[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.
____________________