[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5939-5940]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      THE EPIDEMIC OF GUN VIOLENCE

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago it was a Michigan nursing 
home and Monday night it was a shootout at the National Zoo here in 
Washington, D.C. The epidemic of gun violence has become something that 
affects all Americans, not only those living in our inner cities.
  Whenever we open our morning newspapers and read about these 
tragedies, we are left to wonder whether our loved ones might be the 
next victims and whether our own community, our own neighborhood, and 
our own home could be tomorrow's headlines.
  The devastation that guns have brought to our families and to our 
communities has been well documented, but the statistics bear 
repeating. Only with an understanding of the dimensions of the problem 
will we ever bring real change.
  In 1997 alone, more than 32,000 Americans were shot and killed, 
including 4,000 children.
  The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates by the year 2006 
firearms will become the largest single killer of our own children in 
the United States.
  The economic cost of every shooting death in society--if it is 
necessary to measure it in these cold terms--is $1 million per victim 
in medical care, police services, and lost productivity.
  The American public has grown tired of hearing of these appalling 
statistics.

[[Page 5940]]

And so have I. More importantly, they have grown tired of a Congress 
that does nothing about it, with no real efforts to stop this 
bloodshed.
  Last April, it seemed that the senseless death of 12 students at 
Columbine High School had finally brought the Nation to a point of 
judgment. It even appeared to me that this Congress had finally had 
enough. The shocking and heartbreaking nature of the tragedy, which was 
really unlike anything in its dimensions that the Nation had faced 
before, appeared to convince the Congress that it could no longer 
ignore the problem.
  Indeed, this Senate, in one of its finer moments since I became a 
Member of this institution, courageously passed a juvenile justice bill 
that included three basic gun safety measures: It banned the possession 
of assault weapons by minors; it closed the gun show loophole; and it 
mandated safety locks on all firearms.
  Originally, we had sought a more comprehensive solution that would 
restrict gun sales to one per month, a reasonable proposal; reinstate 
the Brady waiting period, proven to be an effective proposal; and 
regulate guns as consumer products, certainly a worthwhile proposal.
  But we limited ourselves to those other basic provisions in the 
interests of a consensus, with a belief that they were so sensible and 
so necessary that there could be no reasonable opposition. So before 
the debate even began, the proposals had been limited to what should 
have represented a consensus view, leaving the more ambitious but still 
reasonable proposals for another day.
  But now, with the 1-year anniversary of the Columbine shootings 
having passed, it is clear that our confidence, perhaps even our 
strategy, was misguided. Today, the bill languishes in conference--an 
unfortunate reminder that no gun law is too important or too 
responsible that it cannot be opposed by the National Rifle 
Association.
  In place of changes, the Republican leadership and the NRA have 
offered the American public flimsy rhetoric that blames gun violence on 
poor enforcement of existing gun laws. The NRA erroneously claims that 
prosecutions have plummeted under the Clinton administration when, in 
fact, these prosecutions rose by 25 percent last year.
  This campaign provides nothing but further evidence that this agenda 
is not aimed at protecting our communities, but it is aimed at 
protecting the status quo--a status quo that most Americans a long time 
ago decided was unacceptable.
  No one disputes the fact that enforcement is a critical element of 
any response to this problem. That is why, indeed, on this side of the 
aisle we have supported 1,000 new ATF agents and 1,000 new prosecutors 
to deal with gun violence.
  But as much as we have done, we can always do more; while laws are 
being enforced, they can be enforced better. But no one can reasonably 
believe that enforcement alone constitutes a comprehensive or 
sufficient answer to this national epidemic.
  Better enforcement of every gun law ever written will not prevent the 
1,500 accidental shootings that are occurring every year. Enforcement 
of every gun law on the books would not prevent a 6-year-old boy from 
bringing his father's gun to school and killing a 6-year-old classmate. 
Nor does it address the fact that 43 percent of parents leave their 
guns unsecured, and 13 percent have unsecured guns loaded or with 
ammunition nearby. Enforcing gun laws, vigorous prosecutions, would 
answer none of those problems.
  These realities point to the need for a broad approach to gun 
control. The provisions contained in the juvenile justice bill are the 
first steps, but they are important first steps.
  The real answer--perhaps the challenge that should have come to this 
Congress last year--is to bring the entire issue to the Senate, and 
build upon what is already in the juvenile justice bill by also 
challenging the Senate to restrict the sale of firearms to one per 
month, a simple provision which would help eliminate the problem under 
which my State is suffering, where people go to other States and buy 
large numbers of firearms and transport them to the cities of New 
Jersey, selling them, often to children, out of the trunks of cars.
  Second, reinstitute the Brady waiting period on handgun purchases to 
prevent individuals in fits of rage and passion from acting upon their 
emotions with a gun. Separate the rage of the individual from the 
purchase of the firearm, giving a cooling off period that can and would 
save lives. Most important, we must do on the Federal level what 
Massachusetts recently did on the State level: regulate firearms as 
consumer products. Firearms remain the only consumer product in America 
not regulated for safety, a strange, inexplicable, peculiar exception 
to the law because they are inherently the most dangerous consumer 
products of them all.
  It is, indeed, an absurd, inexplicable contradiction that a toy gun 
remains regulated but a real gun is not. Consumer regulation would 
ensure that, as every other product in America, guns are safely 
designed, built, and distributed, not only for the benefit of the 
public but also for the people who purchase them. Indeed, who has a 
greater interest in gun safety by design and construction than the 
people who buy guns? If the materials are imperfect, if they do not 
work properly, it is the gun owner who is going to be hurt.
  Together these three measures would make a real difference in ending 
gun violence. Would they end all gun violence? Would they end all 
crime? Indeed, not. No single provision, no amendment, no law, no 
single action could eliminate all gun violence or most gun violence. 
But if we await a perfect solution, we will act upon no solution. 
Ending the problems of violence and guns in America is not something 
that will be done by one Congress or one legislative proposal in any 
one year or probably in any one decade. It is successive ideas in 
succeeding Congresses where people of goodwill put the public interest 
first and look for real and serious answers to this epidemic of 
violence.
  As long as the NRA is allowed to dominate the gun debate in place of 
common sense and compassion, the Columbines of the future are sadly, 
even tragically, inevitable. It is time for Congress to finally muster 
the courage to act responsibly on this issue out of concern for our 
children. Out of respect for the memories of those who have died, we 
can and should do nothing less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________