[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12040-12042]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              GUN CONTROL

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last month for the first time in a 
generation, the Senate voted for some reasonable additions to the 
national gun control legislation.
  We principally did three things of value to our country: We voted to 
ban the possession of assault weapons by minors; we voted to require 
background checks on the purchase of firearms at the 4,000 gun shows 
held nationally in our country; and to require that firearms come 
equipped with a child safety lock.
  They were hard-won victories. Each in their own right was an 
important statement about our commitment to the safety of our citizens. 
Each represents America coming to terms with the level of gun violence 
in America. But it is important that they be held in some perspective, 
because none was particularly bold. While they make a contribution to 
dealing with the problem, they do not begin to end the problem.
  Now the House of Representatives has another chance to build on the 
work of the Senate and respond to the needs of the American people, the 
desperate need to have some reasonable levels of gun control to protect 
our citizens. The simple truth is that we have a great deal more to do. 
Every year, 34,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. Firearms are 
now the second leading cause of death, after car

[[Page 12041]]

accidents, and gaining quickly. The lethal mix of guns and children is 
particularly disturbing. Fourteen children are dying every day from 
gunfire. Teenage boys are more likely to die from gunshots than all 
natural causes combined. It is not simply a problem. It is not enough 
to call it a crisis. There is an epidemic of gun violence that is 
consuming our citizens generally and our children in particular.
  In truth, there are many causes. No one measure in either gun control 
legislation or in addressing this problem generally is going to solve 
the problem. Those who wait for a single answer to solve a complex 
societal problem will never be part of a solution. Our schools will 
play different roles. Our parents are learning the difficulties of 
raising children in a changing and complex society. The media will 
learn new levels of individual voluntary responsibility. But, as 
certainly as each of those elements is a part of dealing with gun 
violence in America, and particularly the new problems of youth and 
school violence, so, too, this Congress and gun control is an element.
  In the last 2 months the shootings in Littleton, CO, and Conyers, GA, 
have represented a potential historic turning point on this issue. 
Almost certainly, when the history of our generation is written, the 
events in Conyers and Littleton will be seen in the same light as the 
publishing of Rachel Carlson's ``Silent Spring'' is seen as the 
beginning of the environmental movement or the 1960s march on 
Washington is for civil rights.
  It may be possible we have now reached a critical mass in this 
country where, as a majority of the American people have otherwise been 
relatively silent on this issue while a small minority seemed to 
control and monopolize both the national debate and the political 
judgments, now the balance may be changing. If, indeed, we have reached 
this point of change, then this Congress will respond by doing several 
things that are meaningful in ending gun violence:
  First, restrict the sales of handguns to one per month. It is not 
unreasonable that Americans limit their consumption of handguns to one 
every 30 days, and it is a real contribution to dealing with this 
problem, because States such as my own, New Jersey, which have had 
reasonable gun control for 30 years, are being frustrated. Mr. 
President, 80 percent of the guns used to commit felonies in New Jersey 
are coming from five States that do not have similar gun control. Guns 
are being purchased wholesale in other States and taken to my State for 
use in the commission of a crime. Limiting purchases to one a month 
will prohibit it from becoming profitable for people to engage in this 
unseemly business.
  Second, reinstitute the Brady waiting period. Even if we perfect the 
technology of an instant background check to assure that people with 
mental illness or felony convictions do not buy guns, a cooling off 
period is still valuable. In this nation, the most likely person to 
shoot another citizen is a member of his or her own family in a crime 
of passion or rage. A cooling off period to separate the rage from the 
purchase of the gun and the act could save thousands of lives.
  Third, require that handguns be made with smart gun technology. We 
have the technology to assure that the person who fires a gun owns the 
gun--a thumbprint or another means of electronic identification. That 
technology is in hand. It can be perfected. If it is not available 
today, it can be available soon. It can separate criminals from guns 
that are being stolen out of our own houses, our own stores, and 
killing our own people.
  Fourth and finally, to regulate firearms, as every other consumer 
product, to ensure that firearms are safely designed, built, and 
distributed, not only for the general public but specifically and, more 
importantly, for the people who are actually buying the guns.
  Together, these four measures represent a comprehensive national 
policy of responding to the growing spiral of gun violence in our 
society. Individually, none of them will meaningfully solve the 
problem, but together they represent an important statement and a 
critical beginning, using our technology, our common sense, and our 
laws to protect our citizens. Ironically, they principally benefit the 
people who own and buy guns, who are most likely to be hurt by a gun 
improperly made or distributed or stolen from their own home.
  In recent months, we are recognizing that what the Federal Government 
is failing to do in dealing with gun violence other levels of 
government are doing, particularly the mayors of our cities--New 
Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta, Camden County in my home State, Philadelphia 
through Mayor Rendell--who are beginning lawsuits to hold gun 
manufacturers responsible for how they manufacture these guns and how 
they distribute them. I am proud they are doing so but not proud that 
the Federal Government is not part of this effort. The simple truth is, 
in a society in which the Federal Government regulates the content of 
our air, the quality of our water, virtually every measure of consumer 
product for its safety, its design and its content, the single 
exception is guns manufactured in the United States. By statute, the 
ATF is prohibited from engaging in the regulation of the design and 
distribution of firearms.
  A toy gun is regulated for its design: The size of its parts, to 
protect an infant child, the contents of the materials. A toy gun is 
completely regulated by the Federal Government. But the actual gun, 
including the TEC-9 used in Columbine High School, is not. No one could 
rationally explain that contradiction, but it is the truth. Indeed, as 
I have demonstrated on this chart, a child's teddy bear is regulated 
for its edges, its points, small parts, hazardous materials, its 
flammability, but a gun--which 14 times a day takes a life--that may be 
in the same home, in proximity to that child is not.
  I want to point out that in the Firearms Safety Consumer Protection 
Act we deal with each of these issues. I urge my colleagues to consider 
it and lend their support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am here today to join my colleagues, 
Senator Torricelli and Senator Boxer and others, who are pointing out 
that America has recently been both shocked and, we hope, awakened to 
the danger of gun violence throughout our land and particularly the gun 
violence that envelops our children.
  A few weeks ago, last month, we in this Senate began to recognize 
that the people of the United States want reasonable gun control 
policies. They want these policies to protect themselves and 
particularly to protect their children. During consideration of the 
juvenile justice bill, we made some progress by passing a ban on the 
juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and a ban on the 
importation of high-capacity ammunition clips. We saw Republicans join 
all Democrats in voting to require that child safety devices be sold 
with all handguns. Finally, with a historic, tie-breaking vote by the 
Vice President, we passed the Lautenberg amendment to firmly close the 
gun show and pawnshop loophole by requiring background checks on all 
sales and allowing law enforcement up to 72 hours to conduct these 
background checks, as currently permitted by the Brady law.
  These are the kinds of measures that Democrats in Congress have been 
advocating for years. It is unfortunate that it took the Littleton 
tragedy to bring our colleagues in the majority around to our way of 
thinking. We welcome even these small steps in the right direction. But 
these are, indeed, small steps, and we need to do much more. We should 
reinstate the Brady waiting period, which expired last November, to 
provide a cooling off period before the purchase of a handgun. My 
colleague from New Jersey said it so well: Too often crimes with 
handguns are crimes of rage and passion. A cooling off period might 
insulate the acquisition of the gun from the crime of passion or rage. 
Even if we do perfect the instant check, this waiting period will still 
play a very valuable role in ensuring that handguns are not the source 
of violence and death in our society. We

[[Page 12042]]

should also pass a child access prevention law to hold adults 
responsible if they allow a child to gain access to a firearm and that 
child uses the firearm to harm another.
  These are the types of protections that are, indeed, necessary.
  In addition, we should completely close the Internet gun sales 
loophole, something the Senate failed to do last month when we were 
considering the juvenile justice bill. We all know the increasing power 
of the Internet to sell goods and services. Whatever is happening now 
in the distribution of firearms through the Internet is merely a 
glimpse and a foreshadowing of what will happen in the months and years 
ahead. We should act now, promptly, so we can establish sensible rules 
with respect to the Internet sale of firearms.
  I also believe that we should apply to guns the same consumer product 
regulations which we apply to virtually every other product in this 
country. Again, the Senator from New Jersey was very eloquent when he 
described the paradox, the unexplainable paradox, the situation in 
which we regulate toy guns but we cannot by law, in any way, shape or 
form, regulate real guns. If toy guns, teddy bears, lawn mowers, and 
hair dryers are all subject to regulation to ensure they include 
features to minimize the dangers to children, why not firearms?
  I have introduced legislation to allow the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission to regulate firearms to protect children and adults against 
unreasonable risk of injury. I know my friend and colleague from New 
Jersey has introduced a bill to allow the Treasury Department to 
regulate firearms. Whichever agency ultimately has oversight, the 
important thing is that guns should no longer be the only consumer 
product exempt from even the most basic safety regulations.
  Finally, I believe that gun dealers should be held responsible if 
they violate Federal law by selling a firearm to a minor, a convicted 
felon, or others prohibited from buying firearms.
  Currently, there are over 104,000 federally licensed firearms dealers 
in the United States. While most of these dealers are responsible small 
business people, recent tracing of crime guns by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms has found substantial evidence that some dealers 
are selling guns to juveniles and convicted felons. This direct 
diversion of weapons from retail to illegal markets is taking place 
both through off-the-book sales by corrupt dealers and through so-
called straw purchases, when an ineligible buyer has a friend or 
relative buy a firearm for him or her.
  Indeed, just this week, my colleague, Senator Schumer, from New York 
released a study of Federal firearms data that reveals a stunning 
number of crime guns being sold by a very, very small proportion of the 
Nation's gun dealers. According to data supplied by the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, just 1 percent of this country's gun 
dealers sold nearly half of the guns used in crime last year. The 
statistics suggest we must move aggressively against these dealers who 
are flouting the laws and who are disregarding public safety.
  To remedy this situation, I have introduced S. 1101, the Gun Dealer 
Responsibility Act, which would provide a statutory cause of action for 
victims of gun violence against dealers whose illegal sale of a gun 
directly contributes to the victim's injury. I believe this legislation 
will make unscrupulous gun dealers think twice about to whom they will 
sell a weapon, particularly if they intend to sell it to minors, 
convicted felons or any other ineligible buyer, either directly or 
through straw purchases.
  Anyone who honestly considers the tragic events in Littleton 1 month 
ago and the 13 children who die from gun violence each day in this 
country must concede that our young people have far too easy and 
unlimited access to guns. It is a shameful commentary that in this 
country today, in 1999, for too many children it is easier to get a gun 
than it is to get counseling. We have to work on both fronts--improving 
our schools and access to mental health services and counseling and 
support--but we also have to close the loopholes which make it easy for 
youngsters to get guns. Last year, 6,000 American students were 
expelled from elementary or high school for bringing a gun into the 
school building. That, too, is an indication that we have to work to 
ensure that children do not have access to firearms.
  We must do more than just keeping the guns away, but that is 
something we have to do right now in a comprehensive and coherent way.
  The measures I have suggested and the measures that my colleague from 
New Jersey suggested are sensible parts of a comprehensive strategy to 
do what every American wants done: to keep weapons out of the hands of 
young children who may use them to harm themselves or harm others.
  I hope that having been awakened by the tragedy in Littleton, we are 
ready to move progressively and aggressively to remedy this situation 
in the Senate.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask that we remain in morning business 
and I be allowed to make a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for the remainder of 
morning business.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________