[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 124 (Thursday, August 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Republican 
leader.
  I send a cloture motion to the desk, and I ask that it be stated.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the conference 
     report accompanying H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act:
         Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Edward M. Kennedy, Tom Daschle, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Harlan Mathews, Max Baucus, Fritz 
           Hollings, Charles S. Robb, Dianne Feinstein, Dan 
           Inouye, Wendell Ford, Patrick Leahy, Harris Wofford, 
           Dale Bumpers, John Glenn.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we will continue our discussions in an 
effort to determine whether it is possible to reach agreement to have 
the vote on the cloture motion at a time prior to the time on which the 
vote would occur under the rules absent any consent agreement.
  Under the Senate rules, if no agreement is reached, the cloture 
motion would ripen for a vote 1 hour after the Senate came into session 
on Saturday. My hope is that we can agree to reach a conclusion on the 
matter before then. I understand that that is not possible now and, of 
course, that is appropriate and understandable.
  I now suggest that the debate commence or continue on the matter, and 
I will discuss the matter further with the distinguished Republican 
leader and make an announcement as soon as I am able to do so.
  Mr. DOLE. I say to the majority leader, we will discuss that on this 
side, and I will get back to him. I hope there is some hope of that 
happening.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], is 
recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I said this week that we are in the last 
phase of this process. We have one more hurdle to go to get this crime 
bill passed. And now we will get down to the single item that has made 
the difference all along for the last 6 years: Guns. The issue will be 
assault weapons or no assault weapons. I hope no one has any 
misunderstanding about that. We are ready to go ahead and debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The President pro tempore's point is well taken.
  The Senate will be in order. Members will clear the aisles. Members 
in the rear of the Chamber will cease conversation.
  The chairman of the committee, the manager of the bill, the Senator 
from Delaware, is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President----
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senators will cease audible conversation. 
Order has been requested.
  The Senators in the well to the left of the Chair will cease audible 
conversation.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to say that I realize for several of 
our colleagues, this was a very, very difficult political vote for them 
to make. It is not my prerogative to thank anyone, because I think what 
was done here was done truly because we can make a difference with this 
legislation. Nonetheless, I want to personally thank all of those of 
you who I called dozens of times and who are willing to cast this vote, 
Democrats and Republicans alike. I thank you all very much. I just hope 
we can now bear down. Senators Metzenbaum, Feinstein, and DeConcini 
have been the leaders on my side of this issue as it relates to the 
matter we are about to debate. I am sure you will hear a lot more of 
them than you will of me, and than you have in the last 6 years on this 
issue, because they know the issue better than I. I thank everybody for 
their cooperation.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as you know, the assault ban was not part 
of the offer. That was a matter that, had the offer been accepted or 
had we won the point of order, we would not have been arguing about the 
assault ban. But we lost the point of order. Now we must address that 
ban--a ban which I believe violates the second amendment to the 
Constitution.
  The second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms--to 
bear arms to protect the family, to hunt, to engage in sporting 
activities. The so-called assault weapons ban violates that right. It 
is based on hysterical fear and is unjustified in both law and in fact. 
I will continue the fight against the ban and for the second amendment.
  Mr. President, the semiautomatic assault weapons ban is a misleading 
substitute for fighting crime. Criminals generally obtain firearms from 
the black market, from other criminals, or by stealing them, rather 
than by obtaining them from gun shops or licensed dealers.
  This is especially true for so-called assault weapons, which, in any 
event, are little used in the commission of crimes. Less than 1 percent 
of all serious crimes involve the use of assault-style weapons. (NRA 
drawn from Uniform Crime Reports and State criminological data; Ralph 
Z. Hallow, the Washington Times, May 5, 1994, at A8.) The fact that 
these firearms are semiautomatic merely means that a round is fed into 
the chamber when the weapon is fired. They are not machine guns. 
Indeed, they fire no differently than any semiautomatic hunting rifle.
  Moreover, even if criminals are unable to obtain specific 
semiautomatic firearms, they will obtain other firearms to commit 
crimes. This measure is just one more step in an on-going effort to 
take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Of course, that 
effort will be magnified if this ban becomes law. The Clinton 
administration is part and parcel of this effort. It is the most anti-
second amendment administration in memory, if not in our Nation's 
history.
  Furthermore, the number of firearms that would be banned is unclear. 
That is because not only are certain enumerated firearms, such as 
Uzi's, Kalashnikovs, and Colt Ar-15s, the civilian version of the M-16, 
prohibited but unspecified military-looking firearms that have certain 
features, such as folding stocks, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, or 
protruding pistol grips, are also banned. The number of these latter 
types are unclear, but what is certain is that various and long-used 
hunting and competition firearms would be banned. Finally, the 
limitation on magazines to 10 rounds makes little sense since a 
magazine can be inserted in a moment and it is easy to jury-rig it to 
hold more rounds. Enforcement will be a big government nightmare.


                  vague, overbroad, and unenforceable

  The proposed ban on semiautomatic firearms is so vague and overbroad 
that enforcement becomes a nightmare.
  How many firearms are banned? One would think that this provision 
would at a minimum clearly answer this question. Not true. Nineteen 
named firearms are banned, but also copies, types and replicas, and 
firearms having certain characteristics or modifications, such as a 
combination of folding stocks, pistol grips that protrude beneath the 
action of the weapon, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, and barrels 
having threaded muzzles, are also banned. In a response to a series of 
letters from Senator Craig, John W. Magaw, Director of the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, admitted that most of the firearms 
listed in Senator Craig's letter--between 100 and 160, depending on how 
one counts modified firearms--would be banned as assault weapons types 
and that the list ``should not be considered to be all inclusive.''
  What is being banned? Although supporter's of this ban claim that 
only deadly assault-type weapons and their copycat versions are being 
banned, the ban extends to firearms such as the venerable Springfield 
M1A rifle, which is now used as a primary competition weapon, and the 
popular Colt AR-15, the civilian version of the military M-16, used for 
hunting and sporting purposes. That is because these weapons have 
military characteristics, such as a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, 
or a folding stock, modifications that do not alter the main function 
or attribute of these firearms one iota. indeed, flash suppressors are 
typically used to prevent impairment of vision and to reduce recoil, 
and are, thus, invaluable in sharpshooting competitions. Ironically, 
President Clinton, during a recent bird-shooting trip to Maryland's 
eastern shore, borrowed a semiautomatic Benelli M1 Super 90 Field Auto 
Shotgun to bag his quarry. That is a popular upscale Italian shotgun 
that is legal. However, if, after these provisions were enacted, the 
President used the same Benelli model with cosmetic changes, such as 
the addition of a collapsible alloy or plastic stock and a pistol grip, 
he would have found himself on the wrong side of the law.


                         the myth of appendix a

  Appendix A of the assault weapons ban provisions exempts from the 
definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon a list of 670 specific 
hunting and sporting firearms. But this number is very misleading. 
First of all, only 85, less than 13 percent of the 670 firearms listed 
in the appendix, are even semiautomatic weapons. The appendix includes 
single-shot .22s, bolt-action shotguns and blackpowder cartridge guns, 
not exactly items that can be considered military-type weapons. Thus, 
the list is inflated in order to appear to be exempting more 
semiautomatic firearms than it does. Moreover, the 670 figure is even 
further inflated--it lists many model variations of the same firearm. 
The Remington Model 11-87, a semiautomatic shotgun, appears on the list 
10 times; the Remington Model 870 pump shotgun is listed 16 times. And 
the list does not contain even one semiautomatic handgun. Thus, whole 
categories of sporting and home defense firearms are not excepted.


                      the unenforceability problem

  Because it is unclear how many firearms would be banned and, 
especially, what would be banned, enforcement could become a nightmare 
if BATF takes an aggressive position. Given past experience with BATF 
and the antigun position of the Clinton administration, this concern is 
very real. This nightmare situation is aggravated by the fact that 
magazines holding more than 10 rounds are prohibited. Since it is 
fairly easy to jury-rig magazines to increase round capacity and 
because magazines are easily concealable, enforcement of this provision 
is nearly impossible. There are millions of magazines in circulation 
today, and they are essentially untraceable. And how do you 
distinguished between magazines that have been grandfathered and newly 
obtained ones? Since magazines now have no serial or other markings, it 
would be essentially impossible to prove that a magazine was 
manufactured at a given time, and therefore impossible to prove that a 
crime had been committed.
  Furthermore, in jurisdictions that have so-called assault weapons 
prohibitions, compliance has been minimal: 10 percent in California, 
and approximately 1 percent in Denver, Boston, and Cleveland. 
(Independence Institute 34, 35). These laws have made criminals out of 
normally law-abiding citizens.


                         california experience

  California's experience with its 1989 assault weapons ban, the 
Roberti Act, demonstrates that such bans are unworkable and that its 
underlying premises are deeply flawed. The Roberti Act, unlike the 
prohibition before us, bans only specific firearms. The act bans some 
firearms, such as the Springfield BM-59, but not almost identical 
weapons, such as the Springfield twin, the Beretta BM-59. The result, 
even under this law, has been utter confusion. The California 
Department of Justice cannot internally agree what weapons are banned. 
About half of the 65,000 guns registered under the law, which 
allows current owners to retain their firearms upon registration, are 
invalid, according to an Associated Press review of registration 
studies conducted for the California Department of Justice. (David 
Morris, the Press Enterprise, March 15, 1993, Riverside, CA). In many 
cases the California Department of Justice accepted registration fees 
for firearms not covered by the ban because the Department's employees 
could not understand what guns were covered. Similarly, to lessen 
confusion, local law enforcement officials have been supplied with 
folders of photographs of banned weapons. And, more importantly, 
innocent possessors of lawful firearms have been falsely arrested and 
prosecuted. These enforcement problems are nothing compared to what 
would happen if the proposed conference report passes, because of the 
broader scope of its assault weapons ban provisions.


                   assault weapon ban is unnecessary

  I want to respond briefly to several myths about so-called assault 
weapons. These firearms are not machine guns, which automatically 
discharge all rounds upon pulling the trigger. Semiautomatic firearms, 
on the other hand, can only discharge one round at a time. A round is 
advanced into the chamber after each firing. Semiautomatics do not fire 
the deadlier, high-power ammunition used by firearms for combat rifles, 
such as for a Browning Automatic Rifle. Moreover, semiautomatic rifles 
are commonly owned, approximately 3.3 million Americans own them, are 
highly accurate, and thus, are especially suited for home and self-
defense. Indeed, Professor Gary Kleck, recipient of the American 
Society of Criminology's 1993 Hindelang Award, has found that 
firearms--including semiautomatic rifles--are used for self-defense 
about 2.5 million times annually. (Los Angeles Times, April 29, 1994; 
Orlando Sentinel Tribune, April 10, 1994). Furthermore, some 
competition rules require semiautomatic rifles, while semiautomatic 
shotguns are popular for trap, skeet, and sporting clays. 
Significantly, so-called assault weapons are seldom used in the 
commission of crimes. Why then the cry for their ban? Because they look 
like military weapons, they appear menacing. Accordingly, they are the 
best candidates for the gun control movement's drive ultimately to rip 
the second amendment entirely out of the Bill of Rights.


                            crime statistics

  I want to mention a series of statistics that place a ban on 
semiautomatic assault weapons in perspective. The fact is, a ban on 
semiautomatic assault weapons would do little to reduce the incidents 
of violent crime because such weapons are not the weapons of choice for 
violent criminals.


    percentage of assault weapons seized by local police departments

  In Denver, in 1991, only 14 of the 1,752 guns seized by the Denver 
police were assault weapons. (David B. Kopel, the Washington Times, May 
5, 1994, at A18. According to the Colorado Attorney General's Office).
  Of 689 guns seized by the Akron, OH, police in 1992, fewer than 1 
percent were classified as assault weapons. (Ralph Z. Hallow, the 
Washington Times, May 5, 1994, at A8).
  In Baltimore County, in 1990, only two assault weapons were among the 
644 logged in the police property room. (Ralph Z. Hallow, the 
Washington Times, May 5, 1994, at A8; Baltimore Police Department 
firearms submissions.)

  Reports by all jurisdictions that reported police seizure data from 
1980 to 1992 show that assault weapons amount to no more than 3.9 
percent of guns seized in any jurisdiction, and are usually about one 
percent or less. [David B. Kopel, the Washington Times, May 5, 1994, at 
A18).


  erroneous conclusions drawn from trace statistics of the bureau of 
                     alcohol, firearms, and tobacco

  Firearms traces track the commercial possession of firearms from the 
manufacturer or importer to its first retail purchasers. Police can, 
and frequently do, request traces on firearms recovered at crime 
scenes, those found and turned in by citizens, or recovered under many 
other circumstances. Firearms need not have been used to commit violent 
crimes--indeed, most firearms traced have neither been used to commit, 
nor have another connection to, violent crimes. The BATF keeps 
statistics on the number of assault weapons it traces. (NRA).
  Yet, despite the tenuousness of such statistics, some newspapers 
erroneously reported in 1989, based on the BATF traces, that the 
percentage of assault weapons used in violent crimes was 10 percent for 
Chicago, 19 percent for Los Angeles, 11 percent for New York City, and 
13 percent for Washington. In each of those cities, however, police 
departments conducted complete counts of all assault weapons which had 
been seized from criminals: 3 percent for Chicago, 1 percent for Los 
Angeles, 1 percent for New York City, and 0 percent for Washington, DC. 
(Independence Institute 28).
  There have been other erroneous conclusions drawn from BATF trace 
reports as well, including claims that 8 percent to 10 percent of guns 
used in crimes are assault weapons and that assault weapons are 20 
times more likely to be used in crime than other guns. These statistics 
are misleading for two reasons: First, assault weapons are used in only 
about 1 percent of gun crimes, and second, BATF traces only 1 to 2 
percent of all guns used in violent crime and these guns are not 
randomly selected. Even BATF admits its statistics are tenuous since 
traces and the Uniform Crime Reports may not be truly representative of 
all crimes. (David Kopel, the Washington Times, Aug. 5, 1994, at 18; 
Ralph Z. Hallow, the Washington Times, May 5, 1994, at A8; NRA; 
Independence Institute 29).
  Mr. President, in conclusion, this ban is simply unnecessary. It 
takes away a fundamental right of the American people.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alaska seek recognition?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, Mr. President.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], is 
recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have seen some demonstrations on this 
floor of what I call ungentlemanly conduct, but since we now have a 
couple of ladies, I will call it conduct unbecoming of a Senator. I see 
no reason for the recent expression from the other side of the aisle 
that required a cloture motion, because some of us feel we have not 
been heard.
  If you want to look at the Record since we got on this bill, more 
than half--as a matter of fact, I believe their time on the floor since 
we have been on the bill has been two-to-one. I personally was making a 
statement on the bill, and when our leader came in, I relinquished the 
floor to the leader so he could make a statement concerning the 
negotiations that were going on, and I have not as yet been able to get 
back to the floor.
  It should have been no surprise at all that there are some of us who 
are very disturbed about this bill. But I find it very unfortunate, 
after almost 26 years here, to find that my insistence on the exercise 
of my rights as a Senator somehow or other is leading to comments from 
the other side of the aisle that I consider to be unbecoming of a 
Senator. If anybody wants to make a matter of personal privilege about 
this, I would be glad to yield to you. But as far as I am concerned, 
that is wrong. It is wrong. We have our rights. One of the first things 
Mike Mansfield told me is, ``Do not forget, every Member of this Senate 
has equal rights right here. Every Member of the Senate has equal 
rights right here.'' I found people interrupting me during conversation 
and asking a question of another Member. I think the expressions from 
the other side of the aisle concerning particularly my right to express 
the feelings of many Members of my State very offensive, Mr. President. 
For that reason, it is going to take a little bit more time to handle 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I believe that we still have a way to go back to work 
and produce a true crime bill. We are going to talk here not just about 
guns; we are going to talk about the crime bill still. A true crime 
bill must deal with stopping criminals and strengthening the entire law 
enforcement and criminal justice system. I still believe this bill does 
not do that. We attempted to bring about, through a procedural 
mechanism, a way to allow the Senate to toughen the crime bill that was 
weakened by the process that it has gone through so far. I do not think 
this bill conforms to the budget. It does not conform to the goal of 
bringing the crime bill into compliance with the goal of improving the 
law and order system of this country.
  The amendments to reduce the cost of the bill which would have been 
addressed by the point of order cannot now be offered to the bill.
  (Mr. FORD assumed the chair.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Before I forget, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the comments I made the day before yesterday that were part of 
this statement appear in the permanent Record for this day as 
interrupted text of my statement in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I might state to the Chair, I did make arrangements with 
the Reporter's office so that that previous statement could be carried 
over.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is also thoughtful.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was particularly concerned with the 
procedure we had before to bring back into this bill the language that 
would have tightened the prison language, that would have insisted on 
mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, to ensure prison funding 
goes to build prison brick and mortar cells and not prison 
alternatives, to bring about mandatory minimum penalties for selling 
drugs to minors, and to restore mandatory, not discretionary mandatory, 
but mandatory minimum penalties for employing minors to sell drugs.
  I believe the Simpson amendment expediting criminal alien deportation 
should have been included in this bill, and I do not believe that we 
should have included the mandatory minimum repeal provision.
  I have some real problems about this bill because I believe the 
Senate has also yielded now to a strange House procedure. We have 
allowed the House to take a conference report back to the House after 
defeating that conference report. It amended the conference report, 
called it a conference report again, and sent it to us, and we are 
treating it like it is a conference report. It is not.
  That conference report was not amendable in the House or the Senate. 
Once having been defeated, they should have sent us a new bill. If they 
had, we might have had a chance to deal with this appropriately.
  What bothers me most, Mr. President, is there are nine States, the 
congressional delegation from which have a majority in the House. Nine 
States control the House. Here it takes 25 States plus 1 to control the 
Senate. A State like mine has one Member of the House. California has 
over 50. California, New York, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Illinois, New Jersey, and Michigan control the House.
  I do not believe we should have allowed the House to adopt a 
procedure which we will live to regret, a procedure which allows the 
House, through its Rules Committee procedure, to treat a conference 
report in any way it wishes to treat it.
  They have put up some strange rules in the House recently, but the 
way they handled this conference report, let us suppose they do it on 
the health care bill. What happens if they do it to one of our 
appropriations bills?
  This is the strangest procedure I have seen in more than 25 years 
here in the Senate.
  I think that there is no question that this bill offends many of us. 
I have said before how offensive the unfunded mandates are to States 
like mine.
  We get out of the billions of dollars that go to assist law 
enforcement, we are talking about $44 million under this bill. We get 
$44 million spread over a period of 6 years and the strings on that $44 
million is such that I am sure my State will turn it down because it 
means we have to match the money with 25 percent the first year, 50 
percent the second year, 75 percent the third year, and we are paying 
it all from there on.
  We agree to keep these people on for 6 years, but the mandate is 
really unfunded. Many of us have been talking about that for a long 
time, and I believe, Mr. President, that there is a question about 
that.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I talked 2 days ago about the problems of 
the conferees and the way they dealt with this bill. The conferees 
eliminated funding incentives for States to make violent criminals 
serve at least 85 percent of their imposed sentences. I still do not 
understand that. That provision I felt was critical to reducing 
violence.
  As a former U.S. attorney, I was very interested in the 1988 
Department of Justice study that the average violent offender received 
an 8-year sentence but actually spent less than 3 years behind bars; 
for the average 8-year sentence, only 37 percent leads to actual 
periods of time in a prison.
  The majority of the violent offenders are back on the streets in less 
than 2 years, according to that report. Two-thirds are out in 4 years.
  I think many people here know what those violent felons do when 
society lets them out early. They resume their criminal life. The 
record shows and that report shows the robberies, the beatings, the 
murders; they continue.
  Another study found that 63 percent of violent criminals released 
from prison were rearrested within 3 years, one-third for extremely 
violent offenses.
  I have long believed that the solution was to make violent felons 
serve long prison terms and let the world know that a punishment for a 
crime is going to be fully served.
  Once a person commits a violent crime, particularly with a gun, no 
other deterrent, in my opinion, works, not rehabilitation, not gun 
control. The only safe choice for a person who has used a gun once for 
a crime is to spend time, a long time behind bars.
  Even though we know incarceration does work, the conferees greatly 
weakened the provision to make violent criminals serve at least 85 
percent of their sentences. While the conference approved needed 
spending for prisons, none of this money is actually to go for new 
conventional prison cells. The Senate approved $6.5 billion in prison 
grants, to build more prison space. The conferees increased the money 
but insisted that much of the money be spent on rehabilitation 
programs, not incarceration of criminals.
  I said before that $3.3 billion in social spending that is in the 
conference report, the budget point of order for that has just been set 
aside by the Senate. That, too, we will live to regret.
  There is a 92-percent increase in this bill over the moneys in the 
Senate bill for programs which are not related to apprehending, 
convicting, and jailing criminals.
  We sent to the conference a bill with tough mandatory gun crime 
penalties. You want to talk about guns. That is what I was talking 
about--guns. We have long insisted upon long sentences for abuse of the 
use of the right to have guns. We sought 10 years for firearm 
possession during a crime. We sought 20 years for firing a gun during 
the crime. We sought 30 years for using a machine gun or silencer for a 
crime. Everyone talks about these bad guns. No one is willing to really 
punish those who use them.
  I think anyone who uses a gun with a silencer, in my judgment, 
actually shoots at another person, has intended to commit murder and it 
ought to be treated as an intended murder. The provision to do so was 
stripped out of this bill by the House.
  Those were some of the provisions that we offered, those of us who 
believe that we have a right to have guns.
  We wanted to bring about the death penalty if someone is killed with 
a firearm. That is the position of those who believe in the second 
amendment rights--extreme punishment for anyone who abuses those 
rights. But all of those provisions were taken out of this bill. All of 
them.
  And then people say, ``Why do you want to have any debate on this 
bill?''
  Let me repeat again. We requested 10 years for firearm possession 
during a crime, 20 years for firing a gun during a crime, 30 years for 
using a machine gun or silencers during a crime, and the death penalty 
if someone killed a person with a firearm.
  What is wrong with that? I do not see anything wrong with it. As a 
matter of fact, that is what we believe in.
  The House rejected those mandatory sentences for gun crimes. We tried 
to have a procedure to get them back in. And what did they do? They 
found another strange procedure. When we voted on this bill before the 
Senate the last time, the House had sent to conference a bill that did 
not have a provision concerning semiautomatic weapons. It was not in 
the House bill when it went to conference.
  A group of us went over and visited with Members of the House and 
said, ``What happens if the crime bill from our side containing the 
Feinstein amendment goes to conference?'' They said, ``There is no way. 
There is no way that that can come back to the House,'' because the 
House has a point of order against a provision coming back to the House 
on which no hearing has been held, which was not part of the bill that 
was sent to the conference. That was already discussed here on the 
floor.
  But we went over to check on whether that was truly the case, and we 
were told it was. So we joined in sending the bill to conference, 
because we thought that we would face that on another issue.
  Mind you, Mr. President, there was another bill that had been passed 
with that provision in it. We knew we were going to face that 
provision. That was an entirely different bill. But the House--after we 
passed this bill, the Senate crime bill--sent to the conference, 
contrary to the rules of the House and Senate, a bill that dealt with 
the semiautomatic weapons ban.
  Now, people who talk about why we are disturbed about the abuses of 
the processes of the two bodies of this great legislature on this bill 
ought to look at what has happened.
  I wonder sometimes if we are in control; if the other side will be as 
restrained as we have been about the tyrannical abuse of the processes 
of the Congress by Members of the other body and by the Members of the 
other side of the aisle here on this bill.
   Mr. President, I believe that the House, in rejecting mandatory 
sentences for gun crimes, took the wrong course. They went to the 
semiautomatic weapons ban which has been discussed here.
  Now those firearms are often confused with machine guns. Many people 
say that we are trying to block machine guns. Machine guns were blocked 
in the Machine Gun Act years ago. Automatic weapons are barred already. 
Machine guns are tightly restricted under existing Federal law. We 
wanted to tighten it even further, to say anybody that used a machine 
gun and kills someone would face the death penalty. I really think that 
it is unfortunate that was not done.
  The firearms banned in this bill are functionally identical to 
thousands of firearms that are owned throughout my State and used 
legitimately day in and day out. They are used lawfully in Alaska, and 
in many areas of this country. They are used by the people who really 
believe they have second amendment rights; that they have the right to 
use those weapons. They view this bill and the Feinstein amendment as a 
step towards national gun registration, a means to confiscate, a means 
to bar the ownership and use of guns for the purposes we use them now.
  And I have not heard one person on the floor of the Senate pledge 
that they would not support such measures. We are watching a 
progression now, one after another, toward adopting a policy as existed 
in Great Britain for many years, that you could not own guns. I hope 
everyone noticed they are starting to modify those gun laws in Great 
Britain.
  Many Alaskans have asked, rightly, if they ban these firearms that 
are functionally identical to the firearms they now own, can Federal 
restrictions on their weapons that they now have and now use and now 
need be far behind? I think Alaskans are right to ask that question. I 
have not heard any answer to it here. I hope maybe some people will 
come and make a pledge that that is not the case.
  This gun ban represents another step in the broader war against the 
second amendment. It has been estimated there are about 200 million 
firearms in this country. About one in every other home has a firearm.
  Many people forget there are people who buy firearms for self-
defense. Less than .02 percent--let me say that again--.02 percent of 
these guns are misused on an annual basis. About 1 million guns a year 
are used defensively, for self-defense; about a million.
  In fact, there are more instances of guns being used defensively than 
there are instances of guns being used for arrests in this country.
  There is no correlation between the gun ownership rates and crime 
rates. That is not so. It cannot be demonstrated at all.
  Over the first 30 years of this century, American per capita handgun 
ownership remained stable. The homicide rate increased tenfold. Between 
1937 and 1967, handgun ownership rose 250 percent. Now, the homicide 
rate dropped over this same period as handgun ownership rose.
  Let me state that again. Between 1937 and 1967, handgun ownership in 
this country rose 250 percent. The homicide rate dropped 35.7 percent.
  I visited Switzerland many times, Mr. President. It has a militia 
system. It distributes guns, pistols, and machine guns to every adult 
citizen. The males are required to have them and keep them at home. 
Rifle sales are unregulated in Switzerland. And there is almost no gun 
crime in Switzerland. The overall criminal rate is well under the 
United States rate. It is well under the crime rate of most European 
countries, including those that have absolute strict gun control.
  Now, I do believe that this bill--a $30 billion bill--contains too 
much in social programs. It has not included the provisions--I do not 
know why they do this. I understand a lot of people disagree with us on 
gun ownership, but why did the House and why did the Senate conferees 
agree to delete the penalties for the misuse of guns?
  The thing that really bothers me, as a former prosecutor, is why did 
they delete a provision that said if a person used a silencer in the 
commission of a crime they would be treated as a very violent criminal, 
as someone who intended to commit murder? I know of no other reason to 
put a silencer on. In fact, I do not know of anyone who has ever used 
silencers in terms of sporting or legalized activity.
  But we tried to put a heavy penalty on anyone using it in the 
commission of a crime. Maybe there is some legitimate use for it--I 
cannot think of one now--but there is certainly no legitimate use for 
one in a commission of a crime.
  We said, anyone that has a silencer and has that silencer during the 
commission of a crime is guilty of a very heinous crime.
  And as one of the people that originated that idea, why should we not 
punish these people hard? Maybe if we punish people who misuse guns 
very harshly, others would understand that those of us who want to use 
guns legally, lawfully, and have them for their own legal use would be 
less pestered by the kind of legislation that we face now and the 
criticism that we are receiving during the consideration of this bill.
  I hope someone will come out here and tell me why we should not have 
the same rights as anyone else on the floor of the Senate. The normal 
handling of a cloture session is 2 days. If it is shorter than that we 
have agreed to give up some of our rights. I do not remember many 
people on the other side of the aisle who have given up theirs. I know 
the distinguished Senator from Ohio certainly did not give up his, when 
we spent night after night handling his amendments to the natural gas 
bill. Maybe he can tell me why he is so abusive of us, who are trying 
to exercise our own rights for a few hours and discuss these 
provisions.

  Again, these are provisions I tried 2 days to follow up on the 
statement I started on Tuesday. People know I have been back out here, 
time and time again, to finish this statement.
  I cannot believe we ought to be in the position we are in today, 
where we have to justify the rights we claim under the second 
amendment. I think there should be more people trying to explain why 
they believe we do not have those rights. If they explain them 
forcefully enough I think they will exercise more people to join us in 
defense of our rights. Because as I said there are more people who use 
guns defensively in this country than there are police arrests.
  Let me tell the Senator, I remember one particular time when General 
Westmoreland was coming back from Vietnam and I asked him to join me 
for a day and just relax and go fishing with an old friend of mine, who 
is now deceased. We were out in Resurrection Bay, near Seward. We were 
on board the boat already and we arranged for General Westmoreland to 
be helicoptered to a beach near where we were fishing, and we went to 
get him in a small boat. We came back on the boat and as Westmoreland 
got on the boat my good friend, Ken Brady--as I said now deceased--was 
reeling in an enormous halibut. It was really one of those great and 
beautiful days in Resurrection Bay; you do see forever. It was actually 
in early evening, in the summertime--the Arctic summer.
  Ken knew he had an enormous, enormous halibut. So he pulled out a 
handgun, as he should have, as he was reeling this halibut in. I might 
say, Westmoreland's assistant was a little bit worried when he pulled 
out that handgun, worried what he was doing with it, but we promptly 
told him what it was all about.
  As Ken got that halibut close enough to the boat that he could really 
get near it, he took the handgun and tried to shoot him. Just as he 
did, that halibut jumped up and he took off like a skate, and by the 
time he stopped he had taken all of the line out of this reel, he was 
gone just--bam--gone. And, of course, lost.
  But the point I am making is I cannot remember going fishing in a 
boat off Alaska without a gun on board. I cannot remember going into 
the woods in my State--and I toured through the countryside--without a 
gun.
  I have another memory of a time when I was campaigning and we decided 
we would film a spot concerning the great fishing in the Karluk River 
on Kodiak Island. I had a gun with me. One of my friends was along with 
me, watching the photographer. We were in bear country. I was out 
fishing with a fly line, with a spinning rod. The kings were there. I 
was not doing too well, but they were there. He, my friend, said, 
``Back up.'' We usually do not back upstream while we are fishing, but 
I did for a little ways. And he said, ``I want you to move a little bit 
to your left.''
  I said, ``Why would I move to my left?'' I looked to my left and here 
was this enormous Kodiak brown bear, as close to me as the President 
pro tempore of the Senate is now. And I have that on film. I reeled in 
and got out of there. But the only thing I am saying to you is we would 
have been absolute fools to have been in that place without our guns.
  We did not shoot the bear. We did not bother the bear and would not 
have, unless he bothered us. But we have a right to these guns, Madam 
President. We have a right to them. And many of them have the same--
same intrinsic mechanisms that this bill bans, those specific guns.
  Are we next? Are we next? Are we going to take away our shotguns? The 
rifles we use for hunting? The shotguns we use when we go out to get 
some of the vast number of waterfowl that come to our country, the 
north country? Are we going to lose our handguns that we carry with us 
when we are out fishing for halibut?
  I really think there has to be some consideration given to those of 
us who have guns, who believe we have the right to have them, and now 
see this path, the path being established, without regard to whether it 
would be more effective to put a deterrent in the system and put these 
people away who misuse the right to use guns.
  Again, if you want to go back and look at it, the provisions we 
suggested that were in the Senate bill--and as a matter of fact, passed 
by an overwhelming majority in every instance--were deleted by the 
House for no reason other than they were guns. They were gun 
provisions. I have heard the other side of the aisle talk about our gun 
provisions and I said to the leader the other day, we are going to talk 
about guns. And everybody thought I was going to stand up here and talk 
just about the semiautomatic weapons banned in this bill. They do not 
listen.
  I know my good friend from West Virginia listens. But I will tell the 
Senate, I am going to have some other things to say before I am 
through. I did not know when this was going to start today. But I 
believe the country is being pushed by a lobby that is more well 
financed than the NRA ever was. They believe their destiny is to take 
guns away from the American people. I have actually seen some of their 
materials that indicate that the second amendment does not mean what it 
says.
  Madam President, as I started the statement I said I cannot support 
this bill. I now say I will not support this bill. There is a lot in it 
that as a former prosecutor I think is necessary. But if you weigh this 
bill in terms of its provisions to prevent crime, if they are to punish 
people who commit crime, and its provisions to punish people who misuse 
their to rights to use guns, it is woefully imbalanced.
  The moneys we tried to strike out with the point of order are far 
outweighed by the harm this does to those of us who really believe we 
have second amendment rights.
  I will speak further later on, and yield the floor at this time to my 
good friend.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I will only speak for 6 or 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

                          ____________________