[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 173 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8554-S8556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXTENDING THE UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS ACT OF 1988
Mr. NELSON. Senator Schumer and I are here for another reason. We
don't want to make a mistake. For some number of years, there has been
on the books a law which will expire at midnight tonight that has
protected us from weapons going through detectors that are not made of
metal which the detectors can't detect. Of course, not only are we
talking about government buildings and other secure facilities, but
clearly we are talking about airports as well.
So now computer technology has advanced to the point, ever since we
had that old law, that a person can actually, with a computer, through
3D processing, laying down plastic layer upon plastic layer, create a
weapon that cannot be detected with most of the detectors we have
today. That old law needs to be updated, but apparently there are those
who do not want it updated. So, as a last gasp, we are appealing to the
Senate, before the stroke of midnight tonight when this law will be
erased, to continue the old law that will at least go after the
plastic-type weapons, plastic guns, of which their manufacture--it is
required that they have some part of metal in them in order to detect
them. But the technology has surpassed that. They can now manufacture
them with 3D printing to have no metal parts and they will still shoot
a bullet. That is what we are going to have to update. So with the
simple click of a mouse, things are changed and it makes it practically
invisible to metal detectors and other screening devices.
I thank the senior Senator from New York, who has taken the lead on
this issue. He has recognized this problem. He has asked me to join
him.
The House of Representatives last week passed similar legislation to
not do what we ought to do to update the law but to continue the
current ban on such weapons for another 10 years. They obviously pose a
very serious threat to our national security as well as to Americans'
personal security, and we need to do everything we can to keep them out
of the hands of people who want to do harm to others.
Mr. President, I am looking forward to the comments of the senior
Senator from New York.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to wait for Senator
Grassley--here he is. I will speak for a minute and then propound my
unanimous consent request, and then Senator Grassley will propound his
request, I presume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my good colleague from
Florida who has been a great partner on this very important issue. He
outlined it well. I will just speak for a few minutes on this subject.
The bottom line is very simple. There are bad people who always want
to evade the law, and there are good people--most Americans, the vast
majority--who want to protect the law. Our job is to prevent the bad
people without hurting the good people. We will have different views on
the issue of gun control as to where to draw that line, but it seems to
me on this issue there should be no dispute whatsoever. As the Senator
from Florida outlined, there is new technology that for the first time
will allow guns to be made that function without metal. That presents a
serious danger--some might even say a mortal danger--to our safety
because if a person can pass a gun through a metal detector with the
very purpose to stop guns from getting into delicate areas, such as
airports, sports stadiums, courts, and schools, it can create real
havoc. To allow plastic guns that can fire one bullet, two bullets,
three bullets, four bullets into these places creates real danger for
our citizenry.
There were some wise people back in 1988, even before these guns
could be developed, who passed a law that said we should not allow them
to exist. It was a good law. The trouble is, as my colleague from
Florida has outlined, technology has advanced, so not only are these
guns real, but they can be made so that the law that exists and expires
tonight can be evaded.
If one were to add an easily removable piece of metal to one of these
plastic guns, walk with it, with that metal on it--legal under present
law--take it off as a person puts the gun through a metal detector, so
it is all plastic, and then quietly insert it back on the gun after it
goes through a metal detector, one would have a gun on both sides of
the metal detector that is legal under present law, the law that
expires tonight, and a person can then evade the very purpose that we
have metal detectors at our airports, sports stadiums, and other
places--to prevent guns from being smuggled in.
So what we would ideally like to do, the Senator from Florida and I,
is say that those types of guns, as well as guns that are purely
plastic, should be illegal and that a gun must have some metal in it
that can't be removed easily--and those guns would be legal, but those
guns wouldn't be smuggled through metal detectors.
Now, years ago, it seemed as though this was all fiction. I remember
that in the movie ``In the Line of Fire,'' John Malkovich, seeking to
kill the President, takes months to make a gun out of plastic. It was
science fiction. But in the last few years that science fiction has
become a reality. Three-D printers--a technology overall that is
miraculous--can create a trachea for a baby so the baby can live.
Three-D printers can create car parts at a much cheaper price. But they
can also create plastic guns. Technology allows them to be sold for
$1,000 or a little more than $1,000, so just about anyone can get one,
certainly a terrorist intent on doing evil. So the ban takes on new
urgency.
Today there is good news and bad news. The good news is that the
House of Representatives has passed a bill to extend that ban for 10
years. The bad news is that the dangerous loophole I mentioned is still
in the bill. Under existing law--the law that expires tonight--one can
make one of these undetectable guns perfectly legal by simply attaching
a metal handle at the last moment when you want to slip it somewhere
where it could be very dangerous and then remove the metal part and
make the gun invisible to the metal detector. All the Senator from
Florida and I wish to do is simply require that the metal piece be
permanently affixed to the gun. Any gun without a permanent metal piece
would be illegal--a simple fix that will save lots of lives.
Unfortunately, the House bill that passed keeps the present loophole in
the law.
I haven't heard any argument against our amendment other than: Nose
in the camel's tent; this will allow people to do other bad things. But
I haven't heard one specific argument against our closing the loophole
[[Page S8555]]
in the law the way we want to do it. Unfortunately, from what I am
told, there will be an objection to that and we will just pass a 10-
year extension. That is better than nothing, but it doesn't get us
across the finish line. The House bill is a step in the right
direction, certainly better than letting the law expire, but it still
has a glaring loophole in it.
So I hope we can pass a bill that not only extends the current ban
but closes the loophole that allows for the manufacture of guns that
can evade detection by simply removing a piece of metal. It is a simple
fix to the existing statute that won't interrupt any lawful commerce in
arms. One can be the most fervent believer in the Second Amendment, and
the amendment we propose does not interfere with anyone's right to have
a gun--none. All we do is keep the legislative language up to speed
with technological developments.
In conclusion, a few years ago these undetectable plastic guns were
science fiction. Now they are frighteningly real. That is why we have
to extend the ban and hopefully close the loophole.
I again thank my colleague Senator Nelson, as well as my colleague in
the House, Congressman Israel, and so many others who have joined us in
this, including Senator Murphy, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz,
who have been partners in trying to get this done.
Now I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.R. 3626, which is at the desk; that the Nelson-
Schumer, et al. amendment, which is also at the desk, be agreed to; the
bill, as amended, be read three times and passed; and that the motions
to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this objection?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3626, which was received
from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third
time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon
the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3626) was read the third time and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't think I find fault with anything
Senator Schumer said, except as a matter of timing and when to consider
those things. Before making any changes to current law, Congress needs
to gain an understanding of printed gun manufacturing technology and
its relation to permanent metal parts. There are other technical issues
that should be resolved before any legislation passes that reflects
scientific and manufacturing process realities.
Today is the day the current plastic gun ban expires. The House had
already passed a 10-year extension on a bipartisan vote. The only way
to be sure the current ban remains on the books is to pass the House
bill, which the Senate just did. Since the Democrats wish to extend
current law, there are no current circumstances that demanded immediate
changes to the law.
Every previous extension of the bill has occurred on a bipartisan
basis and has lasted for at least 5 years so that Congress does not
need to constantly revisit it. Before Thanksgiving, my colleague, the
Senator from New York, offered only a 1-year extension. Ten years is
much better, and the 1-year extension proposal contained none of the
substantive provisions the Senator from New York offered with mere
hours to go before current law expires.
After the Senate passes the House bill--which we did--Congress then
has a responsibility to review the issue, hold hearings and obtain
expert testimony, and consider alternative legislation, including what
the Senator from New York has suggested. The date of expiration of the
current ban has been set for many years. If anybody in the Senate is so
concerned about what they consider to be a loophole in the law, this
obviously should have been done through hearings and the introduction
of legislation long ago. We did not even see the language of the
proposed amendment I objected to until this afternoon. Dropping a bill
at the eleventh hour without any investigation into the technological
situation demonstrates that their real objectives were things other
than just getting an extension.
Under current law, ``the Attorney General shall ensure that rules and
regulations adopted pursuant to this paragraph do not impair the
manufacture of prototype firearms or the development of new
technology.'' That is a quote from the proposed language that I
objected to--or that is in present law, but the amendment of the
Senator from New York strikes that language. It seems to me that the
Justice Department's regulations should not impair new technology or
firearm manufacturing, so I don't know why that change should have been
suggested. I am willing to listen to anybody's arguments to the
contrary, but that is the way I see it, and I am glad we have taken the
action we have.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Iowa.
Obviously, I disagree. I think we should be closing this loophole. The
language may have been available this afternoon, but the concept was
out there for weeks and weeks, if not longer. But I appreciate his
language, and he said he did not object to any specifics that I have
mentioned here.
So I look forward. We are going to work hard with the Senator from
Iowa and others, with whom I disagree on interpretations of the Second
Amendment in general, to try and come to an agreement here to close a
loophole that we do not think touches any Second Amendment rights in
any way at all. If we can work together over the next few months,
weeks, with hearings and other things, and convince our colleagues that
we have no intent other than to close this loophole and make sure the
very law the Senator from Iowa wished to renew is simply made whole,
given the new technology and the loophole is closed, I look forward to
that opportunity.
So I appreciate my colleague's remarks. I wish we had passed this
amendment. I think it would have made the bill better, stronger, with
fewer loopholes, but that does not mean we cannot try to do that over
the next several months. I appreciate the opportunity to do so with my
friend, the only other ``Charles E.'' in the Senate.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, undetectable plastic guns used to be a
hypothetical security threat. But now the threat is real.
3-D printer technology has evolved to the point where a person can
make a functioning plastic handgun in a matter of hours. These guns are
lethal, and the technology used to make them is getting better--and
cheaper--every day.
It is a serious concern that the plastic in these guns does not set
off walk-through metal detectors. Many of our buildings are protected
by these walk-through detectors--courthouses, schools, government
buildings, sports arenas, concert venues, and more.
The Undetectable Firearms Act sensibly bans guns that are not
detectable by these types of metal detectors. It is essential that we
reauthorize this important law.
I am glad the House of Representatives passed an extension of this
law last week. It is important that we not let this law expire.
But it is also important for Congress to update this law to close a
potentially dangerous loophole.
Under the current law, a plastic gun can be legal if the gun owner
simply clips a piece of metal onto the gun, even if the metal is
unnecessary to the functionality of the gun. This is a problem because
the person could simply unclip the metal from the gun to pass through a
metal detector and then have a fully-functioning gun inside a secure
location.
We need to close this loophole and make sure that the functional
components of guns are detectable by walk-through metal detectors.
I do not mean to be alarmist about the risk that these plastic guns
pose, but the risks are real.
[[Page S8556]]
Earlier this year the Jerusalem Post reported that an Israeli
journalist tried to prove this point by bringing a plastic gun to a
press conference at the Israeli Knesset. He got the gun through
security, and he filmed himself pointing the gun at Prime Minister
Netanyahu.
Fortunately the gun was unloaded and the journalist had no intent to
harm anyone. But we should take steps to protect against the risks of
these undetectable guns before a tragedy occurs.
I will support efforts to extend the current law, but I also urge my
colleagues to work to close this loophole as quickly as possible.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank Senator Schumer and Senator
Nelson for their work on the extension of the Undetectable Firearms
Act.
Plastic guns printed from 3D printers are one thing: dangerous. They
have no place in our society. These 3D-printed guns can be used to
dodge security checks the way Tom Brady dodges opposing defenses.
Members of the law enforcement community, police men and women, the
ATF, TSA, FBI, and Secret Service all support this legislation because
it will make our communities safer. I share their concerns and the
concerns of so many of my constituents in Massachusetts. I come here
today to express my support for this bill because the safety of our
children and communities must be our top priority. No parent, student,
or traveler should be worried that a plastic 3D gun could be left
undetected and find its way into an airplane, a train, or a classroom.
I am pleased we are passing this legislation today, but we must all
remember that this is the bare minimum. Passing this legislation keeps
plastic guns from becoming legal, but it does not crack down on the
torrents of assault weapons filling our streets or ensure that all gun
sales must include a background check. Neither does it close the
loophole that allows a plastic gun with a single piece of removable
metal to evade the ban.
Even after this bill passes, we must continue to fight for
commonsense gun safety regulations. In 1994, I worked with my
colleagues and now-Vice President Biden to enact tougher gun control
laws that helped remove dangerous Chinese assault weapons from our
streets. At the time, it seemed like an insurmountable task, but we got
those weapons of war off our streets. Today we face a challenge that
seems similarly insurmountable. So I hope that in the coming days and
weeks the Senate and Congress acts in a bipartisan manner to curb the
epidemic of gun violence in our country. I will work with any Member of
this Chamber, on either side of the aisle, to enact comprehensive gun
control legislation that will keep our neighborhoods, our communities,
our cities, and our public safe. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to ensure that we finally put tough gun safety laws on the
books and get these dangerous weapons off our streets and out of our
neighborhoods.
Thank you.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on December 3, 2013, the House of
Representatives passed a 10-year reauthorization of the Undetectable
Firearms Act. This law prohibits firearms that are undetectable by
widely deployed security screening technologies such as x-ray and metal
detectors. These are the standard technologies used by law enforcement
officials to protect the public in State and Federal government
buildings, courthouses, airports, and a host of other public spaces and
events and these are the same technologies that protect the public and
elected officials in the Capitol and congressional office buildings,
where so many congressional staff and members of the public work and
participate in the democratic process in an open and accessible
environment. It is not difficult to appreciate why lethal weapons
capable of evading such detection cause significant concern for the law
enforcement community. This law has been the widely supported policy of
Congress since 1988, when the legislation was signed by President
Reagan. Ten years ago, Senator Hatch and I came together to reauthorize
this law in 2003.
While today's legislation is an important step to reauthorize this
law, we have more work to do. Law enforcement experts have urged
Congress to make modest changes necessary to close a loophole that
allows an individual who makes a firearm using 3D printing technology
to easily evade the reach of the current law. I support those changes
in order to better protect the public and update the current law in a
responsible way.
Unfortunately, these recommendations have been met by Republican
objections. As the expiration of this law has crept closer and the
issue has gained the greater attention of law enforcement officials and
Members of Congress, I worked in the Senate to find bipartisan support
for a reauthorization of the law that would include these needed
updates. I was disappointed that no Republican senator was willing to
engage in a joint effort to responsibly update the law.
Today, a functioning, all-plastic, undetectable gun manufactured in
the home using publicly available technology is not theoretical; it is
reality. Unfortunately, the legislation we pass today fails to provide
law enforcement officials with the best tools possible to keep pace
with current and rapidly developing technology. This reauthorization
does give Congress time to consider necessary updates to the law that
law enforcement experts believe are critical to close the loopholes
that have been exposed by emerging technologies.
I hope that as we go forward, Members of Congress on both sides of
the aisle will closely examine the improvements we need to make to this
law and will act responsibly in addressing them. Given this law's long
history of bipartisan support, we should work together to carefully
consider the recommendations that law enforcement experts have made to
make this law better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I too thank Senator Grassley for
arranging so we could proceed with the current law. I have found
Senator Grassley to be someone who will listen, who will deliberate,
and who will try to do what he thinks is in the best interests of the
people, in this particular case, the security interests of the people.
I would ask Senator Grassley to consider, as we meet about this over
the course of the next several weeks or months, since we both fly in to
Washington, DC--and if you are on flights like this Senator is, there
may be a good chance there is an air marshal on that flight because the
flight is so sensitive coming in to a city where you are only seconds--
if an airplane aborts a landing, you are only within seconds of that
airplane being near some of the centers of the U.S. Government, such as
the Capitol, such as the White House, such as the Supreme Court. If a
person were able to sneak a plastic gun through, then it seems to me
that poses a much greater threat to the security interests of this
country and its people.
If it is, in fact, legal to have a gun where you can remove that
piece of metal and someone has been able to sneak that through the
metal detectors at the place of origin of that person's flight, then it
seems to me we are asking for trouble. In the great tradition of the
Second Amendment of protecting people and letting them have their
rights to guns, this is an aberration of that right that we need to
duly consider and protect against.
I thank Senator Grassley for coming here and extending the law today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
____________________