Exemption to S. 1805

EXEMPTION TO S. 1805

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am rising in support of the amendment we will vote on tomorrow on continuing the assault weapons ban. I am carrying this amendment along with Senator Feinstein, who passed the bill in the Senate in 1993. I was the lead sponsor in the House as well as the two of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, Senator Warner and Senator DeWine, and many others.

When we passed the assault weapons ban in 1993, there was a great deal of concern. The arguments against the ban were two: One, that the bill would cause to be confiscated weapons far beyond the 19 banned weapons, the Uzis and the AK-47s; and, two, that it would not be effective.

We now have 10 years of evidence and the evidence is clear that neither of those worries about this bill have proven to be true. We cannot report a single instance where a nonassault weapon was confiscated, an overreaching Government, ATF, or whomever went in and confiscated hunting rifles or, frankly, other than the 19, weapons that were not on the list. We were careful in the bill. We named 670 different guns used for hunting, protection, and sports shooting that could not be touched. But it is even new guns that have come out since then. There has not been a single complaint of which I am aware.

Second, the bill has been effective. In all gun crimes, the percent of assault weapons that are used has gone down to one-third of what it was. A little more than 3.5 percent-I think it is 3.75 percent of crime guns were assault weapons back before 1993. In the last 10 years, it has gone down to 1.2 percent.

Law enforcement is strongly for our bill for the simple reason they don't want to be outgunned on the streets. They don't want one of our latest criminal problems, gangs, to have Uzis and AK-47s while they are shooting back with their 9 mms. The bill has worked.

As a result, the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of the assault weapons ban. Mr. President, 77 percent of the voters are for it; 21 percent against; even among gun owners, 66 percent for, 30 percent against. So the bill has overwhelming support.

You would think it would be renewed and renewed rather quickly, but instead it is hanging by a hair. If I had to bet-and I have been whipping this bill for the last week-there will either be a tie or it will pass by one vote or it will fail by one vote. This bill is neck and neck. All it does is renew this controversial but successful piece of legislation for another 10 years. In fact, it is an exact replica of the previous bill.

Many of us would have liked the bill to go further, to cover weapons that are semiautomatic assault weapons but are not covered by the bill. Manufacturers have come out and created new weapons around the 19. But in deference to those who worry that the Government will expand unreasonably search and confiscation, so to speak, of these weapons, we didn't do it. So we are simply asking to renew the 19 different types of assault weapons.

Just to show, these weapons that were banned can never be used for hunting. They can never be used for target practice. They can't be used, really, in self-defense unless you are reckless and wild, because they were designed by armies for use in military combat. In other words, they didn't have to be terribly accurate. They had to have strong firepower and be able to fire a whole lot of bullets in a very short time. Names such as AK-47, Uzi, TEC-9, and Streetsweeper-these are weapons of mass devastation. They are very efficient killing machines. They are appropriate on the field of battle but not in a reasonable country where there is a right to bear arms-which I believe in but not an unlimited right to bear any arm whatsoever.

I would say to my colleagues, my adversaries, because that is what they are really, in the NRA, no amendment is absolute. I believe in the first amendment. I cherish it. But there are a lot of limits on first amendment rights. Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes said you can't wrongly scream "fire" in a crowded theater. That is an imposition on my complete rights of free speech but it is a reasonable limitation.

The same on the second amendment. I tell you I resent those on the left who want the first amendment to be expanded as broadly as possible and then say the second amendment has to fit through a pinhole. There is a right to bear arms but it is not an unlimited right to bear arms. Should anyone be able to buy a tank or a bazooka? Of course not.

Here is an AK-47. It is the most widely used assault weapon in the world. It is a very good military machine. It comes with a 30-round ammunition clip capable of being fired as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. The faster you can move your finger, the more people you can kill. With a little practice, a shooter could kill an entire basketball team in seconds. That is not what we want and no one would use this weapon for hunting. No store owner or homeowner would use this for self-defense. They are not even accurate. They just fire a lot of bullets.

How about the next one, the Uzi? This was designed originally as a submachinegun. It comes with a 32-round ammunition magazine capable of being fired as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. It is easy to hide because of its compact design and it is very reliable. Why? Because the Uzi was made for the Israeli Army. Not for the Bloods or the Crips or the MS-13 or any of the violent gangs that love to use these weapons.

There is the TEC-9. We don't have a chart of it. It is similar; 30- to 36-rounds, easily convertible into a machinegun.

Perhaps the most scary of all, is the Streetsweeper. The Streetsweeper-here it is-can fire twelve 12-gauge shotgun shells in less than 15 seconds. That's right, shotgun shells, not regular ammunition. Anyone who knows guns knows a shotgun sprays wide with shot, rather than fixing on a narrow target with a single bullet. That is what makes the Streetsweeper's capability remarkable. It is not part of the right of the average citizen to bear arms.

So the bottom line is this is a reasonable bill that has been successful. There is no, let me repeat, no civilian use for the 19 weapons banned by the assault weapons ban.

Pre-ban assault weapons continue to plague our streets. A couple of weeks ago in my city of Albany, NY, my State, the Albany Police Department suffered its first death of a police officer since 1987. LT John Finn, a highly decorated well-regarded officer and 13-year veteran of the Albany PD was shot on December 23, 2003, 2 days before Christmas, by a criminal using a pre-ban assault weapon, an American Arms AP 9 mm. On February 12, Officer Finn succumbed to his wounds and died.

That is all we are trying to stop, not impinge on the rights of gun owners. Police organizations, law enforcement are for us; the FOP, the International Brotherhood of Police, Major Cities Chiefs of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Hispanic-American Police Command Officers, many other groups. I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

The International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the Major Cities Chiefs of Police; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; and the Hispanic-American Police Command Officers Association.

Groups which represent our State and local municipalities, who see first hand the bloody violence that assault weapons can cause, likewise support this bill.

They include: the National League of Cities; the National Association of Counties; and the United States Conference of Mayors.

Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban makes so much sense that organizations which represent the doctors and nurses who see gunshot victims in emergency rooms every day likewise support this bill. They include: the American Academy of Family Physicians; the American Public Health Association; the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems; and the Physicians for a Violence Free Society;

It makes so much sense that organizations which represent victims of gun violence and other crimes in society likewise support this bill. They include: the Family Violence Prevention Fund; the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; and the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban makes so much sense that organizations which represent just regular mothers, fathers, children and families across America strongly support this bill, like: the Mothers Against Violence in America; and the Child Welfare League of America;

Even religious organizations like the National Association of Catholic Bishops and the American Academy of Episcopal Churches support renewing the ban.

Finally, more then 100 mayors across America have written to Senator Feinstein or myself in support of this bill.

Mr. SCHUMER. Finally, the tactics.

As I said, this bill is hanging by a thread. The vote is neck and neck.

I would first ask any of you out there in America who are listening to support this ban and to call your Senator. Let them know how you feel because most Americans are overwhelmingly for the bill.

I would say to our President down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: Please. You said you support renewing the ban. Step up to the plate. Help get it passed.

One thing the American people are upset with these days is when any politician says one thing but then does another. To say we shouldn't amend the immunity bill, to say do not lift a finger and help get this ban passed when it is so close, will make the American people, in my opinion, justifiably think the President doesn't want it to pass.

I would again renew my plea to the Vice President that he be available tomorrow. There may well be a tie vote, and he has been a loyal and true servant to the President. We ask him to sit in the Chair you are now sitting in, Mr. President, and cast that vote in favor of renewing the ban.

I hope my colleagues will look into their consciences.

I understand there is a lot of misinformation about this bill. I still have people occasionally who come to me in my State and ask, Why do you want to take away my gun rights? I believe in the right to bear arms. I have opposed abolition of the second amendment, like some of my colleagues from New York on the House side have argued should be done. But if you do not have reasonable laws within the confines of amendment rights, our country wouldn't function.

Again, I urge my colleagues to look into their consciences because we are going to need every vote we can get here to not allow the assault weapons ban to expire, which would be a step backward in America-a step backward for law enforcement, a step backward for safety and, frankly, a step backward in the political discourse of civility and rationality we all prize.

I urge support of the amendment Senators FEINSTEIN, WARNER, DEWINE, and myself will be offering for a vote tomorrow morning at 11:30.

I yield the floor.