[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H530-H535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR CRIMINALS POSSESSING FIREARMS

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 424) to provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences 
for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 424

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. 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 
     (5) and (6), 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 in furtherance of the crime, 
     shall, in addition to the sentence imposed for the crime of 
     violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to 
     imprisonment for 10 years;
       ``(B) brandishes a firearm, shall, in addition to the 
     sentence imposed for the crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years; 
     or
       ``(C) discharges a firearm, 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 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 conviction is for possession of a firearm as 
     described in paragraph (1), the person shall, in addition to 
     the sentence imposed for the crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking crime involved, be sentenced to imprisonment for 
     not less than 20 years;
       ``(B) if the conviction is for brandishing a firearm as 
     described in paragraph (1), the person shall, in addition to 
     the sentence imposed for the crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking crime involved, be sentenced to imprisonment for 
     not less than 25 years; or
       ``(C) if the conviction is for discharging a firearm as 
     described in paragraph (1), the person shall, in addition to 
     the sentence imposed for the crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking crime involved, 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 the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime 
     involved, be sentenced to life imprisonment.
       ``(3) 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

[[Page H531]]

     drug trafficking crime in which the firearm was used.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `brandish' 
     means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of 
     the firearm so as to intimidate or threaten, regardless of 
     whether the firearm is visible.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 424, the bill now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we take an important step in the battle against 
firearm violence in America. With the bill that we have before us, this 
House will send a clear message to violent predators that the criminal 
use of guns will not be tolerated.
  Criminals who use firearms to commit violent crimes and drug 
trafficking offenses are demonstrating the ultimate indifference to 
human life. The risks for law enforcement and the potential for harm to 
innocents are dramatically increased when criminals wield guns. 
Criminals who carry guns while committing serious crimes are making a 
clear and unequivocal statement to the world: I will hurt you or kill 
you if you get in my way. Such persons should be punished severely, and 
that is what this legislation will ensure.
  Why do we need this bill so desperately? We need it because three 
young Starbucks employees were shot in execution style in Georgetown, 
very near Washington, DC, simply because, as police now believe, the 
manager could not open the safe in the back office. We need it because 
dedicated law enforcement officers across the country are being gunned 
down for the mere thrill of the kill. And unless we make it the law of 
the land that criminal gun use will put you in prison for a long, long 
time, we and all of our loved ones will continue to remain in grave 
danger any time some young thug decides to pull the trigger. For the 
time being, Congress must look at the laws as they exist and should 
intervene now.
  Mr. Speaker, consider these frightening facts: The National Institute 
of Justice released a study earlier this year in which arrestees in 11 
major urban areas across the country were interviewed regarding their 
propensity for gun use. Thirty-seven percent of all arrestees admitted 
to owning a gun. Even more astonishing and terrifying for the country 
is that a whopping 42 percent of admitted drug sellers and 50 percent 
of admitted gang members further confessed to using a gun to commit a 
crime. Mr. Speaker, these are just the ones that are willing to admit 
to such criminal behavior.
  H.R. 424 amends section 924(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code. 
Currently, that section allows for additional time in prison for any 
person who ``uses or carries'' a firearm during and in relation to the 
commission of a Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. 
Section 924(c) is a very significant and frequently used tool for 
Federal criminal prosecutors. According to the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission, there were 10,576 defendants sentenced from 1991 to 1996 
under this section.
  In December of 1995, the Supreme Court significantly limited the 
effective use of this Federal statute. The court held in the case of 
Bailey v. United States that in order to receive the penalty 
enhancement for use of a firearm under section 924(c), the government 
must demonstrate ``active employment'' of the firearm. In so stating, 
the Supreme Court overturned the Justice Department's long-standing 
practice of applying this penalty to dangerous criminals whose firearms 
further or advance their criminal activities.
  The impact caused by the Bailey decision was immediate. Federal 
prosecutors have been less able to utilize this section of the code. 
Moreover, drug dealers and other bad actors have been successful in 
having their convictions overturned on the basis of erroneous jury 
instructions regarding the ``use'' prong of the ``use or carry'' test.
  It is important to note the court observed in Bailey if Congress had 
intended possession alone to trigger liability under the statute it 
could have so provided. This legislation thus clarifies Congress' 
intent as to the type of criminal conduct which should trigger the 
statute's application.
  The bill passed out of committee strikes the now unworkable ``use and 
carry'' element of the statute and replaces it with a structure that 
allows a penalty enhancement for ``possessing, brandishing or 
discharging'' a firearm during and in relation to a Federal crime of 
violence or drug trafficking crime. Possessing will result in a 10-year 
mandatory sentence, brandishing will bring 15 years, and discharging 
will lead to a mandatory 20 years in Federal prison. The legislation 
retains current law which allows for higher penalties for machine guns, 
destructive devices, firearm mufflers and firearm silencers.
  For those who ask whether this bill will unintentionally affect 
someone who merely possesses a firearm in the general vicinity of a 
crime or someone who might use a gun in self-defense, the answer is no. 
The government must prove that the gun furthered or was used during and 
in relation to the commission of a Federal violent crime or drug 
trafficking offense. In other words, the government must prove as an 
element of the offense that the person with the gun committed a Federal 
drug or violent crime.
  A bill containing nearly identical provisions to H.R. 424 passed the 
House in the last Congress and this proposal was included in the 
Contract With America. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) introduced this legislation during the first days of the 105th 
Congress, and I am very grateful to her for her continued dedication to 
ensuring the passage of this legislation.
  Section 924(c) is a critical tool in our fight against gun-toting 
criminals. The Supreme Court's Bailey decision has put this issue 
squarely in Congress' lap, and we must act before more violent 
criminals escape accountability for their life-threatening conduct. 
Certainly this bill is tough, but I believe it is exactly what we need 
in response to the menacing threat of vicious gun crimes.
  When someone possesses a gun in a crime of violence that is a Federal 
crime or a crime of drug trafficking, that is a Federal drug-
trafficking crime, that person should get an additional, on top of 
whatever the underlying crime is, 10-year mandatory sentence. Lock them 
up for that period of time and throw away the key. That is an 
incredibly strong deterrent message. If they are going to brandish or 
point that gun at somebody, they should get the 15 years additional 
mandatory sentence on top of the underlying crime. And, by golly, if 
they pull the trigger under this bill, they should get an additional 
20-year mandatory sentence for pulling the trigger as well as 
possessing the gun.
  The administration has no problem with this legislation, and the 
Fraternal Order of Police endorses this bill. I am very pleased that we 
are here today offering it and supporting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation for several reasons, the most 
important of which is the fact that the penalties are out of proportion 
to the crimes committed. Let us compare these penalties to the 
penalties for other violent crimes: Aggravated assault, 2 years; 
assault with intent to murder, 3\1/2\ years; kidnapping, 4 years; 
voluntary manslaughter, 5 years; rape, 6 years. Does this make sense, 
all these sums, and add 10 years for possession of a gun in connection 
with a drug offense where no one was injured?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for enhancements. The gentleman from 
Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee, mentioned many of the 
heinous crimes. For those crimes, robbery, murder, you would get the 
penalty for that crime and these would be enhancements. Obviously they 
will serve many years in

[[Page H532]]

jail just for the underlying crime. Mr. Speaker, the Department of 
Justice has strongly urged us to amend Title 18, section 924, in 
response to the Bailey decision, as the gentleman has indicated, but 
they have not requested any change in the gun sentencing penalty. In 
fact, they sent a letter to the Committee on the Judiciary declaring 
the existing penalty structure appropriate. The American Bar 
Association has opposed the changes in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1984 we established the Sentencing Commission to 
avoid the disparate sentencing, as is evidenced in this bill, 5 years 
for murder, 6 years for rape, and 10 years for possession of a firearm 
in a routine drug deal as an enhancement over the underlying crime. The 
Sentencing Commission should review these crimes and deliberate without 
politics and without political considerations to assess a reasonable 
penalty. That is obviously not what we are doing today.
  Mr. Speaker, we should also be aware of the cost of this legislation 
before we pass it. The Department of Justice estimates that over 30 
years this new gun penalty will cost the American taxpayers between 
$3.9 billion and $4.2 billion and will require the construction of 4 
new prisons. That is $100 million to $150 million a year. Last year the 
Rand Corporation studied many strategies for crime reduction and found 
that mandatory minimums such as those in this bill were one of the 
least cost effective ways to reduce crime. So that is another $100 
million a year that could have been put to better use.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides penalties out of proportion to the 
crimes. It bypasses the Sentencing Commission and wastes the taxpayers' 
money. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 424.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the author of this 
bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) for all the hard work and the effort he has put 
into bringing this bill to the floor. As mayor of Charlotte, I spent 
far too much time attending funerals of young people that were 
senseless because of the scourge that drugs have brought on this 
country. Day after day we hear of more and more people being victimized 
by drug traffickers. Today we have got the opportunity to fight back 
and fight back for our children and for our communities.
  Throughout North Carolina and the Nation, citizens routinely claim 
that crime is one of their greatest fears and concerns. Nothing is 
scarier or more dangerous than a criminal possessing or brandishing a 
gun during the commission of a crime. We do not have to put up with it 
and we will not.
  H.R. 424 provides for longer mandatory minimum sentences and 
clarifies Federal law so that convicted criminals will spend a long 
time behind bars where they cannot hurt anyone else. Crime victims 
across the country deserve to know that Congress has dealt harshly with 
reckless criminals and those criminals need to know that the law is 
clear, commit a Federal drug trafficking crime while possessing or 
brandishing a firearm and you will be in prison for a very, very long 
time. We cannot send that message too strongly or too often. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 424.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 424, a bill 
that would dramatically increase mandatory minimum sentencing. Let me 
make it clear. I do not like guns. I abhor crime, but this is not about 
sensible ways to deal with crime. This is about mandatory minimum 
sentencing, taking away the discretion of judges to make decisions 
about the varied situations that they may be confronted with. What are 
we doing with our criminal justice system, where we are spending, what, 
$3.5 billion in the Federal system alone, where we perhaps have the 
highest rate of incarceration of any industrialized nation? We may have 
people believe that somehow we are making the streets safer for them 
with this incarceration, but let me tell my colleagues, the recidivism 
rate does not prove in any way that this incarceration is doing 
anything to make our streets safer. We should not take away the 
discretion of judges who have to walk through these situations to be 
able to make decisions. I am very, very concerned that when we start to 
increase the sentencing mandatory minimums that we distort the criminal 
justice system.
  We heard my colleague talk about other penalties and try and do some 
comparison. Let me reiterate. Aggravated assault, less than 2 years. 
Assault with intent to murder, less than 4 years. Voluntary 
manslaughter, 5 years. Criminal sexual abuse, under 6 years. It does 
not make good sense to distort sentencing in this manner. Let me give 
my colleagues an example of what I think is absolutely crazy. We have a 
19-year-old, maybe they are stupid but they are not criminals, they end 
up with 5 grams of crack cocaine in their possession. First-time 
offense. An automatic 5-year mandatory minimum sentence in Federal 
prison. We add to that an unloaded gun that they may have in their 
possession that happens to be under a coat that may be brandished. This 
does not say anything about it having to be loaded. So now they have 15 
years minimum. 19 years old, stupid, your son, who is not a criminal, 
who if sentenced appropriately will have a chance to go on and 
straighten out their lives and do something with it. But we want to put 
them in prison for 15 years? I do not think we want to do that.
  What is wrong with creating these sentences from the floor of 
Congress is this: We all have these different ideas. We have a 
Sentencing Commission who studies this and makes recommendations. I 
suppose we could all get up and look as if we are tough on crime and we 
could give 20 and 30 and 40 years and I guess it just spins out of 
control. I do not think it is sensible, I do not think it is logical. I 
think this increase in mandatory minimums for crimes that could end up 
not being violent crimes at all with the simple possession is harmful 
to our system and should not be done.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for bringing this legislation to 
the floor in this timely manner. The gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, introduced this 
bill last year along with my cosponsorship and others and we almost got 
this bill considered as the final item of business last year. But 
nothing could be done on the floor at that time on that last day of the 
session without unanimous consent, and of course the Democrats blocked 
unanimous consent and we could not pass it as the last bill of the day. 
That is just too bad. As a result, this crucial piece of legislation 
was delayed for many months now. We may never know for certain how many 
lives could have been saved if this bill had been passed earlier. What 
I do know is that the sooner we enact this legislation, the sooner we 
can toughen mandatory minimum penalties on those who commit crimes 
involving guns. In the long run this is a bill to save lives by getting 
criminals with guns off the street.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that aggravates me more than the real 
cause for drug use in America. Seventy-five percent of all the drug use 
in America is not used by these poor people in the inner cores of our 
country, it is used by the upper middle class in suburban America. 
Seventy-five percent of them are the ones that use drugs 
recreationally. They are the ones that prop up the price of these drugs 
because of so much use. We just need to go after these people. The only 
difference between this democracy and democracies that have failed all 
across this world is the fact that we are law-abiding citizens, and we 
have to send that word that we insist that people obey the laws of this 
land. One can fight to change the law, but one has to obey the law. If 
one does not, he ought to be penalized.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the gentleman a 
scenario.

[[Page H533]]

 If a young man 19 or 20 years old maybe goes out to hunt and they have 
got a hunting rifle and they happen to have 5 ounces of crack cocaine 
inside their jacket pocket, they have a gun, it is there for you to 
see, they are in possession of drugs, first-time offense on the 
possession of the cocaine, 5 years minimum in Federal prison added to 
this with a gun, the hunting gun, now 15 years. Is that what the 
gentleman understands this bill to be?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Not at all. I understand it has to be in the furtherance 
of a crime. Be that as it may, and I cannot yield any further because I 
have to get upstairs to a meeting, but let me tell the gentlewoman what 
I told my 5 children: If you are out there with cocaine in your 
possession, damn it, I want you to go to jail and I want everybody 
else's kid in America to go to jail if you are using these kinds of 
drugs and committing these kinds of crimes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I just outlined a possibility, a scenario 
that was not responded to. It was not responded to because I do not 
think that any reasonable legislator, public policymaker would intend 
to do this. I am as tough on crime as anybody. I am in the forefront of 
trying to do something about crime. I happen to be honest enough to 
admit that our children oftentimes are getting involved with drugs and 
we are not doing enough to prevent it, to rehabilitate them, to 
discourage them and create the kind of society where we can essentially 
be drug-free. I think we make a mistake by putting these small drug 
dealers in prison or by having simple possession, causes them to go to 
prison. I think this bill, despite the fact of what has been 
represented, would take the kind of situation where a young man out 
with a hunting rifle and a small amount of drugs could end up with 15 
to 30 years in prison. I do not think that is what is intended, but 
that is the problem when we have mandatory minimums being created by 
legislators from the floor rather than working in an organized way with 
the Sentencing Commission.
  Yes, drugs are bad. We are working very hard to do something about 
it. I have gone to every appropriations committee that has got anything 
to do with appropriating funds to get rid of drug abuse in our society. 
I put myself on the line. It is the number one priority of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, to get rid of drugs in our society. We do 
not just use this as a political issue. We are really working very 
hard. We have this ``lock them up and throw the key away'' for young 
people with small amounts of drugs when we should be rehabilitating 
them, have more prevention in our schools and in our community. We 
should be thinking about what we can do to reduce the cost of 
incarceration and ruining lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to get to the floor and vote 
against this legislation. This legislation does America no good. It 
sounds good, it maybe will make many of our constituents feel good. It 
may make some legislators look as if they are against drugs and that 
they are tough law and order legislators. But this is misdirected, 
misunderstood perhaps by many, and will do more harm than good.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying that this gives us an opportunity 
to sound tough on crime but this mandatory minimum strategy has been 
studied, and it is one of the least cost effective ways of reducing 
crime. The highest risk offenders do not get enough. The lowest risk 
offenders get too much. This will provide more time for this offense 
than those who are convicted of rape, voluntary manslaughter, and 
kidnapping.

                              {time}  1700

  The money that will be spent in this bill could be put to better use. 
It is 100 to $150 million a year that could be put to crime prevention 
programs, enhanced police protection, drug rehabilitation and a lot 
better uses than this sound bite that is in this bill, and I would hope 
we would defeat it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and then I am going to yield, if I can, to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Buyer), a member of the committee, who just walked in.
  I want to make a response at this point to the gentlewoman's concerns 
expressed with regard to the issue of whether or not somebody in 
possession of a small amount of crack cocaine or cocaine period, out 
hunting with a rifle could indeed be found to be guilty of a crime that 
would result in the enhanced punishments under this bill, and the 
answer is they could not. And the reason why they could not is because 
the crime under the bill, the enhancement provisions for the crime, 
requires that it be committed, that a crime be the possession or the 
brandishing or the discharging of the gun be committed during and in 
relationship to a crime of violence or drug trafficking, and it has to 
be in furtherance of that crime.
  And in our report, the committee report, we define all of that in 
quite a lengthy time, talking about both Webster's New International 
Dictionary and Black' Law Dictionary, defining furtherance as the act 
of furthering, helping, forwarding, promoting, advancement or progress, 
and we go on to say the mere possession of a firearm in an area where a 
criminal act occurs is not a sufficient basis for imposing this 
particular mandatory sentence. Rather, the government must illustrate 
through specific facts which tie the defendant to the firearm that the 
firearm was possessed to advance or promote the criminal activity.
  Somebody out hunting who simply happens to have possession of 
narcotics would not be somebody that this would apply to because the 
gun would not be in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, the violent 
crime of drug trafficking.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, that is the trouble with this kind of 
mandatory minimum sentencing making. If, for example, the gentleman was 
in possession of a small amount of drugs, crack cocaine, had a gun, and 
while he was out there said to his friend, oh, I will sell you half of 
it, two 19-year-olds, that is the furtherance of a crime. They have got 
the drug trafficking.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time and tell the gentlewoman 
that the gun is not being used in that case in the furtherance of the 
crime. The gun is not. We have got to have that gun in the furtherance 
of the crime itself, not simply possess it on their person.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer) a member of the committee.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us, H.R. 
424, which will increase the penalties when thugs have firearms while 
committing federal crimes of violence or drug trafficking offenses. 
This debate is about sincere and fundamental differences in addressing 
violent crime.
  The other side believes with all their heart that if we get the guns 
off the streets, there will not be crime in our society. Then, there is 
the alternative, in which camp I place myself, that believes gun 
control is not crime control and that law-abiding, free citizens have 
the right to own and bear arms.
  Under this bill, the thug who uses a firearm in the commission of a 
crime receives a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years above the 
sentence for the crime itself. If this same thug brandishes a weapon to 
incite fear in victims, it increases the sentence to 10 years. If a 
thug discharges the firearm, then the mandatory minimum is 20 years. 
The opponents of this measure believe these sentences are harsh. Yes, 
they are harsh, but many of us also believe that if a firearm is used 
in the commission of violent crime, the penalty should be harsh.
  This bill is about achieving a proper balance in punishment that 
upholds the needs of victims in society, and I urge the adoption of the 
bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
did not respond to the question. What

[[Page H534]]

he did was to confirm that this is triggered not simply by violent 
crime, but so-called drug trafficking. He did not respond to the 
scenario that I built for him where a small possession of drugs may 
trigger a mandatory minimum sentence already.
  On top of having this hunting gun in one's possession and to 
exacerbate it, to even make it worse, or even to try and answer what he 
said, I said, and he may say to a friend who is hunting with him, I 
will give him half for $5.
  Now, what he is saying to us is this: Mothers and fathers should go 
out and hire the best lawyer that can be hired and spend all of the 
money that they have got to prove, in fact, that this gun was not used 
in the commission of a crime. I do not want to heap that on anybody's 
head.
  I do not like drugs; I do not like guns. If I had my druthers, I 
would have complete gun control. I would take guns out of the hands of 
everybody. I do not like drugs. We fight very hard against them.
  So I do not want anybody to think I am covering anybody. What I 
dislike is mandatory minimum sentencing. I want the judges that we 
appoint to the bench to be able to look at each of these situations and 
decide. In some cases they have got to be very tough; in other cases, 
they know the difference, when we just have a stupid kid who has fallen 
into an ill-conceived law like this one and will not allow them to have 
their lives thrown away simply because they are stupid.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague that he has just set up a scenario 
where he tells me that if, in fact, they fall in these gray areas, let 
them go and prove, or let somebody prove, that they, in fact, did not 
come into having this law take effect for them.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to be respectful to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters). I do not know if the example of a hunter 
with crack cocaine is the right example to use. Hunters in Indiana with 
crack cocaine are not out hunting game, they are out hunting to sell 
their product. So I do not know if that is appropriate.
  I have been listening to the gentlewoman about the mandatory 
minimums. We just met with our Federal judges. Even in Indiana they 
wish they had some discretion in certain areas. But as my colleagues 
know, society, we are moving this and being tough on these judges 
because of some lenient sentences, and we have to make these decisions 
on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to explain before we go into the closing of this 
the relative words with regard to the possession of a firearm that 
might trigger the mandatory 10-year sentence.
  We have brandishing, which is pointing the gun, which gets 15, and 
pulling the trigger, which gets 20. That is pretty apparent. The 
gentlewoman from California has discussed a potential scenario 
involving a cocaine dealing or trafficking situation.
  Let us assume that it, in fact, is a crime of cocaine trafficking 
that is going on. If indeed the person possesses a gun, the simple 
possession of it during the course of while that is going on, if it is 
not in furtherance of that crime, it is not going to trigger the 
additional mandatory minimum. And it is not a gray area at all. It 
would require, in all of the experts that we have had look at this and 
the way the Justice Department has interpreted, and I think the courts 
have, too, that the person who is dealing in that drug have to say 
since he is just possessing the gun, hey, I have got a gun here, and by 
golly, if these people do not do whatever I say do, then they are going 
to likely see me use that gun and words to that effect, something that 
is active, some furtherance in relationship to the crime, not the mere 
passive possession of the gun on the person during the course of the 
transaction.
  I think that is pretty clear, and it also has to be clearly on the 
person. It cannot be sitting over on some other side of the room 
somewhere. That is why, for example, the National Rifle Association has 
not expressed any problem with this bill. I am quite confident they 
would oppose this bill if they thought simple possession of a gun would 
get somebody into trouble, and they do not.
  What we are dealing with here is minimum mandatory hard message 
sentences for people who are out there committing crimes and are using 
guns in the furtherance of those crimes, and I think that is the 
important part.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just say that when we talk about possession as less 
than brandishing, I am not sure how we are ever going to get to prove 
simple possession that was not brandishing. As the gentlewoman from 
California indicated, I guess that is for the family that spent all 
their money on lawyers to protect themselves from this falling on them.
  The bottom line, though, is that mandatory minimums have been studied 
and are the least, one of the least effective ways to reduce crime. If 
we are serious about reducing crime, if we are serious about it, we 
should not pass the mandatory minimums. We should use the money for 
something constructive.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just simply like to conclude this debate by 
making the point of why this bill is out here. This bill is out here to 
send a message, a message to anybody who is going to think about using 
a gun in the commission of a crime, to tell them they better think 
twice, three times or four times because if they are out there using a 
gun in the commission of a Federal violent crime or drug trafficking 
offense, they are going to pay an extraordinary price, 10 more years in 
addition to the underlying sentence, minimum 10 more years in Federal 
prison for possession, 15 more years in Federal prison for brandishing 
the gun, pointing at somebody, and 20 years more if they actually pull 
the trigger while they are committing a Federal crime of violence or 
drug trafficking.
  The idea is to deter people from using guns in the commission of 
violent and drug trafficking crimes to say, no, and believe me, they 
talk about it. Hoodlums on the street, young people who are involved, 
there is a whole chain of conversation that goes on, most of them are 
very much in the know, and the idea of why we need this legislation is 
to send that message to them so we have far less violent crime with 
drugs than we have in America today.
  So, kids, do not use guns, and if that message is sent out there, if 
we really can send that message home, there is hope of truly reducing 
violence in America. This is one, in my opinion, one of the most 
important pieces of legislation that this Congress has passed in the 
years I have been here, and I hope it is passed today, and I urge the 
passage of H.R. 424 today.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to opposition to H.R. 424 for the 
following reason. Crime control and crime-related sentencing, the 
stated reason for enacting gun control legislation in the first place, 
was never intended to be a function of the federal government. Rather, 
it is a responsibility belonging to the states.
  This country's founders recognized the genius of dividing power 
amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize 
individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons 
who might most responsibly influence it. This division of power 
strictly limited the role of the federal government and, at the same 
time, anticipated that law enforcement would almost exclusively be the 
province and responsibility of state and local governments.
  Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are 
treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and 
counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for the federal government's 
correction of all societal wrongs, a national police force and 
mandatory sentencing laws which violate the ninth and tenth amendments 
to the U.S. are neither prudent nor constitutional.
  For this reason I oppose H.R. 424 and the federal government's 
attempt to usurp the police power which properly rests with state 
governments.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 424, providing for 
mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who use guns in the 
commission of a crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, 
which guarantees the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear 
arms. I have opposed gun control laws because they infringe upon this 
right. Instead,

[[Page H535]]

I have strongly supported tough prison sentences for criminals who use 
firearms in the commission of a crime. I believe that this is the 
correct way to deal with gun violence--punish the criminals.
  H.R. 424 imposes increasingly stiff penalties for crooks with guns, 
depending on how the weapon is used in the crime. The bill mandates a 
10-year jail term for possessing a firearm in the commission of a 
crime. If a gun is brandished, the criminal will face a 15-year 
sentence. If a gun is discharged during the crime, he will receive a 20 
year prison term. In addition, the bill provides 20, 25, and 30-year 
sentences, respectively, for subsequent convictions of the three 
categories of crimes. Furthermore, the bill prohibits courts from 
weakening these sentences by eliminating the possibility for probation 
as well as allowing the sentences to be served concurrently.
  Gun control laws prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns, not 
criminals. Rather than laws which do not discriminate between peaceful 
gun owners and gun toting crooks, H.R. 424 gets tough on the right 
people, criminals.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 424.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 424, which 
increases the mandatory minimum penalty for possessing a firearm while 
committing a crime, and imposes tough, new penalties based on how a 
firearm is used in the commission of a crime.
  The Second Amendment of our Constitution protects the right of law-
abiding Americans to bear arms. It does not extend this solemn right to 
criminals. Nor does it extend this right to those individuals who use 
firearms in the commission of crimes.
  In response to Americans' concern with violent crime, the Federal 
government, and several States, have pursued policies which fail to 
distinguish between two widely disparate interests: the law-abiding 
citizens who wish to acquire firearms for protection, hunting, 
recreation or any other lawful purpose; and criminals, who, by 
definition, seeking to obtain firearms for purposes contrary to the 
law, and who are dangerous to our communities. Unfortunately, this 
policy of targeting both law-abiding citizens and criminals is not 
succeeding. Criminals can be relied upon to obtain firearms outside 
lawful channels. Americans understand that waiting periods and other 
hindrances to the acquisition of firearms that fail to differentiate 
between law-abiding citizens and criminals simply do not reduce crime, 
and do not make our communities safer. Such policies do injustice to 
our Constitutional liberty for citizens to bear arms. Just as 
importantly, such policies do not target the cause of violent gun 
crimes. The cause of violent gun crimes is violent gun criminals.
  In the best interests of crime victims, and of men, women and 
children who want safe communities, let us send a strong message to the 
criminals: If you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you will 
go to jail for a long time.
  I am pleased today to support HR 424 because this important 
legislation targets firearms crimes by targeting criminals who use 
firearms, while protecting the Constitutional rights of lawful firearms 
owners. It is based on a simply, easily-understood principle: penalty 
escalation. If an individual commits a crime while possessing a 
firearm, he gets 10 years in jail. If he brandishes that weapon in such 
a way that it aids in the criminal act, that's a 15-year sentence. If 
he discharges that weapon, count on 20 years in jail. And those 
penalties are for the first offense. Second or subsequent offenses 
demand greater penalties. Additional penalties are provided if the 
crime was committed with a machine gun, or a firearm with a silencer or 
muffler.
  My congratulations go to my colleague, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), who 
wrote this bill, and to Chairmen Bill McCollum and Henry Hyde for 
reporting HR 424 to the floor today. I also want to express my 
appreciation to the leadership of this Republican Congress, which is 
thoroughly and fully committed to making every American community safer 
for families and for freedom.
  I encourage my colleagues to stand for safer communities, to stand 
for the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens who are gun owners 
and those who are not, and to stand against the criminal element in 
this country, by voting in favor of HR 424. I hope that the Senate and 
the President will follow through as well, by promptly adopting this 
important anti-crime measure.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 424, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________