June 19, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 103 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Page S3837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              GUN VIOLENCE

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to speak in support of 
legislation to address the ever increasing instances of gun violence 
and to urge our Republican colleagues to finally join us in our effort 
to save lives.
  I became mayor of San Francisco as a result of gun violence, and from 
my first day in the Senate, trying to reduce the number of lives 
needlessly lost to gun violence has been my mission. I authored the 
Federal assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. Since 
that ban expired 15 years ago, the number of mass shootings has risen 
dramatically.
  According to data from Mother Jones, which defines a mass shooting as 
four or more people killed, we have suffered through 77 such massacres, 
leaving 643 dead and 1,055 injured. That is why I have introduced an 
updated assault weapons ban, which will keep weapons of war off of our 
streets. Compared with the 10-year period before the 1994 Federal 
assault weapons ban, the number of gun massacres between 1994 and 2004 
fell by 37 percent. The number of people dying from gun massacres fell 
by 43 percent. The fact is that the assault weapons ban worked.
  Firearms like the AR-15 have become the mass shooter's weapon of 
choice, and they become even more dangerous with the use of 
modifications like bump stocks. We will never forget that, in 2017 in 
Las Vegas, 58 people were killed and 422 wounded in our Nation's worst 
mass shooting.
  Simply put, there is no reason why civilians need weapons like these. 
They are not for protection, and they are not for hunting. They are 
weapons of war designed to take lives, and that is why we need to 
reinstate the assault weapons ban.
  Since 1966, there have been 163 mass shootings with at least four 
people killed; 1,165 people have lost their lives, 189 of whom were 
children or teenagers.
  The statistics on school shootings are even more sobering. Since the 
shooting at Columbine in 1999, there have been 239 school shootings 
nationwide; 302 people have been injured, 144 people killed, and 
228,000 children exposed to gun violence.
  I have said before that I thought things were going to change after 
what happened in Newtown. I still have a framed copy of the Daily News 
cover with the pictures of the beautiful children whose lives were 
taken that day and the headline ``Shame on U.S.,'' for failing to pass 
the assault weapons ban. But things didn't change because my Republican 
colleagues lacked the courage to stand up to the National Rifle 
Association. I hope that can change now and that Senator McConnell will 
finally call up legislation to prevent more lives from being needlessly 
lost, including the lives of our children.
  In addition to reinstating the assault weapons ban, we should be 
doing more. In particular, the Senate should immediately consider the 
Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and 
universal background checks. Each of these bills should be part of a 
comprehensive strategy to prevent further shootings, and we must act 
quickly.
  To that end, I have introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act 
of 2019. This bill would give grants to States to enact extreme-risk 
laws. These are laws that allow family members and law enforcement 
officers to get court orders to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous 
people.
  Fifteen States and the District of Columbia already have extreme-risk 
laws on the books, and they work. San Diego has had particular success 
with California's law. In a little more than a year, that office has 
obtained 126 orders and confiscated 318 guns, including 33 assault 
weapons.
  Earlier this year, I received a letter from the San Diego city 
attorney. Here is an excerpt from that letter: ``Our office has found 
California's red flag law to be a powerful tool for protecting 
residents and police officers from senseless gun violence. Gun-rights 
advocates closely monitor our work; they have yet to bring to our 
attention a case where they believe the GVRO was improperly granted.'' 
Simply put, extreme-risk laws protect due process, and they save lives.
  Similarly, the Violence Against Women Act, which has already passed 
the House, addresses gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of 
domestic abusers. It does this in three ways. First, the bill makes it 
a Federal crime for someone under an ex parte domestic violence order 
to possess a firearm. An ex parte hearing means that the abuser is not 
there, but there are still due process protections. The judge must 
still consider evidence, and the order itself is only temporary. These 
sorts of orders are only issued in the most dangerous situations, which 
is why it is so important that we ensure these sorts of abusers cannot 
purchase or possess firearms while the order is in place.
  Second, it closes the so-called boyfriend loophole. This is an 
important update to the law so that, if someone is convicted of 
committing domestic violence against the person he or she is dating, 
they cannot possess firearms. These are situations where someone has 
already been convicted of committing an act of domestic violence. The 
presence of firearms in domestic violence situations raises the chance 
that someone will die by 500 percent. Preventing this is common sense.
  Third and finally, the House bill prohibits people convicted of 
stalking from possessing a firearm. Once again, this means someone has 
already been convicted in a court of repeatedly following and harassing 
someone else.
  For me, there is no question that domestic abusers should be barred 
from purchasing or possessing firearms.
  There was a recent article in the Washington Post titled, ``The 
latest shooting attacks show how the U.S. stands apart from the world. 
It ends with the line: ``It may not be possible to completely replicate 
Australia's success, but why there has been no effort even to try is a 
question that puts national lawmakers to shame.''
  I agree. It is far past time for my Republican colleagues to join me 
in passing commonsense gun reform. It is far past time to act, and we 
are needlessly losing more lives every day to gun violence.
  Thank you.

                          ____________________