Interarms Mark X Viscount Bolt-Action Rifle

Interarms Mini-Mark X Rifle

Interarms Mark X Whitworth Bolt-Action Rifle

Interarms Whitworth Express Rifle

Iver Johnson Model 5100A1 Long-Range Rifle

KDF K15 American Bolt-Action Rifle

Krico Model 600 Bolt-Action Rifle

Krico Model 700 Bolt-Action Rifles

Mauser Model 66 Bolt-Action Rifle

Mauser Model 99 Bolt-Action Rifle

McMillan Signature Classic Sporter

McMillan Signature Super Varminter

McMillan Signature Alaskan

McMillan Signature Titanium Mountain Rifle

McMillan Classic Stainless Sporter

McMillan Talon Safari Rifle

McMillan Talon Sporter Rifle

Midland 1500S Survivor Rifle

Navy Arms TU-33/40 Carbine

Parker-Hale Model 81 Classic Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 81 Classic African Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1000 Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1100M African Magnum

Parker-Hale Model 1100 Lightweight Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1200 Super Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1200 Super Clip Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 1300C Scout Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 2100 Midland Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 2700 Lightweight Rifle

Parker-Hale Model 2800 Midland Rifle

Remington Model Seven Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington Model Seven Youth Rifle

Remington Model Seven Custom KS

Remington Model Seven Custom MS Rifle

Remington 700 ADL Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 700 BDL Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 700 BDL Varmint Special

Remington 700 BDL European Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 700 Varmint Synthetic Rifle

Remington 700 BDL SS Rifle

Remington 700 Stainless Synthetic Rifle

Remington 700 MTRSS Rifle

Remington 700 BDL Left Hand

Remington 700 Camo Synthetic Rifle

Remington 700 Safari

Remington 700 Mountain Rifle

Remington 700 Custom KS Mountain Rifle

Remington 700 Classic Rifle

Ruger M77 Mark II Rifle

Ruger M77 Mark II Magnum Rifle

Ruger M77RL Ultra Light

Ruger M77 Mark II All-Weather Stainless Rifle

Ruger M77 RSI International Carbine

Ruger M77 Mark II Express Rifle

Ruger M77VT Target Rifle

Sako Hunter Rifle

Sako Fiberclass Sporter

Sako Safari Grade Bolt Action

Sako Hunter Left-Hand Rifle

Sako Classic Bolt Action

Sako Hunter LS Rifle

Sako Deluxe Lightweight

Sako Super Deluxe Sporter

Sako Mannlicher-Style Carbine

Sako Varmint Heavy Barrel

Sako TRG-S Bolt-Action Rifle

Sauer 90 Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110G Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110CY Youth/Ladies Rifle

Savage 110WLE One of One Thousand Limited Edition Rifle

Savage 110GXP3 Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110F Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110FXP3 Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage 110GV Varmint Rifle

Savage 112FV Varmint Rifle

Savage Model 112FVS Varmint Rifle

Savage Model 112BV Heavy Barrel Varmint Rifle

Savage 116FSS Bolt-Action Rifle

Savage Model 116FSK Kodiak Rifle

Savage 110FP Police Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher Sporter Models SL, L, M, S, S/T

Steyr-Mannlicher Luxus Model L, M, S

Steyr-Mannlicher Model M Professional Rifle

Tikka Bolt-Action Rifle

Tikka Premium Grade Rifles

Tikka Varmint/Continental Rifle

Tikka Whitetail/Battue Rifle

Ultra Light Arms Model 20 Rifle

Ultra Light Arms Model 28, Model 40 Rifles

Voere VEC 91 Lightning Bolt-Action Rifle

Voere Model 2165 Bolt-Action Rifle

Voere Model 2155, 2150 Bolt-Action Rifles

Weatherby Mark V Deluxe Bolt-Action Rifle

Weatherby Lasermark V Rifle

Weatherby Mark V Crown Custom Rifles

Weatherby Mark V Sporter Rifle

Weatherby Mark V Safari Grade Custom Rifles

Weatherby Weathermark Rifle

Weatherby Weathermark Alaskan Rifle

Weatherby Classicmark No. 1 Rifle

Weatherby Weatherguard Alaskan Rifle

Weatherby Vanguard VGX Deluxe Rifle

Weatherby Vanguard Classic Rifle

Weatherby Vanguard Classic No. 1 Rifle

Weatherby Vanguard Weatherguard Rifle

Wichita Classic Rifle

Wichita Varmint Rifle

Winchester Model 70 Sporter

Winchester Model 70 Sporter WinTuff

Winchester Model 70 SM Sporter

Winchester Model 70 Stainless Rifle

Winchester Model 70 Varmint

Winchester Model 70 Synthetic Heavy Varmint Rifle

Winchester Model 70 DBM Rifle

Winchester Model 70 DBM-S Rifle

Winchester Model 70 Featherweight

Winchester Model 70 Featherweight WinTuff

Winchester Model 70 Featherweight Classic

Winchester Model 70 Lightweight Rifle

Winchester Ranger Rifle

Winchester Model 70 Super Express Magnum

Winchester Model 70 Super Grade

Winchester Model 70 Custom Sharpshooter

Winchester Model 70 Custom Sporting Sharpshooter Rifle

                     Centerfire Rifles--Single Shot

Armsport 1866 Sharps Rifle, Carbine

Brown Model One Single Shot Rifle

Browning Model 1885 Single Shot Rifle

Dakota Single Shot Rifle

Desert Industries G-90 Single Shot Rifle

Harrington & Richardson Ultra Varmint Rifle

Model 1885 High Wall Rifle

Navy Arms Rolling Block Buffalo Rifle

Navy Arms #2 Creedmoor Rifle

Navy Arms Sharps Cavalry Carbine

Navy Arms Sharps Plains Rifle

New England Firearms Handi-Rifle

Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 5 Pacific

Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 1.5 Hunting Rifle

Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 8 Union Hill Rifle

Red Willow Armory Ballard No. 4.5 Target Rifle

Remington-Style Rolling Block Carbine

Ruger No. 1B Single Shot

Ruger No. 1A Light Sporter

Ruger No. 1H Tropical Rifle

Ruger No. 1S Medium Sporter

Ruger No. 1 RSI International

Ruger No. 1V Special Varminter

C. Sharps Arms New Model 1874 Old Reliable

C. Sharps Arms New Model 1875 Rifle

C. Sharps Arms 1875 Classic Sharps

C. Sharps Arms New Model 1875 Target & Long Range

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Long Range Express

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Montana Roughrider

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Military Carbine

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Business Rifle

Shiloh Sharps 1874 Military Rifle

Sharps 1874 Old Reliable

Thompson/Center Contender Carbine

Thompson/Center Stainless Contender Carbine

Thompson/Center Contender Carbine Survival System

Thompson/Center Contender Carbine Youth Model

Thompson/Center TCR '87 Single Shot Rifle

Uberti Rolling Block Baby Carbine

               Drillings, Combination Guns, Double Rifles

Beretta Express SSO O/U Double Rifles

Beretta Model 455 SxS Express Rifle

Chapuis RGExpress Double Rifle

Auguste Francotte Sidelock Double Rifles

Auguste Francotte Boxlock Double Rifle

Heym Model 55B O/U Double Rifle

Heym Model 55FW O/U Combo Gun

Heym Model 88b Side-by-Side Double Rifle

Kodiak Mk. IV Double Rifle

Kreighoff Teck O/U Combination Gun

Kreighoff Trumpf Drilling

Merkel Over/Under Combination Guns

Merkel Drillings

Merkel Model 160 Side-by-Side Double Rifles

Merkel Over/Under Double Rifles

Savage 24F O/U Combination Gun

Savage 24F-12T Turkey Gun

Springfield Inc. M6 Scout Rifle/Shotgun

Tikka Model 412s Combination Gun

Tikka Model 412S Double Fire

A. Zoli Rifle-Shotgun O/U Combo

                      Rimfire Rifles--Autoloaders

AMT Lightning 25/22 Rifle

AMT Lightning Small-Game Hunting Rifle II

AMT Magnum Hunter Auto Rifle

Anschutz 525 Deluxe Auto

Armscor Model 20P Auto Rifle

Browning Auto-22 Rifle

Browning Auto-22 Grade VI

Krico Model 260 Auto Rifle

Lakefield Arms Model 64B Auto Rifle

Marlin Model 60 Self-Loading Rifle

Marlin Model 60ss Self-Loading Rifle

Marlin Model 70 HC Auto

Marlin Model 990l Self-Loading Rifle

Marlin Model 70P Papoose

Marlin Model 922 Magnum Self-Loading Rifle

Marlin Model 995 Self-Loading Rifle

Norinco Model 22 ATD Rifle

Remington Model 522 Viper Autoloading Rifle

Remington 552BDL Speedmaster Rifle

Ruger 10/22 Autoloading Carbine (w/o folding stock)

Survival Arms AR-7 Explorer Rifle

Texas Remington Revolving Carbine

Voere Model 2115 Auto Rifle

                  Rimfire Rifles--Lever & Slide Action

Browning BL-22 Lever-Action Rifle

Marlin 39TDS Carbine

Marlin Model 39AS Golden Lever-Action Rifle

Remington 572BDL Fieldmaster Pump Rifle

Norinco EM-321 Pump Rifle

Rossi Model 62 SA Pump Rifle

Rossi Model 62 SAC Carbine

Winchester Model 9422 Lever-Action Rifle

Winchester Model 9422 Magnum Lever-Action Rifle

              Rimfire Rifles--Bolt Actions & Single Shots

Anschutz Achiever Bolt-Action Rifle

Anschutz 1416D/1516D Classic Rifles

Anschutz 1418D/1518D Mannlicher Rifles

Anschutz 1700D Classic Rifles

Anschutz 1700D Custom Rifles

Anschutz 1700 FWT Bolt-Action Rifle

Anschutz 1700D Graphite Custom Rifle

Anschutz 1700D Bavarian Bolt-Action Rifle

Armscor Model 14P Bolt-Action Rifle

Armscor Model 1500 Rifle

BRNO ZKM-452 Deluxe Bolt-Action Rifle

BRNO ZKM 452 Deluxe

Beeman/HW 60-J-ST Bolt-Action Rifle

Browning A-Bolt 22 Bolt-Action Rifle

Browning A-Bolt Gold Medallion

Cabanas Phaser Rifle

Cabanas Master Bolt-Action Rifle

Cabanas Espronceda IV Bolt-Action Rifle

Cabanas Leyre Bolt-Action Rifle

Chipmunk Single Shot Rifle

Cooper Arms Model 36S Sporter Rifle

Dakota 22 Sporter Bolt-Action Rifle

Krico Model 300 Bolt-Action Rifles

Lakefield Arms Mark II Bolt-Action Rifle

Lakefield Arms Mark I Bolt-Action Rifle

Magtech Model MT-22C Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 880 Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 881 Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 882 Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 883 Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 883SS Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 25MN Bolt-Action Rifle

Marlin Model 25N Bolt-Action Repeater

Marlin Model 15YN ``Little Buckaroo''

Mauser Model 107 Bolt-Action Rifle

Mauser Model 201 Bolt-Action Rifle

Navy Arms TU-KKW Training Rifle

Navy Arms TU-33/40 Carbine

Navy Arms TU-KKW Sniper Trainer

Norinco JW-27 Bolt-Action Rifle

Norinco JW-15 Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 541-T

Remington 40-XR Rimfire Custom sporter

Remington 541-T HB Bolt-Action Rifle

Remington 581-S Sportsman Rifle

Ruger 77/22 Rimfire Bolt-Action Rifle

Ruger K77/22 Varmint Rifle

Ultra Light Arms Model 20 RF Bolt-Action Rifle

Winchester Model 52B Sporting Rifle

                Competition Rifles--Centerfire & Rimfire

Anschutz 64-MS Left Silhouette

Anschutz 1808D RT Super Match 54 Target

Anschutz 1827B Biathlon Rifle

Anschutz 1903D Match Rifle

Anschutz 1803D Intermediate Match

Anschutz 1911 Match Rifle

Anschutz 54.18MS REP Deluxe Silhouette Rifle

Anschutz 1913 Super Match Rifle

Anschutz 1907 Match Rifle

Anschutz 1910 Super Match II

Anschutz 54.18MS Silhouette Rifle

Anschutz Super Match 54 Target Model 2013

Anschutz Super Match 54 Target Model 2007

Beeman/Feinwerkbau 2600 Target Rifle

Cooper Arms Model TRP-1 ISU Standard Rifle

E.A.A./Weihrauch HW 60 Target Rifle

E.A.A./HW 660 Match Rifle

Finnish Lion Standard Target Rifle

Krico Model 360 S2 Biathlon Rifle

Krico Model 400 Match Rifle

Krico Model 360S Biathlon Rifle

Krico Model 500 Kricotronic Match Rifle

Krico Model 600 Sniper Rifle

Krico Model 600 Match Rifle

Lakefield Arms Model 90B Target Rifle

Lakefield Arms Model 91T Target Rifle

Lakefield Arms Model 92S Silhouette Rifle

Marlin Model 2000 Target Rifle

Mauser Model 86-SR Specialty Rifle

McMillan M-86 Sniper Rifle

McMillan Combo M-87/M-88 50-Caliber Rifle

McMillan 300 Phoenix Long Range Rifle

McMillan M-89 Sniper Rifle

McMillan National Match Rifle

McMillan Long Range Rifle

Parker-Hale M-87 Target Rifle

Parker-Hale M-85 Sniper Rifle

Remington 40-XB Rangemaster Target Centerfire

Remington 40-XR KS Rimfire Position Rifle

Remington 40-XBBR KS

Remington 40-XC KS National Match Course Rifle

Sako TRG-21 Bolt-Action Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher Match SPG-UIT Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-I Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-III Rifle

Steyr-Mannlicher SSG P-IV Rifle

Tanner Standard UIT Rifle

Tanner 50 Meter Free Rifle

Tanner 300 Meter Free Rifle

Wichita Silhouette Rifle

                         Shotguns--Autoloaders

American Arms/Franchi Black Magic 48/AL

Benelli Super Black Eagle Shotgun

Benelli Super Black Eagle Slug Gun

Benelli M1 Super 90 Field Auto Shotgun

Benelli Montefeltro Super 90 20-Gauge Shotgun

Benelli Montefeltro Super 90 Shotgun

Benelli M1 Sporting Special Auto Shotgun

Benelli Black Eagle Competition Auto Shotgun

Beretta A-303 Auto Shotgun

Beretta 390 Field Auto Shotgun

Beretta 390 Super Trap, Super Skeet Shotguns

Beretta Vittoria Auto Shotgun

Beretta Model 1201F Auto Shotgun

Browning BSA 10 Auto Shotgun

Browning Bsa 10 Stalker Auto Shotgun

Browning A-500R Auto Shotgun

Browning A-500G Auto Shotgun

Browning A-500G Sporting Clays

Browning Auto-5 Light 12 and 20

Browning Auto-5 Stalker

Browning Auto-5 Magnum 20

Browning Auto-5 Magnum 12

Churchill Turkey Automatic Shotgun

Cosmi Automatic Shotgun

Maverick Model 60 Auto Shotgun

Mossberg Model 5500 Shotgun

Mossberg Model 9200 Regal Semi-Auto Shotgun

Mossberg Model 9200 USST Auto Shotgun

Mossberg Model 9200 Camo Shotgun

Mossberg Model 6000 Auto Shotgun

Remington Model 1100 Shotgun

Remington 11-87 Premier shotgun

Remington 11-87 Sporting Clays

Remington 11-87 Premier Skeet

Remington 11-87 Premier Trap

Remington 11-87 Special Purpose Magnum

Remington 11-87 SPS-T Camo Auto Shotgun

Remington 11-87 Special Purpose Deer Gun

Remington 11-87 SPS-BG-Camo Deer/Turkey Shotgun

Remington 11-87 SPS-Deer Shotgun

Remington 11-87 Special Purpose Synthetic Camo

Remington SP-10 Magnum-Camo Auto Shotgun

Remington SP-10 Magnum Auto Shotgun

Remington SP-10 Magnum Turkey Combo

Remington 1100 LT-20 Auto

Remington 1100 Special Field

Remington 1100 20-Gauge Deer Gun

Remington 1100 LT-20 Tournament Skeet

Winchester Model 1400 Semi-Auto Shotgun

                        Shotguns--Slide Actions

Browning Model 42 Pump Shotgun

Browning BPS Pump Shotgun

Browning BPS Stalker Pump Shotgun

Browning BPS Pigeon Grade Pump Shotgun

Browning BPS pump Shotgun (Ladies and Youth Model)

Browning BPS Game Gun Turkey Special

Browning BPS Game Gun Deer Special

Ithaca Model 87 Supreme Pump Shotgun

Ithaca Model 87 Deerslayer Shotgun

Ithaca Deerslayer II Rifled Shotgun

Ithaca Model 87 Turkey Gun

Ithaca Model 87 Deluxe Pump Shotgun

Magtech Model 586-VR Pump Shotgun

Maverick Models 88, 91 Pump Shotguns

Mossberg Model 500 Sporting Pump

Mossberg Model 500 Camo Pump

Mossberg Model 500 Muzzleloader Combo

Mossberg Model 500 Trophy Slugster

Mossberg Turkey Model 500 Pump

Mossberg Model 500 Bantam Pump

Mossberg Field Grade Model 835 Pump Shotgun

Mossberg Model 835 Regal Ulti-Mag Pump

Remington 870 Wingmaster

Remington 870 Special Purpose Deer Gun

Remington 870 SPS-BG-Camo Deer/Turkey Shotgun

Remington 870 SPS-Deer Shotgun

Remington 870 Marine Magnum

Remington 870 TC Trap

Remington 870 Special Purpose Synthetic Camo

Remington 870 Wingmaster Small Gauges

Remington 870 Express Rifle Sighted Deer Gun

Remington 879 SPS Special Purpose Magnum

Remington 870 SPS-T Camo Pump Shotgun

Remington 870 Special Field

Remington 870 Express Turkey

Remington 870 High Grades

Remington 870 Express

Remington Model 870 Express Youth Gun

Winchester Model 12 Pump Shotgun

Winchester Model 42 High Grade Shotgun

Winchester Model 1300 Walnut Pump

Winchester Model 1300 Slug Hunter Deer Gun

Winchester Model 1300 Ranger Pump Gun Combo & Deer Gun

Winchester Model 1300 Turkey Gun

Winchester Model 1300 Ranger Pump Gun

                         Shotguns--Over/Unders

American Arms/Franchi Falconet 2000 O/U

American Arms Silver I O/U

American Arms Silver II Shotgun

American Arms Silver Skeet O/U

American Arms/Franchi Sporting 2000 O/U

American Arms Silver Sporting O/U

American Arms Silver Trap O/U

American Arms WS/OU 12, TS/OU 12 Shotguns

American Arms WT/OU 10 Shotgun

Armsport 2700 O/U Goose Gun

Armsport 2700 Series O/U

Armsport 2900 Tri-Barrel Shotgun

Baby Bretton Over/Under Shotgun

Beretta Model 686 Ultralight O/U

Beretta ASE 90 Competition O/U Shotgun

Beretta Over/Under Field Shotguns

Beretta Onyx Hunter Sport O/U Shotgun

Beretta Model SO5, SO6, SO9 Shotguns

Beretta Sporting Clay Shotguns

Beretta 687EL Sporting O/U

Beretta 682 Super Sporting O/U

Beretta Series 682 Competition Over/Unders

Browning Citori O/U Shotgun

Browning Superlight Citori Over/Under

Browning Lightning Sporting Clays

Browning Micro Citori Lightning

Browning Citori Plus Trap Combo

Browning Citori Plus Trap Gun

Browning Citori O/U Skeet Models

Browning Citori O/U Trap Models

Browning Special Sporting Clays

Browning Citori GTI Sporting Clays

Browning 325 Sporting Clays

Centurion Over/Under Shotgun

Chapuis Over/Under Shotgun

Connecticut Valley Classics Classic Sporter O/U

Connecticut Valley Classics Classic Field Waterfowler

Charles Daly Field Grade O/U

Charles Daly Lux Over/Under

E.A.A./Sabatti Sporting Clays Pro-Gold O/U

E.A.A/Sabatti Falcon-Mon Over/Under

Kassnar Grade I O/U Shotgun

Krieghoff K-80 Sporting Clays O/U

Krieghoff K-80 Skeet Shotgun

Krieghoff K-80 International Skeet

Krieghoff K-80 Four-Barrel Skeet Set

Krieghoff K-80/RT Shotguns

Krieghoff K-80 O/U Trap Shotgun

Laurona Silhouette 300 Sporting Clays

Laurona Silhouette 300 Trap

Laurona Super Model Over/Unders

Ljutic LM-6 Deluxe O/U Shotgun

Marocchi Conquista Over/Under Shotgun

Marocchi Avanza O/U Shotgun

Merkel Model 200E O/U Shotgun

Merkel Model 200E Skeet, Trap Over/Unders

Merkel Model 203E, 303E Over/Under Shotguns

Perazzi Mirage Special Sporting O/U

Perazzi Mirage Special Four-Gauge Skeet

Perazzi Sporting Classic O/U

Perazzi MX7 Over/Under Shotguns

Perazzi Mirage Special Skeet Over/Under

Perazzi MX8/MX8 Special Trap, Skeet

Perazzi MX8/20 Over/Under Shotgun

Perazzi MX9 Single Over/Under Shotguns

Perazzi MX12 Hunting Over/Under

Perazzi MX28, MX410 Game O/U Shotguns

Perazzi MX20 Hunting Over/Under

Piotti Boss Over/Under Shotgun

Remington Peerless Over/Under Shotgun

Ruger Red Label O/U Shotgun

Ruger Sporting Clays O/U Shotgun

San Marco 12-Ga. Wildflower Shotgun

San Marco Field Special O/U Shotgun

San Marco 10-Ga. O/U Shotgun

SKB Model 505 Deluxe Over/Under Shotgun

SKB Model 685 Over/Under Shotgun

SKB Model 885 Over/Under Trap, Skeet, Sporting Clays

Stoeger/IGA Condor I O/U Shotgun

Stoeger/IGA ERA 2000 Over/Under Shotgun

Techni-Mec Model 610 Over/Under

Tikka Model 412S Field Grade Over/Under

Weatherby Athena Grade IV O/U Shotguns

Weatherby Athena Grade V Classic Field O/U

Weatherby Orion O/U Shotguns

Weatherby II, III Classic Field O/Us

Weatherby Orion II Classic Sporting Clays O/U

Weatherby Orion II Sporting Clays O/U

Winchester Model 1001 O/U Shotgun

Winchester Model 1001 Sporting Clays O/U

Pietro Zanoletti Model 2000 Field O/U

                        Shotguns--Side by Sides

American Arms Brittany Shotgun

American Arms Gentry Double Shotgun

American Arms Derby Side-by-Side

American Arms Grulla #2 Double Shotgun

American Arms WS/SS 10

American Arms TS/SS 10 Double Shotgun

American Arms TS/SS 12 Side-by-Side

Arrieta Sidelock Double Shotguns

Armsport 1050 Series Double Shotguns

Arizaga Model 31 Double Shotgun

AYA Boxlock Shotguns

AYA Sidelock Double Shotguns

Beretta Model 452 Sidelock Shotgun

Beretta Side-by-Side Field Shotguns

Crucelegui Hermanos Model 150 Double

Chapuis Side-by-Side Shotgun

E.A.A./Sabatti Saba-Mon Double Shotgun

Charles Daly Model Dss Double

Ferlib Model F VII Double Shotgun

Auguste Francotte Boxlock Shotgun

Auguste Francotte Sidelock Shotgun

Garbi Model 100 Double

Garbi Model 101 Side-by-Side

Garbi Model 103A, B Side-by-Side

Garbi Model 200 Side-by-Side

Bill Hanus Birdgun Doubles

Hatfield Uplander Shotgun

Merkell Model 8, 47E Side-by-Side Shotguns

Merkel Model 47LSC Sporting Clays Double

Merkel Model 47S, 147S Side-by-Sides

Parker Reproductions Side-by-Side

Piotti King No. 1 Side-by-Side

Piotti Lunik Side-by-Side

Piotti King Extra Side-by-Side

Piotti Piuma Side-by-Side

Precision Sports Model 600 Series Doubles

Rizzini Boxlock Side-by-Side

Rizzini Sidelock Side-by-Side

Stoeger/IGA Uplander Side-by-Side Shotgun

Ugartechea 10-Ga. Magnum Shotgun

                 Shotguns--Bolt Actions & Single Shots

Armsport Single Barrel Shotgun

Browning BT-99 Competition Trap Special

Browning BT-99 Plus Trap Gun

Browning BT-99 Plus Micro

Browning Recoilless Trap Shotgun

Browning Micro Recoilless Trap Shotgun

Desert Industries Big Twenty Shotgun

Harrington & Richardson Topper Model 098

Harrington & Richardson Topper Classic Youth Shotgun

Harrington & Richardson N.W.T.F. Turkey Mag

Harrington & Richardson Topper Deluxe Model 098

Krieghoff KS-5 Trap Gun

Krieghoff KS-5 Special

Krieghoff K-80 Single Barrel Trap Gun

Ljutic Mono Gun Single Barrel

Ljutic LTX Super Deluxe Mono Gun

Ljutic Recoilless Space Gun Shotgun

Marlin Model 55 Goose Gun Bolt Action

New England Firearms Turkey and Goose Gun

New England Firearms N.W.T.F. Shotgun

New England Firearms Tracker Slug Gun

New England Firearms Standard Pardner

New England Firearms Survival Gun

Perazzi TM1 Special Single Trap

Remington 90-T Super Single Shotgun

Snake Charmer II Shotgun

Stoeger/IGA Reuna Single Barrel Shotgun

Thompson/Center TCR '87 Hunter Shotgun.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute and no other amendment to the bill is in order.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
chair, Mr. Mfume, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 4296) to make unlawful the transfer or 
possession of assault weapons, pursuant to House Resolution 416, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of 
the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was 
read the third time.


            motion to recommit offered by mr. sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill, 
     H.R. 4296, to the Committee on the Judiciary.

  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on 
the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 214, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 156]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--214

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Long
     Rogers
       

                              {time}  1658

  Mr. LEHMAN and Mr. JACOBS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________