[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 41 (Friday, March 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2674-H2701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1045
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] the ranking member on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Barr] the hearings the gentleman is talking about had nothing to
do with the bill that is on the floor today. Maybe the gentleman
remembers it or maybe he forget it, but to represent that we have had
these hearings, that this has been considered in the manner that the
gentleman suggests, is not quite accurate, sir. That is why I take this
time to point that out. Sorry the gentleman was not paying attention.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized for 3 minutes.
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, there are not many times, but there are
some times when the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of
the Committee on Rules, and I agree. This is one of these times that I
strongly agree, and I think just as strongly as the gentleman from New
York on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my remarks basically to those
Members that were not here in August 1994 and September 1994, because
those that were know how they voted and know why they voted, and
basically it is the same vote. However, those who were not here in 1994
know that if they do not know much about guns, I think Members should
educate themselves before they vote on this issue. I would like to help
them just a little bit.
In the first place, these guns that were banned, the few semi-
automatics that were banned are no different, are no different from the
semi-automatic that I use every year that I go hunting for deer in
Missouri in my district. They work the very same way. They just look
different. They are no different, they are no different. They were in
that same bill in 1994 that banned a few semi-automatics that they call
assault weapons, that are not, Mr. Speaker, they are not. I can tell
the Members why in a minute.
Look at that list. Those are the ones that the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer] and all the other ones say, ``These are okay. These
are fine.'' There are Uzis on there. Yes, there are Uzis on here. They
are fine. There are all kinds of semi-automatics on here. Every one of
them are semi-automatics. They are fine. The only difference is the way
they look.
Mr. Speaker, I can take my deer rifle, and if I paint it black and if
I put a metal folding stock on it, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer] would say that it should be banned because of the way it
looks. The ones that were banned, all these semi-automatics, look bad.
They look like they might be a military weapon, but they are not a
military weapon.
I would just like to tell those Members that have not voted on this,
Mr. Speaker, have no fear. What was done in 1994 in the crime bill has
necessitated some of us to be here to fight to try and save other
programs. But one thing that was done in 1994 in that crime bill that
has not stopped any crime was the ban on semi-automatic rifles. It has
not stopped any crime. The FBI will tell you, less than 1 percent of
the crimes are used with these weapons.
I would like to ask the Members, what is the difference between a
ball bat that is red and one that is black and one that is just plain
clear wood? Is there any difference? I do not know of any difference.
They all hit the ball. If you have the right batter, they can do home
runs. Another batter might just hit a single, but they are all the
same.
If I take that ball bat, that black one, it looks ugly. I should not
let a batter use it because it is ugly. That is what the ban is all
about, no different. Ball bats are all the same. These semi-automatic
rifles are all the same, but the ones that have been banned, they just
do not look good. That is why the gun banners say they should be
banned.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers.]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of rhetoric Members are
going to get all day. We are going to constantly get the baseball bat
analogy and a lot of other silliness, when the fact of the matter is
that this list was shortened because of the people that support the NRA
that made us shorten the list. We wanted a longer line. Now that we do
not have it, well, it should be a lot longer. Why is it not a lot
longer?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, who was in charge? He was not
allowed, his Democrat leadership did not allow him?
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I just heard the most idiotic statement I
have ever heard here. I really have. None of us had anything to do with
this list. It was the proponents. There, the
[[Page H2675]]
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and the gentlewoman in the
Senate, the gentlewoman from California, made up this list, nobody
else. They did not have to have a list. They could have had every
semiautomatic and tried to ban it. They would not have succeeded.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I am
yielding to Democrats on both sides of the issue. There are some
Democrats who agree with this legislation and some who oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
[Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, this notion that we cannot
make a difference because if we ban so many, we are not banning all of
them, or if you cannot save all crime, you are not going to try to save
any at all, is just bogus.
Our responsibility in this House is to do what we are able to do.
That is our responsibility. If we are able to save anyone's life
because we ban these weapons of war that spray bullets and kill people
indiscriminately, then we should do so. I cannot believe in this House,
a week after the kids were mowed down in Scotland, that you have the
nerve to bring this bill up.
In the opening of this debate, you said we should have known about
this bill before we were elected to the 104th Congress. I will tell
you, we knew about this bill. Americans knew about this bill, my family
knew about this bill. We did not have to read the NRA questionnaire to
know about this bill. Families like mine all across this country know
all too well what damage weapons can do, and you want to arm our people
even more. You want to add more magazines to the assault weapons so
they can spray and kill even more people.
Shame on you. What in the world are you thinking when you are opening
up the debate on this issue? Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but a sham,
to come on this floor and say you are going to have an open and fair
debate about assault weapons. My God, all I have to say to you is, play
with the devil, die with the devil.
There are families out there, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman will
never know what it is like, because they do not have someone in their
family killed. It is not the person who is killed, it is the whole
family that is affected.
Furthermore, people will say, and I have heard this argument already,
this is not effective because it is not cutting crime, you are not
cutting crime. That is the wrong question. It is not about cutting
crime, it is about cutting the number of people who get killed by these
assault weapons. You are asking the wrong question. It is not about
crime, it is about the families and victims of crime. That is what we
are advocating, in prosposing this ban. That is why we should keep this
ban in place.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman leaves the floor, and I have a
great respect for he and his family, but I am going to tell him
something, when he stands up and questions the integrity of those of us
that have this bill on the floor, the gentleman ought to be a little
more careful. Let me tell you why.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Tell me why.
Mr. SOLOMON. My wife lives alone 5 days a week in a rural area in
upstate New York. She has a right to defend herself when I am not
there, and don't you ever forget it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. You know the facts about this. You have
guns in the home that are going to be used against your own family
members. You know what the evidence is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The
gentleman from New York has the time.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. VOLKMER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Following the previous speaker, the gentleman from Rhode
Island [Mr. Kennedy], who spoke so eloquently, I will agree, there was,
I heard and I saw, because I turned and saw, there was applause and
clapping in the galleries. We have rules in this House concerning that.
I would like for the Chair to address the gallery and inform them of
the rules of the House.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will 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.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Bob Barr, one of the sponsors of this legislation.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker on the other side speaks very
loudly, if not eloquently, but some of his analogies, some of his terms
are rather confusing. He talks about the devil. The devil is the person
with a gun in his hand who murders anybody in this country. That is the
devil. That is the person to which this legislation today is aimed. It
is the devil in Scotland who murdered 16 children and their teacher in
a country that bans virtually every type of weapon, every type of
handgun. That is no guarantee of anything. We must have this
legislation to protect against exactly what the gentleman from
Massachusetts is talking about.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
(Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, why are we here? It is
murderously irresponsible for this House to take up this action today.
There are only two forces in this country that want us to consider this
measure: The National Rifle Association, and the Republican leadership
of this House.
When I go back to my district, I go through the grocery stores and I
do not have anybody stopping me and saying, ``Mr. Barrett, Mr. Barrett,
we have to get those AK-47's back on the street.'' When I take my son
to preschool, I do not have anybody saying, ``Mr. Barrett, Mr. Barrett,
we have to get those Uzis back on the playgrounds.'' When I go to
church, I do not have anybody stop me and say, ``We have to get those
Tech-9's back in the hands of those criminals.''
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] talks about the devil, the
devil does this. You can give the devil his due, but do not give the
devil then an assault weapon. It is wrong to put those weapons into the
arms of people who want to kill Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we have a chance today to do what is right. We have a
chance today to say to the NRA, take your money, take your money. We do
not want it in our campaigns. You want to buy us, lock, stock, and
barrel? No. We do not want your blood money, because it is murderously
irresponsible to put AK-47's on the streets of America. It is
murderously irresponsible to put Uzis on playgrounds in this country.
It is murderously irresponsible to put street sweepers on Long Island
trains.
Mr. Speaker, let us end this carnage. Let us end what happened in San
Francisco. Let us end what happened in Long Island. Let us make sure
that we do not have a Scotland situation in this country.
Mr. Speaker, to do that, we only have to do one thing today. That is
to say no to the NRA. It is something that 70 percent of the people in
this country want us to do, and it is something that every single
Member of this body should do today.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Albuquerque, NM, Mr. Steve Schiff, one of the most
qualified men to serve in this body because of his prior experience
before he came, and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the
bill.
During the period of time I have been in the U.S. Congress, I have
voted both for and against gun control. I have found each vote to be
inherently controversial, because this is a very difficult issue. I
have, however, never seen an issue in which there was so much
misinformation being cast about. I
[[Page H2676]]
think there are two serious areas of information about the kinds of
weapons we are talking about here.
To begin with, Mr. Speaker, they are not assault weapons. Assault
weapons are automatic weapons; that means a machinegun or
submachinegun; pull the trigger, and the gun continues to fire for as
long as it has bullets. Indeed, I have seen national news programs
where they are talking about this bill, and they are showing the public
fully automatic weapons.
Not one of the weapons we are talking about in this bill is an
assault weapon. Not one of the weapons we are talking about in this
bill is an automatic weapon. They are not AK-47's and Uzis of the
automatic type. But that is what the public has been told over and over
again, and would like to believe.
The fact is that each of these firearms shoots one bullet with one
pull of the trigger. There is no functional difference between any of
the firearms that are mistakenly, I think deliberately, mistakenly
called assault weapons in this bill, and weapons which are not called
assault weapons. In fact, the way this bill describes assault weapons,
or I should say, real assault weapons, real automatic weapons,
machineguns, submachineguns, have been regulated for decades, and I
think they ought to be.
{time} 1100
I do not propose to change that. The weapons we are talking about
here are called assault weapons mistakenly based upon their appearance.
For example, if a certain rifle has the ability to carry a bayonet,
under this existing legislation that makes it an assault weapon. I
invite the next speaker who is speaking against our bill and in favor
of the current legislation to explain how if a weapon can carry a
bayonet it is somehow more lethal as a firearm. But none of the
speakers for the legislation are going to talk about that because they
want to mislead the American people into believing we are talking about
something different than bayonets. But that is exactly what we are
talking about.
I was a career prosecutor before I had the privilege of being elected
to the House of Representatives, and during all the years I was
prosecuting criminals, none of them ever led a bayonet charge.
So I hope it can be explained rationally why saying that a bayonet on
a weapon or the ability to carry a bayonet should make it illegal.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I agree 100 percent with the gentleman that
it has been a misstatement all along that these are assault weapons.
I do not believe that even the opponents of the legislation, the
proponents of the ban, would ever think about sending our troops into
Bosnia and all around the world with this type of weapon.
In every place they go, even in Third-World countries, they are going
to be outfought in any firefight because those people have real assault
weapons. Those are the automatics. None of these are automatics.
Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is exactly correct. The
misimplication is being made that these are automatic weapons, that
these are machineguns and submachine guns. It just is not true.
They are weapons that have certain visual characteristics like in
being able to carry a bayonet which has no meaning as a firearm but
that is what makes it illegal under the current legislation, which
makes no sense to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up one other issue that I think has been
confused, and, that is, statistics about how often these weapons as
opposed to other firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
I asked Director Magaw that question in a letter several months ago.
He is Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He
responded that the U.S. Government does not keep official records of
how many of the weapons they are calling assault weapons are used in
crimes, so he could give me no information. Yet 2 days ago, I saw in
USA Today the statement that the ATF says that 10 percent of all
violent crimes use these weapons. Apparently that came from some group
that supports the current legislation giving that information to a
reporter.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms denies that statement.
They do not support it.
And so there is no credible information being kept about whether
these firearms are used in crimes any more than any other kind of
firearm. Of course since they all shoot the same, they are all going to
function the same, anyway. But I think it is significant to note that
an administration that says these firearms are more deadly than other
firearms does not keep official records of are they used in crimes.
I think there is a place for gun control in crime fighting. The best
law we have on the books is a law that has been on the books for many
years. It is a Federal crime for a convicted felon to have possession
of a firearm, any firearm. It does not matter what kind. But that law
has not been strongly enforced by this administration or by the last
two administrations.
As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have tried to get
the Clinton administration to agree to prosecute all convicted felons
found in possession of a firearm. They refuse to do it.
As a member of Judiciary, I then tried to get the Clinton
administration to set a minimum standard to say, for example, that if a
convicted felon was released in the last year from a penitentiary for a
violent crime, then if that person is caught with a firearm, guarantee
to prosecute that person. They refuse to guarantee it.
We have two suspects for a horrendous series of five homicides. Every
homicide is horrendous, but we have five homicides in which we have two
suspects. Both of these suspects were recently released from the
penitentiary. Both of these suspects were in the possession of
firearms, and these are the kinds of people that the Federal Government
will not prosecute until it is too late. They should be prosecuted when
they are found with a firearm.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support
of repealing this ban.
There is a lot of emotion to this argument and justifiably and
understandably so. I think there also need to be some facts and some
statistics if you are going to write policy in the halls of this House.
There is a lot of reference to Scotland, a tragedy that is seared in
the minds of all of us. Let us talk about Scotland for a second. Great
Britain has some of the tightest and most restrictive gun control laws
in the world. Great Britain requires a permit for any type of firearm.
In Scotland, the person who committed those atrocities was apparently
carrying four handguns, not the type of firearm at all at issue on the
floor of this House. That person had been issued permits despite the
fact that he had clear mental problems.
There are some times you cannot control it. That is what happened in
Scotland. But that should not be an issue here on this floor.
The reason I support repealing this ban, I guess are the same reasons
I made when I argued against the ban 2 years ago. This is not what you
need to fight crime.
The statistics are quite clear on this. If you want to look at the
FBI or the Bureau of Justice statistics, this type of firearm at most
is used in 3 percent and most say around 1 percent of all crimes.
Does anyone really feel there has been a significant difference
because these firearms are statistically or theoretically banned? I do
not think so.
If this has been so effective, then there must have been a wave of
prosecutions against those who manufacture or possess or transfer these
firearms. How many prosecutions have there been since 1994, since this
was passed? One. One prosecution pending today in this country. That is
not in my State or in your State. For the entire country.
My concern with this legislation is it is cosmetic, that this ban on
so-called assault weapons is cosmetic. Two firearms that shoot the same
bullet at the same speed, the same velocity with the same impact. And
they are semiautomatic. That means that they fire a bullet with each
pull of the trigger.
[[Page H2677]]
They are not machineguns. They are not automatic. They are
semiautomatic. Yet one is banned and one is not. That is cosmetic
legislation and we do not need it here on the floor of the House.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the different speakers all
talk about different statistics, one saying one thing, another person
saying another thing. That is why I am so disappointed that we have
this rule on the floor and we are voting on the issue without having
public hearings. We are not experts in law enforcement. The experts in
law enforcement should have had an opportunity to come before this
Congress and give us their best information as to how the assault
weapon ban is working, so that we could vote intelligently on the
subject so we could have that debate in our committees where we should
have it.
What are we afraid of? Bringing the experts before us?
The assault weapon ban is a reasonable attempt at trying to get
weapons out of the hands of people who want to cause harm and kill our
citizens. It is a reasonable effort to have less guns on the street,
less assault weapons on the street. It has saved lives and will
continue to save lives.
It represents a minimal inconvenience to law-abiding citizens, a
minimal inconvenience to save lives on the streets. It was a reasonable
effort.
In my State of Maryland, we have statistics from our law enforcement
people showing it has worked, that it has reduced the number of crimes
in Baltimore. It has worked with State laws that we have passed working
together to try to get guns out of the hands of criminals. That is what
this is about.
It is beyond me that we want to in a couple of hours repeal the
assault weapon ban without giving the public an opportunity to be heard
on the subject as to the specific legislation that we have before us.
That is not what this legislation is all about. That is not what this
Congress is all about.
If we differ on the underlying facts, why do we not have the public
hearings before this Congress in order to get the facts before us
before we are called upon to vote?
I think we all understand the reason why we are not going to be
afforded that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to reject this
legislation.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill before us does two things. Yes, it repeals a gun ban; but,
yes, it increases penalties for those law-breakers who use guns in the
course of a violent Federal crime. The reason that language is in here
is because of two Members, one named Fred Heineman of North Carolina
but primarily this gentleman I am going to introduce, Jon Christensen
of Omaha, NE. His bill the Hard Time for Gun Crimes Act, contains this
legislation. It is because of him that it is in here today. I commend
him for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Christensen].
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. It
is with that that I rise today in strong support of this rule, this
balanced rule that I believe will send a strong message to those
criminals in America who continue to prey upon our citizens.
I believe that this debate will let us focus on the real answer, and,
that is, that getting tougher on those that prey upon our society will
not be tolerated any longer.
Just last week I introduced H.R. 3085, the Hard Time for Gun Crimes
Act of 1996, which made it clear that anyone who commits a felony with
a gun should plan on spending the next few decades behind bars, no
exceptions.
While my bill provided for stiffer mandatory penalties than the
measure which we will be debating shortly, it does include my language
that takes it from a serious Federal violent crime to all Federal
violent crimes and all drug-related crimes. By adding stiffer
penalties, though, for the crimes committed with guns, we will be able
to keep those who prey upon our society behind bars for a long, long
time instead of being freed by the slick criminal trial lawyers who
allow these slugs of society to walk our streets because of legal
technicalities.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for
allowing us to focus in on the real answer to crime, because I do not
believe that gun control is crime control. But this rule today will
allow us to really focus in on what I believe will be an answer to
America's problems.
I urge the passage of both this rule and this very important piece of
legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from nearly 100 police chiefs
and sheriffs in California begging the Congress not to repeal the
assault weapons ban. It occurs to me that the police chiefs and the
sheriffs know a whole lot more about this than the politicians in this
House who have received contributions from the NRA and who are doing
the bidding of their funders.
The police do not want to face off against assault weapons on the
street, but I think if we vote for this assault weapon ban repeal, we
are saying it is OK for the police to face off against criminals with
assault weapons in the course of their jobs.
Earlier in this Congress we passed the Congressional Accountability
Act that said we would live by the same rules as those we passed for
other Americans. So as we consider this bill, what is missing in this
rule is an amendment to remove the metal detectors from the U.S.
Capitol. Let us see how we like having citizens armed with assault
weapons in our gallery. We should do that if we ask police officers to
live with assault weapons.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Eshoo].
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and
H.R. 125 which would repeal the assault weapons ban. There is
absolutely no good reason for Congress to repeal this ban. It is
needed, it works, and the American people support it.
More than one-third of all police killed with guns from January 1994
to September 1995 were slain by illegal assault weapons. Although these
assault weapons account for only 1 percent of privately owned firearms
in the United States, they are 8 times more likely to be used in crime
than other guns.
That is why police chiefs in my district, James Goulart of Belmont,
CA; Lucy Carlton of Los Altos; Dennis Wick of Half Moon Bay; and Cliff
Gerst of the San Carlos police department oppose this legislation. Poll
after poll demonstrates broad support for the assault weapons ban by
the American people.
Talk about a beltway mentality. You are not paying attention to the
American people. This is a march to folly. Barbara Tuckman was right.
Oppose the rule, oppose the legislation.
{time} 1115
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we have got a lot of new Members in this
body, and they are all young and they are out there, and they are real
fighters. One of those is this gentleman.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this
time.
I listened to a very impassioned speech from my office from my fellow
colleague freshman from Rhode Island, and I had to come down and speak
to the fact that I totally agree with one of the points that he made,
and that is that this Congress must do what it can do to end these
violent crimes in America.
But that is just the point. What can this Congress do? Well, there
are things that Congress can do, and there are things explicitly placed
in our Constitution that speak of those things that Congress cannot do.
Specifically, the second amendment to the Constitution, which says
this, and I quote, ``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.''
[[Page H2678]]
What this, what a majority in this House, did in 1994 and what this
Government did in 1994 is did what the Constitution said it cannot do.
It infringed on the right of people to keep and bear arms.
Today I ask for my colleagues' support on this rule and on this bill
so that we can undo what this Government did in 1994, what the
Constitution said that it cannot do.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Texas, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am appalled.
We knew that the extreme Republicans made promises to their special
interest friends. We knew that the NRA has too much influence over this
Republican Congress.
But I could not believe that it was this bad. I could not believe
that that this body would endanger innocent lives.
Republicans say they want to fight crime. Instead, they fight to put
military weapons into the hands of common thugs.
This bill means that more police officers will sacrifice their lives
to defend our homes--our neighborhoods--our communities. This bill
means that more innocent children will be gunned down in our Nation's
streets.
Our families will give their lives to pay the debt Republicans owe
their special interest friends. The NRA and their money cannot bring
back the lives that will be lost--sacrificed to their extreme agenda.
Reject this radical, this dangerous, this sick, and obscene proposal.
These weapons are weapons and tools of death, violence, and
destruction.
Reject this proposal.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], one of the most respected
members of this entire body.
(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMERSON. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the
measure before the House.
I rise today to voice my full and absolute support for the repeal of
President Clinton's gun ban instituted in 1994. I have anxiously
awaited this opportunity to restore the second amendment rights of all
Americans, which were unjustifiably stripped away by one of the worst
laws this country has ever seen. The Constitution deserves far more
respect than it was afforded when the Clinton gun ban was signed into
law, and today Congress can and must reaffirm one of the fundamental
ideals which form the bedrock of our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, it's past time that we junked the laws that sully and
undermine our second amendment liberties, which our forebears knew to
be a fundamental part of a free society. Just as free speech, free
religion, and other guarantees are essential to the future of a free
people, so too is the freedom to keep and bear arms. All contribute to
the protection of an individual's basic right to life and liberty.
The Clinton gun ban is another example of mistaking gun control with
crime control. There is a problem with guns in this country, but that
problem does not involve law-abiding citizens and sportsmen. The
problem is with criminals who trample on our laws and continue to
threaten our neighborhoods. These are the individuals who must pay for
their offenses and their complete disregard for the laws of our
society--not the good people in southern Missouri and throughout
America. This legislation provides the much needed penalties to punish
and deter criminal activity.
I would also like to take a minute to set the record straight on the
so-called assault weapons targeted by the 1994 law. The firearms
affected by this law are not at all the extra lethal, military-grade
instruments that gun ban advocates would have you believe. They are not
machineguns and they do not spray bullets. The term assault rifle is
nothing more than misleading rhetoric generated by the anti-gun lobby
and the liberal media. Fact is, there is no functional difference
between the semiautomatic firearms prohibited by the Clinton law and
those that are exempted. The reality is that the gun ban is a part of
an effort to establish even more stringent controls on firearms that
are appropriately and legitimately owned by Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation
in order to return to the people of this country the second amendment
rights to which they are entitled. We need to hold true to the great
legacy of our Founding Fathers, and make sure that constitutional
principles are preserved.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York [Ms. Velazquez].
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VALAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep disgust
with the extremist tactics of the Republican majority. Their drive-by
method of bringing this repeal to the floor is the height of
irresponsibility.
You should be ashamed of yourselves, letting the NRA pistol whip you
again. Stop playing election year politics with people's lives.
Without the assault weapons ban our city streets will become killing
fields. Police officers, like the two ambushed in New York City
yesterday, will be cut down in the line of fire. Children's hopes and
dreams will be dashed by a spray of bullets. Their blood will be on
your hands.
Mr. Speaker, the truth of this vote is that the IRA is collecting its
GOP IOU. But, today's sneak attack on the American people will not go
unanswered. Rest assured, next November voters will make a very special
payback to those who turned on them. I urge all of my colleagues to
oppose this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, every single rule the House has adopted this
session has been a restrictive rule; you heard that correctly, the
Republican House has so far adopted 100 percent restrictive rules in
this session. And if it is adopted, the rule before us will leave that
100 percent purely restrictive rules record intact.
This is the 63d restrictive rule reported out of the Rules Committee
this Congress.
In addition, 75 percent of the legislation considered this session
has not been reported from committee--9 out of 12 measures brought up
this session have been unreported.
I include the following material for the Record:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................ Compliance........ H. Res. 6 Closed................ None.
H. Res. 6...................... Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a None.
Package. closed rule on H.R. 1
within the closed
rule.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion N/A.
adopted over
Democratic objection
in the Committee of
the Whole to limit
debate on section 4;
Pre-printing gets
preference.
H.J. Res. 2*................... Balanced Budget... H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only 2R; 4D.
certain substitutes.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; N/A.
Scheduling. considered in House
no amendments.
H.R. 101....................... To transfer a H. Res. 51 Open.................. N/A.
parcel of land to
the Taos Pueblo
Indians of New
Mexico.
H.R. 400....................... To provide for the H. Res. 52 Open.................. N/A.
exchange of lands
within Gates of
the Arctic
National Park
Preserve.
H.R. 440....................... To provide for the H. Res. 53 Open.................. N/A.
conveyance of
lands to certain
individuals in
Butte County,
California.
H.R. 2*........................ Line Item Veto.... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
gets preference.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Act of 1995. gets preference.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Reform Act of gets preference.
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Incarceration Act Time Cap on
of 1995. amendments.
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Deportation gets preference;
Improvement Act. Contains self-
executing provision.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Law Enforcement Time Cap on
Block Grants. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Revitalization Time Cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive; brought N/A.
Habeas. up under UC with a 6
hr. time cap on
amendments.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed; Put on None.
Suspension Calendar
over Democratic
objection.
[[Page H2679]]
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Extend the Health order only the
Insurance Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Waives all points of
Self-Employed. order; Contains self-
executing provision.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Supplemental/ order only the Obey
Rescinding substitute.
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Moratorium. Time Cap on
amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Time Cap on
amendments.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. 1D.
Protection Act. time cap on
amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print
their amendments in
the Record prior to
the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and
budget act points of
order as well as
points of order
concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill
against the committee
substitute used as
base text.
H.R. 1058*..................... Securities H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. 1D.
Litigation Reform time cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; Makes in
order the Wyden
amendment and waives
germaneness against
it.
H.R. 988*...................... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. N/A.
Accountability time cap on
Act of 1995. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform order only 15 germane
Act. amendments and denies
64 germane amendments
from being considered.
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations nonemergency 1159 and
and Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in
order only pre-
printed amendments
that include offsets
within the same
chapter (deeper cuts
in programs already
cut); waives points
of order against
three amendments;
waives cl 2 of rule
XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
substitute; waives cl
2(e) od rule XXI
against the
amendments in the
Record; 10 hr time
cap on amendments. 30
minutes debate on
each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in 1D; 3R
order only 4
amendments considered
under a ``Queen of
the Hill'' procedure
and denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in 5D; 26R.
order only 31
perfecting amendments
and two substitutes;
Denies 130 germane
amendments from being
considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a
``Queen of the Hill''
procedure; All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*..................... Family Privacy Act H. Res. 125 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 660*...................... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open.................. N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*..................... The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self 1D.
America Tax Executes language
Relief Act of that makes tax cuts
1995. contingent on the
adoption of a
balanced budget plan
and strikes section
3006. Makes in order
only one substitute.
Waives all points of
order against the
bill, substitute made
in order as original
text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill;
makes H.R. 1391 in
order as original
text; makes in order
only the Dingell
substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to
file a report on the
bill at any time.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open; waives sections N/A.
Authorization. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives cl 5(a) of
rule XXI against the
committee substitute.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open; pre-printing N/A.
gets preference;
waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of
the Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI, cl
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Makes in
order Shuster
substitute as first
order of business.
H.R. 535....................... Corning National H. Res. 144 Open.................. N/A.
Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act.
H.R. 584....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open.................. N/A.
Fairport National
Fish Hatchery to
the State of Iowa.
H.R. 614....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 146 Open.................. N/A.
New London
National Fish
Hatchery
Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67................ Budget Resolution. H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in 3D; 1R.
order 4 substitutes
under regular order;
Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on
5/17/95; waives all
points of order
against substitutes
and concurrent
resolution; suspends
application of Rule
XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A.
Interests Act of amendments to be
1995. printed in the Record
prior to their
consideration; 10 hr.
time cap; waives cl
2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill's
consideration; Also
waives sections
302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a)
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee amendment
in order as original
text; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI against
the amendment;
amendment
consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m.
on May 25, 1995. Self-
executes provision
which removes section
2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Act order only the Bipartisan.
FY 1996. amendments printed in
the report; waives
all points of order
against the bill,
substitute and
amendments printed in
the report. Gives the
Chairman en bloc
authority. Self-
executes a provision
which strikes section
807 of the bill;
provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr.
Clinger to offer a
modification of his
amendment with the
concurrence of Ms.
Collins.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Construction cl. 6 of rule XXI
Appropriations; against the bill; 1
FY 1996. hr. general debate;
Uses House passed
budget numbers as
threshold for
spending amounts
pending passage of
Budget.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. order only 11 Bipartisan.
amendments; waives
sections 302(f) and
308(a) of the Budget
Act against the bill
and cl. 2 and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill. All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments.
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open; waives cl. 2, N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 5(b), and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Gilman
amendments as first
order of business;
waives all points of
order against the
amendments; if
adopted they will be
considered as
original text; waives
cl. 2 of rule XXI
against the
amendments printed in
the report. Pre-
printing gets
priority (Hall)
(Menendez) (Goss)
(Smith, NJ).
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against the bill;
makes in order the
Shuster amendment as
the first order of
business; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; if adopted
it will be considered
as original text. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed; provides one N/A.
Amendment to hour of general
Permit Congress debate and one motion
and States to to recommit with or
Prohibit the without instructions;
Physical if there are
Desecration of instructions, the MO
the American Flag. is debatable for 1 hr.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
for consideration of
the bill in the
House; Permits the
Chairman of the
Appropriations
Committee to offer
one amendment which
is unamendable;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
Appropriations. for further
consideration of the
bill; makes in order
only the four
amendments printed in
the rules report (20
min. each). Waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; Prohibits
intervening motions
in the Committee of
the Whole; Provides
for an automatic rise
and report following
the disposition of
the amendments.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act and cl
2 and cl 6 of rule
XXI; provides that
the bill be read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H.Res. 187 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f), 306 and
308(a) of the Budget
Act; waives clauses 2
and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; provides
that the bill be read
by title; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment
and makes NEA funding
subject to House
passed authorization;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against the
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open; waives clauses 2 N/A.
Appropriations. and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
that the bill be read
by title; Makes Skeen
amendment first order
of business, if
adopted the amendment
will be considered as
base text (10 min.);
Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations. for the further
consideration of the
bill; allows only
amendments pre-
printed before July
14th to be
considered; limits
motions to rise.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
the bill be read by
title; Pre-printing
gets priority.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive; provides N/A.
for China. for consideration in
the House of H.R.
2058 (90 min.) And
H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).
Waives certain
provisions of the
Trade Act.
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open; waives cl. 3 0f N/A.
Appropriations. rule XIII and section
401 (a) of the CBA
against consideration
of the bill; waives
cl. 6 and cl. 2 of
rule XXI against
provisions in the
bill; Makes in order
the Clinger/Solomon
amendment waives all
points of order
against the amendment
(Line Item Veto);
provides the bill be
read by title; Pre-
printing gets
priority. *RULE
AMENDED*.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open; Makes in order N/A.
North Slope Oil. the Resources
Committee amendment
in the nature of a
substitute as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides a
Senate hook-up with
S. 395.
[[Page H2680]]
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Pre-
printing gets
priority; provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Provides
that the amendment in
part 1 of the report
is the first
business, if adopted
it will be considered
as base text (30
min.); waives all
points of order
against the Klug and
Davis amendments; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
that the bill be read
by title.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive; 3 hours ID.
U.S. Arms Embargo of general debate;
on Bosnia. Makes in order an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee (1 hr); If
motion to recommit
has instructions it
can only be offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Appropriations. 2(l)(6) of rule XI
and section 306 of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; self-
executes a strike of
sections 8021 and
8024 of the bill as
requested by the
Budget Committee; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive; waives 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. sec. 302(f) of the partisan.
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; Makes in order
the Commerce
Committee amendment
as original text and
waives sec. 302(f) of
the Budget Act and
cl. 5(a) of rule XXI
against the
amendment; Makes in
order the Bliely
amendment (30 min.)
as the first order of
business, if adopted
it will be original
text; makes in order
only the amendments
printed in the report
and waives all points
of order against the
amendments; provides
a Senate hook-up with
S. 652.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open; Provides that N/A.
Appropriations the first order of
Act. business will be the
managers amendments
(10 min.), if adopted
they will be
considered as base
text; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against certain
amendments printed in
the report; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open; 2 hr of gen. N/A.
Targeted debate. makes in
Investments. order the committee
substitute as
original text.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Authorization. sections 302(f),
308(a) and 401(b) of
the Budget Act. Makes
in order the
committee substitute
as modified by Govt.
Reform amend
(striking sec. 505)
and an amendment
striking title VII.
Cl 7 of rule XVI and
cl 5(a) of rule XXI
are waived against
the substitute.
Sections 302(f) and
401(b) of the CBA are
also waived against
the substitute.
Amendments must also
be pre-printed in the
Congressional record.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open; waives cl 7 of N/A.
Lock Box. rule XVI against the
committee substitute
made in order as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open; waives sections N/A.
Acquisition 302(f) and 308(a) of
Reform Act of the Budget Act
1995. against consideration
of the bill; bill
will be read by
title; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open; waives section N/A.
Reform Workforce 302(f) and 401(b) of
Development and the Budget Act
Literacy Programs against the
Act (CAREERS). substitute made in
order as original
text (H.R. 2332), cl.
5(a) of rule XXI is
also waived against
the substitute.
provides for
consideration of the
managers amendment
(10 min.) If adopted,
it is considered as
base text.
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open; waives section N/A.
System 302(f) of the Budget
Designation Act Act against
of 1995. consideration of the
bill; Makes H.R. 2349
in order as original
text; waives section
302(f) of the Budget
Act against the
substitute; provides
for the consideration
of a managers
amendment (10 min.)
If adopted, it is
considered as base
text; Pre-printing
gets priority.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive; waives cl 2R/2D
Democratic 2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI
Solidarity Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order H.R. 2347 as
base text; waives cl
7 of rule XVI against
the substitute; Makes
Hamilton amendment
the first amendment
to be considered (1
hr). Makes in order
only amendments
printed in the report.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open; waives cl N/A.
Employees and 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
managers Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order the committee
amendment as original
text; Pre-printing
get priority.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Certain committee amendment
Injunctions. as original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Space Station committee amendment
Authorization Act as original text; pre-
of 1995. printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed; Provides for ..............
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open; self-executes a N/A.
Science provision striking
Authorization Act section 304(b)(3) of
of 1995. the bill (Commerce
Committee request);
Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive; waives cl 1D
Certain 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI
Sentencing against the bill's
Guideline consideration; makes
Amendments. in order the text of
the Senate bill S.
1254 as original
text; Makes in order
only a Conyers
substitute; provides
a senate hook-up
after adoption.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive; waives 1D
Preservation Act. all points of order
against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the text of
H.R. 2485 as original
text; waives all
points of order
against H.R. 2485;
makes in order only
an amendment offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes).
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations for consideration of
Bill. the bill in the House.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive; makes in 1D
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget order H.R. 2517 as
Reconciliation original text; waives
Social Security all pints of order
Earnings Test against the bill;
Reform. Makes in order only
H.R. 2530 as an
amendment only if
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes).
H.R. 1833...................... Partial Birth H. Res. 251 Closed................ N/A.
Abortion Ban Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2546...................... D.C. H. Res. 252 Restrictive; waives N/A
Appropriations FY all points of order
1996. against the bill's
consideration; Makes
in order the Walsh
amendment as the
first order of
business (10 min.);
if adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 2 and
6 of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Bonilla,
Gunderson and
Hostettler amendments
(30 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; debate on
any further
amendments is limited
to 30 min. each.
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed; Provides for N/A
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive; Provides 5R
in the Statutory for the immediate
Debt Limit. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee; self-
executes 4 amendments
in the rule; Solomon,
Medicare Coverage of
Certain Anti-Cancer
Drug Treatments,
Habeas Corpus Reform,
Chrysler (MI); makes
in order the Walker
amend (40 min.) on
regulatory reform.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open; waives section ..............
302(f) and section
308(a).
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed; provides for N/A.
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of a
motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed; provides for N/A.
in the Statutory the immediate
Limit on the consideration of a
Public Debt. motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed; provides for 2R
Reform. consideration of the
bill in the House; 30
min. of debate; makes
in order the Burton
amendment and the
Gingrich en bloc
amendment (30 min.
each); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; Gingrich
is only in order if
Burton fails or is
not offered.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Disclosure Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. against the bill's
consideration; waives
all points of order
against the Istook
and McIntosh
amendments.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Funds for Bosnia all points of order
Deployment. against the bill's
consideration;
provides one motion
to amend if offered
by the Minority
Leader or designee (1
hr non-amendable);
motion to recommit
which may have
instructions only if
offered by Minority
Leader or his
designee; if Minority
Leader motion is not
offered debate time
will be extended by 1
hr.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open; waives all N/A.
Privatization Act points of order
of 1995. against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the
Transportation
substitute modified
by the amend in the
report; Bill read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the
substitute; makes in
order a managers
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open; makes in order N/A.
Act of 1995. the committee
substitute as
original text; makes
in order a managers
amendment which if
adopted is considered
as original text (20
min.) unamendable;
pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. Closed; provides for N/A.
Trust Funds. the adoption of the
Ways & Means
amendment printed in
the report. 1 hr. of
general debate.
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H.Res. 303 Open; waives cl N/A.
Management Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. and sections 302(f)
and 311(a) of the
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration. Makes
in order the
Resources substitute
as base text and
waives cl 7 of rule
XVI and sections
302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act; makes
in order a managers'
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min).
[[Page H2681]]
H.Res. 304..................... Providing for N/A Closed; makes in order 1D; 2R
Debate and three resolutions;
Consideration of H.R. 2770 (Dorman),
Three Measures H.Res. 302 (Buyer),
Relating to U.S. and H.Res. 306
Troop Deployments (Gephardt); 1 hour of
in Bosnia. debate on each.
H.Res. 309..................... Revised Budget H.Res. 309 Closed; provides 2 N/A.
Resolution. hours of general
debate in the House.
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H.Res. 313 Open; pre-printing N/A.
Radioactive Waste gets priority.
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed; consideration N/A.
and National in the House; self-
Wildlife Refuge executes Young
Systems Freedom amendment.
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed; provides to N/A.
extension of take the bill from
nondiscriminatory the Speaker's table
treatment (MFN) with the Senate
to the products amendment, and
of Bulgaria. consider in the House
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous question is
considered as
ordered. ** NR.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed; provides to N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/ take from the
establishing Speaker's table H.J.
procedures making Res. 134 with the
the transmission Senate amendment and
of the continuing concur with the
resolution H.J. Senate amendment with
Res. 134. an amendment (H. Con.
Res. 131) which is
self-executed in the
rule. The rule
provides further that
the bill shall not be
sent back to the
Senate until the
Senate agrees to the
provisions of H. Con.
Res. 131. ** NR.
H. R. 1358..................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed; provides to N/A.
National Marine take the bill from
Fisheries Service the Speakers table
Laboratory at with the Senate
Gloucester, amendment, and
Massachusetts. consider in the house
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous quesetion is
considered as
ordered. ** NR.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed; ** NR......... N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive; waives 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition all points of order Bipartisan.
Program. against the bill; 2
hrs of general
debate; makes in
order a committee
substitute as
original text and
waives all points of
order against the
substitute; makes in
order only the 16
amends printed in the
report and waives all
points of order
against the
amendments;
circumvents unfunded
mandates law;
Chairman has en bloc
authority for amends
in report (20 min.)
on each en bloc..
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H.Res 368 Open rule; makes in N/A.
& Review Act of order the Hyde
1995. substitute printed in
the Record as
original text; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI
against the
substitute; Pre-
printing gets
priority; vacates the
House action on S.
219 and provides to
take the bill from
the Speakers table
and consider the
Senate bill; allows
Chrmn. Clinger a
motion to strike all
after the enacting
clause of the Senate
bill and insert the
text of H.R. 994 as
passed by the House
(1 hr) debate; waives
germaneness against
the motion; provides
if the motion is
adopted that it is in
order for the House
to insist on its
amendments and
request a conference.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H.Res 371 Closed rule; gives one N/A.
Continuing Full motion to recommit,
Investment of which if it contains
Social security instructions, may
and Other Federal only if offered by
Funds in the Minority Leader
Obligations of or his designee. **
the United States. NR.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H.Res. 372 Restrictive; self- 2D/2R.
Downpayment executes CBO language
Toward a Balanced regarding contingency
Budget. funds in section 2 of
the rule; makes in
order only the
amendments printed in
the report; Lowey (20
min), Istook (20
min), Crapo (20 min),
Obey (1 hr); waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; give one
motion to recommit,
which if contains
instructions, may
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive; makes in 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and order only the Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act amendments printed in
of 1996. the report; waives
all points of orer
against the
amendments; gives
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) on enblocs;
provides a Senate
hook-up with S. 735.
** NR.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive; waives 12D; 19R; 1
and National all points of order Bipartisan.
Interest Act of against the bill and
1995. amendments in the
report except for
those arising under
sec. 425(a) of the
Budget Act (unfunded
mandates); 2 hrs. of
general debate on the
bill; makes in order
the committee
substitute as base
text; makes in order
only the amends in
the report; gives the
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) of debate on
the en blocs; self-
executes the Smith
(TX) amendment re:
employee verification
program.
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed; provides for N/A.
continuing the consideration of
appropriations the CR in the House
for FY 1996. and gives one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader;
the rule also waives
cl 4(b) of rule XI
against the
following: an omnibus
appropriations bill,
another CR, a bill
extending the debt
limit. ** NR.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed; self-executes N/A
Enforcement and an amendment;
Second Amendment provides one motion
Restoration Act to recommit which may
of 1996. contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session. 92% restrictive; 8% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress 63% restrictive; 37%
open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented
standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** 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 rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the
Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions
reported from the Rules Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.
Mr. FROST. To date 9 out of 12 bills considered under rules in the 2d
session of the 104th Congress, or 75 percent, have been considered
under an irregular procedure which circumvents the standard committee
procedure. They are as follows: H.R. 1643, to authorize the extension
of nondiscriminatory treatment [MFN] to the products of Bulgaria; House
Joint Resolution 134, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year
1996; H.R. 1358, conveyance of National Marine Fisheries Service
Laboratory at Gloucester, MA; H.R. 2924, the Social Security Guarantee
Act; H.R. 3021, to guarantee the continuing full investment of social
security and other Federal funds in obligations of the United States;
H.R. 3019, a further down payment toward a balanced budget; H.R. 2703,
the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996; House Joint
Resolution 165, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal
year 1996; and H.R. 125, the Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment
Restoration Act of 1996.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, there are pictures now, there are 19
specific weapons that are restricted by the existing legislation. What
I want people in this Chamber and I want people who are watching on TV
to look at, which of these guns are used for hunting, maybe it is the
Steyr Aug., which is one of the weapons. You can take a look at it for
yourself. Is that a weapon used for hunting? Maybe it is the Fabrique
Nationale, which is another one. Maybe that is a weapon used for
hunting. Maybe it is the Tec-9 or the AK-47 or the Uzi or the Street
Sweeper.
You know, sometimes, I mean, look for yourself, America, this is what
we are talking about today. This is what we are talking about today.
These are not weapons that people use for hunting. In fact, if you use
one of these weapons for hunting, you could not eat the animal because
the animal would not exist anymore.
Who uses these weapons? Drug dealers, terrorists, the scum of our
society. That is who my Republican colleagues are protecting today.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, ``Leave it alone.'' That is what the
majority of Americans are saying. If we allow this issue to rise from
the dead, it will kill people. There is one reason to prefer this ban:
Criminals prefer assault weapons. That is their weapon of choice in
killing cops, one-third of whom are killed by assault weapons. That is
their weapon of choice. It is 8 times more likely to be used in a
crime.
The difference between this ban and a pitiful substitute provision of
the majority is interesting to note. The ban has brought an 18-percent
decrease in the use of these weapons. The majority wants us to use
mandatory prison terms, after killing a cop, after killing individuals,
then put them in jail for as long as you can keep them.
The ban says, ``Get the guns before they get us.'' Do not leave it
until after-the-fact remedies. Get them now. They are trying to get us
even as I speak.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, everything we hear on that side of the aisle is you know,
``Get the guns, take the guns away.'' Well, let me tell you something,
if we taught some discipline to these children as they were growing up
and as they become young adults, maybe we would not have these
problems.
Let us get some family values back. Let us let these parents do their
job. Do not take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Barr], one of the original sponsors of this
legislation.
[[Page H2682]]
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank by colleague from New York
for yielding me this time.
I do find it somewhat ironic that in the middle of this debate we
hear from the gentlewoman, whom I admire greatly, from Washington, DC,
who represents a jurisdiction which has banned handguns for a
generation yet continues to suffer under one of the highest murder
rates, the highest assault rates in the country.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to educate those watching this debate
today. I have to my left a chart which contains two pictures
unadulterated, nothing magical here, two guns, guns that are absolutely
identical in terms of their firing power, their firing mechanism,
absolutely identical. Whatever this one can do, this one can do
likewise. Why? Because they are the same gun. What then makes this gun
a good gun, according to the proponents of the Clinton gun ban and our
opponents here today and this one a bad gun, according to the
proponents of the Clinton-Schumer gun ban and the opponents of our
legislation here today?
It is not anything that has to do with its lethalness. It is not
anything to do with its firepower. It is not anything to do with its
accuracy. It is not anything to do with how many times or how quickly
somebody can squeeze off two rounds or more. It has to do with the
Dianne Feinstein syndrome, and that is it looks mean. It looks
different, and therefore it must be different; it must be more lethal,
it must be more dangerous, it must be more deadly.
This illustrates, Mr. Speaker, probably more than any other words
can, the ridiculousness of the arguments on the other side. If indeed
the arguments on the other side and those making those arguments were
truly consistent, were truly honest about their real agenda here, they
would be trying to ban both guns because if this one is dangerous, then
this one must be dangerous too because it is exactly the same gun. Of
course, they are not saying that, or are they?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
political payoff to the gun lobby. At a time when hard-working families
across America are struggling against the tougher odds, this Congress
should be focusing on their interests and not on special interests.
Since Newt Gringrich took over this Congress, he has been paying off
political IOU's. They allowed the pollution lobbyists to rewrite our
Nation's environmental laws, then they rammed through their Medicare
cuts to pay off their political contributors, and now they want to put
assault weapons back on the streets of this Nation because the gun
lobby is calling in its chits.
My constituents and my police officers in Connecticut say to me in no
uncertain terms, assault weapons do not belong in the hands of drug
dealers and street thugs. Say ``no'' to the gun lobby, say ``no'' to
the special interests, and say ``no'' to this political payoff. Support
the ban on assault weapons.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time such time as I
might consume.
I am not going to have the gentlewoman's words taken down. She came
very close to it when she says the Speaker of this House is paying off.
That means a political bribe. Let us be a little careful. Let us keep
it up here. Otherwise I can stand up and say, why is President Clinton
vetoing the product liability bill? Because of a payoff to the trail
lawyers of this Nation? We do not need to get into those kinds of
conversations. Let us stick to the subject here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the record
speaks for itself. Why else would we be here, because between January
1993 and November 1994, the NRA donated $308,000 in soft money
contributions to the Republican National Committee.
{time} 1130
Now, these Republican freshmen that were going to shake up the place,
well, they demanded this vote today. Guess what? The NRA donated
$235,000 in special interest PAC money to House freshmen in the 1993-94
election cycle. That was 44 percent of the total NRA contributions from
PAC's.
The NRA gave large PAC contributions to four of the five House
freshmen appointed by Speaker Gingrich to his firearms legislation task
force.
In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA donated $1,853,000 in PAC
contributions, 78 percent going to Republicans.
In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA spent $1.5 million on
independent expenditures, $1.2 which went to support Republican
candidates.
In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA spent $1.93 million in
communications costs to support Republican candidates.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, well, sometimes I wonder how much the gentleman that
just spoke, how much he might get from the trial lawyers. I would ask
him, does that affect his vote?
I do not think so. The man is a man of integrity.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very obvious why we are here.
These guys have taken millions and millions of dollars from special
interest PAC's.
Mr. Speaker, the whole country is watching this debate. The whole
country is watching it. Seventy percent of the American people are
opposed to this.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not
kidding anyone. The gentleman stands up and says that 73 percent of it
went to Republicans. What happened to the 27 percent? Is he questioning
the integrity of the other side of the aisle?
Mr. Speaker, let me get back on the subject. I would like to respond
to a few comments that have been made about this rule. It is very
important, since we are nearing the end of the debate. I would refer
this to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] because he
and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and some others have
brought up the subject.
First, this rule is similar to the rule provided in the last Congress
for consideration of the bill that banned certain semiautomatic
weapons. It is almost identical to the one when they were in power.
That rule, House Resolution 416, I think sponsored by, I do not know if
Mr. Frost carried it or Mr. Beilenson, provided for consideration of an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and further provided, and I
quote, because I want the gentleman to listen to this, ``No amendment
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and no other
amendment to the bill shall be in order.''
Thas is exactly what we have here on the floor today. I do not say
that the Democrats were right 2 years ago, and I do not say we are
right today.
I would just like to respond further, like this rule, the rule in the
last Congress provided for ``one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.'' You have exactly the same opportunity that you gave us
2 years ago. So in both instances, opponents of the bill will be
allowed the opportunity to offer one final amendment, or alternative,
before the final passage vote.
Second, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] is he on the floor?
Where is my good friend? There he is, over there. The gentleman
testified before the Committee on Rules he would like to be able to
offer a motion to strike, what was it, section 4? Section 4 from the
bill, only if we allowed other amendments to be offered.
Now, to quote my good friend, ``Otherwise he was satisfied with an up
or down vote.'' That is exactly what we have given my good friend. I
gave him exactly what he asked for.
I would just add that he will still have the right to offer the
motion to strike under the motion to recommit with instructions
permitted under this rule. You can still do this, you or anyone else.
Third, the gentleman from Michigan, where he is, my good friend over
there, Mr. Conyers, now the ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, complained this bill was not reported from any committee.
That is true. We
[[Page H2683]]
know that. But I would also observe for the Record that when the
gentleman from Michigan was chairman, what was that committee you were
chairman of before last year, oh, Committee on Government Operations,
in the last Congress, he allowed, our good friend Mr. Conyers allowed
his committee to be discharged of a number of unreported bills that
were considered by the House. The same situation here. No difference.
These included, and just in case you are writing up there, you know,
these included a whole host of bills, H.R. 1578, H.R. 4600, both which
provided for an expedited rescission process. Never reported from any
committee. H.R. 3400, the Reinventing Government Act; H.R. 4604, to
establish direct spending targets; H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control
Act. Really? The Violent Crime Control Act; and H.R. 4907, the Full
Budget Disclosure Act.
So the gentleman is well familiar with the practice of bringing
unreported bills to the floor from his own committee when he was the
chairman, and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], who
has been on the Committee on Rules as long as I have, if not longer,
was there and voted to do just that.
As I indicated in the Committee on Rules yesterday, I fully expect
that most of these bills we bring to this floor will be reported by a
committee. You all know that I believe in the committee system, and I
am going to do my best to make sure that they are. But there will be
occasions in the future, as there have been in the past, under Democrat
control and under Republican control, when unreported bills will be
brought to the floor.
The House always has a right to determine whether or not we are going
to pass this rule. If you do not like it, vote it down. But I am going
to tell you something, and I have to say it from my heart, I served for
16 years in the minority. I was gaged. I could not get these product
liability reform bills, medical malpractice, my flag amendment. I could
not get any of these things on the floor. I was gagged.
So if we are in some kind of a rush now, I apologize, but we have got
so much to do in such a short time. Maybe that is what this is all
about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] who wanted to correct the Record on one
point.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, for my friend the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] I have never taken any political
action committee money. Maybe you should try it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, why not take a
poll of everybody on both sides of the aisle?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
only 15 percent of the rules in the last Congress involved bills that
were taken away from committees, whereas we are talking about 75
percent in this session.
Second, when the assault weapons ban was brought to the floor last
Congress, it was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. It went
through the committee process. This repeal has not gone through the
committee process. That was the point I was making.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I do not question the motives on either
side. Both sides make a point. The second amendment was not drafted to
protect duck hunting. On the other hand, strapping a Stinger missile on
your back and citing a second amendment right is a little extreme here,
folks.
I think we need some balance, and the charges of politics are always
amusing to me. This is not Kiwanis and Democrats; they gained the
majority over these votes last year. Now, I support the limited ban. I
am going to continue to support the limited ban.
But the problem in America today is we have the NRA on one side and
the police on the other, and they are both good guys, they are separate
and apart. And no matter what law you pass, nothing good can come from
it until we bring both good guys together.
I am disappointed that my amendment, which would have created a
commission to bring the NRA in, the police in, and the Congress in, to
fashion out some understanding of a law we might all live with, that
America can live with. I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that you look at that
in the future.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this: I am going to support a limited ban,
but if we do not bring the NRA and the police together, you are
whistling Dixie here.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, this is something we have tried to do, and
the NRA has refused.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Palm Beach, FL [Mr. Foley], another outstanding new Member of this
body, who represents part of my old hometown, Okeechobee.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question of the chairman of the
Committee on Rules. Is it not a Democratic sponsor of the base bill,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman]?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman
is a very honorable Member, too, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jim
Chapman.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is a lot of debate
and the accusation is it is the Republicans selling out to the NRA. But
it is a Democratic sponsor. The Republican leadership has allowed a
Democratic bill on the floor for debate.
First of all, let us make a point, folks. Guns do not kill the
people, it is who is behind the trigger that kills the person. We keep
trying to blame inanimate objects for crime.
A serious problem in America, child abuse, physical and sexual abuse
is going on; not created by a weapon; destruction of our children
nonetheless.
Let us work together in this Chamber to stop crimes, get after the
perpetrators, bring swift justice, quit death row appeals time and time
again, Wayne Gacey, 20 years, $5 million of appeals, on death row,
killed 33 young people. Not with a machine gun, not with a knife, he
killed 30 young men. $5 million on death row appeals.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Manton].
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation to repeal the current ban on the manufacture or sale of
assault weapons.
This is truly a sad day for the House of Representatives.
Traditionally, it has been the sole prerogative and duty of the Speaker
to schedule legislation for consideration on the floor of the House.
But today, our schedule is under the control of an outside interest--
the National Rifle Association.
No hearings were held on this legislation, there was no committee
markup and we were only given 1 day's notice that the bill was being
brought to the floor. But we do not really need a hearing record or a
committee report to accompany this bill because we are not here to
serve in our constitutional role as Federal legislators. Today is
nothing more than a payback to the powerful and PAC-rich NRA. The new
majority promised them a vote. And today they get it.
Mr. Speaker, as a former New York City police officer, I know how
extraordinarily dangerous these weapons are. And let's be very clear.
Assault weapons are not used to hunt game or for normal recreational
purposes. Quite simply, assault weapons are designed and used to kill
human beings--all too often police officers. That is why every major
police organization is strongly opposed to this legislation.
Proponents of this legislation who are hiding behind the second
amendment should be ashamed. The second amendment protects the right of
Americans to keep and bear arms. It does not guarantee every drug lord
or street thug easy access to cop killing semi-automatic assault
weapons.
Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, the people's House. Let's return it to
them by overwhelmingly rejecting this hideous legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the so-called ban has been neither the Armageddon for
gun owners that was predicted during last
[[Page H2684]]
year's debate nor the panacea for the problem of violent crime in
America predicted by the advocates. The truth is, it did not ban much
of anything, not the sale, only the future manufacture of a few
weapons, chosen for cosmetic reasons. And even if it was not a real
ban, have we not learned that prohibition does not work well in
America? That is it.
I did not support the ban, because I said it would have little or no
effect, it was symbolic; nor will I support the repeal here today and
trigger an endless series of debates on this issue, while this House
avoids the real debate on the real issues that bring violent crime to
the streets of America.
Where are the 100,000 new cops? The majority will not give us the
100,000 new police in America. They say we cannot afford it. Where are
the prevention programs, so we do not have another generation of
dangerous criminals in America? They have been eliminated by the new
majority.
Those are the things we should be debating here today on the floor,
and this debate distracts from that.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the repeal of the ban.
Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, 3 years ago at 101 California
Street, a mad gunman using an assault weapon went in and, in a matter
of seconds, snuffed out the lives and futures of many young people in a
law firm there. And now the Republican leadership wants to repeal the
ban that so many of the victims of that assault worked so hard for.
{time} 1145
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House talks a good act
about caring about victims' rights. I do, too. We all talked about it a
great deal in the course of the crime bill. Where are they when it
comes to victims' rights when we are talking about the assault weapons?
The victims of all of these assaults have called out, crusaded for this
ban. I have here a long list, Mr. Speaker, not only of the victims but
of the law enforcement agencies, the California State Sheriffs'
Association, the California Police Chiefs' Association, lists and lists
and lists of police departments and sheriffs' departments from across
the State of California, the medical community, religious
organizations, victims, and their families.
Mr. Speaker, in public opinion surveys, 72 percent of the people of
California support the ban. So I say to these people, how do we explain
to them why my colleagues are bringing this repeal to the floor, a
repeal that the President has said he will veto? You tell me how I can
explain to Michelle Scully, who lost her husband. Shall I just tell her
that Members could not say no to the National Rifle Association?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 3 minutes and 15 seconds.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would come over here and just
talk to my good friends on this side of the aisle. This bill, the rule
here, brings a bill before us that does two things. It, first of all,
repeals the ineffective ban on certain semiautomatic weapons, but more
importantly, it increases the penalties on those law-breakers who use
guns in the course of a violent crime or Federal drug trafficking,
which is even more important.
The ban, my friends, on these semiautomatic weapons has not been
effective at all, and let me tell you why. No one has been prosecuted
under this 1\1/2\-year-old statute. No one has been prosecuted. Fewer
than three people have been prosecuted for violating the statute's
semiautomatic firearms ban. Listen to this. More than 85 percent of the
semiautomatic weapons firearms banned under this 1994 law are rifles,
and yet the type of firearms that are least used in committing crimes
are rifles. Think about that.
Mr. Speaker, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, rifles of
any description, including those this law defines as so-called assault
weapons, which they are not, they are deer rifles, are used in less
than 3 percent of the homicides, in the murders in this country. Less
than 3 percent.
Banning guns does not reduce violent crime, you know it and I know
it. Prosecuting violent criminals and putting them behind bars is the
only proven method for controlling violent crime, and you know that and
I know that, too. States with the highest crime imprisonment rates are
among the States with the greatest decreases in violent crime. You
think about that. The States you come from, if you have tough laws that
put people in jail for committing crimes, you have less crime than the
other States.
Mr. Speaker, the inescapable conclusion is that the way to stop crime
is to put criminals in prison, not take away the rights of law-abiding
citizens. I resent it. As I mentioned before, I am here in Washington 5
days a week. I live in rural New York up in the mountains, and my wife
has the right to defend herself. She has the right to have weapons in
her house. All these little feet in the door are attempts to take away
those rights. That is why we need to repeal this ban and we need to
stiffen the laws against these people, these inhumane, indecent people
that would take other people's lives.
Come over here and vote for this rule, and then vote to repeal the
ban and vote to stiffen the penalties on those people that commit
crimes with guns.
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. FROST. 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 244,
nays 166, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 91]
YEAS--244
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dornan
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
[[Page H2685]]
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NAYS--166
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Clayton
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Studds
Thompson
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--21
Calvert
Clay
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Cox
Cunningham
Dreier
Gibbons
Johnston
Lewis (CA)
McKeon
Moakley
Moorhead
Myers
Radanovich
Rose
Schroeder
Shaw
Stark
Stokes
Waters
{time} 1206
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Radanovich for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
Mr. Lewis of California for, with Mr. Moakley against.
Mr. Calvert for, with Mr. Johnston of Florida against.
Messrs. SAXTON, LEVIN, and LEACH changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. GILLMOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 388, I call up
the bill (H.R. 125), to repeal the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons
and the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Pursuant to House Resolution
388, the amendment printed in House Report 104-490 is adopted.
The text of H.R. 125, as amended, is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Gun Crime Enforcement and
Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) One of the primary duties of government is to protect
its citizens from armed violent criminals. America's
cherished liberty and the social and economic prosperity of
its communities are dependent upon government's ability to
maintain public safety.
(2) Criminals, by definition, operate outside the law and
routinely acquire firearms when they so desire. Banning
specific types of firearms has no effect on the moral
behavior of those who choose to inflict harm on innocent
citizens.
(3) the most effective way to protect the public from gun-
wielding violent criminals is to arrest, convict, and
incarcerate such predators, and to ensure that they serve
sentences of sufficient length to prevent them from returning
quickly to the streets.
SEC. 3 ARMED VIOLENT CRIMINAL APPREHENSION DIRECTIVE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United
States shall establish an armed violent criminal apprehension
program consistent with the following requirements:
(1) Each United States attorney shall designate at least 1,
assistant United States attorney to prosecute armed violent
criminals.
(2) Each United States attorney shall establish an armed
violent criminal apprehension task force comprised of
appropriate law enforcement representatives. The task force
shall develop strategies for removing armed violent criminals
from the streets, taking into consideration--
(A) the importance of severe punishment in deterring armed
violent crime;
(B) the effectiveness of Federal and State laws pertaining
to apprehension and prosecution of armed violent criminals;
(C) the resources available to each law enforcement agency
participating in the task force;
(D) the nature and extent of the violent crime occurring in
the district for which the United States attorney is
appointed; and
(E) the principle of limited Federal involvement in the
prosecution of crimes traditionally prosecuted in State and
local jurisdictions.
(3) Not less frequently than monthly, the Attorney General
shall require each United States attorney to report to the
Department of Justice the number of defendants charged with,
or convicted of, violating section 922(g) or 924 of title 18,
United States Code, in the district for which the United
States attorney is appointed.
(4) Not less frequently than twice annually, the Attorney
General shall submit to the Congress a compilation of the
information received by the Department of Justice pursuant to
paragraph (3) and a report on all waivers granted under
subsection (b).
(b) Waiver Authority.--
(1) Request for waiver.--A United States attorney may
request the Attorney General to waiver the requirements of
subsection (a) with respect to the United States attorney.
(2) Provision of waiver.--The Attorney General may waive
the requirements of subsection (a) pursuant to a request made
under paragraph (1), in accordance with guidelines which
shall be established by the Attorney General. In establishing
the guidelines, the Attorney General shall take into
consideration the number of assistant United States attorneys
in the office of the United States attorney making the
request and the level of violent crime committed in the
district for which the United States attorney is appointed.
(c) Armed Violent Criminal Defined.--As used in this
section, the term ``armed violent criminal'' means a person
who is accused of violating section 922(g)(1) of title 18,
United States Code, having been previously convicted of a
violent crime, or who is accused of violating section 924 of
such title.
(d) Sunset.--This section shall have no force or effect
after the 5-year period that begins 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO SEMIAUTOMATIC
ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking subsections (v) and (w) and by striking the
appendix.
(b) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking
paragraph (30).
(c) Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking ``manufactured after the date of enactment
of the Violent Crime ``Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994''; and
(2) by striking``; or that can be readily restored or
converted to accept,''.
(d) Section 923(i) of such title is amended by striking the
last 2 sentences.
(e) Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by
striking ``(r), (v), or (w)'' and inserting ``or (r)''.
(f) Section 110104 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C 921 note) is repealed.
SEC. 5. MANDATORY PRISON TERMS FOR POSSESSING, BRANDISHING,
OR DISCHARGING A FIREARM OR DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE
DURING A FEDERAL CRIME THAT IS A CRIME OF
VIOLENCE OR A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.
Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) A person who, during and in relation to any crime of
violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of
violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an
enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or
dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be
prosecuted in a court of the United States--
``(A) possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the
sentence imposed for the crime of violence or drug
trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years;
``(B) brandishes a firearm, shall, in addition to the
sentence imposed for the crime of
[[Page H2686]]
violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to
imprisonment for 10 years; or
``(C) discharges a firearm with the intent to injure
another person, shall, in addition to the sentence imposed
for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be
sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years;
except that if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or
short-barreled shotgun, or is equipped with a large capacity
ammunition feeding device, such additional sentence shall be
imprisonment for 10 years more than the term of imprisonment
that would otherwise be imposed under this paragraph, and if
the firearm is a machinegun or destructive device or is
equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, such
additional sentence shall be imprisonment for 30 years.
``(2) In the case of the second or subsequent conviction of
a person under this subsection--
``(A) if the person possessed a firearm during and in
relation to such second or subsequent crime of violence or
drug trafficking crime, the person shall, in addition to the
sentence imposed for such second or subsequent offense, be
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 20 years;
``(B) if the person brandished a firearm during and in
relation to such second or subsequent crime of violence or
drug trafficking crime, the person shall, in addition to the
sentence imposed for such second or subsequent offense, be
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 25 years; or
``(C) if the person discharged a firearm with the intent to
injure another person during and in relation to such second
or subsequent crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,
the person shall, in addition to the sentence imposed for
such second or subsequent offense, be sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than 30 years;
except that if the firearm is a machinegun or destructive
device or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm
muffler, the person shall, in addition to the sentence
imposed for such second or subsequent offense, be sentenced
to life imprisonment.
``(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
court shall not impose a probationary sentence on any person
convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall a term
of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run
concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including
that imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking
crime in which the firearm was used.
``(B) No person sentenced under this subsection shall be
released for any reason whatsoever during a term of
imprisonment imposed under this subsection.''.
Under the rule, gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] will be recognized
for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield
half of the time allocated to me to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Chapman], an original sponsor of this legislation to whom this entire
body owes a round of thanks, and I ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to control his time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes
of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays],
a leader on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and I ask
that he be given permission to yield time in blocks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, rarely would I use the Washington Post to illustrate a
point, but today I must. As we begin debate today, Mr. Speaker, on this
important self-defense anticriminal legislation, I must draw the
attention of this body to the Washington Post, and a very unusual
juxtaposition of articles therein, which really frame this debate.
The debate is a debate between Washington values and American values,
Washington values as illustrated by the Washington Post's spin on this
issue, quoting the title of this article here, ``Assault Gun Ban's
Ricochet,'' and it goes on with the usual Washington spin, the usual
Washington pap, the inside-the-Beltway stuff, that talks about some
hidden agenda here, these extremists, this NRA, and it goes on and on
with its Washington values, its Washington spin.
Immediately below and to the left, Mr. Speaker, is an article that
really tells us what this debate is about.
{time} 1315
It is about American values and a fear of the American people against
criminals. It is about the American value that is enshrined in our
Constitution that people like Suzonna Moore have the right to defend
themselves because of rampant crime in our streets, not just our
Nation's Capital, but especially in our Nation's Capital, and all
across America.
According to the article, Mr. Speaker, this woman, an average
American citizen, has felt the need to go out and buy a gun because she
is not, her family is not, her house is not, her business is not being
protected by the government, by the laws that we currently have on the
books. We are here today to protect her and to protect millions of
other American families against thugs and other criminals who would use
firearms to blow away our friends, our husbands, our wives, our
mothers, our parents, and our children.
Mr. Speaker, there are too many murders in America, far too many.
What can we do in this body to alleviate that? Mr. Speaker, what can we
do in this body to alleviate the pain that families, friends of men and
women and children murdered by monsters on our streets and in our homes
and in our businesses? Their pain, which we heard graphically about
yesterday and read graphically about in the paper today, cannot and
will not be alleviated by passing laws that say that our mothers and
fathers, our husbands and wives, cannot defend themselves against
heavily armed thugs.
Their pain cannot, will not, Mr. Speaker, be alleviated by laws that
tell would-be murderers that ``If you, the murderers of America attack
our families and if you do so with guns that have larger capacity
magazines, you will be guaranteed to outgun your victims.'' Rather, Mr.
Speaker, the paid of these good, honest, hard-working American citizens
who have lost loved ones to thugs, using guns of whatever sort, can be
alleviated and can only be alleviated by the knowledge that their
neighbors and themselves will, if this bill today is enacted, be able
to fully defend themselves, and by the assurance that no longer would
police officers such as Robert Perkins of Chicago, IL, be gunned down
by a thug who has previously been convicted of shooting an Army officer
in the face with a shotgun, and who was on parole at the time that he
then murdered the police officer.
Mr. Speaker, these bereaved families would like to have this
assurance and are entitled to the assurance, because this legislation
would make it impossible for someone who shot a U.S. Army officer in
the face to be paroled. He would be in jail for at least 30 years
without parole. If he used a firearm with a large capacity magazine,
Mr. Speaker, he would serve, under this legislation which President
Clinton, if he is indeed interested in being tough on criminals, would
sign; if a high capacity magazine was used in that crime, that person,
in addition to the 30-year minimum mandatory sentence, would receive an
additional 10-year minimum mandatory sentence.
Mr. Speaker, that is how we attack the problem illustrated in the
paper today. That is how we go to those families who have been up here
on the Hill with heart-rending legitimate stories of murder in their
communities and in their homes, that is how we can give them some small
measure of assurance that this will not continue to happen in America,
by allowing our citizens and our families to fully protect themselves
against thugs, and by the assurance that at least in our Federal
system, at least in our Federal system, that what happens to other
people, the same thing will happen to them, that they will be put away,
and put away for a long, long time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the dear gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Barr], if he would reread the Washington Post, which he does not like
much anyway, it has nothing to do with assault weapons, the measure
that is before us today.
[[Page H2687]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer], the one man in the House of Representatives that has worked
consistently across the year when he was the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, and throughout
his career on crime issues, the leader on the assault weapons ban.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and for his leadership and generosity on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, if there is a word that describes this House today, it
is ``shame.'' This is one of the most shameful days in the history of
this House. Barely 18 months ago, we passed the assault weapons ban, a
ban that saves lives every day. Who, who outside the sordid world of
the Washington Beltway, could believe that we would repeal this law
today? Yet, today, the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Gingrich] and the Republican majority opened fire on the ban. Who could
believe that this Congress wants to put the Uzi's and the AK-47's, the
MAC-10's and the TEC-9's and all the other killing machines, back on
our streets? Newt Gingrich has bent his knee and is kissing the ring of
the NRA, even though most of his own Republican colleagues know that
this rash step is the wrong thing to do.
No matter how big a debt the Republican majority owes the NRA, the
overwhelming majority----
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Schumer] is reminded that the rules of the House do not allow
personal attack on the House floor. The gentleman should confine his
remarks to the subject matter at hand.
Mr. SCHUMER. I believe I am confining myself to the subject matter,
Mr. Speaker. And the Republican majority will pay a price for ignoring
the majority of American people in November. I wish every Member of
this House could look into the face of the survivors of the assault
weapons mayhem, as I have. I wish every Member would talk to the
families that have lost sons and daughters and wives and husbands to
the assault weapon madness, as I have. They would know that these guns
do not just look bad, they are bad.
Ask the victims, the surviving wives and husbands and fathers and
children and mothers, are they happy that the people who did these
crimes are put in jail? They are. Maybe they would want a longer
sentence. But what they would want most of all is that those criminals
never had the guns to begin with so their loved ones would be alive
today.
Assault weapons are disproportionately used in crime. They make up
less than 1 percent of all the guns in the country, and yet they have
accounted for 8 percent of the guns traced in crimes. The American gun
owners throughout America are onto the NRA's lies that an automatic
weapon ban would somehow take the guns away from law-abiding citizens.
This law has been in effect for over a year, and the truth is not a
single gun covered by it has been taken away from any law-abiding
citizen.
Mr. Speaker, those who favor this repeal say that it is not the guns,
it is the criminals we should go after. Fine. If they really believe
that, then why do we not allow the visitors to walk into this Chamber
and into the halls of this House with Uzi's and AK-47's and MAC-10's?
Why do we not just junk our metal detectors? That, Mr. Speaker, is what
we are asking every cop in America to do today if we repeal this ban.
This Congress, Mr. Speaker, has become more and more extreme. First,
the Republican majority put the special interests above the pocketbooks
of ordinary Americans. Now the Republican majority is putting the
special interests of the Washington gun lobby above the lives of
ordinary Americans. By bowing to the NRA and the extreme right, this
House is putting the lives of American men, women, and children at
risk. This is shameful, Mr. Speaker, shameful. The American people are
scratching their heads in wonderment. This House should bow its head in
shame.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me make sure that all Members of the House
understand that this legislation is composed of three relatively simple
elements. First is a repeal of she so-called assault rifle ban
contained in the 1994 crime bill. Second, it contains a requirement
that our Attorney General orders each U.S. attorney in America to
designate, specify, and assign at least one assistant U.S. attorney to
prosecute armed violent criminals, I think something needs to be done.
Third, this bill that we consider today will add enhanced minimum
mandatory penalties on criminals who use firearms in the commission of
a Federal crime. As trite as it may sound to some, it is the criminals
who wreak the havoc on the families and the victims in this country. It
is an outrage, and I do not think a single Member of this House would
disagree when we see once-- or twice-convicted criminals, criminals who
have perhaps served time for a violent crime, who are paroled, and once
again are put in a position where they are allowed and where
circumstances allow that they can once again prey on the law-abiding in
America.
As a former district attorney of 8 years, as is my colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a prosecuting attorney, I can tell
the Members that there are some, unfortunately, even some very young
Americans, who by the time, I would suggest, they have gotten to the
point that they can take a gun and point it in the face of a fellow
person, a fellow citizen, when they have reached that point in their
criminal career, then rehabilitation is probably beyond their reach.
When they have done that and been convicted and sent to jail, and
they are out again and they do it again, it is time to lock up the
violent criminals, it is time to throw away the key. It is time to
punish those who wreak the kind of havoc on our families that we see as
a result of gun violence.
It may sound trite, but I often wonder if we were here today debating
how we could stop drunk driving, if someone would suggest the way that
we stop the carnage on the highway, we stop the harm and the damage to
families that are wreaked on those families by those that get drunk and
drive, if someone came in here and said, ``I have got the answer. Let's
make driving Rolls Royces illegal. Let's ban Rolls Royces, to stop
drunk driving and stop the crime they do,'' that makes about as much
sense as what this Congress did in 1994.
It seems to me that we should understand, it is the driver of the
vehicle who creates and causes the damage. It is the person bent on
crime, bent on violence, bent on destruction, bent on thievery or
robbery or whatever criminal mischief they have, that we in this
Congress owe an obligation to our constituents and to this country to
protect them by locking those people up. That is what this legislation
will do.
That is why it is so important that today we pass this bill and tell
our fellow constituents and our fellow Americans, ``If you do this
crime with a gun, you are gone. You are away. You will not be out there
on parole, in society, where you can continue to wreak your havoc with
the families and lives of innocent citizens.''
Mr. Speaker, I think what we are about today is important
legislation, not only protecting constitutional rights of all
Americans, but doing so in a way that gives Americans the real
protection they need from the violent criminals they may face in
unknown circumstances. I urge a vote yes for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to express my
appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on Rules for recommending
to the primary holders of time that all sides within each party be
given time, and specifically, to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers], for honoring that request and yielding time to the minority
within the majority that strongly opposes repeal of the automatic
weapons ban.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey
[Mrs. Roukema].
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-
called Second Amendment Restoration Act.
This bill has precious little to do with our Constitution. It has
everything to do with turning back the
[[Page H2688]]
clock and repealing the assault weapons ban--a ban that is strongly
supported by police officers everywhere--a ban that has been embraced
by the American people.
Now, let us be clear, I have always supported the rights to
legitimately owned weapons for sportsmen, hunters, and other law-
abiding citizens. But this military-style assault weapons ban is, in
the opinion of virtually every law enforcement authority in the
country, an essential component of a comprehensive anticrime and
anticriminal strategy.
This bill is necessary to give law enforcement the tools to attack
the interstate gun running that goes on in these United States.
Let us be clear. This vote is a matter of conscience. The ban of
military-style assault weapons was a rejection of ``politics as usual''
and an endorsement of ``law and order.''
My colleagues, the ban must stand.
We owe it to the law enforcement officers across this Nation--the men
and women who put their lives on the line each and every day. They
should not have to face Uzis and Streetsweepers and high-capacity clips
as they work to protect our families.
And we owe it to the victims of gun violence, such as Amy Locicero
Federici, of Hawthorne, NJ, who died in a hail of gunfire along the
Long Island commuter railroad.
I would urge my colleagues to stand with law enforcement--to stand
with the victims of violence--to stand with America's children--to
defeat the repeal of this common-sense assault weapons ban.
Vote for the people, not the special interests.
{time} 1230
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker spoke of the police and police
officers, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] did, of course,
likewise.
Let us lay something before the American people. Some police
officers, some police chiefs endorse the gun ban. Some do not.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] speaks repeatedly of police
chiefs supporting the Clinton-Schumer gun ban. And, as I said, some do.
But that is not nearly the end of the story.
Other chiefs and thousands of line officers across this country, not
only feel otherwise but know otherwise, such as the Police Benevolent
Association. They know that the 1994 gun ban and any gun ban shifts the
balance of power away from victims and toward the criminals.
These officers know that a responsible citizenry with the capability
to defend itself against well-armed criminals and thugs who will
always, I repeat, always have the ability to obtain whatever weapons
they want, whenever they want, is a safer citizenry. There are very
real examples which we will discuss.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my friend the distinguished member
of the Judiciary Committee [Mr. Barr] was yesterday, but the Fraternal
Order of Police were here again to beg us not to repeal this ban. The
International Association of Police Chiefs are unanimous in opposing
this repeal of the weapons ban. The Sheriffs Association. The National
Association of Police Officers. Every organization of police in the
United States of America supports the assault weapons ban. Every one.
All. 100 percent. No exceptions. And so the gentleman unfortunately is
in error.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, what was banned back in 1994? The weapons
are not assault weapons.
Assault weapons are weapons that are used in time of war by our
military. They are automatic weapons.
To educate those Members that do not know much about guns, all you
have to do to fire 10, 15, 25 rounds with an automatic weapon, which is
truly an assault weapon, which is only what our military have. They do
not have any of these guns. Even Third World countries do not have
these kind of guns.
All you have to do is you pull the trigger, and you keep pulling it
and the gun keeps firing. That is an automatic weapon. That is an
assault weapon.
These are not automatic weapons. Not a one of them we are talking
about today.
They are semiautomatic rifles. They are the same thing as has been
said before as the gentleman from New Mexico pointed out, the gentleman
from Florida has pointed out. They are no different than what I use
when I go hunting. The only difference is it is cosmetic. It is what
they look like. And because they look like military-type weapons, they
get banned. But they do not kill, they do not hurt, they do not maim
any different than the same one that I use when I go deer hunting.
What is the purpose of banning these? It is to lead the people out
there, the general public, to believe that this House, the Senate, and
the President really did something about stopping crime, to make you
feel good. It is a feel-better thing. Because it did not do that and it
will not do that. Crime is going to continue, because crime is caused
by the person who uses that gun, no matter what it is, or uses the
knife or uses the ball bat or whatever they use to kill somebody or
maim somebody.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address right now my words to the members of
the media, especially Dan Rather who I heard last night say that these
are rapid-fire assault weapons. The trouble with Peter Jennings, Dan
Rather, Tom Brokaw, and people like that who come from the big cities,
they do not know anything about guns.
These are not rapid-fire guns, gentlemen. When you talk about this
bill this evening on the network news, please call it what it is. It is
a semiautomatic. To fire it, you have to pull the trigger each time.
That is what you have to do.
It is no different than the hunting rifles that people use all the
time in this country to hunt with. No different. And why they are
called assault weapons, well, that is just a misnomer that the
proponents of gun control have come up with to lead the people to
believe that we are really doing something about crime.
Vote to repeal this ban. Let us get really on to putting criminals
behind bars and stopping crime.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say that
strong crime control laws and assault weapon bans are not mutually
exclusive. We need both.
Mr. Speaker, with that I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the NRA's position on the second amendment,
that individuals have an absolute right to bear arms and any attempt to
restrict that right is a direct violation of the Constitution. I
understand that argument. I do not buy it.
Under the first amendment, a person cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded
theater. I do not understand people who think the second amendment
should enable someone to fire into a crowded theater. If we can put
responsible restrictions on free speech, our most fundamental right,
why can we not do the same, put responsible restrictions on the right
to bear arms?
It is the slippery slope, they will tell us: Once we ban one weapon,
the next thing we know, the Government will be knocking on our door to
take away all our guns.
Keep in mind, the slope goes both ways. As technology continues to
advance, weapons are increasingly becoming capable of killing more and
more people in one fell swoop.
Is there no weapon that supporters of this bill think should be
prohibited in the public interest? Should we allow people to drive
tanks down the street, or have biological or nuclear weapons in their
possession? Of course not. That is unreasonable. And so is this
proposal.
Why is it that most police organizations support the ban on these
weapons? It is because our good neighbors who put their lives on the
line to protect the public are increasingly being outgunned, and this
is not just a feeling they have, an impression, it is a fact.
[[Page H2689]]
The rest of the world looks on in wonderment and fear a we go out of
our way to facilitate this carnage.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure which does nothing to
help law-abiding citizens but a great deal to help gang members and
other criminals. I see no reason to bring back weapons no civilian
needs but criminals prefer. It seems to me we are catering to the wrong
crowd.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 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. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Georgia for using my language of H.R. 698 as the basis of this
good bill.
This legislation reaffirms our commitment to defend the Constitution
and it also includes enhanced penalties for criminal use of a gun in
Federal crimes. This legislation does what the original gun ban
legislation could never have done: It fights crime.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler], a member of the committee who has worked on this
subject matter for a considerable period of time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we have had no hearings, very little time to
debate, so let me give my colleagues a picture that is worth a thousand
words.
This is Police Officer Richard Morrisey who was shot by a crazed
gunman in East Chester, NY, yesterday. His partner Officer Michael Frey
was killed before he could get out of his car. In all, more than 100
rounds were fired from inside the house. The crazed gunman killed a
police officer, his own grandmother, his dog, and himself.
He did not have an assault weapon, but imagine the firepower and the
additional carnage if he had.
Cops tell us that military style assault weapons present the greatest
danger to officers and civilians alike.
These weapons turn murderous nuts like the one in East Chester
yesterday or the Long Island Railroad into killing machines, able to
fire multiple rounds quickly without reloading.
What is the message we are sending to the family of Officer Frey and
to our constituents who want to live free from fear?
Is the NRA really more important than the lives of cops and law-
abiding citizens?
My colleagues, just say no to this abomination.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, a little earlier a gentleman on the other side of the
aisle made mention of an automobile not being banned because people are
killed, but the automobiles do have standards set upon them to help
prevent that: Brakes, seat belts, frame structure, a whole range of
other things.
Also an earlier speaker on this side of the aisle talks about
American values when talking about this issue, and I would say massive
accumulation of high-tech weapons is not about American values.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, the only two choices of
weapons you had was a smooth bore musket or a musket with rifling, not
Uzi's, TEC-9's and a whole range of other things which, even though
they are semiautomatic, you can get off about 100 to 120 rounds a
minute and maybe even more.
The Constitution protects people's rights right now to hunt, target
shoot, defend themselves, or collect.
The bill we passed a couple of years ago defends that right and
statutorily protects 650 weapons that you can choose from. The American
values and the Constitution allows for diversity of opinion, and it is
my opinion that we should not repeal the assault weapons manufacturing
ban.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the point here today can be best illustrated by
this chart I have put up here.
This is a good gun. This is a bad gun. This gun is banned. This gun
right down here is exactly the same weapon as that one up there,
precisely the same weapon. The same company makes it, it has the same
firepower, the same killing power, and yet we have banned one and we
have not banned the other simply because of looks.
What we have got in the assault weapons ban is a sham. What we should
be doing is what this bill does, and this bill does what needs to be
done, it puts deterrence into the law and it says, ``Hey. If you use a
weapon, a gun, in any Federal crime, you're going to get 5 years for
simply possessing it, 10 years for brandishing it and 15 years in jail
for firing that gun and double that if you commit a second crime. And
if you use a clip with 10 or more cartridges, you get not only that,
you get the first crime, the first offense for possession 10 years, the
second 20, and the third 30.''
{time} 1245
So that is what we should be doing. This particular assault weapon
ban is ridiculous. We should not have passed it in the first place.
Repealing it today is common sense. I urge a vote to repeal it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], is a Tec-9 a
good gun or a bad gun?
Well, let us talk about, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer],
automatic and semiautomatic weapons. They tested, among, in the San
Jose police department, they test-fired an Uzi, a 30-round magazine was
emptied in slightly less than 2 seconds on full automatic, while the
same magazine was emptied in just 5 seconds on semiautomatic. In other
words, on semiautomatic assault weapons, you can fire 300 rounds a
minute. The only reason it could not be done is the magazine will not
hold that many. It can be done because here is a police test. It can be
done. Oh, you do not like 300? How about 150 a minute?
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has ever had a gun in his hand.
Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will yield, you do not need to know
that.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is physically impossible. It cannot be
done.
I rise this afternoon to support H.R. 125. It is about time we set
the record straight on the gun ban debate. The misinformation campaign
waged by antigun groups and echoed in the media has intentionally
distorted the issue.
What is an assault weapon? Just as in the general public, I am sure
there are Members in this House who cannot distinguish between a fully
automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon. The firearms banned by
last session's legislation are ugly, but I have run across some very
nice people in the world who are not so pretty. What a firearm looks
like has nothing to do with how a firearm functions. When the media
talks about the need to ban semiautomatic firearms, they hold up and
point to fully automatic weapons like the much-publicized Uzi and AK-
47s and other automatic weapons, which have been illegal for more than
40 years.
As the bill's language states, banning specific types of firearms has
no effect on the behavior of those who commit violent crimes with
firearms. The only sure way to keep gun-wielding violent criminals off
the streets is to put them away in prison for a long, long time.
This legislation provides a real solution. It gets tough on criminals
who use a firearm in violent criminal acts. Under this bill, convicted
armed criminals will be sentenced to a minimum of 5 years in prison and
not less than 20 years for a second offense.
A person who discharges a firearm while committing a violent crime
must be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison and not less than
30 years for a second offense.
[[Page H2690]]
If we can put criminals away and keep them away, we will reduce
crime. Law-abiding gunowners want these criminals off the streets. They
do not care whether they are using a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
We must have swift, sure justice. We cannot continue to ask law-abiding
Americans to forgo their constitutional right to own a firearm.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect rights of
law-abiding gunowners. Let us be tough on criminals, for a change, by
voting for H.R. 125.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Here is the American values and the Constitution, which allows for
diversity of opinion. The difference between these two weapons, this
has a collapsible stock. It can be hidden in a small big, easier to
walk into McDonald's or a bank; it provides also a pistol grip which
makes it a lot easier to hold the weapon down while shooting it fast,
and an extended magazine gives you a much larger capacity for bullets,
which means if you walk into McDonald's or some other place, if you
have some crazy nut, he is going to be able to kill more people with
this gun than with this gun.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Almost 2 years ago this House debated and passed the semiautomatic
assault weapon ban. It made eminent sense to pass that legislation then
to keep these weapons of war from falling into the hands of criminals.
It makes even more sense to keep the ban now. The ban is working. It is
fighting crime. It is helping our police officers, and it is protecting
our law-abiding citizens.
Since its enactment, the number of assault weapons used in crime has
dropped 18 percent, and that will increase as fewer and fewer are
available. Assault weapons are harder for criminals to get. The price
of these has tripled in that same period of time, and after many
decades of rising crime in America, we have finally started to reduce
our crime rate.
The assault weapon ban is strongly supported by law enforcement
officials. It makes their job safer. Every major law enforcement
organization supports the ban. The ban is supported by 80 percent of
the American people, who strongly feel criminals should not have
assault weapons.
This also is a public safety issue. It is an anticrime issue. We must
vote to continue the ban.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
The gentleman from Delaware is very learned, but he must know there
are major police organizations that do not support the gun ban, that do
not support gun control, such as the Police Benevolent Association,
representing thousands of police officers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Heineman], a distinguished member of the firearms
legislation task force committee.
(Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for two purposes: first, to
inform my colleagues that H.R. 125 has been substantially changed
through language that I was privileged to include in the bill
yesterday; second, to explain why this language improves this
legislation.
The 1994 weapons ban was simply misguided legislation and cosmetic.
The 1994 bill penalizes those who lawfully own firearms and at the same
time ignores those individuals who commit crimes with firearms.
My language corrects the 1994 bill by imposing severe sentences on
individuals who carry, display, or use firearms during the commission
of a crime. The language also incorporates a balance between public
safety and the right to bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
With the language included in H.R. 125, this bill will rain thunder,
not cosmetics, on those individuals who carry, display, or use firearms
during the committing of a crime.
I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 125.
With the Heineman language included, H.R. 125 is now effective crime
legislation, and I join my colleagues in stating that the Southern
States PBA, comprised of 16,000 police officers, does not support the
ban.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], one of our very thoughtful members of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, you know, I wonder on today,
March 22, 1996, why this legislation is on the floor of the House. We
have just heard a confusing announcement of who is for it and who is
against it.
Let me tell you why it is here: Because the victims are dead. That is
why it is here. There are no victims to lobby and be able to say that
we are not here because of these kinds of violent weapons. This was the
bill yesterday, H.R. 125, 1 page, 1 page to ban the repeal of assault
weapons.
We know what happened: Politics got into this, and so they caused the
confusion that this is an anticrime piece of legislation.
Now it is some 10 pages long. It is a joke. All they are doing is
saying, ``We want to repeal the assault weapons ban, and we will cloud
the issue with a ruling about violent crime. We can penalize
criminals.''
We are all against it. What are we going to do about dead police
officers, what are we going to do about Steve Posado's wife, who was
gunned down in a San Francisco law firm with an automatic weapon?
Vote this legislation down. It is a masquerade.
It is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to H.R. 125, the Gun Crime
Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act. The House leadership
has brought this bill to floor without hearings or a markup in the
Crime Subcommittee or the full Judiciary Committee. This process is an
outrage. In fact, this bill is only being considered because of
promises made to very influential special interest groups.
First of all, we must clear up the confusion over the ban on
semiautomatic weapons in the 1994 crime law. Contrary to popular
belief, provisions in the 1994 crime law only banned 19 semiautomatic
weapons. Moreover, persons who already owned such weapons prior to the
new law could still lawfully possess such weapons. Additionally, it is
important to point out that approximately 650 rifles and shotguns were
exempted from the new law. The ban on those 19 semiautomatic weapons
has been a great success. Such weapons were used primarily by
individuals who engage in criminal activity. The question that I raise
is what law-abiding citizen has need for an Uzi or a gun commonly known
as a ``Street Sweeper''? This ban has had no effect on Americans who
are hunters and sportsmen.
The ban on those 19 semiautomatic weapons is fully supported by all
major law enforcement organizations, such as the National Sheriffs'
Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The
membership of these organizations are on the front line in the war on
crime and they know first-hand the importance of keeping these assault
weapons off of the streets of America.
This bill is a bad bill because it also repeals the provisions of the
1994 crime law that makes the use of a semiautomatic weapon during a
Federal crime or violence or drug trafficking punishable by 5 years in
prison. Furthermore, it repeals the provision in current law that makes
it a Federal offense to manufacture or sell these assault weapons.
Finally, let me add that the majority of the American people support
this ban because it has made a difference in making their communities
safe. In fact, statistics indicate that assault weapons make up 1
percent of all guns but are 18 times more likely than other guns to be
used to kill police officers or to be traced to other criminal
activity.
I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 125. It is a terrible bill. It is
unnecessary and will contribute to greater criminal activity across the
Nation.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I am for this repeal. I have for 18 years
been against gun control because I think it is feel-good that does not
work. So after 18 years, I have 100 percent voting record with the NRA.
Now let me say something about the NRA: The NRA, in my opinion, in
the last few years, because of its hierarchy,
[[Page H2691]]
has become an apparatus to elect right-wing politicians to State
legislatures and to this Congress.
And the members of the NRA ought to understand the partisanship of
that group, and if you do not believe it, think of this: President
Reagan and President Bush both opposed major legislation that the NRA
was for, and they were for major legislation that the NRA was against,
and nobody in America knows it because of the partisanship of the NRA.
I vote on this issue on the policy of it. But I must say that the NRA
has indeed become an apparatus to elect right-wingers.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this is a very painful vote, because there are
great arguments on both sides and there are great people on both sides.
I do not see the point of polarizing this. This is across the lines of
politics and party and geography.
But I, after much wrestling with this idea, this issue, come out
opposed to H.R. 125. At the same time, I strongly support the second
amendment. I believe every American has the right to keep and bear
arms. But as the first amendment guaranteeing free speech has
reasonable restrictions, copyright, trademarks, slander, libel,
obscenity, fire in a crowded theater, it does not impair the rigor of
the first amendment to have reasonable restrictions on it, so the
second amendment can endure and flourish with reasonable restrictions.
I do not think the kid next door should have a flamethrower or a
Howitzer or a 5-inch .38. And so where you draw the line? It seems to
me hunters have a right to hunting rifles, hunting guns. A person has a
right to a pump shotgun to protect his home, and I am told that is the
weapon that will do it. Target shooters have a right to weapons.
But an Uzi, an AK-47, has no legitimate purpose in the civilian
population. It may have a purpose during war because all they can do is
kill a lot of people in a hurry. But it seems to me the promiscuous
proliferation, forgive the alliteration, of these weapons among youth
gangs in cities, who many times can outgun the police, is stupid.
It is not an impairment of the second amendment to say ``no.'' Take
your hunting rifle, take your shotgun, take your target pistol and your
target rifle, but an AK-47, a Street Sweeper, belongs in the arsenal
under lock and key.
Now, this bill is a statement. I know that. It does not do much. The
definition of an assault weapon is kind of vague and fuzzy. But it is a
statement that there are too many guns out there.
They are killing instrumentalities. They are too available to people
unfit and unsuited physically and temperamentally and emotionally to
use them, and there ought to be a limit. And if this cuts down the
millions of guns that are available to people who are unsuited to use
them, then it is worthwhile. It only lasts 10 years. We have used up 2.
It sunsets, then it does not make them illegitimate, it just says no
more importation and no more manufacture.
{time} 1300
Let us give it a chance, and maybe some lives. But I do not think
this violates the second amendment. I think it is a reasonable
restriction.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about firepower. True
rapid fire automatic weapons, military assault weapons, have been
banned for years, and they should be banned. What can make a weapon an
assault weapon, and thereby illegal under the current legislation, is
whether is carries a bayonet. The same rifle with a bayonet can be
illegal as an assault weapon under this legislation. The same rifle
without a bayonet can be a legal weapon. I invite any proponent of the
current legislation to explain exactly how whether a weapon can carry a
bayonet makes sense.
Second of all, Director Magaw of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, has told me that the Federal Government does not keep records
of when what they call assault weapons are used in crimes. If the chief
Government enforcer of Federal firearms law says the Government does
not keep records of when such weapons are used in crime, I think that
makes any statistics being thrown out here about the use of these
weapons in crime and how they have been affected, if at all, by the
current legislation, very, very suspect.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds for the attention
of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Now, Steve, you know that there is a floating list of requirements,
and that bayonet mount that you keep laying up here is 1 of 7 or 10
items. So, please stop taking advantage of the House. As a matter of
fact, it is folding-telescoping stock, protruding pistol grip, bayonet
mount that drives you furious, threaded muzzle or flash suppressor, or
grenade launcher. All of those are stated.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Schiff].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized
for 20 seconds.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if anyone in Michigan committed a
crime recently with a grenade launcher?
Mr. CONYERS. I do not know, and you do not either. That is not the
point.
Mr. SCHIFF. The gentleman gave me the time. Any two of those items,
including a grenade launcher, can make a weapon illegal under the
current legislation. None of that has anything to do with firepower. If
any or all of the matters the gentleman listed had anything to do with
firepower, do a demonstration. Put the two weapons next to each other
and prove your point.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress we passed an historic
crime bill that included a ban on assault weapons, and it was supported
by 80 percent of the public. It is hard to believe that we are here
today. So why are we here? Because the NRA donated a lot of money to
Republican campaigns, and the NRA expects a return on its investment,
and now it wants its money's worth. This is absolutely wrong. It is a
wrong time for us to turn our back on our Nation.
Just yesterday in my district in Eastchester, NY, a lunatic killed a
police officer in the line of duty with a high-powered rifle. The
police do not need less protection from maniacs with guns; they need
more.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Connecticut, who is
also one of our bipartisan leaders on the issue of campaign finance
reform. I mention that because I think this bill goes more to the need
for campaign finance reform than it says about assault weapons. You
know, the fact is that this bill is not going any place, it is going to
be vetoed. There are far more important things we need to be doing.
But the three-quarters of the American people support the ban,
because they know it is reasonable and is working, can only conclude
this bill is coming up because the NRA convention is coming up, and our
Members wanted to have some of that $2 million they are going to be
parceling out.
So in the interest of restoring the individual reputation of the
Members and the institutional credibility of this body, is it not time
that Members, both Democrats and Republicans alike, when they precede
their remarks in favor of this bill or who plan to vote for this bill,
publicly disclose how much they in fact have taken from the NRA and
whether they intend to continue taking money from the NRA? That is the
kind of complete disclosure and real campaign finance reform. It is
time to do the public's interest instead of PAC's.
[[Page H2692]]
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman questioning the
motives of his colleagues?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has not been
recognized. The gentleman from California is out of order.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], a distinguished member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that through this whole debate, gun
control is not crime control. Here in Washington, where the possession
of handguns are illegal, you can walk right out that Capitol Hill door
and you see windows that have bars on them in homes and businesses,
and, to me, it is highly reflective that the wrong people are behind
bars.
People are living in fear in this town. What this is about is giving
citizens the opportunity to defend themselves from the real thugs. It
is the thugs, it is the criminals, who pull the trigger. We should have
greater deterrence to go after them. That is what this bill does.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] to know that, yes, motives were being raised by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. Maloney], a distinguished member of the Committee on Government
Operations.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is extreme. Three out of four
Americans support the assault weapons ban. Two out of three gun owners
support the assault weapons ban.
This bill contradicts what the Republican majority claims they stand
for. You cannot be anticrime and pro-Uzi. You cannot be pro-family and
pro-AK-47.
This debate is not a question of hunting and self-defense. Assault
weapons are not used for hunting purposes. Only drug dealers use Uzis
for self-defense. The only real question is, is there anything the
Republican majority will not do for the NRA?
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, my commitment is to protect this Nation's
law abiding citizens, or, more importantly, to allow them to protect
themselves.
I am deeply concerned about the terrible toll that violent crime
takes on our society. Decent people are being held hostage by a small
but brutally violent segment of our population. Our response? Criminals
serve increasingly smaller portions of already short sentences, while
we take rights away from their victims.
The FBI statistics prove that banning guns does not address the
growing crime rate. Less than 3 percent of murders in this country
involve semiautomatic weapons. A person has a 95-percent greater chance
of being killed by a blunt object than a rifle. Maybe we should ban
knives and fists, which are responsible for 15 and 5 percent of
homicides respectively.
The right to keep and bear arms is a basic guarantee of our
Constitution, and, no, this right has not outlived its purpose in
today's world. We must renew and strengthen this right for our law
abiding citizens. The way to fight crime, Mr. Speaker, is to punish
criminals for the crimes they commit by imposing harsh penalties and
assuring that they are served. If you want to join me in encouraging
States to do this, cosponsor my bill, House Concurrent Resolution 105.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to remember who we are talking
about in this debate. Taking guns from Americans does not make them
safer because the criminals will still have them. We cannot solve our
crime problem by limiting an honest citizen's right to own a firearm.
Our commitment, Mr. Speaker, should be to allow our people to protect
themselves.
Please support House Resolution 125 and please cosponsor House
Concurrent Resolution 105.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, oh, nonsense. Strong law enforcement and
stiff penalties and reasonable gun control measures are not
alternatives. We can and we should do both of them.
The NRA began losing the American people when it failed to follow
most law enforcement officers who support Brady and a ban on certain
assault weapons. Many NRA members are not absolutists. They realize
that the Supreme Court never interpreted the constitution to say that
people may own and use any weapon they want in our country. They
realize that with rights in our free society go responsibilities,
responsibilities to the rest of society.
No one wants to take guns from law abiding citizens who use them for
sport or hunting purposes or for protection. But it is time the NRA
should respect and be responsible to the 75 to 80 percent of the
American people who say that reasonable gun control laws are not too
much to ask.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], whose hard time for
hard criminals is included in this bill.
(Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand up for the fact that this has
tough mandatory sentencing for those criminals.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the measure before us
today. This legislation makes it clear that problem with guns in our
society is not the guns but the felons who use them.
While the most contentious debate today will be over the unnecessary
ban on certain semiautomatic firearms, I have worked hard to make sure
that this legislation would include another important provision.
Section 5 of this bill will dramatically increase the penalties for
possessing, brandishing, or discharging a firearm during the commission
of a Federal felony.
This section, which is similar to the Hard Time for Gun Crimes Act
which I introduced last week, provides stiff mandatory sentences for
anyone who commits a crime with a gun, with even stiffer sentences for
those who discharge a firearm while committing a crime.
This bill sends a clear message that we need to keep society's most
violent felons behind bars. Americans have zero tolerance for violent
crime, so our justice system should too. Our families and children
should not be afraid to walk to school, go to the grocery store, and
leave their windows open at night.
I believe firmly that gun control is not crime control. Why would
someone willing to commit murder respect gun control laws?
Gun control, while often well-intentioned, has simply failed. We have
over 22,000 gun control laws on the books today. Controlling those who
use guns in a criminal way is far more effective than cracking down on
the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who own firearms for hunting
and their own protection.
We should work to keep those who would misuse guns in jail. No more
slick criminal defense attorneys pushing criminals to freedom through
legal loopholes. No more soft sentences after teary speeches before the
bench. No more legal gymnastics setting criminals free after a fraction
of their allotted time in jail.
I have worked hard to get language included in this bill which would
keep violent criminals behind bars, and section 5 of this bill is going
to do just that. I applaud and thank the leadership for including
increased penalties for crimes committed with guns in this important
legislation.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for
yielding me time. Let me ask my colleagues, how many gun control laws
are on the books? Twenty thousand? Twenty thousand are on the books.
And where are most of those laws applying? Washington, DC.
You know, it is appropriate when my colleague from Georgia talked
about the Washington Post. There was an article today that got my
attention that showed crime has increased in Washington, DC, since
1995, 14 percent.
A Lieutenant Duckett there, president of the Black Police Caucus,
said gun control has not worked in Washington, DC. The only people who
have guns are the criminals.
Washington, DC, is often referred to as ``the crime capital of the
country.'' Guess what folks? DC has one of the strictest gun control
laws in the entire country.
In fact, Lt. Lowell K. Duckett, president of the Black Police Caucus
said citizens are right to arm themselves. He also said ``Gun control
[[Page H2693]]
has not worked in DC. The only people who have guns are the
criminals.''
Lieutenant Duckett further stated, ``DC has one of the strictest gun
laws in the Nation,'' it also has one of the highest murder rates.
And so, criminals are armed while good, law-abiding citizens are not.
In the wild west at least both sides were armed.
Now, criminals are armed and dangerous--citizens are the one's living
in a prison-like atmosphere.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] my dear friend
and Democratic colleague, and I are going to continue our discussion at
the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner at Covell Hall in Detroit
tomorrow. So stay tuned.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] who has worked very hard on this matter.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the second amendment does not allow
Americans to own tanks or bazookas or grenade launchers or assault
weapons. But the chief lobbyist of the NRA testified before Congress
this year that anyone should be able to own them.
I cannot believe that we are actually debating on the floor of
Congress whether the American people are safer with these guns on or
off the streets. But we are debating it today. Why? Promises made and
promises kept, ladies and gentlemen. Promises made and promises kept.
The NRA has come to town to redeem a promise, and the Republican
freshmen who made this deadly deal are about to keep it.
Do not insult our police officers, who are sick and tired of having
their fellow officers gunned down by crackpots. Do not insult the
mothers and fathers of elementary school children sprayed with 106
rounds in Stockton, CA. Do not insult the American people, who saw
their own White House peppered with gunfire by a lunatic with an
assault weapon.
Stop this Congress before it hurts somebody. Vote no.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
{time} 1315
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, there is too much crime and too much violence
in these crimes. That is why I support doing away with the gun ban
because it is false advertising. It does not deal with these problems.
This ban, the existing ban, deals with how a firearm looks. Does it
have a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor? Then it is banned. But a
gun, a firearm that shoots the same bullet at the same velocity with
the same impact but looks different, that can be legal.
Mr. Speaker, the FBI and the Department of Justice statistics
themselves show that one has a greater chance of being murdered tonight
with a steak knife or by fish or feet than by one of these types of
firearms. My experience is that criminals who want to commit a crime
with a gun are going to get a gun, it does not matter what it is.
What we can do is what is in this bill, and that is make sure that
they do the time. Let us make sure that there is a stiff mandatory
sentence so that they are removed from society. Fighting crime requires
more than simple feel-good-but-accomplish-little legislation.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, what did former Presidents Reagan and
Bush, former Senator Barry Goldwater, a majority of law enforcement
officials and a majority of the American public and many members of the
NRA have in common? They all supported the ban on assault weapons that
we passed in the 103d Congress, and they continue to do so.
We are not talking about hunting weapons. We are talking about
firearms whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people as
quickly as possible. Hundreds of firearms are still available to
sportsmen and to those who want it for self-defense. Assault weapons
are disproportionately used for criminal purposes. I want my colleagues
to know that that ban in the 103d Congress has made a difference
because we have found that, with the ban in place, 18.4 percent fewer
assault weapons were traced to crime in the first 8 months of 1995 than
in the first 8 months of 1994, the first such decline in recent years.
I urge my colleagues very earnestly to vote against this repeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again announce the times.
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] has 4 minutes remaining, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 4 minutes and 10 seconds
remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] has a minute and a
quarter, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] is entitled to close
the debate.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the previous debate, one of
our colleagues said the scum of the Earth uses these weapons. I say to
my colleagues, let us get rid of the scum. But let me say something,
the scum will use anything to kill with.
Let me tell my colleagues about a couple of them in Georgia. We had
one who shot a police officer with a shotgun, let him bleed to death.
We got rid of that scum, we executed him. I witnessed it. Let me tell
about another scum who took a club and beat a woman's head to a pulp.
We got rid of that scum. We executed him. We got over 100 scums waiting
on death row with the same punishment. Let us get rid of the scum, not
law abiding citizens.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, we knew it was coming, and now the payoff
to the NRA has finally arrived. It is common knowledge that the NRA
pumped $1.4 million into supporting extremist candidates. As a result,
Speaker Gingrich now has the votes to advance the NRA agenda.
Mr. Speaker, this vote is a shame for this House. This vote, Mr.
Speaker, amounts to nothing more than a big payback. No wonder
Congress' approval rating has sunk so low.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my
colleagues a letter addressed to the Members of the House of
Representatives written in May 1994:
We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the
domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This
is a matter of vital importance to the public safety.
I will not read the rest of the letter, but those are the two opening
sentences of a letter signed by former Republican President Gerald
Ford, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, former Republican
President Ronald Reagan. This is not radical stuff. The letter goes on
to refer to the 1989 import ban that resulted in an impressive 40-
percent drop in the imported assault weapons, passed, administratively
by President Bush, Republican President Bush. That import ban is
mirrored in this ban on assault weapons.
All this does is to prevent the domestic manufacture of the very same
weapons a Republican President prevented the import of. Logical,
simple, fair. That is why the American people support it.
The second amendment was not drawn with modern weapons in mind. And
as the development of modern communications technology has required us
to modernize the communications law, so the development of modern
weaponry available on our markets has required us to modernize first
our import policy and then our domestic law.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the ban means wasting the time and
limited resources of our police and courts. The police will spend their
time disarming potential victims instead of going after youth gangs who
are terrorizing our inner cities. This mentality of the ban would send
the authorities after religious eccentrics down in Waco.
Let us focus on the criminal. Let us not waste the time and resources
of our police on disarming innocent people who just want to defend
themselves but
[[Page H2694]]
have never committed a crime. That is the mentality that burned those
people out in Waco, and that is what my colleagues are fostering today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what this shameful
debate is all about. Rather than risk offending the NRA, Speaker
Gingrich would rather risk the lives of policemen and innocent people.
Today I received a letter from a Chicago policeman who puts his life
on the line every day fighting gangs in that city. He sent me clippings
of policemen killed in Chicago by these assault weapons and begged me
to vote against this ban. The choice before this House is between the
police and the gun lobby. The choice is between the safety of the men
and women who put the badges on and put their lives on the line every
day and the political power of the gun lobby. Vote no on this shameful
bill.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Ward], a former Peace Corps volunteer.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the nonpartisanship of getting
the time from the Republican side because I want to remind the House of
the tragedy that took place in Louisville, KY, at the Standard Gravure
plant. People were working when a disgruntled former employee came in
with one of these weapons and killed eight people. He wounded horribly
my wife's first cousin.
I introduced a ban on these weapons in 1989 in Kentucky. I would be
embarrassed to be a part of this body when it is repealed. I stand with
our police, with our police chiefs, and with the American people and
urge defeat of this repeal.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire as to how much
time is remaining on all sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] has 3
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 1
minute and 50 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] has 3 minutes and 10 seconds remaining. The gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Chapman] has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Brown].
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how low can you go? This 104th
Congress has hit a new low. The NRA, I mean the GOP leadership, showed
me the old saying is true, he who has the gold makes the rule. Law
enforcement officers from my district have told me how critical it is
to keep the assault ban in place. No one needs an AK-47 to defend their
home or to go hunting unless they are hunting people. We must think
about the message Congress is sending to young people of America by
saying assault weapons are OK.
Sometimes you just don't appreciate how good something is until it is
gone. Today, I truly miss Speaker Foley for his fairness in allowing
debate on the important issues. We used to sing a song, ``How Low Can
You Go?'' This 104th Congress has hit a new low. The NRA, I mean the
GOP leadership, shows me that the old saying is true, ``He who has the
gold, makes the rules.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the strongest opposition to repealing
the ban on assault weapons. I voted in 1994 to put a ban on deadly
assault weapons because they are responsible for the deaths of too many
of my people. It is unconscionable for responsible legislators to
repeal this important ban. Without hearings or committee action, and
only 1 hour of floor debate, it seems the reason for today's vote is so
the majority party can pay back the NRA. That's not good enough for me
or the people in my district who want to keep this ban in place.
Law enforcement officials from all over my district have told me how
critical it is to keep the assault ban in place. Police Chief Wayland
Clifton, of Gainesville, FL, says:
The incidence of violent crime, especially involving
firearms, is on the rise in America. This fact is confirmed
by numerous studies conducted by the Department of Justice. .
. . Many times, instances of mass violence and multiple
homicides are worse when assault weapons are used. The
weapons, due to their nature, provide criminals with greater
firepower, thus these weapons pose a greater risk to both
police officers and potential victims.
Even though assault weapons make up less than 1 percent of all guns,
they are 18 times more likely to be cop-killers. Police support this
ban because outlawing assault weapons saves the lives of police and the
general public.
There is already proof that the ban is working to lower rates of
violent crime. The number of assault weapons traces initiated in the
first 8 months of 1995 dropped from 1994 levels. According to tracing
data collected by BATF, assault weapons, as a percentage of all gun
traces, fell for the second year in a row, from 5 percent in 1994 to
4.3 percent in 1995. Despite these encouraging trends, assault weapons
are still a major threat to Americans, and especially law enforcement
officers.
Finally, I have talked with the families of too many victims of guns
too easily obtained. No one needs an AK-47 to defend their home or to
go hunting--unless you are hunting people. We must think about the
message Congress sends to the young people of America. What kind of
message do we send by saying assault weapons are OK? The ban on deadly
assault weapons must stay in place.
Gainesville Police Department,
Gainesville, FL, March 21, 1996.
Hon. Corrine Brown,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Corrine Brown: I understand that a vote
on H.R. 125 regarding a proposal to lift the ban on assault
weapons is scheduled for March 22, 1996. The ban on assault
weapons is very important to law enforcement, so I am seeking
your assistance on this matter.
As you well know, the incidence of violent crime,
especially involving firearms, is on the rise in America.
This fact is confirmed by numerous studies conducted by the
Department of Justice. In addition to these statistics
regarding the degree of victimization, the newspapers provide
anecdotal evidence about the severity of violent crime in
America. Many times, instances of mass violence and multiple
homicides are exacerbated when assault weapons are used.
These weapons, due to their nature, provide criminals with
greater firepower, thus these weapons pose a greater risk to
both police officers and potential victims.
Therefore, to alleviate the potential threat that assault
weapons pose to our citizens, I urge that you vote against
H.R. 125 and not lift the ban on assault weapons.
Sincerely,
Wayland Clifton, Jr.,
Chief of Police.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Campbell], our newest Member but also a former Member.
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, you cannot deter somebody who, having shot
weapons at innocent people, turns the weapon on himself and kills
himself. No amount of enhanced penalties can deter that person, and
that is exactly what happened in Kileen, TX; Louisville, KY; Stockton,
CA; Jacksonville, CA; 101 California Street in San Francisco, and those
are just since I first entered the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the size of the clip, the ability to shoot rapidly,
these are characteristics which give the power to kill to people who
are insane in these instances, and increasing penalties does nothing to
deter them.
Last, to those of my colleagues who care so much about the
Constitution, the second amendment begins that, ``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.'' It begins
with the words, ``A well-regulated militia.'' What the assault weapons
ban does is well-regulate that militia. The militia constitute the
armed citizenry. It is our duty to regulate them.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I find it interesting the gentleman from California who just spoke
about the second amendment of the Constitution failed to emphasize the
fact that it is not the militia's right to keep and bear arms. The
Constitution clearly says that it is the people's right to keep and
bear arms.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to make something very clear about the NRA.
This is nothing but a smokescreen to divert the attention of the real
debate here. I am here to tell Members, the NRA did not support me.
They heavily supported my opponent, and yet the NRA is right on this
issue and right on second amendment rights.
[[Page H2695]]
Mr. Speaker, this is not a political issue. This is an issue of
citizens' rights, because the real issue is not guns. The real issue
here is crime. We banned the so-called assault weapons and we still
have crime. As a result, some will argue that we need to ban many more
guns, and that argument, Mr. Speaker, is offensive. It is offensive to
common sense, and it is offensive to the Constitution. We need to
punish criminals, not inanimate objects. Mr. Speaker, we need to
reserve the fundamental rights of the American people.
When we address the issue of violent crime, we must remember the
second item of our Bill of Rights, the rights of the people to keep,
the rights of the people, not the militia, the people, to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed. Let us address the real problem of crime,
Mr. Speaker, and let us undo the damage that has been done to the
constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, this vote boils down to one question: How
much is a life worth? How large a campaign check from the gun lobby is
big enough to convince you to put these guns back on the street, $1,000
from the NRA, $5,000? To put the life of a police officer in grave
danger, to put a child in an early grave?
{time} 1330
Because of these guns, they mean combat, they mean assault, they mean
killing. This vote shows that the Republicans never wanted a Contract
With America; they wanted to combat within America.
How many children were able to avoid a drive-by shooting? How many
police officers made it safely back home because of this ban? Let us
keep the ban and keep our children and our communities safe.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will take these last few seconds to talk
mainly to my Democratic colleagues about the circumstances we find
ourselves in today. As a strong, strong proponent and always having
been a strong proponent of second amendment rights, I know that this
debate has been permeated, not just today, with innuendo about who may
be influencing whose elections, but has been permeated by politics
throughout the entire history of this debate. I know there have been
references to 1994, when the gun ban became law as a part of the 1994
crime bill, and I look at my colleagues today on both sides of the
aisle, and I see a lot of new Members that are here, Republican friends
and Republican colleagues, and I see a lot of missing Democrats,
Democrats that were here in the 103d Congress that are no longer with
us.
Mr. Speaker, the dean of the Congress, Jack Brooks, my good friend
from the Ninth District of Texas, is not here today. He at that time
was chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary because Democrats were
in a majority in the 103d Congress.
Yes, politics played in the debate as this became law, as my
colleagues see, because we never got Congress to vote up or down on an
assault rifle ban. We passed it in the House; we, those that were here
at the time; but there were not the votes to pass it in the Senate.
Because of that, I say to the Members, we are fighting about
Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and other issues today. We ought to
repeal this nonsense. Let us support H.R. 125.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms and
the Government has the constitutional responsibility to regulate that
right. Repeal of the assault weapons ban was not and is not part of the
Contract With America. It never got past the first cut. Our Contract
With America is about balancing our Federal budget, getting our
financial house in order, saving our trust funds from bankruptcy for
future generations, and transforming our caretaking, social and
corporate welfare society into a caring opportunity society.
Logical gun control legislation and strong crime control are not
mutually exclusive. We need both. I urge my colleagues to reject this
amendment, this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] opened this debate
by saying that this was a choice between American values and Washington
values. I agree, but not quite in the context in which he put it. It is
a choice between American values, where 70 percent of the American
public are saying keep these assault weapons banned, where the
policemen of America are saying please keep these assault weapons
banned. And Washington values, political payoffs to special interests,
Republican payoffs to the NRA; that is what this is all about.
The Republican Party can no longer claim to be the party of law and
order because they are saying if it is a choice between police and the
NRA, they choose the NRA. This is a shame and a disgrace.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because
Congress should not repeal a law which, based on the best information
available to us, appears to be saving lives of Americans.
I come from a family of hunters in Minnesota, like many of my
constituents, but this bill is not about weapons used to hunt animals.
It is about allowing the proliferation of weapons which are today used
to hunt human beings. I do not want my children and the other children
in my district to live in that kind of a world.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the message in America is we want less guns in
our communities. Every child is listening to that. Less guns, not more
guns. Keep the promise to our children, vote ``no.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. So they want to repeal the assault weapons ban?
Mr. Speaker, I just passed through the hall, and I saw Sarah and Jim
Brady out there, decent people. So my colleagues want to repeal it? All
they have to do is walk past them, and it should teach them a lesson.
Look, if only one person in America is saved by gun control, I want
to see every gun controlled because some of these people do not even
need to have a gun in their hands, they are already bad enough without
that.
So all over this country, those gun barons, they should go tell the
NRA I said--Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are cutting off my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I appeal the ruling of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not in order. The time that was
yielded to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] has expired.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I appeal the ruling because I was not given 30
seconds.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is controlled, and the time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am owed more time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 additional seconds to the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will never shut up
my mouth.
All I want to say is that I wish we could control these guns, and a
ban on all these weapons is what America needs. So, if they want to
repeal the assault weapons ban, they should go out in the hall and talk
to Sarah and Jim Brady. My colleagues are behind the curve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida has
again expired.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers other than
myself, and I reserve my time to close.
[[Page H2696]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about facts.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about facts.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about facts.
Of the 92 police officers that we have records of who were killed in
the line of duty, 33 were killed by weapons that are covered in this
bill, 33 of 92. Let me read their names: William Christian, Jr.----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DEUTSCH. John J. Novabilski, April 26, 1995, John Norcross, April
20, 1995, John McLaughlin, April 20, 1995----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida has
expired.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Timothy Howe, April 14, 1995, Daniel Doffyn, March 8,
1995----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman
from Florida will be in order.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Henry J. Daly, Michael J. Miller, Martha Dixon-
Martinez----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman
from Florida is in violation of House rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is violating House rules. He
ought to be escorted off the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] is
reminded that he has a responsibility to obey the rules of the House,
and that display beyond the time recognized was outside the bounds of
good judgment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield
the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York
[Mr. Schumer] who opened this debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer] for 15 seconds.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, one of the few times the American people
were proud of this body in the last few years is when we had the
courage, the courage to override the special interests and pass the
assault weapons ban. Let us not undo that. Let us stand tall, be proud,
and do the right thing.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
(Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
Mr. Speaker. I rise in vehement opposition to H.R. 125, which would
repeal a major part of the 1994 crime bill. The assault weapon ban is
law today, and there is no compelling evidence that it should be
repealed.
In 1994, I was one of a group of Republicans to advocate for a
compromise crime bill that included the assault weapons ban. Part of
that compromise was the authorization of a critical study that will
tell Congress exactly how well the ban is working. This bill on the
floor today contains a provision to terminate this study--forcing us to
stick our heads in the sand when it comes to fully understanding the
issue. This tells me that sponsors of this repeal don't even want to
know the facts.
I firmly support the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear
arms, but this right is not unlimited.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this misguided legislation is taking valuable
time from our work on important issues. We still haven't finished last
year's budget yet, and we have a lot of work to do on balancing the
budget. We must pass real welfare reform, and address health care
insurance reform which is needed to allow millions of Americans to
obtain coverage.
I urge my colleagues to uphold this ban, and get back to our No. 1
proprity--balancing the budget.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the regular order of the House should be
to uphold the assault weapons ban.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 125, a measure that
is consistent with the Republican majority's theme for the 104th
Congress: ``Promises paid for, promises kept.''
Today's consideration of the assault weapons ban repeal fulfills the
Republican leadership's commitment to the National Rifle Association,
but is nothing short of a betrayal to the safety of the American
public. Indeed, as characterized by an editorial in today's edition of
the Los Angeles Times, in view of the likely Senate filibuster and a
certain Presidential veto, this House vote is little more than a
blatant special interest payback that has become the hallmark of the
NRA.
The American people know that the violence that is ripping apart our
families, classrooms, and communities throughout the Nation is nothing
short of a crisis. That is why the polls have consistently shown that
between 77 and 80 percent of Americans support an assault weapons ban.
The ban is also supported by law enforcement agencies, including every
police chief in my district. Whenever a law enforcement officer is
shot, it is 18 times more likely that an assault weapon was used.
The reason the Republicans and the NRA are trying to overturn this
Democratic-passed law is because the law is working. Attorney General
Janet Reno has estimated that the number of assault weapons traced to
crime has dropped 18 percent since the law took effect. In the past 2
years, thousands of people with criminals records have been denied
access to these weapons.
That is why I supported the original assault weapons ban. I will vote
against its repeal. This law balances the legitimate concerns of law-
abiding gunowners against the need to take affirmative steps to curb
senseless violence in our communities. The assault weapons ban is a
carefully crafted compromise measure. It targets 19 specific styles of
semiautomatic weapons, while exempting approximately 650 rifles and
shotguns and privately owned assault weapons purchased before the
bill's date of enactment. The banned assault weapons are not firearms
that can be used for hunting and sporting purposes--they are designed
to kill people and are the weapons of choice for street gangs and drug
traffickers because they intimidate as efficiently as they kill.
At a time when drive-by shootings and the murder of innocent
bystanders is on the rise, we must not retreat from this Congress'
obligation to make our streets safer. I urge my colleagues to join
forces with the enforcement organizations, medical associations, the
American Bar Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties, among
others, and defeat H.R. 125.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]
(Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
outrageous bill.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for the American people, those here
today and those listening to these proceedings, to recognize and to
remember that protection of the American people, protection of our
wives, our husbands, our children, our parents, our friends, and our
associates is a bipartisan issue, and that is why the bill that we have
here today is a bipartisan bill, a strong, a strong bipartisan bill
because people on both sides of the aisle recognize that our Government
is failing to perform.
Mr. Speaker, the protection of the American public is what this bill
is all about. The people on the other side of the aisle think that they
have a monopoly on people who have suffered, on people who continue to
suffer, and on people who will suffer as a result of criminal
activities against them, criminal actions against them.
Mr. Speaker, they do not have a monopoly. I would like them to hear
about some people, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] knows,
[[Page H2697]]
because he was at the hearings, who have exhibited uncommon valor and a
tremendous sense of courage when they came before our committee, when
they came before the American people testified.
Were it not for, were it not for our ability to defend ourselves,
Miss Sharon Ramboz of Maryland would be dead today, and her family. Mr.
Charmaine Klaus from Waterford, MI, would be dead today, and his
family. Mr. Phil Murphy from Tucson, AZ; and the list goes on and on.
These are American people, husbands, wives, children, parents who need
the protection afforded by our second amendment, and no Member of this
body, Republican or Democrat, should belly up to the bar, should have
to be defensive about standing up to our Constitution.
Support this bill.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vehement opposition to the Gun
Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act, H.R. 125. This
bill is an abominable action that is a Republican assault on sane gun
control laws. It is disgustingly apparent that H.R. 125 is motivated by
the Republican juggernaut bank-rolled by the NRA.
H.R. 125 would repeal current law which prohibits the possession,
manufacture, and transfer of many of the most egregious man-hunting
weapons that proliferate American communities--TEC-9, Colt AR-15, and
TEC-22. In a country where there is one gun per adult already in
circulation--or 210 million guns--this repeal would be deadly.
Only in America is the safety of children, women, men, and families
sacrificed for political, as well as economic profit. Most other
industrialized countries have a virtual ban on handgun sales, which
account for the vast difference in homicide rates between the United
States and other nations. In 1990, handguns killed only 22 people in
Great Britain, 13 in Sweden, 91 in Switzerland, 87 in Japan, 10 in
Australia, and 68 in Canada. The United States infamous handgun
fatalities statistic totaled 10,567.
Facts and compassion do not drive this Republican Congress. We should
not be surprised by yet another affront to human decency and
protection. Ironically, under this bill, the hunters will have their
way. They will now be able to hunt with Uzi's and street sweepers. As
ridiculous as this sounds, it is ridiculous to vote for H.R. 125. I
strongly encourage my colleagues in the other chamber of Congress to
oppose this travesty.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 125,
which would repeal the ban on assault weapons. I take this position
today in response to concerns raised by the Guam chief of police, Jack
S. Shimizu, who recently contacted me in opposition to the repeal on
the ban on assault weapons.
Most police officers on the front lines of law enforcement on Guam
will tell you the same thing. One of the Guam Police Department's
biggest challenges is with the influx and use of ``ice.'' The violence
and crime associated with the spread of ``ice'' is affecting our entire
community and tearing families apart.
And any police officer will confirm the link between drugs and
assault weapons. Assault weapons are the weapons of choice with these
drug lords. They are not being used, nor necessary, for hunting. They
are being used by drug lords simply to solidify their power to
transport illegally ``ice'' into our island.
In order for the Guam Police Department to fight the island's war on
``ice,'' they need every tool at their disposal. The ban on assault
weapons is not a panacea. It will not stop crime or crack down on
illegal drugs in and of itself. But it is helpful and an additional
tool in the arsenal of the police department.
I would like to submit for my colleagues' consideration a copy of a
letter I received from Mr. Jack S. Shimizu, the chief of police at the
Guam Police Department, for the Record.
Government of Guam,
Guam Police Department,
GMF, Guam.
Dear Congressman Underwood. On behalf of the Guam Police
Department (GPD), I strongly urge you to relate GPD's
opposition on the congressional bill for repealing the 1994
ban on assault weapons to the Committee on the Judiciary in
the House of Representatives. As nearly every law enforcement
agency and officer across the nation will tell you, such a
repeal not only threatens any gains our department has made
in the Territory's ``War on Ice and Dangerous Drugs'' but it
heightens the danger our officers may face in confronting the
criminal element engaged in drug trafficking who will be
provided the opportunity to legitimately acquire such weapons
if the ban is lifted.
Dangerous drugs and guns nearly always go hand in hand and
the legitimate access to assault weapons by virtue of
repealing such a ban does nothing more than provide the
criminal element a legitimate way to outgun law enforcement.
Therefore, I respectfully request that you make known GPD's
opposition to the repeal attempt on the ban on assault
weapons which serve no legitimate, practical or reasonable
purpose.
Sincerely,
J.S. Shimizu.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, after careful deliberation, I
supported the ban when the House approved it in 1994. My decision to
vote in favor of the ban was not one that I made lightly. I was aware
then, as I am now, that this ban is not perfect. But I came away from
the debate 2 years ago with the belief that despite any flaws, this
limited ban is a reasonable attempt to prevent the use of weapons that
are designed solely for the destruction of human life.
Many factors went into my decision then which still apply today. The
most significant of these factors was the support of the ban by both
national and local law enforcement organizations and officials. In New
York, this includes the Suffolk County Policemen'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 on public safety. In
addition, all living former Presidents support the ban.
I have been, and I remain, a staunch supporter of a law-abiding
citizens' second amendment right to own a firearm. But as one who
firmly believes in the sanctity of our Constitution, I simply do not
believe that the second amendment, or any amendment to the Constitution
is an unlimited right, and neither did the drafters. The freedoms of
religion, speech, and the press are not absolute, and neither is the
right to bear arms. With each of these sacred rights, exceptions are
made in the most extreme cases. An individual cannot display obscene
material, and the press cannot defame an individual. Likewise with the
right to bear arms, I believe that this exception should be made in the
case of a semiautomatic assault weapon. It for this reason I urge a
``no'' vote on the repeal of this ban.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
oppose the repeal of the ban on assault weapons. It is my wish that a
police officer never has to confront a suspect armed with a firearm
fitted with a grenade launcher, which is outlawed as part of the ban.
It is difficult to imagine a legitimate purpose in private ownership of
a grenade launcher.
The weapons identified in the ban are not uncommon on the streets of
Dallas. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that
there are two million military-style assault weapons on the streets
today. Dallas narcotics officers have often encountered Intratec-9
firearms when executing a raid or apprehending a suspect. These
firearms, with clips containing 32 rounds, have been the gun of choice
for drug dealers. The Dallas Police Department has seized 24 Intratec-
9's, 66 AK-47's and 3 street sweeper shotguns during 1995. These
firearms are explicitly named in the ban.
Mr. Speaker, more than three-fourths of the American public support
this ban. Adding provisions to this bill that increases penalties for
gun related crimes is simply a gimmick to divert attention from this
legislative payoff to the NRA, and will do nothing to stop those crimes
if assault weapons are legally available again on the streets. Current
law bans only a short list of specified semiautomatic assault weapons--
weapons used almost exclusively by organized crime, gangs, and drug
cartels--while specifically exempting more than 650 sporting firearms
from the ban.
Statistics show that even though these assault weapons make up less
than 1 percent of all guns, they 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. Police support outlawing assault weapons in order
to protect the lives of police, as well as the general public.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to uphold the ban.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I came to the floor to fight
for a ban on assault weapons. At that time, I told the story of
Michelle Cutner, a 7-year-old from Philadelphia. It was the next to the
last day of school and Michelle's mother picked her up at the Chester
Elementary School. As she stopped at a corner store to buy chips,
Jerome Whitaker, a 15-year-old who was quarreling with a friend, took
out a TEC-9 and started shooting. One of the bullets hit Michelle and
killed her. The carnage continues in Philadelphia. Four months ago,
three young friends sitting in a minivan were riddled with 40 rounds of
gunfire from a semiautomatic rifle while sitting in a van. One of the
victims, Joseph Gill, was 16 years old.
[[Page H2698]]
Mr. Speaker, how many more little girls like Michelle have to die
from the bullet of a TEC-9? How many more young men will die in a hail
of bullets? How many more police officers will be gunned down because
bulletproof vests cannot resist the spray of AK-47's or Uzi's? I urge
my colleagues to join me on behalf of kids like Michelle and Joseph,
and so many others like them, and vote against this assault on the
assault weapons ban.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 125, an
attempt by the gun lobby to throw away proven legislation enacted by
Congress to save the lives of U.S. citizens and police officers. If the
gun lobby has its way, there will be no more assault weapons ban, but
there will be a lot more bloodshed.
The survival of assault weapons is completely dependent on the
campaign funds of the gun lobby--bought lock, stock, and barrel. This
allusion is to the three main components of a gun which together
comprise essentially the entire weapon. That is what comes to mind when
I think of the gun lobby's partnership with assault weapons advocates.
The misleading statements about second amendment rights by the gun
lobby should not obscure the fact that the majority of Americans,
including gun owners, want assault weapons off our streets and out of
our school yards.
Clearly, the assault weapons ban is working to reduce bloodshed and
save lives. The city of Chicago, for instance, seized 127 assault
weapons in the first 6 months of 1995--almost a 50-percent decline from
the first 6 months of 1994.
Simply put, there is no justification for repealing the assault
weapons ban. It is unthinkable that in our society, we would allow
citizens to walk the streets armed with guns equipped with hand grenade
launchers, flash suppressors, and bayonet mounts.
It is important to make clear that the assault weapons ban has not in
any way taken guns out of the hands of any law abiding citizen because
all it does is stop the manufacture and importation of these killing
machines.
And while I support the use of assault weapons to arm certain law
enforcement officials and military personnel in areas like Bosnia and
other hostile areas, it is clear that no one needs an AK-47 assault
rifle or a TEC-9 assault pistol to defend their home or go deer
hunting. They are simply designed to kill large numbers of people
quickly.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand up to the gun lobby and
oppose H.R. 125 to stop further bloodshed at the hands of violent
criminals, and instead, to save the lives of our citizens and our brave
police officers.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, the banning of certain types of guns is
an infringement on the rights of citizens to protect their families.
Criminals who want to use such weapons can continue to obtain them
illegally.
Military-style weapons are involved in less than a fraction of all
serious crime, and the assault weapons ban does not keep crime off the
streets.
Taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is not
the answer to stopping crime.
The crime bill passed, because it contained many provisions to help
small communities in fighting crime, but it went too far in
criminalizing these weapons.
I have always opposed banning certain types of weapons, and this law
must be repealed, because it criminalizes otherwise law-abiding
citizens.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, why are we attempting to repeal a ban that is
supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people--and is
saving lives?
In the year following the ban's enactment there was an 18 percent
drop in the number of assault weapons linked to crimes. Repealing this
ban will ensure more bloodshed and more lives lost. Poll after poll has
shown that 80 percent of the American public consistently supports this
ban.
It is ludicrous for the House to vote against the wishes of 80
percent of the American people. It is a travesty to repeal a law that
saves lives.
Attached is a letter from the chief of police of Downey, CA.
City of Downey,
December 7, 1995.
Congressman Steve Horn,
4010 Watson Plaza Drive, #160,
Lakewood, CA.
Dear Steve: I have been told that Congressman Gingrich will
be asking for a vote to repeal the assault weapons ban. I
would strongly urge you not to support any type of vote that
would weaken or repeal the current state of the law.
Enclosed is a letter of support I sent to Senator Feinstein
earlier this year. It makes no difference whose name gets
plugged in, as from my point of view it is absolutely
irresponsible to consider support of H.R. 1488, the repeal of
the assault weapons ban.
I trust you take the time to contact all the Los Angeles
County Chiefs of Police. You will find total support of the
current law.
Yours for professional law enforcement.
Gregory C. Caldwell,
Chief of Police.
____
City of Downey,
April 3, 1995.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 915,
Los Angeles, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I appreciate your asking for my
input regarding Senator Dole's position on repealing the
``ill conceived'' gun ban passed as part of last year's crime
bill.
As a 28-year law enforcement professional I feel I could
speak volumes on gun control and the issues associated with
gun control. However, I do not feel that is too important at
this time. It seems that getting to the point is what is
important.
If Senator Dole believes that any portion of the current
gun ban is ``ill conceived,'' I find it most difficult to
find words to describe Senator Dole's thoughts to repeal. I
must presume that Senator Dole has laid down his soul and
good judgment to the National Rifle Association. That is
truly unfortunate for a man of seemingly such good character
and thought.
Again, recognizing all the present arguments, please allow
an emotional argument or question. Knowing that military-
style assault weapons fit the needs of sporting America,
especially those urban hunters bent on human destruction,will
Senator Dole help? Will Senator Dole come out and help our
local cops clean up the mess of these urban hunters? Will the
NRA help? Oh, excuse me, I forgot--guns don't kill, people
kill.
Senator Feinstein, keep up the fight against allowing the
manufacture, sale or transfer of military-style assault
weapons, copycat models and the ammunition clip guidelines.
If anything, the current controls should be just a baseline
because they are not yet enough.
We have a tough job fighting off politicians who are
willing to sell out to the NRA hiding behind the
Constitution. As long as we have these sellouts, our urban
hunters will continue to have great success.
If I can be of any other help regarding this issue or more
responsible gun control issues, please feel free to call on
me.
Yours for professional law enforcement.
Gregory C. Caldwell,
Chief of Police.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to repeal
the ban on certain types of assault weapons.
This proposal carries great importance to my constituents in the 19th
District of California. Many of the men and women I represent live in
remote areas. ``911'' does not insure an instant emergency response for
them. Lives are at stake here, Mr. Chairman, and it is essential that
we move to protect those who legally try to protect themselves.
Althouth the framers of our Constitution hardly envisioned a society
so besieged with violence as our current culture, they understood the
constant need to be on guard, to defend our liberties.
If we were to infringe on the American public's right to bear arms,
surely that would be to breach the spirit of our laws and the essence
of our Constitution's second amendment. That provision of the Bill of
Rights is explicit.
A vote to repeal the weapons ban is my vote of confidence in
America's Constitution and America's people. In passing this
legislation today, Congress demonstrates a respect for the integrity of
those who penned the words of our country's most profound
accomplishment.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the legislation
sponsored by Congressman Jim Chapman which would repeal the assault
weapons ban included in the comprehensive anti-crime package of 1994.
Voting on this issue is not difficult for me, because I strongly
believe that my position on this legislation is correct. I opposed the
assault weapons ban in 1994 when it came up as part of the crime bill,
and I still oppose the ban.
The ban, one of the most controversial parts of the 1994 anticrime
law, was ill-conceived and poorly drafted. The ban has burdened the
rights of the American people to own guns, but has had no effect on
crime.
This bill not only repeals the onerous ban, it also gets tougher on
criminals. Instead of imposing more limits on law-abiding citizens, the
bill goes in the other direction and slaps tougher penalties on
criminals who use a firearm while committing a violent Federal crime.
The current ban arbitrarily restricts certain weapons, since it is
virtually impossible to distinguish a semiautomatic assault weapon from
other semiautomatic weapons that are used for sport and hunting. The
features designated in the 1994 crime law that define which weapons are
banned and merely cosmetic, and have no effect on the action of the
firearm. Any firearm--banned or not--is equally capable of being abused
by criminals or madmen, or used by law-abiding citizens for self
protection or hunting. And, according to the FBI, all types of
military-style weapons are involved in less than 1 percent of all
murders and less than 1 percent of all serious crime.
[[Page H2699]]
No matter how much we all want to halt violent crimes committed with
firearms, the fact is that banning certain firearms will do nothing to
stop these tragic crimes. Studies overwhelmingly show that gun control
laws--like those which ban all guns in Washington, DC, which has a very
high gun-related crime rate--have no impact on stopping criminals from
obtaining whatever firearm is necessary for perpetrating their crimes.
The ban on semi-automatic assault weapons simply kept certain guns from
law-abiding citizens, but has done nothing to disarm criminals.
Mr. Speaker, as a former police officer and the father of a police
officer, I can testify that unlike the current ban, this bill will take
steps to get violent criminals off the street. That is why I urge my
colleagues to support the Chapman bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have long championed our
second amendment right to bear arms. Time after time, I have voted
against misguided attempts to limit or restrict our rights to buy and
own guns or ammunition. As you may know, I have strongly opposed and
voted against both the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban.
I have always been a strong supporter of law enforcement but I
believe that we need to solve our crime problems directly and not by
curbing the constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens.
The ban on semi-automatic weapons will not stop criminals from
procuring these firearms. The only people who will not have access to
illegal weapons are law abiding citizens. Our Federal Government needs
to protect law abiding citizens and not take away their means with
which to protect themselves. It is for these reasons that I support
efforts to repeal the assault weapons ban.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
extreme disappointment with the majority leadership of this Congress
for revisiting the assault weapons ban which passed the House in 1994.
I think it fair to say that we are considering legislation to repeal
the law today because the majority leaders ``owe'' the gun lobby. This
is just one more example of how our agenda is being driven by interest
groups with big pacs.
I am also shocked that the leadership has so thoroughly circumvented
the committee process on this legislation. We should have had hearings.
Before we consider repealing the law we should first know if it has
been successful. What do our police officers think? Do they want to see
the ban repealed? Has it helped save lives? Has it been effective? It
is absolutely absured and outrageous that there has been no
consideration or debate of this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in self-defense. However, I do not believe one
needs an AK-47 to defend himself. AK-47s can shoot 106 rounds in 2
minutes. They are high speed machine guns that have been used for
shooting sprees. Patrick Purdy, using an AK-47, killed 5 small children
and their teacher, while wounding 29 others on a playground in
stockton, CA. What about the defense of these children? Whose concern
is that? Those of use and who support the assault weapons ban are
trying to make the would a little safer for our children.
Furthermore, every major national law enforcement organization in the
country supports a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. These are the
cops on the beat in Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. They see no purpose for
assault weapons, and I trust their judgment. I support the men and
women who are fighting crime on our streets.
Mr. Speaker, with this vote we have to ask ourselves if we want a
society that permits the sale of machine guns or we want a society that
controls gratuitous weapons? A majority of Americans agree with me, Mr.
Speaker. They believe in reducing bloodshed and saving lives. They
support the ban on assault weapons and so should this Congress.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today as a gesture.
An extreme gesture, to be sure, but a gesture nonetheless.
It is not a gesture to the American people. Seventy percent of the
American people support the assault weapons ban.
It is not a gesture to law enforcement. Every major law enforcement
group in the country wants Uzi and Street Sweepers off the streets.
In fact, the Attorney General's office says that crimes involving
assault weapons were down 18.4 percent during the first 8 months of the
ban.
It is not even a legislative gesture, because this legislative
proposal is going nowhere. The Senate won't go along with it. Everyone
knows that. And even if it does, President Clinton will veto it to
protect Americans from rapid fire weapons designed to kill.
So let's be very clear about the meaning of this gesture. It is a
political gesture, because the people who currently control the House
of Representatives are paying off an IOU to one interest group, the
National Rifle Association.
I support the second amendment. I support the exercise of rights
under that amendment. The assault weapons ban does not interfere with
the rights of hunters and the right of self defense. But as a number of
police chiefs have told me, assault weapons involved here are weapons
of war. It is an extreme position to defend their general ownership in
a civil society.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the vote on repeal of assault
weapons is not an easy vote. The reason is there are strong
philosophical and practical arguments on both sides. On the one hand,
we have the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects
the citizen's right to bear arms. This is an outgrowth of the fact that
for centuries authoritarian governments maintained their power over the
populace through the banning of weapons. We may look to Scotland, where
in the early 14th century William Wallace led the Scottish freedom
uprising against the British. The Scots were forced to use rocks, and
homemade weapons because the English had banned Scots from having arms.
The other side of the issue can be looked at from the view of the
proper role of government. As John Locke pointed out in 1689 in his
``Second Treatise on Civil Government,'' a document that was the
intellectual underpinning of our own Constitution, the reason we form
governments is to protect life, liberty, and property. Anarchy leads to
the strong coercing the weak. In order to reduce the total amount of
coercion in society we give up the legal use of force to a government
whose function is to protect each individual citizen from one another.
The question then becomes, does the ban on assault weapons provide an
efficient and reasonable means of protecting individuals from threat of
force by other individuals? Again, we may look to Scotland, where just
last week several children were killed before the police were able to
intervene. Does the ban on assault weapons effectively reduce the
chances that you will be coerced by another armed citizen?
The tradeoff is between our constitutional right to bear arms and the
reason for government in the first place: protection of life, liberty,
and property. Those of us who feel our right to bear arms is diminished
greatly by the banning of these weapons and that the threat to our
person from our fellow citizens is little reduced by the ban will vote
for the bill. Those who feel these weapons add little to our freedom to
protect ourselves from our government and that the existence of these
weapons threatens our personal safety will vote against the bill. For
many of us, the evidence is not clear on either side. On the whole, I
believe there is strong evidence that crime will be reduced by getting
tougher on the criminal that is committing the crime, rather then
focusing on the weapon they use. This legislation does this by
establishing strong minimum mandatory sentences for criminals who use
firearms in the commission of Federal crimes and requiring the Attorney
General to order each U.S. attorney to designate at least one assistant
U.S. attorney to prosecute armed violent criminals, and makes sure the
Department of Justice prosecutes armed violent criminals. Thus I will
vote for the bill.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 125.
Congress addressed this issue on a bipartisan basis and enacted the
assault weapons ban in 1994. Today, just over 1 year later, we are back
to square one--not because this law has caused some sort of hardship
for the American people, but because of strictly partisan politics. The
Republican leadership is repaying a political debt to the National
Rifle Association [NRA].
Since the enactment of this law I have yet to hear of an incident of
hardship on sportsmen or women--no hunters have missed deer season
because they couldn't buy a TEC-DC9 or an AK-47. The simple fact is
that the assault weapon ban works as intended--to keep military weapons
off the streets of our communities and out of the hands of criminals.
Annually, 22 million households are affected by crime. Violent crime
has increased 25 percent in the past 5 years. Today, criminals
ironically are often better equipped with unregulated para-military
weapons than our police officers who are trying to maintain law and
order on our streets. Unfortunately, guns are appearing in our schools.
Gang violence is spreading beyond the troubled city areas. Citizens are
justifiably upset about the erosion of public safety and they are right
in demanding that something be done about it.
The law which the Republican leadership is sacrificing at the alter
of the NRA bans dangerous and destructive military-style weapons. It
saves lives and bans semi-automatic weapons that can be easily
converted into machine guns. There are the weapons of choice of naive
and hardened law breakers. Human assault weapons--people-killing
weapons--must be kept out of hands of the deranged, malevolent, and
malcontent. Such weapons cause carnage on the streets of our Nation and
they must be removed to stop the escalation and cycle of homicide that
has tragically come to be the poster which too often today symbolizes
life in the United States. Certainly the right to bear arms does not
mean you should
[[Page H2700]]
be able to run abound with a grenade launcher, street sweeper, or other
military hardware. The primary purpose, perhaps the only purpose, of
these assault type military weapons is the assault on another person,
and there is no place on our streets for such a weapon.
The 1994 assault weapon ban is a positive element in an overall
effort to reduce violence in our society. Congress in not obligated to
the special interest groups such as the NRA and must respond to facts
not fears--we must say no to the repeal and yes to the commonsense
rules and laws of a civilized society. Congress is obligated to the
people of this Nation and to our law enforcement officials, who
overwhelmingly support the ban on assault weapons, to take these guns
off the street and out of the hands of criminals.
This law works to save lives, to make our lives and that of those we
represent safer. What kind of message will we send if today this House
disregards the public's view and acts with disdain to symbolically
strike down this commonsense law. This action, this process, this
proposal is the type of action that causes the people we represent to
hold this Congress in such disdain--special interest dominated and the
public interest disregarded.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted and
destructive legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the assault weapons ban was political
theater by the Democrats. It was brought to the floor and passed
because the President's pollster said it would be a hot issue for
Democrats in the fall election. Repealing the ban is equally cynical
political theater by the Republicans.
The fact is that the assault weapons ban has done nothing to stem
violent crime. By the same token, it has caused little or no
significant inconvenience for gun owners. I saw no reason to enact the
ban in the first place and voted against it; I see no reason to
continue this debate over symbolic measures here today. I'll oppose
this repeal effort for the same reason I opposed the ban in the first
place: it is symbol over substance. What we do here today will have
little effect on violent crime and little effect on the rights of
lawful gun owners.
After this meaningless debate is behind us, I'll continue to support
the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. And I'll
continue my staunch support for measures that will stop violent crime
and put criminals who use guns behind bars for a very long time.
When the so-called assault weapons ban was first before the House, I
voted against it. I said then and I'll say today that banning these
weapons would do nothing to reduce violent crime in America. In fact,
the ban didn't ban much of anything.
Consider this: the assault weapons ban specifically prohibits sale of
the Colt AR-15, which is capable of firing up to 30 rounds of .223
caliber ammunition, each shot requiring a squeeze of the trigger.
However, the bill specifically allows the continued sale of the Ruger
Mini-14, which is capable of firing up to 30 rounds of .223 caliber
ammunition, each shot requiring a squeeze of the trigger. The only
difference between the two is that the Colt rifle looks more
threatening. The ultimate irony, of course, is that the assault weapons
ban didn't even make it illegal to sell AR-15's or any of the other
weapons supposedly banned by the bill. It merely prohibited their
future manufacture and made existing stocks more expensive.
In January of this year a man walked into an office building in
Portland, OR, carrying a supposedly banned AK-47. He shot two people
and took a number of others hostage before being apprehended by the
police. Thankfully, no one was killed. The story is interesting for two
reasons. First, he was using a supposedly banned assault rifle that he
had legally purchased in 1995--after the assault weapons ban took
effect. Second, he could just as easily have been using an equally
dangerous rifle like the Ruger Mini-14, which was not banned by the so-
called assault weapons ban.
If this repeal is adopted today, next year or the year after another
ban will be offered that could be even more intrusive to legitimate gun
owners. So let's quit kidding the American people into thinking this
charade means anything. The debate here today is about people's
emotions, not about measures that will actually reduce violent crime.
First, our system of justice must provide stiff sentences for
criminals who use guns and for multiple violent offenders. Our
communities desperately need more police on the streets. Unfortunately,
Republican leaders are doing everything they can to cut funding we
passed to put 100,000 new cops on the street.
Equally important, however, is a commitment to early intervention and
prevention for at-risk youth. Until we as a society can begin to undo
the harm that has been done to the hopes of millions of Americans,
violent crime will almost certainly continue to plague us.
Let's do the people's business here and quit playing these cynical
political games. Let's stop the debate over symbol and move on to
substance.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member supports certain provisions of
H.R. 125 that increase the mandatory minimum sentences for committing
crimes while possessing, brandishing, or discharging a firearm. Tough
penalties are certainly needed. However, these provisions are not
enough to change his support for the assault weapons ban. This Member
previously voted for a ban on the manufacture and import of certain
assault weapons because that was the rational, responsible, and
constitutional thing to do. Furthermore, over 72 percent of the
residents of the First Congressional District of Nebraska supported
this vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 338, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
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. conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conyers moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
{time} 1345
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 173, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 92]
AYES--239
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dornan
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
[[Page H2701]]
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOES--173
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Studds
Thompson
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--19
Calvert
Clay
Collins (IL)
Cox
Cunningham
Dreier
Gibbons
Johnston
Lewis (CA)
McKeon
Moakley
Moorhead
Myers
Radanovich
Schroeder
Shaw
Stark
Stokes
Waters
{time} 1401
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Radanovich for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
Mr. Camp for, with Mr. Moakley against.
Mr. Cox for, with Mr. Johnston against.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________