The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THROTTLING CRIMINAL USE OF GUNS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H10329-H10331 on Oct. 9, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THROTTLING CRIMINAL USE OF GUNS
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill ( S. 191) to throttle criminal use of guns, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 191
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.
(a) In General.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c)'' and all that follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(c)(1)(A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime
(including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime--
``(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
``(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
``(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.
``(B) If the firearm possessed by a person convicted of a violation of this subsection--
``(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or
``(ii) is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years.
``(C) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, the person shall--
``(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years; and
``(ii) if the firearm involved is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
``(i) a court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this subsection; and
``(ii) no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during which the firearm was used, carried, or possessed.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `brandish' means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3559(c)(2)(F)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
``firearms possession (as described in section 924(c));'' after ``firearms use;''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
General Leave
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the Senate bill, S. 191.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am proud today to bring S. 191 before the House. With the passage of this legislation, we take an important step in the battle against firearm violence in America. Support of this legislation today offers Members an opportunity to send a clear message to violent predators that the criminal use of guns will not be tolerated.
The Senate passed S. 191 on November 13, 1997, and the House passed its companion legislation, H.R. 424, on February 24 of this year by a vote of 350 to 59.
The version I now bring to the floor represents a compromise between the House and the Senate. This legislation will have a significant impact on the number of violent criminals behind bars, and I am extremely pleased that we are able to come to an agreement before adjournment.
Madam Speaker, criminals who use firearms to commit violent crimes and drug trafficking offenses demonstrate the ultimate indifference to human life. The risks for law enforcement, and the potential for harm to innocent bystanders, are dramatically increased when criminals wield guns.
Criminals who carry guns while committing serious crimes are making a clear and unequivocal statement to the world, I will hurt you or kill you if you get in my way. Such persons should be punished severely, and that is what this legislation will do.
Consider these frightening facts. According to the National Institute of Justice, 37 percent of arrestees in 11 major urban areas admitted to owning a gun. Even more astonishing, and terrifying for the country, is that a shocking 42 percent of admitted drug sellers and 50 percent of admitted gang members further confess to using a gun to commit a crime. Madam Speaker, these are just the ones who are willing to admit to such criminal behavior.
S. 191 amends section 924(c) of title 18 of the United States Code. Currently, that section allows for additional time in prison for any person who uses or carries a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.
Section 924(c) is a very significant and frequently used tool for Federal prosecutors. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, there were 10,576 defendants sentenced from 1991 to 1996 under this section.
This is an opportunity for the Federal authorities to take somebody who is a known criminal off the streets and lock them up for a considerable period of time by an enhanced penalty provision that all of us should be pleased to have on the books.
But in December of 1995, the Supreme Court significantly limited the effective use of this Federal statute by holding in Bailey versus the United States that in order to receive the penalty enhancement for use of a firearm, the government must demonstrate active employment of the firearm. In so stating, the Supreme Court overturned the Justice Department's long-standing practice of applying this penalty to dangerous criminals whose firearms further or advance their criminal activities.
The impact caused by the Bailey decision was immediate. Federal prosecutors have been less able to utilize this section of the code. Moreover, drug dealers and other bad actors have been successful in having their convictions overturned on the basis of an erroneous jury instruction regarding the ``use'' prong of the ``use or carry'' test.
This legislation clarifies Congress' intent as to the type of criminal conduct which should trigger the statute's application. The bill strikes the now unworkable ``use or carry'' element of the statute, and replaces it with a structure which allows the penalty enhancement for possessing, brandishing, or discharging a firearm during and in relation to a Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.
It is also important to note that this bill will not affect any person who merely possesses a firearm in the general vicinity of a crime, nor will it impact someone who uses a gun in self-defense.
A bill containing nearly identical language to H.R. 424 passed the House in the last Congress, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) introduced the bill that we have taken up before previously this year, H.R. 424, during the first days of the 105th Congress. I am very grateful for her for her continued dedication to ensuring the passage of this legislation.
Section 924(c) is a critical tool in our fight against gun-toting criminals. Yes, this is a tough bill, but I believe it is exactly what we need in response to the menacing threat of the vicious gun crimes that are committed around the country.
{time} 1910
We need to pass this bill. It is, as I said earlier, a compromise with the Senate, it is a good bill, it is a solid bill, it corrects the Bailey problem and will allow law enforcement to once again use this very effective tool for locking up criminals and throwing away the key for a long period of time if they are using a gun, possessing in the course of a crime a gun, or certainly brandishing or discharging that gun.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to the bill, S. 191, which is similar to a piece of legislation, H.R. 424, passed by this body earlier this Congress. That version contained penalties for drug offenders which were 6 times greater than the penalty for rape and 7 times greater than the penalty for voluntary manslaughter. Although the Senate version is not as egregious as that, I still cannot in good conscience vote for a measure containing ridiculous mandatory minimums.
I oppose this legislation for several reasons, the most important of which is the absolutely outrageous mandatory minimum penalties attached to the bill. Five years for possession of a gun, 7 years for brandishing a gun, and 10 years for discharging the gun. This means if someone is convicted of possessing 5 grams of crack and is found to have possessed a gun at the time, he will receive a mandatory 5-year sentence for the crack and another 5 years for the gun, a total of 10 years. If that individual opens a coat to display a gun tucked in under his belt during the course of a drug sale, he will receive a mandatory 7-year sentence in addition to the 5 years for crack, for a total of 12 years.
Let us compare these penalties to the penalties for other crimes. For instance, voluntary manslaughter carries a penalty of 5 years; aggregated assault, less than 2 years; assaulted with intent to murder, less than 3\1/2\ years; rape, under 6 years; kidnapping, approximately 4 years. Does that make sense? Two years for serious assault, 3\1/2\ years for assault with intent to murder, 4 years for kidnapping, 6 years for rape, and 10 years mandatory minimum for possessing a gun in connection with a small-time crack sale where no one is injured. This type of legislation and these ludicrous penalties demonstrate that we have truly run amok when it comes to crime legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this is why we have a Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission can take the politics out of sentencing and put some common sense in. So I urge my colleagues to demonstrate some common sense and vote against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the author of this fine legislation.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 191. This is Senator Jesse Helms' companion to my H.R. 424, which passed the House on February 24 by an overwhelming vote of 350-to-589. As written, the Federal Criminal Code imposes a 5-year mandatory sentence when a felon uses or carries a firearm during the Commission of a violent crime or a drug trafficking offense.
In the 1995 case of Bailey v. United States, though, the Supreme Court interpreted the word ``carry'' in the Federal criminal code to mean that a felon must fire or brandish his weapon. This is clearly contrary to Congress's intent, and it has resulted in the early release of hundreds of dangerous criminals.
To put a stop to this mess, S. 191 clarifies that a criminal who possesses a gun while committing a violent crime or a drug crime will face a mandatory sentence. And at the same time, the bill increases the mandatory sentence for such crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I am a strong defender of the second amendment, but no American has a right to go out and use a gun to commit a crime.
Indeed, the National Rifle Association has endorsed S. 191 because they recognize the best way to protect our second amendment rights is to punish those who use their guns to rape or murder or traffic in drugs. The bill also has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association.
The message is clear: Commit a crime while possessing or brandishing a firearm, and you will go to prison for a very long time. We cannot send that message too strongly or too often.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out as we close the debate on this that the minimum mandatory sentence in this bill for possession will be 5 years. The minimum mandatory for brandishing the firearm will be 7 years; the minimum mandatory for discharging the firearm in the commission of another crime will be 10 years. Those are enhancements on top of my underlying sentence for a crime that is committed with a gun, and in the case of a subsequent or second conviction of brandishing or discharging, it is 25 years.
I think it is important to put that on the record, because this is the compromise that is different, considerably different from the House version and different from the Senate version as well.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) that the House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 191, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
