[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 41 (Friday, March 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2674-H2701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1045

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Barr] the hearings the gentleman is talking about had nothing to 
do with the bill that is on the floor today. Maybe the gentleman 
remembers it or maybe he forget it, but to represent that we have had 
these hearings, that this has been considered in the manner that the 
gentleman suggests, is not quite accurate, sir. That is why I take this 
time to point that out. Sorry the gentleman was not paying attention.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, there are not many times, but there are 
some times when the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, and I agree. This is one of these times that I 
strongly agree, and I think just as strongly as the gentleman from New 
York on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my remarks basically to those 
Members that were not here in August 1994 and September 1994, because 
those that were know how they voted and know why they voted, and 
basically it is the same vote. However, those who were not here in 1994 
know that if they do not know much about guns, I think Members should 
educate themselves before they vote on this issue. I would like to help 
them just a little bit.
  In the first place, these guns that were banned, the few semi-
automatics that were banned are no different, are no different from the 
semi-automatic that I use every year that I go hunting for deer in 
Missouri in my district. They work the very same way. They just look 
different. They are no different, they are no different. They were in 
that same bill in 1994 that banned a few semi-automatics that they call 
assault weapons, that are not, Mr. Speaker, they are not. I can tell 
the Members why in a minute.
  Look at that list. Those are the ones that the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer] and all the other ones say, ``These are okay. These 
are fine.'' There are Uzis on there. Yes, there are Uzis on here. They 
are fine. There are all kinds of semi-automatics on here. Every one of 
them are semi-automatics. They are fine. The only difference is the way 
they look.
  Mr. Speaker, I can take my deer rifle, and if I paint it black and if 
I put a metal folding stock on it, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer] would say that it should be banned because of the way it 
looks. The ones that were banned, all these semi-automatics, look bad. 
They look like they might be a military weapon, but they are not a 
military weapon.
  I would just like to tell those Members that have not voted on this, 
Mr. Speaker, have no fear. What was done in 1994 in the crime bill has 
necessitated some of us to be here to fight to try and save other 
programs. But one thing that was done in 1994 in that crime bill that 
has not stopped any crime was the ban on semi-automatic rifles. It has 
not stopped any crime. The FBI will tell you, less than 1 percent of 
the crimes are used with these weapons.
  I would like to ask the Members, what is the difference between a 
ball bat that is red and one that is black and one that is just plain 
clear wood? Is there any difference? I do not know of any difference. 
They all hit the ball. If you have the right batter, they can do home 
runs. Another batter might just hit a single, but they are all the 
same.
  If I take that ball bat, that black one, it looks ugly. I should not 
let a batter use it because it is ugly. That is what the ban is all 
about, no different. Ball bats are all the same. These semi-automatic 
rifles are all the same, but the ones that have been banned, they just 
do not look good. That is why the gun banners say they should be 
banned.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers.]
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of rhetoric Members are 
going to get all day. We are going to constantly get the baseball bat 
analogy and a lot of other silliness, when the fact of the matter is 
that this list was shortened because of the people that support the NRA 
that made us shorten the list. We wanted a longer line. Now that we do 
not have it, well, it should be a lot longer. Why is it not a lot 
longer?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, who was in charge? He was not 
allowed, his Democrat leadership did not allow him?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I just heard the most idiotic statement I 
have ever heard here. I really have. None of us had anything to do with 
this list. It was the proponents. There, the

[[Page H2675]]

gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and the gentlewoman in the 
Senate, the gentlewoman from California, made up this list, nobody 
else. They did not have to have a list. They could have had every 
semiautomatic and tried to ban it. They would not have succeeded.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I am 
yielding to Democrats on both sides of the issue. There are some 
Democrats who agree with this legislation and some who oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, this notion that we cannot 
make a difference because if we ban so many, we are not banning all of 
them, or if you cannot save all crime, you are not going to try to save 
any at all, is just bogus.
  Our responsibility in this House is to do what we are able to do. 
That is our responsibility. If we are able to save anyone's life 
because we ban these weapons of war that spray bullets and kill people 
indiscriminately, then we should do so. I cannot believe in this House, 
a week after the kids were mowed down in Scotland, that you have the 
nerve to bring this bill up.
  In the opening of this debate, you said we should have known about 
this bill before we were elected to the 104th Congress. I will tell 
you, we knew about this bill. Americans knew about this bill, my family 
knew about this bill. We did not have to read the NRA questionnaire to 
know about this bill. Families like mine all across this country know 
all too well what damage weapons can do, and you want to arm our people 
even more. You want to add more magazines to the assault weapons so 
they can spray and kill even more people.
  Shame on you. What in the world are you thinking when you are opening 
up the debate on this issue? Mr. Speaker, this is nothing but a sham, 
to come on this floor and say you are going to have an open and fair 
debate about assault weapons. My God, all I have to say to you is, play 
with the devil, die with the devil.
  There are families out there, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman will 
never know what it is like, because they do not have someone in their 
family killed. It is not the person who is killed, it is the whole 
family that is affected.
  Furthermore, people will say, and I have heard this argument already, 
this is not effective because it is not cutting crime, you are not 
cutting crime. That is the wrong question. It is not about cutting 
crime, it is about cutting the number of people who get killed by these 
assault weapons. You are asking the wrong question. It is not about 
crime, it is about the families and victims of crime. That is what we 
are advocating, in prosposing this ban. That is why we should keep this 
ban in place.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman leaves the floor, and I have a 
great respect for he and his family, but I am going to tell him 
something, when he stands up and questions the integrity of those of us 
that have this bill on the floor, the gentleman ought to be a little 
more careful. Let me tell you why.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Tell me why.
  Mr. SOLOMON. My wife lives alone 5 days a week in a rural area in 
upstate New York. She has a right to defend herself when I am not 
there, and don't you ever forget it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. You know the facts about this. You have 
guns in the home that are going to be used against your own family 
members. You know what the evidence is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The 
gentleman from New York has the time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VOLKMER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Following the previous speaker, the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy], who spoke so eloquently, I will agree, there was, 
I heard and I saw, because I turned and saw, there was applause and 
clapping in the galleries. We have rules in this House concerning that. 
I would like for the Chair to address the gallery and inform them of 
the rules of the House.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House; that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Bob Barr, one of the sponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker on the other side speaks very 
loudly, if not eloquently, but some of his analogies, some of his terms 
are rather confusing. He talks about the devil. The devil is the person 
with a gun in his hand who murders anybody in this country. That is the 
devil. That is the person to which this legislation today is aimed. It 
is the devil in Scotland who murdered 16 children and their teacher in 
a country that bans virtually every type of weapon, every type of 
handgun. That is no guarantee of anything. We must have this 
legislation to protect against exactly what the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is talking about.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  (Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, why are we here? It is 
murderously irresponsible for this House to take up this action today. 
There are only two forces in this country that want us to consider this 
measure: The National Rifle Association, and the Republican leadership 
of this House.
  When I go back to my district, I go through the grocery stores and I 
do not have anybody stopping me and saying, ``Mr. Barrett, Mr. Barrett, 
we have to get those AK-47's back on the street.'' When I take my son 
to preschool, I do not have anybody saying, ``Mr. Barrett, Mr. Barrett, 
we have to get those Uzis back on the playgrounds.'' When I go to 
church, I do not have anybody stop me and say, ``We have to get those 
Tech-9's back in the hands of those criminals.''
  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] talks about the devil, the 
devil does this. You can give the devil his due, but do not give the 
devil then an assault weapon. It is wrong to put those weapons into the 
arms of people who want to kill Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a chance today to do what is right. We have a 
chance today to say to the NRA, take your money, take your money. We do 
not want it in our campaigns. You want to buy us, lock, stock, and 
barrel? No. We do not want your blood money, because it is murderously 
irresponsible to put AK-47's on the streets of America. It is 
murderously irresponsible to put Uzis on playgrounds in this country. 
It is murderously irresponsible to put street sweepers on Long Island 
trains.
  Mr. Speaker, let us end this carnage. Let us end what happened in San 
Francisco. Let us end what happened in Long Island. Let us make sure 
that we do not have a Scotland situation in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, to do that, we only have to do one thing today. That is 
to say no to the NRA. It is something that 70 percent of the people in 
this country want us to do, and it is something that every single 
Member of this body should do today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Albuquerque, NM, Mr. Steve Schiff, one of the most 
qualified men to serve in this body because of his prior experience 
before he came, and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the 
bill.
  During the period of time I have been in the U.S. Congress, I have 
voted both for and against gun control. I have found each vote to be 
inherently controversial, because this is a very difficult issue. I 
have, however, never seen an issue in which there was so much 
misinformation being cast about. I

[[Page H2676]]

think there are two serious areas of information about the kinds of 
weapons we are talking about here.
  To begin with, Mr. Speaker, they are not assault weapons. Assault 
weapons are automatic weapons; that means a machinegun or 
submachinegun; pull the trigger, and the gun continues to fire for as 
long as it has bullets. Indeed, I have seen national news programs 
where they are talking about this bill, and they are showing the public 
fully automatic weapons.
  Not one of the weapons we are talking about in this bill is an 
assault weapon. Not one of the weapons we are talking about in this 
bill is an automatic weapon. They are not AK-47's and Uzis of the 
automatic type. But that is what the public has been told over and over 
again, and would like to believe.
  The fact is that each of these firearms shoots one bullet with one 
pull of the trigger. There is no functional difference between any of 
the firearms that are mistakenly, I think deliberately, mistakenly 
called assault weapons in this bill, and weapons which are not called 
assault weapons. In fact, the way this bill describes assault weapons, 
or I should say, real assault weapons, real automatic weapons, 
machineguns, submachineguns, have been regulated for decades, and I 
think they ought to be.

                              {time}  1100

  I do not propose to change that. The weapons we are talking about 
here are called assault weapons mistakenly based upon their appearance.
  For example, if a certain rifle has the ability to carry a bayonet, 
under this existing legislation that makes it an assault weapon. I 
invite the next speaker who is speaking against our bill and in favor 
of the current legislation to explain how if a weapon can carry a 
bayonet it is somehow more lethal as a firearm. But none of the 
speakers for the legislation are going to talk about that because they 
want to mislead the American people into believing we are talking about 
something different than bayonets. But that is exactly what we are 
talking about.
  I was a career prosecutor before I had the privilege of being elected 
to the House of Representatives, and during all the years I was 
prosecuting criminals, none of them ever led a bayonet charge.
  So I hope it can be explained rationally why saying that a bayonet on 
a weapon or the ability to carry a bayonet should make it illegal.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I agree 100 percent with the gentleman that 
it has been a misstatement all along that these are assault weapons.
  I do not believe that even the opponents of the legislation, the 
proponents of the ban, would ever think about sending our troops into 
Bosnia and all around the world with this type of weapon.
  In every place they go, even in Third-World countries, they are going 
to be outfought in any firefight because those people have real assault 
weapons. Those are the automatics. None of these are automatics.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is exactly correct. The 
misimplication is being made that these are automatic weapons, that 
these are machineguns and submachine guns. It just is not true.
  They are weapons that have certain visual characteristics like in 
being able to carry a bayonet which has no meaning as a firearm but 
that is what makes it illegal under the current legislation, which 
makes no sense to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up one other issue that I think has been 
confused, and, that is, statistics about how often these weapons as 
opposed to other firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
  I asked Director Magaw that question in a letter several months ago. 
He is Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He 
responded that the U.S. Government does not keep official records of 
how many of the weapons they are calling assault weapons are used in 
crimes, so he could give me no information. Yet 2 days ago, I saw in 
USA Today the statement that the ATF says that 10 percent of all 
violent crimes use these weapons. Apparently that came from some group 
that supports the current legislation giving that information to a 
reporter.
  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms denies that statement. 
They do not support it.
  And so there is no credible information being kept about whether 
these firearms are used in crimes any more than any other kind of 
firearm. Of course since they all shoot the same, they are all going to 
function the same, anyway. But I think it is significant to note that 
an administration that says these firearms are more deadly than other 
firearms does not keep official records of are they used in crimes.
  I think there is a place for gun control in crime fighting. The best 
law we have on the books is a law that has been on the books for many 
years. It is a Federal crime for a convicted felon to have possession 
of a firearm, any firearm. It does not matter what kind. But that law 
has not been strongly enforced by this administration or by the last 
two administrations.
  As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have tried to get 
the Clinton administration to agree to prosecute all convicted felons 
found in possession of a firearm. They refuse to do it.
  As a member of Judiciary, I then tried to get the Clinton 
administration to set a minimum standard to say, for example, that if a 
convicted felon was released in the last year from a penitentiary for a 
violent crime, then if that person is caught with a firearm, guarantee 
to prosecute that person. They refuse to guarantee it.
  We have two suspects for a horrendous series of five homicides. Every 
homicide is horrendous, but we have five homicides in which we have two 
suspects. Both of these suspects were recently released from the 
penitentiary. Both of these suspects were in the possession of 
firearms, and these are the kinds of people that the Federal Government 
will not prosecute until it is too late. They should be prosecuted when 
they are found with a firearm.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support 
of repealing this ban.
  There is a lot of emotion to this argument and justifiably and 
understandably so. I think there also need to be some facts and some 
statistics if you are going to write policy in the halls of this House.
  There is a lot of reference to Scotland, a tragedy that is seared in 
the minds of all of us. Let us talk about Scotland for a second. Great 
Britain has some of the tightest and most restrictive gun control laws 
in the world. Great Britain requires a permit for any type of firearm. 
In Scotland, the person who committed those atrocities was apparently 
carrying four handguns, not the type of firearm at all at issue on the 
floor of this House. That person had been issued permits despite the 
fact that he had clear mental problems.
  There are some times you cannot control it. That is what happened in 
Scotland. But that should not be an issue here on this floor.
  The reason I support repealing this ban, I guess are the same reasons 
I made when I argued against the ban 2 years ago. This is not what you 
need to fight crime.
  The statistics are quite clear on this. If you want to look at the 
FBI or the Bureau of Justice statistics, this type of firearm at most 
is used in 3 percent and most say around 1 percent of all crimes.
  Does anyone really feel there has been a significant difference 
because these firearms are statistically or theoretically banned? I do 
not think so.
  If this has been so effective, then there must have been a wave of 
prosecutions against those who manufacture or possess or transfer these 
firearms. How many prosecutions have there been since 1994, since this 
was passed? One. One prosecution pending today in this country. That is 
not in my State or in your State. For the entire country.
  My concern with this legislation is it is cosmetic, that this ban on 
so-called assault weapons is cosmetic. Two firearms that shoot the same 
bullet at the same speed, the same velocity with the same impact. And 
they are semiautomatic. That means that they fire a bullet with each 
pull of the trigger.

[[Page H2677]]

  They are not machineguns. They are not automatic. They are 
semiautomatic. Yet one is banned and one is not. That is cosmetic 
legislation and we do not need it here on the floor of the House.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time.
   Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the different speakers all 
talk about different statistics, one saying one thing, another person 
saying another thing. That is why I am so disappointed that we have 
this rule on the floor and we are voting on the issue without having 
public hearings. We are not experts in law enforcement. The experts in 
law enforcement should have had an opportunity to come before this 
Congress and give us their best information as to how the assault 
weapon ban is working, so that we could vote intelligently on the 
subject so we could have that debate in our committees where we should 
have it.
  What are we afraid of? Bringing the experts before us?
  The assault weapon ban is a reasonable attempt at trying to get 
weapons out of the hands of people who want to cause harm and kill our 
citizens. It is a reasonable effort to have less guns on the street, 
less assault weapons on the street. It has saved lives and will 
continue to save lives.
  It represents a minimal inconvenience to law-abiding citizens, a 
minimal inconvenience to save lives on the streets. It was a reasonable 
effort.
  In my State of Maryland, we have statistics from our law enforcement 
people showing it has worked, that it has reduced the number of crimes 
in Baltimore. It has worked with State laws that we have passed working 
together to try to get guns out of the hands of criminals. That is what 
this is about.
  It is beyond me that we want to in a couple of hours repeal the 
assault weapon ban without giving the public an opportunity to be heard 
on the subject as to the specific legislation that we have before us. 
That is not what this legislation is all about. That is not what this 
Congress is all about.
  If we differ on the underlying facts, why do we not have the public 
hearings before this Congress in order to get the facts before us 
before we are called upon to vote?
  I think we all understand the reason why we are not going to be 
afforded that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
legislation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill before us does two things. Yes, it repeals a gun ban; but, 
yes, it increases penalties for those law-breakers who use guns in the 
course of a violent Federal crime. The reason that language is in here 
is because of two Members, one named Fred Heineman of North Carolina 
but primarily this gentleman I am going to introduce, Jon Christensen 
of Omaha, NE. His bill the Hard Time for Gun Crimes Act, contains this 
legislation. It is because of him that it is in here today. I commend 
him for it.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. It 
is with that that I rise today in strong support of this rule, this 
balanced rule that I believe will send a strong message to those 
criminals in America who continue to prey upon our citizens.
  I believe that this debate will let us focus on the real answer, and, 
that is, that getting tougher on those that prey upon our society will 
not be tolerated any longer.
  Just last week I introduced H.R. 3085, the Hard Time for Gun Crimes 
Act of 1996, which made it clear that anyone who commits a felony with 
a gun should plan on spending the next few decades behind bars, no 
exceptions.
  While my bill provided for stiffer mandatory penalties than the 
measure which we will be debating shortly, it does include my language 
that takes it from a serious Federal violent crime to all Federal 
violent crimes and all drug-related crimes. By adding stiffer 
penalties, though, for the crimes committed with guns, we will be able 
to keep those who prey upon our society behind bars for a long, long 
time instead of being freed by the slick criminal trial lawyers who 
allow these slugs of society to walk our streets because of legal 
technicalities.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for 
allowing us to focus in on the real answer to crime, because I do not 
believe that gun control is crime control. But this rule today will 
allow us to really focus in on what I believe will be an answer to 
America's problems.
  I urge the passage of both this rule and this very important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from nearly 100 police chiefs 
and sheriffs in California begging the Congress not to repeal the 
assault weapons ban. It occurs to me that the police chiefs and the 
sheriffs know a whole lot more about this than the politicians in this 
House who have received contributions from the NRA and who are doing 
the bidding of their funders.
  The police do not want to face off against assault weapons on the 
street, but I think if we vote for this assault weapon ban repeal, we 
are saying it is OK for the police to face off against criminals with 
assault weapons in the course of their jobs.
  Earlier in this Congress we passed the Congressional Accountability 
Act that said we would live by the same rules as those we passed for 
other Americans. So as we consider this bill, what is missing in this 
rule is an amendment to remove the metal detectors from the U.S. 
Capitol. Let us see how we like having citizens armed with assault 
weapons in our gallery. We should do that if we ask police officers to 
live with assault weapons.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
H.R. 125 which would repeal the assault weapons ban. There is 
absolutely no good reason for Congress to repeal this ban. It is 
needed, it works, and the American people support it.
  More than one-third of all police killed with guns from January 1994 
to September 1995 were slain by illegal assault weapons. Although these 
assault weapons account for only 1 percent of privately owned firearms 
in the United States, they are 8 times more likely to be used in crime 
than other guns.
  That is why police chiefs in my district, James Goulart of Belmont, 
CA; Lucy Carlton of Los Altos; Dennis Wick of Half Moon Bay; and Cliff 
Gerst of the San Carlos police department oppose this legislation. Poll 
after poll demonstrates broad support for the assault weapons ban by 
the American people.
  Talk about a beltway mentality. You are not paying attention to the 
American people. This is a march to folly. Barbara Tuckman was right. 
Oppose the rule, oppose the legislation.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we have got a lot of new Members in this 
body, and they are all young and they are out there, and they are real 
fighters. One of those is this gentleman.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this 
time.
  I listened to a very impassioned speech from my office from my fellow 
colleague freshman from Rhode Island, and I had to come down and speak 
to the fact that I totally agree with one of the points that he made, 
and that is that this Congress must do what it can do to end these 
violent crimes in America.
  But that is just the point. What can this Congress do? Well, there 
are things that Congress can do, and there are things explicitly placed 
in our Constitution that speak of those things that Congress cannot do. 
Specifically, the second amendment to the Constitution, which says 
this, and I quote, ``A well-regulated militia being necessary to the 
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
shall not be infringed.''

[[Page H2678]]

  What this, what a majority in this House, did in 1994 and what this 
Government did in 1994 is did what the Constitution said it cannot do. 
It infringed on the right of people to keep and bear arms.
  Today I ask for my colleagues' support on this rule and on this bill 
so that we can undo what this Government did in 1994, what the 
Constitution said that it cannot do.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am appalled.
  We knew that the extreme Republicans made promises to their special 
interest friends. We knew that the NRA has too much influence over this 
Republican Congress.
  But I could not believe that it was this bad. I could not believe 
that that this body would endanger innocent lives.
  Republicans say they want to fight crime. Instead, they fight to put 
military weapons into the hands of common thugs.
  This bill means that more police officers will sacrifice their lives 
to defend our homes--our neighborhoods--our communities. This bill 
means that more innocent children will be gunned down in our Nation's 
streets.
  Our families will give their lives to pay the debt Republicans owe 
their special interest friends. The NRA and their money cannot bring 
back the lives that will be lost--sacrificed to their extreme agenda.
  Reject this radical, this dangerous, this sick, and obscene proposal.
  These weapons are weapons and tools of death, violence, and 
destruction.
  Reject this proposal.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], one of the most respected 
members of this entire body.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the 
measure before the House.
  I rise today to voice my full and absolute support for the repeal of 
President Clinton's gun ban instituted in 1994. I have anxiously 
awaited this opportunity to restore the second amendment rights of all 
Americans, which were unjustifiably stripped away by one of the worst 
laws this country has ever seen. The Constitution deserves far more 
respect than it was afforded when the Clinton gun ban was signed into 
law, and today Congress can and must reaffirm one of the fundamental 
ideals which form the bedrock of our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, it's past time that we junked the laws that sully and 
undermine our second amendment liberties, which our forebears knew to 
be a fundamental part of a free society. Just as free speech, free 
religion, and other guarantees are essential to the future of a free 
people, so too is the freedom to keep and bear arms. All contribute to 
the protection of an individual's basic right to life and liberty.
  The Clinton gun ban is another example of mistaking gun control with 
crime control. There is a problem with guns in this country, but that 
problem does not involve law-abiding citizens and sportsmen. The 
problem is with criminals who trample on our laws and continue to 
threaten our neighborhoods. These are the individuals who must pay for 
their offenses and their complete disregard for the laws of our 
society--not the good people in southern Missouri and throughout 
America. This legislation provides the much needed penalties to punish 
and deter criminal activity.
  I would also like to take a minute to set the record straight on the 
so-called assault weapons targeted by the 1994 law. The firearms 
affected by this law are not at all the extra lethal, military-grade 
instruments that gun ban advocates would have you believe. They are not 
machineguns and they do not spray bullets. The term assault rifle is 
nothing more than misleading rhetoric generated by the anti-gun lobby 
and the liberal media. Fact is, there is no functional difference 
between the semiautomatic firearms prohibited by the Clinton law and 
those that are exempted. The reality is that the gun ban is a part of 
an effort to establish even more stringent controls on firearms that 
are appropriately and legitimately owned by Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation 
in order to return to the people of this country the second amendment 
rights to which they are entitled. We need to hold true to the great 
legacy of our Founding Fathers, and make sure that constitutional 
principles are preserved.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VALAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep disgust 
with the extremist tactics of the Republican majority. Their drive-by 
method of bringing this repeal to the floor is the height of 
irresponsibility.
  You should be ashamed of yourselves, letting the NRA pistol whip you 
again. Stop playing election year politics with people's lives.
  Without the assault weapons ban our city streets will become killing 
fields. Police officers, like the two ambushed in New York City 
yesterday, will be cut down in the line of fire. Children's hopes and 
dreams will be dashed by a spray of bullets. Their blood will be on 
your hands.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth of this vote is that the IRA is collecting its 
GOP IOU. But, today's sneak attack on the American people will not go 
unanswered. Rest assured, next November voters will make a very special 
payback to those who turned on them. I urge all of my colleagues to 
oppose this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, every single rule the House has adopted this 
session has been a restrictive rule; you heard that correctly, the 
Republican House has so far adopted 100 percent restrictive rules in 
this session. And if it is adopted, the rule before us will leave that 
100 percent purely restrictive rules record intact.
  This is the 63d restrictive rule reported out of the Rules Committee 
this Congress.
  In addition, 75 percent of the legislation considered this session 
has not been reported from committee--9 out of 12 measures brought up 
this session have been unreported.
  I include the following material for the Record:

                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Process used for floor   Amendments in
            Bill No.                    Title           Resolution No.         consideration           order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................  Compliance........  H. Res. 6            Closed................           None.
H. Res. 6......................  Opening Day Rules   H. Res. 5            Closed; contained a              None.
                                  Package.                                 closed rule on H.R. 1                
                                                                           within the closed                    
                                                                           rule.                                
H.R. 5*........................  Unfunded Mandates.  H. Res. 38           Restrictive; Motion               N/A.
                                                                           adopted over                         
                                                                           Democratic objection                 
                                                                           in the Committee of                  
                                                                           the Whole to limit                   
                                                                           debate on section 4;                 
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           preference.                          
H.J. Res. 2*...................  Balanced Budget...  H. Res. 44           Restrictive; only              2R; 4D.
                                                                           certain substitutes.                 
H. Res. 43.....................  Committee Hearings  H. Res. 43 (OJ)      Restrictive;                      N/A.
                                  Scheduling.                              considered in House                  
                                                                           no amendments.                       
H.R. 101.......................  To transfer a       H. Res. 51           Open..................            N/A.
                                  parcel of land to                                                             
                                  the Taos Pueblo                                                               
                                  Indians of New                                                                
                                  Mexico.                                                                       
H.R. 400.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 52           Open..................            N/A.
                                  exchange of lands                                                             
                                  within Gates of                                                               
                                  the Arctic                                                                    
                                  National Park                                                                 
                                  Preserve.                                                                     
H.R. 440.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 53           Open..................            N/A.
                                  conveyance of                                                                 
                                  lands to certain                                                              
                                  individuals in                                                                
                                  Butte County,                                                                 
                                  California.                                                                   
H.R. 2*........................  Line Item Veto....  H. Res. 55           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                                                           gets preference.                     
H.R. 665*......................  Victim Restitution  H. Res. 61           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                             gets preference.                     
H.R. 666*......................  Exclusionary Rule   H. Res. 60           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Reform Act of                            gets preference.                     
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 667*......................  Violent Criminal    H. Res. 63           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Incarceration Act                        Time Cap on                          
                                  of 1995.                                 amendments.                          
H.R. 668*......................  The Criminal Alien  H. Res. 69           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Deportation                              gets preference;                     
                                  Improvement Act.                         Contains self-                       
                                                                           executing provision.                 
H.R. 728*......................  Local Government    H. Res. 79           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Law Enforcement                          Time Cap on                          
                                  Block Grants.                            amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 7*........................  National Security   H. Res. 83           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Revitalization                           Time Cap on                          
                                  Act.                                     amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 729*......................  Death Penalty/      N/A                  Restrictive; brought              N/A.
                                  Habeas.                                  up under UC with a 6                 
                                                                           hr. time cap on                      
                                                                           amendments.                          
S. 2...........................  Senate Compliance.  N/A                  Closed; Put on                   None.
                                                                           Suspension Calendar                  
                                                                           over Democratic                      
                                                                           objection.                           

[[Page H2679]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 831.......................  To Permanently      H. Res. 88           Restrictive; makes in              1D.
                                  Extend the Health                        order only the                       
                                  Insurance                                Gibbons amendment;                   
                                  Deduction for the                        Waives all points of                 
                                  Self-Employed.                           order; Contains self-                
                                                                           executing provision.                 
H.R. 830*......................  The Paperwork       H. Res. 91           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reduction Act.                                                                
H.R. 889.......................  Emergency           H. Res. 92           Restrictive; makes in              1D.
                                  Supplemental/                            order only the Obey                  
                                  Rescinding                               substitute.                          
                                  Certain Budget                                                                
                                  Authority.                                                                    
H.R. 450*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 93           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Moratorium.                              Time Cap on                          
                                                                           amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 1022*.....................  Risk Assessment...  H. Res. 96           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                                                           Time Cap on                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 926*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 100          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Flexibility.                                                                  
H.R. 925*......................  Private Property    H. Res. 101          Restrictive; 12 hr.                1D.
                                  Protection Act.                          time cap on                          
                                                                           amendments; Requires                 
                                                                           Members to pre-print                 
                                                                           their amendments in                  
                                                                           the Record prior to                  
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration for                    
                                                                           amendment, waives                    
                                                                           germaneness and                      
                                                                           budget act points of                 
                                                                           order as well as                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           concerning                           
                                                                           appropriating on a                   
                                                                           legislative bill                     
                                                                           against the committee                
                                                                           substitute used as                   
                                                                           base text.                           
H.R. 1058*.....................  Securities          H. Res. 105          Restrictive; 8 hr.                 1D.
                                  Litigation Reform                        time cap on                          
                                  Act.                                     amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference; Makes in                 
                                                                           order the Wyden                      
                                                                           amendment and waives                 
                                                                           germaneness against                  
                                                                           it.                                  
H.R. 988*......................  The Attorney        H. Res. 104          Restrictive; 7 hr.                N/A.
                                  Accountability                           time cap on                          
                                  Act of 1995.                             amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 956*......................  Product Liability   H. Res. 109          Restrictive; makes in          8D; 7R.
                                  and Legal Reform                         order only 15 germane                
                                  Act.                                     amendments and denies                
                                                                           64 germane amendments                
                                                                           from being considered.               
H.R. 1158......................  Making Emergency    H. Res. 115          Restrictive; Combines             N/A.
                                  Supplemental                             emergency H.R. 1158 &                
                                  Appropriations                           nonemergency 1159 and                
                                  and Rescissions.                         strikes the abortion                 
                                                                           provision; makes in                  
                                                                           order only pre-                      
                                                                           printed amendments                   
                                                                           that include offsets                 
                                                                           within the same                      
                                                                           chapter (deeper cuts                 
                                                                           in programs already                  
                                                                           cut); waives points                  
                                                                           of order against                     
                                                                           three amendments;                    
                                                                           waives cl 2 of rule                  
                                                                           XXI against the bill,                
                                                                           cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of                
                                                                           rule XVI against the                 
                                                                           substitute; waives cl                
                                                                           2(e) od rule XXI                     
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments in the                    
                                                                           Record; 10 hr time                   
                                                                           cap on amendments. 30                
                                                                           minutes debate on                    
                                                                           each amendment.                      
H.J. Res. 73*..................  Term Limits.......  H. Res. 116          Restrictive; Makes in           1D; 3R
                                                                           order only 4                         
                                                                           amendments considered                
                                                                           under a ``Queen of                   
                                                                           the Hill'' procedure                 
                                                                           and denies 21 germane                
                                                                           amendments from being                
                                                                           considered.                          
H.R. 4*........................  Welfare Reform....  H. Res. 119          Restrictive; Makes in         5D; 26R.
                                                                           order only 31                        
                                                                           perfecting amendments                
                                                                           and two substitutes;                 
                                                                           Denies 130 germane                   
                                                                           amendments from being                
                                                                           considered; The                      
                                                                           substitutes are to be                
                                                                           considered under a                   
                                                                           ``Queen of the Hill''                
                                                                           procedure; All points                
                                                                           of order are waived                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 1271*.....................  Family Privacy Act  H. Res. 125          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 660*......................  Housing for Older   H. Res. 126          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Persons Act.                                                                  
H.R. 1215*.....................  The Contract With   H. Res. 129          Restrictive; Self                  1D.
                                  America Tax                              Executes language                    
                                  Relief Act of                            that makes tax cuts                  
                                  1995.                                    contingent on the                    
                                                                           adoption of a                        
                                                                           balanced budget plan                 
                                                                           and strikes section                  
                                                                           3006. Makes in order                 
                                                                           only one substitute.                 
                                                                           Waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           bill, substitute made                
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text and Gephardt                    
                                                                           substitute.                          
H.R. 483.......................  Medicare Select     H. Res. 130          Restrictive; waives cl             1D.
                                  Extension.                               2(1)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the bill;                    
                                                                           makes H.R. 1391 in                   
                                                                           order as original                    
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the Dingell                     
                                                                           substitute; allows                   
                                                                           Commerce Committee to                
                                                                           file a report on the                 
                                                                           bill at any time.                    
H.R. 655.......................  Hydrogen Future     H. Res. 136          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1361......................  Coast Guard         H. Res. 139          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Authorization.                           302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Congressional                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration and the                
                                                                           committee substitute;                
                                                                           waives cl 5(a) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against the                 
                                                                           committee substitute.                
H.R. 961.......................  Clean Water Act...  H. Res. 140          Open; pre-printing                N/A.
                                                                           gets preference;                     
                                                                           waives sections                      
                                                                           302(f) and 602(b) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act                       
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; waives                
                                                                           cl 7 of rule XVI, cl                 
                                                                           5(a) of rule XXI and                 
                                                                           section 302(f) of the                
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute. Makes in                 
                                                                           order Shuster                        
                                                                           substitute as first                  
                                                                           order of business.                   
H.R. 535.......................  Corning National    H. Res. 144          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fish Hatchery                                                                 
                                  Conveyance Act.                                                               
H.R. 584.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 145          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fairport National                                                             
                                  Fish Hatchery to                                                              
                                  the State of Iowa.                                                            
H.R. 614.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 146          Open..................            N/A.
                                  New London                                                                    
                                  National Fish                                                                 
                                  Hatchery                                                                      
                                  Production                                                                    
                                  Facility.                                                                     
H. Con. Res. 67................  Budget Resolution.  H. Res. 149          Restrictive; Makes in          3D; 1R.
                                                                           order 4 substitutes                  
                                                                           under regular order;                 
                                                                           Gephardt, Neumann/                   
                                                                           Solomon, Payne/Owens,                
                                                                           President's Budget if                
                                                                           printed in Record on                 
                                                                           5/17/95; waives all                  
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against substitutes                  
                                                                           and concurrent                       
                                                                           resolution; suspends                 
                                                                           application of Rule                  
                                                                           XLIX with respect to                 
                                                                           the resolution; self-                
                                                                           executes Agriculture                 
                                                                           language.                            
H.R. 1561......................  American Overseas   H. Res. 155          Restrictive; Requires             N/A.
                                  Interests Act of                         amendments to be                     
                                  1995.                                    printed in the Record                
                                                                           prior to their                       
                                                                           consideration; 10 hr.                
                                                                           time cap; waives cl                  
                                                                           2(1)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; Also                  
                                                                           waives sections                      
                                                                           302(f), 303(a),                      
                                                                           308(a) and 402(a)                    
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration and the                
                                                                           committee amendment                  
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text; waives cl 5(a)                 
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the amendment;                       
                                                                           amendment                            
                                                                           consideration is                     
                                                                           closed at 2:30 p.m.                  
                                                                           on May 25, 1995. Self-               
                                                                           executes provision                   
                                                                           which removes section                
                                                                           2210 from the bill.                  
                                                                           This was done at the                 
                                                                           request of the Budget                
                                                                           Committee.                           
H.R. 1530......................  National Defense    H. Res. 164          Restrictive; Makes in      36R; 18D; 2
                                  Authorization Act                        order only the            Bipartisan.
                                  FY 1996.                                 amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; waives                   
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the bill,                    
                                                                           substitute and                       
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report. Gives the                
                                                                           Chairman en bloc                     
                                                                           authority. Self-                     
                                                                           executes a provision                 
                                                                           which strikes section                
                                                                           807 of the bill;                     
                                                                           provides for an                      
                                                                           additional 30 min. of                
                                                                           debate on Nunn-Lugar                 
                                                                           section; Allows Mr.                  
                                                                           Clinger to offer a                   
                                                                           modification of his                  
                                                                           amendment with the                   
                                                                           concurrence of Ms.                   
                                                                           Collins.                             
H.R. 1817......................  Military            H. Res. 167          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Construction                             cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                  Appropriations;                          against the bill; 1                  
                                  FY 1996.                                 hr. general debate;                  
                                                                           Uses House passed                    
                                                                           budget numbers as                    
                                                                           threshold for                        
                                                                           spending amounts                     
                                                                           pending passage of                   
                                                                           Budget.                              
H.R. 1854......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 169          Restrictive; Makes in        5R; 4D; 2
                                  Appropriations.                          order only 11             Bipartisan.
                                                                           amendments; waives                   
                                                                           sections 302(f) and                  
                                                                           308(a) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act against the bill                 
                                                                           and cl. 2 and cl. 6                  
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the bill. All points                 
                                                                           of order are waived                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 1868......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 170          Open; waives cl. 2,               N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 5(b), and cl. 6                  
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the bill; makes in                   
                                                                           order the Gilman                     
                                                                           amendments as first                  
                                                                           order of business;                   
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendments; if                       
                                                                           adopted they will be                 
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           original text; waives                
                                                                           cl. 2 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report. Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority (Hall)                      
                                                                           (Menendez) (Goss)                    
                                                                           (Smith, NJ).                         
H.R. 1905......................  Energy & Water      H. Res. 171          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against the bill;                    
                                                                           makes in order the                   
                                                                           Shuster amendment as                 
                                                                           the first order of                   
                                                                           business; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; if adopted                
                                                                           it will be considered                
                                                                           as original text. Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.J. Res. 79...................  Constitutional      H. Res. 173          Closed; provides one              N/A.
                                  Amendment to                             hour of general                      
                                  Permit Congress                          debate and one motion                
                                  and States to                            to recommit with or                  
                                  Prohibit the                             without instructions;                
                                  Physical                                 if there are                         
                                  Desecration of                           instructions, the MO                 
                                  the American Flag.                       is debatable for 1 hr.               
H.R. 1944......................  Recissions Bill...  H. Res. 175          Restrictive; Provides             N/A.
                                                                           for consideration of                 
                                                                           the bill in the                      
                                                                           House; Permits the                   
                                                                           Chairman of the                      
                                                                           Appropriations                       
                                                                           Committee to offer                   
                                                                           one amendment which                  
                                                                           is unamendable;                      
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendment.                           
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)...........  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 177          Restrictive; Provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          for further                          
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the four                        
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the rules report (20                 
                                                                           min. each). Waives                   
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; Prohibits                
                                                                           intervening motions                  
                                                                           in the Committee of                  
                                                                           the Whole; Provides                  
                                                                           for an automatic rise                
                                                                           and report following                 
                                                                           the disposition of                   
                                                                           the amendments.                      
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*......  Interior            H. Res. 185          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act and cl                
                                                                           2 and cl 6 of rule                   
                                                                           XXI; provides that                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Tauzin                   
                                                                           amendment; self-                     
                                                                           executes Budget                      
                                                                           Committee amendment;                 
                                                                           waives cl 2(e) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against                     
                                                                           amendments to the                    
                                                                           bill; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 1977......................  Interior            H.Res. 187           Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          302(f), 306 and                      
                                                                           308(a) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act; waives clauses 2                
                                                                           and 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Tauzin                   
                                                                           amendment; provides                  
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title; self-                      
                                                                           executes Budget                      
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           and makes NEA funding                
                                                                           subject to House                     
                                                                           passed authorization;                
                                                                           waives cl 2(e) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against the                 
                                                                           amendments to the                    
                                                                           bill; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 1976......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 188          Open; waives clauses 2            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          and 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; provides                   
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title; Makes Skeen                
                                                                           amendment first order                
                                                                           of business, if                      
                                                                           adopted the amendment                
                                                                           will be considered as                
                                                                           base text (10 min.);                 
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)...........  Interior            H. Res. 189          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          for the further                      
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; allows only                    
                                                                           amendments pre-                      
                                                                           printed before July                  
                                                                           14th to be                           
                                                                           considered; limits                   
                                                                           motions to rise.                     
H.R. 2020......................  Treasury Postal     H. Res. 190          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; Pre-printing                  
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.J. Res. 96...................  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 193          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  for China.                               for consideration in                 
                                                                           the House of H.R.                    
                                                                           2058 (90 min.) And                   
                                                                           H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).                 
                                                                           Waives certain                       
                                                                           provisions of the                    
                                                                           Trade Act.                           
H.R. 2002......................  Transportation      H. Res. 194          Open; waives cl. 3 0f             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          rule XIII and section                
                                                                           401 (a) of the CBA                   
                                                                           against consideration                
                                                                           of the bill; waives                  
                                                                           cl. 6 and cl. 2 of                   
                                                                           rule XXI against                     
                                                                           provisions in the                    
                                                                           bill; Makes in order                 
                                                                           the Clinger/Solomon                  
                                                                           amendment waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the amendment                
                                                                           (Line Item Veto);                    
                                                                           provides the bill be                 
                                                                           read by title; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority. *RULE                      
                                                                           AMENDED*.                            
H.R. 70........................  Exports of Alaskan  H. Res. 197          Open; Makes in order              N/A.
                                  North Slope Oil.                         the Resources                        
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           in the nature of a                   
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides a                 
                                                                           Senate hook-up with                  
                                                                           S. 395.                              

[[Page H2680]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 2076......................  Commerce, Justice   H. Res. 198          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; Pre-                       
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title.                               
H.R. 2099......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 201          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; Provides                   
                                                                           that the amendment in                
                                                                           part 1 of the report                 
                                                                           is the first                         
                                                                           business, if adopted                 
                                                                           it will be considered                
                                                                           as base text (30                     
                                                                           min.); waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Klug and                 
                                                                           Davis amendments; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title.                            
S. 21..........................  Termination of      H. Res. 204          Restrictive; 3 hours               ID.
                                  U.S. Arms Embargo                        of general debate;                   
                                  on Bosnia.                               Makes in order an                    
                                                                           amendment to be                      
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or a                 
                                                                           designee (1 hr); If                  
                                                                           motion to recommit                   
                                                                           has instructions it                  
                                                                           can only be offered                  
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or a designee.                
H.R. 2126......................  Defense             H. Res. 205          Open; waives cl.                  N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           and section 306 of                   
                                                                           the Congressional                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; waives cl. 2                   
                                                                           and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; self-                      
                                                                           executes a strike of                 
                                                                           sections 8021 and                    
                                                                           8024 of the bill as                  
                                                                           requested by the                     
                                                                           Budget Committee; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title.                               
H.R. 1555......................  Communications Act  H. Res. 207          Restrictive; waives        2R/3D/3 Bi-
                                  of 1995.                                 sec. 302(f) of the          partisan.
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; Makes in order                 
                                                                           the Commerce                         
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           as original text and                 
                                                                           waives sec. 302(f) of                
                                                                           the Budget Act and                   
                                                                           cl. 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; Makes in                  
                                                                           order the Bliely                     
                                                                           amendment (30 min.)                  
                                                                           as the first order of                
                                                                           business, if adopted                 
                                                                           it will be original                  
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the amendments                  
                                                                           printed in the report                
                                                                           and waives all points                
                                                                           of order against the                 
                                                                           amendments; provides                 
                                                                           a Senate hook-up with                
                                                                           S. 652.                              
H.R. 2127......................  Labor/HHS           H. Res. 208          Open; Provides that               N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           the first order of                   
                                  Act.                                     business will be the                 
                                                                           managers amendments                  
                                                                           (10 min.), if adopted                
                                                                           they will be                         
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; waives cl. 2                   
                                                                           and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against certain                      
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title.                               
H.R. 1594......................  Economically        H. Res. 215          Open; 2 hr of gen.                N/A.
                                  Targeted                                 debate. makes in                     
                                  Investments.                             order the committee                  
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text.                       
H.R. 1655......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 216          Restrictive; waives               N/A.
                                  Authorization.                           sections 302(f),                     
                                                                           308(a) and 401(b) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act. Makes                
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           committee substitute                 
                                                                           as modified by Govt.                 
                                                                           Reform amend                         
                                                                           (striking sec. 505)                  
                                                                           and an amendment                     
                                                                           striking title VII.                  
                                                                           Cl 7 of rule XVI and                 
                                                                           cl 5(a) of rule XXI                  
                                                                           are waived against                   
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           Sections 302(f) and                  
                                                                           401(b) of the CBA are                
                                                                           also waived against                  
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           Amendments must also                 
                                                                           be pre-printed in the                
                                                                           Congressional record.                
H.R. 1162......................  Deficit Reduction   H. Res. 218          Open; waives cl 7 of              N/A.
                                  Lock Box.                                rule XVI against the                 
                                                                           committee substitute                 
                                                                           made in order as                     
                                                                           original text; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1670......................  Federal             H. Res. 219          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Acquisition                              302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                  Reform Act of                            the Budget Act                       
                                  1995.                                    against consideration                
                                                                           of the bill; bill                    
                                                                           will be read by                      
                                                                           title; waives cl 5(a)                
                                                                           of rule XXI and                      
                                                                           section 302(f) of the                
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute. Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1617......................  To Consolidate and  H. Res. 222          Open; waives section              N/A.
                                  Reform Workforce                         302(f) and 401(b) of                 
                                  Development and                          the Budget Act                       
                                  Literacy Programs                        against the                          
                                  Act (CAREERS).                           substitute made in                   
                                                                           order as original                    
                                                                           text (H.R. 2332), cl.                
                                                                           5(a) of rule XXI is                  
                                                                           also waived against                  
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           provides for                         
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           managers amendment                   
                                                                           (10 min.) If adopted,                
                                                                           it is considered as                  
                                                                           base text.                           
H.R. 2274......................  National Highway    H. Res. 224          Open; waives section              N/A.
                                  System                                   302(f) of the Budget                 
                                  Designation Act                          Act against                          
                                  of 1995.                                 consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; Makes H.R. 2349                
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text; waives section                 
                                                                           302(f) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act against the                      
                                                                           substitute; provides                 
                                                                           for the consideration                
                                                                           of a managers                        
                                                                           amendment (10 min.)                  
                                                                           If adopted, it is                    
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 927.......................  Cuban Liberty and   H. Res. 225          Restrictive; waives cl           2R/2D
                                  Democratic                               2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI                
                                  Solidarity Act of                        against consideration                
                                  1995.                                    of the bill; makes in                
                                                                           order H.R. 2347 as                   
                                                                           base text; waives cl                 
                                                                           7 of rule XVI against                
                                                                           the substitute; Makes                
                                                                           Hamilton amendment                   
                                                                           the first amendment                  
                                                                           to be considered (1                  
                                                                           hr). Makes in order                  
                                                                           only amendments                      
                                                                           printed in the report.               
H.R. 743.......................  The Teamwork for    H. Res. 226          Open; waives cl                   N/A.
                                  Employees and                            2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI                
                                  managers Act of                          against consideration                
                                  1995.                                    of the bill; makes in                
                                                                           order the committee                  
                                                                           amendment as original                
                                                                           text; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           get priority.                        
H.R. 1170......................  3-Judge Court for   H. Res. 227          Open; makes in order a            N/A.
                                  Certain                                  committee amendment                  
                                  Injunctions.                             as original text; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1601......................  International       H. Res. 228          Open; makes in order a            N/A.
                                  Space Station                            committee amendment                  
                                  Authorization Act                        as original text; pre-               
                                  of 1995.                                 printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.J. Res. 108..................  Making Continuing   H. Res. 230          Closed; Provides for    ..............
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee.                       
H.R. 2405......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 234          Open; self-executes a             N/A.
                                  Science                                  provision striking                   
                                  Authorization Act                        section 304(b)(3) of                 
                                  of 1995.                                 the bill (Commerce                   
                                                                           Committee request);                  
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 2259......................  To Disapprove       H. Res. 237          Restrictive; waives cl              1D
                                  Certain                                  2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI                
                                  Sentencing                               against the bill's                   
                                  Guideline                                consideration; makes                 
                                  Amendments.                              in order the text of                 
                                                                           the Senate bill S.                   
                                                                           1254 as original                     
                                                                           text; Makes in order                 
                                                                           only a Conyers                       
                                                                           substitute; provides                 
                                                                           a senate hook-up                     
                                                                           after adoption.                      
H.R. 2425......................  Medicare            H. Res. 238          Restrictive; waives                 1D
                                  Preservation Act.                        all points of order                  
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; makes                 
                                                                           in order the text of                 
                                                                           H.R. 2485 as original                
                                                                           text; waives all                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against H.R. 2485;                   
                                                                           makes in order only                  
                                                                           an amendment offered                 
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or a designee;                
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendment; waives cl                 
                                                                           5 of rule                 
                                                                           XXI (\3/5\                           
                                                                           requirement on votes                 
                                                                           raising taxes).                      
H.R. 2492......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 239          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           for consideration of                 
                                  Bill.                                    the bill in the House.               
H.R. 2491......................  7 Year Balanced     H. Res. 245          Restrictive; makes in               1D
H. Con. Res. 109...............   Budget                                   order H.R. 2517 as                   
                                  Reconciliation                           original text; waives                
                                  Social Security                          all pints of order                   
                                  Earnings Test                            against the bill;                    
                                  Reform.                                  Makes in order only                  
                                                                           H.R. 2530 as an                      
                                                                           amendment only if                    
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or a                 
                                                                           designee; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; waives cl                 
                                                                           5 of rule                 
                                                                           XXI (\3/5\                           
                                                                           requirement on votes                 
                                                                           raising taxes).                      
H.R. 1833......................  Partial Birth       H. Res. 251          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Abortion Ban Act                                                              
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2546......................  D.C.                H. Res. 252          Restrictive; waives                N/A
                                  Appropriations FY                        all points of order                  
                                  1996.                                    against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; Makes                 
                                                                           in order the Walsh                   
                                                                           amendment as the                     
                                                                           first order of                       
                                                                           business (10 min.);                  
                                                                           if adopted it is                     
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; waives cl 2 and                
                                                                           6 of rule XXI against                
                                                                           the bill; makes in                   
                                                                           order the Bonilla,                   
                                                                           Gunderson and                        
                                                                           Hostettler amendments                
                                                                           (30 min.); waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; debate on                
                                                                           any further                          
                                                                           amendments is limited                
                                                                           to 30 min. each.                     
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 257          Closed; Provides for               N/A
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee.                       
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 258          Restrictive; Provides               5R
                                  in the Statutory                         for the immediate                    
                                  Debt Limit.                              consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee; self-                 
                                                                           executes 4 amendments                
                                                                           in the rule; Solomon,                
                                                                           Medicare Coverage of                 
                                                                           Certain Anti-Cancer                  
                                                                           Drug Treatments,                     
                                                                           Habeas Corpus Reform,                
                                                                           Chrysler (MI); makes                 
                                                                           in order the Walker                  
                                                                           amend (40 min.) on                   
                                                                           regulatory reform.                   
H.R. 2539......................  ICC Termination...  H. Res. 259          Open; waives section    ..............
                                                                           302(f) and section                   
                                                                           308(a).                              
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 261          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of a                   
                                                                           motion by the                        
                                                                           Majority Leader or                   
                                                                           his designees to                     
                                                                           dispose of the Senate                
                                                                           amendments (1hr).                    
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 262          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  in the Statutory                         the immediate                        
                                  Limit on the                             consideration of a                   
                                  Public Debt.                             motion by the                        
                                                                           Majority Leader or                   
                                                                           his designees to                     
                                                                           dispose of the Senate                
                                                                           amendments (1hr).                    
H. Res. 250....................  House Gift Rule     H. Res. 268          Closed; provides for                2R
                                  Reform.                                  consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill in the House; 30                
                                                                           min. of debate; makes                
                                                                           in order the Burton                  
                                                                           amendment and the                    
                                                                           Gingrich en bloc                     
                                                                           amendment (30 min.                   
                                                                           each); waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; Gingrich                 
                                                                           is only in order if                  
                                                                           Burton fails or is                   
                                                                           not offered.                         
H.R. 2564......................  Lobbying            H. Res. 269          Open; waives cl.                  N/A.
                                  Disclosure Act of                        2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                  1995.                                    against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; waives                
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the Istook                   
                                                                           and McIntosh                         
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 2606......................  Prohibition on      H. Res. 273          Restrictive; waives               N/A.
                                  Funds for Bosnia                         all points of order                  
                                  Deployment.                              against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration;                       
                                                                           provides one motion                  
                                                                           to amend if offered                  
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or designee (1                
                                                                           hr non-amendable);                   
                                                                           motion to recommit                   
                                                                           which may have                       
                                                                           instructions only if                 
                                                                           offered by Minority                  
                                                                           Leader or his                        
                                                                           designee; if Minority                
                                                                           Leader motion is not                 
                                                                           offered debate time                  
                                                                           will be extended by 1                
                                                                           hr.                                  
H.R. 1788......................  Amtrak Reform and   H. Res. 289          Open; waives all                  N/A.
                                  Privatization Act                        points of order                      
                                  of 1995.                                 against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; makes                 
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           Transportation                       
                                                                           substitute modified                  
                                                                           by the amend in the                  
                                                                           report; Bill read by                 
                                                                           title; waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           substitute; makes in                 
                                                                           order a managers                     
                                                                           amend as the first                   
                                                                           order of business, if                
                                                                           adopted it is                        
                                                                           considered base text                 
                                                                           (10 min.); waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; Pre-                      
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1350......................  Maritime Security   H. Res. 287          Open; makes in order              N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                             the committee                        
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text; makes                 
                                                                           in order a managers                  
                                                                           amendment which if                   
                                                                           adopted is considered                
                                                                           as original text (20                 
                                                                           min.) unamendable;                   
                                                                           pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 2621......................  To Protect Federal  H. Res.              Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  Trust Funds.                             the adoption of the                  
                                                                           Ways & Means                         
                                                                           amendment printed in                 
                                                                           the report. 1 hr. of                 
                                                                           general debate.                      
H.R. 1745......................  Utah Public Lands   H.Res. 303           Open; waives cl                   N/A.
                                  Management Act of                        2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                  1995.                                    and sections 302(f)                  
                                                                           and 311(a) of the                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration. Makes                 
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           Resources substitute                 
                                                                           as base text and                     
                                                                           waives cl 7 of rule                  
                                                                           XVI and sections                     
                                                                           302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act; makes                
                                                                           in order a managers'                 
                                                                           amend as the first                   
                                                                           order of business, if                
                                                                           adopted it is                        
                                                                           considered base text                 
                                                                           (10 min).                            

[[Page H2681]]

                                                                                                                
H.Res. 304.....................  Providing for       N/A                  Closed; makes in order          1D; 2R
                                  Debate and                               three resolutions;                   
                                  Consideration of                         H.R. 2770 (Dorman),                  
                                  Three Measures                           H.Res. 302 (Buyer),                  
                                  Relating to U.S.                         and H.Res. 306                       
                                  Troop Deployments                        (Gephardt); 1 hour of                
                                  in Bosnia.                               debate on each.                      
H.Res. 309.....................  Revised Budget      H.Res. 309           Closed; provides 2                N/A.
                                  Resolution.                              hours of general                     
                                                                           debate in the House.                 
H.R. 558.......................  Texas Low-Level     H.Res. 313           Open; pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Radioactive Waste                        gets priority.                       
                                  Disposal Compact                                                              
                                  Consent Act.                                                                  
H.R. 2677......................  The National Parks  H. Res. 323          Closed; consideration             N/A.
                                  and National                             in the House; self-                  
                                  Wildlife Refuge                          executes Young                       
                                  Systems Freedom                          amendment.                           
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
                                   PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION                                   
H.R. 1643......................  To authorize the    H. Res. 334          Closed; provides to               N/A.
                                  extension of                             take the bill from                   
                                  nondiscriminatory                        the Speaker's table                  
                                  treatment (MFN)                          with the Senate                      
                                  to the products                          amendment, and                       
                                  of Bulgaria.                             consider in the House                
                                                                           the motion printed in                
                                                                           the Rules Committee                  
                                                                           report; 1 hr. of                     
                                                                           general debate;                      
                                                                           previous question is                 
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           ordered. ** NR.                      
H.J. Res. 134..................  Making continuing   H. Res. 336          Closed; provides to               N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131...............   appropriations/                          take from the                        
                                  establishing                             Speaker's table H.J.                 
                                  procedures making                        Res. 134 with the                    
                                  the transmission                         Senate amendment and                 
                                  of the continuing                        concur with the                      
                                  resolution H.J.                          Senate amendment with                
                                  Res. 134.                                an amendment (H. Con.                
                                                                           Res. 131) which is                   
                                                                           self-executed in the                 
                                                                           rule. The rule                       
                                                                           provides further that                
                                                                           the bill shall not be                
                                                                           sent back to the                     
                                                                           Senate until the                     
                                                                           Senate agrees to the                 
                                                                           provisions of H. Con.                
                                                                           Res. 131. ** NR.                     
H. R. 1358.....................  Conveyance of       H. Res. 338          Closed; provides to               N/A.
                                  National Marine                          take the bill from                   
                                  Fisheries Service                        the Speakers table                   
                                  Laboratory at                            with the Senate                      
                                  Gloucester,                              amendment, and                       
                                  Massachusetts.                           consider in the house                
                                                                           the motion printed in                
                                                                           the Rules Committee                  
                                                                           report; 1 hr. of                     
                                                                           general debate;                      
                                                                           previous quesetion is                
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           ordered. ** NR.                      
H.R. 2924......................  Social Security     H. Res. 355          Closed; ** NR.........            N/A.
                                  Guarantee Act.                                                                
H.R. 2854......................  The Agricultural    H. Res. 366          Restrictive; waives          5D; 9R; 2
                                  Market Transition                        all points of order       Bipartisan.
                                  Program.                                 against the bill; 2                  
                                                                           hrs of general                       
                                                                           debate; makes in                     
                                                                           order a committee                    
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text and                    
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           substitute; makes in                 
                                                                           order only the 16                    
                                                                           amends printed in the                
                                                                           report and waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments;                          
                                                                           circumvents unfunded                 
                                                                           mandates law;                        
                                                                           Chairman has en bloc                 
                                                                           authority for amends                 
                                                                           in report (20 min.)                  
                                                                           on each en bloc..                    
H.R. 994.......................  Regulatory Sunset   H.Res 368            Open rule; makes in               N/A.
                                  & Review Act of                          order the Hyde                       
                                  1995.                                    substitute printed in                
                                                                           the Record as                        
                                                                           original text; waives                
                                                                           cl 7 of rule XVI                     
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           substitute; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; vacates the                
                                                                           House action on S.                   
                                                                           219 and provides to                  
                                                                           take the bill from                   
                                                                           the Speakers table                   
                                                                           and consider the                     
                                                                           Senate bill; allows                  
                                                                           Chrmn. Clinger a                     
                                                                           motion to strike all                 
                                                                           after the enacting                   
                                                                           clause of the Senate                 
                                                                           bill and insert the                  
                                                                           text of H.R. 994 as                  
                                                                           passed by the House                  
                                                                           (1 hr) debate; waives                
                                                                           germaneness against                  
                                                                           the motion; provides                 
                                                                           if the motion is                     
                                                                           adopted that it is in                
                                                                           order for the House                  
                                                                           to insist on its                     
                                                                           amendments and                       
                                                                           request a conference.                
H.R. 3021......................  To Guarantee the    H.Res 371            Closed rule; gives one            N/A.
                                  Continuing Full                          motion to recommit,                  
                                  Investment of                            which if it contains                 
                                  Social security                          instructions, may                    
                                  and Other Federal                        only if offered by                   
                                  Funds in                                 the Minority Leader                  
                                  Obligations of                           or his designee. **                  
                                  the United States.                       NR.                                  
H.R. 3019......................  A Further           H.Res. 372           Restrictive; self-              2D/2R.
                                  Downpayment                              executes CBO language                
                                  Toward a Balanced                        regarding contingency                
                                  Budget.                                  funds in section 2 of                
                                                                           the rule; makes in                   
                                                                           order only the                       
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; Lowey (20                
                                                                           min), Istook (20                     
                                                                           min), Crapo (20 min),                
                                                                           Obey (1 hr); waives                  
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; give one                 
                                                                           motion to recommit,                  
                                                                           which if contains                    
                                                                           instructions, may                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or his designee. **                  
                                                                           NR.                                  
H.R. 2703......................  The Effective       H. Res. 380          Restrictive; makes in        6D; 7R; 4
                                  Death Penalty and                        order only the            Bipartisan.
                                  Public Safety Act                        amendments printed in                
                                  of 1996.                                 the report; waives                   
                                                                           all points of orer                   
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; gives                    
                                                                           Judiciary Chairman en                
                                                                           bloc authority (20                   
                                                                           min.) on enblocs;                    
                                                                           provides a Senate                    
                                                                           hook-up with S. 735.                 
                                                                           ** NR.                               
H.R. 2202......................  The Immigration     H. Res. 384          Restrictive; waives        12D; 19R; 1
                                  and National                             all points of order       Bipartisan.
                                  Interest Act of                          against the bill and                 
                                  1995.                                    amendments in the                    
                                                                           report except for                    
                                                                           those arising under                  
                                                                           sec. 425(a) of the                   
                                                                           Budget Act (unfunded                 
                                                                           mandates); 2 hrs. of                 
                                                                           general debate on the                
                                                                           bill; makes in order                 
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute as base                   
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the amends in                   
                                                                           the report; gives the                
                                                                           Judiciary Chairman en                
                                                                           bloc authority (20                   
                                                                           min.) of debate on                   
                                                                           the en blocs; self-                  
                                                                           executes the Smith                   
                                                                           (TX) amendment re:                   
                                                                           employee verification                
                                                                           program.                             
H.J. Res. 165..................  Making further      H. Res. 386          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  continuing                               the consideration of                 
                                  appropriations                           the CR in the House                  
                                  for FY 1996.                             and gives one motion                 
                                                                           to recommit which may                
                                                                           contain instructions                 
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader;                 
                                                                           the rule also waives                 
                                                                           cl 4(b) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           following: an omnibus                
                                                                           appropriations bill,                 
                                                                           another CR, a bill                   
                                                                           extending the debt                   
                                                                           limit. ** NR.                        
H.R. 125.......................  The Gun Crime       H. Res. 388          Closed; self-executes              N/A
                                  Enforcement and                          an amendment;                        
                                  Second Amendment                         provides one motion                  
                                  Restoration Act                          to recommit which may                
                                  of 1996.                                 contain instructions                 
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or his designee. **                  
                                                                           NR.                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All 
  legislation 2d Session. 92% restrictive; 8% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress 63% restrictive; 37%    
  open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented    
  standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** Restrictive rules are those which  
  limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed  
  rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the 
  Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions 
  reported from the Rules Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.                              


  Mr. FROST. To date 9 out of 12 bills considered under rules in the 2d 
session of the 104th Congress, or 75 percent, have been considered 
under an irregular procedure which circumvents the standard committee 
procedure. They are as follows: H.R. 1643, to authorize the extension 
of nondiscriminatory treatment [MFN] to the products of Bulgaria; House 
Joint Resolution 134, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
1996; H.R. 1358, conveyance of National Marine Fisheries Service 
Laboratory at Gloucester, MA; H.R. 2924, the Social Security Guarantee 
Act; H.R. 3021, to guarantee the continuing full investment of social 
security and other Federal funds in obligations of the United States; 
H.R. 3019, a further down payment toward a balanced budget; H.R. 2703, 
the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996; House Joint 
Resolution 165, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal 
year 1996; and H.R. 125, the Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment 
Restoration Act of 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, there are pictures now, there are 19 
specific weapons that are restricted by the existing legislation. What 
I want people in this Chamber and I want people who are watching on TV 
to look at, which of these guns are used for hunting, maybe it is the 
Steyr Aug., which is one of the weapons. You can take a look at it for 
yourself. Is that a weapon used for hunting? Maybe it is the Fabrique 
Nationale, which is another one. Maybe that is a weapon used for 
hunting. Maybe it is the Tec-9 or the AK-47 or the Uzi or the Street 
Sweeper.
  You know, sometimes, I mean, look for yourself, America, this is what 
we are talking about today. This is what we are talking about today. 
These are not weapons that people use for hunting. In fact, if you use 
one of these weapons for hunting, you could not eat the animal because 
the animal would not exist anymore.
  Who uses these weapons? Drug dealers, terrorists, the scum of our 
society. That is who my Republican colleagues are protecting today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, ``Leave it alone.'' That is what the 
majority of Americans are saying. If we allow this issue to rise from 
the dead, it will kill people. There is one reason to prefer this ban: 
Criminals prefer assault weapons. That is their weapon of choice in 
killing cops, one-third of whom are killed by assault weapons. That is 
their weapon of choice. It is 8 times more likely to be used in a 
crime.
  The difference between this ban and a pitiful substitute provision of 
the majority is interesting to note. The ban has brought an 18-percent 
decrease in the use of these weapons. The majority wants us to use 
mandatory prison terms, after killing a cop, after killing individuals, 
then put them in jail for as long as you can keep them.
  The ban says, ``Get the guns before they get us.'' Do not leave it 
until after-the-fact remedies. Get them now. They are trying to get us 
even as I speak.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, everything we hear on that side of the aisle is you know, 
``Get the guns, take the guns away.'' Well, let me tell you something, 
if we taught some discipline to these children as they were growing up 
and as they become young adults, maybe we would not have these 
problems.
  Let us get some family values back. Let us let these parents do their 
job. Do not take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Barr], one of the original sponsors of this 
legislation.

[[Page H2682]]

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank by colleague from New York 
for yielding me this time.
  I do find it somewhat ironic that in the middle of this debate we 
hear from the gentlewoman, whom I admire greatly, from Washington, DC, 
who represents a jurisdiction which has banned handguns for a 
generation yet continues to suffer under one of the highest murder 
rates, the highest assault rates in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has come to educate those watching this debate 
today. I have to my left a chart which contains two pictures 
unadulterated, nothing magical here, two guns, guns that are absolutely 
identical in terms of their firing power, their firing mechanism, 
absolutely identical. Whatever this one can do, this one can do 
likewise. Why? Because they are the same gun. What then makes this gun 
a good gun, according to the proponents of the Clinton gun ban and our 
opponents here today and this one a bad gun, according to the 
proponents of the Clinton-Schumer gun ban and the opponents of our 
legislation here today?
  It is not anything that has to do with its lethalness. It is not 
anything to do with its firepower. It is not anything to do with its 
accuracy. It is not anything to do with how many times or how quickly 
somebody can squeeze off two rounds or more. It has to do with the 
Dianne Feinstein syndrome, and that is it looks mean. It looks 
different, and therefore it must be different; it must be more lethal, 
it must be more dangerous, it must be more deadly.

  This illustrates, Mr. Speaker, probably more than any other words 
can, the ridiculousness of the arguments on the other side. If indeed 
the arguments on the other side and those making those arguments were 
truly consistent, were truly honest about their real agenda here, they 
would be trying to ban both guns because if this one is dangerous, then 
this one must be dangerous too because it is exactly the same gun. Of 
course, they are not saying that, or are they?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
political payoff to the gun lobby. At a time when hard-working families 
across America are struggling against the tougher odds, this Congress 
should be focusing on their interests and not on special interests.
  Since Newt Gringrich took over this Congress, he has been paying off 
political IOU's. They allowed the pollution lobbyists to rewrite our 
Nation's environmental laws, then they rammed through their Medicare 
cuts to pay off their political contributors, and now they want to put 
assault weapons back on the streets of this Nation because the gun 
lobby is calling in its chits.
  My constituents and my police officers in Connecticut say to me in no 
uncertain terms, assault weapons do not belong in the hands of drug 
dealers and street thugs. Say ``no'' to the gun lobby, say ``no'' to 
the special interests, and say ``no'' to this political payoff. Support 
the ban on assault weapons.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time such time as I 
might consume.
  I am not going to have the gentlewoman's words taken down. She came 
very close to it when she says the Speaker of this House is paying off. 
That means a political bribe. Let us be a little careful. Let us keep 
it up here. Otherwise I can stand up and say, why is President Clinton 
vetoing the product liability bill? Because of a payoff to the trail 
lawyers of this Nation? We do not need to get into those kinds of 
conversations. Let us stick to the subject here.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the record 
speaks for itself. Why else would we be here, because between January 
1993 and November 1994, the NRA donated $308,000 in soft money 
contributions to the Republican National Committee.

                              {time}  1130

  Now, these Republican freshmen that were going to shake up the place, 
well, they demanded this vote today. Guess what? The NRA donated 
$235,000 in special interest PAC money to House freshmen in the 1993-94 
election cycle. That was 44 percent of the total NRA contributions from 
PAC's.
  The NRA gave large PAC contributions to four of the five House 
freshmen appointed by Speaker Gingrich to his firearms legislation task 
force.
  In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA donated $1,853,000 in PAC 
contributions, 78 percent going to Republicans.
  In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA spent $1.5 million on 
independent expenditures, $1.2 which went to support Republican 
candidates.
  In the 1993-94 election cycle, the NRA spent $1.93 million in 
communications costs to support Republican candidates.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, well, sometimes I wonder how much the gentleman that 
just spoke, how much he might get from the trial lawyers. I would ask 
him, does that affect his vote?
  I do not think so. The man is a man of integrity.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very obvious why we are here. 
These guys have taken millions and millions of dollars from special 
interest PAC's.
  Mr. Speaker, the whole country is watching this debate. The whole 
country is watching it. Seventy percent of the American people are 
opposed to this.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not 
kidding anyone. The gentleman stands up and says that 73 percent of it 
went to Republicans. What happened to the 27 percent? Is he questioning 
the integrity of the other side of the aisle?
  Mr. Speaker, let me get back on the subject. I would like to respond 
to a few comments that have been made about this rule. It is very 
important, since we are nearing the end of the debate. I would refer 
this to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] because he 
and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and some others have 
brought up the subject.
  First, this rule is similar to the rule provided in the last Congress 
for consideration of the bill that banned certain semiautomatic 
weapons. It is almost identical to the one when they were in power. 
That rule, House Resolution 416, I think sponsored by, I do not know if 
Mr. Frost carried it or Mr. Beilenson, provided for consideration of an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and further provided, and I 
quote, because I want the gentleman to listen to this, ``No amendment 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and no other 
amendment to the bill shall be in order.''
  Thas is exactly what we have here on the floor today. I do not say 
that the Democrats were right 2 years ago, and I do not say we are 
right today.
  I would just like to respond further, like this rule, the rule in the 
last Congress provided for ``one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.'' You have exactly the same opportunity that you gave us 
2 years ago. So in both instances, opponents of the bill will be 
allowed the opportunity to offer one final amendment, or alternative, 
before the final passage vote.
  Second, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] is he on the floor? 
Where is my good friend? There he is, over there. The gentleman 
testified before the Committee on Rules he would like to be able to 
offer a motion to strike, what was it, section 4? Section 4 from the 
bill, only if we allowed other amendments to be offered.
  Now, to quote my good friend, ``Otherwise he was satisfied with an up 
or down vote.'' That is exactly what we have given my good friend. I 
gave him exactly what he asked for.
  I would just add that he will still have the right to offer the 
motion to strike under the motion to recommit with instructions 
permitted under this rule. You can still do this, you or anyone else.
  Third, the gentleman from Michigan, where he is, my good friend over 
there, Mr. Conyers, now the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, complained this bill was not reported from any committee. 
That is true. We

[[Page H2683]]

know that. But I would also observe for the Record that when the 
gentleman from Michigan was chairman, what was that committee you were 
chairman of before last year, oh, Committee on Government Operations, 
in the last Congress, he allowed, our good friend Mr. Conyers allowed 
his committee to be discharged of a number of unreported bills that 
were considered by the House. The same situation here. No difference.
  These included, and just in case you are writing up there, you know, 
these included a whole host of bills, H.R. 1578, H.R. 4600, both which 
provided for an expedited rescission process. Never reported from any 
committee. H.R. 3400, the Reinventing Government Act; H.R. 4604, to 
establish direct spending targets; H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control 
Act. Really? The Violent Crime Control Act; and H.R. 4907, the Full 
Budget Disclosure Act.
  So the gentleman is well familiar with the practice of bringing 
unreported bills to the floor from his own committee when he was the 
chairman, and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], who 
has been on the Committee on Rules as long as I have, if not longer, 
was there and voted to do just that.
  As I indicated in the Committee on Rules yesterday, I fully expect 
that most of these bills we bring to this floor will be reported by a 
committee. You all know that I believe in the committee system, and I 
am going to do my best to make sure that they are. But there will be 
occasions in the future, as there have been in the past, under Democrat 
control and under Republican control, when unreported bills will be 
brought to the floor.
  The House always has a right to determine whether or not we are going 
to pass this rule. If you do not like it, vote it down. But I am going 
to tell you something, and I have to say it from my heart, I served for 
16 years in the minority. I was gaged. I could not get these product 
liability reform bills, medical malpractice, my flag amendment. I could 
not get any of these things on the floor. I was gagged.
  So if we are in some kind of a rush now, I apologize, but we have got 
so much to do in such a short time. Maybe that is what this is all 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] who wanted to correct the Record on one 
point.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, for my friend the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] I have never taken any political 
action committee money. Maybe you should try it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, why not take a 
poll of everybody on both sides of the aisle?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
only 15 percent of the rules in the last Congress involved bills that 
were taken away from committees, whereas we are talking about 75 
percent in this session.
  Second, when the assault weapons ban was brought to the floor last 
Congress, it was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. It went 
through the committee process. This repeal has not gone through the 
committee process. That was the point I was making.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I do not question the motives on either 
side. Both sides make a point. The second amendment was not drafted to 
protect duck hunting. On the other hand, strapping a Stinger missile on 
your back and citing a second amendment right is a little extreme here, 
folks.
  I think we need some balance, and the charges of politics are always 
amusing to me. This is not Kiwanis and Democrats; they gained the 
majority over these votes last year. Now, I support the limited ban. I 
am going to continue to support the limited ban.
  But the problem in America today is we have the NRA on one side and 
the police on the other, and they are both good guys, they are separate 
and apart. And no matter what law you pass, nothing good can come from 
it until we bring both good guys together.
  I am disappointed that my amendment, which would have created a 
commission to bring the NRA in, the police in, and the Congress in, to 
fashion out some understanding of a law we might all live with, that 
America can live with. I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that you look at that 
in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this: I am going to support a limited ban, 
but if we do not bring the NRA and the police together, you are 
whistling Dixie here.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, this is something we have tried to do, and 
the NRA has refused.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Palm Beach, FL [Mr. Foley], another outstanding new Member of this 
body, who represents part of my old hometown, Okeechobee.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question of the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules. Is it not a Democratic sponsor of the base bill, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman]?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
is a very honorable Member, too, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jim 
Chapman.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is a lot of debate 
and the accusation is it is the Republicans selling out to the NRA. But 
it is a Democratic sponsor. The Republican leadership has allowed a 
Democratic bill on the floor for debate.
  First of all, let us make a point, folks. Guns do not kill the 
people, it is who is behind the trigger that kills the person. We keep 
trying to blame inanimate objects for crime.
  A serious problem in America, child abuse, physical and sexual abuse 
is going on; not created by a weapon; destruction of our children 
nonetheless.
  Let us work together in this Chamber to stop crimes, get after the 
perpetrators, bring swift justice, quit death row appeals time and time 
again, Wayne Gacey, 20 years, $5 million of appeals, on death row, 
killed 33 young people. Not with a machine gun, not with a knife, he 
killed 30 young men. $5 million on death row appeals.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Manton].
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation to repeal the current ban on the manufacture or sale of 
assault weapons.
  This is truly a sad day for the House of Representatives. 
Traditionally, it has been the sole prerogative and duty of the Speaker 
to schedule legislation for consideration on the floor of the House. 
But today, our schedule is under the control of an outside interest--
the National Rifle Association.
  No hearings were held on this legislation, there was no committee 
markup and we were only given 1 day's notice that the bill was being 
brought to the floor. But we do not really need a hearing record or a 
committee report to accompany this bill because we are not here to 
serve in our constitutional role as Federal legislators. Today is 
nothing more than a payback to the powerful and PAC-rich NRA. The new 
majority promised them a vote. And today they get it.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former New York City police officer, I know how 
extraordinarily dangerous these weapons are. And let's be very clear. 
Assault weapons are not used to hunt game or for normal recreational 
purposes. Quite simply, assault weapons are designed and used to kill 
human beings--all too often police officers. That is why every major 
police organization is strongly opposed to this legislation.
  Proponents of this legislation who are hiding behind the second 
amendment should be ashamed. The second amendment protects the right of 
Americans to keep and bear arms. It does not guarantee every drug lord 
or street thug easy access to cop killing semi-automatic assault 
weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, the people's House. Let's return it to 
them by overwhelmingly rejecting this hideous legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the so-called ban has been neither the Armageddon for 
gun owners that was predicted during last

[[Page H2684]]

year's debate nor the panacea for the problem of violent crime in 
America predicted by the advocates. The truth is, it did not ban much 
of anything, not the sale, only the future manufacture of a few 
weapons, chosen for cosmetic reasons. And even if it was not a real 
ban, have we not learned that prohibition does not work well in 
America? That is it.
  I did not support the ban, because I said it would have little or no 
effect, it was symbolic; nor will I support the repeal here today and 
trigger an endless series of debates on this issue, while this House 
avoids the real debate on the real issues that bring violent crime to 
the streets of America.
  Where are the 100,000 new cops? The majority will not give us the 
100,000 new police in America. They say we cannot afford it. Where are 
the prevention programs, so we do not have another generation of 
dangerous criminals in America? They have been eliminated by the new 
majority.
  Those are the things we should be debating here today on the floor, 
and this debate distracts from that.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] 
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the repeal of the ban. 
Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, 3 years ago at 101 California 
Street, a mad gunman using an assault weapon went in and, in a matter 
of seconds, snuffed out the lives and futures of many young people in a 
law firm there. And now the Republican leadership wants to repeal the 
ban that so many of the victims of that assault worked so hard for.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House talks a good act 
about caring about victims' rights. I do, too. We all talked about it a 
great deal in the course of the crime bill. Where are they when it 
comes to victims' rights when we are talking about the assault weapons? 
The victims of all of these assaults have called out, crusaded for this 
ban. I have here a long list, Mr. Speaker, not only of the victims but 
of the law enforcement agencies, the California State Sheriffs' 
Association, the California Police Chiefs' Association, lists and lists 
and lists of police departments and sheriffs' departments from across 
the State of California, the medical community, religious 
organizations, victims, and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, in public opinion surveys, 72 percent of the people of 
California support the ban. So I say to these people, how do we explain 
to them why my colleagues are bringing this repeal to the floor, a 
repeal that the President has said he will veto? You tell me how I can 
explain to Michelle Scully, who lost her husband. Shall I just tell her 
that Members could not say no to the National Rifle Association?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 3 minutes and 15 seconds.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would come over here and just 
talk to my good friends on this side of the aisle. This bill, the rule 
here, brings a bill before us that does two things. It, first of all, 
repeals the ineffective ban on certain semiautomatic weapons, but more 
importantly, it increases the penalties on those law-breakers who use 
guns in the course of a violent crime or Federal drug trafficking, 
which is even more important.
  The ban, my friends, on these semiautomatic weapons has not been 
effective at all, and let me tell you why. No one has been prosecuted 
under this 1\1/2\-year-old statute. No one has been prosecuted. Fewer 
than three people have been prosecuted for violating the statute's 
semiautomatic firearms ban. Listen to this. More than 85 percent of the 
semiautomatic weapons firearms banned under this 1994 law are rifles, 
and yet the type of firearms that are least used in committing crimes 
are rifles. Think about that.
  Mr. Speaker, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, rifles of 
any description, including those this law defines as so-called assault 
weapons, which they are not, they are deer rifles, are used in less 
than 3 percent of the homicides, in the murders in this country. Less 
than 3 percent.
  Banning guns does not reduce violent crime, you know it and I know 
it. Prosecuting violent criminals and putting them behind bars is the 
only proven method for controlling violent crime, and you know that and 
I know that, too. States with the highest crime imprisonment rates are 
among the States with the greatest decreases in violent crime. You 
think about that. The States you come from, if you have tough laws that 
put people in jail for committing crimes, you have less crime than the 
other States.
  Mr. Speaker, the inescapable conclusion is that the way to stop crime 
is to put criminals in prison, not take away the rights of law-abiding 
citizens. I resent it. As I mentioned before, I am here in Washington 5 
days a week. I live in rural New York up in the mountains, and my wife 
has the right to defend herself. She has the right to have weapons in 
her house. All these little feet in the door are attempts to take away 
those rights. That is why we need to repeal this ban and we need to 
stiffen the laws against these people, these inhumane, indecent people 
that would take other people's lives.
  Come over here and vote for this rule, and then vote to repeal the 
ban and vote to stiffen the penalties on those people that commit 
crimes with guns.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 166, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               YEAS--244

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)

[[Page H2685]]


     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--166

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Calvert
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Dreier
     Gibbons
     Johnston
     Lewis (CA)
     McKeon
     Moakley
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Radanovich
     Rose
     Schroeder
     Shaw
     Stark
     Stokes
     Waters

                              {time}  1206

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Radanovich for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
       Mr. Lewis of California for, with Mr. Moakley against.
       Mr. Calvert for, with Mr. Johnston of Florida against.

  Messrs. SAXTON, LEVIN, and LEACH changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. GILLMOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 388, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 125), to repeal the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons 
and the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Pursuant to House Resolution 
388, the amendment printed in House Report 104-490 is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 125, as amended, is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gun Crime Enforcement and 
     Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) One of the primary duties of government is to protect 
     its citizens from armed violent criminals. America's 
     cherished liberty and the social and economic prosperity of 
     its communities are dependent upon government's ability to 
     maintain public safety.
       (2) Criminals, by definition, operate outside the law and 
     routinely acquire firearms when they so desire. Banning 
     specific types of firearms has no effect on the moral 
     behavior of those who choose to inflict harm on innocent 
     citizens.
       (3) the most effective way to protect the public from gun-
     wielding violent criminals is to arrest, convict, and 
     incarcerate such predators, and to ensure that they serve 
     sentences of sufficient length to prevent them from returning 
     quickly to the streets.

     SEC. 3 ARMED VIOLENT CRIMINAL APPREHENSION DIRECTIVE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United 
     States shall establish an armed violent criminal apprehension 
     program consistent with the following requirements:
       (1) Each United States attorney shall designate at least 1, 
     assistant United States attorney to prosecute armed violent 
     criminals.
       (2) Each United States attorney shall establish an armed 
     violent criminal apprehension task force comprised of 
     appropriate law enforcement representatives. The task force 
     shall develop strategies for removing armed violent criminals 
     from the streets, taking into consideration--
       (A) the importance of severe punishment in deterring armed 
     violent crime;
       (B) the effectiveness of Federal and State laws pertaining 
     to apprehension and prosecution of armed violent criminals;
       (C) the resources available to each law enforcement agency 
     participating in the task force;
       (D) the nature and extent of the violent crime occurring in 
     the district for which the United States attorney is 
     appointed; and
       (E) the principle of limited Federal involvement in the 
     prosecution of crimes traditionally prosecuted in State and 
     local jurisdictions.
       (3) Not less frequently than monthly, the Attorney General 
     shall require each United States attorney to report to the 
     Department of Justice the number of defendants charged with, 
     or convicted of, violating section 922(g) or 924 of title 18, 
     United States Code, in the district for which the United 
     States attorney is appointed.
       (4) Not less frequently than twice annually, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to the Congress a compilation of the 
     information received by the Department of Justice pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) and a report on all waivers granted under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Waiver Authority.--
       (1) Request for waiver.--A United States attorney may 
     request the Attorney General to waiver the requirements of 
     subsection (a) with respect to the United States attorney.
       (2) Provision of waiver.--The Attorney General may waive 
     the requirements of subsection (a) pursuant to a request made 
     under paragraph (1), in accordance with guidelines which 
     shall be established by the Attorney General. In establishing 
     the guidelines, the Attorney General shall take into 
     consideration the number of assistant United States attorneys 
     in the office of the United States attorney making the 
     request and the level of violent crime committed in the 
     district for which the United States attorney is appointed.
       (c) Armed Violent Criminal Defined.--As used in this 
     section, the term ``armed violent criminal'' means a person 
     who is accused of violating section 922(g)(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, having been previously convicted of a 
     violent crime, or who is accused of violating section 924 of 
     such title.
       (d) Sunset.--This section shall have no force or effect 
     after the 5-year period that begins 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO SEMIAUTOMATIC 
                   ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION 
                   FEEDING DEVICES.

       (a) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking subsections (v) and (w) and by striking the 
     appendix.
       (b) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking 
     paragraph (30).
       (c) Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``manufactured after the date of enactment 
     of the Violent Crime ``Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994''; and
       (2) by striking``; or that can be readily restored or 
     converted to accept,''.
       (d) Section 923(i) of such title is amended by striking the 
     last 2 sentences.
       (e) Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``(r), (v), or (w)'' and inserting ``or (r)''.
       (f) Section 110104 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C 921 note) is repealed.

     SEC. 5. MANDATORY PRISON TERMS FOR POSSESSING, BRANDISHING, 
                   OR DISCHARGING A FIREARM OR DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE 
                   DURING A FEDERAL CRIME THAT IS A CRIME OF 
                   VIOLENCE OR A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

       Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) A person who, during and in relation to any crime of 
     violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of 
     violence or drug trafficking crime which 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--
       ``(A) possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the 
     sentence imposed for the crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years;
       ``(B) brandishes a firearm, shall, in addition to the 
     sentence imposed for the crime of

[[Page H2686]]

     violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to 
     imprisonment for 10 years; or
       ``(C) discharges a firearm with the intent to injure 
     another person, shall, in addition to the sentence imposed 
     for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be 
     sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years;

     except that if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or 
     short-barreled shotgun, or is equipped with a large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device, such additional sentence shall be 
     imprisonment for 10 years more than the term of imprisonment 
     that would otherwise be imposed under this paragraph, and if 
     the firearm is a machinegun or destructive device or is 
     equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, such 
     additional sentence shall be imprisonment for 30 years.
       ``(2) In the case of the second or subsequent conviction of 
     a person under this subsection--
       ``(A) if the person possessed a firearm during and in 
     relation to such second or subsequent crime of violence or 
     drug trafficking crime, the person shall, in addition to the 
     sentence imposed for such second or subsequent offense, be 
     sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 20 years;
       ``(B) if the person brandished a firearm during and in 
     relation to such second or subsequent crime of violence or 
     drug trafficking crime, the person shall, in addition to the 
     sentence imposed for such second or subsequent offense, be 
     sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 25 years; or
       ``(C) if the person discharged a firearm with the intent to 
     injure another person during and in relation to such second 
     or subsequent crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, 
     the person shall, in addition to the sentence imposed for 
     such second or subsequent offense, be sentenced to 
     imprisonment for not less than 30 years;

     except that if the firearm is a machinegun or destructive 
     device or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm 
     muffler, the person shall, in addition to the sentence 
     imposed for such second or subsequent offense, be sentenced 
     to life imprisonment.
       ``(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     court shall not impose a probationary sentence on any person 
     convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall a term 
     of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run 
     concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including 
     that imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking 
     crime in which the firearm was used.
       ``(B) No person sentenced under this subsection shall be 
     released for any reason whatsoever during a term of 
     imprisonment imposed under this subsection.''.
  Under the rule, gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
half of the time allocated to me to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Chapman], an original sponsor of this legislation to whom this entire 
body owes a round of thanks, and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to control his time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes 
of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], 
a leader on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and I ask 
that he be given permission to yield time in blocks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, rarely would I use the Washington Post to illustrate a 
point, but today I must. As we begin debate today, Mr. Speaker, on this 
important self-defense anticriminal legislation, I must draw the 
attention of this body to the Washington Post, and a very unusual 
juxtaposition of articles therein, which really frame this debate.
  The debate is a debate between Washington values and American values, 
Washington values as illustrated by the Washington Post's spin on this 
issue, quoting the title of this article here, ``Assault Gun Ban's 
Ricochet,'' and it goes on with the usual Washington spin, the usual 
Washington pap, the inside-the-Beltway stuff, that talks about some 
hidden agenda here, these extremists, this NRA, and it goes on and on 
with its Washington values, its Washington spin.
  Immediately below and to the left, Mr. Speaker, is an article that 
really tells us what this debate is about.

                              {time}  1315

  It is about American values and a fear of the American people against 
criminals. It is about the American value that is enshrined in our 
Constitution that people like Suzonna Moore have the right to defend 
themselves because of rampant crime in our streets, not just our 
Nation's Capital, but especially in our Nation's Capital, and all 
across America.
  According to the article, Mr. Speaker, this woman, an average 
American citizen, has felt the need to go out and buy a gun because she 
is not, her family is not, her house is not, her business is not being 
protected by the government, by the laws that we currently have on the 
books. We are here today to protect her and to protect millions of 
other American families against thugs and other criminals who would use 
firearms to blow away our friends, our husbands, our wives, our 
mothers, our parents, and our children.
  Mr. Speaker, there are too many murders in America, far too many. 
What can we do in this body to alleviate that? Mr. Speaker, what can we 
do in this body to alleviate the pain that families, friends of men and 
women and children murdered by monsters on our streets and in our homes 
and in our businesses? Their pain, which we heard graphically about 
yesterday and read graphically about in the paper today, cannot and 
will not be alleviated by passing laws that say that our mothers and 
fathers, our husbands and wives, cannot defend themselves against 
heavily armed thugs.
  Their pain cannot, will not, Mr. Speaker, be alleviated by laws that 
tell would-be murderers that ``If you, the murderers of America attack 
our families and if you do so with guns that have larger capacity 
magazines, you will be guaranteed to outgun your victims.'' Rather, Mr. 
Speaker, the paid of these good, honest, hard-working American citizens 
who have lost loved ones to thugs, using guns of whatever sort, can be 
alleviated and can only be alleviated by the knowledge that their 
neighbors and themselves will, if this bill today is enacted, be able 
to fully defend themselves, and by the assurance that no longer would 
police officers such as Robert Perkins of Chicago, IL, be gunned down 
by a thug who has previously been convicted of shooting an Army officer 
in the face with a shotgun, and who was on parole at the time that he 
then murdered the police officer.
  Mr. Speaker, these bereaved families would like to have this 
assurance and are entitled to the assurance, because this legislation 
would make it impossible for someone who shot a U.S. Army officer in 
the face to be paroled. He would be in jail for at least 30 years 
without parole. If he used a firearm with a large capacity magazine, 
Mr. Speaker, he would serve, under this legislation which President 
Clinton, if he is indeed interested in being tough on criminals, would 
sign; if a high capacity magazine was used in that crime, that person, 
in addition to the 30-year minimum mandatory sentence, would receive an 
additional 10-year minimum mandatory sentence.
  Mr. Speaker, that is how we attack the problem illustrated in the 
paper today. That is how we go to those families who have been up here 
on the Hill with heart-rending legitimate stories of murder in their 
communities and in their homes, that is how we can give them some small 
measure of assurance that this will not continue to happen in America, 
by allowing our citizens and our families to fully protect themselves 
against thugs, and by the assurance that at least in our Federal 
system, at least in our Federal system, that what happens to other 
people, the same thing will happen to them, that they will be put away, 
and put away for a long, long time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the dear gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr], if he would reread the Washington Post, which he does not like 
much anyway, it has nothing to do with assault weapons, the measure 
that is before us today.

[[Page H2687]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer], the one man in the House of Representatives that has worked 
consistently across the year when he was the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, and throughout 
his career on crime issues, the leader on the assault weapons ban.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and for his leadership and generosity on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is a word that describes this House today, it 
is ``shame.'' This is one of the most shameful days in the history of 
this House. Barely 18 months ago, we passed the assault weapons ban, a 
ban that saves lives every day. Who, who outside the sordid world of 
the Washington Beltway, could believe that we would repeal this law 
today? Yet, today, the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] and the Republican majority opened fire on the ban. Who could 
believe that this Congress wants to put the Uzi's and the AK-47's, the 
MAC-10's and the TEC-9's and all the other killing machines, back on 
our streets? Newt Gingrich has bent his knee and is kissing the ring of 
the NRA, even though most of his own Republican colleagues know that 
this rash step is the wrong thing to do.
  No matter how big a debt the Republican majority owes the NRA, the 
overwhelming majority----


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer] is reminded that the rules of the House do not allow 
personal attack on the House floor. The gentleman should confine his 
remarks to the subject matter at hand.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I believe I am confining myself to the subject matter, 
Mr. Speaker. And the Republican majority will pay a price for ignoring 
the majority of American people in November. I wish every Member of 
this House could look into the face of the survivors of the assault 
weapons mayhem, as I have. I wish every Member would talk to the 
families that have lost sons and daughters and wives and husbands to 
the assault weapon madness, as I have. They would know that these guns 
do not just look bad, they are bad.
  Ask the victims, the surviving wives and husbands and fathers and 
children and mothers, are they happy that the people who did these 
crimes are put in jail? They are. Maybe they would want a longer 
sentence. But what they would want most of all is that those criminals 
never had the guns to begin with so their loved ones would be alive 
today.
  Assault weapons are disproportionately used in crime. They make up 
less than 1 percent of all the guns in the country, and yet they have 
accounted for 8 percent of the guns traced in crimes. The American gun 
owners throughout America are onto the NRA's lies that an automatic 
weapon ban would somehow take the guns away from law-abiding citizens. 
This law has been in effect for over a year, and the truth is not a 
single gun covered by it has been taken away from any law-abiding 
citizen.
  Mr. Speaker, those who favor this repeal say that it is not the guns, 
it is the criminals we should go after. Fine. If they really believe 
that, then why do we not allow the visitors to walk into this Chamber 
and into the halls of this House with Uzi's and AK-47's and MAC-10's? 
Why do we not just junk our metal detectors? That, Mr. Speaker, is what 
we are asking every cop in America to do today if we repeal this ban.
  This Congress, Mr. Speaker, has become more and more extreme. First, 
the Republican majority put the special interests above the pocketbooks 
of ordinary Americans. Now the Republican majority is putting the 
special interests of the Washington gun lobby above the lives of 
ordinary Americans. By bowing to the NRA and the extreme right, this 
House is putting the lives of American men, women, and children at 
risk. This is shameful, Mr. Speaker, shameful. The American people are 
scratching their heads in wonderment. This House should bow its head in 
shame.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make sure that all Members of the House 
understand that this legislation is composed of three relatively simple 
elements. First is a repeal of she so-called assault rifle ban 
contained in the 1994 crime bill. Second, it contains a requirement 
that our Attorney General orders each U.S. attorney in America to 
designate, specify, and assign at least one assistant U.S. attorney to 
prosecute armed violent criminals, I think something needs to be done.
  Third, this bill that we consider today will add enhanced minimum 
mandatory penalties on criminals who use firearms in the commission of 
a Federal crime. As trite as it may sound to some, it is the criminals 
who wreak the havoc on the families and the victims in this country. It 
is an outrage, and I do not think a single Member of this House would 
disagree when we see once-- or twice-convicted criminals, criminals who 
have perhaps served time for a violent crime, who are paroled, and once 
again are put in a position where they are allowed and where 
circumstances allow that they can once again prey on the law-abiding in 
America.
  As a former district attorney of 8 years, as is my colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a prosecuting attorney, I can tell 
the Members that there are some, unfortunately, even some very young 
Americans, who by the time, I would suggest, they have gotten to the 
point that they can take a gun and point it in the face of a fellow 
person, a fellow citizen, when they have reached that point in their 
criminal career, then rehabilitation is probably beyond their reach.
  When they have done that and been convicted and sent to jail, and 
they are out again and they do it again, it is time to lock up the 
violent criminals, it is time to throw away the key. It is time to 
punish those who wreak the kind of havoc on our families that we see as 
a result of gun violence.
  It may sound trite, but I often wonder if we were here today debating 
how we could stop drunk driving, if someone would suggest the way that 
we stop the carnage on the highway, we stop the harm and the damage to 
families that are wreaked on those families by those that get drunk and 
drive, if someone came in here and said, ``I have got the answer. Let's 
make driving Rolls Royces illegal. Let's ban Rolls Royces, to stop 
drunk driving and stop the crime they do,'' that makes about as much 
sense as what this Congress did in 1994.
  It seems to me that we should understand, it is the driver of the 
vehicle who creates and causes the damage. It is the person bent on 
crime, bent on violence, bent on destruction, bent on thievery or 
robbery or whatever criminal mischief they have, that we in this 
Congress owe an obligation to our constituents and to this country to 
protect them by locking those people up. That is what this legislation 
will do.
  That is why it is so important that today we pass this bill and tell 
our fellow constituents and our fellow Americans, ``If you do this 
crime with a gun, you are gone. You are away. You will not be out there 
on parole, in society, where you can continue to wreak your havoc with 
the families and lives of innocent citizens.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we are about today is important 
legislation, not only protecting constitutional rights of all 
Americans, but doing so in a way that gives Americans the real 
protection they need from the violent criminals they may face in 
unknown circumstances. I urge a vote yes for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to express my 
appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on Rules for recommending 
to the primary holders of time that all sides within each party be 
given time, and specifically, to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers], for honoring that request and yielding time to the minority 
within the majority that strongly opposes repeal of the automatic 
weapons ban.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-
called Second Amendment Restoration Act.
  This bill has precious little to do with our Constitution. It has 
everything to do with turning back the

[[Page H2688]]

clock and repealing the assault weapons ban--a ban that is strongly 
supported by police officers everywhere--a ban that has been embraced 
by the American people.
  Now, let us be clear, I have always supported the rights to 
legitimately owned weapons for sportsmen, hunters, and other law-
abiding citizens. But this military-style assault weapons ban is, in 
the opinion of virtually every law enforcement authority in the 
country, an essential component of a comprehensive anticrime and 
anticriminal strategy.
  This bill is necessary to give law enforcement the tools to attack 
the interstate gun running that goes on in these United States.
  Let us be clear. This vote is a matter of conscience. The ban of 
military-style assault weapons was a rejection of ``politics as usual'' 
and an endorsement of ``law and order.''
  My colleagues, the ban must stand.
  We owe it to the law enforcement officers across this Nation--the men 
and women who put their lives on the line each and every day. They 
should not have to face Uzis and Streetsweepers and high-capacity clips 
as they work to protect our families.
  And we owe it to the victims of gun violence, such as Amy Locicero 
Federici, of Hawthorne, NJ, who died in a hail of gunfire along the 
Long Island commuter railroad.
  I would urge my colleagues to stand with law enforcement--to stand 
with the victims of violence--to stand with America's children--to 
defeat the repeal of this common-sense assault weapons ban.
  Vote for the people, not the special interests.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker spoke of the police and police 
officers, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] did, of course, 
likewise.
  Let us lay something before the American people. Some police 
officers, some police chiefs endorse the gun ban. Some do not.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] speaks repeatedly of police 
chiefs supporting the Clinton-Schumer gun ban. And, as I said, some do. 
But that is not nearly the end of the story.
  Other chiefs and thousands of line officers across this country, not 
only feel otherwise but know otherwise, such as the Police Benevolent 
Association. They know that the 1994 gun ban and any gun ban shifts the 
balance of power away from victims and toward the criminals.
  These officers know that a responsible citizenry with the capability 
to defend itself against well-armed criminals and thugs who will 
always, I repeat, always have the ability to obtain whatever weapons 
they want, whenever they want, is a safer citizenry. There are very 
real examples which we will discuss.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my friend the distinguished member 
of the Judiciary Committee [Mr. Barr] was yesterday, but the Fraternal 
Order of Police were here again to beg us not to repeal this ban. The 
International Association of Police Chiefs are unanimous in opposing 
this repeal of the weapons ban. The Sheriffs Association. The National 
Association of Police Officers. Every organization of police in the 
United States of America supports the assault weapons ban. Every one. 
All. 100 percent. No exceptions. And so the gentleman unfortunately is 
in error.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, what was banned back in 1994? The weapons 
are not assault weapons.
  Assault weapons are weapons that are used in time of war by our 
military. They are automatic weapons.
  To educate those Members that do not know much about guns, all you 
have to do to fire 10, 15, 25 rounds with an automatic weapon, which is 
truly an assault weapon, which is only what our military have. They do 
not have any of these guns. Even Third World countries do not have 
these kind of guns.
  All you have to do is you pull the trigger, and you keep pulling it 
and the gun keeps firing. That is an automatic weapon. That is an 
assault weapon.
  These are not automatic weapons. Not a one of them we are talking 
about today.
  They are semiautomatic rifles. They are the same thing as has been 
said before as the gentleman from New Mexico pointed out, the gentleman 
from Florida has pointed out. They are no different than what I use 
when I go hunting. The only difference is it is cosmetic. It is what 
they look like. And because they look like military-type weapons, they 
get banned. But they do not kill, they do not hurt, they do not maim 
any different than the same one that I use when I go deer hunting.

  What is the purpose of banning these? It is to lead the people out 
there, the general public, to believe that this House, the Senate, and 
the President really did something about stopping crime, to make you 
feel good. It is a feel-better thing. Because it did not do that and it 
will not do that. Crime is going to continue, because crime is caused 
by the person who uses that gun, no matter what it is, or uses the 
knife or uses the ball bat or whatever they use to kill somebody or 
maim somebody.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address right now my words to the members of 
the media, especially Dan Rather who I heard last night say that these 
are rapid-fire assault weapons. The trouble with Peter Jennings, Dan 
Rather, Tom Brokaw, and people like that who come from the big cities, 
they do not know anything about guns.
  These are not rapid-fire guns, gentlemen. When you talk about this 
bill this evening on the network news, please call it what it is. It is 
a semiautomatic. To fire it, you have to pull the trigger each time. 
That is what you have to do.
  It is no different than the hunting rifles that people use all the 
time in this country to hunt with. No different. And why they are 
called assault weapons, well, that is just a misnomer that the 
proponents of gun control have come up with to lead the people to 
believe that we are really doing something about crime.
  Vote to repeal this ban. Let us get really on to putting criminals 
behind bars and stopping crime.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just say that 
strong crime control laws and assault weapon bans are not mutually 
exclusive. We need both.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the NRA's position on the second amendment, 
that individuals have an absolute right to bear arms and any attempt to 
restrict that right is a direct violation of the Constitution. I 
understand that argument. I do not buy it.
  Under the first amendment, a person cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded 
theater. I do not understand people who think the second amendment 
should enable someone to fire into a crowded theater. If we can put 
responsible restrictions on free speech, our most fundamental right, 
why can we not do the same, put responsible restrictions on the right 
to bear arms?
  It is the slippery slope, they will tell us: Once we ban one weapon, 
the next thing we know, the Government will be knocking on our door to 
take away all our guns.
  Keep in mind, the slope goes both ways. As technology continues to 
advance, weapons are increasingly becoming capable of killing more and 
more people in one fell swoop.
  Is there no weapon that supporters of this bill think should be 
prohibited in the public interest? Should we allow people to drive 
tanks down the street, or have biological or nuclear weapons in their 
possession? Of course not. That is unreasonable. And so is this 
proposal.
  Why is it that most police organizations support the ban on these 
weapons? It is because our good neighbors who put their lives on the 
line to protect the public are increasingly being outgunned, and this 
is not just a feeling they have, an impression, it is a fact.

[[Page H2689]]

  The rest of the world looks on in wonderment and fear a we go out of 
our way to facilitate this carnage.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure which does nothing to 
help law-abiding citizens but a great deal to help gang members and 
other criminals. I see no reason to bring back weapons no civilian 
needs but criminals prefer. It seems to me we are catering to the wrong 
crowd.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Georgia for using my language of H.R. 698 as the basis of this 
good bill.
  This legislation reaffirms our commitment to defend the Constitution 
and it also includes enhanced penalties for criminal use of a gun in 
Federal crimes. This legislation does what the original gun ban 
legislation could never have done: It fights crime.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler], a member of the committee who has worked on this 
subject matter for a considerable period of time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we have had no hearings, very little time to 
debate, so let me give my colleagues a picture that is worth a thousand 
words.
  This is Police Officer Richard Morrisey who was shot by a crazed 
gunman in East Chester, NY, yesterday. His partner Officer Michael Frey 
was killed before he could get out of his car. In all, more than 100 
rounds were fired from inside the house. The crazed gunman killed a 
police officer, his own grandmother, his dog, and himself.
  He did not have an assault weapon, but imagine the firepower and the 
additional carnage if he had.
  Cops tell us that military style assault weapons present the greatest 
danger to officers and civilians alike.
  These weapons turn murderous nuts like the one in East Chester 
yesterday or the Long Island Railroad into killing machines, able to 
fire multiple rounds quickly without reloading.
  What is the message we are sending to the family of Officer Frey and 
to our constituents who want to live free from fear?
  Is the NRA really more important than the lives of cops and law-
abiding citizens?
  My colleagues, just say no to this abomination.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, a little earlier a gentleman on the other side of the 
aisle made mention of an automobile not being banned because people are 
killed, but the automobiles do have standards set upon them to help 
prevent that: Brakes, seat belts, frame structure, a whole range of 
other things.
  Also an earlier speaker on this side of the aisle talks about 
American values when talking about this issue, and I would say massive 
accumulation of high-tech weapons is not about American values.
  At the time the Constitution was ratified, the only two choices of 
weapons you had was a smooth bore musket or a musket with rifling, not 
Uzi's, TEC-9's and a whole range of other things which, even though 
they are semiautomatic, you can get off about 100 to 120 rounds a 
minute and maybe even more.
  The Constitution protects people's rights right now to hunt, target 
shoot, defend themselves, or collect.
  The bill we passed a couple of years ago defends that right and 
statutorily protects 650 weapons that you can choose from. The American 
values and the Constitution allows for diversity of opinion, and it is 
my opinion that we should not repeal the assault weapons manufacturing 
ban.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the point here today can be best illustrated by 
this chart I have put up here.
  This is a good gun. This is a bad gun. This gun is banned. This gun 
right down here is exactly the same weapon as that one up there, 
precisely the same weapon. The same company makes it, it has the same 
firepower, the same killing power, and yet we have banned one and we 
have not banned the other simply because of looks.
  What we have got in the assault weapons ban is a sham. What we should 
be doing is what this bill does, and this bill does what needs to be 
done, it puts deterrence into the law and it says, ``Hey. If you use a 
weapon, a gun, in any Federal crime, you're going to get 5 years for 
simply possessing it, 10 years for brandishing it and 15 years in jail 
for firing that gun and double that if you commit a second crime. And 
if you use a clip with 10 or more cartridges, you get not only that, 
you get the first crime, the first offense for possession 10 years, the 
second 20, and the third 30.''

                              {time}  1245

  So that is what we should be doing. This particular assault weapon 
ban is ridiculous. We should not have passed it in the first place. 
Repealing it today is common sense. I urge a vote to repeal it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], is a Tec-9 a 
good gun or a bad gun?
  Well, let us talk about, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], 
automatic and semiautomatic weapons. They tested, among, in the San 
Jose police department, they test-fired an Uzi, a 30-round magazine was 
emptied in slightly less than 2 seconds on full automatic, while the 
same magazine was emptied in just 5 seconds on semiautomatic. In other 
words, on semiautomatic assault weapons, you can fire 300 rounds a 
minute. The only reason it could not be done is the magazine will not 
hold that many. It can be done because here is a police test. It can be 
done. Oh, you do not like 300? How about 150 a minute?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has ever had a gun in his hand.
  Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will yield, you do not need to know 
that.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is physically impossible. It cannot be 
done.
  I rise this afternoon to support H.R. 125. It is about time we set 
the record straight on the gun ban debate. The misinformation campaign 
waged by antigun groups and echoed in the media has intentionally 
distorted the issue.
  What is an assault weapon? Just as in the general public, I am sure 
there are Members in this House who cannot distinguish between a fully 
automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon. The firearms banned by 
last session's legislation are ugly, but I have run across some very 
nice people in the world who are not so pretty. What a firearm looks 
like has nothing to do with how a firearm functions. When the media 
talks about the need to ban semiautomatic firearms, they hold up and 
point to fully automatic weapons like the much-publicized Uzi and AK-
47s and other automatic weapons, which have been illegal for more than 
40 years.
  As the bill's language states, banning specific types of firearms has 
no effect on the behavior of those who commit violent crimes with 
firearms. The only sure way to keep gun-wielding violent criminals off 
the streets is to put them away in prison for a long, long time.
  This legislation provides a real solution. It gets tough on criminals 
who use a firearm in violent criminal acts. Under this bill, convicted 
armed criminals will be sentenced to a minimum of 5 years in prison and 
not less than 20 years for a second offense.
  A person who discharges a firearm while committing a violent crime 
must be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison and not less than 
30 years for a second offense.

[[Page H2690]]

  If we can put criminals away and keep them away, we will reduce 
crime. Law-abiding gunowners want these criminals off the streets. They 
do not care whether they are using a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat. 
We must have swift, sure justice. We cannot continue to ask law-abiding 
Americans to forgo their constitutional right to own a firearm.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect rights of 
law-abiding gunowners. Let us be tough on criminals, for a change, by 
voting for H.R. 125.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Here is the American values and the Constitution, which allows for 
diversity of opinion. The difference between these two weapons, this 
has a collapsible stock. It can be hidden in a small big, easier to 
walk into McDonald's or a bank; it provides also a pistol grip which 
makes it a lot easier to hold the weapon down while shooting it fast, 
and an extended magazine gives you a much larger capacity for bullets, 
which means if you walk into McDonald's or some other place, if you 
have some crazy nut, he is going to be able to kill more people with 
this gun than with this gun.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Almost 2 years ago this House debated and passed the semiautomatic 
assault weapon ban. It made eminent sense to pass that legislation then 
to keep these weapons of war from falling into the hands of criminals. 
It makes even more sense to keep the ban now. The ban is working. It is 
fighting crime. It is helping our police officers, and it is protecting 
our law-abiding citizens.
  Since its enactment, the number of assault weapons used in crime has 
dropped 18 percent, and that will increase as fewer and fewer are 
available. Assault weapons are harder for criminals to get. The price 
of these has tripled in that same period of time, and after many 
decades of rising crime in America, we have finally started to reduce 
our crime rate.
  The assault weapon ban is strongly supported by law enforcement 
officials. It makes their job safer. Every major law enforcement 
organization supports the ban. The ban is supported by 80 percent of 
the American people, who strongly feel criminals should not have 
assault weapons.
  This also is a public safety issue. It is an anticrime issue. We must 
vote to continue the ban.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  The gentleman from Delaware is very learned, but he must know there 
are major police organizations that do not support the gun ban, that do 
not support gun control, such as the Police Benevolent Association, 
representing thousands of police officers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Heineman], a distinguished member of the firearms 
legislation task force committee.
  (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for two purposes: first, to 
inform my colleagues that H.R. 125 has been substantially changed 
through language that I was privileged to include in the bill 
yesterday; second, to explain why this language improves this 
legislation.
  The 1994 weapons ban was simply misguided legislation and cosmetic. 
The 1994 bill penalizes those who lawfully own firearms and at the same 
time ignores those individuals who commit crimes with firearms.
  My language corrects the 1994 bill by imposing severe sentences on 
individuals who carry, display, or use firearms during the commission 
of a crime. The language also incorporates a balance between public 
safety and the right to bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
  With the language included in H.R. 125, this bill will rain thunder, 
not cosmetics, on those individuals who carry, display, or use firearms 
during the committing of a crime.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 125.
  With the Heineman language included, H.R. 125 is now effective crime 
legislation, and I join my colleagues in stating that the Southern 
States PBA, comprised of 16,000 police officers, does not support the 
ban.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], one of our very thoughtful members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, you know, I wonder on today, 
March 22, 1996, why this legislation is on the floor of the House. We 
have just heard a confusing announcement of who is for it and who is 
against it.
  Let me tell you why it is here: Because the victims are dead. That is 
why it is here. There are no victims to lobby and be able to say that 
we are not here because of these kinds of violent weapons. This was the 
bill yesterday, H.R. 125, 1 page, 1 page to ban the repeal of assault 
weapons.
  We know what happened: Politics got into this, and so they caused the 
confusion that this is an anticrime piece of legislation.
  Now it is some 10 pages long. It is a joke. All they are doing is 
saying, ``We want to repeal the assault weapons ban, and we will cloud 
the issue with a ruling about violent crime. We can penalize 
criminals.''
  We are all against it. What are we going to do about dead police 
officers, what are we going to do about Steve Posado's wife, who was 
gunned down in a San Francisco law firm with an automatic weapon?
  Vote this legislation down. It is a masquerade.
  It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to H.R. 125, the Gun Crime 
Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act. The House leadership 
has brought this bill to floor without hearings or a markup in the 
Crime Subcommittee or the full Judiciary Committee. This process is an 
outrage. In fact, this bill is only being considered because of 
promises made to very influential special interest groups.
  First of all, we must clear up the confusion over the ban on 
semiautomatic weapons in the 1994 crime law. Contrary to popular 
belief, provisions in the 1994 crime law only banned 19 semiautomatic 
weapons. Moreover, persons who already owned such weapons prior to the 
new law could still lawfully possess such weapons. Additionally, it is 
important to point out that approximately 650 rifles and shotguns were 
exempted from the new law. The ban on those 19 semiautomatic weapons 
has been a great success. Such weapons were used primarily by 
individuals who engage in criminal activity. The question that I raise 
is what law-abiding citizen has need for an Uzi or a gun commonly known 
as a ``Street Sweeper''? This ban has had no effect on Americans who 
are hunters and sportsmen.
  The ban on those 19 semiautomatic weapons is fully supported by all 
major law enforcement organizations, such as the National Sheriffs' 
Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The 
membership of these organizations are on the front line in the war on 
crime and they know first-hand the importance of keeping these assault 
weapons off of the streets of America.
  This bill is a bad bill because it also repeals the provisions of the 
1994 crime law that makes the use of a semiautomatic weapon during a 
Federal crime or violence or drug trafficking punishable by 5 years in 
prison. Furthermore, it repeals the provision in current law that makes 
it a Federal offense to manufacture or sell these assault weapons.
  Finally, let me add that the majority of the American people support 
this ban because it has made a difference in making their communities 
safe. In fact, statistics indicate that assault weapons make up 1 
percent of all guns but are 18 times more likely than other guns to be 
used to kill police officers or to be traced to other criminal 
activity.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 125. It is a terrible bill. It is 
unnecessary and will contribute to greater criminal activity across the 
Nation.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I am for this repeal. I have for 18 years 
been against gun control because I think it is feel-good that does not 
work. So after 18 years, I have 100 percent voting record with the NRA.
  Now let me say something about the NRA: The NRA, in my opinion, in 
the last few years, because of its hierarchy,

[[Page H2691]]

has become an apparatus to elect right-wing politicians to State 
legislatures and to this Congress.
  And the members of the NRA ought to understand the partisanship of 
that group, and if you do not believe it, think of this: President 
Reagan and President Bush both opposed major legislation that the NRA 
was for, and they were for major legislation that the NRA was against, 
and nobody in America knows it because of the partisanship of the NRA.
  I vote on this issue on the policy of it. But I must say that the NRA 
has indeed become an apparatus to elect right-wingers.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this is a very painful vote, because there are 
great arguments on both sides and there are great people on both sides. 
I do not see the point of polarizing this. This is across the lines of 
politics and party and geography.
  But I, after much wrestling with this idea, this issue, come out 
opposed to H.R. 125. At the same time, I strongly support the second 
amendment. I believe every American has the right to keep and bear 
arms. But as the first amendment guaranteeing free speech has 
reasonable restrictions, copyright, trademarks, slander, libel, 
obscenity, fire in a crowded theater, it does not impair the rigor of 
the first amendment to have reasonable restrictions on it, so the 
second amendment can endure and flourish with reasonable restrictions.
  I do not think the kid next door should have a flamethrower or a 
Howitzer or a 5-inch .38. And so where you draw the line? It seems to 
me hunters have a right to hunting rifles, hunting guns. A person has a 
right to a pump shotgun to protect his home, and I am told that is the 
weapon that will do it. Target shooters have a right to weapons.
  But an Uzi, an AK-47, has no legitimate purpose in the civilian 
population. It may have a purpose during war because all they can do is 
kill a lot of people in a hurry. But it seems to me the promiscuous 
proliferation, forgive the alliteration, of these weapons among youth 
gangs in cities, who many times can outgun the police, is stupid.
  It is not an impairment of the second amendment to say ``no.'' Take 
your hunting rifle, take your shotgun, take your target pistol and your 
target rifle, but an AK-47, a Street Sweeper, belongs in the arsenal 
under lock and key.
  Now, this bill is a statement. I know that. It does not do much. The 
definition of an assault weapon is kind of vague and fuzzy. But it is a 
statement that there are too many guns out there.
  They are killing instrumentalities. They are too available to people 
unfit and unsuited physically and temperamentally and emotionally to 
use them, and there ought to be a limit. And if this cuts down the 
millions of guns that are available to people who are unsuited to use 
them, then it is worthwhile. It only lasts 10 years. We have used up 2. 
It sunsets, then it does not make them illegitimate, it just says no 
more importation and no more manufacture.

                              {time}  1300

  Let us give it a chance, and maybe some lives. But I do not think 
this violates the second amendment. I think it is a reasonable 
restriction.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a Member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about firepower. True 
rapid fire automatic weapons, military assault weapons, have been 
banned for years, and they should be banned. What can make a weapon an 
assault weapon, and thereby illegal under the current legislation, is 
whether is carries a bayonet. The same rifle with a bayonet can be 
illegal as an assault weapon under this legislation. The same rifle 
without a bayonet can be a legal weapon. I invite any proponent of the 
current legislation to explain exactly how whether a weapon can carry a 
bayonet makes sense.
  Second of all, Director Magaw of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms, has told me that the Federal Government does not keep records 
of when what they call assault weapons are used in crimes. If the chief 
Government enforcer of Federal firearms law says the Government does 
not keep records of when such weapons are used in crime, I think that 
makes any statistics being thrown out here about the use of these 
weapons in crime and how they have been affected, if at all, by the 
current legislation, very, very suspect.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds for the attention 
of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Now, Steve, you know that there is a floating list of requirements, 
and that bayonet mount that you keep laying up here is 1 of 7 or 10 
items. So, please stop taking advantage of the House. As a matter of 
fact, it is folding-telescoping stock, protruding pistol grip, bayonet 
mount that drives you furious, threaded muzzle or flash suppressor, or 
grenade launcher. All of those are stated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Mexico.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized 
for 20 seconds.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if anyone in Michigan committed a 
crime recently with a grenade launcher?
  Mr. CONYERS. I do not know, and you do not either. That is not the 
point.
  Mr. SCHIFF. The gentleman gave me the time. Any two of those items, 
including a grenade launcher, can make a weapon illegal under the 
current legislation. None of that has anything to do with firepower. If 
any or all of the matters the gentleman listed had anything to do with 
firepower, do a demonstration. Put the two weapons next to each other 
and prove your point.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress we passed an historic 
crime bill that included a ban on assault weapons, and it was supported 
by 80 percent of the public. It is hard to believe that we are here 
today. So why are we here? Because the NRA donated a lot of money to 
Republican campaigns, and the NRA expects a return on its investment, 
and now it wants its money's worth. This is absolutely wrong. It is a 
wrong time for us to turn our back on our Nation.
  Just yesterday in my district in Eastchester, NY, a lunatic killed a 
police officer in the line of duty with a high-powered rifle. The 
police do not need less protection from maniacs with guns; they need 
more.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Connecticut, who is 
also one of our bipartisan leaders on the issue of campaign finance 
reform. I mention that because I think this bill goes more to the need 
for campaign finance reform than it says about assault weapons. You 
know, the fact is that this bill is not going any place, it is going to 
be vetoed. There are far more important things we need to be doing.
  But the three-quarters of the American people support the ban, 
because they know it is reasonable and is working, can only conclude 
this bill is coming up because the NRA convention is coming up, and our 
Members wanted to have some of that $2 million they are going to be 
parceling out.
  So in the interest of restoring the individual reputation of the 
Members and the institutional credibility of this body, is it not time 
that Members, both Democrats and Republicans alike, when they precede 
their remarks in favor of this bill or who plan to vote for this bill, 
publicly disclose how much they in fact have taken from the NRA and 
whether they intend to continue taking money from the NRA? That is the 
kind of complete disclosure and real campaign finance reform. It is 
time to do the public's interest instead of PAC's.

[[Page H2692]]

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman questioning the 
motives of his colleagues?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has not been 
recognized. The gentleman from California is out of order.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that through this whole debate, gun 
control is not crime control. Here in Washington, where the possession 
of handguns are illegal, you can walk right out that Capitol Hill door 
and you see windows that have bars on them in homes and businesses, 
and, to me, it is highly reflective that the wrong people are behind 
bars.
  People are living in fear in this town. What this is about is giving 
citizens the opportunity to defend themselves from the real thugs. It 
is the thugs, it is the criminals, who pull the trigger. We should have 
greater deterrence to go after them. That is what this bill does.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] to know that, yes, motives were being raised by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Maloney], a distinguished member of the Committee on Government 
Operations.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is extreme. Three out of four 
Americans support the assault weapons ban. Two out of three gun owners 
support the assault weapons ban.
  This bill contradicts what the Republican majority claims they stand 
for. You cannot be anticrime and pro-Uzi. You cannot be pro-family and 
pro-AK-47.
  This debate is not a question of hunting and self-defense. Assault 
weapons are not used for hunting purposes. Only drug dealers use Uzis 
for self-defense. The only real question is, is there anything the 
Republican majority will not do for the NRA?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, my commitment is to protect this Nation's 
law abiding citizens, or, more importantly, to allow them to protect 
themselves.
  I am deeply concerned about the terrible toll that violent crime 
takes on our society. Decent people are being held hostage by a small 
but brutally violent segment of our population. Our response? Criminals 
serve increasingly smaller portions of already short sentences, while 
we take rights away from their victims.
  The FBI statistics prove that banning guns does not address the 
growing crime rate. Less than 3 percent of murders in this country 
involve semiautomatic weapons. A person has a 95-percent greater chance 
of being killed by a blunt object than a rifle. Maybe we should ban 
knives and fists, which are responsible for 15 and 5 percent of 
homicides respectively.
  The right to keep and bear arms is a basic guarantee of our 
Constitution, and, no, this right has not outlived its purpose in 
today's world. We must renew and strengthen this right for our law 
abiding citizens. The way to fight crime, Mr. Speaker, is to punish 
criminals for the crimes they commit by imposing harsh penalties and 
assuring that they are served. If you want to join me in encouraging 
States to do this, cosponsor my bill, House Concurrent Resolution 105.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to remember who we are talking 
about in this debate. Taking guns from Americans does not make them 
safer because the criminals will still have them. We cannot solve our 
crime problem by limiting an honest citizen's right to own a firearm. 
Our commitment, Mr. Speaker, should be to allow our people to protect 
themselves.
  Please support House Resolution 125 and please cosponsor House 
Concurrent Resolution 105.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, oh, nonsense. Strong law enforcement and 
stiff penalties and reasonable gun control measures are not 
alternatives. We can and we should do both of them.
  The NRA began losing the American people when it failed to follow 
most law enforcement officers who support Brady and a ban on certain 
assault weapons. Many NRA members are not absolutists. They realize 
that the Supreme Court never interpreted the constitution to say that 
people may own and use any weapon they want in our country. They 
realize that with rights in our free society go responsibilities, 
responsibilities to the rest of society.
  No one wants to take guns from law abiding citizens who use them for 
sport or hunting purposes or for protection. But it is time the NRA 
should respect and be responsible to the 75 to 80 percent of the 
American people who say that reasonable gun control laws are not too 
much to ask.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], whose hard time for 
hard criminals is included in this bill.
  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand up for the fact that this has 
tough mandatory sentencing for those criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the measure before us 
today. This legislation makes it clear that problem with guns in our 
society is not the guns but the felons who use them.
  While the most contentious debate today will be over the unnecessary 
ban on certain semiautomatic firearms, I have worked hard to make sure 
that this legislation would include another important provision.
  Section 5 of this bill will dramatically increase the penalties for 
possessing, brandishing, or discharging a firearm during the commission 
of a Federal felony.
  This section, which is similar to the Hard Time for Gun Crimes Act 
which I introduced last week, provides stiff mandatory sentences for 
anyone who commits a crime with a gun, with even stiffer sentences for 
those who discharge a firearm while committing a crime.
  This bill sends a clear message that we need to keep society's most 
violent felons behind bars. Americans have zero tolerance for violent 
crime, so our justice system should too. Our families and children 
should not be afraid to walk to school, go to the grocery store, and 
leave their windows open at night.
  I believe firmly that gun control is not crime control. Why would 
someone willing to commit murder respect gun control laws?
  Gun control, while often well-intentioned, has simply failed. We have 
over 22,000 gun control laws on the books today. Controlling those who 
use guns in a criminal way is far more effective than cracking down on 
the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who own firearms for hunting 
and their own protection.
  We should work to keep those who would misuse guns in jail. No more 
slick criminal defense attorneys pushing criminals to freedom through 
legal loopholes. No more soft sentences after teary speeches before the 
bench. No more legal gymnastics setting criminals free after a fraction 
of their allotted time in jail.
  I have worked hard to get language included in this bill which would 
keep violent criminals behind bars, and section 5 of this bill is going 
to do just that. I applaud and thank the leadership for including 
increased penalties for crimes committed with guns in this important 
legislation.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for 
yielding me time. Let me ask my colleagues, how many gun control laws 
are on the books? Twenty thousand? Twenty thousand are on the books. 
And where are most of those laws applying? Washington, DC.
  You know, it is appropriate when my colleague from Georgia talked 
about the Washington Post. There was an article today that got my 
attention that showed crime has increased in Washington, DC, since 
1995, 14 percent.
  A Lieutenant Duckett there, president of the Black Police Caucus, 
said gun control has not worked in Washington, DC. The only people who 
have guns are the criminals.
  Washington, DC, is often referred to as ``the crime capital of the 
country.'' Guess what folks? DC has one of the strictest gun control 
laws in the entire country.
  In fact, Lt. Lowell K. Duckett, president of the Black Police Caucus 
said citizens are right to arm themselves. He also said ``Gun control

[[Page H2693]]

has not worked in DC. The only people who have guns are the 
criminals.''
  Lieutenant Duckett further stated, ``DC has one of the strictest gun 
laws in the Nation,'' it also has one of the highest murder rates.
  And so, criminals are armed while good, law-abiding citizens are not. 
In the wild west at least both sides were armed.
  Now, criminals are armed and dangerous--citizens are the one's living 
in a prison-like atmosphere.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] my dear friend 
and Democratic colleague, and I are going to continue our discussion at 
the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner at Covell Hall in Detroit 
tomorrow. So stay tuned.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey] who has worked very hard on this matter.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the second amendment does not allow 
Americans to own tanks or bazookas or grenade launchers or assault 
weapons. But the chief lobbyist of the NRA testified before Congress 
this year that anyone should be able to own them.
  I cannot believe that we are actually debating on the floor of 
Congress whether the American people are safer with these guns on or 
off the streets. But we are debating it today. Why? Promises made and 
promises kept, ladies and gentlemen. Promises made and promises kept. 
The NRA has come to town to redeem a promise, and the Republican 
freshmen who made this deadly deal are about to keep it.
  Do not insult our police officers, who are sick and tired of having 
their fellow officers gunned down by crackpots. Do not insult the 
mothers and fathers of elementary school children sprayed with 106 
rounds in Stockton, CA. Do not insult the American people, who saw 
their own White House peppered with gunfire by a lunatic with an 
assault weapon.
  Stop this Congress before it hurts somebody. Vote no.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, there is too much crime and too much violence 
in these crimes. That is why I support doing away with the gun ban 
because it is false advertising. It does not deal with these problems. 
This ban, the existing ban, deals with how a firearm looks. Does it 
have a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor? Then it is banned. But a 
gun, a firearm that shoots the same bullet at the same velocity with 
the same impact but looks different, that can be legal.
  Mr. Speaker, the FBI and the Department of Justice statistics 
themselves show that one has a greater chance of being murdered tonight 
with a steak knife or by fish or feet than by one of these types of 
firearms. My experience is that criminals who want to commit a crime 
with a gun are going to get a gun, it does not matter what it is.
  What we can do is what is in this bill, and that is make sure that 
they do the time. Let us make sure that there is a stiff mandatory 
sentence so that they are removed from society. Fighting crime requires 
more than simple feel-good-but-accomplish-little legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, what did former Presidents Reagan and 
Bush, former Senator Barry Goldwater, a majority of law enforcement 
officials and a majority of the American public and many members of the 
NRA have in common? They all supported the ban on assault weapons that 
we passed in the 103d Congress, and they continue to do so.
  We are not talking about hunting weapons. We are talking about 
firearms whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people as 
quickly as possible. Hundreds of firearms are still available to 
sportsmen and to those who want it for self-defense. Assault weapons 
are disproportionately used for criminal purposes. I want my colleagues 
to know that that ban in the 103d Congress has made a difference 
because we have found that, with the ban in place, 18.4 percent fewer 
assault weapons were traced to crime in the first 8 months of 1995 than 
in the first 8 months of 1994, the first such decline in recent years.
  I urge my colleagues very earnestly to vote against this repeal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again announce the times. 
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] has 4 minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 4 minutes and 10 seconds 
remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] has a minute and a 
quarter, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] is entitled to close 
the debate.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the previous debate, one of 
our colleagues said the scum of the Earth uses these weapons. I say to 
my colleagues, let us get rid of the scum. But let me say something, 
the scum will use anything to kill with.
  Let me tell my colleagues about a couple of them in Georgia. We had 
one who shot a police officer with a shotgun, let him bleed to death. 
We got rid of that scum, we executed him. I witnessed it. Let me tell 
about another scum who took a club and beat a woman's head to a pulp. 
We got rid of that scum. We executed him. We got over 100 scums waiting 
on death row with the same punishment. Let us get rid of the scum, not 
law abiding citizens.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, we knew it was coming, and now the payoff 
to the NRA has finally arrived. It is common knowledge that the NRA 
pumped $1.4 million into supporting extremist candidates. As a result, 
Speaker Gingrich now has the votes to advance the NRA agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote is a shame for this House. This vote, Mr. 
Speaker, amounts to nothing more than a big payback. No wonder 
Congress' approval rating has sunk so low.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my 
colleagues a letter addressed to the Members of the House of 
Representatives written in May 1994:

       We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the 
     domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This 
     is a matter of vital importance to the public safety.

  I will not read the rest of the letter, but those are the two opening 
sentences of a letter signed by former Republican President Gerald 
Ford, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, former Republican 
President Ronald Reagan. This is not radical stuff. The letter goes on 
to refer to the 1989 import ban that resulted in an impressive 40-
percent drop in the imported assault weapons, passed, administratively 
by President Bush, Republican President Bush. That import ban is 
mirrored in this ban on assault weapons.
  All this does is to prevent the domestic manufacture of the very same 
weapons a Republican President prevented the import of. Logical, 
simple, fair. That is why the American people support it.
   The second amendment was not drawn with modern weapons in mind. And 
as the development of modern communications technology has required us 
to modernize the communications law, so the development of modern 
weaponry available on our markets has required us to modernize first 
our import policy and then our domestic law.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the ban means wasting the time and 
limited resources of our police and courts. The police will spend their 
time disarming potential victims instead of going after youth gangs who 
are terrorizing our inner cities. This mentality of the ban would send 
the authorities after religious eccentrics down in Waco.
  Let us focus on the criminal. Let us not waste the time and resources 
of our police on disarming innocent people who just want to defend 
themselves but

[[Page H2694]]

have never committed a crime. That is the mentality that burned those 
people out in Waco, and that is what my colleagues are fostering today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what this shameful 
debate is all about. Rather than risk offending the NRA, Speaker 
Gingrich would rather risk the lives of policemen and innocent people.
  Today I received a letter from a Chicago policeman who puts his life 
on the line every day fighting gangs in that city. He sent me clippings 
of policemen killed in Chicago by these assault weapons and begged me 
to vote against this ban. The choice before this House is between the 
police and the gun lobby. The choice is between the safety of the men 
and women who put the badges on and put their lives on the line every 
day and the political power of the gun lobby. Vote no on this shameful 
bill.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward], a former Peace Corps volunteer.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the nonpartisanship of getting 
the time from the Republican side because I want to remind the House of 
the tragedy that took place in Louisville, KY, at the Standard Gravure 
plant. People were working when a disgruntled former employee came in 
with one of these weapons and killed eight people. He wounded horribly 
my wife's first cousin.
  I introduced a ban on these weapons in 1989 in Kentucky. I would be 
embarrassed to be a part of this body when it is repealed. I stand with 
our police, with our police chiefs, and with the American people and 
urge defeat of this repeal.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire as to how much 
time is remaining on all sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] has 3 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 1 
minute and 50 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] has 3 minutes and 10 seconds remaining. The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Chapman] has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how low can you go? This 104th 
Congress has hit a new low. The NRA, I mean the GOP leadership, showed 
me the old saying is true, he who has the gold makes the rule. Law 
enforcement officers from my district have told me how critical it is 
to keep the assault ban in place. No one needs an AK-47 to defend their 
home or to go hunting unless they are hunting people. We must think 
about the message Congress is sending to young people of America by 
saying assault weapons are OK.
  Sometimes you just don't appreciate how good something is until it is 
gone. Today, I truly miss Speaker Foley for his fairness in allowing 
debate on the important issues. We used to sing a song, ``How Low Can 
You Go?'' This 104th Congress has hit a new low. The NRA, I mean the 
GOP leadership, shows me that the old saying is true, ``He who has the 
gold, makes the rules.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the strongest opposition to repealing 
the ban on assault weapons. I voted in 1994 to put a ban on deadly 
assault weapons because they are responsible for the deaths of too many 
of my people. It is unconscionable for responsible legislators to 
repeal this important ban. Without hearings or committee action, and 
only 1 hour of floor debate, it seems the reason for today's vote is so 
the majority party can pay back the NRA. That's not good enough for me 
or the people in my district who want to keep this ban in place.
  Law enforcement officials from all over my district have told me how 
critical it is to keep the assault ban in place. Police Chief Wayland 
Clifton, of Gainesville, FL, says:

       The incidence of violent crime, especially involving 
     firearms, is on the rise in America. This fact is confirmed 
     by numerous studies conducted by the Department of Justice. . 
     . . Many times, instances of mass violence and multiple 
     homicides are worse when assault weapons are used. The 
     weapons, due to their nature, provide criminals with greater 
     firepower, thus these weapons pose a greater risk to both 
     police officers and potential victims.

  Even though assault weapons make up less than 1 percent of all guns, 
they are 18 times more likely to be cop-killers. Police support this 
ban because outlawing assault weapons saves the lives of police and the 
general public.
  There is already proof that the ban is working to lower rates of 
violent crime. The number of assault weapons traces initiated in the 
first 8 months of 1995 dropped from 1994 levels. According to tracing 
data collected by BATF, assault weapons, as a percentage of all gun 
traces, fell for the second year in a row, from 5 percent in 1994 to 
4.3 percent in 1995. Despite these encouraging trends, assault weapons 
are still a major threat to Americans, and especially law enforcement 
officers.

  Finally, I have talked with the families of too many victims of guns 
too easily obtained. No one needs an AK-47 to defend their home or to 
go hunting--unless you are hunting people. We must think about the 
message Congress sends to the young people of America. What kind of 
message do we send by saying assault weapons are OK? The ban on deadly 
assault weapons must stay in place.


                                Gainesville Police Department,

                                  Gainesville, FL, March 21, 1996.
     Hon. Corrine Brown,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Corrine Brown: I understand that a vote 
     on H.R. 125 regarding a proposal to lift the ban on assault 
     weapons is scheduled for March 22, 1996. The ban on assault 
     weapons is very important to law enforcement, so I am seeking 
     your assistance on this matter.
       As you well know, the incidence of violent crime, 
     especially involving firearms, is on the rise in America. 
     This fact is confirmed by numerous studies conducted by the 
     Department of Justice. In addition to these statistics 
     regarding the degree of victimization, the newspapers provide 
     anecdotal evidence about the severity of violent crime in 
     America. Many times, instances of mass violence and multiple 
     homicides are exacerbated when assault weapons are used. 
     These weapons, due to their nature, provide criminals with 
     greater firepower, thus these weapons pose a greater risk to 
     both police officers and potential victims.
       Therefore, to alleviate the potential threat that assault 
     weapons pose to our citizens, I urge that you vote against 
     H.R. 125 and not lift the ban on assault weapons.
           Sincerely,
                                             Wayland Clifton, Jr.,
                                                  Chief of Police.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell], our newest Member but also a former Member.
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, you cannot deter somebody who, having shot 
weapons at innocent people, turns the weapon on himself and kills 
himself. No amount of enhanced penalties can deter that person, and 
that is exactly what happened in Kileen, TX; Louisville, KY; Stockton, 
CA; Jacksonville, CA; 101 California Street in San Francisco, and those 
are just since I first entered the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the size of the clip, the ability to shoot rapidly, 
these are characteristics which give the power to kill to people who 
are insane in these instances, and increasing penalties does nothing to 
deter them.
  Last, to those of my colleagues who care so much about the 
Constitution, the second amendment begins that, ``A well-regulated 
militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of 
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' It begins 
with the words, ``A well-regulated militia.'' What the assault weapons 
ban does is well-regulate that militia. The militia constitute the 
armed citizenry. It is our duty to regulate them.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I find it interesting the gentleman from California who just spoke 
about the second amendment of the Constitution failed to emphasize the 
fact that it is not the militia's right to keep and bear arms. The 
Constitution clearly says that it is the people's right to keep and 
bear arms.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to make something very clear about the NRA. 
This is nothing but a smokescreen to divert the attention of the real 
debate here. I am here to tell Members, the NRA did not support me. 
They heavily supported my opponent, and yet the NRA is right on this 
issue and right on second amendment rights.

[[Page H2695]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is not a political issue. This is an issue of 
citizens' rights, because the real issue is not guns. The real issue 
here is crime. We banned the so-called assault weapons and we still 
have crime. As a result, some will argue that we need to ban many more 
guns, and that argument, Mr. Speaker, is offensive. It is offensive to 
common sense, and it is offensive to the Constitution. We need to 
punish criminals, not inanimate objects. Mr. Speaker, we need to 
reserve the fundamental rights of the American people.
  When we address the issue of violent crime, we must remember the 
second item of our Bill of Rights, the rights of the people to keep, 
the rights of the people, not the militia, the people, to keep and bear 
arms, shall not be infringed. Let us address the real problem of crime, 
Mr. Speaker, and let us undo the damage that has been done to the 
constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, this vote boils down to one question: How 
much is a life worth? How large a campaign check from the gun lobby is 
big enough to convince you to put these guns back on the street, $1,000 
from the NRA, $5,000? To put the life of a police officer in grave 
danger, to put a child in an early grave?

                              {time}  1330

  Because of these guns, they mean combat, they mean assault, they mean 
killing. This vote shows that the Republicans never wanted a Contract 
With America; they wanted to combat within America.
  How many children were able to avoid a drive-by shooting? How many 
police officers made it safely back home because of this ban? Let us 
keep the ban and keep our children and our communities safe.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will take these last few seconds to talk 
mainly to my Democratic colleagues about the circumstances we find 
ourselves in today. As a strong, strong proponent and always having 
been a strong proponent of second amendment rights, I know that this 
debate has been permeated, not just today, with innuendo about who may 
be influencing whose elections, but has been permeated by politics 
throughout the entire history of this debate. I know there have been 
references to 1994, when the gun ban became law as a part of the 1994 
crime bill, and I look at my colleagues today on both sides of the 
aisle, and I see a lot of new Members that are here, Republican friends 
and Republican colleagues, and I see a lot of missing Democrats, 
Democrats that were here in the 103d Congress that are no longer with 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, the dean of the Congress, Jack Brooks, my good friend 
from the Ninth District of Texas, is not here today. He at that time 
was chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary because Democrats were 
in a majority in the 103d Congress.
  Yes, politics played in the debate as this became law, as my 
colleagues see, because we never got Congress to vote up or down on an 
assault rifle ban. We passed it in the House; we, those that were here 
at the time; but there were not the votes to pass it in the Senate.
  Because of that, I say to the Members, we are fighting about 
Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and other issues today. We ought to 
repeal this nonsense. Let us support H.R. 125.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms and 
the Government has the constitutional responsibility to regulate that 
right. Repeal of the assault weapons ban was not and is not part of the 
Contract With America. It never got past the first cut. Our Contract 
With America is about balancing our Federal budget, getting our 
financial house in order, saving our trust funds from bankruptcy for 
future generations, and transforming our caretaking, social and 
corporate welfare society into a caring opportunity society.
  Logical gun control legislation and strong crime control are not 
mutually exclusive. We need both. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment, this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] opened this debate 
by saying that this was a choice between American values and Washington 
values. I agree, but not quite in the context in which he put it. It is 
a choice between American values, where 70 percent of the American 
public are saying keep these assault weapons banned, where the 
policemen of America are saying please keep these assault weapons 
banned. And Washington values, political payoffs to special interests, 
Republican payoffs to the NRA; that is what this is all about.
  The Republican Party can no longer claim to be the party of law and 
order because they are saying if it is a choice between police and the 
NRA, they choose the NRA. This is a shame and a disgrace.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Luther].
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because 
Congress should not repeal a law which, based on the best information 
available to us, appears to be saving lives of Americans.
  I come from a family of hunters in Minnesota, like many of my 
constituents, but this bill is not about weapons used to hunt animals. 
It is about allowing the proliferation of weapons which are today used 
to hunt human beings. I do not want my children and the other children 
in my district to live in that kind of a world.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the message in America is we want less guns in 
our communities. Every child is listening to that. Less guns, not more 
guns. Keep the promise to our children, vote ``no.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. So they want to repeal the assault weapons ban?
  Mr. Speaker, I just passed through the hall, and I saw Sarah and Jim 
Brady out there, decent people. So my colleagues want to repeal it? All 
they have to do is walk past them, and it should teach them a lesson.
  Look, if only one person in America is saved by gun control, I want 
to see every gun controlled because some of these people do not even 
need to have a gun in their hands, they are already bad enough without 
that.
  So all over this country, those gun barons, they should go tell the 
NRA I said--Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are cutting off my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I appeal the ruling of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not in order. The time that was 
yielded to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] has expired.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I appeal the ruling because I was not given 30 
seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is controlled, and the time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am owed more time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 additional seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will never shut up 
my mouth.
  All I want to say is that I wish we could control these guns, and a 
ban on all these weapons is what America needs. So, if they want to 
repeal the assault weapons ban, they should go out in the hall and talk 
to Sarah and Jim Brady. My colleagues are behind the curve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida has 
again expired.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers other than 
myself, and I reserve my time to close.

[[Page H2696]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about facts.
  Mr. Speaker, let us talk about facts.
  Mr. Speaker, let us talk about facts.
  Of the 92 police officers that we have records of who were killed in 
the line of duty, 33 were killed by weapons that are covered in this 
bill, 33 of 92. Let me read their names: William Christian, Jr.----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. John J. Novabilski, April 26, 1995, John Norcross, April 
20, 1995, John McLaughlin, April 20, 1995----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida has 
expired.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Timothy Howe, April 14, 1995, Daniel Doffyn, March 8, 
1995----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman 
from Florida will be in order.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Henry J. Daly, Michael J. Miller, Martha Dixon-
Martinez----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman 
from Florida is in violation of House rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is violating House rules. He 
ought to be escorted off the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] is 
reminded that he has a responsibility to obey the rules of the House, 
and that display beyond the time recognized was outside the bounds of 
good judgment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield 
the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer] who opened this debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer] for 15 seconds.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, one of the few times the American people 
were proud of this body in the last few years is when we had the 
courage, the courage to override the special interests and pass the 
assault weapons ban. Let us not undo that. Let us stand tall, be proud, 
and do the right thing.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  (Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker. I rise in vehement opposition to H.R. 125, which would 
repeal a major part of the 1994 crime bill. The assault weapon ban is 
law today, and there is no compelling evidence that it should be 
repealed.
  In 1994, I was one of a group of Republicans to advocate for a 
compromise crime bill that included the assault weapons ban. Part of 
that compromise was the authorization of a critical study that will 
tell Congress exactly how well the ban is working. This bill on the 
floor today contains a provision to terminate this study--forcing us to 
stick our heads in the sand when it comes to fully understanding the 
issue. This tells me that sponsors of this repeal don't even want to 
know the facts.
  I firmly support the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear 
arms, but this right is not unlimited.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this misguided legislation is taking valuable 
time from our work on important issues. We still haven't finished last 
year's budget yet, and we have a lot of work to do on balancing the 
budget. We must pass real welfare reform, and address health care 
insurance reform which is needed to allow millions of Americans to 
obtain coverage.
  I urge my colleagues to uphold this ban, and get back to our No. 1 
proprity--balancing the budget.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the regular order of the House should be 
to uphold the assault weapons ban.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 125, a measure that 
is consistent with the Republican majority's theme for the 104th 
Congress: ``Promises paid for, promises kept.''
  Today's consideration of the assault weapons ban repeal fulfills the 
Republican leadership's commitment to the National Rifle Association, 
but is nothing short of a betrayal to the safety of the American 
public. Indeed, as characterized by an editorial in today's edition of 
the Los Angeles Times, in view of the likely Senate filibuster and a 
certain Presidential veto, this House vote is little more than a 
blatant special interest payback that has become the hallmark of the 
NRA.
  The American people know that the violence that is ripping apart our 
families, classrooms, and communities throughout the Nation is nothing 
short of a crisis. That is why the polls have consistently shown that 
between 77 and 80 percent of Americans support an assault weapons ban. 
The ban is also supported by law enforcement agencies, including every 
police chief in my district. Whenever a law enforcement officer is 
shot, it is 18 times more likely that an assault weapon was used.
  The reason the Republicans and the NRA are trying to overturn this 
Democratic-passed law is because the law is working. Attorney General 
Janet Reno has estimated that the number of assault weapons traced to 
crime has dropped 18 percent since the law took effect. In the past 2 
years, thousands of people with criminals records have been denied 
access to these weapons.
  That is why I supported the original assault weapons ban. I will vote 
against its repeal. This law balances the legitimate concerns of law-
abiding gunowners against the need to take affirmative steps to curb 
senseless violence in our communities. The assault weapons ban is a 
carefully crafted compromise measure. It targets 19 specific styles of 
semiautomatic weapons, while exempting approximately 650 rifles and 
shotguns and privately owned assault weapons purchased before the 
bill's date of enactment. The banned assault weapons are not firearms 
that can be used for hunting and sporting purposes--they are designed 
to kill people and are the weapons of choice for street gangs and drug 
traffickers because they intimidate as efficiently as they kill.
  At a time when drive-by shootings and the murder of innocent 
bystanders is on the rise, we must not retreat from this Congress' 
obligation to make our streets safer. I urge my colleagues to join 
forces with the enforcement organizations, medical associations, the 
American Bar Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties, among 
others, and defeat H.R. 125.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse]
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
outrageous bill.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important for the American people, those here 
today and those listening to these proceedings, to recognize and to 
remember that protection of the American people, protection of our 
wives, our husbands, our children, our parents, our friends, and our 
associates is a bipartisan issue, and that is why the bill that we have 
here today is a bipartisan bill, a strong, a strong bipartisan bill 
because people on both sides of the aisle recognize that our Government 
is failing to perform.
  Mr. Speaker, the protection of the American public is what this bill 
is all about. The people on the other side of the aisle think that they 
have a monopoly on people who have suffered, on people who continue to 
suffer, and on people who will suffer as a result of criminal 
activities against them, criminal actions against them.
  Mr. Speaker, they do not have a monopoly. I would like them to hear 
about some people, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] knows,

[[Page H2697]]

because he was at the hearings, who have exhibited uncommon valor and a 
tremendous sense of courage when they came before our committee, when 
they came before the American people testified.
  Were it not for, were it not for our ability to defend ourselves, 
Miss Sharon Ramboz of Maryland would be dead today, and her family. Mr. 
Charmaine Klaus from Waterford, MI, would be dead today, and his 
family. Mr. Phil Murphy from Tucson, AZ; and the list goes on and on. 
These are American people, husbands, wives, children, parents who need 
the protection afforded by our second amendment, and no Member of this 
body, Republican or Democrat, should belly up to the bar, should have 
to be defensive about standing up to our Constitution.
  Support this bill.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vehement opposition to the Gun 
Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act, H.R. 125. This 
bill is an abominable action that is a Republican assault on sane gun 
control laws. It is disgustingly apparent that H.R. 125 is motivated by 
the Republican juggernaut bank-rolled by the NRA.
  H.R. 125 would repeal current law which prohibits the possession, 
manufacture, and transfer of many of the most egregious man-hunting 
weapons that proliferate American communities--TEC-9, Colt AR-15, and 
TEC-22. In a country where there is one gun per adult already in 
circulation--or 210 million guns--this repeal would be deadly.
  Only in America is the safety of children, women, men, and families 
sacrificed for political, as well as economic profit. Most other 
industrialized countries have a virtual ban on handgun sales, which 
account for the vast difference in homicide rates between the United 
States and other nations. In 1990, handguns killed only 22 people in 
Great Britain, 13 in Sweden, 91 in Switzerland, 87 in Japan, 10 in 
Australia, and 68 in Canada. The United States infamous handgun 
fatalities statistic totaled 10,567.
  Facts and compassion do not drive this Republican Congress. We should 
not be surprised by yet another affront to human decency and 
protection. Ironically, under this bill, the hunters will have their 
way. They will now be able to hunt with Uzi's and street sweepers. As 
ridiculous as this sounds, it is ridiculous to vote for H.R. 125. I 
strongly encourage my colleagues in the other chamber of Congress to 
oppose this travesty.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 125, 
which would repeal the ban on assault weapons. I take this position 
today in response to concerns raised by the Guam chief of police, Jack 
S. Shimizu, who recently contacted me in opposition to the repeal on 
the ban on assault weapons.
  Most police officers on the front lines of law enforcement on Guam 
will tell you the same thing. One of the Guam Police Department's 
biggest challenges is with the influx and use of ``ice.'' The violence 
and crime associated with the spread of ``ice'' is affecting our entire 
community and tearing families apart.
  And any police officer will confirm the link between drugs and 
assault weapons. Assault weapons are the weapons of choice with these 
drug lords. They are not being used, nor necessary, for hunting. They 
are being used by drug lords simply to solidify their power to 
transport illegally ``ice'' into our island.
  In order for the Guam Police Department to fight the island's war on 
``ice,'' they need every tool at their disposal. The ban on assault 
weapons is not a panacea. It will not stop crime or crack down on 
illegal drugs in and of itself. But it is helpful and an additional 
tool in the arsenal of the police department.
  I would like to submit for my colleagues' consideration a copy of a 
letter I received from Mr. Jack S. Shimizu, the chief of police at the 
Guam Police Department, for the Record.
                                               Government of Guam,


                                       Guam Police Department,

                                                        GMF, Guam.
       Dear Congressman Underwood. On behalf of the Guam Police 
     Department (GPD), I strongly urge you to relate GPD's 
     opposition on the congressional bill for repealing the 1994 
     ban on assault weapons to the Committee on the Judiciary in 
     the House of Representatives. As nearly every law enforcement 
     agency and officer across the nation will tell you, such a 
     repeal not only threatens any gains our department has made 
     in the Territory's ``War on Ice and Dangerous Drugs'' but it 
     heightens the danger our officers may face in confronting the 
     criminal element engaged in drug trafficking who will be 
     provided the opportunity to legitimately acquire such weapons 
     if the ban is lifted.
       Dangerous drugs and guns nearly always go hand in hand and 
     the legitimate access to assault weapons by virtue of 
     repealing such a ban does nothing more than provide the 
     criminal element a legitimate way to outgun law enforcement. 
     Therefore, I respectfully request that you make known GPD's 
     opposition to the repeal attempt on the ban on assault 
     weapons which serve no legitimate, practical or reasonable 
     purpose.
           Sincerely,
                                                     J.S. Shimizu.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, after careful deliberation, I 
supported the ban when the House approved it in 1994. My decision to 
vote in favor of the ban was not one that I made lightly. I was aware 
then, as I am now, that this ban is not perfect. But I came away from 
the debate 2 years ago with the belief that despite any flaws, this 
limited ban is a reasonable attempt to prevent the use of weapons that 
are designed solely for the destruction of human life.
  Many factors went into my decision then which still apply today. The 
most significant of these factors was the support of the ban by both 
national and local law enforcement organizations and officials. In New 
York, this includes the Suffolk County Policemen's Benevolent 
Association, the Deputy Sheriff's Benevolent Association, the Superior 
Officers Association of Suffolk, the Police Conference of New York, as 
well as New York City's police commissioner and the president of New 
York City's Patrolman's Benevolent Association. National groups include 
the Fraternal Order of Police, with over 230,000 members, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officer's 
Association. All are experts on crime, and as a former criminal 
prosecutor, I respect their collective judgment on public safety. In 
addition, all living former Presidents support the ban.
  I have been, and I remain, a staunch supporter of a law-abiding 
citizens' second amendment right to own a firearm. But as one who 
firmly believes in the sanctity of our Constitution, I simply do not 
believe that the second amendment, or any amendment to the Constitution 
is an unlimited right, and neither did the drafters. The freedoms of 
religion, speech, and the press are not absolute, and neither is the 
right to bear arms. With each of these sacred rights, exceptions are 
made in the most extreme cases. An individual cannot display obscene 
material, and the press cannot defame an individual. Likewise with the 
right to bear arms, I believe that this exception should be made in the 
case of a semiautomatic assault weapon. It for this reason I urge a 
``no'' vote on the repeal of this ban.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
oppose the repeal of the ban on assault weapons. It is my wish that a 
police officer never has to confront a suspect armed with a firearm 
fitted with a grenade launcher, which is outlawed as part of the ban. 
It is difficult to imagine a legitimate purpose in private ownership of 
a grenade launcher.
  The weapons identified in the ban are not uncommon on the streets of 
Dallas. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that 
there are two million military-style assault weapons on the streets 
today. Dallas narcotics officers have often encountered Intratec-9 
firearms when executing a raid or apprehending a suspect. These 
firearms, with clips containing 32 rounds, have been the gun of choice 
for drug dealers. The Dallas Police Department has seized 24 Intratec-
9's, 66 AK-47's and 3 street sweeper shotguns during 1995. These 
firearms are explicitly named in the ban.
  Mr. Speaker, more than three-fourths of the American public support 
this ban. Adding provisions to this bill that increases penalties for 
gun related crimes is simply a gimmick to divert attention from this 
legislative payoff to the NRA, and will do nothing to stop those crimes 
if assault weapons are legally available again on the streets. Current 
law bans only a short list of specified semiautomatic assault weapons--
weapons used almost exclusively by organized crime, gangs, and drug 
cartels--while specifically exempting more than 650 sporting firearms 
from the ban.
  Statistics show that even though these assault weapons make up less 
than 1 percent of all guns, they are 18 times more likely than other 
guns to be cop-killers, and 16 times more likely to be traced to crime 
than other firearms. Police support outlawing assault weapons in order 
to protect the lives of police, as well as the general public.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to uphold the ban.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I came to the floor to fight 
for a ban on assault weapons. At that time, I told the story of 
Michelle Cutner, a 7-year-old from Philadelphia. It was the next to the 
last day of school and Michelle's mother picked her up at the Chester 
Elementary School. As she stopped at a corner store to buy chips, 
Jerome Whitaker, a 15-year-old who was quarreling with a friend, took 
out a TEC-9 and started shooting. One of the bullets hit Michelle and 
killed her. The carnage continues in Philadelphia. Four months ago, 
three young friends sitting in a minivan were riddled with 40 rounds of 
gunfire from a semiautomatic rifle while sitting in a van. One of the 
victims, Joseph Gill, was 16 years old.

[[Page H2698]]

  Mr. Speaker, how many more little girls like Michelle have to die 
from the bullet of a TEC-9? How many more young men will die in a hail 
of bullets? How many more police officers will be gunned down because 
bulletproof vests cannot resist the spray of AK-47's or Uzi's? I urge 
my colleagues to join me on behalf of kids like Michelle and Joseph, 
and so many others like them, and vote against this assault on the 
assault weapons ban.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 125, an 
attempt by the gun lobby to throw away proven legislation enacted by 
Congress to save the lives of U.S. citizens and police officers. If the 
gun lobby has its way, there will be no more assault weapons ban, but 
there will be a lot more bloodshed.
  The survival of assault weapons is completely dependent on the 
campaign funds of the gun lobby--bought lock, stock, and barrel. This 
allusion is to the three main components of a gun which together 
comprise essentially the entire weapon. That is what comes to mind when 
I think of the gun lobby's partnership with assault weapons advocates.
  The misleading statements about second amendment rights by the gun 
lobby should not obscure the fact that the majority of Americans, 
including gun owners, want assault weapons off our streets and out of 
our school yards.
  Clearly, the assault weapons ban is working to reduce bloodshed and 
save lives. The city of Chicago, for instance, seized 127 assault 
weapons in the first 6 months of 1995--almost a 50-percent decline from 
the first 6 months of 1994.
  Simply put, there is no justification for repealing the assault 
weapons ban. It is unthinkable that in our society, we would allow 
citizens to walk the streets armed with guns equipped with hand grenade 
launchers, flash suppressors, and bayonet mounts.
  It is important to make clear that the assault weapons ban has not in 
any way taken guns out of the hands of any law abiding citizen because 
all it does is stop the manufacture and importation of these killing 
machines.
  And while I support the use of assault weapons to arm certain law 
enforcement officials and military personnel in areas like Bosnia and 
other hostile areas, it is clear that no one needs an AK-47 assault 
rifle or a TEC-9 assault pistol to defend their home or go deer 
hunting. They are simply designed to kill large numbers of people 
quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand up to the gun lobby and 
oppose H.R. 125 to stop further bloodshed at the hands of violent 
criminals, and instead, to save the lives of our citizens and our brave 
police officers.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, the banning of certain types of guns is 
an infringement on the rights of citizens to protect their families.
  Criminals who want to use such weapons can continue to obtain them 
illegally.
  Military-style weapons are involved in less than a fraction of all 
serious crime, and the assault weapons ban does not keep crime off the 
streets.
  Taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is not 
the answer to stopping crime.
  The crime bill passed, because it contained many provisions to help 
small communities in fighting crime, but it went too far in 
criminalizing these weapons.
  I have always opposed banning certain types of weapons, and this law 
must be repealed, because it criminalizes otherwise law-abiding 
citizens.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, why are we attempting to repeal a ban that is 
supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people--and is 
saving lives?
  In the year following the ban's enactment there was an 18 percent 
drop in the number of assault weapons linked to crimes. Repealing this 
ban will ensure more bloodshed and more lives lost. Poll after poll has 
shown that 80 percent of the American public consistently supports this 
ban.
  It is ludicrous for the House to vote against the wishes of 80 
percent of the American people. It is a travesty to repeal a law that 
saves lives.
  Attached is a letter from the chief of police of Downey, CA.


                                               City of Downey,

                                                 December 7, 1995.
     Congressman Steve Horn,
     4010 Watson Plaza Drive, #160,
     Lakewood, CA.
       Dear Steve: I have been told that Congressman Gingrich will 
     be asking for a vote to repeal the assault weapons ban. I 
     would strongly urge you not to support any type of vote that 
     would weaken or repeal the current state of the law.
       Enclosed is a letter of support I sent to Senator Feinstein 
     earlier this year. It makes no difference whose name gets 
     plugged in, as from my point of view it is absolutely 
     irresponsible to consider support of H.R. 1488, the repeal of 
     the assault weapons ban.
       I trust you take the time to contact all the Los Angeles 
     County Chiefs of Police. You will find total support of the 
     current law.
       Yours for professional law enforcement.
                                              Gregory C. Caldwell,
     Chief of Police.
                                                                    ____



                                               City of Downey,

                                                    April 3, 1995.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 915,
     Los Angeles, CA.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I appreciate your asking for my 
     input regarding Senator Dole's position on repealing the 
     ``ill conceived'' gun ban passed as part of last year's crime 
     bill.
       As a 28-year law enforcement professional I feel I could 
     speak volumes on gun control and the issues associated with 
     gun control. However, I do not feel that is too important at 
     this time. It seems that getting to the point is what is 
     important.
       If Senator Dole believes that any portion of the current 
     gun ban is ``ill conceived,'' I find it most difficult to 
     find words to describe Senator Dole's thoughts to repeal. I 
     must presume that Senator Dole has laid down his soul and 
     good judgment to the National Rifle Association. That is 
     truly unfortunate for a man of seemingly such good character 
     and thought.
       Again, recognizing all the present arguments, please allow 
     an emotional argument or question. Knowing that military-
     style assault weapons fit the needs of sporting America, 
     especially those urban hunters bent on human destruction,will 
     Senator Dole help? Will Senator Dole come out and help our 
     local cops clean up the mess of these urban hunters? Will the 
     NRA help? Oh, excuse me, I forgot--guns don't kill, people 
     kill.
       Senator Feinstein, keep up the fight against allowing the 
     manufacture, sale or transfer of military-style assault 
     weapons, copycat models and the ammunition clip guidelines. 
     If anything, the current controls should be just a baseline 
     because they are not yet enough.
       We have a tough job fighting off politicians who are 
     willing to sell out to the NRA hiding behind the 
     Constitution. As long as we have these sellouts, our urban 
     hunters will continue to have great success.
       If I can be of any other help regarding this issue or more 
     responsible gun control issues, please feel free to call on 
     me.
       Yours for professional law enforcement.
                                              Gregory C. Caldwell,
                                                  Chief of Police.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to repeal 
the ban on certain types of assault weapons.
  This proposal carries great importance to my constituents in the 19th 
District of California. Many of the men and women I represent live in 
remote areas. ``911'' does not insure an instant emergency response for 
them. Lives are at stake here, Mr. Chairman, and it is essential that 
we move to protect those who legally try to protect themselves.
  Althouth the framers of our Constitution hardly envisioned a society 
so besieged with violence as our current culture, they understood the 
constant need to be on guard, to defend our liberties.
  If we were to infringe on the American public's right to bear arms, 
surely that would be to breach the spirit of our laws and the essence 
of our Constitution's second amendment. That provision of the Bill of 
Rights is explicit.
  A vote to repeal the weapons ban is my vote of confidence in 
America's Constitution and America's people. In passing this 
legislation today, Congress demonstrates a respect for the integrity of 
those who penned the words of our country's most profound 
accomplishment.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the legislation 
sponsored by Congressman Jim Chapman which would repeal the assault 
weapons ban included in the comprehensive anti-crime package of 1994.
  Voting on this issue is not difficult for me, because I strongly 
believe that my position on this legislation is correct. I opposed the 
assault weapons ban in 1994 when it came up as part of the crime bill, 
and I still oppose the ban.
  The ban, one of the most controversial parts of the 1994 anticrime 
law, was ill-conceived and poorly drafted. The ban has burdened the 
rights of the American people to own guns, but has had no effect on 
crime.
  This bill not only repeals the onerous ban, it also gets tougher on 
criminals. Instead of imposing more limits on law-abiding citizens, the 
bill goes in the other direction and slaps tougher penalties on 
criminals who use a firearm while committing a violent Federal crime.
  The current ban arbitrarily restricts certain weapons, since it is 
virtually impossible to distinguish a semiautomatic assault weapon from 
other semiautomatic weapons that are used for sport and hunting. The 
features designated in the 1994 crime law that define which weapons are 
banned and merely cosmetic, and have no effect on the action of the 
firearm. Any firearm--banned or not--is equally capable of being abused 
by criminals or madmen, or used by law-abiding citizens for self 
protection or hunting. And, according to the FBI, all types of 
military-style weapons are involved in less than 1 percent of all 
murders and less than 1 percent of all serious crime.

[[Page H2699]]

  No matter how much we all want to halt violent crimes committed with 
firearms, the fact is that banning certain firearms will do nothing to 
stop these tragic crimes. Studies overwhelmingly show that gun control 
laws--like those which ban all guns in Washington, DC, which has a very 
high gun-related crime rate--have no impact on stopping criminals from 
obtaining whatever firearm is necessary for perpetrating their crimes. 
The ban on semi-automatic assault weapons simply kept certain guns from 
law-abiding citizens, but has done nothing to disarm criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former police officer and the father of a police 
officer, I can testify that unlike the current ban, this bill will take 
steps to get violent criminals off the street. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to support the Chapman bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have long championed our 
second amendment right to bear arms. Time after time, I have voted 
against misguided attempts to limit or restrict our rights to buy and 
own guns or ammunition. As you may know, I have strongly opposed and 
voted against both the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban.
  I have always been a strong supporter of law enforcement but I 
believe that we need to solve our crime problems directly and not by 
curbing the constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens. 
The ban on semi-automatic weapons will not stop criminals from 
procuring these firearms. The only people who will not have access to 
illegal weapons are law abiding citizens. Our Federal Government needs 
to protect law abiding citizens and not take away their means with 
which to protect themselves. It is for these reasons that I support 
efforts to repeal the assault weapons ban.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
extreme disappointment with the majority leadership of this Congress 
for revisiting the assault weapons ban which passed the House in 1994. 
I think it fair to say that we are considering legislation to repeal 
the law today because the majority leaders ``owe'' the gun lobby. This 
is just one more example of how our agenda is being driven by interest 
groups with big pacs.
  I am also shocked that the leadership has so thoroughly circumvented 
the committee process on this legislation. We should have had hearings. 
Before we consider repealing the law we should first know if it has 
been successful. What do our police officers think? Do they want to see 
the ban repealed? Has it helped save lives? Has it been effective? It 
is absolutely absured and outrageous that there has been no 
consideration or debate of this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in self-defense. However, I do not believe one 
needs an AK-47 to defend himself. AK-47s can shoot 106 rounds in 2 
minutes. They are high speed machine guns that have been used for 
shooting sprees. Patrick Purdy, using an AK-47, killed 5 small children 
and their teacher, while wounding 29 others on a playground in 
stockton, CA. What about the defense of these children? Whose concern 
is that? Those of use and who support the assault weapons ban are 
trying to make the would a little safer for our children.
  Furthermore, every major national law enforcement organization in the 
country supports a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. These are the 
cops on the beat in Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. They see no purpose for 
assault weapons, and I trust their judgment. I support the men and 
women who are fighting crime on our streets.
  Mr. Speaker, with this vote we have to ask ourselves if we want a 
society that permits the sale of machine guns or we want a society that 
controls gratuitous weapons? A majority of Americans agree with me, Mr. 
Speaker. They believe in reducing bloodshed and saving lives. They 
support the ban on assault weapons and so should this Congress.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are here today as a gesture.
  An extreme gesture, to be sure, but a gesture nonetheless.
  It is not a gesture to the American people. Seventy percent of the 
American people support the assault weapons ban.
  It is not a gesture to law enforcement. Every major law enforcement 
group in the country wants Uzi and Street Sweepers off the streets.
  In fact, the Attorney General's office says that crimes involving 
assault weapons were down 18.4 percent during the first 8 months of the 
ban.
  It is not even a legislative gesture, because this legislative 
proposal is going nowhere. The Senate won't go along with it. Everyone 
knows that. And even if it does, President Clinton will veto it to 
protect Americans from rapid fire weapons designed to kill.
  So let's be very clear about the meaning of this gesture. It is a 
political gesture, because the people who currently control the House 
of Representatives are paying off an IOU to one interest group, the 
National Rifle Association.
  I support the second amendment. I support the exercise of rights 
under that amendment. The assault weapons ban does not interfere with 
the rights of hunters and the right of self defense. But as a number of 
police chiefs have told me, assault weapons involved here are weapons 
of war. It is an extreme position to defend their general ownership in 
a civil society.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the vote on repeal of assault 
weapons is not an easy vote. The reason is there are strong 
philosophical and practical arguments on both sides. On the one hand, 
we have the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects 
the citizen's right to bear arms. This is an outgrowth of the fact that 
for centuries authoritarian governments maintained their power over the 
populace through the banning of weapons. We may look to Scotland, where 
in the early 14th century William Wallace led the Scottish freedom 
uprising against the British. The Scots were forced to use rocks, and 
homemade weapons because the English had banned Scots from having arms.
  The other side of the issue can be looked at from the view of the 
proper role of government. As John Locke pointed out in 1689 in his 
``Second Treatise on Civil Government,'' a document that was the 
intellectual underpinning of our own Constitution, the reason we form 
governments is to protect life, liberty, and property. Anarchy leads to 
the strong coercing the weak. In order to reduce the total amount of 
coercion in society we give up the legal use of force to a government 
whose function is to protect each individual citizen from one another. 
The question then becomes, does the ban on assault weapons provide an 
efficient and reasonable means of protecting individuals from threat of 
force by other individuals? Again, we may look to Scotland, where just 
last week several children were killed before the police were able to 
intervene. Does the ban on assault weapons effectively reduce the 
chances that you will be coerced by another armed citizen?
  The tradeoff is between our constitutional right to bear arms and the 
reason for government in the first place: protection of life, liberty, 
and property. Those of us who feel our right to bear arms is diminished 
greatly by the banning of these weapons and that the threat to our 
person from our fellow citizens is little reduced by the ban will vote 
for the bill. Those who feel these weapons add little to our freedom to 
protect ourselves from our government and that the existence of these 
weapons threatens our personal safety will vote against the bill. For 
many of us, the evidence is not clear on either side. On the whole, I 
believe there is strong evidence that crime will be reduced by getting 
tougher on the criminal that is committing the crime, rather then 
focusing on the weapon they use. This legislation does this by 
establishing strong minimum mandatory sentences for criminals who use 
firearms in the commission of Federal crimes and requiring the Attorney 
General to order each U.S. attorney to designate at least one assistant 
U.S. attorney to prosecute armed violent criminals, and makes sure the 
Department of Justice prosecutes armed violent criminals. Thus I will 
vote for the bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 125. 
Congress addressed this issue on a bipartisan basis and enacted the 
assault weapons ban in 1994. Today, just over 1 year later, we are back 
to square one--not because this law has caused some sort of hardship 
for the American people, but because of strictly partisan politics. The 
Republican leadership is repaying a political debt to the National 
Rifle Association [NRA].
  Since the enactment of this law I have yet to hear of an incident of 
hardship on sportsmen or women--no hunters have missed deer season 
because they couldn't buy a TEC-DC9 or an AK-47. The simple fact is 
that the assault weapon ban works as intended--to keep military weapons 
off the streets of our communities and out of the hands of criminals.
  Annually, 22 million households are affected by crime. Violent crime 
has increased 25 percent in the past 5 years. Today, criminals 
ironically are often better equipped with unregulated para-military 
weapons than our police officers who are trying to maintain law and 
order on our streets. Unfortunately, guns are appearing in our schools. 
Gang violence is spreading beyond the troubled city areas. Citizens are 
justifiably upset about the erosion of public safety and they are right 
in demanding that something be done about it.
  The law which the Republican leadership is sacrificing at the alter 
of the NRA bans dangerous and destructive military-style weapons. It 
saves lives and bans semi-automatic weapons that can be easily 
converted into machine guns. There are the weapons of choice of naive 
and hardened law breakers. Human assault weapons--people-killing 
weapons--must be kept out of hands of the deranged, malevolent, and 
malcontent. Such weapons cause carnage on the streets of our Nation and 
they must be removed to stop the escalation and cycle of homicide that 
has tragically come to be the poster which too often today symbolizes 
life in the United States. Certainly the right to bear arms does not 
mean you should

[[Page H2700]]

be able to run abound with a grenade launcher, street sweeper, or other 
military hardware. The primary purpose, perhaps the only purpose, of 
these assault type military weapons is the assault on another person, 
and there is no place on our streets for such a weapon.
  The 1994 assault weapon ban is a positive element in an overall 
effort to reduce violence in our society. Congress in not obligated to 
the special interest groups such as the NRA and must respond to facts 
not fears--we must say no to the repeal and yes to the commonsense 
rules and laws of a civilized society. Congress is obligated to the 
people of this Nation and to our law enforcement officials, who 
overwhelmingly support the ban on assault weapons, to take these guns 
off the street and out of the hands of criminals.
  This law works to save lives, to make our lives and that of those we 
represent safer. What kind of message will we send if today this House 
disregards the public's view and acts with disdain to symbolically 
strike down this commonsense law. This action, this process, this 
proposal is the type of action that causes the people we represent to 
hold this Congress in such disdain--special interest dominated and the 
public interest disregarded.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted and 
destructive legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the assault weapons ban was political 
theater by the Democrats. It was brought to the floor and passed 
because the President's pollster said it would be a hot issue for 
Democrats in the fall election. Repealing the ban is equally cynical 
political theater by the Republicans.
  The fact is that the assault weapons ban has done nothing to stem 
violent crime. By the same token, it has caused little or no 
significant inconvenience for gun owners. I saw no reason to enact the 
ban in the first place and voted against it; I see no reason to 
continue this debate over symbolic measures here today. I'll oppose 
this repeal effort for the same reason I opposed the ban in the first 
place: it is symbol over substance. What we do here today will have 
little effect on violent crime and little effect on the rights of 
lawful gun owners.
  After this meaningless debate is behind us, I'll continue to support 
the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. And I'll 
continue my staunch support for measures that will stop violent crime 
and put criminals who use guns behind bars for a very long time.
  When the so-called assault weapons ban was first before the House, I 
voted against it. I said then and I'll say today that banning these 
weapons would do nothing to reduce violent crime in America. In fact, 
the ban didn't ban much of anything.
  Consider this: the assault weapons ban specifically prohibits sale of 
the Colt AR-15, which is capable of firing up to 30 rounds of .223 
caliber ammunition, each shot requiring a squeeze of the trigger. 
However, the bill specifically allows the continued sale of the Ruger 
Mini-14, which is capable of firing up to 30 rounds of .223 caliber 
ammunition, each shot requiring a squeeze of the trigger. The only 
difference between the two is that the Colt rifle looks more 
threatening. The ultimate irony, of course, is that the assault weapons 
ban didn't even make it illegal to sell AR-15's or any of the other 
weapons supposedly banned by the bill. It merely prohibited their 
future manufacture and made existing stocks more expensive.
  In January of this year a man walked into an office building in 
Portland, OR, carrying a supposedly banned AK-47. He shot two people 
and took a number of others hostage before being apprehended by the 
police. Thankfully, no one was killed. The story is interesting for two 
reasons. First, he was using a supposedly banned assault rifle that he 
had legally purchased in 1995--after the assault weapons ban took 
effect. Second, he could just as easily have been using an equally 
dangerous rifle like the Ruger Mini-14, which was not banned by the so-
called assault weapons ban.
  If this repeal is adopted today, next year or the year after another 
ban will be offered that could be even more intrusive to legitimate gun 
owners. So let's quit kidding the American people into thinking this 
charade means anything. The debate here today is about people's 
emotions, not about measures that will actually reduce violent crime.

  First, our system of justice must provide stiff sentences for 
criminals who use guns and for multiple violent offenders. Our 
communities desperately need more police on the streets. Unfortunately, 
Republican leaders are doing everything they can to cut funding we 
passed to put 100,000 new cops on the street.
  Equally important, however, is a commitment to early intervention and 
prevention for at-risk youth. Until we as a society can begin to undo 
the harm that has been done to the hopes of millions of Americans, 
violent crime will almost certainly continue to plague us.
  Let's do the people's business here and quit playing these cynical 
political games. Let's stop the debate over symbol and move on to 
substance.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member supports certain provisions of 
H.R. 125 that increase the mandatory minimum sentences for committing 
crimes while possessing, brandishing, or discharging a firearm. Tough 
penalties are certainly needed. However, these provisions are not 
enough to change his support for the assault weapons ban. This Member 
previously voted for a ban on the manufacture and import of certain 
assault weapons because that was the rational, responsible, and 
constitutional thing to do. Furthermore, over 72 percent of the 
residents of the First Congressional District of Nebraska supported 
this vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 338, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               motion to recommit offered by mr. conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary.

                              {time}  1345

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 173, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 92]

                               AYES--239

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder

[[Page H2701]]


     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--173

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Calvert
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Dreier
     Gibbons
     Johnston
     Lewis (CA)
     McKeon
     Moakley
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Radanovich
     Schroeder
     Shaw
     Stark
     Stokes
     Waters

                              {time}  1401

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Radanovich for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
       Mr. Camp for, with Mr. Moakley against.
       Mr. Cox for, with Mr. Johnston against.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________