[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.
____________________