[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 24, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1523-S1525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        DeWine, Mr. Levin, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 2109. A bill to provide for a 10-year extension of the assault 
weapons ban; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and 
Senators Warner, Schumer, DeWine, Levin, Chafee, Dodd, Jeffords, Boxer, 
Clinton, Reed and Lautenberg to offer legislation that will reauthorize 
the 1994 assault weapons ban--which is now set to expire on September 
13, 2004--for another ten years.
  I would first like to thank my courageous colleague from Virginia, 
Senator Warner, for joining me in this effort. Senator Warner voted 
against the assault weapons ban in 1994.
  But this year, Senator Warner was willing to revisit his position on 
the issue. He saw that--contrary to the fears of many in 1994--the ban 
has done nothing to hurt innocent gun owners. Instead, the ban has only 
made it harder for criminals to get access to military style firearms. 
A willingness to look at issues like this with an open mind, 
particularly this issue, shows a courage and a commitment to making the 
right decisions that should be emulated by all public servants, and I 
want to again thank Senator Warner for this.
  Second, I would like to speak about who else supports this 
legislation.
  Those who join us in supporting a reauthorization of the assault 
weapons ban include: Fraternal Order of Police; National League of 
Cities; United States Conference of Mayors; National Association of 
Counties; International Association of Chiefs of Police; National 
Association of Police Organizations; International Brotherhood of 
Police Officers; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; National 
Education Association; Americans for Gun Safety; The Brady Campaign/
Million Mom March; NAACP; American Bar Association; and the list goes 
on, and on.
  More than ten years ago--on July 1, 1993--Gian Luigi Ferri walked 
into 101 California Street in San Francisco carrying two high-capacity 
TEC-9 assault pistols. Within minutes, Ferri had murdered eight people, 
and six others were wounded. This tragedy shook San Francisco, and it 
shook the entire Nation.
  The American people saw in that incident and so many others that came 
before and after it the incredible destruction that could be inflicted 
with military-style assault weapons--weapons designed and manufactured 
with one goal in mind--maximum lethality.

[[Page S1524]]

  It all started, really, on August 1, 1966, when Charlie Whitman 
climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas and killed more than 
a dozen people in an hour and a half shooting spree before he was 
finally killed himself.
  The day Whitman climbed that tower was the first time Americans 
realized that they could become the random victims of gun violence no 
matter where they were, and no matter what they were doing.
  What made the Texas shooting so terrible was the total inability of 
law enforcement to get to Charlie Whitman until he had been firing 
shots for almost 96 minutes. The tower allowed him to do this. The 
tower made him, at least for that amount of time, invincible.
  But gunmen no longer need the protection of clock towers, because 
they now have assault weapons.
  We saw in the Columbine shooting, in the Long Island Rail Road 
shooting, and so many others, that high capacity assault weapons can 
make those who wield them temporarily invincible to law enforcement, 
because it is so difficult to get close to the shooter.
  It is often only when a gunman stops to reload that bystanders or the 
police can move in to stop the shooting. And if the gun's magazine 
holds hundreds of bullets, that could take a long time, and result in a 
lot of deaths.
  This is vitally important, because grievance killings by disgruntled 
members of society have taken an increasing number of lives in recent 
years. And when those grievance killers wield high capacity weapons, 
the toll on lives is exponentially increased.
  The grievance killings have been across the Nation, in every forum: 
In a San Ysidro, CA, McDonald's in 1984, when a gunman with an Uzi 
killed 21 and wounded 15 others. In Stockton, CA, in 1989, when drifter 
Patrick Purdy walked into a schoolyard with an AK-47 and killed 5, 
wounding 30 others. In Long Island, NY, in 1993, when a gunman killed 6 
and wounded 19 others on a commuter train--he was only brought down 
when he finally stopped to reload. In Pearl, MS, in 1997 when 2 
students killed. In Paducah, KY, in 1998 when 3 students were killed. 
In Jonesboro, AR, in 1998 when 5 were killed, and 10 more wounded. In 
Springfield, OR, in 1998 when 2 were killed, and 22 wounded. In 
Littleton, CO, when 12 teens and one teacher were killed in Columbine 
High School. In Atlanta, GA in 1999 when a troubled day trader killed 
his wife, 2 children and several people trading stocks. At a Granada 
Hills, CA, Jewish Community Center when a gunman wounded three and 
killed a Filipino-American postal worker--many of us remember that one 
touching photo of small children being quickly led across the street to 
escape the gunfire. No child should have to go through that. At a Fort 
Worth, TX, Baptist church where seven were killed and seven more 
wounded at a teens church event, all by a man with two guns and 9 high 
capacity clips, with a capacity of 15 rounds each.
  Recognizing the earliest of these shootings as a problem that needed 
to be dealt with, Congress finally took notice in 1993. In the 
aftermath of the 101 California shooting, we in Congress did something 
that no one had succeeded in doing before--we banned the manufacture 
and importation of military-style assault weapons.
  We were told it could not be done--but we did it. I was even told by 
colleagues on my own side of the aisle that I was wasting my time--that 
the gun lobby was just too strong. I hear many of the same arguments 
today. But we succeeded in 1994, and we will succeed this year. We 
succeeded, and we will succeed, because the American people will accept 
no less of us.
  The goal of the 1994 legislation was to drive down the supply of 
these weapons and to make them more difficult to obtain, and to 
eventually get them off our streets. And in the years following the 
enactment of the ban, crimes using assault weapons were indeed reduced 
dramatically--in fact, the percentage of crimes using banned assault 
weapons fell by more than 65 percent between 1995 and 2002.
  The ATF has found that the proportion of banned assault weapons used 
in crime has fallen from 3.57 percent in 1995 to just 1.22 percent by 
2002. Now these are not big percentages--most crimes are not committed 
by assault weapons.
  But it is important to note that crimes committed with assault 
weapons often result in many more deaths than crimes committed with 
other guns. A simple robbery with a handgun is far less likely to 
result in multiple deaths than a drive-by shooting with an Uzi, or a 
grievance killing in a school using an AK-47 with a large capacity 
ammunition magazine.
  And contrary to the near-hysterical rhetoric coming from the NRA at 
the time, no innocent gun owner lost an assault weapon. No gun was 
confiscated as a result of the ban. The sky did not fall. And life went 
on--but it went on with fewer grievance killers, juveniles, and drive-
by shooters having access to the most dangerous of firearms.
  Despite these results, House Majority Leader Tom Delay said last year 
that House Republicans will let the Assault Weapons ban die when it 
sunsets after ten years.
  To those of us who have been in Congress for some time, this comes as 
little surprise--after all, the House actually voted to repeal the 
original assault weapons ban soon after it was signed into law.
  But the good news is that the President of the United States does 
support reauthorizing the ban.
  In April of last year, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of 
the assault weapons ban, ``The president supports the current law, and 
he supports reauthorization of the current law.''
  That is what we are doing with this legislation--reauthorizing the 
current law. Period.
  I know the President agrees with me when I say that I don't believe 
that banned guns like the AK-47, the TEC-9, or the Street Sweeper 
should once again be manufactured or imported into the United States. 
These are military guns, with no purpose but the killing of other human 
beings. They have pistol grips and other features designed solely to 
allow the weapons to be more easily concealed, and more easily fired 
from the hip in close quarters combat--or, tragically, in places like 
the schoolyard in Stockton, where five children died, the McDonalds in 
San Ysidro, the law firm at 101 California Street in San Francisco, 
Columbine High School, or so many other places where maniacs with their 
military guns were able to shoot large numbers of people in short 
periods of time.
  That is why I believe that Congress should reauthorize the 1994 law, 
which expires next September 13. And that is undoubtedly why the 
President also supports our efforts.
  I know there will be some who will say that the current law doesn't 
go far enough--and frankly, I agree. I would prefer to expand the ban 
to California law, so that we prohibit the copycat assault weapons that 
manufacturers so cravenly designed following the ban.
  Senator Lautenberg has introduced legislation to do this, and I co-
sponsored that bill. Ideally, we would pass legislation that fully 
prevents craven manufacturers from circumventing the ban.
  But in an environment where the NRA has such a stranglehold on gun 
legislation, we will need all the help we can get just to keep the 
current ban.
  The current ban has been effective in limiting the supply of these 
most dangerous guns. Even the copycat guns are less dangerous, because 
they are harder to conceal, harder to fire from the hip.
  And no matter whether the ban has been entirely effective or not, 
what is the argument for letting these banned guns back on the streets?
  Who is clamoring for newly manufactured AK-47s?
  Who is clamoring for new TEC-9s?
  These are guns that are never used for hunting. They are not used for 
self defense, and if they are it is more likely that they will kill 
innocents than intruders.
  These guns--and everyone knows it--have but one purpose, and that 
purpose is to kill other human beings. Why would we want to open the 
floodgates again and let them back on our streets? There is simply no 
good reason.
  This debate should not be about whether the assault weapons ban is 
perfect. This debate should be about whether these guns need to come 
back--and the American people know that they do not.
  With the President, law enforcement, and the American people behind 
us, we

[[Page S1525]]

can succeed. We can beat the NRA's narrow, special interest agenda and 
keep these guns off the streets.
  I urge my colleagues to read the dozens of editorials in support of 
the ban, to listen to their constituents, to ask us questions, and to 
make the only decision that makes sense--to support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2109

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Assault Weapons Ban 
     Reauthorization Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. 10-YEAR EXTENSION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN.

       Section 110105 of the Public Safety and Recreational 
     Firearms Use Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 110105. SUNSET PROVISION.

       ``This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle 
     are repealed September 13, 2014.''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of reauthorizing 
the Assault Weapons Ban.
  Signed into law in 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban placed a 10-year 
prohibition on the domestic manufacture of semi-automatic assault 
weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on 
September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act 
prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once 
again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons 
will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods.
  For a number of years now, President Bush has indicated that he 
supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. To date, though, no 
legislation has been introduced in the Senate to accomplish the 
President's goal. While measures have been introduced to make the ban 
permanent or to even expand the ban further, no legislation has been 
introduced to simply reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban for another 
ten years.
  I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, legislation 
that models exactly what the President has indicated he would sign into 
law: a straight 10-year reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban.
  Not only does President Bush support this legislation--law 
enforcement does as well. The men and women of law enforcement know 
that this legislation makes communities safer. In a letter dated 
February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police 
writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support 
the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any 
expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the 
endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement 
organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police 
all across Virginia.
  Now, admittedly, I have not always been a supporter of the Assault 
Weapons Ban. When the ban legislation came before the United States 
Senate for a vote in 1993, I opposed it. At the time, I believed 
Senator Feinstein's legislation would do nothing to help reduce crime 
in this country, and I believed it would be a back door way to take 
firearms out of the hands of law abiding gun-owners and hunters.
  Ten years have since passed from the day of that vote. Over the 
course of those ten years, I have watched the bill be signed into law, 
and I have watched its implementation. I have studied the law and its 
affect on crime, and I have watched carefully to see how it affects law 
abiding gun-owners.
  Based on the ten years of history of the Assault Weapons Ban, my 
thoughts on the ban have evolved.
  Ten years of experience provides us with key facts. The Assault 
Weapons Ban has helped to dramatically reduce the number of crimes 
using assault weapons. It has made America's streets safer, and it has 
protected the rights of law abiding gun-owners better than many of us 
predicted. In fact, the law explicitly protects 670 hunting and 
recreational rifles.
  Moreover, we all know that the world has dramatically changed since 
that Senate vote in 1993. September 11, 2001, has forever changed our 
country and has taught us many lessons.
  No longer is America protected by the great oceans. The war on terror 
is not only being fought abroad, but now here at home. September 11 
showed us that terrorism lurks in the shadows of our own backyard. 
Given the world today, now is not the time to make it easier for 
terrorists to acquire deadly rapid fire assault weapons and use them in 
our neighborhoods.
  Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always 
tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe 
that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given 
me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States 
Senate for five terms.
  I know that reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban is the right thing 
to do.
  I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this 
legislation, and it is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously 
and send this legislation to President Bush to sign into law.
                                 ______