[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 112 (Friday, August 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  WE MUST SAVE THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler] is recognized for 60 minutes as the majority leader's designee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].


              special counsel in whitewater investigation

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I was saying that we had appointed a special 
prosecutor and that a number of individuals had raised the issue of 
replacing Mr. Fiske. They raised the question of conflict of interest. 
They raised the question not of actual conflict of interest but of 
perceived conflict of interest. The court panel, Judge Sentelle and his 
colleagues, decided after the legislation had passed just this past 
week to replace Mr. Fiske. It is interesting that the court took pains 
to point out that they did not question either Mr. Fiske's integrity, 
his ability, or the quality of his investigation.
  What they did say, however, was the court, therefore, ``deems it in 
the best interest of the appearance of independence contemplated by the 
act that a person not affiliated with the incumbent administration be 
appointed.''
  Let me reiterate that what they were seeking was to have an 
appearance of independence. That is to say, there was an allegation 
that Mr. Fiske knew Mr. Nussbaum, the previous counsel to the White 
House, when they had both practiced together in New York.

                              {time}  1520

  So the court said there might be an appearance of a conflict of 
interest, an appearance of nonobjectivity, an appearance that perhaps 
the public would not get what it sought in a special prosecutor, and 
that is an objective and thorough investigation. That certainly for 
every American is a worthy objective. But I would think that every 
American must have been shocked at the action that Judge Sentelle and 
his colleagues took, because in replacing Mr. Fiske they chose a 
gentleman, Mr. Starr, who I hasten to add is also a gentleman of good 
repute, perceived by his colleagues to have high integrity and 
significant ability.
  However, the court purportedly trying to prevent the appearance of 
bias, appointed somebody who had been a member of the Reagan 
administration, Solicitor General in the Bush administration, has 
campaigned for a number of Republican candidates to replace candidates 
who are Democrats on the basis that they were supporting President 
Clinton, whose firm, the Washington Post reports, has volunteered on a 
pro bono bases to represent interests adverse to those of the White 
House, and a person who quite clearly is a partisan opponent of the 
President.
  Now there may be a lot of partisan opponents of the President and 
there is nothing wrong with that in a democracy, in a free country. But 
if in fact we are replacing Mr. Fiske so we can preclude the appearance 
of bias, to then appoint a very strong opponent of this administration 
seems to be a strange conclusion indeed of Judge Sentelle and his 
colleagues that that would preclude the appearance of bias.
  Let me go a step further. There are two U.S. Senators who have not in 
the Senate chamber necessarily, but out in public expressed their deep 
opposition to the Clinton administration, and indeed in many respects 
disrespect for and antipathy toward President Clinton and this 
administration, and I refer to Senator Jesse Helms and Senator 
Faircloth, both of North Carolina. The interesting thing is that Judge 
Sentelle was appointed to the Federal bench with the strong support of 
Senator Jesse Helms. He then participates in appointing Mr. Starr, a 
strong Republican from Republican administrations to an allegedly 
objective, independent prosecutor role to investigate President 
Clinton.
  The Washington Post reports further that there have been in recent 
weeks lunches between Judge Sentelle and Senator Faircloth, and I do 
not know whether Senator Helms was present. Any fair-minded person 
might say that is certainly all right to have lunch, have discussions, 
have talks between these folks. But I ask Judge Sentelle, I ask the 
American people: Is that the appearance of objectivity? Is that the 
appearance of a lack of bias?
  I want to tell my friends that I am surprised that Mr. Starr took 
this appointment. I am surprised that Mr. Starr, whom I do not know, 
but as I said has a representation for integrity and intellect, I am 
surprised that he would take this position. I am surprised that he 
would not respond to Judge Sentelle and his colleagues: ``I believe 
that the appearance of bias is there, and if you are replacing Mr. 
Fiske to eliminate that, to appoint a partisan Republican advocate 
opponent of this administration does not meet, Judge Sentelle, your own 
test.''
  It is unfortunate that the judges did not follow their own advice. It 
is unfortunate the judges were insensitive to the necessity to have the 
integrity of this system upheld.
  Madam Speaker, I will perhaps make further comments in the future as 
this matter develops. I thank the gentleman for yielding.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Brown of Florida). The Chair must ask 
all Members to refrain from personally referring to Members of the 
Senate by name.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam speaker, I rise today because yesterday the 
National Rifle Association won a victory on the floor of this House 
which, if not reversed, will result in continued carnage in every city 
and town across this country. Yesterday opponents of the assault 
weapons ban contained in the crime bill united to defeat the rule and 
prevent the crime bill from reaching the floor for a vote.
  Too many in this town have predicted that this vote kills any chance 
of enacting an assault weapons ban this year. I am here today to say 
that a majority of this House and a majority of the American people 
support this reasonable, indeed limited and conservative restriction on 
the private ownership of weapons of war, and hope indeed pray fervently 
that the assault weapons bill not be dropped from the crime bill when 
it again comes to the floor of this House.
  Madam Speaker, there is a war going on in the streets of America and 
the bad guys are winning. Frightened parents keep their kids off the 
street, and some neighborhoods parents make their children sleep in 
bathtubs because of the fear of drive-by shootings and of heavily armed 
gangs rampaging in their communities.
  The statistics are staggering. Although assault weapons comprise only 
about one-half of 1 percent of the estimated 211 million privately 
owned firearms in the United States, they account for roughly 8 percent 
of all gun crimes, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms. Eight percent of the gun crimes does not sound like that big 
a problem, but the fact is that assault weapons are the favorite 
weapons of professional criminals. The fact is that assault weapons are 
16 times more likely to be used in a crime than are other firearms. The 
fact is that with an assault weapon a criminal is able to discharge 
more ammunition at a higher velocity with greater accuracy and kill and 
main more people, and do more damage than with conventional firearms. 
That is why the drug dealers prefer assault weapons. That is why 
psychotic mass murderers from Kileen, TX to Stockton, CA to Brooklyn, 
NY favor assault weapons.

                              {time}  1530

  The human toll of these weapons is staggering. As this House 
considers health care reform, every Member should be aware of the 
impact of assault weapons.
  According to a report by the California attorney general's office:

       The danger of the semiautomatic weapon is not yet the 
     frequency with which it is used in crime or the volume which 
     exists compared to other types of guns. Rather, the danger is 
     the potential each semiautomatic weapon confers upon an 
     individual to kill and wound a large number of people.

  The Journal of the American Medical Association made the true impact 
of assault weapons abundantly clear in June of 1992 when it reported:

       Wounds from high-velocity assault weapons resemble the 
     wounds inflicted in the Vietnam war. They are often multiple 
     and massive, and immediate treatment is critical to survival. 
     High-velocity bullets may set up shock waves and cause 
     cavitation effects resulting in unpredictable damage at sites 
     far from the wound track. With low-velocity weapons, multiple 
     wounds still occur, but the damage is localized to tissues 
     adjacent to the wound track, and the full extent of the 
     injury can usually be determined at the time of surgery. The 
     estimated costs of treating penetrating trauma like that from 
     an assault weapon varies from $15,000 to $20,000. A stay in 
     intensive care is not unusual and may cost as much as 
     $150,000, and patients may require a long rehabilitation. 
     These patients need a tremendous amount of care and can be a 
     tremendous burden on hospitals. Most gunshot-wound patients 
     are not covered by private insurance, and their costs are 
     reimbursed by government insurance programs or are 
     uncompensated. Thus, the public bears a major share of the 
     costs.

  The fact is that between 1986 and 1993 an estimated 29,000 assault 
weapons were used to commit crimes in the United States. This figure 
includes 1,598 homicides, 940 assaults, 224 robberies, and 4,500 
narcotics violations, all committed with assault weapons.
  Between 1990 and 1991 assault weapons were used in more than 1,350 
crimes in Dallas, and the Los Angeles police seized over 850 assault 
weapons.
  Too often our police officers are outgunned by the criminals. 
Although assault weapons account for only one-half of 1 percent of all 
weapons in the country, assault weapons were used in nearly 10 percent 
of all cop-killings, according to FBI statistics.
  Assault weapons are 18 times more likely to be used in a cop-killing 
than any other type of firearm.
  Is it any wonder then that every major national law enforcement 
organization supports the assault weapons ban? Whom are we to trust, 
the police who patrol our streets or the unreasoning fanatics of the 
arrogant gun lobby? Where will the National Rifle Association be when 
the next child is shot with a military weapon? We know where they will 
be, not helping that child or the family or the community; they will be 
in front of the television cameras pointing to the tragedy as proof 
that the child should have been carrying an AK-47 or a street-sweeper 
or a Tech 9.
  Do not listen to them, and do not be afraid of them. Madam Speaker, 
we must not give in to the NRA. We must not allow drug dealers and 
murderers to wreak havoc in our communities. We must stop the killing. 
We must pass the assault weapons ban. We must not accept any excuses.
  This House has already passed it, and it should not be dropped from 
the crime bill.
  Today I am circulating a latter addressed to the Speaker urging that 
the leadership of this House stand firm on the assault weapons ban, and 
I urge my colleagues who want to stop the violence to sign this letter. 
I hope the American people will look to see if their Representatives 
knuckle under to the strong-arm tactics of the NRA. Let them know that 
you want your communities back. Let your Representatives know that you 
do not want to worry about your children every time they walk out the 
door, every time they go to school, and every time they stand by a 
window.
  Sign the Nadler letter. Speak for the majority of Americans who want 
safe streets and a ban on assault weapons. Now is the time for action. 
Now is the time to make our voices heard to begin the process of taking 
our country back from the criminals.
  This country needs a good, rational attack on crime and criminals. 
This country needs an assault weapons ban. This country needs to stop 
the killing.

                          ____________________