Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

Mr. President, as we gain perspective on the recent horrific shooting in Aurora, CO, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and on all those who have been impacted by this tragedy. I, like many Americans, have been uplifted by the many examples of courage and heroism that have emerged from this dark moment. A young woman refusing to leave her injured friend, pulling her out of harm's way. A man giving his life to shield a loved one. A 19- year-old stepping back into danger to rescue a mother and her two young daughters. These stories and the others that will almost certainly emerge as time goes on serve as powerful reminders of the simple decency that makes our Nation strong.

But as we reflect on these stories, it is also important that we begin to understand what caused or contributed to this heinous act. When the alleged shooter burst into the theater, he opened fire on the audience with an AR-15 assault rifle. The AR-15 is a type of military- style assault weapon, built for no purpose other than combat. According to the Congressional Research Service, they were designed in the aftermath of the Second World War to give soldiers a weapon suited for the modern battlefield. Such weapons often use high-capacity ammunition magazines, which allow shooters to continuously fire rounds without reloading. It has been reported that the alleged shooter used an oversized drum magazine, which reports have indicated could fire 100 rounds without reloading.

Between 1994 and 2004, a Federal ban prohibited the purchase of assault weapons. The idea was that if we took lethal weapons with no sporting purpose off the streets, it would make our society safer and protect American lives. Our law enforcement community strongly supported it. And it worked. After the ban was enacted, Brady Campaign studies observed a 66 percent decrease in the number of assault weapons that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ATF, traced back to a crime scene. When assault weapons were taken off the market, our Nation became safer. But, unfortunately, Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004, and repeated efforts to reinstate it have been unsuccessful.

So this past May, when the alleged gunman walked into a local gun shop, he was able to purchase an AR-15 assault rifle. The sale was completely

legal. Two months later, he used that same weapon to open fire on a movie theater, filled with innocent people. The oversized ammunition magazine allowed him to fire continuously. Thankfully, the weapon jammed during the attack, and he was forced to switch to one of the other three firearms he had purchased, legally, in the preceding weeks. He killed 12 and injured 58. Some were fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. They were all individuals with plans and dreams. Some were members of our armed services, who had volunteered to fight for our country.

Mr. President, as elected officials, our greatest responsibility is to protect the lives of the American people. A renewal of the Federal ban on assault weapons would help keep these combat weapons off our streets and out of our neighborhoods. It would prevent them from getting into the hands of criminals who can legally buy them today or who can easily secure a straw purchaser to do so. They aren't used to hunt; they are too often used to kill. I urge my colleagues to reinstate the Federal ban on assault weapons and to take up and pass legislation like S. 32, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which would prohibit the sale of military-style ammunition cartridges. We can honor the memory of those who lost their lives in Aurora in many ways--one would be by passing such legislation.

Mr. President, our Nation reached an important milestone over the past few years. In 2010, according to a recent report by the Violence Policy Center, motor-vehicle-related fatalities dropped to their lowest level in decades, a 72 percent decrease in deaths per miles traveled from 1966 levels. But not all of the report's findings are encouraging. While our roads have become safer, other aspects of American life have become more dangerous. Over that same period, firearm-related deaths steadily increased around the country. In fact, in 2009, firearm-related fatalities exceeded motor vehicle fatalities in 10 States, and current trends indicate that firearm violence statistics are only getting worse. Congress has the ability to protect lives with commonsense safety legislation, just as it did with motor vehicle safety measures. But it has recently lacked the will.

In the 1960s, this Nation confronted a public health crisis on its streets and highways. Over 40,000 people died from motor vehicle crashes in 1960 alone. A 1999 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that from 1960 to 1966 this crash death rate ballooned from 49.2 to 55 deaths per billion miles of travel. In response, Congress took action by creating the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, which it charged with the responsibility of developing and implementing vehicle safety initiatives.

In the decades since, the NHTSA has spearheaded numerous efforts that have saved and will continue to save countless lives. Today, we take things like vehicle head rests, energy-absorbing steering wheels, shatter-resistant windshields, and seat belts for granted. We expect our roads to have clearly delineated lanes, guardrails, and adequate lighting. But many of these things would not exist if Congress hadn't taken action to protect the public from the dangers of unregulated motorways.

Just like congressional action made our roads safer, countless studies have shown that commonsense gun safety legislation would protect our homes, our schools, and our families from violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2009, guns killed more than 30,000 Americans and injured over 65,000. But despite these statistics, Congress has done little to address this public health crisis. Today, almost anyone, including convicted felons or the mentally ill, can walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from a private dealer without any background check. Others can walk into a gun shop and walk out with military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, weapons with no sporting purposes.

Legislation has been introduced in this Congress that would address both of these issues and would make our society safer. I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2011, S.35, and the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices Act, S.32, bills that would close this gun show loophole and prevent the sale of military-style ammunition cartridges. Congress should take up and pass these measures. We should act, like we did in the 1960s, to protect American lives with commonsense safety legislation. The price of doing nothing is just too high.

Mr. President, as the 112th Congress returns after the election, we should consider this important question: Have we done our share to help prevent gun violence? Statistics from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence give a clear answer--no. Almost 100,000 people die as the result of gun violence in America every single year. This statistic includes 12,000 people who are murdered, 18,000 who commit suicide, and 20,000 under the age of 20. On average, 270 people are shot in the United States every single day.

Our society faces an epidemic of gun violence. Consider stories that have gone largely unreported in recent months: Near Chicago, a 16-year- old was shot twice in the head while riding in a car on her way home. A staff member on a prominent university's medical campus accidentally discharged his handgun at work and injured two people. And on election day, a parolee in California walked into the plant where he worked, methodically murdered two of his coworkers, and wounded another two before shooting himself.

Stories like these flash across newspapers for a few days or weeks, and then the national spotlight moves on. But we cannot forget that while reporters may leave, the tragic effects of gun violence linger. They forever alter the lives of good, talented young people, like Ashley Moser, who lost her 6-year-old daughter in the horrific movie theater attack in Aurora, CO. She is partially paralyzed now and faces significant health problems and medical bills. But even after this nightmare, Congress did nothing to prevent guns from falling into the hands of would-be killers.

Congress has the power to act to prevent more of these tragedies. We can take up and pass legislation like S.32, which would prohibit the purchase of the same types of high-capacity magazines that allowed the shooter in Aurora to hurt so many people, so quickly. We could enact S.35, the Gun Show Loophole Act of 2011, which would close the ``gun show loophole'' by requiring

all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct a Brady criminal background check on prospective purchasers. We could take up and pass S.34, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011, which would close the ``terror gap'' by authorizing the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm when an FBI background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist. These are commonsense measures that would protect the American people by reducing firearm violence in our society.

Mr. President, it was over a month ago that a woman named Nina Gonzalez stood at the second Presidential debate and asked President Obama and Governor Romney a simple question: What would they do to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals?

So, as the 112th Congress returns, we have some important unfinished business. There are few tasks before us more important than enacting measures that would help prevent tragedies like the ones occurring far too often around our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 32) to authorize the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 470, an Act to further allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 is an enrolling correction for H.R. 470, bipartisan legislation introduced by our Nevada colleague, Dr. Joe Heck.

Dr. Heck's bill, which allocates hydropower generated at Hoover Dam to a number of utilities in California, Arizona, and Nevada, has been passed by both the House and the Senate. However, some in the Senate insisted that a number of technical changes needed to be made to the bill even though the affected agency indicated that it could implement H.R. 470 as passed by both Chambers.

Nevertheless, we'll not object to this enrolling resolution making such technical changes because the base legislation is important for that area. So I urge adoption of this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. LUJAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

On October 18, the Senate approved H.R. 470, the Hoover Allocation Power Act of 2011, by unanimous consent. The Senate also approved Concurrent Resolution 32, which authorizes the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make small technical changes to the enrolled version of H.R. 470.

We fully support the proposed changes to H.R. 470 and urge adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.