[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 86 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4573-H4603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MANDATORY GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECK ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
209 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2122.

                              {time}  2103


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2122) to require background checks at gun shows, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.

[[Page H4574]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are about to consider 
before us this evening is here because all of us are concerned with the 
safety of our children in school, at home, on the playground, and on 
the street. That is the same reason we were considering the bill we 
just passed a moment ago.
  In America, every child should have an opportunity to get a full 
education, to excel in the workplace to the best of his or her ability, 
to raise a family and to enjoy the high standard of living that the 
genius of the Founding Fathers of this great free Nation allowed us to 
develop. No child should have his or her life cut short in a suicidal 
massacre such as happened at Columbine High School or by any other 
violent criminal act.
  We cannot address adequately by legislation all of the causes of 
violent crime in our society, but over the last 2 days we have crafted 
legislation in H.R. 1501 which, if enacted, will greatly assist our 
States and local communities in reducing the torrent of violent youth 
crime afflicting this Nation. The grant program in this legislation 
will help repair the broken juvenile justice systems in our 50 States 
and send a message to teenagers that there are consequences for their 
criminal misbehavior at every level, and that if they continue to 
engage in a course of criminal conduct there will be ever more severe 
punishment. I believe the experts that this legislation will make a 
difference.
  Now we must turn our attention to the loopholes in the gun laws of 
this Nation that have become very apparent in the aftermath of the 
tragedy at Columbine. Over the last several weeks, there has been much 
debate over the issue of guns; debate in public, debate in the press, 
debate in this House. And despite all the differing views of those on 
all sides, there is one thing that I believe everyone agrees upon. We 
need to keep guns out of the hands of children, convicted felons and 
those who use them to harm our families.
  Existing law prohibits a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, a 
drug addict, an illegal alien, a minor, and several other categories of 
people from buying a gun. Several years ago an instant check background 
system was phased in specifically for the purpose of screening out 
convicted felons and other disqualified persons who attempted to buy 
guns from a gun dealer. This is a name check system.
  The name check system has its weaknesses, one of them being that 
while the names of persons arrested for felony crimes are computerized 
in a central bank at the FBI, the conviction or acquittal records are 
not. Some States have computerized the disposition records showing 
conviction or acquittal but many have not. So when the name of a gun 
purchaser is entered in the instant check system and a hit is made, it 
is frequently only known that the person has an arrest record for a 
felony, not whether there was a conviction.
  Once there is a hit of someone's name in the instant check system, 
there has to be contact made by someone working in that system to the 
county courthouse in the county and the State where the arrest was made 
to find out if the person was convicted of a felony crime on the 
charges that show up on the arrest record in the computer, or whether 
that person was acquitted, or maybe the charges were pled to a lesser 
offense, or, who knows.
  If the sale is made over the weekend, and I think this is very 
important to note, if the sale was made over the weekend and the 
instant check turns up an arrest hit on the purchaser's name, the 
county courthouse is not open for business and the records cannot be 
checked to find out if there was a felony conviction that would 
disqualify the purchaser until Monday, when the courthouse opens.
  This is the principal reason why current law provides that if an 
arrest hit occurs on a name in an instant check, law enforcement has up 
to 3 business days to determine whether there was a felony conviction 
before the sale can be completed. If it is determined there is a felony 
conviction, there can be no sale. If it does not make a determination, 
the sale may proceed at the end of the 3 days.
  Now, when somebody buys a gun at a gun show from a dealer, under 
current law the instant check system works exactly the same as it does 
if somebody goes to the gun store and buys the gun from the gun dealer. 
However, if the purchase is made by an individual nondealer citizen at 
a gun show, if that is the one who is selling the gun, an individual 
nondealer citizen, there is no background check to see if the person is 
a convicted felon who is attempting to make the purchase. This is a big 
loophole. This is the loophole that the bill before us, H.R. 2122, 
closes.
  Under this bill, an instant background check has to be done on anyone 
who purchases a gun at a gun show. No matter who the seller is, whether 
they are a dealer or an unlicensed individual vendor at the gun show, 
they may not sell any firearm under this bill until the buyer of that 
firearm has been checked through the instant check system. Under this 
bill, anyone who knowingly violates the requirement will be subject to 
criminal prosecution and civil penalties.
  Requiring purchasers at a gun show to wait 3 working days might mean 
that the sale is not completed until well after the gun show is over, 
and so H.R. 2122 allows the sale to proceed after 72 hours, or 3 
calendar days, as opposed to business days. This will be long enough to 
delay the sale if it is made over a weekend, until the county 
courthouses are open on Monday, and the arrest name hit can be 
resolved, but it also allows gun show purchasers to complete their 
transactions promptly. There is no need to have a 3-business or -
working day wait.
  Mr. Chairman, some Members want this period shortened to 24 hours, 
but the instant check statistics show that only about half the hits are 
ever cleared up in 24 hours, and on Saturdays this clear rate is even 
lower. Whenever the check system tells a dealer to delay, it is always 
because a hit has occurred in the name of the person seeking to buy a 
firearm. We have to make sure that we delay these sales until we can 
determine if the person trying to buy the firearm is a felon or a 
fugitive, and this often cannot happen until the following Monday 
morning.

  The bill also requires persons who organize or conduct shows to 
register with the Secretary of the Treasury, in accordance with the 
Department's regulations. It also requires gun show organizers to check 
the identification of those who desire to be vendors at the gun show 
and record their names in records the gun show organizer must maintain.
  Under present law, only licensed dealers are authorized to conduct 
background checks on potential firearm purchasers. In order to make 
sure there will be sufficient number of persons at gun shows who can 
conduct these checks, the bill allows other citizens to apply to the 
Secretary of the Treasury to become instant check registrants. These 
instant check registrants will not be licensed to sell firearms, but 
they will be licensed to conduct a background check, and they will be 
subject to the regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department. I am 
sure a number of persons who are not dealers, but enjoy exhibiting, 
buying, and selling firearms at gun shows will go through the process 
to obtain a permit to conduct these background checks.
  H.R. 2122 also defines a gun show. For the purposes of the bill, a 
gun show is an event which is sponsored to foster the collecting or 
legal use of firearms at which 50 or more firearms are exhibited for 
sale or exchange, and at which 10 or more vendors are present.
  Now, I must say, Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed to read in today's 
paper, in The Washington Post, a piece by Attorney General Janet Reno, 
which I must sadly say it makes it appear that she is playing more 
politics than substance, and I am used to hearing from the Attorney 
General on a lot more substance. She complains about the provisions in 
this bill in ways that just do not make sense.
  Now, I would like to say one thing about this. I believe that the 
Attorney General's office should be spending more time working to 
improve the existing instant check system to get more of the records on 
file in a way that will have the felony convictions there, than trying 
to fiddle with the details of a piece of legislation where she is 
totally incorrect about what she is saying in that article.
  Miss Reno says in her column something that appears to show concern

[[Page H4575]]

that my system in this bill will allow what she calls amateurs to 
access the instant check system. That is not the case. All instant 
check registrants that are created under this bill, H.R. 2122, will be 
licensed by the Secretary of the Treasury. They will follow all 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury. And, besides, 
it does not take a rocket scientist to operate the system. It only 
takes the ability to call in a name and the date of birth to the check 
system. The new instant check registrants will not undermine the system 
in any way.
  Miss Reno also complains that the requirement in the bill that all 
background check of records and transactions that go through must 
immediately be destroyed will undermine her ability to audit the 
system. The only need to audit the system is to ensure that 
unauthorized checks are not being run. We do not need to keep the 
records on everybody who files to buy a gun. That is not the way we do 
things in America. We should not have that kind of filing that is kept. 
That is nonsense. While it may be a benefit in certain respects to have 
these records, it is certainly not worth the risk of allowing the 
government to keep records of individual law-abiding citizens for 
months at a time.
  Again, I am very disappointed in the Attorney General and her 
purported criticism of the underlying bill, which, as I said, does not 
have merit.
  I believe H.R. 2122 strikes a fair balance between the need to assure 
that firearms are kept out of the hands of criminals and the right of 
law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. The bill will close the 
existing loophole that could allow criminals to buy firearms at gun 
shows. It will encourage the government to conduct background checks as 
quickly as they practically can, without risking that a firearm might 
be sold to a convicted criminal simply because the courthouse where the 
conviction record was kept was closed on the weekend of the gun show.
  We need this legislation. We need to close the loophole. We need to 
keep the guns out of the hands of convicted felons. It is so important 
to do so that I am asking my colleagues to set aside all of the 
differences, all of the bickering that has been going on over the 
little ``i's'' and ``t's'' and so forth out here. Consider the safety 
of our children and grandchildren and vote in favor of this bill.
  It does not need to be amended on the gun show portion. It is a solid 
piece, well balanced, well thought out to protect both the law-abiding 
person who wants to buy a gun at a gun show; to protect the organizer 
of a gun show who should not be subjected to the unnecessary liability 
hazards that are in the other body's version of this, and may be an 
amendment offered out here today; and it protects the American public, 
which is most important, our children and our grandchildren, from those 
convicted felons who might otherwise, without this legislation, be able 
to buy a gun at a gun show they cannot buy from an authorized dealer.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin our general debate 
on H.R. 2122 by yielding 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) the distinguished minority leader of the House.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to urge Members to support 
the McCarthy amendment that is cosponsored by the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Roukema) 
and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) and others. And I recommend it to Members 
because I think it is the most reasonable and common-sensical approach 
to this problem.
  Let me begin the debate tonight by submitting some agreements that I 
think all of us agree to.
  I think all of us here believe in the Second Amendment, we believe in 
the right of American citizens to have, possess, and bear arms.
  Let me also submit that all of us believe that doing something about 
the availability of guns to children is not going to solve alone or 
nearly alone the problem of school violence that we face.
  There are a lot of other things that, hopefully, will be considered 
here on the floor of the House in the days to come. We need to address 
all of the problems of the way children are raised, the way children 
are taught, so that we can raise law-abiding, productive citizens in 
the case of every child in our country.
  But the McCarthy amendment and the amendment presented by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), which has many merits about it, 
are both based on the idea that the Brady bill that we passed in 1993 
has been an important change in the law that has brought about an 
improvement in terms of who is able to buy guns.
  The Department of Justice today released information that said that 
in the last 6 months 17,000 criminals, people who had been convicted of 
crimes, were refused the ability to buy a gun because of the operation 
of the Brady law.
  Let me just read some of the cases that were affected under the Brady 
law.
  On January 9, 1999, in Texas a convicted murderer was not allowed to 
buy a weapon. On February 6, 1999, a person under indictment for 
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was denied the right to buy a 
weapon. On February 27 of this year, a person convicted of aggravated 
kidnapping with intent to rape a child was denied the right to buy a 
weapon in my own State of Missouri, February 13 of this year, a person 
wanted for domestic battery in Illinois. February 27, a person 
convicted of illegal possession of explosives in New Mexico.
  I could go on and on. I could read 17,000 people in the last 6 months 
who were refused the right to buy a gun.
  This law works. We had 70 or so percent of Democrats, 30 percent of 
Republicans who voted in a bipartisan way for the Brady bill in 1993. 
It was a good thing to do. It was common sense. And it has worked.
  The problem is there was a loophole, as often there is in laws that 
we write, and a lot of people have been driving through that loophole. 
The loophole is that we have a thing called gun shows and flea sales, 
flea markets, where people can go and buy weapons today and not have 
the Brady check.
  And so, what we are on the floor tonight in part to remedy is that 
loophole. And I believe that the McCarthy amendment does that the best, 
for two reasons. One, I think it has the definition of a ``gun show'' 
that is tight enough to pick up most of the gun shows. And secondly, 
the time period, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 
talked about this, is longer than in other amendments that will be 
presented and allows the check to actually take place.
  Now, in truth, about 90 percent of the people will be able to buy the 
gun at the gun show because the instant check is working and it will 
not stop them from being able to buy the gun at the site within the 
first hour or so after they make the purchase.
  So this is a reasonable piece of legislation.
  I had an officer, a police officer, in Chicago the other day come up 
to me on a plane and he said, ``You know, it is really important that 
you get rid of this gun show exclusion.'' He said, ``I go into high 
schools all over Chicago and I ask kids, `Do you have a gun at home?' 
Everybody raises their hand. I ask, `How many of you know where the gun 
is right now?' Everybody raises their hand. I ask them, `How many have 
shot the gun?' Everybody raises their hand.''
  He said, ``I grew up in the inner City of Chicago; and I can tell 
you, when I was a kid,'' and he was not that old, certainly not as old 
as I am, he said, ``guns were not that available.'' He said, ``When we 
had a fight in school, maybe it was a fistfight. At worst, it was a 
knife somebody brandished. But nobody could get to a gun.'' And he 
said, ``The truth is, and I know this for a fact because I work in this 
area, the guns that are coming into Chicago now are coming through the 
gun shows and the flea markets because people that want to sell guns to 
kids are going there to get out of the Brady law.'' This is a loophole 
we need to close, and we can close it tonight.
  Now, let me end with this: I think a lot of Americans are tuning in 
tonight

[[Page H4576]]

to hear this debate because I think the American people are looking to 
us in a bipartisan way to take a small step in the right direction to 
address a problem that I believe is a national crisis.
  When we have Littleton and we have Georgia and we have Arkansas and 
we have Oregon and we have Kentucky and we have kids killing kids in 
high schools, not just in inner cities but in suburbs all across this 
country, we have a national crisis.
  We lost more kids yesterday to school violence than we lost in Kosovo 
and in Bosnia in the last 3 years put together. This is a national 
crisis. Thirteen kids a day go down to school violence.
  The police officer in Chicago said when he was talking to me on the 
plane, ``It is 9:30 at night. There have already been three funerals in 
the City of Chicago of children who were killed by children tonight.'' 
And he said, it is every night, every night, every night, every night.
  We know this is not going to solve the problem alone. But it is a 
step in the right direction.
  I went to Littleton on the Sunday they had the memorial service a 
week after the children were killed. I met with Colin Powell and the 
Vice President, the parents of the dead children. They came through one 
at a time. It took an hour and a half. I hugged them. I cried with 
them. As I held them in my arms, all I could think of was my kids.
  One of the mothers had the picture of her child with a frame. She 
sobbed in my arms for about 2 minutes. I cried with her. When she 
stepped back, she looked at me and she said, ``Congressman, please go 
back to the Congress and take some step so that my child did not die in 
vain.'' That is what we owe the people of this country tonight.
  This should not be a political issue, a partisan issue, a Democrat-
Republican issue. This is an issue of our children, of saving 
children's lives, of making guns less available to the children of this 
country. We can do this. We can make America better tonight.
  I urge Members to search their conscience and their heart, let us not 
let these children die in vain. Vote for a good, common-sense 
amendment, the McCarthy amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to yield 7 minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) the distinguished chairman of 
the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Democratic leader's 
marvelous words and emotional, and rightly so, presentation; and I 
could not agree with him more. We have a very serious problem. But, oh, 
my God, it goes so far beyond guns.
  Yesterday we talked about the poison that is being fed to our 
children through videos, through the games, through the movies, through 
television. And our response to that? A resolution of the sense of 
Congress.
  So if we really want to get into this problem, let us get into all 
facets of it.
  Now, let us talk about guns. Much as some do not like it, or much as 
some are very uncomfortable with it, there is a Second Amendment to the 
Bill of Rights to the Constitution and that Second Amendment says, the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  Okay. I believe in the Second Amendment and I believe people have the 
right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, there are serious 
problems with the proliferation of weapons. There are, in my judgment, 
too many guns too easily accessible to kids, and we have to do 
something about it. It is a shame we cannot do something about it 
together rather than in a partisan way.
  Now, I support H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check 
Act, which will close the loophole in current law that permits 
dangerous criminals to buy guns at gun shows without mandatory 
background checks.
  There has been a lot of discussion in the Senate and the House about 
how to deal with gun shows. There are approximately 4,400 gun shows 
annually in the United States, and many of the people who buy guns at 
those shows do so without going through a background check.
  Only federally licensed firearm dealers are required to run checks on 
prospective buyers at gun shows. While there are many licensed gun 
dealers selling their guns at gun shows, there are just as many 
unlicensed guns and they do not have to run background checks. So H.R. 
2122 changes that. Any and all gun transfers at gun shows will have to 
undergo a background check.
  Some believe that gun shows should be completely shut down, and they 
have used their version of mandatory background checks as a disguise 
for closing them down. Well, I think that is wrong. If they want to 
close gun shows down, propose it. If they want mandatory background 
checks all the time under every circumstance, then propose that. But do 
it with definitions and realistic regulations, as we have done in H.R. 
2122.
  This proposal on gun shows is straightforward. It will work in the 
real world. It achieves everything that is necessary to ensure that 
mandatory background checks are performed by responsible people at gun 
shows, and it does so without driving them out of business or 
interfering with private sales and family transactions.

                              {time}  2130

  H.R. 2122 requires a background check for every buyer at a gun show. 
It also requires gun show organizers, licensed dealers and instant 
check registrants, those are individuals authorized to conduct instant 
background checks at gun shows, to keep records that can be used by 
Federal law enforcement officials in criminal investigations.
  Criticisms of this bill by the administration suggest it does not 
close the gun show loophole. Those criticisms are entirely unfounded. 
Let me explain the definition of ``gun show.'' H.R. 2122 would define a 
gun show as, quote, ``an event which is sponsored to foster the 
collecting, competitive use, sporting use or any other legal use of 
firearms, and 50 or more guns are offered for sale, and there are not 
less than 10 vendors selling guns.''
  This definition of gun shows reflects the real world we live in. The 
administration opposes the 10 vendor requirement, arguing that gun 
transactions at smaller gatherings would not be subject to background 
checks. We are not aware and the administration has not offered any 
evidence to the contrary that any of the 4,400 gun shows last year had 
fewer than 10 vendors. To the contrary,we know full well the average 
gun show has many vendors that often fill the entire exhibition halls 
and convention centers.
  Let me discuss the definition of a ``gun show vendor.'' The 
administration opposes the requirement in H.R. 2122 that a vendor is 
someone who sells firearms at a gun show from a fixed location. This 
fixed location condition is necessary, because gun show organizers are 
subject to Federal criminal prosecution if they do not register every 
vendor selling firearms at their gun shows. These organizers cannot 
know someone is merely attending a gun show and spontaneously offers to 
sell a firearm to another person. This happens. Some people attend gun 
shows and bring guns they want to sell if they can find a buyer at the 
right price. It would be unfair to hold organizers criminally liable 
for something they cannot control. It will only serve to discourage 
organizers from conducting gun shows which may be the hidden agenda of 
some. Every firearm transaction at every gun show, regardless of 
whether the seller is a licensed dealer, a vendor or just an attendee 
and regardless of whether the transfer occurs within the building 
housing the gun show or in the surrounding parking lot requires a 
background check.
  Now, this bill, this amendment, provides a middle way between the 
Dingell amendment and the Lautenberg or the McCarthy amendment. It is a 
middle way. It is a balance, to balance the rights of legitimate gun 
owners and balance the rights of the vulnerable public. And so I hope 
that Members will consider it in that light as the middle way and as a 
compromise and acceptable.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is the most amazing piece of 
legislation that has never come out of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
What we do is

[[Page H4577]]

in closing a loophole that has been graphically described by the 
gentleman from Florida is that we open up one, two, three, four, four 
new loopholes and reopen a loophole that had been closed previously.
  The gunrunner loophole, and I hope somebody on the other side wants 
to discuss this with me on their time. The gunrunner loophole. That 
means that nine vendors, there is a 10 vendor requirement here, nine 
vendors then could sell all the weapons they could bring in in a truck 
without being required to do background checks.
  The let's-step-outside loophole which allows vendors to complete 
their transactions by merely stepping out of the grounds of the gun 
show to make the deal.
  The roving vendor loophole which allows gun vendors to sell firearms 
with no background checks if they are simply walking the premises and 
not at any fixed location.
  The convicted felon loophole which weakens all instant background 
checks, thanks a lot, from 3 business days, to 72 consecutive hours. 
Get it? Is that hard for anybody to figure out, what that does?
  And then we go back and reopen a closed loophole, the Lee Harvey 
Oswald loophole, that would allow a gun dealer to ship a firearm across 
State lines directly to the private residence if any part of the 
transaction took place at a gun show.
  Now, what is the remedy? There are two opportunities to correct the 
problem. One is the McCarthy amendment and one, the second is the 
Conyers-Campbell bipartisan substitute, word for word are the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon) a member of the committee.
  (Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, this has been a monumental week. We are 
dealing with two great constitutional issues in the first and second 
amendments.
  I rise now in support of H.R. 2122 introduced by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum). He and the staff of the Committee on the 
Judiciary worked hard. Now we in Congress must meet the two challenges. 
On the one hand, the Democrats charge that we must immediately address 
this national crisis of youth violence and on the other we must ensure 
that prudent steps be taken to protect the liberties guaranteed by the 
second amendment of the Constitution.
  I listened with interest to the charges made by my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. They decry singling out the entertainment 
industry's responsibility for an increase in violence in our society. 
They claim it is unreasonable to think that one industry is at fault. 
But they claim the gun industry is responsible for violence in our 
society. This is outrageous hypocrisy.
  The debate today is not about blame. It is about the Federal role in 
the interpretation of the second amendment. I am going to focus my 
remarks today on section 3 of the gentleman from Florida's bill, the 
instant check gun tax and gun owner privacy section.
  All of us agree that criminals should not be allowed to purchase 
guns. At the same time, I believe the Federal Government should not 
keep permanent records and lists of law-abiding gun owners after they 
have already cleared the hurdles of an instant background check. No 
law-abiding gun owner has a problem with a background check to purchase 
a firearm. What he or she resents is the central government 
unconstitutionally keeping records of gun ownership by innocent, law-
abiding citizens.
  When the Brady bill was passed, gun shows were excluded from 
background checks because the checks took several weeks to complete. 
Today we have an automated database that allows background checks to be 
completed in a couple of minutes. In fact we had testimony that those 
checks could be completed in 3 to 5 minutes. So we can easily screen 
out felons attempting to purchase guns at gun shows.
  With a fully operational database of felons and other classes 
prohibited from buying guns, we can eliminate any Federal record of 
law-abiding gun owners. This legislation guarantees no records will be 
kept of legal gun owners while strictly enforcing current laws for 
criminals who attempt to purchase guns.
  I believe the second amendment right to own a gun is inherently tied 
to the right to not have the government know who owns a gun. This 
legislation assures that. I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am here to ask Members to show some 
courage for the sake of our children. I am here to ask the 56 
Republicans who were brave enough to buck the power of the gun lobby 
and vote for the Brady law to show that courage again and vote for the 
McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich amendment which closes the last loophole 
in the Brady law.
  Right now a criminal with a rap sheet of violent crimes can go to a 
flea market and buy an arsenal of weapons and not even be subject to a 
criminal background check. This is an outrageous and inexcusable state 
of affairs and the McCarthy-Roukema amendment stops it. The Republican 
bill, however, falls far short from closing the loophole. Now, the NRA 
is happy about that, because it gives the appearance of doing something 
without doing something. But who are my Republican colleagues answering 
to, the NRA or our children and our families and the tragedies we have 
seen across this country?
  To those 56 Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, finish the job 
with us. Stand with us. Vote for the McCarthy-Roukema amendment. Close 
this loophole that criminals are using to buy guns and show that you 
are standing for our Nation's children and against a gun lobby that has 
gotten out of control and out of touch with the priorities of the 
American people. The life you save with this vote may not only be your 
own, but more importantly it may be of your child or your grandchild or 
your neighbor's child. This is a crucial vote. This is a vote that 
sends a message whether we are serious about entering the next century 
making our schools and our communities safer for our children and our 
families.
  Vote for the McCarthy amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1-\3/4\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, every time an outrage such as that at 
Columbine where children are killed occurs, we hear from the NRA that 
guns do not kill people, people kill people. But the truth is, of 
course, that guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people.
  The United States has the loosest gun laws of any industrialized 
country. That is why we have the following statistics. When you look at 
other industrialized countries, France, 36 people killed with handguns; 
in Great Britain, 213; in Germany 200; in the United States 9,390. 
Three years ago, 5 years ago we passed a Brady law, finally after much 
effort. That law has kept 400,000 guns out of the hands of felons and 
mentally incompetent people, people who should not have had guns. Now 
we are trying to have some modest proposals to close some loopholes.
  Unfortunately, the rule did not make in order a proposal to ban gun 
kits from being sent out, gun kits that made a gun that killed a 
constituent of mine, Ari Halberstam, for the crime of being in the 
wrong place at the wrong time and identifiably Jewish.
  They did not make in order the one-gun-a-month amendment so that 
gunrunners could not go to Florida, buy 100 guns, come back and sell 
them on the black market in New York. But they did make in order the 
McCarthy amendment. They did make in order the Conyers-Campbell 
substitute.
  We should pass these amendments, we should reject the Dingell 
amendment which actually put more loopholes into the law, so that we 
can be

[[Page H4578]]

honest with the American people when we go home and tell them we have 
done something to give them a little more assurance that their children 
will not be the next victims of this country's fatal obsession with 
guns.
  Mr. Chairman, when are we going to get serious about limiting access 
to guns? When are we going to stand up to the NRA and pass legislation 
to save lives?
  Listen to Jesse Bateman, a junior high school student from Louisiana, 
who wrote, ``Five of my friends and I were hanging out at another one 
of our friend's house. All of a sudden two people who we thought were 
our friends walked in with guns. They demanded that we give them . . . 
drugs and money, and when we told them that we didn't have any, they 
started shooting. Two of my friends died and another one was paralyzed 
from the waist down. One of the ones that died was my best friend, he 
got shot in the head and died instantly.''
  People with guns kill our children every day, and we ought to do 
everything we can to limit access to these deadly weapons. The gun 
safety amendments that we will soon consider are extremely modest 
measures. It is the least we can do.
  The NRA-written Dingell amendment is a sham that actually weakens our 
existing law. Had it been in effect for the last six months, 17,000 
people who were denied access to guns would have gotten them. It guts 
the Brady law by reducing the amount of time that police have to 
investigate the background checks of individuals with questionable 
arrest records from 3 business days to 24 hours. What is the rush to 
get guns into felon's hands? We can't wait three days before allowing 
individuals with suspect records to obtain deadly weapons? This is 
outrageous.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member 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. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this 
time.
  I come tonight to honor and to pay tribute to children that have 
died. A young boy, Chris Hollowell, age 5, was unintentionally shot and 
killed by his 10-year-old brother at a relative's house. The boys were 
handling a semiautomatic handgun they found in their uncle's bedroom, 
in the closet, when the gun went off and struck Chris in the head. The 
brother dragged him to the front lawn screaming in pain for help, and 
Chris was pronounced dead at a hospital 30 minutes later.
  Someone sitting in their living room is saying, ``Well, I told you, 
it's that boy that did it.'' But it is really guns; 260 million of 
them. That is why I rise to say that we must support the McCarthy 
amendment, and unfortunately argue against and oppose H.R. 2122. 
Because H.R. 2122 sidesteps the issue. It pays homage and worships at 
the throne of the National Rifle Association.

                              {time}  2145

  But I am going to pay homage and respect to the dead children and 
those that may die tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and next month.
  It is important that we realize that gun shows around this Nation are 
unregulated, that people buy guns without checks, that law enforcement 
officers cannot find them. We need to support the McCarthy amendment 
that closes the loopholes on gun shows. We need to support the Conyers-
Campbell bipartisan bill, and it is too bad we did not have the 
Jackson-Lee amendment that would ask that children be accompanied into 
gun shows.
  I am going to stand here every day and support the dead children and 
not pay homage and worship to the throne of the National Rifle 
Association.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, what is the time situation on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 18\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this spring, like other mothers and 
fathers across the country, I froze when I heard the news of what was 
happening in Columbine High School, and I think, like the other mothers 
across the country, my first reaction was, ``Are my kids safe?''
  As we sorted through the massacre that happened there, all of us 
parents realized that something needed to be done.
  Finally, the United States Senate acted. They adopted modest gun 
safety measures for our children. Since then, in this House, what an 
odd dance we have seen. What could have been simple here in the House 
of Representatives has become complicated--too complicated. Tonight, 
however, we have a chance to make it simple again. And what do we need 
to do?
  We need to vote for the McCarthy amendment. We need to vote for the 
Hyde-Lofgren large clip amendment, and, by supporting these amendments, 
we will conform our conduct with what the Senate did.
  Will this solve everything? No, it will not. There will still be 
disturbed children. There will still be neglected kids who do wrong. 
There will still be children whose conduct is skewed towards violence. 
But we know this.
  If those boys in Colorado had not had all of those guns, a lot of 
other good kids would have been alive to graduate from Columbine High 
School last week.
  So it really is easy tonight. Stand up for what the mothers and 
fathers of America want us to do tonight: deliver to them the sensible 
gun safety laws. They expect no less.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary and doing a wonderful job.
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, this week we have addressed the issue of 
juvenile crime by passing some important measures. We have voted for 
mentoring programs, after-school programs, juvenile witness assistance 
programs, toll-free hotlines for anonymous student tipsters, and we 
have even voted to help local communities install metal detectors for 
their schools. Only one substantive step and the most important step 
needs to be taken: taking the guns out of the hands of the children.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a Democrat who believes in the second amendment 
right to bear arms; the right to bear arms by responsible adults.
  There were many factors that contributed to the recent school 
killings: lack of parental involvement, the prevalence of violent, 
cruel and sadistic video games, television shows, and movies. But when 
all is said and done, the main culprit was the easy accessibility of 
guns to the children.
  Mr. Chairman, some people think that Americans cannot do two things 
at once. They think that it is impossible to allow law-abiding adults 
to own guns while at the same time restricting children's access to 
guns. They underestimate the intelligence and the ability of the 
American people to recognize and respond to the need for responsible 
gun control measures where our children are concerned.
  Most Americans and most Democrats support common-sense gun 
legislation that allows law-abiding adults to have guns, but keeps guns 
out of the hands of criminals and children. The Senate has already done 
their job: Passed common sense gun laws. Now it is up to the House to 
do the same. It is up to us not to fail our children.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy-Roukema and Conyers-
Campbell amendments. Let us not let our children down.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon, (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  It is a sad day when the Speaker of this House is unable to deliver 
on his promise of a deliberative process on efforts to reduce gun 
violence. This bill bypassed entirely the substantive committee 
process, despite the promise of the Republican leadership; a pointless 
delay, which has only allowed the NRA and other gun violence apologists 
to politick and fund-raise to their hearts' content, while distorting 
the effects of this modest Senate provision.
  We have an opportunity to support these provisions rather than 
weakening them further and show that there is a way to give voice to 
the concerns of

[[Page H4579]]

the overwhelming majority of the American public on this issue. If we 
care about families, we should enact Federal child access laws like 17 
States have done. We can close the gun show loophole rather than make 
it worse. These are modest steps, but they start us in a new direction 
to make America a little less lethal.
  The victims of gun violence are not just the children in schoolyards, 
classrooms and America's neighborhoods. We are all being held hostage. 
It is time for a majority of the Members of this Congress to stand up 
and start in a new direction.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, as a former school nurse, I feel so 
strongly about the national crisis of gun violence in our schools.
  In my district, many law-abiding citizens own guns, and, of course, I 
strongly support the rights of hunters and sportsmen to keep and use 
their firearms. But there is no reason why children and teenagers 
should have such easy access to guns. There is no simple solution to 
youth violence, but common-sense safety legislation is the place to 
start.
  I have heard it argued that safety locks and real gun show background 
check provisions will not save many lives. But even if these bills save 
the life of just one child, is that not enough?
  Let us stand up for America's families. Let us keep our children safe 
from the horrors of gun violence.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the competing gun safety 
bills that the House is considering do not appear to differ greatly, 
but in fact those differences are important to keeping firearms out of 
the wrong hands and closing the gun show loophole.
  The Department of Justice has worked to make the instant check more 
convenient. Some 73 percent of all background checks now are done 
instantly; another 22 percent within 2 hours. That means just 5 percent 
require additional information before the purchase can be completed, 
but that is an important 5 percent.
  The most important difference between these competing bills is the 
length of time allowed to clear or deny that remaining 5 percent. The 
Dingell bill gives law enforcement only 24 hours. The Hyde-McCollum 
proposal, 72 hours. The McCarthy proposal, like the Brady law, gives 
law enforcement 3 business days.
  Let me be clear about who in North Carolina would have been cleared 
for gun purchases if the present check were only 24 hours, as in the 
Dingell bill. A person under indictment for second degree murder would 
have obtained a gun in North Carolina on January 2, 1999. On April 10, 
a person under a restraining order for domestic violence would have 
been cleared, and on May 15, a person convicted of rape in Virginia 
would have gotten a gun. But because law enforcement had 3 business 
days to complete the background check of these individuals, the Brady 
law prevented them from completing a firearm purchase in North 
Carolina.
  If the background check is to do its job, if the gun show loophole is 
to be closed, law enforcement must have the time it needs. The 
differences between these proposals are important: Vote for the 
McCarthy substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, firearms legislation tends to focus intense heat in the 
House. What I want to try to do is shed a little light.
  The competing gun safety bills that the House is considering do not 
appear to differ greatly, but the differences are important to keeping 
firearms out of the possession of felons, fugitives, and those with a 
record of domestic violence, drug abuse or mental illness.
  The Brady law, despite all of the predictions made in 1994 that it 
would not work, has stopped over 400,000 gun sales to dangerous 
persons. It has helped reduce the homicide rate in the United States to 
the lowest in a generation. And now we have the chance to plug the 
Brady bill's greatest loophole: unregulated gun shows.
  No doubt, the background check required by the Brady law is an 
inconvenience, but it is a small inconvenience that has saved lives. 
The Department of Justice is working hard to make the instant check 
more convenient. Some 73 percent of all background checks are approved 
instantly. Another 22 percent are approved within two hours. That adds 
up to 95 percent of all background checks, approved within two hours. 
The remaining five percent require additional information before a 
purchase can be completed or denied.
  Perhaps the most important difference between the competing bills we 
vote on today is the length of time allowed to clear or deny that 
remaining five percent. The Dingell proposal gives law enforcement 
twenty-four hours or the gun gets transferred. The Hyde-McCollum 
proposal gives seventy-two hours. The McCarthy proposal, like the Brady 
law, gives law enforcement three business days to track down the 
details to make certain that a gun buyer is not a prohibited person 
before allowing the transfer.
  Let's be clear about who in North Carolina would have been cleared 
for guns if the present check was only twenty-four hours, as in the 
Dingell bill. A person under indictment for second degree murder would 
have obtained a gun on January 2, 1999. On April 10, a person under a 
restraining order for domestic violence would have been cleared to 
purchase a firearm. And on May 15, a person convicted of rape in 
Virginia would have gotten his gun. Because law enforcement had three 
business days to complete the background check of these individuals, 
the Brady law prevented them from completing a firearm purchase in 
North Carolina.
  It seems a small inconvenience to require that the five percent of 
questionable purchasers wait up to three business days before 
completing a gun purchase. Like the background check itself, it is a 
small inconvenience that will saves lives. I urge the adoption of the 
McCarthy amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me this time.
  I would like to read excerpts from a letter that I received.
  My name is Karly Kupferberg, and I live in Evanston, Illinois. I am 
14 years old, currently in the 8th grade, attending Haven Middle 
School.
  School is supposed to be a place where kids go to get an education 
and to start their future. Also, school is supposed to be where kids 
can go and feel safe, but instead, more and more kids are dying at 
school.
  I know that when I heard about the Columbine shooting, I thought to 
myself, here we go again. The next day I had to go to school in a 
similar environment of the Columbine shooting and worry about someone 
coming in with a gun, opening fire. It was terrifying.
  This is too much for kids to deal with, and I don't find it fair. Why 
should we have to worry about dying at school?
  I think it is time as a Nation for us to put our foot down to these 
school shootings and do something about it. A very good way to start 
would be Federal gun control laws. Something has to be done, because by 
the appearance of things right now, it doesn't look like much is 
getting done on Capitol Hill.
  Karly says, we want it stopped, and we need help because we cannot do 
it by ourselves.
  We can help Karly, my granddaughter, Isabel and all of our children 
by plugging the loopholes and voting for McCarthy, Roukema and 
Blagojevich amendment.
  I would like to read a letter that I received.

                                                     May 16, 1999.
       Dear Jan Schakowsky, My name is Karly Kupferberg and I live 
     in Evanston, Illinois. I am fourteen years old, currently in 
     the eighth grade attending Haven Middle School, Next year I 
     will be entering Evanston Township High School as a freshman. 
     Over the past couple of years, as you know, there have been 
     an extremely high number of school shootings. I noticed that 
     each time these unfortunate shootings happen, the assailants 
     become bolder which culminates in more tragedy. School is 
     supposed to be a place where kids go to get an education and 
     to start to build their future. Also, school is supposed to 
     be where kids can go and feel safe, but instead, more and 
     more kids are dying at school. What is going on here? Schools 
     are no place for violence and crime. This should not be 
     happening to children, the future of America. How are kids 
     supposed to go and get an education when they have to be 
     worried about their safety in school and it being the next 
     place for these school shootings to happen? I know that when 
     I heard about the Columbine shooting I thought to myself, 
     ``here we go again.''

[[Page H4580]]

       The next day I had to go to school, in a similar 
     environment of the Columbine shooting, and worry about 
     someone coming in with a gun opening fire. Maybe one of my 
     classmates, maybe not, but either way it was terrifying. How 
     can our nation tolerate these inhuman acts of terror and why 
     is this happening? This it too much for kids to deal with and 
     I don't find it fair. Why should we have to worry about dying 
     at school?
       I think that it is time, as a nation for us to put our foot 
     down to these school shootings and do something about it. A 
     very good way to start would be federal gun control laws. 
     Something has to be done, because by the appearance of things 
     right now, it doesn't look like much is getting done on 
     Capitol Hill. I know that I hate watching these poor, 
     innocent victims and their families as they are torn apart 
     and traumatized for life. My heart goes out to all the 
     families victimized in these school shootings. Then I have to 
     ask you, how can you sit in front of the television at night 
     watching the news and seeing all those horrifying pictures of 
     the school shootings, and not worry about your children or 
     grandchildren at school. You must fight back against all that 
     is wrong and make it right for your kids. This is what I have 
     decided to do by writing this letter. I'm hoping that 
     everyone that reads this letter will finally see that the 
     children of America are crying out for help and shelter from 
     the crime and bloodshed. We want it stopped and we need help 
     because we can not do it by ourselves. By passing stricter 
     gun control laws and requiring the parents who own guns to 
     lock them up, we can help piece this nation back together. 
     Other parents won't have to worry if their kids are safe at 
     school and children won't have to worry about anyone coming 
     into their school causing further tragedy. We need to act 
     quickly to stop school shootings from becoming as culturally 
     accepted unfortunately as gang shootings have become in 
     America. So please help eliminate the crime from schools and 
     make them a safer place for kids of America.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Karly Kupferberg.

  We can help Karly and my granddaughter Isabel and all of our children 
by closing the loopholes and passing the McCarthy, Roukema, Blagojevich 
Amendment and the Conyers Campbell Amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, may we get a reading on the time remaining 
on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, law-abiding citizens in the United 
States have nothing to fear from applying the Brady background checks 
to gun shows. If one is a member of the NRA and one is law-abiding, the 
McCarthy gun show bill does nothing to threaten one's rights. However, 
if one is a criminal and one wants to buy a gun, that is the purpose of 
the McCarthy amendment.
  The focus is on the criminals. There were 5,200 gun shows last year; 
54,000 guns came and were confiscated in crimes that came from gun 
shows. We have a gaping loophole that we are trying to close, and there 
are three measures that might achieve that: the Hyde amendment, the 
Dingell amendment and the McCarthy amendment. Three great Members, one 
good measure.
  Under the Hyde amendment, 9,000 criminals could get guns within 6 
months at gun shows. Under the Dingell amendment, 17,000 could get guns 
at gun shows. This according to the Department of Justice.
  If it is about keeping criminals from getting guns, support the 
McCarthy amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, later on tonight we will be considering the Dingell 
amendment, which I strongly support.
  I know that to many people, restrictions on the use and sale of 
weapons seem like common sense. Those who live in urban areas, 
particularly the inner cities, seldom hear of a gun used for hunting or 
for sport. Instead, to them, guns are almost always associated with 
crime and violence.
  Others know that guns are used safely for sport, to shoot game and to 
protect one's home. In fact, more guns are used each day in self-
defense and to prevent crime than are actually used to commit crimes. 
Clearly, there is a difference of perspective based on individual's own 
life experiences.
  The clash of opinions comes when new gun control restrictions are 
perceived as punishing law-abiding citizens rather than the criminals 
themselves. To me, the need is not for more gun control legislation on 
the books, but better enforcement of the laws we already have.

                              {time}  2200

  We all know that under this administration there have been very, very 
few prosecutions of crimes involving guns.
  For example, thousands of felons were identified as attempting to 
illegally buy weapons under the Brady law, yet this administration 
chose not to prosecute a single person.
  We also know that we would not be here today if the Littleton tragedy 
had not occurred. Yet none of the proposed restrictions we will 
consider later tonight would have prevented those deaths. What 
certainly would have prevented the killings would have been the 
enforcement of the dozen gun laws that were broken during the course of 
the acquisition, possession, and use of the guns involved.
  One more point, Mr. Chairman. The violence and crimes committed with 
guns are not the root problem, just the manifestation of it. The root 
problem is the destruction of American values. Our efforts should be 
directed towards strengthening those values, and not passing 
restrictive amendments which are going to be considered later tonight 
and which do not solve the problem.
  We should seek reasonable solutions. That is what the Dingell 
amendment will help us to achieve.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McCarthy amendment. 
Congress needs to act in three areas to restore sensibility and 
workability to our gun laws.
  First, we need to close the gaping loophole that permits unregulated 
and undocumented sales of guns at flea markets and gun shows.
  Secondly, we need to restore a three-day waiting period that would 
permit a cooling-off period and also permit law enforcement to do 
proper background checks.
  Third, we need to increase accountability and responsibility, 
requiring manufacturers to use the latest technology of child safety 
locks and load indicators that would indicate whether guns are loaded, 
and we could tell at a glance, and require more accountability from 
parents to safely store their guns.
  The McCarthy amendment would restore the background checks and bring 
gun show sales into compliance with recordkeeping and background 
checks.
  These improvements will reduce juvenile access to weapons. We should 
restore sanity, protect kids, and pass McCarthy.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I understand both sides would be 
agreeable to extending the time of the general debate, so I ask 
unanimous consent for an extension of the debate for 5 minutes to each 
side, or a total of 10 minutes, and not on amendments, on the general 
debate on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) shall each be recognized for an 
additional 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, we have some 20,000 plus gun laws in this 
country. Yet, there are those on this floor that would tell us if we 
pass two or three more, that will solve the whole problem of illegal 
use of guns.
  Does that not strike Members strange, that Members of this floor want 
to add to 20,000-plus gun laws already on the books, most of which are 
not enforced by this administration, by the way, but they do not want 
to pass

[[Page H4581]]

 any laws to stop peddling of filth and pointless violence to our 
children?
  The Columbine tragedy struck a chord with all Americans, but we 
should be looking at the core of the issue, which is why young people 
think it is okay to commit violent crimes.
  Could it possibly be that kids grow up seeing thousands of acts of 
violence without seeing the consequences of these actions?
  There are video games where the fun of the game is to kill and maim 
people. People even get extra points if they kill innocent bystanders. 
Movies with no artistic merit are out there letting kids see death and 
destruction at unparalleled rates. We have let our children become numb 
to these things.
  Do not tell me there are those who cannot tell the difference between 
Saving Private Ryan and Natural Born Killers. That is a disgrace to the 
millions of Americans who experienced the violence of war in the 
defense of freedom.
  The uncalled-for violence that is provided to our children through 
television, movies, video games, and music videos should stop. However, 
under the cloak of the First Amendment, many want to allow these 
providers of violence and corrupters of our culture to police 
themselves. How very, very strange.
  Liberals claim that conservatives have been bought off by the NRA for 
their opposition to more gun laws on law-abiding citizens. The focus 
should be placed on if this administration and the liberal wing of 
Congress have been bought off by Hollywood types who have been getting 
filthy rich peddling filth to our young people.
  The erosion of America's morality has desensitized our children's 
ability to discern right from wrong, and even to value human life. This 
debate should not be about more laws on guns, or adding even more laws 
at any point. It should be about our culture and values that have gone 
really, really wrong.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I resent bullies, and I always have. I 
think that the leaders of the NRA are the bullies of all bullies.
  Today I find myself once again fighting against NRA threats, threats 
against Members of this body who support sensible gun control and 
plugging the gun show loophole.
  Years ago, as a Member of the Petaluma City Council in California, I 
was threatened by these same individuals, who promised to post my name 
in their place of business if I voted for local gun control.
  Let me tell the Members, I told them I would be proud to have my name 
posted in their businesses, and I told them how to spell my name. I did 
not want my name up there unless it was spelled right.
  Today I am proud to stand for the McCarthy, et al., amendment, and I 
am proud to stand for the Conyers-Campbell amendment, amendments that 
keep our children safe, and any bully who wants to hold that against me 
needs to spell my name right: W-O-O-L-S-E-Y.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the clock. It is 10 o'clock at night. 
We have been debating for 2 days and we have finally gotten to guns. I 
think about this afternoon, and the fact that we debated the Ten 
Commandments.
  It is not going to be until 3 in the morning when we finally debate 
10 bullets in every magazine that can be stuck into a clip and mowed 
across any Long Island railway to take out some member of a family who 
is trying to get home in the evening. We are going to debate that at 3 
o'clock in the morning? Shame on this House and this process.
  I cannot get my head around this loophole thing that the Republicans 
keep talking about. They want loopholes? Let me understand this 
correctly. The Brady bill is designed to screen out criminals from 
getting guns, but no, the Dingell amendment and the Republicans want to 
create a loophole so that criminals can get guns.
  I do not get it. They want criminals to get guns. I cannot figure it 
out any other way. If they did not want criminals to get guns, they 
would be for closing the loophole. That is what loopholes are. They are 
mechanisms to get around the law. Let us close the loophole and pass 
the McCarthy amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, despite all the rhetoric that is being 
used by liberals here tonight, the thrust of their effort is one of the 
most dishonest attempts to disguise legislation that I have ever seen.
  To my colleagues and to my constituents in Georgia's Eighth District, 
they deserve to know what is behind all the smoke and mirrors here 
tonight.
  The majority of the amendments that we are debating are not about 
saving lives, they are about taking rights away from law-abiding 
citizens. What we are talking about is gun control. That is the wrong 
issue.
  Just yesterday and today this House approved amendments that were 
truly aimed at saving lives, preventing tragedies, and solving the 
cultural problems facing our Nation. That is where we need to direct 
the debate tonight.
  Let us punish those who break the law, let us enforce the laws 
already on the books, and let us limit the access of children to 
violent and sexually explicit material. We do not need to punish law-
abiding Americans. We do not need more gun control legislation.
  I will oppose all attempts to chip away at America's Bill of Rights, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The Second Amendment and the 
10th Amendment are part of our Constitution. Every single Member of 
this body took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States 
of America. Uphold the Constitution by defeating any gun control 
measures on the floor tonight and in the future.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say first that the gun show bill 
we are considering today falls far short of what this Congress should 
be doing to protect America's children. This bill is really a sham, the 
NRA has shot so many loopholes in the Senate gun show language.
  Let me just list a few of them. First of all, it opens up a gun 
runner loophole. H.R. 2122 would only apply the definition at events 
where 10 or more vendors are selling guns and where 50 or more guns are 
sold, regardless of the amount of guns sold. This means that nine 
vendors could sell thousands of firearms at a gun show without being 
required to do any criminal background or age checks.
  It also opens up a ``Let's step outside'' loophole. The bill allows 
gun vendors to complete transactions of gun sales with no background 
checks if the seller and purchaser merely step outside of the curtilage 
of the gun show to make the deal.
  It also allows for a roving vendor loophole. This bill allows gun 
vendors at gun shows to sell firearms with no background checks if they 
are simply walking the premises.
  So please support the McCarthy-Roukema and the Conyers-Campbell 
amendment. Without these amendments, these loopholes will mean that 
criminals will get guns.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a question: What do the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Police Foundation, the National 
Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, Black Executives 
Research Forum, what do they all have in common? They support waiting 3 
business days, like we want, like the McCarthy proposal has put forth.
  What do we know that they do not know? That is a question Members 
must ask. I am tired of hearing about liberal organizations. Are these 
liberal organizations? What is their hidden agenda? They have to deal 
with this

[[Page H4582]]

 day in and day out, the police officers of the country. They know what 
they are talking about. They look at this firsthand.
  Let us look at the record. Just this year in the State of Michigan, 
this year, February 6, 1999, a twice-convicted domestic violence 
batterer; April 24, 1999, a person convicted of domestic assault and 
battery, were stopped because of the three-day rule. They would be out 
on the street today doing their business.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), one of the indefatigable 
Members of the House.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am sitting here and I am 
listening to this debate. I know what is in my amendment. My amendment 
is closing a loophole. That loophole is not taking away anyone's right 
to buy a gun except a criminal.
  My amendment also puts in there that there will be no national gun 
registry. Has anyone read this amendment? We talk about adding new 
laws. We are not adding new laws. We are using the existence of the 
Brady bill that is already there.
  Seventy-five percent of the people that go to gun shows can get their 
guns in a short amount of time. Some might actually have to wait 2 
hours. It is the criminals that have to wait. It is the criminals that 
we want to wait. It is the criminals, that is what we are supposed to 
be doing.
  Where is our debate going? We are supposed to be saving people's 
lives, our police officers, our children. That is our job, and that is 
what the American people want.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have found tonight's 
debate incredible. Just a few moments ago, we were accused of wanting 
criminals to get guns.
  Now, does anyone really believe that any Member of this body, I would 
not accuse anybody of that, wants criminals to get guns?
  Criminals steal guns. Criminals do not buy guns in the marketplace. 
They buy them in the black market. They steal them.
  We also have trivialized the Ten Commandments. I would urge the 
gentleman to read them. One is, Thou shalt not kill. That is one of the 
Ten Commandments that was talked about today, and it was trivialized 
here a few moments ago.
  Earlier this evening in this debate, we heard the figure of 13 
children. Now, one child is too many, but what is children? I asked 
several people what they considered children and they said 10 and 
under; 12 and under. Well, let us take 14 and under. The national 
statistic is less than 2, but we hear from the President, we hear from 
the minority leader, we hear from leaders trying to make this issue 13.
  That is a lie. That is not the facts.
  Two is too many. We cannot afford to lose any children.
  I ask all of my colleagues if we pass every amendment, if we pass 
every bill that is before us, will Littleton have been prevented? No. 
No, it would not.
  What has happened that very young children can pull a trigger and 
kill another human being? It used to be people who had been in the war 
and had scars and had emotional problems that would crack and we would 
suddenly have a crime wave in one of our cities.
  In World War II, I have been told that less than 35 percent of the 
trained soldiers could pull the trigger when they had the enemy in 
front of their sights because of the value of life that we have all 
been taught to treasure.
  What has changed us? In the Vietnam War, I am told through video-type 
simulations, that number went up much higher because we taught them to 
pull the trigger and pull the trigger at targets that were like people, 
until they were desensitized, and so they could take a life without 
giving much thought.
  Something has changed in this country. The people do not value life. 
That is what we need to deal with. It is not guns. Nobody wants 
criminals to have guns.
  What has desensitized young people? Just a few years ago when I was 
State chairman of health in Pennsylvania, I was at Temple University at 
the trauma center. I was a member of the trauma board and they told me 
that 45 to 50 percent of the people at their trauma center was from 
street crime in Philadelphia.
  Now some of that has moved out to rural America where I live, and I 
am as concerned as the people in Philadelphia and all of our cities. 
But what has changed? They told me that street crime dominated their 
trauma centers; a third guns, a third knives, and a third clubs. Are we 
going to deal with clubs and knives? That was their statistics, 
unsolicited, for when I was chairman of health and welfare in 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, what has changed in our communities and our schools 
about drugs? Twenty years ago, there were few drugs in rural schools. 
They were in urban schools, and the crime was in urban cities. Today 
there are drugs everywhere in this country, every hamlet, every corner. 
Drugs are available to 7th and 8th graders. What are we doing about 
that? We have lost the war on drugs.
  We spent $18 billion, Mr. Chairman. The problem before us is far 
beyond the gun. That is just part of the problem.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, being that I could not be 
yielded time by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), let me 
just say that in 72 hours, over the weekend, the criminals are the ones 
that will walk away with the guns. We know that. We have the statistics 
for that. If we go back to the 24 hours, I am saying between January 
and today if it was under 24 hours we would have 17,000 criminals 
getting guns.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise proudly in strong support of the 
McCarthy amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe I was elected to help make this world a 
better place for our children and this amendment will simply close a 
loophole in current law. It will simply make it more difficult for 
criminals to get guns at gun shows that they could not purchase 
anyplace else. That is it. This is one small reasonable way to make the 
world safer for our kids.
  As a new parent of a little boy, I care deeply about the safety of 
his world. So I am casting my vote in favor of this amendment.
  I have been inundated with calls from the NRA, like many of my 
colleagues. A well-financed NRA campaign has flooded my district with 
distorted information about what this amendment will do, and that is 
their right and they certainly have money to promote the distortions, 
but let me say, Mr. Chairman, they are wrong.
  So I say to my colleagues, this is an important issue. It is worth 
casting a yea vote, even if it risks losing your seat. If we cannot 
come together on a proposal so reasonable, then we have abandoned our 
communities and turned our backs on our children.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the McCarthy amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we are all entitled to our own 
opinion on this issue, but we are not entitled to our own facts. The 
fact is that in 1996, 10,744 people were murdered with firearms in this 
country. That is more than were murdered with firearms in all 25 
industrialized nations combined.
  In that same year, 106 people died of firearms in Canada. Now, 
Canadians love to hunt. They probably hunt more than we hunt, but they 
understand that handguns are not for the purpose of hunting animals. 
They are for the purpose of killing people.
  The gentleman suggests that that figure of 13 children being killed 
every day is not accurate. The fact is, 13 young people, under the age 
of 19 are killed every day in America. We do not read much about them 
probably because most of them are killed in the inner cities of our 
nation but they should matter and they should not be killed because we 
have made handguns too accessible to their killers and we should pass 
the McCarthy amendment

[[Page H4583]]

because it will probably save even a few of those young lives.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what world some 
people have grown up in but I grew up in urban America. From the time 
that I can recall, I have seen people with guns killing people.
  It seems as though all of a sudden there is a revolution or an 
evolution of guns on the streets and we do not want to realize that 
they are killing people every day.
  This amendment, the McCarthy amendment, simply closes a loophole. We 
could go much further. For example, if we go back in the beginning of 
the 19th century in the wild, wild West when guns were everywhere, 
there were times where people had to check their guns in. There was gun 
control back then. Yet here we are now not sensible to see violence is 
here, and we must do something to stop it.
  Gun control is what stops it, and we are not even talking about that 
here in this bill. For if we do not pass this bill, let us then ask who 
the bell tolls for. The bell tolls for thee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 6 
minutes and 10 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, tonight we choose between common sense and 
unreasoned fear. It would be common sense to close loopholes with the 
McCarthy amendment on gun safety laws. It would be unreasoned fear to 
think that keeping felons from firearms will somehow keep dads from 
deer rifles. On this night, we should choose common sense.
  I am a Member with a somewhat unique perspective because in 1994 I 
voted to ban assault weapons and I was defeated. It was bitter and it 
was painful, but I have not regretted that vote for one second, for a 
simple reason: Any child's life is more important than any 
Congressman's seat. No Congressman's seat is more important than any 
child's life.
  The reason I am back here now is that the world has changed since 
1994. America is tired of burying its children, and we need to put 
aside this notion that common sense will do anything else but to 
restore order.
  In January of 2001, I will come to this floor and celebrate with my 
colleagues. I will celebrate the children who are alive because of the 
actions we take tonight.
  I lost my seat in 1994 on gun issues, but I am going to win my seat 
in 2000 by voting for common sense for families. This is the right 
thing to do and, Mr. Chairman, America knows it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, no one is accusing anyone of anything. 
Let me suggest that this is a bill of unintended consequences, but it 
is a dangerous and irresponsible measure because it would weaken the 
Brady law and it will put lethal weapons into the hands of criminals. 
That is because the bill denies the FBI the 3 business days it needs to 
complete its background check on those very people that are most likely 
to have a criminal history, like the convicted rapist who traveled from 
Virginia to North Carolina just last month for the purpose of buying a 
gun; or the man convicted of armed robbery and burglary in Georgia who 
drove to Missouri last March for the purpose of buying a gun; or the 
murderer in Texas, or the arsonist in New Jersey who went all the way 
to Mississippi last April for the purpose of buying a gun.
  Now, these are just a few of the thousands of criminals who have 
tried to purchase handguns in the last 6 months and were stopped 
because a 3-day, business day, background check revealed their criminal 
history before the sale could go through.
  If this bill had been the law of the land 6 months ago, the FBI, and 
that is not a liberal organization, Mr. Chairman, estimates that 9,000 
of these people would have been walking the streets with a license to 
kill. So please, Mr. Chairman, think of that before this vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 3 
minutes 10 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. Metcalf).
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing today an issue which 
harkens back to our earliest times, before the Revolution or even the 
Declaration of Independence. Those who have visited Lexington and 
Concord remember the statues commemorating the ``minute-men,'' statues 
of frontiersmen with flintlock muskets ready to be used at a moment's 
notice, and in mid-April 1775 that moment arrived. The British marched 
out of Boston on the road to Lexington and Concord.
  I want to raise the question tonight: Why, why were the British 
marching out of Boston in those pre-dawn hours?

                              {time}  2230

  The answer is appropriate to this discussion. The British had heard 
that the colonists were stockpiling arms and ammunition at Lexington 
and Concord, and they were intent on capturing and/or destroying the 
colonists' guns.
  When the British marched out to take away their guns, the colonists 
drew a line in the sand. They would go to war to protect their right to 
keep and bear arms. Millions of Americans today believe that that line 
is still there.
  I will vote to protect those who use guns legally and responsibly. 
The decision to bear arms must be reserved for law-abiding Americans, 
not by this Congress.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is hard for me to understand why it has taken this 
Congress this long to pay any attention to gun violence. Each of us 
knows that this is a tragedy in our country, and we come here and we 
waste the taxpayers' money talking about the NRA, talking about 
Democrats, talking about Republicans, when the color of our blood is 
the same regardless of where we are from.
  Why is it that it took Littleton for us to face this tragedy? In the 
district I represent, they are killed every day, children are killed by 
spraying bullets, yet we pay no attention, yet we come here to try to 
undercut or degrade amendments that come up to try to protect us.
  Now, if we do not protect ourselves, no one else will protect us. We 
are here in the highest body in this land, yet we cannot face one of 
the worst tragedies this country has ever faced, and that is the use of 
guns.
  Guns do not create violence alone, but what creates violence is the 
atmosphere of the people one lets have these guns.
  I stand before my colleagues today and plead to them to do the right 
thing. Stop worrying about how you look back home. Worry about how you 
look in your heart. It is important.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. WEINER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, as much as some of my colleagues would like 
this to be a debate about the history of the second amendment, about 
whether or not we should govern clubs and sticks as well as guns, this 
is a very simple and narrow proposition that we are considering today; 
and that is, if a person walks into a shop where guns are sold on a 
Friday before a long weekend, and they want to purchase a gun, almost 
instantly 75 percent of those people that walk in there can walk out 
with that gun with no problem at all. But if that same exact person 
walks into a gun show, they could also walk out instantly, 75 percent 
of them.
  It is what happens to that other 30 percent, the ones where a flag 
comes up

[[Page H4584]]

on that Friday and we are unable to determine why it is that that 
person has a flag.
  Just so we understand here, over 300,000 people have walked into 
shops and tried to buy guns that were not entitled to have them, 
criminals, people that were going to do wrong with them, people that I 
am sure our Founding Fathers would have said it is absurd to say that 
someone who is a batterer, someone who is rapist should be able to get 
that gun. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
understand that. I think they see the value of that.
  All that we are saying today with the McCarthy amendment, all we are 
saying today in rejecting the Hyde amendment and rejecting the Dingell 
amendment is make it exactly the same for a customer walking into a gun 
show. Just make the rules consistent. Let us take that 30 percent or so 
and say, ``Do you know what, let us wait and find out why you have a 
flag.'' What is the harm in leveling that playing field? That is all we 
are asking today.
  For those of my friends who are avid gun users who represent 
districts where guns are purchased heavily, I would ask them to ask 
their gun shop owners why it is they would be dealt with a different 
playing field than those who are in the gun show.
  What is the rationale? The rationale is plain and simple, I would say 
to the opponents of the McCarthy amendment. The National Rifle 
Association says they do not want it; therefore, we are not going to do 
it here. That does not make sense. Over 300,000 criminals have been 
prevented from getting guns at shops. Let us stop them at gun shows as 
well.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we are here tonight to debate and what 
this underlying bill is all about is something that we all ought to be 
able to agree on. It is not a bill about controlling guns in this 
country and the broad sense of that debate. It is a fact that I happen 
to believe in the second amendment and the right to bear arms, self-
defense and so forth.
  But I am concerned, and that is why this amendment is here, with the 
fact that we have laws rightfully on the books that everybody in this 
country agrees with, and that is laws that say that felons, convicted 
felons, should not be allowed to get guns.
  We have a problem with the fact that some kids are getting killed on 
our streets, all too many of them, with violent youth crime. One of the 
principal reasons why that is occurring is because there is a loophole 
in the current instant check laws.
  I do not favor waiting periods, and we are not talking about that 
tonight. We are talking about how can we, at a balanced approach, which 
this underlying bill, H.R. 2122 does, how can we close a loophole in 
the existing law that does require when one goes to buy a gun that 
there is a background check, an instantaneous background check in the 
best sense that we can do that, a name check, to find out if one is 
indeed a criminal with a felony record and, therefore, disqualified to 
buy that gun. That is all this is about tonight.
  I think the underlying bill is very responsible. People have 
criticized various things about it, and misstated, I think, 
unintentionally, I am sure, some things about it. The truth is that, 
yeah, maybe 25 percent of the people who go to buy a gun, when they do 
go through an instant check, whether it is at a gun show or otherwise, 
are flagged. But 80 percent of those people who are flagged are not 
criminals. They wind up getting those guns. A very tiny fraction are 
screened out. When they are, they should be, though.
  The idea is to close a loophole in the gun show, which, up until now, 
if one is not a registered dealer and one sells a gun to somebody at a 
gun show, one does not have this instant check.
  The underlying bill that I support strongly requires the instant 
check for everyone who purchases a gun at a gun show, just like 
everyone who purchases a gun from a gun dealer anywhere else.
  It should not be a problem. It should not be a difficult vote. It is 
one that a lot of people want to offer other amendments to. But, quite 
frankly, what we do here is a simple balance in truth of this. We give 
the right amount of time to check on it and not an excessive amount. I 
urge that the bill be voted on and that frivolous amendments not be 
voted for.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, we as a nation need to act to reduce gun-
related violence in this country.
  In 1994, Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which 
were handguns. That same year, more than 15,000 people were killed with 
firearms in this country, nearly 13,000 of them with handguns. Those 
figures are much higher--even on a per capital basis--than in any other 
developed country.
  Several weeks ago, President Clinton proposed legislation which would 
require background checks for firearm sales at gun shows. I welcome the 
President's initiative.
  Background checks and waiting periods are just simple, practical, and 
constitutional measures for ensuring that people who should not have 
guns don't get them. Since 1994, the Brady Law has blocked the sale of 
handguns to over 250,000 prohibited purchasers. Of this number, over 
47,000 were felons. Moreover, after the Brady Law took effect in 1994, 
the number of murders in this country fell by 9 percent, while the 
number of murders committed with a firearm fell by 11 percent.
  In May, the Senate passed legislation that would require background 
checks for firearms sales at gun shows. Today, the House has a chance 
to vote on similar legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation.
  Credible evidence indicates that gun shows represent one of the most 
significant sources of weapons used in crimes. A one-year study by the 
Illinois State Police, for example, indicated that more than a quarter 
of the illegally trafficked firearms used in crimes had been sold at 
gun shows. It seems clear to me that if we want to reduce criminals' 
access to firearms we need to close the gun show loophole, and that 
means we need to have background checks for firearms sales at gun 
shows.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, requiring background checks of firearms sales 
at gun shows seems like a common-sense measure to keep guns out of the 
hands of criminals. Obviously, such a measure won't eliminate violent 
crime, but it might--just might--reduce the number of firearms deaths 
in this country.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, guns are not the only cause of youth 
violence. But the increasing tragedies from gun violence in our schools 
tell us that our children enjoy easy access to guns, and strong steps 
should be taken to restrict that access.
  We must not lose sight of our goal. Our goal is to keep our kids safe 
in school.
  That's what the tragedies in Littleton and Atlanta and Jonesboro and 
other suburban communities have pointed out in dramatic fashion--that 
even kids in our suburban high schools are not safe from gun violence. 
But instead of addressing this pressing issue, the Republican 
leadership has failed to act responsibly in a time of crisis. They have 
allowed months to pass since the tragedy of Littleton, Colorado before 
taking action to curb the gun violence that threatens our children 
throughout the country. And now that they have chosen to act, they do 
so with the ugly face of partisanship and irresponsibility.
  Columbine High School was a real tragedy, but it is no more 
significant than the tragedy that many of us experience in our 
districts every day. As a representative of an inner-city district, I 
know that the tragedy of gun violence to our young people and by our 
young people has had heart-breaking consequences in my district for 
many years. In just the last few months, there has been a series of 
violent incidents that involved youth and that I wish I could say were 
unusual.
  But unfortunately, they are all too frequent in my district.
  In Huntington Park, for example, two youngsters shot it out in front 
of city hall, wounding innocent bystanders.
  In southgate, Mayor Henry Gonzalez was shot in the head after a city 
council meeting when two youth attempted to rob him. Fortunately, 
Mayor Gonzalez survived the attack but he was severely wounded and 
spent weeks in intensive care.

  In southeast Los Angeles near Walnut Park, a series of drive-by 
shootings have taken place in recent weeks.
  The cancer of violence that has impacted major cities for years is 
now spreading across the country. We cannot ignore this crisis as we 
have in the past, nor can we effectively address it with diluted gun 
safety measures and feel-good juvenile crime provisions that do little, 
as the Republican leadership would have us do.
  I voted for the Brady bill and for the assault weapons ban, and the 
facts support that they have made an enormous difference in preventing 
easy access to weapons by criminals. The Justice Department tells us 
that the Brady bill has blocked over 400,000 illegal gun sales to 
felons, fugitives, stalkers, and other prohibited persons, but no law-
abiding citizen has been stopped from buying a gun for sport or self-
protection.

[[Page H4585]]

  In spite of these successful measures, the recent tragedies have made 
it apparent that even more needs to be done.
  In May, the Senate quickly passed some reasonable gun safety 
provisions to tighten up gun purchases at gun shows, to require safety 
locks on guns, and to ban large-capacity ammunition clips. The House 
could have also acted quickly to pass the same provisions and put a 
bill on the President's desk by Memorial Day. Instead, the Republican 
leadership ignored the American people, delayed action, and have now 
chosen to make a mockery of a bipartisan legislative process by 
allowing consideration of numerous amendments that have never been the 
subject of committee deliberation.
  Some believe that the delays since Memorial Day have been 
orchestrated to give the National Rifle Association time to mobilize 
their membership to weaken the safety measures passed by the Senate and 
ultimately kill them. Our actions today will demonstrate whether that 
charge has any validity.
  I support the McCarthy amendment which will strengthen the provisions 
in the bill affecting gun show transactions and close the loophole that 
permits our children to obtain guns in this unregulated manner.
  I support the amendment to ban the importation of large capacity 
ammunition feeding devices.
  I also support the amendment that will require secure gun storage or 
safety devices for handguns.
  These are common-sense provisions that add an additional margin of 
safety for the millions of guns that are in circulation in the United 
States. Perhaps it is not all we should be doing to cut down on the gun 
violence that claims so many Americans each year.
  But it is a start, and it represents progress on these important 
issues.
  I urge my colleagues to support these reasonable efforts to keep our 
kids safe in school and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of the provisions in this bill proposed by several of my 
Democratic colleagues dealing with gun safety, especially the McCarthy 
amendment. These provisions are commonsense solutions that will get 
guns out of the wrong hands.
  Children are too easily able to get guns, either from gun shows or 
from their own homes. Convicted felons and people with outstanding 
warrants can walk into any gun show and walk stall to stall until they 
find a dealer willing to sell them a gun with no questions asked. These 
problems are too severe to be ignored.
  This is not gun control, this is gun safety. We are not trying to 
control guns, we are trying to control the environment of rising youth 
violence. I come from Texas, and I can tell you that people in Texas 
raise a big ruckus whenever they think that we in Washington are trying 
to take their guns away.
  I am not worried about responsible adults who have guns legally and 
use them wisely. I am worried about their children, who do not have the 
capacity to make responsible choices about firearms, getting their 
hands on guns. Selling a trigger lock with every new weapon makes 
weapons safer for children.
  This does not mean that parents can abdicate their responsibility 
when they purchase guns. But, trigger locks will cut down on accidental 
shootings and will make it harder for children to use firearms in a fit 
of rage.
  We need to conduct background checks on gun show purchasers and we 
cannot rest on the watered down language the NRA supports. Gun shows 
are the easiest way for criminals and children to get guns illegally. 
Let's stop the practice now.
  Legitimate buyers need not worry, so why does the NRA oppose this? 
Who knows? Stop attacking common sense and support the language taken 
exactly from the Senate passed Juvenile Justice bill.
  Finally, we need to raise the legal age to purchase a handgun from 18 
to 21.
  These provisions all make sense and are needed now. Stop letting 
children and criminals get guns. Pass these provisions. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. While the Chair earlier entertained a unanimous consent 
request to extend general debate by an additional 10 minutes, the 
precedents indicate that the Committee of the Whole may not change an 
order of the House regarding general debate (where the House sets a 
time not to be exceeded) even by unanimous consent.
  Thus, the Chair would not expect the House precedents to be changed 
in this regard.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2122 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2122

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mandatory Gun Show 
     Background Check Act''.

     SEC. 2. MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) more than 4,400 traditional gun shows are held annually 
     across the United States, attracting thousands of attendees 
     per show and hundreds of Federal firearms licensees and 
     nonlicensed firearms sellers, the vast majority of whom are 
     law-abiding individuals with no desire to participate in 
     criminal transactions;
       (2) traditional gun shows, as well as flea markets and 
     other organized events, at which a large number of firearms 
     are offered for sale by Federal firearms licensees and 
     nonlicensed firearms sellers, form a significant part of the 
     national firearms market;
       (3) firearms and ammunition that are exhibited or offered 
     for sale or exchange at gun shows, flea markets, and other 
     organized events move easily in and substantially affect 
     interstate commerce;
       (4) gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events at 
     which firearms are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange, 
     provide a convenient and centralized commercial location at 
     which firearms may be bought and sold, often without 
     background checks and without records that enable gun 
     tracing;
       (5) at gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events 
     at which guns are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange, 
     criminals and other prohibited persons can obtain guns 
     without background checks and can use such guns that cannot 
     be traced to later commit crimes;
       (6) firearms associated with gun shows have been 
     transferred illegally to residents of another State by 
     Federal firearms licensees and nonlicensed firearms sellers, 
     and have been involved in subsequent crimes including drug 
     offenses, crimes of violence, property crimes, and illegal 
     possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited 
     persons; and
       (7) Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce 
     clause and other provisions of the Constitution of the United 
     States, to ensure, by enactment of this section, that 
     criminals and other prohibited persons do not obtain firearms 
     at gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) The term `gun show' means an event which is 
     sponsored to foster the collecting, competitive use, sporting 
     use, or any other legal use of firearms, and--
       ``(A) at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited 
     for sale, transfer, or exchange, if 1 or more of the firearms 
     has been shipped or transported in, or the event otherwise 
     affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and
       ``(B) at which there are not less than 10 firearm vendors.
       ``(36) The term `gun show organizer' means any person who 
     organizes or conducts a gun show.
       ``(37) The term `gun show vendor' means any person who, at 
     a fixed, assigned, or contracted location, exhibits, sells, 
     offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges 1 or more firearms 
     at a gun show.''.
       (c) Regulation of Firearms Transfers at Gun Shows.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 931. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows

       ``(a)(1) A person who is not a licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer, and who desires to be 
     registered as an instant check registrant shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application which--
       ``(A) contains a certification by the applicant that the 
     applicant meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through 
     (D) of section 923(d)(1); and
       ``(B) contains a photograph and fingerprints of the 
     applicant; and
       ``(C) is in such form as the Secretary shall by regulation 
     prescribe.
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary shall approve an application 
     submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) which meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (1). On approval of the application 
     and payment by the applicant of a fee of $100 for 3 years, 
     and upon renewal of valid registration a fee of $50 for 3 
     years, the Secretary shall issue to the applicant an instant 
     check registration, and advise the Attorney General of the 
     United States of the same, which entitles the registrant to 
     contact the national instant criminal background check system 
     established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Prevention Act for information about any individual desiring 
     to obtain a firearm at a gun show from any transferor who has 
     requested the assistance of the registrant in complying with 
     subsection (c) with respect to the transfer of the firearm, 
     and receive information from the system regarding the 
     individual, during the 3-year period that begins with the 
     date the registration is issued.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall approve or deny an application 
     submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) within 60 days after the 
     Secretary

[[Page H4586]]

     receives the application. If the Secretary fails to so act 
     within such period, the applicant may bring an action under 
     section 1361 of title 28 to compel the Secretary to so act.
       ``(3) An instant check registrant shall keep all records or 
     documents which the registrant collects pursuant to this 
     section during a gun show at a premises, or a portion thereof 
     designated by the registrant, that is open for inspection by 
     the Secretary. The Secretary shall establish by regulation 
     the procedure for the inspection, at a premises or a gun 
     show, of the records required to be kept under this section 
     in a manner for a registrant that is identical to the same 
     procedural rights and protections specified for a licensee 
     under subsections (g)(1)(A), (g)(1)(B), and (j) of section 
     923. An instant check registrant shall remit to the Secretary 
     all records required to be kept by the registrant under this 
     subsection when the registration is no longer valid, has 
     expired, or has been revoked.
       ``(4)(A) This subsection shall not be construed--
       ``(i) as creating a cause of action against any instant 
     check registrant or any other person, including the 
     transferor, for any civil liability; or
       ``(ii) as establishing any standard of care.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except to 
     give effect to subparagraph (C), evidence regarding the use 
     or nonuse by a transferor of the services of an instant check 
     registrant under this section shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity for the purposes of establishing liability based 
     on a civil action brought on any theory for harm caused by a 
     product or by negligence.
       ``(C)(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     person who is--
       ``(I) an instant check registrant who assists in having a 
     background check performed in accordance with this section;
       ``(II) a licensee who acquires a firearm at a gun show from 
     a nonlicensee, for transfer to another nonlicensee in 
     attendance at the show, for the purpose of effectuating a 
     sale, trade, or transfer between the 2 nonlicensees, all in 
     the manner prescribed for the acquisition and disposition of 
     firearms under this chapter; or
       ``(III) a nonlicensee disposing of a firearm, who utilizes 
     the services of an instant check registrant pursuant to 
     subclause (I) or a licensee pursuant to subclause (II),

     shall be entitled to immunity from a civil liability action 
     as described in this subparagraph.
       ``(ii) A qualified civil liability action may not be 
     brought in any Federal or State court. The term `qualified 
     civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any 
     person against a person described in clause (i) for damages 
     resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the firearm 
     by the transferee or a third party, but shall not include an 
     action--
       ``(I) brought against a transferor convicted under section 
     924(h), or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a 
     party directly harmed by the transferee's criminal conduct, 
     as defined in section 924(h); or
       ``(II) brought against a transferor for negligent 
     entrustment or negligence per se.
       ``(4) A registration issued under this subsection may be 
     revoked pursuant to the procedures provided for license 
     revocations under section 923.
       ``(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to organize or 
     conduct a gun show unless the person--
       ``(1) registers with the Secretary in accordance with 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary, which shall not 
     require the payment of any fee for such registration;
       ``(2) before commencement of the gun show, records and 
     verifies the identity of each individual who is to be a gun 
     show vendor at the gun show by examining, but not retaining a 
     copy of, a valid identification document (as defined in 
     section 1028(d)(1)) of the individual containing a photograph 
     of the individual; and
       ``(3) maintains a copy of the records described in 
     paragraph (2) at the permanent place of business of the gun 
     show organizer for such period of time and in such form as 
     the Secretary shall require by regulation.
       ``(c)(1) If, at a gun show or the curtilage area of a gun 
     show, a person who is not licensed under section 923 makes an 
     offer to another person who is not licensed under section 923 
     to sell, transfer, or exchange a firearm that is accessible 
     to the person at the gun show or in the curtilage area of the 
     gun show, and such other person, at the gun show or the 
     curtilage area of the gun show, indicates a willingness to 
     accept the offer, it shall be unlawful for the person to 
     subsequently transfer the firearm to such other person, 
     unless--
       ``(A) the firearm is transferred through a licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in 
     accordance with paragraph (2)(B) and otherwise in accordance 
     with law; or
       ``(B)(i) before the completion of the transfer, an instant 
     check registrant contacts the national instant criminal 
     background check system established under section 103 of the 
     Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act;
       ``(ii)(I) the system provides the registrant with a unique 
     identification number; or
       ``(II) 72 hours have elapsed since the registrant contacted 
     the system, and the system has not notified the registrant 
     that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would 
     violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922; and
       ``(iii) the registrant notifies the person that the 
     registrant has complied with clauses (i) and (ii), or of any 
     receipt by the registrant of a notification from the national 
     instant criminal background check system established under 
     section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that 
     the transfer would violate section 922 or State law; and
       ``(iv) the transferor and the registrant have verified the 
     identity of the transferee by examining a valid 
     identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(1) of 
     this title) of the transferee containing a photograph of the 
     transferee.
       ``(2)(A) The rules of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of 
     section 922(t) shall apply to firearms transfers assisted by 
     instant check registrants under this section in the same 
     manner in which such rules apply to firearms transfers made 
     by licensees.
       ``(B)(i) For purposes of section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii), the time 
     period that shall apply to the transfer of a firearm as 
     described in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be 72 
     hours.
       ``(ii) The licensee or registrant may personally deliver or 
     ship the firearm to the prospective transferee in accordance 
     with clause (iii) if the gun show has terminated, and--
       ``(I)(aa) 72 consecutive hours has elapsed since the 
     licensee or registrant contacted the system from the gun show 
     and the licensee or registrant has not received notification 
     from the system that receipt of a firearm by the prospective 
     transferee would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 
     or State law; or
       ``(bb) the licensee or registrant has received notification 
     from the system that receipt of a firearm by the prospective 
     transferee would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 
     922 or State law; and
       ``(II) State and local law would have permitted the 
     licensee or registrant to immediately deliver the firearm to 
     the prospective transferee if the conditions described in 
     item (aa) or (bb) had occurred during the gun show.
       ``(iii)(I) The licensee may personally deliver the firearm 
     to the prospective transferee at a location other than the 
     business premises of the licensee, without regard to whether 
     the location is in the State specified on the license of the 
     licensee, or may ship the firearm by common carrier to the 
     prospective transferee.
       ``(II) The registrant may personally deliver the firearm to 
     a prospective transferee who is a resident of the State of 
     which the registrant is a resident, or may ship the firearm 
     by common carrier to such a prospective transferee.
       ``(3) An instant check registrant who agrees to assist a 
     person who is not licensed under section 923 in complying 
     with subsection (c) with respect to the transfer of a firearm 
     shall--
       ``(A) enter the name, age, address, and other identifying 
     information on the transferee (or, if the transferee is a 
     corporation or other business entity, the identity and 
     principal and local places of business of the transferee) as 
     the Secretary may require by regulation into a separate bound 
     record;
       ``(B) record the unique identification number provided by 
     the system on a form specified by the Secretary;
       ``(C) on completion of the functions required by paragraph 
     (1)(B) to be performed by the registrant with respect to the 
     transfer, notify the transferor that the registrant has 
     performed such functions; and
       ``(D) on completion of the background check by the system, 
     retain a record of the background check as part of the 
     permanent business records of the registrant.
       ``(4) This section shall not be construed to permit or 
     authorize the Secretary to impose recordkeeping requirements 
     on any vendor who is not licensed under section 923.
       ``(d) If, at a gun show or the curtilage area of a gun 
     show, a person who is not licensed under section 923 makes an 
     offer to another person who is not licensed under section 923 
     to sell, transfer, or exchange a firearm that is accessible 
     to the person at the gun show or in the curtilage area of the 
     gun show, and such other person, at the gun show or the 
     curtilage area of the gun show, indicates a willingness to 
     accept the offer, it shall be unlawful for such other person 
     to receive the firearm from the person if the recipient knows 
     that the firearm has been transferred to the recipient in 
     violation of this section.''.
       (2) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(7)(A) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (b), (c)(1), 
     or (c)(2) of section 931 shall be--
       ``(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 
     year, or both; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction of 
     such a violation, fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 5 years, or both.
       ``(B) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (c)(3) or (d) 
     of section 931 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned 
     not more than 3 years, or both.
       ``(C) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary may, with respect to any person who 
     knowingly violates subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 
     931--
       ``(i) impose a civil fine in an amount equal to not more 
     than $2,500; and
       ``(ii) if the person is registered pursuant to section 
     931(a), after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend 
     for not more than 6

[[Page H4587]]

     months or revoke the registration of that person under 
     section 931(a).''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 923(j) of such title is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``or event'' and 
     all that follows through ``community''.
       (4) Clerical amendment.--The section analysis for chapter 
     44 of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``931. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows.''.

       (d) Inspection Authority.--Section 923(g)(1) of such title 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) The Secretary may enter during business hours the 
     place of business of any gun show organizer and any place 
     where a gun show is held, without such reasonable cause or 
     warrant, for the purpose of inspecting or examining the 
     records required by section 923 or 931 and the inventory of 
     licensees conducting business at the gun show in the course 
     of a reasonable inquiry during the course of a criminal 
     investigation of a person or persons other than the organizer 
     or licensee or when such examination may be required for 
     determining the disposition of one or more particular 
     firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal 
     investigation.''.
       (e) Increased Penalties for Serious Recordkeeping 
     Violations by Licensees.--Section 924(a)(3) of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any 
     licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or 
     representation with respect to the information required by 
     this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed 
     under this chapter, or violates section 922(m) shall be fined 
     under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(B) If the violation described in subparagraph (A) is in 
     relation to an offense--
       ``(i) under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 922(b), such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 5 years, or both; or
       ``(ii) under subsection (a)(6) or (d) of section 922, such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 10 years, or both.''.
       (f) Increased Penalties for Violations of Criminal 
     Background Check Requirements.--
       (1) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``subsection (s) or (t) 
     of section 922'' and inserting ``section 922(s)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(t) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or 
     both.
       ``(B) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction 
     under this paragraph, the person shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
       (2) Elimination of certain elements of offense.--Section 
     922(t)(5) of such title is amended by striking ``and, at the 
     time'' and all that follows through ``State law''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 3. INSTANT CHECK GUN TAX AND GUN OWNER PRIVACY.

       (a) Prohibition on Gun Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 33 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 540B. Ban against fee for background check in 
       connection with firearm transfer

       ``No officer, employee, or agent of the United States, 
     including a State or local officer or employee acting on 
     behalf of the United States, may charge or collect any fee in 
     connection with any background check required in connection 
     with the transfer of a firearm (as defined in section 
     921(a)(3) of title 18).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendments.--The section 
     analysis for chapter 33 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 540A 
     the following:

``540B. Ban against fee for background check in connection with firearm 
              transfer.''.
       (b) Protection of Gun Owner Privacy and Ownership Rights.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 932. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     or officer, employee, or agent of the United States, 
     including a State or local officer or employee acting on 
     behalf of the United States--
       ``(1) shall perform any national instant criminal 
     background check on any person through the system established 
     pursuant to section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) (referred to in this 
     section as the ``system'') if that system does not require 
     and result in the immediate destruction of all information, 
     in any form whatsoever or through any medium, about such 
     person who is determined, through the use of the system, not 
     to be prohibited by subsection (g) or (h) of section 922 of 
     title 18, United States Code, or by State law, from receiving 
     a firearm, except that this subsection shall not apply to the 
     retention or transfer of information relating to--
       ``(A) any unique identification number provided by the 
     national instant criminal background check system pursuant to 
     section 922(t)(1)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code; or
       ``(B) the date on which that number is provided; or
       ``(2) shall continue to operate the system (including 
     requiring a background check before the transfer of a 
     firearm) unless--
       ``(A) the `NICS Index' complies with the requirements of 
     section 552a(e)(5) of title 5, United States Code; and
       ``(B) the agency responsible for the system and the 
     system's compliance with Federal law does not invoke the 
     exceptions under subsections (j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of 
     section 552a of title 5, United States Code, except if 
     specifically identifiable information is compiled for a 
     particular law enforcement investigation or specific criminal 
     enforcement matter.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendments.--The section 
     analysis for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

``932. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights.''.

       (c) Civil Remedies.--Any person aggrieved by a violation of 
     section 540B of title 28, or 931 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as added by this section, may bring an action in the 
     district court of the United States for the district in which 
     the person resides. Any person who is successful with respect 
     to any such action shall receive actual damages, punitive 
     damages, and such other remedies as the court may determine 
     to be appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     except that the amendments made by subsection (a) shall take 
     effect as of October 1, 1998.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment is in order except those printed in part B 
of House Report 106-186. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in part B of the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered By Mr. Dingell

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-186 
     offered by Mr. Dingell:
       In section 931(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, as 
     proposed to be added by section 2(c)(1) of the bill, strike 
     ``indicates a willingness to accept'' and insert ``accepts''.
       In section 931(c)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of title 18, United States 
     Code, as proposed to be added by section 2(c)(1) of the bill, 
     strike ``72'' and insert ``24''.
       In section 931(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as 
     proposed to be added by section 2(c)(1) of the bill, strike 
     subparagraph (B) and insert the following:
       ``(B) For any instant background check conducted at a gun 
     show, the time period stated in section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) 
     shall be 24 consecutive hours since the licensee contacted 
     the sytem, and notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     chapter, the system shall, in every instance of a request for 
     an instant background check from a gun show, complete such 
     check over instant checks not originating from a gun show.
       In section 931(d) of title 18, United States Code, as 
     proposed to be added by section 2(c)(1) of the bill, strike 
     ``indicates a willingness to accept'' and insert ``accepts''.
       At the end of section 3 of the bill, insert the following:
       (c) Deliveries to Avoid Theft.--Section 922(a)(5) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (B)'' and inserting ``(B)''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, and (C) firearms transfers and 
     business away from their business premises with another 
     licensee without regard to whether the business is conducted 
     in the State specified on the license of either licensee'' 
     before the semicolon at the end.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       After section 3 of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. PENALTIES FOR USING A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION 
                   FEEDING DEVICE DURING A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR A 
                   DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

       (a) In General.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--

[[Page H4588]]

       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by inserting ``large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device,'' after ``short-barreled rifle,''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device' means a device as defined 
     in section 921(a)(31) regardless of the date it was 
     manufactured.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will control 20 
minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to yield 10 minutes of the 20 minutes I have under the rule 
to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) and that he be permitted 
to yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) will control 
10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) seek to control the 
time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) be yielded 10 minutes to 
yield time en bloc as she may choose.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) will 
control 10 minutes of time.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the debate on this will be conducted 
without rancor, without charges of wrongdoing or misbehavior against 
any Member of this body or also against citizens who might have 
different feelings.
  I would observe that the amendment does several things. It, first of 
all, defines what constitutes a sale at a gun show in a manner 
consistent with existing contract law.
  Second of all, it directs the FBI to prioritize background checks at 
gun shows and to complete them within 24 hours.
  Third, it deters the theft of firearms that are shipped through the 
mail by making it possible for dealers to deal at gun shows face to 
face.
  Last, it increases the penalty for those who use guns with a large-
capacity magazine in the commission of crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with all due respect in opposition to the 
Dingell amendment. In my opinion, it does absolutely nothing to close 
the gun show loophole. In fact, it obviously makes it easier for 
criminals to bypass the law and get a gun.
  This issue is about law and order and keeping criminals from getting 
guns. It is not about keeping law-abiding citizens from buying guns. So 
let us be clear about that.
  But first I must say that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) so loosely defines what a gun show is that it is 
obvious that thousands of guns will be sold at shows without a single 
background check.
  The 24-hour waiting period will destroy current Federal law that 
allows law enforcement officials up to 3 business days. The Dingell 
amendment is a rouse, plain and simple. The FBI itself estimates that 
under the 24-hour rule, over 17,000 people who were stopped by the 
current background check system from getting guns in only the last 6 
months would have gotten those guns. These people would be those with 
criminal records, questionable legal residence, or maybe even mental 
patients.
  Let us be honest and straightforward, for checks occurring on a 
Saturday, the Dingell 24-hour rule would mean that more than half, more 
than 60 percent of current denials would not have been made. That means 
a convicted rapist, child molester, or any other felon could have 
gotten a gun.
  Now, I want to stress this for all who will please listen. We would 
love to talk about law and order. This is about law and order. Let us 
be perfectly clear. Closing the gun show loophole is about stopping gun 
selling and gun running by criminals. It is not about the Second 
Amendment. Every law enforcement person in the world of any reliability 
will tell us that 24 hours does not do it.
  Let us also talk for a minute about whose been hanging out at gun 
shows. Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols sold 
well over $60,000 in stolen weapons at gun shows to finance their 
killings. Columbine High School, Eric Harris, student, obtained his 
Tec-9 through a gun show.
  I could go on. But I must say that it is perfectly clear, anybody 
with a degree of common sense or honesty about 24 hours over a weekend, 
nonbusiness day, clearly makes it a sham and a rouse and we must defeat 
the Dingell amendment and approve the McCarthy-Roukema amendment that 
will be debated next.
  Mr. Chairman, let's make no mistake about it there is only one 
amendment that closes the gun show loophole for criminals and that is 
the McCarthy-Roukema amendment.
  The Dingell amendment does nothing to close the gun show loophole and 
in fact makes it easier for criminals to by-pass the law and get a gun! 
This is about law and order--and keeping criminals from getting guns. 
It is not about keeping the law abiding from buying guns.
  First, the Dingell amendment so loosely defines what a gun show is 
that it will allow thousands of guns to be sold at gun shows without a 
single background check.
  Second, the 24-hour waiting period will destroy the current federal 
law that allows law enforcement officials up to three-business days to 
conduct a background check. The Dingell amendment is a ruse . . . a 
sham . . . how can it be offered with a straight face?
  Since 1993, the background checks established by the Brady law have 
blocked gun sales to 400,000 felons, fugitives, stalkers and mentally 
ill persons.
  The FBI estimates that under a 24-hour rule, over 17,000 people who 
were stopped by the current background check system from getting guns 
in the last six months would have gotten guns! These are people with 
criminal records, or questionable legal residence for maybe a mental 
patient.
  Most gun shows take place on the weekends. Under a 24-hour rule, a 
criminal who tried to buy a gun on Saturday would have a free pass if 
court records were required to finish the check, because the 24 hours 
would expire before the courts re-opened on Monday.


                      lets be honest--we all know

  For checks occurring on a Saturday, the Dingell 24-hour rule would 
mean that more than half--60%--of current denials would not have been 
made. That means a convicted rapist, child molester, or any other felon 
could get a gun.


                      this is about law and order

  We need to maintain the current law 3-business days background check. 
We need to give law enforcement officers the upper-hand not the 
criminals.
  Let's be perfectly clear . . . closing the gun show loophole is about 
stopping guns selling and gun running to criminals not the Second 
Amendment!
  Criminals have increasingly--we are told--go to gun shows where no 
background checks are required to purchase a weapon. Look who has been 
hanging out at gun shows?
  Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols sold over 
$60,000 in stolen weapons at gun shows to finance the killing of 168 
innocent men, women, and children.
  Columbine High School attacker Eric Harris obtained his Tec-9 through 
a gun show.
  It is imperative that we simply apply current federal law to gun 
shows not the sham Dingell amendment that would let criminals walk in 
and out of gun shows with new weapons without a single background 
check.
  It is in the best interest of public safety and law and order that we 
vote against the Dingell amendment.
  The International Association of Chiefs of Police.
  The International Brotherhood of Police Officers.
  Police Foundation.
  National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers.
  And the Police Executives Research Forum.
  All oppose Dingell and support McCarthy-Roukema.
  Mr. Chairman, background checks work. The gun show loophole must be 
closed. The only way to do that is to defeat the Dingell amendment and 
approve the McCarthy-Roukema amendment that will be debated next.

[[Page H4589]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise in strong support of the Dingell amendment. I believe this 
amendment is a good example of the two parties working together.
  I do want it to be clear, though, that I do not generally support 
more Federal gun laws. Our country has at this time thousands of gun 
laws on the books and my concern is they are not being adequately 
enforced. We need stronger enforcement of existing gun laws.
  In order to prevent felons from purchasing firearms, I ask my 
colleagues to support the Dingell amendment. This amendment will not 
further burden law-abiding gun owners, but this amendment will maintain 
the integrity of the gun show while establishing safeguards to protect 
our communities and gun owners.
  Others will talk of the 24-hour instant check period. I want to talk 
about other protections of this amendment. This amendment will also 
help prevent the theft of firearms. Under current law, licensed dealers 
cannot transfer guns among themselves while attending a gun show. As a 
result, they must ship the guns through a common carrier. Many of the 
illegal guns used in the commission of crimes are stolen during this 
process of shipment. The Dingell amendment will allow a licensed dealer 
to transfer guns to another licensed dealer, thus preventing criminals 
the opportunity of stealing them from a common carrier. If we want to 
keep guns off the street, then here is one example where we can support 
a provision that will.
  Another important provision of the Dingell amendment would be that it 
would increase the penalty for the use of a large capacity ammunition 
magazine during the commission of a violent crime or drug trafficking. 
This strong provision provides an additional tool for prosecutors in 
combating violent crime and drug trafficking.
  I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
and his colleagues. This is a balanced approach that all Members who 
support getting tough on criminals can also support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I am not able to answer why the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
is doing this. I have been asked that quite a bit.
  This is a weaker amendment on gun shows than the McCollum amendment. 
And here is the bottom line. If this amendment is passed, then 
criminals will be able to get guns at gun shows. That is where this all 
comes out.
  Is there anybody that has not read about this amendment? Is there 
anybody who does not know that 24 hours is not sufficient? Is there 
anyone that does not know that gun shows take place frequently on 
weekends and that a 24-hour rule will get them off? It requires a check 
only when a gun is offered for sale and the buyer accepts the offer 
near a gun show. This tells the criminal to window shop at gun shows 
and then to close the deal somewhere else. Does anyone not really 
understand what is going on here?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of the hunter-
sportsman-working men and women of my district whose voices I want to 
be heard, voices of responsible firearms owners.

       Your constituents at the Iron Range Labor Assembly urge you 
     to oppose restrictions on gun sales and ownership rights as 
     passed by the Senate. Many union families enjoy outdoor 
     sports and the right to possess firearms. We are concerned 
     about the safety in our schools, but the proposed legislation 
     will not solve this problem. Tom Pender, President.

       Jim, I'm a hunter and a fisherman all my life. It provides 
     me a connection with my boys, my brother, and my dad. It is 
     one of the few occasions we get together for quality time. 
     But in recent years there is a concerted effort to condemn 
     those of us who hunt and enjoy other legitimate uses of guns. 
     There are those who would make gun use a vice and brand those 
     of us who own guns as crazy or extremists. I want real study 
     and real action to prevent future Littletons, not contrived 
     knee-jerk reaction from Congress. Leo LaLonde, Aurora, 
     Minnesota.
       Real action is at Lincoln Park Elementary School in Duluth. 
     Open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., where parents, teachers, 
     students, community groups work together at muffin morning 
     homework planning, 'success for all,' first grade 
     preparedness, youth collaborative, family nights for parent 
     and child, family building programs. Juvenile delinquency has 
     been virtually eliminated and school performance elevated.

  That is getting real. Let us pass the Dingell amendment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Our purpose tonight is not to restrict any law-abiding citizen's 
right to keep and bear arms. Our purpose tonight is to make laws 
requiring background checks for purchasing firearms to keep firearms 
out of the hands of criminals and unsupervised young people.
  There is absolutely no reason that purchases at gun shows should be 
treated differently than purchases at a store. There should be a 
background check. This background check should allow adequate time to 
ensure that someone with a felony conviction is not permitted to 
purchase a gun.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) pointed out, the 
National Instant Check System reveals those individuals who may have a 
felony arrest. The next step is to check local court records to 
determine if that person has a criminal conviction. That check may take 
2 or 3 days. That is a short time to wait to help ensure that a violent 
felon does not walk away from a gun show with a lethal weapon.
  The Dingell amendment will not accomplish any of those goals. It does 
not adequately define a gun show. It will not allow adequate background 
checks at gun shows. It will do little to close the gaping loophole in 
current laws that give criminals the incentive to purchase guns at gun 
shows.
  We need reasonable and effective background checks to keep guns out 
of the hands of criminals. The Dingell amendment comes up short. Oppose 
the Dingell amendment and support the McCarthy-Roukema amendment.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment 
to enact reasonable, fair, common-sense background checks that truly 
fit the definition, within reason, of an instant background check at 
gun shows.
  The McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment is Washington at its best, Mr. 
Chairman, for only in Washington would an instant background check mean 
up to 6 days. Only in Washington would an instant background check 
operate to deny people their constitutional rights and up to 6 days.
  For those who might have trouble with the math, and we will not hear 
it from McCarthy-Lautenberg, let me explain. If we allow an instant or 
so-called instant background check to consume 3 business days, that is 
3 days plus, if, as many gun shows do take place on holiday weekends, 
that is an additional 3 days. For all intents and purposes, that means 
that a purchaser, a bona fide purchaser, will not be able to take, very 
possibly, if the instant background check does not work properly, which 
in many instances it does not, would not be able to take advantage of 
exercising their second amendment rights at that gun show.
  Only in Washington does an instant background check under the 
McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment mean up to 6 days.
  A vote for this bipartisan Dingell amendment not only brings 
commonsense, rationality and fairness to this debate, but it also is 
not a vote for gun control. Let me repeat. A vote for the bipartisan 
Dingell amendment is not a vote for gun control. It is a vote to 
preserve gun shows as legitimate business enterprises in this country.
  If McCarthy and Lautenberg is adopted, it will put gun shows out of 
business. It will do this in many different ways, including the 
expanded so-called instant background check, which would consume so 
many days that it

[[Page H4590]]

would make it unreasonable for anybody to bother purchasing a firearm 
at a gun show.
  It does so because it would, for the first time in American history, 
even against several Federal laws that provide to the contrary, allow 
the government to begin maintaining a registry of lawful gun owners. It 
would put gun shows out of business because it would create very nearly 
strict civil liability for gun show operators and promoters.
  It is overly broad, the McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment. Dingell 
corrects it and is a vote for reasonable and meaningful instant 
background checks at gun shows and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I live in rural central Texas where guns 
are a way of life. I am a hunter and a gun owner. But I am also a 
father and a husband, and tonight I will vote for the safety of my 
children and family and for my colleagues'. I will vote for the 
McCarthy amendment and for the bipartisan Conyers-Campbell amendment, 
which is identical to the Senate-passed language. Why? Because I 
believe that is the right thing to do for the safety of our children, 
our homes, and our neighborhoods.
  I will vote for effective criminal background checks at gun shows 
that minimize felon loopholes. I surely believe that a minor 
inconvenience for a handful is a very small price to pay for saving 
American lives.
  Several years ago, as a new Member of this House from the rural 
south, I voted in favor of an assault weapon ban and lived to tell the 
story. But far more important than that, somewhere in America tonight a 
child is alive, alive because Congress 5 years ago had the courage to 
pass a common-sense gun safety law.
  Tonight, with the Conyers amendment, with the McCarthy amendment, we 
have another opportunity to save the lives of more children by passing 
common-sense gun safety legislation.
  Now, I know and my colleagues know that some may fear the safety of 
their political seats for these votes, but I have greater faith in the 
American families and parents than that. It is time to put the interest 
of our safe schools and our children's safety above the interest of 
special interests here in Washington, D.C.
  Some suggest punishing gun offenders is the way to reduce some gun 
violence. But surely if we talk to the parents of crime victims, they 
would tell us that punishing their offenders is no substitute for 
effective prevention of their children's murder through common-sense 
gun safety laws.
  Vote for Conyers, vote for McCarthy, vote for our children.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dingell 
amendment, a common-sense compromise that represents the views of the 
overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun owners who accept reasonable 
reforms and who want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and 
who recognize the best way to do this is to conduct background checks 
and the best way to do that is to use the existing system.
  Contrary to what some folks would have us believe, gun shows are not 
illegal arms bazaars. They are commercial forums where citizens can buy 
and sell firearms for hunting, to add to a collection of antiques, for 
self-protection or any of a litany of lawful purposes. This amendment 
streamlines the instant check process for firearm transfers at gun 
shows. The speed and ease of the check under the Dingell amendment will 
encourage folks to make their purchases in a regulated forum.
  Some folks who want to ignore the existence of the second amendment 
seem to think that if we just make it too much of a hassle for citizens 
to purchase guns that the transactions will not occur. In reality the 
sale will still take place, but without the benefit of a background 
check.
  I urge my colleagues' support of the Dingell amendment, a workable 
compromise which achieves the goals of protecting the rights of all 
citizens while best protecting society as a whole.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) has 5\1/
2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) has 5 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 7 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 7 
minutes remaining.

                              {time}  2300

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our colleague, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, guns do not kill people. People kill people.
  I agree, background checks do work. They are common sense. None of us 
want criminals to have guns. But I have served under Republican as well 
as Democratic administrations as a Member of Congress, and there is not 
yet an attorney general working for a Republican or a Democratic 
president while I have been here that has told us that they could do 
this in one day.
  They cannot do it in one day. That is why the requirement is for 3 
days. Instant checks would be ideal, just like going to the clothing 
store to get a shirt or a tie. But we do not live in a perfect world. 
Sadly, we do not.
  Legitimate hunters and sports people and collectors have nothing to 
fear with the defeat of the Dingell amendment. The Second Amendment 
still prevails. But let us make sure that it is the legitimate hunters 
and sports folks of the world that can acquire and buy these firearms, 
not the crooks, not the criminals. We need to close the loopholes to 
make sure that the background checks work.
  When the President, whether he be Republican or Democrat, or maybe 
even Independent, tells us that they have the resources so that they 
can do it in 1 day or 1 hour or 5 minutes, we can change the law. But 
until then, we cannot.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Members on both sides of this issue are 
well-meaning. There are 11,000 gun laws on the books. There are just as 
many about drugs. And yet in both areas, both drugs and weapons, the 
people that are the problem are the criminals. My colleagues on the 
other side of this issue want to stop those, as well.
  In all due respect to the gentlewoman from Maryland, there are not 
thugs and criminals but millions of people that attend these gun shows, 
including myself, that are law-abiding citizens.
  I think I am the only Member in this body that has had to take 
multiple life with a weapon. It bothered me so bad that I had to go to 
church, and at one time I even left the squadron. But I have flown in 
an airplane. I have carried bombs in peacetime. I never robbed a bank. 
I never shot somebody.
  I hunt. I fish. I legally have a weapon. And my daughters know how to 
use those weapons. I have taken them out with a watermelon and a 
shotgun and a rifle, and they know exactly what that weapon will do. If 
somebody comes in our house when I am not there, my daughters know how 
to use it.
  But I also have a trigger guard on those weapons because I am afraid 
that some child will come into the house other than my daughters and 
not know how to use that or the danger of it. And I think that a 
responsible parent should have a trigger guard on it and someone who 
does not maybe should be chastised.
  But the people we are talking about are law-abiding citizens, and 
that is who the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I and others 
want to protect the rights of, law-abiding people that want to bear 
arms.
  I do not think that is unreasonable. I think it is reasonable to have 
an instant check for a gun show, to have one for a pawn shop, to have 
one for any sporting goods shop that does that, and we ought to fully 
fund it. I think that the only way that we can get around this is to do 
that.
  I ask my colleagues, do not ask from emotion but ask from fact.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

[[Page H4591]]

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the 
American people want, Congress is preparing to vote on an amendment 
that will make it easier for criminals to get guns at gun shows.
  Some Members may believe they can vote for the NRA-Dingell amendment 
and try to fool their constituents into thinking they care about 
criminals' access to guns. That would be a mistake.
  The McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich amendment simply asks the same 
regulations that we are asking our gun stores to do our gun shows to 
do. That is it. Same rules for everyone. Pretty simple in my eyes.
  Over the last 6 months, 17,000 people who were stopped by the current 
background check systems would have attained guns. Seventeen thousand 
people.
  Take a look at this. These are the people who should have been 
stopped. These are the people that could have been stopped.
  If the Dingell bill goes through, there is going to be a lot more of 
them out there. That is what we are supposed to do.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for the McCarthy amendment, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote for the Conyers substitute amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  (Mr. JOHN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, Louisiana is indeed the sportsman's paradise. 
Many of us have grown up there hunting, sports shooting, and have grown 
up comfortable and have learned to respect firearms.
  I rise today in strong support of the perfecting Dingell amendment. I 
believe that it has a common-sense approach to two very important 
objectives.
  The first objective is to close the loopholes at gun shows. It is an 
objective that every one of the amendments here tonight go to and shoot 
at.
  The second objective only the Dingell amendment provides, and I think 
it is most important that it protects and preserves the right for us to 
bear arms at gun shows. The amendment puts a high priority on instant 
background checks from participants at a gun show. I repeat, this 
amendment only applies to gun shows.
  I support instant background checks to keep firearms out of the hands 
of felons. Do we have the technology, does the national instant check 
system have the technology, the personnel capability to handle this? I 
say, yes. We appropriated $200 million to do so. We have that 
technology.
  Mr. Chairman, the Second Amendment to our Constitution is only 27 
words. Mr. Chairman, please let us close the loophole and not infringe 
upon our constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. Vote for the 
Dingell amendment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time and for her strong leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
McCarthy) for her tireless dedication in preventing violence against 
children and protecting all of us from the misuse of firearms.
  With high respect for my friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) I rise to oppose his amendment and to support McCarthy.
  The Dingell amendment, in my judgment, attempts to cloud an issue 
which is crystal clear. The distinguished gentleman from Michigan 
claims that his amendment closes the gun show loophole. But, in 
actuality, it weakens current gun laws.
  Under his amendment, the time provided to law enforcement authorities 
for conducting background checks on firearms purchased at a gun show 
through a licensed dealer is actually reduced from three business days 
under current law to 24 hours.
  Since many gun shows take place on weekends when most court records 
are inaccessible, a 24-hour limit effectively renders the background 
check requirement useless.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would reverse a 31-year-old 
law prohibiting licensed dealers from conducting out-of-state business.

                              {time}  2310

  McCarthy, on the other hand, reasonably extends the background checks 
to more vendors, gives law enforcement authorities ample time to 
complete background checks and extends requirements for vendors to keep 
records of gun show transactions.
  Clearly, gun laws are not a panacea for the ills of our society 
reflected in the violence of child against child that we have seen in 
Littleton and Paducah and Conyers. But, Mr. Chairman, it would be a 
travesty if out of these horrors came from this House more opportunity 
for the misuse of firearms, not less. It is not too much to ask 
legitimate gun owners and vendors some measure of inconvenience to help 
protect our children. With rights come responsibilities. Oppose 
Dingell. Support McCarthy.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, we make it difficult for criminals to get 
jobs. It should be that way. We make it difficult for criminals to be 
able to vote. It should be that way. For rapists, for molesters, for 
murderers, for those who mug folks.
  Here we are this evening confronted with the proposition from one of 
the great Members of this body who would have us believe that there is 
something unreasonable about making it more difficult for criminals to 
buy guns at gun shows. I come from the State of Tennessee as my good 
friend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) does. I know why we 
have gun shows. It makes it easier for folks who live in areas, urban 
or rural areas to buy guns to go out and hunt and be sportsmen. I 
support hunters, support the NRA and support sportsmen.
  But do not continue scaring everyday, hardworking, taxpaying, law-
abiding Americans that somehow or another making them wait 48 more 
hours just to ensure that they had not beaten their wives, they had not 
molested their neighbor's children, that they have not robbed a 
convenience store at the corner, that something is unreasonable about 
that.
  I say to my friends and particularly my friend on my side of the 
aisle, let us stop scaring everyday Americans. There is nothing 
unreasonable about what the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) 
wants to do. She is the most courageous person in this House and she 
deserves our vote tonight, she deserves our vote tomorrow and the 
children in this Nation deserve our vote this evening.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Michigan 
for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the Dingell amendment 
that hopefully will bring some reasonableness to the debate on gun 
restrictions. I do not think any of us support criminals having access 
to guns and the Dingell amendment will not encourage this. It would 
make background checks more effective and still protect the second 
amendment to our Constitution.
  I would feel more comfortable about this debate tonight if the 
opponents of the Dingell amendment were not also reported in the press 
favoring national registration maybe like we have here in Washington, 
D.C., which is probably the most gun restricted jurisdiction in our 
country, yet I do not know if the criminals in D.C. are any more 
effective than they are anywhere else in our country. I know they get 
guns elsewhere.
  But are you saying we need to restrict every American from being able 
to own a firearm? Because that is what happens here. The waiting 
periods have stopped convicted felons from receiving guns. I know, that 
has worked. But are you telling me that that person who is refused 
because of that background check did not also go out and find a gun on 
the illegal market?
  Let us just make it reasonable for the millions of Americans who are 
not afraid of guns, who have them for protection, and also for 
sporting.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a 
clarification, that my amendment actually

[[Page H4592]]

has in it that there will be no national registration for guns. It is 
in the amendment. It would make it a law.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for that last 
statement because I was going to make that point, too. Let us get back 
to the facts and not the rhetoric, the loose rhetoric here.
  This Dingell amendment, as far as I am concerned, is a business deal 
for criminals and gunrunners. It gives them a special advantage.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has not yielded to the gentleman for a 
parliamentary inquiry. The gentlewoman from New Jersey controls the 
time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. She does, but is it the rules of the House that 
someone is to question the motives of the gentleman?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I am not questioning his motives. I reclaim my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey controls the time. The 
gentlewoman may proceed.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, what it actually does is it gives gun 
shows a business advantage over all the law-abiding federally licensed 
gun dealers and gun shows. I believe we need the same rules for 
everyone.
  I also must say, we have got to get back to the facts. There are 
accurate reports that since 1993, the background checks established by 
the Brady law have blocked gun sales to over 400,000 felons, fugitives, 
stalkers and mentally ill persons.
  We have said, and I think it bears repeating, that the FBI estimates 
that a 24-hour rule such as the Dingell amendment would mean that over 
17,000 people who are stopped by current background checks in the 
current system, it would have not gotten those 17,000 people who were 
stopped by the background checks.
  Finally, I must repeat again that the checks occurring on a Saturday 
under the Dingell 24-hour rule would mean that more than 60 percent of 
current denials would not have been made. That means literally a 
convicted rapist, child molester or any other felon could have gotten 
the gun and that would be part of the 60 percent.
  In summary, I think we have to say, let us give law enforcement the 
upper hand, because this is about law and order. It is not about taking 
guns away from law-abiding citizens.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, for the first time, if McCarthy-Lautenberg is adopted 
in lieu of the Dingell amendment, the Federal Government through 
extensive powers granted under the McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment will 
have the power to amass information regarding gun owners in America 
that the government does not now have the power to collect and 
maintain.
  The one phrase that appears more than any other in the McCarthy-
Lautenberg amendment relates to powers to promulgate rules and 
regulations for the retention of information to the ATF.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there is not time 
to read a statement or anything else but to simply say, with all of 
these reasonable people sitting here, we are trying to do one thing 
with the McCarthy amendment, protect our children and keep the guns out 
of the criminals' hands. It is so simple. I do not know what the NRA 
does to make so many people so fearful. But please protect the children 
tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to the Dingell Amendment. 
This amendment does not address the problem we are trying to solve. Too 
many people who should not have access to guns can walk into a gun show 
and buy a gun, no questions asked.
  While we are trying to restrict the easy access, criminals and 
juveniles have had access to guns at gun shows. The Dingell amendment 
would make it easier on criminals and juveniles.
  The amendment too narrowly restricts the definition of a gun show. If 
you sell your guns at a gun show from a rolling cart, the Dingell 
amendment says you don't need to perform a background check on your 
customers. Slap some wheels on your booth and you don't have to follow 
the law.
  Further, if you decide not to ``sponsor'' the gun show under the 
reasons in the Dingell amendment, you don't have to do a background 
check either. Nor do you have to do background checks if there are less 
than ten vendors at the show, no matter the number of weapons sold.
  The amendment changes the Brady Law to give law enforcement agencies 
a mere 24 hours to do a background check. So, if you buy a gun at a gun 
show at 5:00 p.m. and the background check cannot be completed until 
Monday, you get the gun.
  Even with 72 hours to complete background checks, as its stands in 
the underlying legislation, the Justice Department says that 28% of 
felons, fugitives and other prohibited people would have gotten guns. 
The Dingell Amendment only increases that percentage.
  The Dingell Amendment would allow gun show dealers to complete the 
sale after the show with no background check required. This would give 
gun show sellers incentive to give out their home address and say 
``Stop by on your way home from the show and I can get you a gun with 
none of that background check hassle.''
  These are only a few of the problems with the amendment, but I think 
they are enough.
  We cannot allow the NRA to ghost-write this legislation. This 
amendment is simply the last gasps of the NRA to hold on to anything 
they have. The NRA is fighting in the face of common sense.
  This amendment is worse than the law that currently exists. The 
American people have asked us to pass common sense gun safety laws. 
This is not it. Oppose the Dingell Amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has the right 
to close.
  Mr. DINGELL. I believe I am the offeror of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. As the manager from the Committee on the Judiciary 
controlling time in opposition, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) has the right to close.
  Mr. DINGELL. Very well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Clement).

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the second amendment. I 
defend an individual's right to bear arms. I know very well that we 
have to close the loopholes, and so does the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) know that as well.
  That is why he has proposed this amendment, saying that we have to 
close these loopholes at the gun shows, because 6 percent of the guns 
sold in this country are at the gun shows today, and some of them are 
to individuals that are not gun dealers. And therefore, it is in our 
best interests to bring about fairness and equity, and knowing that we 
have improved the system from the past, maybe the Dingell amendment 
would not have made any sense years ago. But we now have a national 
instant background check that we did not have before; therefore, we are 
in a position to check on the guns that are sold within a 24-hour 
period.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage everyone to support the Dingell amendment. 
Let us close the loopholes.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve that time at this 
moment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 1\1/2\ minutes of the gentleman from 
Tennessee's time shall be controlled by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in solid opposition to the 
Dingell amendment. We can fool some of the people some of the time, but 
we cannot fool all of the people all of the time, and the American 
people are not fooled by this amendment.

[[Page H4593]]

  I can tell my colleagues that this is an example of this Congress not 
being serious about closing the gun show loopholes. If we are serious, 
we will vote tonight to close the gun show loopholes.
  Let me tell my colleagues, the American people are watching us 
tonight.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to know that those of us who 
sponsor this amendment are not interested in increasing crime, we are 
interested in bringing it to a halt. This is a form, 4473. In it, the 
individual who files it has to prove through his statements that he is 
eligible in all particulars and has not disqualified himself from the 
purchase of a firearm. That is filed, and if one files it falsely, that 
is a felony. And if one picks up a gun after having filed this falsely, 
that is a second felony.
  Now, the instant check system is working, and it is instant, not a 
long check. It is instant. It is supposed to be instant.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking here about a precious right. We have 
been talking about the first amendment, and now we are talking about 
the second amendment. I do not divide the Bill of Rights. But I call on 
my colleagues to understand that in 24 hours, there should be 
sufficient time, because by the time this legislation is in effect, the 
Attorney General will have merged the State and the Federal system so 
that she can get full information immediately. Mr. Chairman, 24 hours 
is quite enough.
  Now, gun shows are not Saturnalias of criminals who are bent on 
destroying the lives and the well-being of innocent citizens. They are 
a group of innocent citizens who are doing something that goes back as 
far as Plymouth Rock. They are getting together to sell and trade and 
engage in commerce, and they are strictly regulated.
  We are closing the gun show loophole by making everybody who 
participates in those sales subject to the law. They must file the 
document, and they must be submitted to the instant check. I do not 
know how much more we can ask for in terms of seeing to it that we have 
effectively dealt with the problems of crime. To go beyond this is 
simply to harass innocent, law-abiding citizens and to hurt people who 
love to go to gun shows to see their fellow citizens, to talk about 
guns, to look at firearms, to perhaps purchase a firearm, or more 
likely to purchase some other kind of sporting accoutrements.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, an angry, paranoid schizophrenic goes to a 
gun show at 10 o'clock on a Saturday morning, attempts to buy a gun. 
The police discover on Monday morning that he has a criminal background 
record of beating his wife and a long criminal rap sheet. Under the 
Dingell amendment, he gets to buy the gun. Under the McCarthy 
amendment, he does not.
  Support the McCarthy amendment. It is the real loophole closer. It is 
the one that we ought to support tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) has 1 minute 
remaining; the gentlewoman from New Jersey has extinguished her time. 
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining; 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) for sponsoring this, I believe, very good amendment, a good 
solution to the problem at hand. Lest we all forget, ultimately we are 
talking about a constitutional amendment, a right here, and as we all 
know, when we begin to legislate, to impair or restrict that 
constitutional right as we would in the first amendment or second 
amendment or any other amendment, we need to do it in a minimum way, in 
the least burdensome way.
  I have reviewed these amendments, and I believe that the Dingell 
amendment fits that description and best suits the issue as we need it 
now. I have chosen to support it. I think it provides the best balance 
between the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns and to 
prevent law-breaking citizens from not purchasing guns.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell amendment to this 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the McCarthy-Conyers-Campbell 
amendment plugs the loopholes in the gun bill. The opponents need an 
amendment to make it look like they would have gun control, but it is 
not effective. They did not want to provide anything effective, so they 
chose the Dingell amendment. We have to do better than that. We have to 
vote for McCarthy-Conyers-Campbell. It plugs the loopholes. We need to 
plug these loopholes. Let us not give the Republicans a relief act 
through the Dingell amendment. Let us kill the Dingell amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy-
Conyers-Campbell amendment to plug the loopholes.
  The realities, I say to my colleagues, are, that in communities 
throughout this country, State criminal justice systems are not 
automated. Many criminal records are kept on card files. In 24 hours, 
that is an insufficient amount of time for law enforcement to do an 
adequate or thorough check. To say that we can do an instant check in 
24 hours is to assume that everyone has computers. Go to the criminal 
justice office in your community and see if they are not kept on cards. 
If they are, then you know that instant check will not work. I rise in 
support of McCarthy-Conyers-Campbell.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the other day I spoke at a Memorial Day 
service in Lilly, Pennsylvania. In Lilly during World War I they had 
lost 14 or 15 people. In World War II they had lost a little less. But 
one family sent 10 boys to World War II. That mother was honored as the 
Mother of the Year in 1945.
  I said, would you like to say something? And the one boy, 74 years 
old now, got up and he said, I went to the Navy and I came back and I 
worked in that coal mine, and he sat down. Another young man, 85 years 
old, got the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, and a 
combat infantryman badge from World War II. And I said, would you like 
to say something? He said, I said my say in World War II.
  We get up here and we talk and we talk and we talk. We act like we 
are going to solve these problems. After I went out and mingled with 
the crowd, the whole town was there, only 2,000 people in the town, 
these folks came to me and said, you folks keep abridging our rights. 
You keep taking away our rights. You keep passing laws that the 
ordinary citizen lose their ability to do their business.
  I have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Our folks go 
about their business. Our big business is the industrial revolution. We 
produced all the steel and coal for the country. They do not listen to 
Washington a lot. There is nobody listening to what I am saying 
tonight. They are in bed, because they have to get up the next morning 
and go to work.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this. If Members think what we are trying to 
do here today is going to solve these problems, it is much more 
complicated than that. All we are trying to do with the Dingell 
amendment is reduce some of the burden on the law-abiding citizens. I 
ask Members to support the Dingell amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my 
friend that if it had not been for the Committee on Rules, we would be 
in bed, too, tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).

[[Page H4594]]

  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Let me just clarify, this is about closing a loophole so criminals 
cannot get guns. With all due respect to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Chairman Dingell), under his bill nine unlicensed gun dealers can call 
themselves a gun show and sell thousands of guns, literally, and no 
requirement to fill out the form the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman 
Dingell) referenced moments ago.
  To the hunters of America and NRA members across the land, let me 
firmly assert, they have nothing to fear but fear itself. This is about 
criminals not getting guns, not themselves. They are law-biding 
citizens. They are great patriots. They love their country and their 
guns.
  The criminals will get less guns, there are more guns for NRA members 
and hunters.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about closing loopholes. Let us address 
it. The person who buys a gun at a gun show or anywhere else has to 
fill out this form. Failure to fill it out truthfully constitutes a 
felony. Purchase of a gun with a falsified 4473 form constitutes a 
felony. We are covering all sales at gun shows with the penalties of 
this.
  Mrs. Reno has said, NIC has been a tremendous success. Simply stated, 
denials and arrests translate into lives saved and less crime. The hard 
fact of the matter is it is working now. It will work better. By the 
time the effective date of this act is present, we will find that gun 
shows will be able to do all the things that are necessary.
  There is no reason to burden a law-abiding citizen with more than 24 
hours delay. To go further is simply to assure that people will go 
around gun shows and will achieve gun purchases and ownership in other 
ways.
  I urge my colleagues to make the responsible vote. Let us close the 
loophole. Let us see to it that we cover all sales at gun shows, and 
let us pass a decent bill that the people can support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
McCarthy amendment and in support of America's children and the victims 
of gun violence in America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell 
amendment and in support of the McCarthy amendment that will protect 
the children of America.
  Mr. Chairman, the Dingell amendment does one thing. It would make 
sure it's easy for criminals to get guns shows and flea markets. Do 
hunters need that? Do sportsmen? No.
  With the instant check proposed, most purchasers will be approved 
quickly. But the criminals won't. The gun lobby wants to try to scare 
normal sportsmen into believing that keeping felons from buying guns 
means duck hunting season is canceled this year.
  I hope that the honest sportsmen and women of this county won't buy 
it and I hope that the House will not either.
  Vote ``no'' on this deceptive amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the g entlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell 
amendment and in support of the amendment of my good friend the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the American 
people, I rise in opposition to the Dingell amendment and in support of 
the Conyers amendment, the McCarthy amendment, to keep guns out of the 
hands of criminals.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell amendment, 
and to allowing criminals to buy guns at gun shows, and to guns being 
sold to children who end up dying each and every day from gun violence.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people were promised commonsense gun 
control. The American people expect us to take commonsense measures to 
prevent the sale of guns to the wrong people. However, Mr. Dingell's 
amendment will allow criminals to get guns.
  Of course we know that these guns end up in the hands of children. 
And then, what do we have--children in urban and now, suburban 
communities killing each other. And then, to add insult to injury, this 
Congress's response is to enhance sentences and try young people in the 
courts as adults rather than provide for measures to prevent juveniles 
from becoming violent in the first place through crime prevention 
measures as the Conyers Campbell substitute would have addressed.
  The emergency rooms in our hospitals and our mortuaries are filled 
with young people. For those of us who have witnessed the ambulances 
and heard the sirens around the clock, for those who feel the pain from 
the loss of their child to gun violence, please vote for the McCarthy-
Roukema amendment and close this loophole which has caused the death of 
too many of our children. The Dingell amendment ensures that criminals 
will be able to buy guns.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell 
amendment and in support of the Conyers-Campbell amendment and the 
McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of American children, 
and in opposition to the Dingell amendment allowing criminals to buy 
guns at gun shows, and in support of the McCarthy-Conyers amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  (Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell 
amendment and in support of the McCarthy and the Campbell-Conyers 
amendment. Extension of the 3-day background check to guns purchased at 
gun shows is fair and sensible and will close a glaring loophole in our 
gun laws.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell 
amendment and in support of the McCarthy amendment. On behalf of of 
American parents and their children.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to close debate on our portion of this very important proposal to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, 34,000 lives lost, not in the Far 
East, not in Eastern Europe, not in Africa, but right here in America 
on our streets, in our neighborhoods, on our playgrounds; 34,000 lives 
lost, lost to gun violence last year.
  What would it take before we act, another Littleton, another Paducah, 
another Conyers, another Jonesboro? Thirteen children a day lost, lost 
to

[[Page H4595]]

gun violence. We need courage, nothing but raw courage, to protect the 
lives of our children.
  I am sick and tired of going to funerals of young children. How many 
more times must I hold a weeping mother in my arms? How long, how long 
before we act to stop this senseless violence?
  During another period in our history we have sung, where have all the 
children gone, in some graveyard one by one?

                              {time}  2340

  Thirty-four thousand lives gone; lost; dead; buried because of gun 
violence.
  Joshua of old says, ``Choose you this day whom you will serve.''
  Will we serve the NRA or will we serve our people, our Nation, our 
children? As for me and my house, I will cast my lot and my vote with 
the children. Close the gun show loophole. Defeat the Dingell 
amendment. Vote for the McCarthy amendment.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another attempt by the NRA 
and its allies to block meaningful gun control legislation.
  Observe for a moment the ramifications of this measure. It reduces 
the maximum time for background checks to 24 hours, rather than 3 
business days under the current Brady law. If the background check is 
not completed within the allotted time, then the sale would be 
permitted.
  Certain statistics from the Department of Justice cite that 40% of 
denied requests would go through if this amendment passed. The reason 
people have been denied a gun is that they have a history of violence 
and could potentially harm some innocent person, or they are too young 
to possess firearms.
  Now the law will force states that do not keep very good records, or 
are slow at retrieving the necessary information, to permit a gun sale 
that should be denied. What is the urgency? Why would a person need a 
gun within one day instead of a couple of days later? Could it be to 
threaten or exact revenue? Well, this would be quite possible if this 
amendment passes and a weapon ends up in the hands of someone who 
should not have it.
  We should be taking additional precautions to make sure that we keep 
guns out of the hands of convicted felons, not dismantling them and 
purposely creating loopholes. And if that means taking another 48 
hours, by all means I think that public safety should have preference. 
If a person needs a gun on Friday, then he or she should buy it three 
business days in advance.
  The NRA does not care who gets guns. Their philosophy is simply to 
oppose any regulation of guns, period, no matter what the consequences 
are. The current Brady law makes this country safer by keeping guns out 
of the hands of criminals, and therefore I urge the House to oppose 
this amendment.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in solid opposition to the 
Dingell amendment. While supporters of this amendment claim to close 
the gun show loophole by requiring background checks, this amendment 
reduces to just 24 hours the amount of time that law enforcement 
officers have to conduct background checks at gun shows.
  Moreover, if the check cannot be completed within the 24 hours, the 
sale would be allowed to proceed, thus allowing criminals to buy 
weapons at large gun shows at the beginning of a holiday weekend, 
while, after 24 hours, the gun is theirs.
  This amendment is misguided, misleading, and even dangerous! In fact, 
this is an example of the lack of seriousness in this Congress in 
trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You know, you can 
fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all 
of the time, and let me say that the American people are not fooled by 
the rhetoric of this group! The dilution of the Senate bill is 
appalling! If the Congress is really serious about keeping guns out of 
the hands of criminals, this amendment will be defeated, and the gun-
show loopholes closed!
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 211, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 234]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Minge
     Salmon
     Thomas

                              {time}  0002

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H4596]]

  Stated against:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall no. 234, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed 
in Part B of House Report 106-186.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the debate time on the McCarthy-Roukema amendment be extended 10 
minutes, 5 minutes on each side.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and 
I would not object if the leadership on both sides would agree that we 
could roll the vote until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy)?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Mc Carthy of New York

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Part B amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York:
       Strike section 2(b) and all that follows through the end of 
     the bill and insert the following:
       (b) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) Gun show.--The term `gun show' means any event--
       ``(A) at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited 
     for sale, transfer, or exchange, if 1 or more of the firearms 
     has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, 
     interstate or foreign commerce; and
       ``(B) at which there are 2 or more gun show vendors.
       ``(36) Gun show promoter.--The term `gun show promoter' 
     means any person who organizes, plans, promotes, or operates 
     a gun show.
       ``(37) Gun show vendor.--The term `gun show vendor' means 
     any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, 
     or exchanges 1 or more firearms at a gun show, regardless of 
     whether or not the person arranges with the gun show promoter 
     for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for 
     sale, transfer, or exchange 1 or more firearms.''
       (c) Regulation of Firearms Transfers at Gun Shows.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 931. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows

       ``(a) Registration of Gun Show Promoters.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any person to organize, plan, promote, or 
     operate a gun show unless that person--
       ``(1) registers with the Secretary in accordance with 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) pays a registration fee, in an amount determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(b) Responsibilities of Gun Show Promoters.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any person to organize, plan, promote, or 
     operate a gun show unless that person--
       ``(1) before admitting a gun show vendor, verifies the 
     identity of each gun show vendor participating in the gun 
     show by examining a valid identification document (as defined 
     in section 1028(d)(1)) of the vendor containing a photograph 
     of the vendor;
       ``(2) before admitting a gun show vendir, requires such gun 
     show vendor to sign--
       ``(A) a ledger with identifying information concerning the 
     vendor; and
       ``(B) a notice advising the vendor of the obligations of 
     the vendor under this chapter; and
       ``(3) notifies each person who attends the gun show of the 
     applicable requirements of this section, in accordance with 
     such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe; and
       ``(4) maintains a copy of the records described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) at the permanent place of business of 
     the gun show promoter for such period of time and in such 
     form as the Secretary shall require by regulation.
       ``(c) Responsibilities of Transferors Other Than 
     Licensees.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any part of a firearm transaction 
     takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any 
     person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a 
     firearm to another person who is not licensed under this 
     chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in 
     accordance with subsection (e).
       ``(2) Criminal background checks.--A person who is subject 
     to the requirement of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall not transfer the firearm to the transferee 
     until the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under 
     subsection (e) makes the notification described in subsection 
     (e)(3)(A); and
       ``(B) notwithstanding subparagraph (A), shall not transfer 
     the firearm to the transferee if the licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer through which the 
     transfer is made under subsection (e) makes the notification 
     described in subsection (e)(3)(B).
       ``(3) Absence of recordkeeping requirements.--Nothing in 
     this section shall permit or authorize the Secretary to 
     impose recordkeeping requirements on any nonlicensed vendor.
       ``(d) Responsibilities of Transferees Other Than 
     Licensees.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any part of a firearm transaction 
     takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any 
     person who is not licensed under this chapter to receive a 
     firearm from another person who is not licensed under this 
     chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in 
     accordance with subsection (e).
       ``(2) Criminal background checks.--A person who is subject 
     to the requirement of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall not receive the firearm from the transferor 
     until the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under 
     subsection (e) makes the notification described in subsection 
     (e)(3)(A); and
       ``(B) notwithstanding subparagraph (A), shall not receive 
     the firearm from the transferor if the licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer through which the 
     transfer is made under subsection (e) makes the notification 
     described in subsection (e)(3)(B).
       ``(e) Responsibilities of Licensees.--A licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer who agrees to 
     assist a person who is not licensed under this chapter in 
     carrying out the responsibilities of that person under 
     subsection (c) or (d) with respect to the transfer of a 
     firearm shall--
       ``(1) enter such information about the firearm as the 
     Secretary may require by regulation into a separate bound 
     record;
       ``(2) record the transfer on a form specified by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(3) comply with section 922(t) as if transferring the 
     firearm from the inventory of the licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer to the designated transferee 
     (although a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer complying with this subsection shall not be 
     required to comply again with the requirements of section 
     922(t) in delivering the firearm to the nonlicensed 
     transferor), and notify the nonlicensed transferor and the 
     nonlicensed transferee--
       ``(A) of such compliance; and
       ``(B) if the transfer is subject to the requirements of 
     section 922(t)(1), of any receipt by the licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer of a notification 
     from the national instant criminal background check system 
     that the transfer would violate section 922 or would violate 
     State law;
       ``(4) not later than 10 days after the date on which the 
     transfer occurs, submit to the Secretary a report of the 
     transfer, which report--
       ``(A) shall be on a form specified by the Secretary by 
     regulation; and
       ``(B) shall not include the name of or other identifying 
     information relating to any person involved in the transfer 
     who is not licensed under this chapter;
       ``(5) if the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer assists a person other than a licensee in 
     transferring, at 1 time or during any 5 consecutive business 
     days, 2 or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of 
     pistols and revolvers totaling 2 or more, to the same 
     nonlicensed person, in addition to the reports required under 
     paragraph (4), prepare a report of the multiple transfers, 
     which report shall be--
       ``(A) prepared on a form specified by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) not later than the close of business on the date on 
     which the transfer occurs, forwarded to--
       ``(i) the office specified on the form described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the 
     jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs; and
       ``(6) retain a record of the transfer as part of the 
     permanent business records of the licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer.
       ``(f) Records of Licensee Transfers.--If any part of a 
     firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, each licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer who 
     transfers 1 or more firearms to a person who is not licensed 
     under this chapter shall, not later than 10 days after the 
     date on which the transfer occurs, submit to the Secretary a 
     report of the transfer, which report--
       ``(1) shall be in a form specified by the Secretary by 
     regulation;
       ``(2) shall not include the name of or other identifying 
     information relating to the transferee; and
       ``(3) shall not duplicate information provided in any 
     report required under subsection (e)(4).
       ``(g) Firearm Transaction Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `firearm transaction'--
       ``(1) includes the offer for sale, sale, transfer, or 
     exchange of a firearm; and
       ``(2) does not include the mere exhibition of a firearm.''.
       (2) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page H4597]]

       ``(7)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 931(a) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 
     both.
       ``(B) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (b) or (c) of 
     section 931, shall be--
       ``(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 
     years, or both; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, 
     such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(C) Whoever willfully violates section 931(d), shall be--
       ``(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 
     years, or both; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, 
     such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(D) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (e) or (f) of 
     section 931 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(E) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary may, with respect to any person who 
     knowingly violates any provision of section 931--
       ``(i) if the person is registered pursuant to section 
     931(a), after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend 
     for not more than 6 months or revoke the registration of that 
     person under section 931(a); and
       ``(ii) impose a civil fine in an amount equal to not more 
     than $10,000.''.
       (3) Technical and conforming amendments.--Chapter 44 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in the chapter analysis, by adding at the end the 
     following:

``931. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows.'';

     and
       (B) in the first sentence of section 923(j), by striking 
     ``a gun show or event'' and inserting ``an event''; and
       (d) Inspection Authority.--Section 923(g)(1) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the Secretary may 
     enter during business hours the place of business of any gun 
     show promoter and any place where a gun show is held for the 
     purposes of examining the records required by sections 923 
     and 931 and the inventory of licensees conducting business at 
     the gun show. Such entry and examination shall be conducted 
     for the purposes of determining compliance with this chapter 
     by gun show promoters and licensees conducting business at 
     the gun show and shall not require a showing of reasonable 
     cause or a warrant.''.
       (e) Increased Penalties for Serious Recordkeeping 
     Violations by Licensees.--Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any 
     licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or 
     representation with respect to the information required by 
     this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed 
     under this chapter, or violates section 922(m) shall be fined 
     under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(B) If the violation described in subparagraph (A) is in 
     relation to an offense--
       ``(i) under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 922(b), such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 5 years, or both; or
       ``(ii) under subsection (a)(6) or (d) of section 922, such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 10 years, or both.''.
       (f) Increased Penalties for Violations of Criminal 
     Background Check Requirements.--
       (1) Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``subsection (s) or (t) 
     of section 922'' and inserting ``section 922(s)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(t) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 
     both.''.
       (2) Elimination of certain elements of offense.--Section 
     922(t)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``and, at the time'' and all that follows through 
     ``State law''.
       (g) Gun Owner Privacy and Prevention of Fraud and Abuse of 
     System Information.--Section 922(t)(2)(C) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, as soon as possible, consistent with 
     the responsibility of the Attorney General under section 
     103(h) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to ensure 
     the privacy and security of the system and to prevent system 
     fraud and abuse, but in no event later than 90 days after the 
     date which the licensee first contacts the system with 
     respect to the transfer. In no event shall such records be 
     used for the creation of a national firearms registry''.
       (h) Interstate Shipment of Licensees.--Nothing in this 
     section shall affect the right of a licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer to receive or ship 
     firearms in interstate commerce in accordance with the 
     provisions of this chapter.
       (i) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and a Member opposed will each control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Dear colleagues, this is an amendment that is commonsense. It is 
commonsense for the American people. I ask the Members to listen to the 
speakers and, hopefully, be open-minded when they vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I am really more than a little perplexed, my colleagues, at this 
point in time, after what we have just been through. We have just been 
debating for almost an hour, well, almost 2 hours, literally what the 
issues are here, and the McCarthy-Roukema amendment should be clearly 
understood at this point. But I am afraid, in looking at the last 
amendment and the way that happened, perhaps there are still some 
unknowns.
  I had been fully prepared to talk about the deficiencies of the Hyde 
proposal and how we were closing that loophole, but now we have a more 
extreme position here that we are discussing and we just went through 
almost an hour of debate on it.
  Those of my colleagues who were listening earlier know how strongly I 
feel about the Dingell proposal, and I guess now that it has been 
passed, I think we have to explain in fundamental terms exactly why, 
now more than ever, we need the McCarthy amendment.

                              {time}  0010

  Now, I want my colleagues to understand that what the McCarthy-
Roukema amendment does in the first place is simply closes that Dingell 
loophole or any loopholes in the gun show.
  It is the Senate bill. And it is not about taking guns away from law-
abiding citizens. It is plain and simply about keeping guns out of the 
hands of criminals.
  I can give my colleagues the statistics. FBI statistics are very 
clear that this loophole is going to increase immeasurably gun sales 
and make gun runners out of criminals and gun shows will be legal gun 
running operations.
  Mr. Chairman, as the cosponsor of this amendment I rise in strong 
support of the amendment offered by my colleague from New York (Mrs. 
McCarthy).
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about taking guns away from 
sportsmen and hunters or law-abiding citizens who own guns to protect 
their families or their property. This debate is about law and order. 
It's about giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep firearms 
away from criminals, people with mental illness--and yes--kids.
  Mr. Chairman, for the last 2 days we have been debating how best to 
protect our children. We've discussed drug trafficking, pornography, 
movies, television shows, video games, etc. And well we should. We have 
a culture of violence that is killing children and destroying our 
communities and it needs our attention now!
  Tonight, we turn to guns.
  Every day in America, 13 young people under the age of 19 are killed 
in gun homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. That is one 
classroom of kids every day.
  That is what this debate is about--not taking guns away from law-
abiding citizens. But about law-and-order and protecting our kids.
  Granted, these kids get their guns from a variety of sources. But 
increasingly, gun shows have become a significant source of guns for 
illegal users, including children.
  Why is this trend developing?
  Because criminals, mental defectives and--yes--kids know they can't 
pass the background check that they will have to undergo if they 
attempt to purchase a weapon at a sporting goods store, gun shop or 
from a licensed gun dealer. But they also know that gun sellers at gun 
shows do not have to run a background check.
  Yes, criminals have found that they can obtain unlimited numbers of 
firearms at gun shows with ease. And because no sales records are kept 
at gun shows these firearms can be resold on the street and used in 
crimes without being traced.
  Under the Hyde language, you could have nine dealers present selling 
thousands of weapons--a virtual arsenal--without a single background 
check.
  It shreds the fine common sense provision of the Senate bill. Now 
with the Dingell amendment, the McCarthy-Roukema amendment is needed 
more than ever to bring law

[[Page H4598]]

and order back to gun dealing and the sale of guns.
  The McCarthy/Roukema amendment repeals the Dingell loophole. It would 
define a gun show as any event where 50 or more weapons are exhibited 
for sale, transfer, or exchange and where two or more gun show vendors 
are present. Using the number of weapons and vendors present in 
determining what constitutes a gun show is the best way to close the 
loophole. Any event meeting the standard would require the vendor to 
perform a background check on the purchaser before the sale or transfer 
is complete.
  My colleagues, the choice is clear. Support the McCarthy amendment or 
vote to maintain a dangerous status quo where hundreds of thousands of 
weapons are sold to thousands of buyers without a single background 
check for criminal record or mental illness.
  Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of people who purchase guns at gun 
shows are responsible, law abiding citizens. But increasingly, many are 
not.
  Columbine student Eric Harris illegally obtained the TEC-9 assault 
weapon used in the Littleton tragedy through a gun show. Oklahoma City 
bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols sold over $60,000 in stolen 
weapons at gun shows to finance the killing of 168 innocent men, women, 
and children.
  The time is now to close the gun show loophole and make private 
dealers follow the same law as federally licensed firearms dealers.
  This is about law and order--it is not about taking away the rights 
of the law abiding to own guns.
  Support the McCarthy/Roukema amendment.
  And I again must commend Mrs. McCarthy who has used her tragedy to 
dedicate herself to doing what she can to protect others from suffering 
the personal trauma and grief that she has had to hear when her 
husbands life was taken and her son permanently physically disabled by 
a man who criminally obtained the guns. I respectfully thank God for 
her commitment to making America a better place.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) will control 
15 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly disagree with my good friend from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) on her amendment with the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy) tonight.
  This amendment is similar to the Lautenberg amendment, which was an 
amendment to a bill in the other body. It is vague. It is overbroad. 
And it may very well put gun shows out of business if it is passed or 
adopted.
  The amendment to H.R. 2122 would amend it to define a ``gun show'' as 
any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited and at 
which two or more persons exhibiting a firearm are present.
  Unlike the underlying bill, H.R. 2122, it does not specify what types 
of events fall within the definition. So a community yard sale where 
one person is selling his firearm collection, which could easily be 
more than 50 guns, and another neighbor who puts one of his firearms on 
the table to exhibit it, without even selling it, would consist a gun 
show under this amendment.
  Unlike H.R. 2122, this amendment only requires that there be two 
people exhibiting firearms for it to be a gun show. Thus, the amendment 
turns on a gathering of three friends who bring their collections to 
show one another. Where one friend trades one of his firearms with a 
friend at no cost, with no money exchanging hands, it turns that into a 
gun show.
  Under the McCarthy-Roukema amendment, before these friends could 
trade guns with one another, they would have to have a licensed dealer 
run a background check on themselves and transfer them the firearm or 
firearms for them.
  The McCarthy-Roukema amendment only allows licensed dealers to 
conduct background checks at gun shows. Since gun shows are places 
where non-dealers go to exhibit their collections, this requirement 
will so burden gun shows sales that I doubt that many gun shows would 
ever be held.
  We are not here today to put gun shows out of business. We are here 
today to stop people who are violent felons, criminals, from being able 
to buy guns at gun shows.
  The McCarthy amendment is so overbroad that it would require gun show 
promoters to keep records on every patron at the gun show who lawfully 
brings a firearm with them and shows it to some other person even if 
they are not a vendor with a table or booth at a show.
  Why? Because under this amendment, gun show promoters must register 
anyone who merely exhibits a firearm to another person even if they are 
not a vendor with a table or a booth at a show or be subject to 
criminal punishment. It is unfair to subject gun show promoters to a 
risk they simply cannot control.
  The McCarthy-Roukema amendment is so overbroad that it requires gun 
show promoters to give notice to each person who attends a gun show of 
the requirements of her amendment or face criminal punishment.
  The McCarthy-Roukema will have the effect of ending most gun shows. 
The risk of criminal punishment for failure to comply with all of the 
new requirements will simply be too great for anybody to take the risk 
of running a gun show.
  It is wrong to put gun shows, in my judgment, at an end. Although the 
intentions may be perfectly good, it is wrong to put them at an end by 
regulating them to death.
  H.R. 2122, the underlying bill, even as amended, strikes, in my 
judgment, the right balance between protecting our communities from 
felons who try to buy firearms at gun shows and protecting the rights 
of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I urge them 
to adopt the bill that we have before us tonight, a bill that would 
close the loophole in gun show sales to felons. It is well-written, 
well-crafted.
  There may be a dispute that I had with some of my friends over the 
length of time to check on the background of somebody who turns up as a 
hit. But it is basically a fundamentally sound way to close this 
loophole. And the McCarthy amendment, on the other hand, does not just 
close the loophole. It closes the gun show.
  That is not what we are here tonight about. We are here to protect 
kids. We are clear to close the loophole in the law. And we are here to 
make it certain that felons do not buy guns.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), page one of the McCarthy amendment: `` `Gun show' is a term 
at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale and 
which there are two or more gun show vendors.''
  How could that be a yard sale?
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) my long-time friend.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity tonight to save 
lives.
  December 7, 1993. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) will 
not forget that day. The families of the six dead, the 19 wounded will 
not forget that day. Eight weeks ago, 12 students and a teacher were 
killed at Columbine High School.
  Tonight we are finally considering legislation to protect our 
families and our children from guns. The American people have turned to 
us for leadership. And tonight, my colleagues, we are going to see if 
this House has the courage to answer that call and turn its back on the 
NRA.
  Everywhere I go in my district, at the supermarket, at neighborhood 
events, mothers come up to me, children in hand, and ask me, ``What are 
we going to to do to stop this violence?'' ``What are we doing to stop 
the guns flowing in our schools and onto our streets?''
  I challenge anyone in this House to look one of those mothers in the 
eye that came to us just yesterday talking to us about their children, 
their husband, there was a young girl there who was wounded 13 times, 
let us look her in the eye and tell her that this is more important to 
avoid inconveniencing a handful of gun buyers than it is to protect her 
child.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that, in the first 15 minutes of 
the instant check, 75 percent of the people are cleared. In the next 
couple of hours, it goes up to 90 percent.
  So we are talking about inconveniencing a couple of people to check 
their record to be sure that we save lives.

[[Page H4599]]

  We know that this is not going to solve all our problems. We have to 
address the whole culture of violence in this country. But tonight we 
have to begin, we have to respond, we have to act. We have to pass the 
McCarthy amendment.
  Closing this loophole will make a critical difference in protecting 
our children.

                              {time}  0020

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding me this time. For those who voted for the prior amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the choice on the 
current amendment before this body, and that is the McCarthy-Lautenberg 
amendment, could not be clearer. There is no way that you could support 
the Dingell amendment and support the McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment. 
They are like night and day.
  Let us look at some of the differences. The McCarthy-Lautenberg 
amendment is typical Washington, because only in Washington could the 
taxpayers of this country submit over $200 million of their money for 
the development of an instant background check, tell their legislators, 
that is this body and the Senate, that we are in support of and want 
you to institute an instant background check, and wind up with a 
background check that is called instant but can take up to 6 days. Only 
in Washington does $200 million get you an instant background check 
that can take up to 6 days. That date of 3 working days, which can 
balloon on a holiday weekend, which is very popular for gun shows, into 
6 days was not chosen at random. Three days was chosen because it would 
put gun shows out of business, yet it appears to be benign. Therein 
lies much of the danger of the McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment. It 
appears to be benign but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The 
paperwork which the gentleman from Florida has already alluded to would 
literally cripple gun show promoters, gun show organizers and gun show 
owners. They would subject themselves to criminal liability for an 
inadvertent failure to comply with the massive paperwork burdens which 
will be laid upon them by none other than the Secretary of the 
Treasury.
  One of the most common terms, one of the most common references, some 
of the most common language which permeates the McCarthy-Lautenberg 
amendment before this body refers to powers to regulate given to the 
Secretary of the Treasury and, by delegation, ATF.
  The gentleman from Florida also alluded to the fact that under the 
very broad definitions of the McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment, a gun show 
could be a yard sale or an estate sale, an estate sale, for example, at 
which as few as 50 firearms, which is not that many for some collectors 
of historical firearms and at which two or more show up, not one gun 
has to be sold. There can be a discussion of a sale, a discussion of a 
transfer, and all of a sudden, bingo, in Washington magic, you have an 
estate auction with two people discussing the transfer of as few as one 
of 50 firearms becoming subject to the whole range of paperwork burden, 
criminal liability, civil liability, gun information registry and gun 
tax that is provided in the McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment. Only in 
Washington could people with a straight face say that that is an 
improvement over Dingell. The same people only in Washington that would 
tell us with a straight face that an instant background check can take 
up to 6 days. The same people that only in Washington can tell us with 
a straight face that $200 million to buy an instant background check 
system gets us a system that takes up to 6 days and yet the other side 
says, ``Oh, that's just a slight inconvenience.'' The McCarthy-
Lautenberg amendment is not Lautenberg Lite, it is Lautenberg Heavy, 
and for those who supported the Dingell amendment, you have to vote 
against the McCarthy-Lautenberg amendment. I urge its strong defeat.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Who is Mr. Lautenberg?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has alluded to sponsorship of a similar 
provision in the Senate, which is permissible under the rules.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, this House has invested 
millions of dollars in establishing a national background check system, 
and it works. We have seen it work. It keeps guns out of the hands of 
criminals, of rapists, of abusers. That is a good thing. The only thing 
we are talking about here tonight is whether we should use that check 
system not only when guns are sold by dealers but when guns are sold at 
gun fairs. The only issue is whether it should cover all gun fair 
transactions or some gun fair transactions.
  I would say to my friend from Georgia, only in this House could 
``all'' be defined as ``some.'' I just wanted to define ``all'' as 
``all.'' It should cover all transactions at gun fairs. Where 10 
vendors get together, clearly that is a gun fair. Why when nine get 
together, when thousands of guns are sold, is it not a gun fair? Why 
when eight get together is it not a gun fair? Why when seven, when six, 
when five, when four? Surely when two vendors get together, they ought 
to have background checks. It is all. It is everyone. It is children's 
lives at stake.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the courageous gentlewoman from 
New York for yielding me this time. I listened to a colleague of ours 
on television this morning say that we should not close the gun show 
loophole because it would create too much paperwork, it would be an 
inconvenience. An inconvenience? Tell that to the parents of a murdered 
child. Talk to them about the inconvenience of paperwork. Tell them 
about the annoyance of waiting 3 days for a gun, and one gun that would 
be kept out of the hands of a criminal.
  Wake up, Congress. Thirteen children a day are killed by guns in this 
country. And we do not want people to be inconvenienced? I ask you 
tonight to vote with your heart. Compare the hardship. I ask you to 
vote for the McCarthy amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the McCarthy-Roukema substitute. The 3-day 
delay is essential to deter the purchase of a weapon in haste--the 
purchase of a weapon to settle an argument, or in the heat of passion.
  I understand many disagree on the wisdom of possessing a firearm. 
Many point to statistics showing a much greater risk of an accidental 
misuse of a firearm in a home than that firearm ever being used to 
defend against an intruder. Others say it is their choice to make, and 
I understand that. The right to make that choice, however, is not the 
right to make the choice precipitously. Think carefully about your 
choice to possess a firearm. Think it out in advance. Don't make this 
kind of judgment in the midst of anger, or to settle a domestic 
dispute. The 3-day delay helps accomplish this much more than would an 
instantaneous check.
  Some of those who oppose the 3-day delay also support a delay to be 
imposed on a woman who chooses to have an abortion--as was upheld by 
the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Just as the 
Supreme Court recognized that a delay on exercising what they held to 
be a constitutional right was permissible in that context, so also, in 
my view, would a 3-day delay on exercising a right to purchase a 
firearm be held constitutional. A 3-day delay on the purchase of a 
firearm is wise, and it is constitutional.
  Today, this view failed in the vote on the Dingell substitute. With 
one change in vote, however, and the six Members who had to be absent 
tonight, voting tomorrow, we can reverse this result. Tomorrow, we will 
vote on the substitute by Congressman Conyers and myself. It will enact 
in our House what has already passed the Senate. We have one more 
chance to do what is right, what is constitutional, what is safe.

[[Page H4600]]

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

                              {time}  0030

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and for all she has done.
  Let me just try to run through this, what I have tried to glean from 
this discussion. Ninety percent or so of the people that go in to buy a 
gun will go through the instant background check, and they will be 
cleared right away. That is probably everybody in this room. That 
probably leaves 10 percent.
  What do we know about those 10 percent? Those 10 percent probably 
have some kind of an arrest on their record. That is what shows up at 
that instant check.
  Now, what do we know after that? We do not know anything after that 
if we assume the Dingell amendment which has just passed, which is a 
24-hour period, but they may be convicted felons is what we know. But 
we will not know that for sure under this particular legislation, 
because most gun shows take place on the weekend, and the people who 
want to buy the guns are going to go in there, if they are convicted 
felons, on a Friday night or a Saturday. We have, in a way, sort of 
concocted a felon holiday, if you will; a period of time where, for a 
little bit in the beginning of the weekend, so they can get the gun and 
get out before the 24 hours is over, and they can go in and purchase a 
gun.
  Why can they do that? Because the courts are not open. The courts are 
certainly not open in Georgetown, Dover, or New Castle County, 
Delaware. That is the problem.
  I think we need to pass the McCarthy bill, really close the loopholes 
so that the felons will not have guns. Vote for the McCarthy-Roukema 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) has 
7\1/2\ remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, about 3 weeks ago a young Senate staffer was coming 
home at night and decided to cross one of the Capitol Hill parks, and 
partway through that park, she was confronted by three young men, and 
she started to run away. But one of the men brandished a handgun, so 
she stopped. They wanted money. She felt sorry for them, but she did 
not have any money. In fact, she said to me, I wish I had some money to 
give them.
  One of the men started to search her, but he did not want to stop 
with just a search, but for some reason or another he did, and she got 
away. Our Capitol Police rescued her, and they eventually apprehended 
them that night, these three young men. They were all minors; two of 
them had rap sheets.
  We talked about how she felt about those events, and she told me that 
she is angry, that they took away her freedom, and that she is 
frightened when she walks by that park. And I said, what should we do? 
And she said, it does not make any sense to pass another law that is 
just going to be broken.
  I asked her about guns. What did it make her feel about guns? She 
said she was not afraid about being shot, she was afraid that they were 
going to rape her, and that the gun gave them power over her. She could 
outrun those kids, she thought, but she could not outrun a bullet.
  Then, when she went to the arraignment, one of the boy's parents 
showed up, and he was the one without a record. The other two boys' 
parents did not even bother to show up at the arraignment, and she felt 
sorry for them, but she did not want them to be able to assault someone 
else.
  Again, I asked her, how did this make you feel about guns? She said, 
well, my dad has a gun, and I agree with the bumper sticker that says, 
when they take away our guns, only the criminals are going to have 
guns. But, she said, you will not solve this problem with more laws. 
She said, you have the power to make a law, but it will be broken every 
day, and I will not feel any more safe, she said, because I am not 
going to be any more safe. She said, you cannot make a law that will 
make those parents care enough to show up at an arraignment to do 
something about their kids.
  This extraordinary young lady happens to be my niece, and I am really 
proud of her. She is brave and compassionate, and she is wise, and we 
ought to listen to her words. She understands more than most of us in 
this room understand that while we have the power to pass laws, it 
takes families to solve this problem, families that care. Just as more 
gun laws would not have saved a single child in Littleton, more gun 
laws would not have prevented these thugs from confronting my niece.
  But I say to my colleagues, enforcing the existing laws would have, 
because I learned tonight from the arresting officer that one of these 
young thugs was already on probation for brandishing a gun.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a very courageous police officer.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I am a former police officer, I 
am a member of the NRA, and I am a lifelong gun owner. My wife and my 
two sons own guns. We, Mr. Chairman, are responsible gun owners who 
have taken guns safety courses and educated our children about how to 
operate and respect firearms.
  The McCarthy amendment is not gun control. It does not take away any 
guns, and it does not prohibit law-abiding individuals from purchasing 
guns. The McCarthy amendment is a gun safety provision which continues 
the instant check system before one purchases a gun. McCarthy says that 
if one wants to purchase a gun, we all follow the same rules. We are 
all subject to the same instant background check.
  The McCarthy amendment says, whether I purchase my gun at K-Mart or 
at the weekend gun show, I must be treated the same. I must follow the 
same instant check system. No exceptions, no excuses, no special 
treatment for people who purchase guns at gun shows.
  The McCarthy amendment does not take away any rights. It does not 
prevent the sale of any guns. It only requires that we all play by the 
same rules.
  Earlier tonight I offered an amendment in the motion to recommit on 
the juvenile justice bill that did not contain any gun provisions. I am 
not interested in, and I will not vote to take away your guns. I will 
not try to control your guns. I want to make sure that every gun 
purchaser is treated the same, and that is why I am going to vote for 
the McCarthy amendment. I will vote to make sure that all prospective 
gun purchasers must follow the same instant check system. No 
exceptions, no excuses, no special treatment.
  With so many gun owners and hunters in my district, the last vote and 
this vote are very tough votes for me politically. But I say to my 
colleagues, this is the right vote. I urge my colleagues to do the 
right thing. Vote for the McCarthy amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 4 minutes remaining; the 
gentlewoman from New York has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, we passed the Brady Bill 5 years ago, and 
it has worked. What we have tonight is a loophole that we must close in 
the Brady Bill, and the McCarthy-Roukema amendment will do that.
  I have a quote from a gun dealer, a gun dealer who said, and he was 
quoted in the newspaper, a criminal could come here to a gun show and 
go booth to booth until he finds an individual to sell him a gun with 
no questions asked, unquote.
  Mr. Chairman, it just makes no sense that any person can today walk 
into a gun show, make a purchase without any precautions whatsoever. 
Moreover, illegal purchasers know, they know that they can go to a gun 
show without worrying about being denied a purchase. We have some 
statistics.
  An Illinois State Police study demonstrated that 25 percent of 
illegally trafficked firearms used in crimes

[[Page H4601]]

originate at gun shows. Ironically, in Florida, an inmate escaping from 
detention stopped at a gun show to make a purchase while fleeing law 
enforcement authorities. No background check, no waiting period. Let us 
close that loophole to make our country safer for all citizenry.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, on August 2 in 1876, Jack McCall walked into 
saloon number 10 in Deadwood, South Dakota, and brutally murdered Wild 
Bill Hickok. Now, if there had been background checks at the time, they 
probably would have discovered that Jack McCall was a pretty unsavory 
character. But I do not think it would have prevented him from getting 
the gun with which he committed the murder, because he had criminal 
intent.
  Well, that was the wild, wild West. This is the 1990s. Times have 
changed. We have background checks, but some things have not changed.

                              {time}  1240

  Bad people do bad things. Criminals will get guns. That is fact 
number one.
  Fact number two is accidents happen.
  Fact number three is Congress cannot change fact number one or fact 
number two.
  I grew up in a culture in my State of South Dakota where at the age 
of 12 I started hunting and learned the responsible use of firearms. I, 
too, have young children, 12 and 9 years old. I am profoundly and 
personally committed to see that the things that happened in Littleton, 
Colorado, do not happen in my home State of South Dakota or anywhere 
else in America.
  But I have to tell the Members, I think for people here this evening, 
gun shows are getting a bad name. I don't know how many have ever been 
to a gun show. I would like to see a show of hands. They are normal 
people. They are not villains. They are people like the Members and me. 
They go there because they are collectors, they are law-abiding 
citizens.
  What we are trying to do here tonight is to make sure we protect the 
rights of law-biding citizens and crack down on criminals. We had an 
opportunity to vote on legislation earlier today that would do that.
  We are addressing the cultural influences that are impacting this 
issue, but we should not go so far as to prevent law-abiding citizens 
from having access to firearms. We cannot take every gun, every knife, 
every nail, every propane tank, and every potential weapon away from 
every person in America because we are afraid that somewhere, somehow, 
someone is going to get hurt.
  This is not the answer. More laws are not the answer. The answers are 
found in the human heart. They are found in the American home. They are 
found in the pews of our churches and around dinner tables at night. 
They are found in the choices that we make and the priorities we set 
and the value that we place on our children.
  Until we realize that, we are going to pass a lot of legislative 
chaff designed to stuff the void that must be filled with love, values, 
and personal responsibility.
  I urge Members to vote no on this amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding time 
to me.
  I stand with the major police organizations of the United States of 
America for America's children. That is where I stand. That is where I 
stand.
  How many children are still alive because of safety caps on medicine 
bottles? How many children are still alive because of childproof 
cigarette lighters? Is this government intervention? No, it saves 
lives. That is what it is all about.
  I urge my colleagues to see through the myths, put aside the partisan 
rhetoric, and do what is right: Vote for the McCarthy amendment. That 
is what we should be doing.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, all of the materials we are looking at this evening, 
the underlying bill, H.R. 2122, the Dingell amendment, the McCarthy 
amendment, all collectively apparently have some sort of broad support 
for the prospect that we need a background check and a waiting period. 
What we are arguing about here is time, the amount of time for that.
  We all apparently agree on the purpose of that, is to keep guns out 
of the hands of the wrong people, because 17,000 of those wrong people 
presumably would have gotten their hands on guns if we in fact had the 
Dingell resolution as law, because that is what the statistics and the 
facts tell us, that that many people, with the Dingell provision in 
effect, still would have been felons, the wrong kind of people, who 
would have gotten guns.
  We can presume that if they went in under the Dingell provision and 
bought that gun on a Saturday or Friday night, the background check of 
24 hours would not have been effective, and they would have been out 
there with their gun causing damage.
  In 1996, 4,643 young people were injured and 2,866 were murdered. We 
can presume that some of them might have been in that circumstance, and 
we ought to not worry about a little inconvenience, we ought to worry 
about the comments this brave women and the other people in America are 
saying, protect our children.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy 
amendment that might have saved the lives of Officers Gibson and 
Chestnut.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich.)
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Dakota just 
moments ago said two things that I agree with regarding gun shows. 
Number one, most people involved in gun shows are law-abiding citizens. 
I think that is true. Number two, he said that criminals can always get 
guns. He is right about that, they can go to gun shows to get guns.
  In fact, 54,000 guns were confiscated last year in crimes that came 
from gun shows, in the 5,200 gun shows we had across the country. The 
reason is very simple, the Brady law that simply asks whether or not 
you are a convicted felon or that you are a proscribed person under the 
law, they want to find out whether you have violated the law, we do a 
background check. The Brady law has worked. Four hundred thousand 
criminals have not gotten guns. We want to apply that to gun shows and 
ask the same questions.
  It is not against hunters, it is not against law-abiding citizens, it 
is not against NRA members, unless you are a criminal. That is what 
this is all about.
  Let us close this loophole. Under the previous amendment, nine 
vendors can get together and sell thousands of guns, literally, with no 
questions asked.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the pending 
amendment because I simply cannot understand how a House of people who 
are willing to wait 4 days for dry cleaning cannot wait for a gun.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would request all Members not to embellish 
simple unanimous consent requests.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the McCarthy-Roukema 
amendment to save America's children.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for this House to come together on a 
bipartisan basis and do

[[Page H4602]]

what the parents of America expect us to do, what they have hoped we 
would do since the moment a high school in Colorado became a killing 
field.
  We are charged by the friends and neighbors and parents who elected 
us to this chamber to protect this nation's children.
  Some people in America, and in this Chamber, would have us enact 
stronger measures than those embodied in this amendment.
  But these are the gun child safety measures the Senate was able to 
approve. Let us at least do this much, pass what the Senate agreed 
upon.
  If we do this much, we will not only take a step toward meeting our 
obligation to the parents of this nation. By making these protections 
the law of the land, we will also be making history.
  We will make history when we listen to the parents of America and 
prefer the safety of children over the special interests, teeming in 
the Capitol and fighting against sensible gun safety measures.
  Can't we do this much for the mothers and fathers of our country?
  As a mother of two school-aged children, I understand the depth of 
feeling of other parents. When my kids, or yours, go off to school, we 
don't want to think, even for a moment, that we might never see them 
again, because some boy brought a semi-automatic to class and opened 
fire. We know all too well, because of what happened in schools from 
Colorado, to Kentucky, to Oregon, that this is no exaggeration.
  I'm the first to concede that these common sense gun measures are not 
the whole answer. But they can and will make a difference.
  We know that if the boys who murdered those students in Colorado had 
not been able to obtain the weapons they did, the slaughter would not 
have happened.
  For every law there will be violators. No system is perfect. But we 
know that the existing Brady bill has kept thousands and thousands of 
ineligible persons from purchasing weapons--it stopped felons from 
purchasing or possessing such instruments of destruction.
  If we can decrease the number of guns available to troubled kids, it 
can only help.
  For those who say it's not worth it, unless it's 100%, ask yourself, 
would you feel that way if it was your teenager who came face to face 
with a disturbed man with a gun bought at a gun show and loaded up with 
a high capacity clip? If you could prevent that, wouldn't you do it?
  Next Sunday is Father's Day. I can't help but think tonight about the 
teacher, a father, who escorted students to safety at the cost of his 
life in the Columbine Massacre. I can't help but think of the mothers 
and fathers who learned later that day that the son or daughter they 
loved more than life itself had been killed that day.
  While some of us may celebrate Father's Day this weekend, others will 
most certainly not celebrate, because they hurt so badly.
  Before we leave these chambers this Father's Day weekend, let us give 
our friends and neighbors who sent us here something that says this 
tragic loss of life, of young and old, was not in vain.
  Let us make these moderate, common-sense gun safety measures the law 
of the land.
  Then let us return to our districts with pride that we have made a 
good start on a difficult problem.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (4th District). This amendment will require 
individuals who wish to purchase a firearm at a gun show to submit to a 
background check before they are able to complete their gun purchase, 
thus extending additional oversight to Public Law Number 103-159, the 
Brady Act.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a teacher, we never had to worry about kids 
bringing guns into schools, and it shouldn't be happening today. We 
must keep guns out of the hands of our children. A background check 
provides one more means to protect our children from the irresponsible 
use of firearms. Our youth must be taught that guns are dangerous and 
that inappropriate or unsafe use of them has consequences. We must 
ensure that it is not possible for our youth to buy a gun illegally, 
nor use a gun without the supervision of their parents.
  Most law-abiding gun buyers are not inconvenienced by the current 3-
day approval period at gun stores or at gun shows. The FBI's Brady 
Instant Check System is up and running 7 days a week, and about 73% of 
background checks on potential gun buyers result in an immediate 
response by the FBI that the sale may proceed. For every 100 requests 
for background checks on potential gun purchases, 95 are answered 
within 2 hours. This amendment does not seek to prevent responsible 
adults from purchasing guns for sports, or for personal protection. 
This amendment would guarantee no sale to those who should not be 
approved. It will reduce the incidence of youngsters obtaining 
firearms. It will help ensure that guns do not get into the hands of 
criminals or into the hands of unsupervised youth. The American people 
support these provisions to require background checks for gun purchases 
made at gun shows, pawn shops, or flea markets by an overwhelming 77%. 
This support is solid in rural, suburban, and metropolitan areas across 
our nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe safe schools are too important. I support 
this amendment and also the Democratic substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. I 
urge my colleagues will join me in supporting these amendments to 
protect our children and reduce gun violence in America. Thank you.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
McCarthy amendment and supporting the Conyers, taking the guns out of 
the hands of criminals.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McCarthy 
amendment, and commend the gentlewoman for her extraordinary 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the McCarthy 
amendment that will prevent gun violence, save the lives of our 
children, and protect the safety of our families and communities. The 
tragic shootings in Littleton, Colorado have provided Congress with a 
renewed opportunity to achieve these goals. In response, the other 
chamber approved gun control legislation that would require gun safety 
locks, ban importation of high-capacity ammunition clips, and require 
gun show background checks. While Congress should go farther, these 
changes represent real progress. At the very least, House action should 
match this progress and pass these measures to strengthen our gun 
control laws.
  Unfortunately, we debated some amendments that undermine progress and 
some that would inexcusably weaken existing gun control laws. The 
Dingell gun show amendment weakens current law by reducing the maximum 
time allocated for background checks by licensed dealers operating at 
gun shows from three business days to 24 hours. If this shorter waiting 
period becomes law, the Justice Department reports that of those now 
denied guns, 40 percent would obtain a gun. For Saturday background 
checks, this 24 hour rule would preclude 60 percent of current denials. 
Let's not pass laws that encourage convicted felons to purchase guns on 
Saturdays and which reduce Saturday background check denial rates 60 
percent.
  The impact of easy access to guns is devastating. According to the 
Children's Defense Fund, each and every day gunfire in America takes 
the lives of nearly 13 children. In 1996, gunfire killed 4,643 infants, 
children, and teens. Between 1979 and 1996, firearms wounded 375,000 
children and teens and killed more than 75,000. We must take action to 
protect our children.
  When adults have easy access to guns, access by children often 
follows. This access to firearms, heightens the real problems of our 
adolescents and youth violence. It is important to note that guns 
remain the most common method of suicide for children. Guns bring 
finality to violence and increase its deadly toll.
  The NRA claims America has too many gun laws and existing laws are 
not enforced. They are wrong. Gun control laws are enforced. Today's 
USA Today reports that enforcement of the Brady gun control law has 
blocked the sale of more than 400,000 illegal gun sales.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy amendment. 
Gun control laws are not problem. The problem is gun control loopholes. 
Let's close the loopholes.
  In closing, I wish to thank Congresswoman McCarthy for her 
extraordinary leadership to save the lives of America's children.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)

[[Page H4603]]

  Mrs. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to save America's children.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the women who love 
their children, I rise in support of the McCarthy amendment.
  I rise, Mr. Chairman, to express my support to the passage of the 
McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich Amendment to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun 
Show Background Check Act.
  The McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich Amendment ensures complete and 
accurate background checks at gun shows. The gun show loophole which 
currently exists makes firearms immediately accessible to children, 
convicted felons, and others who are not legally able to purchase 
firearms under The Gun Control Act of 1968. This loophole is 
unacceptable if we intend to protect the personal safety of our 
children and loves ones.
  The McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich Amendment requires a three business 
day period, rather than 72 hours, to complete Brady Law instant 
background checks. Three business days enable thorough background 
checks with minimum inconvenience to the purchaser. Because most gun 
shows take place during the weekend, when state and local courts are 
closed, 72 hours is not a sufficient amount of time to check records 
for convictions. However, even with the three day waiting period, 73% 
of all background checks are completed instantly and 95% of purchasers 
are accepted or rejected within 2 hours. Only 5% of cases are delayed 
for more than two hours.
  This amendment does not target or disadvantage law-abiding gun 
owners. Rather, it simply imposes the same requirements on guns shows 
as gun stores. Sales records from guns shows would be maintained in the 
same way they are at gun stores. These records would not function to 
monitor gun owners already protected by their 2nd amendment rights, but 
would instead help police trace guns used in crimes.
  Gun owners and law-abiding purchasers are further protected by the 
amendment's requirement that all records of approved transfers be 
destroyed within 90 days, except those retained for audit purposes. The 
McCarthy-Roukema-Blagojevich Amendment forbids the FBI from using the 
instant check system records to create a registry of gun owners. Even 
the tightened gun show definition, where 50 or more guns are being sold 
by 2 of or more sellers, provides an individual the freedom to sell 
guns at a yard sale without being considered a gun show.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy-Roukema-
Blagojevich Amendment to H.R. 2122. Legislation which fails to seal the 
gun show loophole is useless. This important amendment will prevent 
many small and large scale tragedies while simultaneously preserving 
our 2nd Amendment rights.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the McCarthy 
amendment to save the lives of children and take the guns out of the 
hands of criminals.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
McCarthy-Roukema amendment, in support of real gun safety for our 
children.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy-
Roukema-Blagojevich amendment and the Conyers-Campbell amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy-Roukema 
amendment, the Conyers-Campbell amendment, and to stop the killing of 
our children.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  (Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the McCarthy-
Roukema amendment to save our children.

                          ____________________