[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 87 (Friday, June 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4619-H4647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MANDATORY GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECK ACT

  The SPEAKER. 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 further consideration of the bill, H.R. 
2122.

                              {time}  0903


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the legislative 
day of Thursday, June 17, 1999, a request for a recorded vote on 
amendment number 5 printed in Part B of House Report 106-186 by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) had been postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in Part B 
of House report 106-186.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. 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. 6 offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

                    TITLE ____--CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY

     SEC. ____1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Safe Handgun Storage and 
     Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999''.

     SEC. ____2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are as follows:
       (1) To promote the safe storage and use of handguns by 
     consumers.
       (2) To prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to 
     or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in 
     possession of a handgun, unless it is under one of the 
     circumstances provided for in the Youth Handgun Safety Act.
       (3) To avoid hindering industry from supplying law abiding 
     citizens firearms for all lawful purposes, including hunting, 
     self-defense, collecting and competitive or recreational 
     shooting.

     SEC. ____3. FIREARMS SAFETY.

       (a) Unlawful Acts.--
       (1) Mandatory transfer of secure gun storage or safety 
     device.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:
       ``(z) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.--

[[Page H4620]]

       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed 
     importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer 
     any handgun to any person other than any person licensed 
     under the provisions of this chapter, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device, as 
     described in section 921(a)(34), for that handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the--
       ``(A)(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, 
     the United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(B) transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer 
     employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a 
     police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for 
     purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
       ``(C) transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio 
     or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or
       ``(D) transfer to any person of a handgun for which a 
     secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily 
     unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions 
     stated in section 923(e): Provided, That the licensed 
     manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers 
     to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of 
     the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun 
     storage or safety device for the handgun.
       ``(3) Liability for use.--(A) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and 
     control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or 
     safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity 
     from a civil liability action as described in this paragraph.
       ``(B) Prospective actions.--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 
     subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or 
     unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, where--
       ``(i) the handgun was accessed by another person who did 
     not have the permission or authorization of the person having 
     lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access 
     to it; and
       ``(ii) at the time access was gained by the person not so 
     authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a 
     secure gun storage or safety device.

     A `qualified civil liability action' shall not include an 
     action brought against the person having lawful possession 
     and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or 
     negligence per se.''.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating To Secure Gun Storage or Safety 
     Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or 
     licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend for up to six months, or revoke, the license 
     issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to 
     conduct the firearms transfer; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $2,500.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
       (c) Modification of Definition of Secure Gun Storage or 
     Safety Device.--Section 921(a)(34) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) a device that is easily removable from a firearm and 
     that, if removed from a firearm, is designed to prevent the 
     discharge of the firearm by any person who does not have 
     access to the device.''.
       (d) Liability; Evidence.--
       (1) Liability.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     to--
       (A) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms 
     licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or
       (B) establish any standard of care.
       (2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
     amendments made by this title shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 922(z), or to give effect 
     to paragraph (3) of section 922(z).
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty 
     under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a 
     failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we traverse this very controversial mine field of 
gun control legislation, I want to make sure we do not lose sight of 
who this bill is designed to protect. The simple and common-sense focus 
of my amendment is on preventing children from becoming the intentional 
or accidental victims of domestic handgun violence.
  According to the National Center for Health Statistics, each year 
nearly 500 children are killed in gun-related accidents. I remember 
last year going to a joint Eagle Scout ceremony. One of the boys had 
died and was given posthumously his Eagle Scout award, and he had been 
killed by a handgun that had gone off while playing with a friend at a 
friend's house.
  Approximately 1,500 children commit suicide with guns, 500 are killed 
in gun-related accidents and 5,000 are hospitalized with nonfatal 
gunshot wounds.
  Additionally, some 7,000 juveniles use guns found in their homes to 
commit crimes each year. These crimes are unacceptably high and 
constitute a significant public health threat that has to be addressed.
  The fact is that children are inquisitive and adept at finding those 
things in the house that are dangerous. These dangers can vary from 
household products to prescription medicines and even guns. Now, we 
have put child safety caps on medicine, we have encouraged parents to 
lock up household chemicals, but gun safety in the home has been 
lacking.
  In a 1995 study, the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 
found that children as young as 3 are strong enough to fire most 
commercially available handguns. Having three children of my own, I can 
testify to the difficulty of telling a 3-year-old not to play with 
something.
  This amendment addresses the issue of minimum handgun safety 
standards by requiring that every handgun sold has to include safe 
handgun storage or an individual safety device.
  I have the enviable task today of offering an amendment that has 
received strong support from almost every group that has weighed in on 
this debate. In a few minutes, this House will be addressed by 
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and rural and 
urban Members who all will support this amendment. The mandatory 
transfer of safety devices has received equally strong support from 
groups outside the Congress as varied as Handgun Control and a 
coalition of 35 gun manufacturers. Even the National Rifle Association 
has said, ``We support and encourage the distribution, development and 
use of safety locks, gun safes or any voluntary means necessary and 
appropriate to keep firearms away from or inoperable by those who 
should not have them.''
  This amendment does precisely that by mandating the transfer of a 
secure gun storage or safety device while not mandating their use.
  It is estimated that today in the United States there are nearly 100 
million privately owned firearms that are stored unlocked. Of those, 
approximately 22 million are handguns that are kept loaded and 
unlocked. Alarmingly, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that 24 
percent of children ages 10 to 17 can find and gain access to a firearm 
in their home. And 1.2 million elementary age schoolchildren return to 
a home where no adult is present and there is at least one firearm.
  I would like to address a concern that a number of gun owners have 
raised. Some have claimed that using one of these devices will defeat 
the purpose of keeping a handgun in the house for self-defense by 
hindering access to the firearm when it is most needed. It is important 
to keep in mind that this amendment does not mandate use; that is still 
the choice of the gun owner. Even if the safety device is used, most 
can be removed from the gun in a matter of seconds which, as Gun Test 
magazine explains, conveniently preserves access to guns for self-
protection.

[[Page H4621]]

  In addition, always keeping guns loaded for self-defense may be self-
defeating. It is estimated that a gun in the home is 43 times more 
likely to kill a family member than to kill in self-defense.
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, the amendment also establishes criteria 
for the liability of a gun owner should his or her handgun be used in 
an unlawful act. Over the past several days, my office has been deluged 
by calls from other Members' offices regarding this issue of liability. 
Immunity from liability is granted to any individual who lawfully owns 
a handgun and who uses a secured gun storage or safety device with the 
handgun. Additionally, the gun owner is not liable if the handgun was 
accessed by another person without the authorization of the lawful 
owner.
  And finally immunity from liability is also extended if at the time 
that the gun was accessed it was rendered inoperable by the use of a 
secure gun storage or safety device.
  My intent in this amendment is that the liability provisions are 
specifically targeted to gun owners who have a reasonable expectation 
of having a child in their home.
  This amendment does not try to limit or address who can purchase a 
handgun. It does not try to dictate the type or use of a handgun, and 
it certainly does not try to limit the right of any legal adult from 
purchasing a handgun.
  In 1968, the Federal Government mandated that every car sold in 
America had to be equipped with seat belts. Finally, in 1999, we can do 
the same for handguns. I urge every Member to support this very common-
sense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition for debate purposes, although I support 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), my good friend and colleague. 
This amendment is a simple gun safety provision that will save the 
lives of numerous victims of gun violence each year.
  Mr. Chairman, 13 children in this country die every day because of 
gun violence, far, far more than have died in Bosnia and Kosovo. We 
require childproof locks on aspirin bottles. It is absurd that we do 
not require child safety devices on handguns. I applaud my colleague 
for clarifying the definition of gun safety devices to ensure that it 
incorporates new devices such as the safety hammer, which is not a 
lock, but an integral part of a gun that can be removed to prevent 
unauthorized use.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment may not prevent every incident of gun 
violence, but it will save lives and it will make the children of 
America safer.
  Child safety locks and other devices can reduce the unauthorized use 
of handguns by children at play or by teens looking to commit crimes. 
Many youth look no further than their own homes to get their hands on a 
gun. It is estimated that a third of all privately owned handguns are 
loaded and unlocked. Sixteen States have already passed child safety 
laws. Every year, many children are fatally injured when a child finds 
a loaded pistol, removes the ammunition magazine, and then mistakenly 
believing the gun to be empty, fires a bullet at his or her head or the 
head of a playmate. A magazine disconnect safety, a 50-cent device, 
could prevent such tragedies.
  Just to give some examples: In Florida in 1999, an 11-year-old boy 
got angry with his 13-year-old sister. He went to a closet at home, 
took out a gun his parents kept there, and killed his sister. The gun 
was in an unlocked box and was next to the ammunition and had no 
trigger guard.
  In Tennessee, in May of 1998, a 5-year-old boy found a loaded gun on 
his grandfather's dresser and carried it to school threatening to kill 
his teacher and classmates. In Cleveland in 1996, a 13-year-old boy 
took his father's unsecured handgun and killed himself while playing 
Russian roulette. The city prosecutor brought charges against the boy's 
father for violating the city ordinance that prohibits minors from 
having access to a gun.
  The language that we have before us is similar to that that passed 
the Senate. It passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 20. 
This House should do the same thing. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment may not prevent every incident of gun 
violence, but it will save lives, and it will make our children safer.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding me this time. I want to strongly support this amendment. I 
think all of us understand the dangers of a handgun in the hands of a 
child; and a child safety lock, which is essentially what this is, a 
safety lock actually for anybody, being mandated to be produced and 
sold and given away actually in this case with any gun that is sold by 
a gun dealer is a really good idea and, in this case, one that I think 
is extremely beneficial.
  This amendment allows firearms owners to decide when it is best to 
use these devices in light of their own personal circumstances. But the 
amendment makes it convenient for owners to use the devices by ensuring 
that every firearm purchased will come with one of them. I note today 
that 90 percent of dealers voluntarily provide a safety device when a 
firearm is purchased, and I applaud this sense of responsibility on 
their part. And the amendment will take care of the remaining 10 
percent who do not provide such a device.
  Now, I would like to note that there has been some disagreement, 
argument or whatever, and I have a little disappointment over a 
misunderstanding regarding safety lock provisions that were in the bill 
I introduced, H.R. 2037. The bill that I introduced at that time, which 
is not here on the floor today and has nothing to do directly with the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), expanded 
the definition of a gun safety device to include a removable hammer or 
striker or device which, if removed, would prevent a firearm from 
working.
  I took this language from two Democratic Members of Congress, H.R. 
1342 introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. McCarthy) and S. 
716, a bill introduced by Senator Kohl in the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear it was never my intention that 
this provision be interpreted so that the hammer or some other part of 
an ordinary firearm would qualify as a gun safety device just because 
it could be removed if somebody worked at it. But the reality is, we 
now have firearms with devices that have been invented where one can 
literally remove a pin, for example, from that, carry it around on a 
key chain and put it back in when one wants.
  The way the law reads now, the base law, not anything that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is doing, a safety device has to be 
attached. It is something that is added, because that is the definition 
in the law, rather than something that can be removed from the gun.
  It strikes me that it is going to be an advance for the future and a 
convenience for everyone and a very safe thing to have guns that have 
these removable devices. Now, we may need to refine our definition more 
than some think this language did, that the two Democratic Members of 
Congress had proposed, that I had suggested earlier. But we do not want 
in the future to inhibit in any way the creativity of devices that 
would, indeed, be more convenient to use and, in fact, would be more 
likely to be used so that children are protected and others are 
protected from unintentional, dangerous uses of guns and firearms, 
because that is what we are all about here today.
  So, I applaud the gentleman from Virginia for this amendment. I 
strongly support it. It is the same language that is in the provisions 
in the other body that he is offering today. But I

[[Page H4622]]

would hope that in the future we could look to ways that we could amend 
the current law definition of a safety device for a handgun or gun so 
that we could be certain that we have the most advanced technology 
available to protect our children.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to manage the time 
controlled by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Davis amendment.
  The second amendment of the Constitution guarantees American citizens 
the right to keep and bear arms, and I believe we in Congress have a 
duty to protect that right. But I also believe that we have a duty to 
keep firearms out of the hands of children and dangerous criminals.
  This is not an issue of gun control, it is an issue of gun safety. 
This amendment simply requires that a secure gun storage or safety 
device be included with the sale of a handgun. It in no way infringes 
upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. In fact, 
it does not even require gun owners to use a safety device. If they 
want to, people can buy a handgun, take it home, stick the trigger lock 
that came with it in a drawer, and allow it to gather dust.
  But if a person wants to have a gun in their home to protect 
themselves, their families and their property, this simple trigger 
locking device will allow them to have a gun without fear that a child 
will find that gun and either accidentally or intentionally hurt 
themselves or others. This approach will provide parents with another 
way to keep their children safe, if they choose to use it. And I 
believe all of us are in favor of greater parental involvement in their 
children's lives.
  This is not an attempt to whittle away at the rights of gun owners. 
This is an effort to protect gun owners from being blamed for the 
actions of others who can gain access to their firearms without their 
knowledge. We have child safety locks on cigarette lighters in this 
country, yet people still smoke. We have safety caps on aspirin bottles 
yet people can still take aspirin responsibly. I submit that we can 
have trigger locks on guns, yet people will still have their 
constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
  Again, this is not gun control, it is gun safety.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Long Beach, California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Davis amendment. It is an 
excellent suggestion. The Senate adopted it; we should too.
  This amendment mandates the transfer of a safe gun storage or safety 
device with every sale or transfer of a handgun by a licensed dealer. 
It does not mandate this on private sales.
  Thirty-five gun manufacturers have pledged to start packing child 
safety devices with every firearm they sell. There is no mandate, as I 
say, to have these done between private purchasers. There are some just 
abhorrent statistics as to a need for this.
  The National Center for Health Statistics reports that each year 
approximately 1,500 children commit suicide with a firearm. Think of 
it. On average two children under the age of 17 are killed 
unintentionally by a handgun every day.
  This amendment is not about gun control. What it does is address a 
very serious public health and public safety issue. It is estimated 
that 11 percent of the juveniles who commit violent crimes with a 
firearm used a gun found in their own home. Think of what the parents 
will do when that accident happens. They will never forget it from that 
day to their death. And we need to have these locks because we need to 
protect the children of America. At least 55 percent of the handguns 
are stored unlocked; 34 percent are left unlocked and loaded. That is, 
of course, a very stupid parent, to say the least.
  Now, as I mentioned, the other body has adopted this language. We 
should adopt the Davis amendment. It is long overdue.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it 
looks like we just saw each other a few hours ago. But this is an 
important debate, and I have a great deal of respect for my friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  I know that we always say when it helps us, we will acknowledge that 
we went to the same law school, and when it does not, we will not. I 
thank him for his leadership on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain how we got to where we are. The 
early morning news reports, as I came to the floor this morning, 
announced that the National Rifle Association won. And for me, that was 
a sad day and a sad commentary, for I know how many of us worked long 
and hard to be able to announce this morning that the children of 
America won, the mothers of murdered children won, the fathers of 
murdered children won, the future children of America won.
  But tragically this morning we cannot say that. And in the darkness 
of night, last night, amendment No. 144 mysteriously slipped away from 
the floor of the House that prohibits a person who is less than 21 from 
purchasing a handgun. The proponent of that walked off the floor of the 
House and would not allow it even to be debated.
  Last night I heard that we are preserving the gun shows. I am so glad 
to be reeducated that a national treasure is America's gun shows, when 
I thought that life and saving life was what we were here to do. It is 
very interesting, as I look at the Davis amendment that I will 
ultimately support, but it saddens me because what happened last night 
was to implode, to implode on any reasonable support for gun safety and 
children's safety.
  The National Rifle Association and the gun owners of America knew 
what they were doing. They knew that they would be allowing 17,000 
criminals to get guns in their hands. They knew they were arguing 
against 400,000 people who were criminally inclined, who did not get 
guns because of the Brady bill. And they knew that they were trampling 
on the Constitution and the second amendment, because as I heard my 
colleague say this morning, this is gun safety, this Davis amendment. 
This is not violating the second amendment; this is not gun control.
  Those same arguments could have been used for the McCarthy amendment.
  I went to the Committee on Rules and I had the same amendment that 
the gentleman from Virginia had. Almost the same amendment, as did 
others, along with the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). I asked if 
Democrats and Republicans had similar legislation and initiatives, 
could we be joined together in a bipartisan manner. Sadly, that was not 
the response.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I come to support the Davis amendment. But, 
frankly, we will not have gun safety today and we will not have child 
safety. We will not save lives. We are not concerned about the 13 
children that die every day. And we will not have a full debate 
addressing the type of the tragedies that have happened of the urban 
centers where children have died from gun violence, where I worked on 
antigang measures some 10 years ago, where the State of Texas, known 
for its love of guns, passed a gun safety and responsibility law that 
was based on my ordinance that I wrote, that saw a 50 percent decrease 
in things like suicides and unintentional shootings by children. But 
what we have today is a farce.
  Mr. Chairman, I said last night and I will say it again, we have the 
acknowledgment of the gun lobby as an altar at which we worship. I, for 
one, Mr. Chairman, will not be part of this frivolity, this farce. And 
I agree with the President, they may have won last night or in the dark 
of night, in the early morning hours, but, Mr. Chairman, but I will not 
stand for this frivolity or this farce and will ultimately vote against 
this bill.
  I have never voted against a gun law in my life that had meaning and 
sense.

[[Page H4623]]

 And I hope that the National Rifle Association in my community hears 
that because they have already begun calling.
  So for those who say they are under the gun, we all are. They are in 
every one of our districts. But let me give an open letter to them 
right now:
  Dear National Rifle Association and national gun owners lobby, I 
respect your right to the second amendment. As we all do, we will fight 
to the death for your right to the freedom of your views. But I have 
mine and I would much rather stand alongside of that child who needs 
protection, and support strong gun safety, a real safety lock measure 
that was presented by myself, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald), as well the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), 
that provided standards.
  This is not the way to go. We need more responsible handling of this 
matter. This is a farce. This is sad. It is a sad day for America.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to hear that a bill that could come 
through could have juvenile possession of an assault weapon, have 
limitations on that, have a juvenile Brady law, clip bans, trigger 
locks, close some of the loopholes on gun bills, that it is not good 
enough, so a Member ends up defeating it and ends up voting with the 
National Rifle Association who would like to see the bill defeated. 
That is disappointing to me.
  If putting the gentlewoman's name on this amendment would get her 
vote, I would be honored to have my former law school classmate. She 
has been a champion on gun measures. But I would hope the gentlewoman 
would not put this in the partisan realm of stopping Congress from 
moving ahead, when we could pass this legislation which is better than 
what is on the books today and send it to a conference committee where 
maybe it could be improved.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman to think about that in 
terms of moving this legislation on, so we could go on, protecting our 
youth in this country.
  Defeating this bill does nothing. We walk away.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from 
Virginia knows, we have already established our admiration for his 
work, and I appreciate the offer. That amendment is one that I am going 
to support, the gentleman's amendment. And I thank him for the offer of 
my name on it. I know, in spirit, we will work together.
  Mr. Chairman, there is so much in this bill that argues against 
serious response to gun safety legislation that I would rather start 
all over again and begin this process, so that we can truly pass gun 
safety for our children. But I thank the gentleman very much.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem is you do not start the process over again. 
It has taken up the better part of a week here, and we have 
appropriations bills here. For Members who walk away from this at this 
point means walking away, not moving it to conference with the Senate 
and defeating every aspect of this, including trigger locks. I hope 
that my colleagues on the other side will reconsider.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella), who has been outspoken in her support of trigger locks 
and other child safety measures.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have very high regard for the work that my colleague 
from across the river in Virginia has offered, so I rise in strong 
support of the Davis amendment. Again, it is just common sense. It will 
protect children from causing unintended harm should they find a gun in 
their home.
  In 1995, 440 children died in unintentional shootings. Every day in 
this country at least one child is killed accidentally, and the numbers 
are increasing. Firearms are the fourth leading cause of accidental 
deaths among children 5 to 14 years of age.
  This Davis amendment will require that new handguns sold must also 
include a secure gun storage or safety device. That is common sense. 
Similar laws exist in 16 States, including my State of Maryland. We can 
put an end to heartrending stories of young children dying when they 
find an unsecured gun in the house.
  Incidentally, this amendment is supported by people on all sides of 
the issue, the Children's Defense Fund, Handgun Control, even the 
Senate. We have safety devices on cigarette lighters, medicine and 
other products. We should do the same for guns.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 5 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has the right to 
close.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, do we not have the right to close as 
defending the committee's position?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia would have the right to 
close. The time in opposition was first claimed by the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), who was not a member of the committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Did I not then ask unanimous consent to control the time 
and was that not agreed to?
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request that the gentlewoman from 
California control the time of the gentlewoman from New York did not 
include the right to close as a member of the committee. Therefore, the 
gentleman from Virginia currently has the right to close.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just refer the gentleman from Virginia 
to a few comments, if I may, and also say to him that I will be 
supporting this amendment because it is a modification of the Kohl 
amendment in the Senate and has a provision that adds a removable 
hammer safety device to it; and, obviously, having dealt with these 
issues for a number of years, realizing the tragedies that occur with 
children who have found guns unsecured, 4-year-olds, 6-year-olds, 15-
year-olds, I realize the importance of a safety device.
  At the same time, we offered an amendment, part of legislation that 
the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) filed and the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), that would in fact determine 
the standards of the various safety devices and provide an educational 
proponent that would allow the Attorney General to educate people about 
the problems lacking in gun storage and gun safety or gun safety locks.
  Might I make of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) an inquiry: 
Does this amendment, as I am looking through it, I do not see it, does 
this amendment provide standards for the device that we are suggesting 
that they utilize? Are there standards? For example, where the 
Secretary of the Treasury, similar to the Consumer Products Safety 
Commission, would develop regulations in the amendment that I offered 
in rules of child safety for firearms, that such regulations at a 
minimum set forth a minimum safety standard that such product meet in 
order to be manufactured, sold, transferred or delivered, consistent 
with the amendment?
  This is similar to child car seats. It is similar to aspirin bottles. 
It is similar to many products that we have, playground equipment. Do 
we have some standards in this amendment? As I review it, I do not see 
any standards at all.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we do have standards in the 
current law that make definition.
  It was not exactly the standards that the gentlewoman and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) put together. We 
went with the current law standards.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
the reason why the amendment, and if you can point me to the current 
law standard, they are obviously not sufficient inasmuch as we had an 
exhibition, if you will, of the various safety

[[Page H4624]]

locks that are now on the market, and the results of our exhibition was 
that a simple hammer that a child could access themselves to could 
easily split plastic safety locks.
  This amendment, of course, is a minimal response to the safety lock 
issue, but it will not deal with the fact that the products on the 
market are, at best, unsatisfactory and can be easily broken by a 
child.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield 
further, title 18, section 921, section 34, defines the standards. 
Those are defined. This language parallels the Senate language. At this 
point we are trying to find some congruity with our colleagues in the 
Senate.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will 
finish with this: That is the point, and that is the problem. 
Obviously, the Senate moved forward on a particular device. We offered 
that package here as a singular stand-alone amendment, but, at the same 
time, we recognize that the Senate went with the minimal provisions, 
that that provision does not, in fact, protect our children because 
those devices are without standards, and they are easily broken, 
accessed and rendered useless by any child who can get a hammer and 
break the plastic.
  In essence, what we are presenting, we could have offered a more 
extensive amendment that would have given us standards similar to the 
Consumer Products Safety Commission and as well we could have provided 
language, if you will, to provide education to the American public 
about gun safety and responsibility.
  I say that to the gentleman because he has questioned whether or not 
it would be more valuable to just stand and support gun safety that 
does not have any substance. I would argue and beg to differ with him.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I differ on this particular issue. I think a congruity 
between the Senate and House is very important, and I do not think we 
ought to let someone's definition of ``perfect'' be the enemy of the 
``pretty good.'' This is a pretty good advancement from where we sit 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to engage in 
a colloquy on behalf of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) with 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman's amendment 
includes language to alter the current definition of safety device. 
Specifically, the amendment modifies the definition by adding a new 
subparagraph which states, ``A device that is easily removable from a 
firearm and that, if removed from a firearm, is designed to prevent the 
discharge of the firearm by any person who does not have access to the 
device.''
  Saf-T-Hammer and other companies across the country are currently 
developing cutting-edge technology that provides gun owners added 
safety through a more easy-to-use device. This device renders the gun 
inoperable when the top of the hammer is removed.
  Is it the gentleman's understanding that the changes to the 
definition of safety device included in this amendment will provide 
greater clarification to include devices such as Saf-T-Hammer as 
``safety devices'' under Federal law?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
requesting this colloquy. I am happy to tell the gentleman that is 
exactly our intent, that safety devices such as the Saf-T-Hammer and 
other developing handgun safety technologies be included under the 
definition of a safety device in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the truth is this amendment is about public safety, not 
gun control. It is about protecting children, not about the second 
amendment. It is important to remember that nothing in this amendment 
changes the standards of who can own a gun or any type of gun they can 
own, it only limits the access that children have to their parents' 
guns.
  Despite the divisiveness of this bill and H.R. 1501 yesterday, this 
amendment enjoys both strong bipartisan and leadership support on both 
sides. I urge all Members concerned about the safety and the well-being 
of America's youth to vote ``yes'' on this common-sense amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the child safety lock amendment. This is truly a bipartisan 
amendment and as an original co-sponsor of child safety lock 
legislation in the 106th Congress, I would like to thank my friend and 
colleague from Virginia, Tom Davis, for introducing and supporting this 
amendment.
  This amendment mirrors language already passed in the Senate.
  The National Center for Health Statistics reports that each year more 
than 500 children under the age of 17 are killed unintentionally by a 
handgun.
  This amendment would allow gun owners to choose whether they use 
safety locks; The amendment simply requires that they buy one. Many of 
these locks can be used on loaded guns and can be disengaged in a 
matter of seconds which as Gun Tests magazine explains ``conveniently 
preserv[es] access to guns used in self-protection.''
  How can reasonable people be opposed to making these safety 
mechanisms available to gun owners when a gun in the home is 43 times 
more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-
defense?
  Many young violent criminals rely on guns found in their home to 
commit crimes. In fact, nearly 7,000 violent crimes each year are 
committed by juveniles with guns found in their home. The use of safety 
locks will restrict their access to these guns, and could also 
discourage the theft of guns that are locked up.
  Nobody pretends that child safety locks are a cure-all to the 
violence that afflicts our kids. But this amendment is an excellent 
step in the right direction to increase safety significantly. Child 
safety locks could prevent more than one-third of the deaths from gun-
related accidents, not to mention countless suicides and violent 
crimes.
  Automobiles are required to have seat belts. Aspirin bottles are 
required to have child-resistant packaging. Lighters are required to 
have child safety devices. It is time for the guns in American 
children's homes to have child safety locks. I urge you to support this 
amendment that will literally save children's lives.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 7 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-186.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 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. 7 offered by Mr. Cunningham:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

                  TITLE ____--COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT

     SEC. ____1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Community Protection Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. ____2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 
                   FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF 
                   CONCEALED FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law 
       enforcement officers

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any 
     State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who 
     is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying 
     the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a 
     concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in 
     interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
       ``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or 
     limit the laws of any State that--

[[Page H4625]]

       ``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or 
     restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their 
     property; or
       ``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on 
     any State or local government property, installation, 
     building, base, or park.
       ``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law 
     enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental 
     agency who--
       ``(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or 
     the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, 
     and has statutory powers of arrest;
       ``(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
       ``(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the 
     agency; and
       ``(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency 
     which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of 
     a firearm.
       ``(d) The identification required by this subsection is the 
     official badge and photographic identification issued by the 
     governmental agency for which the individual is, or was, 
     employed as a law enforcement officer.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 926A the following:

``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement 
              officers.''.

     SEC. ____3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE 
                   CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified 
       retired law enforcement officers

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any 
     State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who 
     is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is 
     carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may 
     carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or 
     transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or 
     limit the laws of any State that--
       ``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or 
     restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their 
     property; or
       ``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on 
     any State or local government property, installation, 
     building, base, or park.
       ``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired 
     law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
       ``(1) retired in good standing from service with a public 
     agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons 
     of mental instability;
       ``(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to 
     engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, 
     investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any 
     person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of 
     arrest;
       ``(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as 
     a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 5 years or 
     more; or
       ``(B) retired from service with such agency, after 
     completing any applicable probationary period of such 
     service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined 
     by such agency;
       ``(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the 
     retirement plan of the agency;
       ``(5) during the most recent 12-month period or, if the 
     agency requires active duty officers to do so with lesser 
     frequency than every 12 months, during such most recent 
     period as the agency requires with respect to active duty 
     officers, has completed, at the expense of the individual, a 
     program approved by the State for training or qualification 
     in the use of firearms; and
       ``(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a 
     firearm.
       ``(d) The identification required by this subsection is 
     photographic identification issued by the State in which the 
     agency for which the individual was employed as a law 
     enforcement officer is located.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is further amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 926B the following:

``926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law 
              enforcement officers.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 
to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday, I called the Fraternal Order of Police and 
the Capitol Hill Police, and they are excited about this amendment. 
This amendment is opposed by no police organization. As a matter of 
fact, it is strongly supported by most every police organization in the 
United States.
  This amendment will allow thousands of equipped, trained and 
certified officers to continually serve and protect our communities, 
regardless of jurisdiction, at no cost to taxpayers.
  This amendment is endorsed by more than 75 law enforcement 
organizations, including the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, 
Fraternal Order of Police, National Troopers Coalition, National 
Association of Police Organizations, Fraternal Brotherhood of Police 
Officers and our Capitol Hill Police.
  This is an amendment where you can say, ``this is something I stand 
for.'' It allows policemen, once they retire, to protect themselves and 
their families. Too often our police have to arrest some of these 
people that we talk about that commit crimes with weapons. This 
amendment allows them to protect their family from those criminals.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) will control 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a bill very similar to this that went through 
committee that had these provisions. It also had other provisions that, 
frankly, we focused on and objected to. This bill does not contain the 
more objectionable provisions that, frankly, would have allowed 
mandatory reciprocity of concealed weapons laws, so if you have a 
concealed weapon in one State, you can take it to any other State, 
notwithstanding their laws.
  We focused on that provision because it really blew a hole in the 
ability of States to maintain their own concealed weapons laws and did 
not focus as much on this provision that had not been as controversial.
  I would have preferred that this bill had gone through the regular 
legislative process. It is probably okay. You will probably find that 
the police officers that would take advantage of this are not the ones 
committing crimes, and there would be no problem. But we have a 
situation here where we are essentially overriding State laws. The 
State will have to accept concealed weapons from out-of-State, and I am 
not sure that is a good idea, and we have not had an opportunity this 
year to focus on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Brady Bill. I voted for the ban on 
semiautomatic weapons. Like many Members, I have tried, and we tried, 
to do the right thing.
  Quite frankly, enough is enough. Guns are a two-edged sword. 
Dangerous, indeed. But let me say to the House today, the number one 
preventer of crime in America is that gun. Educated, qualified, 
knowledgeable safety procedures. The gun, a foe, yes, but the gun, a 
great friend.
  At 2 o'clock in the morning, with an intruder with a weapon holding 
it on your family, you can call 911, you can call every police 
department in the world, and you are at their mercy.
  So, be careful, Congress. This amendment makes sense. Police officers 
are trained, they are qualified, they are schooled, and it does not 
cost America one penny to increase the ranks of this safety force.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I will vote to support this amendment. I 
think, as my colleague from Virginia has pointed out, this would have 
been better had we had an opportunity to go through the legislative 
process, to hear from the States, and to really thoroughly hash this 
out. However, I do think that this is worthy of bipartisan support and 
plan to vote for it.
  However, I must observe that, as my colleague from Ohio mentioned 2

[[Page H4626]]

o'clock in the morning, intruders and the need for protection, I think 
back to 2 o'clock this morning, when, in the dark of night, this House 
really failed the mothers and fathers of America, in my judgment, 
failed to enact common-sense gun safety measures that the country 
demands.
  While I support this measure, I must note that it is not the answer 
that America seeks to the tragedy of children and gun violence.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I very strongly support this amendment. 
Law enforcement officers all over this country, active duty and 
retired, put their lives at risk every day defending us, corrections 
officers, police officers, sheriff's deputies everywhere. In doing so, 
they are obviously going to incur the wrath of a lot of folks. There 
are people who want to get them because they have done that, people who 
would harm them or their families, whether they are on active duty or 
have retired.
  This measure allows a police officer on active duty, fully qualified, 
as long as he has no disciplinary action pending and meets the 
standards of qualification of his agency, to carry a concealed weapon 
into any other State, wherever he travels, to protect himself or his 
family.
  It also allows the retired police officer, as long as that police 
officer is qualified, has served more than at least 5 years or more as 
an active police officer, and during the most recent 12-month period of 
time has gone through compliance with the firearms qualifications 
standard of the active officers of his agency of the government, it 
allows the retired officer under those circumstances in good standing 
to also carry concealed weapons across State lines to protect 
themselves and their family.
  This is extremely important to the police. I can guarantee you every 
police organization I have talked to as chairman of this subcommittee 
for several years has advocated this, every corrections group, every 
Sheriff's group. The reason for it is very obvious, because of the need 
to protect themselves and their families after they have retired, as 
well as during active duty.
  So I think we owe it to our Nation's law enforcement community to 
pass this provision. It is long overdue. We have struggled to get it 
out here on the floor.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is to be congratulated 
for all of his efforts, and so are the other Members who have sponsored 
this, as a number of us have worked for a long time to make this 
happen. Let us pass it today and do everything we can to make sure it 
goes to the President for his signature.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I thank the combined proponents of this legislation.
  I would like to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), that we had hearings on this and we would have, I 
think, preferred to have at least the responses from the 50 States on 
this issue.
  But I do want to note that this does, in particular for those who may 
be concerned, serve to help public safety officers or security 
personnel, particularly those officers, of course, who do not have a 
history of criminal activity or suffer from a mental disability or are 
under a disciplinary action who will not qualify.
  I think it is important to note that, although the example was used 
about what police officers may do in the dark of night, I think it is 
important that these officers are on call 24 hours a day, even though 
they are not at the time full-time duty or retired, and many times are 
called into service. So I think it is important that we allow this to 
occur.
  I would also add tragically that we have compounded the lack of 
safety that they will be facing inasmuch as this House again passed a 
measure last evening that just opens the floodgates of guns into the 
streets of America by the Dingell amendment and by not voting for the 
McCarthy gun-show-closing loophole amendment.
  So, hopefully, we will not have gun battles in the street, where 
people are having to draw at every moment because of the fact that 
officers would now be in more jeopardy because of the rampage of guns 
on the street.
  Let me simply close with an example that evidences what I am speaking 
of.
  First of all, the gun show loophole that we did not close will allow 
individuals in 24 hours to get guns, which will not allow law 
enforcement officers to be able to have a sufficient time to check 
their criminal records.
  An ATF officer spent nearly 2 hours with me explaining about their 
undercover work. They indicated to me they were able to buy a gun on 
the street of a western State out of the back of a station wagon where 
the seller said, ``What are you going to do with this?'' The buyer 
said, ``I am going to the East Coast to an East Coast State and kill a 
law enforcement officer.'' The seller then said, ``Let me give you a 
silencer and, when you get caught, do not mention my name.''
  That is the gun show that will not be protected by the Dingell 
amendment. So maybe we do need to pass this amendment without the fact 
of a full hearing and markup because our officers are going to be 
placed in more jeopardy wherever they go and will be called upon to 
provide security for their communities, whether they are full-time 
officers or retired.
  It is a shame on America, it is a shame on us as we allow children to 
go into gun shows without supervision. It is a shame on us, it is a 
shame on this House. I would imagine that they are saying pox on all of 
us.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their very good amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, our national security depends, as everyone 
knows, almost 100 percent on our Armed Forces. Our Armed Forces depend 
to a great measure on reserves. Everyone knows that in each conflict in 
which we were personally involved as Members of Congress, the reserve 
components of our armed services played a key role in the military 
action ordered by the President of the United States.
  So it is with this piece of legislation. It creates a body of 
reserves in our domestic security apparatus with retired and off-duty 
policemen that augment the safety measures that the normal law 
enforcement agencies carry on every single day.
  If we look upon it as that extra measure of citizenry involved in our 
public safety, then we should have no difficulty in receiving an 
overwhelming vote in favor of our reserve component in domestic 
security.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan).
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase public safety by adding 
qualified law enforcement personnel to our street and to our 
neighborhoods. It will also enhance the safety of law enforcement 
officers and their families while increasing the number of officers we 
stand ready to protect the public.
  This amendment has broad support from the law enforcement community, 
including the National Association of Police Organizations. NAPO 
represents 22,000 sworn law enforcement officers and has been a long-
time advocate of pursuing the ability for police to carry their guns 
across State lines.
  Mr. Chairman, as we seek innovative ways to make our community safer, 
this amendment offers an added measure of protection for all of us, 
without spending tax dollars. I thank the gentleman from California for 
his leadership on this.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am appalled this morning that we would 
be making more guns available in the wake of Columbine which brought us 
here to restrict gun availability.
  I think that this is a not-well-thought-out provision. I can see all 
kind of shootouts between officers who are from another State being 
shot by officers who have no idea who these people are that have tried 
to use a weapon. So for us to think that this

[[Page H4627]]

provides any added security to a policeman or to the community is, I 
think, shear nonsense. I am totally disappointed that this conversation 
could be moving in this kind of direction.
  The fact of the matter is that this would create more problems, far 
more problems, than it would ever resolve. We have not had hearings on 
it. It overrides all the State laws. Besides, any officer from another 
State need only contact the police jurisdiction to get permission to 
bring his weapon into the State. That is not too hard for him to do.
  So much for all of these imaginative hypotheticals about what happens 
at 2 a.m. and how much more secure you will be from some unknown person 
carrying a gun. Carrying a gun into a community from out of State I 
think really begs the question. I hope we will think carefully about 
the dangers that are being introduced as we violate the gun laws of 
every single State in the union by trying to bring this poorly-thought-
out amendment to the floor at this time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the ranking member, and 
I have great respect for him. I think to mischaracterize my remarks 
about 2 o'clock in the morning is not appropriate with this bill and 
this amendment.
  I have been targeted by the NRA. I am not here carrying any banner 
for anybody. But I am a former sheriff, and all the policemen in the 
world will not help you if they are not there and someone is there with 
a gun pointing it at you.
  Now it is time to talk about some reality. I voted for the Dingell 
amendment for the following reason, and I want it stated across the 
record: With a longer waiting period covering a weekend, there would 
not be a sale at a gun show, and it would be an encouragement for 
unscrupulous gun dealers to illegally sell their guns to make a sale, 
yes, maybe to Charles Manson.

                              {time}  1000

  The Dingell amendment, 24 hours, will force this technology age to 
give us an answer. And the sale by unscrupulous dealers will be 
limited.
  Now, let us talk some reality. When someone is holding a gun on you, 
you could call 911 and you could have every police on their way, you 
are in trouble. The bottom line is you would be lucky to be armed. 
Armed. These retired officers, able to carry a gun, trained to carry a 
gun, schooled to handle guns, understanding violence, understanding our 
communities, without one dime, are additional fighters to prevent 
crime. The only crime acceptable to me, a former sheriff, is the crime 
that is not committed.
  Congress has done a few things this past week.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman 
from Ohio has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining on his own time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has made some preventive measures in order 
this past week. Not all the guns in the world, not all the policemen in 
the world are going to stop crime. The mentality of crime is much 
bigger than a gun bill. But I would submit to Congress that guns are 
more a symptom of this society than the root cause problems of this 
society, and be careful, Congress.
  Having said that, I believe without one dime we will increase crime 
fighters on the street, schooled and trained. They understand the 
issue. But more importantly, the word will be out in the streets of 
America that Congress passed a law authorizing retired police officers 
and others trained to also have weapons to join in that fight.
  Here is what I am saying. They are not only equipped, they are not 
only schooled, they are not only trained, this is a word you may not 
want to hear, they are armed, and they are prepared to support and 
protect us. This is the right thing to do. The distinguished ranking 
member has a valid point but the subcommittee ranking member, I think, 
understands the issue quite well. Ladies and gentlemen, it does not 
cost us a penny. It is not going to be the entire answer, but it is a 
step in the right direction. I compliment the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for 
involving me in this issue, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I 
do so because it is almost identical to my bill, H.R. 492, which would 
not only grant reciprocity for current retired law enforcement officers 
but also to law-abiding citizens who possess a valid right to carry a 
permit in their home State.
  My home State of Florida recognized that fact and in fact in 1987 
Florida reformed its gun laws to allow gun-abiding citizens familiar 
with firearms to carry a concealed weapon. The results as far as 
homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national average to 3 
percent below. Florida is not alone. Other States with concealed 
carrying laws have also seen a dramatic decrease in crime.
  I am a strong supporter of my colleague from California's and 
legislation, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment. It has my full 
support. I hope my colleagues will pass this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. I do so because it 
is almost identical to my bill H.R. 492 which would not only grant 
reciprocity for current and retired law enforcement officers, but also 
to law-abiding citizens who possess a valid ``right to carry'' permit 
in their home state.
  The right of self defense should not be limited to state boundaries. 
America is blessed with a professional and committed law enforcement 
community, but the reality is that we are largely on our own in 
protecting ourselves and our families. I don't believe that Americans 
should forfeit their safety because they happen to be on vacation or on 
a business trip.
  My home state of Florida recognized the fact that many citizens have 
no recourse but to deal immediately and directly with a criminal. In 
1987, Florida reformed its gun laws to allow law-abiding citizens 
familiar with firearms to carry a concealed weapon. The results? 
Florida's homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national 
average to 3 percent below the national average. Florida is not alone; 
other states with concealed carry laws have also seen a dramatic 
decrease in crime.
  The legislation before us today has the end goal of protecting 
American citizens, and this amendment contributes to that goal. I would 
have been pleased to cosponsor this amendment, but was unaware of its 
introduction until earlier today. Nonetheless, the gentleman from 
California has my full support and I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to proceed 
since I have the right to close since there was not time received in 
opposition. I am the last speaker.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia secured control of the time 
otherwise reserved for opposition by unanimous consent. Under those 
circumstances, the proponent is entitled to close.
  Mr. SCOTT. Does the gentleman just have one speaker left?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am going to close.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had no deliberation on this. We have not had an 
opportunity to improve it or amend it. We have not had an opportunity 
to see what the States think about it. But that is how we have been 
legislating. We legislated on numerous issues where if we had had time 
to deliberate, we might have made different decisions, like last night.
  We passed legislation that had been subject to 2 years of 
deliberation, the Individuals With Disabilities Act. We passed 
legislation which that deliberation would have led us to the conclusion 
that what we did yesterday would have increased crime, but because of 
good speeches and because it sounded like a good idea, we went along 
with it.
  We ought to be more serious about legislation. This might be a good 
idea, it might not. We have not had an opportunity to seriously 
consider it. Here we have an amendment on the floor

[[Page H4628]]

and it is just not the way we ought to respond to the situation in 
Littleton, Colorado and Conyers, Georgia. We ought to be serious about 
reducing juvenile crime.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we lost two police officers here on the Hill last year 
defending us. This amendment would not help those officers. This 
amendment will help other officers in the future. The same thing at 
Columbine. This amendment would not help those children.
  We talk about law-abiding citizens' rights. The children at Columbine 
and other schools have rights. This amendment in the future will help 
those individuals. I did write this amendment with the help of the Law 
Enforcement Alliance of America, which represents millions of police 
officers. Governors support this. Mayors support this. For those that 
support the Brady bill, Sarah Brady and handgun control does not oppose 
this amendment. Why? Because it is good.
  My colleague says, ``Well, it puts more guns.'' Who does this allow 
to have a weapon? It allows trained police officers. This does not mean 
some security guard or fly-by-night guy that sits there for 1 year in a 
position. These are trained individuals, who cannot have any 
disciplinary problems before.
  The day that I submitted this bill, the original bill, H.R. 218, in 
San Diego an off-duty policeman had a carry permit. Guess what? A bank 
was being robbed. This young lady, this officer, who was off-duty saw 
the bank robber coming out and said, sorry, Charlie. Because she had a 
weapon, she stopped that bank robbery. This is the kind of legislation 
that I think all of us are looking for. I ask my colleagues in a 
bipartisan way to support this amendment. It is a good amendment.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly voted against this 
amendment because of the current climate in this nation due to the 
police brutality issues in our districts. My rationale was that there 
have been too many police brutality incidences, as in the Anthony Baez 
and Amadou Diallo cases in New York City. This has led me to believe 
that there is a lack of proper training of police officers.
  I have been a cosponsor of two police brutality bills in the 106th 
Congress: the Hyde/Serano bill and the Conyers bill. Both of these 
bills will implement provisions to carefully evaluate police training 
and police departments.
  I find it difficult to give broad sweeping licenses to all police 
officers regardless of their jurisdiction--until a serious evaluation 
is done of the current situations throughout our country; and 
legislation is adopted to address the misuse of weapons by police 
departments.
  Guns used properly by trained police officers is acceptable. In fact, 
New York State allows retired police officers to keep their guns. I 
support this measure. However, I can't support allowing a retired 
police officer from another part of the country carrying a concealed 
weapon--and not knowing the standards of his or her training or their 
record as a police officer in their jurisdiction. Until there are 
national standards for police training and police departments, I felt 
compelled to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); 
amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham); and amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 311, 
noes 115, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 236]

                               AYES--311

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--115

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page H4629]]


     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rogers
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brown (CA)
     Frost
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Lewis (CA)
     Minge
     Salmon
     Thomas

                              {time}  1032

  Messrs. STUMP, LUCAS of Oklahoma, PACKARD, YOUNG of Alaska, SHIMKUS, 
WICKER, and LUCAS of Kentucky changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. PETRI, Mrs. LOWEY, and Messrs. GARY MILLER of 
California, MOLLOHAN, and McKEON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 236, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


               amendment no. 7 offered by mr. cunningham

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 372, 
noes 53, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 237]

                               AYES--372

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--53

     Allen
     Brady (TX)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilpatrick
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Napolitano
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Rush
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (CA)
     Dunn
     Frost
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Lewis (CA)
     Minge
     Salmon
     Thomas

                              {time}  1041

  Mr. SERRANO and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no''.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 237, had I been present, I 
would hav voted ``yes.''


                Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. McCollum

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. McCollum:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. PROHIBITING JUVENILES FROM POSSESSING 
                   SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

       Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'';

[[Page H4630]]

       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) This subsection shall not apply to--
       ``(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun, ammunition, a 
     large capacity ammunition feeding device, or a semiautomatic 
     assault weapon to a juvenile or to the temporary possession 
     or use of a handgun, ammunition, a large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device, or a semiautomatic assault weapon by a 
     juvenile--
       ``(i) if the handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device, or semiautomatic assault weapon are possessed 
     and used by the juvenile--
       ``(I) in the course of employment,
       ``(II) in the course of ranching or farming related to 
     activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property 
     used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the 
     permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing 
     activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch),
       ``(III) for target practice,
       ``(IV) for hunting, or
       ``(V) for a course of instruction in the safe and lawful 
     use of a firearm;
       ``(ii) clause (i) shall apply only if the juvenile's 
     possession and use of a handgun, ammunition, a large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device, or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     under this subparagraph are in accordance with State and 
     local law, and the following conditions are met--
       ``(I) except when a parent or guardian of the juvenile is 
     in the immediate and supervisory presence of the juvenile, 
     the juvenile shall have in the juvenile's possession at all 
     times when a handgun, ammunition, a large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device, or a semiautomatic assault weapon is in the 
     possession of the juvenile, the prior written consent of the 
     juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by 
     Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm or 
     ammunition; and
       ``(II)(aa) during transportation by the juvenile directly 
     from the place of transfer to a place at which an activity 
     described in clause (i) is to take place the firearm shall be 
     unloaded and in a locked container or case, and during the 
     transportation by the juvenile of that firearm, directly from 
     the place at which such an activity took place to the 
     transferor, the firearm shall also be unloaded and in a 
     locked container or case; or
       ``(bb) with respect to employment, ranching or farming 
     activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess 
     and use a handgun, ammunition, a large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device, or a semiautomatic assault weapon with the 
     prior written approval of the juvenile's parent or legal 
     guardian, if such approval is on file with the adult who is 
     not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from 
     possessing a firearm or ammunition and that person is 
     directing the ranching or farming activities of the juvenile;
       ``(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed 
     with a handgun, ammunition, a large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device, or a semiautomatic assault weapon in the line 
     of duty;
       ``(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not 
     possession) of a handgun, ammunition, a large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device, or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     to a juvenile; or
       ``(D) the possession of a handgun, ammunition, a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device, or a semiautomatic 
     assault weapon taken in lawful defense of the juvenile or 
     other persons in the residence of the juvenile or a residence 
     in which the juvenile is an invited guest.
       ``(4) A handgun, ammunition, a large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device, or a semiautomatic assault weapon, the 
     possession of which is transferred to a juvenile in 
     circumstances in which the transferor is not in violation of 
     this subsection, shall not be subject to permanent 
     confiscation by the Government if its possession by the 
     juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct 
     of the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner 
     when such handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device, or semiautomatic assault weapon is no longer 
     required by the Government for the purposes of investigation 
     or prosecution.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `juvenile' 
     means a person who is less than 18 years of age.
       ``(6)(A) In a prosecution of a violation of this 
     subsection, the court shall require the presence of a 
     juvenile defendant's parent or legal guardian at all 
     proceedings.
       ``(B) The court may use the contempt power to enforce 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) The court may excuse attendance of a parent or legal 
     guardian of a juvenile defendant at a proceeding in a 
     prosecution of a violation of this subsection for good cause 
     shown.
       ``(7) For purposes of this subsection only, the term `large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device' has the same meaning as 
     in section 921(a)(31) of title 18 and includes similar 
     devices manufactured before the effective date of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 354, 
noes 69, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 238]

                               AYES--354

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--69

     Aderholt
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barton
     Bonilla
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Crane
     Cubin
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Everett
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)

[[Page H4631]]


     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     Metcalf
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Packard
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Riley
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Skeen
     Spence
     Stump
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blunt
     Brown (CA)
     Frost
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Lewis (CA)
     Minge
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Salmon
     Thomas

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. HANSEN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 238, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed 
in Part B of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. GUNS PAWNED FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR REQUIRE 
                   BACKGROUND CHECK.

       Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in connection with the 
     redemption from a licensee of a firearm that, during the 
     preceding 365 days, was delivered to the licensee as 
     collateral for a loan.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am speaking on today would require 
a background check on a person whose gun is returned to him by a 
pawnshop if that gun has been stored at the pawnshop for more than 1 
year.
  Pawnshops are small businesses contributing to communities all across 
America. They provide access to credit for people who may have 
difficulty obtaining a loan from a standard financial institution. 
These loans are secured by the physical delivery of collateral against 
the loan.
  One of the preferred forms of collateral for these loans is a 
firearm. Guns, unlike electronic appliances or furniture, are easily 
stored, have value that is easy to establish, and do not depreciate or 
become outdated.
  This amendment deals only with returning a gun to its owner. These 
guns have not transferred ownership. Rather, they have merely been 
stored in the pawnbroker's vault until the owner has repaid the money 
that was loaned against the firearm.
  Currently, all pawnbrokers who pawn guns are already required to have 
Federal firearms licenses. Most of them buy and sell guns, as well as 
taking them as collateral in pawn loans. This amendment does not affect 
sales. Sales at pawnshops follow the same procedure as sales at any 
other gun store.
  Over the course of a year, some 10 million guns are stored in 
pawnbrokers' vaults, almost as many guns as are sold in America. Guns 
stored in pawnshops are locked securely in vaults. They are safe from 
theft and unauthorized access.
  States and and municipalities already require pawnbrokers to report 
the identity of anyone who pawns a gun. Additionally, pawnbrokers are 
also required to report the type and serial number of each pawned gun. 
This provides more information for law enforcement than the NICS 
system, allowing the police to check on the person, as well as checking 
that the firearm has not been reported as lost or stolen.
  Most of these reporting systems are computerized, allowing this data 
to be transmitted instantly to local authorities. In most major 
metropolitan areas, the local reporting process to law enforcement has 
been in place for over 20 years. We want to encourage people to legally 
utilize licensed, regulated pawn stores if they choose to pawn their 
guns.
  If we discourage people from utilizing licensed, regulated pawn 
stores, these guns will be out of the tracking ability of local law 
enforcement.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Sessions-Frost amendment to 
provide commonsense background checks on guns pawned for more than 1 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Under current law, persons who sell their firearms from pawnshops and 
later seek to claim their firearms are subject to background checks. 
This amendment would create an exception to the Brady background check 
requirement for persons redeeming a firearm during the year after it's 
been pawned.
  While the description for this amendment says it ensures that guns 
pawned for more than a year are not returned until the owner passes a 
background check, I think that this description may confuse Members, 
because this amendment does in fact instead create a new loophole in 
current law.
  Under this amendment, people who leave their guns at a pawnbroker for 
less than a year will no longer be subject to a background check. 
Similar proposals were offered by Senators Craig and Lott in the other 
body, the U.S. Senate, and were explicitly nullified in the Senate by 
Senator Lautenberg's amendment. The explanation is simple, this 
amendment is a dangerous one.
  Felons try to redeem firearms at pawnshops four times more frequently 
than felons try to buy guns from gun dealers. In fact, according to the 
ATF, 1.4 percent of the purchasers seeking to purchase firearms from 
licensed dealers are felons or had some other reason why they were 
ineligible to purchase a gun. In sharp contrast, 5.4 percent of persons 
seeking to redeem their firearms from pawnbrokers were felons or had 
some other reason to be there. We require as much vigilance at 
pawnships, as we require when dealing with licensee dealers. This 
amendment does not meet that standard. That's why I rise in opposition.

                              {time}  1100

  My good friends from Texas are concerned that the amendment helps 
ameliorate discrimination against poor people, but we must point out 
that poor people, just like rich people, cannot be charged a user fee 
for background checks. Congress explicitly prohibited such fees in the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act for 1999, so this is not about money.
  Crime, gun-tracing information shows that criminals are regular 
pawnshop customers. While 13 percent of federally licensed gun dealers 
had one or more crime guns traced back to them during 1996 and 1997, 35 
percent of federally licensed pawnbrokers had one or more crime guns 
traced back to them.
  This amendment would allow felons to raise cash with guns that they 
possess illegally. This amendment will make pawnshops safe harbors for 
criminals with guns, and I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, America is facing an ever-increasing problem 
with violent juvenile crime. It seems like yesterday that our most 
pressing problems were kids skipping school and drag racing down Main 
Street on Saturday night. Today's youth, and I don't mean to imply all, 
are committing murder, rape, dealing drugs and countless other heinous 
crimes that were unfathomable 20 years ago. This callous altitude 
toward life and societal norms could well be our gravest national 
problem.
  While I appreciate the President and some of my colleagues' belief 
that it is the Congress who must fix these problems, I must disagree. 
We presently

[[Page H4632]]

have hundreds of Federal, State and local laws addressing these issues, 
many of which are redundant and to absolutely no avail.
  Did these laws serve any use at all in preventing the recent violence 
in Colorado, Arkansas or Oregon? For example, it was a violation of 
Federal law to have a loaded firearm within 1,000 feet of a school when 
these acts took place. This alone should have prevented these acts. The 
important question is why did these laws not prevent these senseless 
acts of violence?
  When a person commits a violent crime, such as murder, they must be 
punished quickly and to the maximum extent of the law . . ., does it 
really make a difference what the tool was when the result was death?
  When the President and Congress seek to expand laws and do away with 
individual liberty they are taking the easy way out and a dangerous 
approach to problems by addressing the result of society's failure . . 
., not the cause.
  Simply put . . ., we have strayed from the ideals which have made 
this country the greatest on earth. And now it is time to return to 
those basic principles.
  As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently argued, ``laws that forbid the 
carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor 
determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the 
assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage 
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with 
greater confidence than an armed man.''
  Mr. Chairman, parents have to take responsibility for their actions 
and the actions of their children.
  Schools should teach history, reading, writing and arithmetic, and 
stop educating our children on how to best abdicate personal 
responsibility.
  Communities must be accountable to themselves and hold their elected 
officials at all levels accountable in return.
  It is not the schools', the Federal Government's, or the 
entertainment industry's responsibility to raise and discipline our 
children. The responsibility rests solely with the family.
  The bottom line is that all the laws in the world are useless without 
effective enforcement and the prompt return to a system of swift 
justice.
  Most importantly, we must return to individual and familial 
responsibility and accountability, for all laws are pointless without 
the proper moral foundation of the home.
  Mr. Chairman, it was my responsibility to raise my kids and hold them 
accountable for their deeds and it is their responsibility to do the 
same with their children, not the government's.
  Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that it doesn't take a village to raise 
our children, It takes a loving, caring and actively involved family.
  Finally, it is far past the time for Uncle Sam to let mom and dad 
take care of the kids; the last thirty years have made it painfully 
obvious that Uncle Sam's expanded role as parent and educator has 
completely failed.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will yield the responsibility 
back to the parents.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time, and I thank the chairman very much.
  I had wanted to be able to support this amendment for my good friend 
from Texas, but I think it is important to make clear that what this 
does is for anyone who pawns their gun and comes back within a 2- to 3-
month period, maybe in that interim may have become a felon, a 
convicted felon, may be out on probation for some gun possession or 
some issue that deals with a criminal activity, and that individual, 
although it may be their gun, would not be subject to an instant check.
  It is well-known, as evidenced by the ATF, that 1.4 percent of the 
purchasers seeking to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers 
were prohibited persons; 3.3 percent of the purchasers seeking to 
purchase firearms from federally licensed pawnbrokers were prohibited 
persons.
  I would ask the gentleman if he would just give me a yes or no, 
whether he would be willing to accept a friendly amendment on his 
amendment, and to indicate that at any time that you seek to reclaim 
your gun in a pawnshop, you be subject to an instant check. Will the 
gentleman accept that as a friendly amendment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I will not.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman very much.
  Let me simply say as we sunsetted any sense of gun responsibility 
early this morning in the dark of night, let me cite the gun owners of 
America that sent brief talking points to everyone. Their final comment 
is, ``Vote no on final passage of H.R. 2122.''
  They knew what they were doing. They knew that what they wanted to do 
was to make sure we had no gun laws whatsoever.
  Just as last night I tried to bring up the handgun provision dealing 
with a private individual not transferring a gun to someone under 21, 
that walked off the floor of the House. The Gun Owners of America 
oppose banning juvenile possession of certain semiautomatic rifles; 
they oppose the multiple ammunition, suggesting that the Korean 
merchants were able to shoot it out in the streets because they had 
multiple ammunition; and as well they oppose mandatory safety locks.
  This is another amendment that will not work. There is no gun safety 
on this floor. Vote it down.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, what is occurring today is 
what typically occurs in Washington. My opponents are talking about 
studies, facts and figures which they claim they have. I wrote the 
Director of the ATF December 21, 1998, and February 2, 1999, asking for 
the results of the study. I was denied this. This is obviously an 
unfair argument, because the administration simply wants to have gun 
control and more guns to be available for people on the streets, rather 
than doing the right thing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 9 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-186.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Goode

  Mr. GOODE. 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. 9 offered by Mr. Goode:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . REPEAL OF LAW BANNING FIREARMS IN THE DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA.

       D.C. Law 1-85, enacted September 24, 1976, is hereby 
     repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by 
     such Act are restored and revived as if such Act had not been 
     enacted.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment to lift the outright ban in 
the District of Columbia by repealing the 1976 gun ban law in the 
District. It does not affect the gun restrictions in place prior to 
1976, where someone seeking to have a firearm for their self-protection 
or for the protection of their business would still have to go and get 
fingerprinted, would have to go down to the D.C. police office and have 
a background check, and would have to be registered and have the gun 
registered.
  The focus of this amendment is the gun ban. If you believe in gun 
bans, then you should vote against this amendment, but if you believe 
that the second amendment gives you the right to protect yourself and 
to protect your business, then you should vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H4633]]

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that the Goode amendment 
shows disrespect for the people I represent, for democratic self-
government and for me. But hear me. The Goode amendment threatens the 
majestic Federal presence as well as our citizens.
  Why? Because the Goode amendment makes it legal to sell bomb-making 
materials in the Nation's Capital by killing off the District's strict 
explosive regulation. The Goode amendment brings domestic terrorism 
purveyors here, increasing the risk to tourists and to the city's 
landmarks, including this very Capitol.
  How? The Goode amendment shoots the entire explosives and firearms 
scheme in the back. The Goode amendment demeans the very idea of a 
dignified capital. The Goode amendment makes the Nation's Capital the 
most lenient gun jurisdiction in the country. The Goode amendment 
encourages tourists to bring weapons to D.C., only to have them 
confiscated in this capital.
  I ask, after the killings of Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson 
in this building last summer, which of us would want to send the 
message that D.C. is a city with no handgun laws?
  Perhaps the strongest opponent of changes in the District's gun laws 
is D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey. Chief Ramsey reminds us that we 
lost three local police officers in 3 months' time in 1997. He says 
that his officers would be the first to face the consequences of 
increases in guns in homes when they make stops on the streets.
  We are dramatically bringing down gun killings in the District. Do 
not drive murders of citizens and cops up by killing off local gun laws 
here.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman from 
Washington, D.C., what are you talking about? I do not understand. Let 
me read what the Goode amendment does. Repeals D.C. law I-185, which 
prohibits D.C. residents from possessing a firearm to allow D.C. 
residents the right to protect and defend themselves. Your speech does 
not reflect the substance of the amendment.
  This is a fundamental constitutional right. I appeal to all my 
colleagues. Why should we ignore the rights of individuals to have the 
opportunity to defend themselves? In fact, if you go back in the 
evolutionary cycle, it is a natural drive for all human beings for 
self-preservation. It is the most fundamental right of our human 
species that we should be able to defend ourselves against unwarranted 
harm. So the simple amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goode) is restoring the ability to say we can have a firearm in 
Washington, D.C., to defend ourselves.
  A study by Gary Kleck of Florida State University showed that in 
approximately 2 million incidents each year, citizens use a firearm for 
self-defense, usually a handgun.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a good idea, and the statistics are there. Please 
support the Goode amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, under the Constitution of this Nation, we have the 
right to be armed. However, if you choose to ignore the rights 
recognized under the Constitution, I appeal to you at another level.
  Any creature, from insect to human, has the natural drive for self-
preservation. Self-defense is one of the most fundamental rights we 
have as human beings, and no individual should ever be denied the 
ability to defend his or herself against unwarranted harm.
  According to a study by Gary Kleck of Florida State University, in 
approximately 2 million instances each year, citizens use a firearm for 
self-defense, usually a handgun.
  Criminals need have no such fear in Washington, DC. The law-abiding, 
decent citizens of the Nation's Capital should have the right and the 
means to defend themselves, and that is what this amendment will do. 
Let's give the people of Washington the option to defend themselves and 
their families; support the Goode amendment.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have worked very long and 
hard in the District of Columbia to try to bring this Nation's Capital 
back. If you take a look at the crime rates over the last couple of 
years, they have gone down dramatically. We have done that by taking 
the police force away from politics. Putting in a new chief, a 
professional cadre of officers and trained officers, and controlling 
the flow of guns into our city is one way that we do that.
  I have the highest respect for the author of this amendment and 
recognize the area that he comes from and the philosophy he represents, 
but, in this particular case, I have to reluctantly oppose him. The 
reason is because the Nation's Capital, they have to have the same 
rights of self-determination on these kinds of issues that States and 
other cities and counties do across this country.
  The District of Columbia, the D.C. Council in 1976 approved this 
enactment, and it not only has been confirmed through the years by D.C. 
elected officials, but your police chief; and around the metropolitan 
area I think you will find representatives of police officers feel 
stopping the flow of guns into this city is very critical. This 
amendment would defeat that purpose, so I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I regretfully return to the floor today to oppose the 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Representative Goode. In 
doing so, I want to first convey the unalterable opposition of the 
Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and Chief of Police Charles 
Ramsey. This amendment is an abrogation of the very core principles of 
home rule here in the Nation's Capital, and of the right of States and 
localities to determine the needs of their communities.
  In 1976, the D.C. City Council approved one of its first enactment 
under home rule. Mr. Goode's amendment would repeal Title 6, Chapter 23 
of D.C. Code, Section 6-2301 thru 6-2379, which includes the entire 
subchapter on firearms and destructive devices. The enactment of these 
provisions were a very important step for the District during its 
fledgling steps towards self-government and was affirmed by a U.S. 
District Court in 1978.
  My good friend from Virginia's amendment unfortunately strikes at the 
very heart of home rule, and does so without any prior consultation 
from the elected officials of the District or the House Subcommittee on 
the District of Columbia. It shows no respect for the principle of 
permitting local citizens and elected leaders to make local decisions.
  In 1995, Ms. Norton and I introduced and passed the D.C. Financial 
Control Board Act which took numerous financial decisions away from the 
Mayor and City Council. Unlike Mr. Goode's amendment the Control Board 
Act underwent hearings and a mark-up through the Committee process 
before passage by Congress. The Act creating the Control Board also 
enjoyed the input and support of the D.C. Mayor and Chairman of the 
City Council.
  I urge every Member to oppose Mr. Goode's amendment, not on 
Constitutional grounds but on procedural ones. While the Congress 
certainly has the authority to take this action, I call on every Member 
to consider carefully what the reaction of their constituent would be 
should the House decide to target them and them alone, for a law they 
have not expressly supported.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out one thing: The person that came 
in the Capitol and shot the two officers under my amendment would have 
violated the law when he crossed the line. He was illegal unless he had 
gone down to the police department, got fingerprinted, got a background 
check, got his gun registered and got himself registered.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says the 
Congress has the power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases 
whatsoever, over such District, as may, by Cession of particular 
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the 
Government of the United States.

                              {time}  1115

  This section of the Constitution is not hard to understand. The words 
``exclusive'' and ``all'' are hardly vague

[[Page H4634]]

and ambiguous. The fundamental right guaranteed in the Second Amendment 
is a right of all United States citizens, including those who find 
themselves in the district.
  How can anyone rationally argue that the District of Columbia ban has 
rid this city of guns? The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) 
correctly argues that, as the crime rate goes down nationally, 
Washington, D.C. continues to be a bastion of violence.
  Criminals know where the largest population of helpless victims 
reside. Let us make sure that they do not think it is in Washington, 
D.C.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 4 additional 
minutes be provided for debate on this amendment due to requests of 
Members on both sides of the issue for debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) requests 
for 4 minutes be added to each side of the debate.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, total; 2 on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California asks unanimous consent 
that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) each have 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I am 
informed that we have a number of Members who are on very, very tight 
schedules. I myself have an amendment I would like to talk on longer, 
but I am not going to ask for extra time. Regretfully, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goode 
amendment. We have no right to micromanage what happens in the District 
of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Goode amendment that 
would overturn the law which prohibits citizens of the District of 
Columbia from possessing a firearm.
  This amendment attempts to micromanage the District of Columbia, 
without consultation with locally elected officials. We have no 
business doing that.
  I believe that the Goode amendment shows a lack of respect for 
allowing the citizens of Washington, D.C. to make local decisions. I 
wonder how Mr. Goode would react if Mayor Williams or Congresswoman 
Norton would work to prohibit the citizens of Albemarle County in 
Virginia from possessing a firearm?
  Congress passed the Home Rule Act in 1973 because citizens fought for 
the right to participate in government. The Goode amendment would 
repeal one of the first D.C. enactments under Home Rule. This law was 
passed in 1976 by the D.C. Council and even survived a 1978 court test.
  As the Representative from the neighboring jurisdiction of Montgomery 
County, Maryland, and as the Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia, I am proud of the progress that has been made in 
the revitalization of D.C. Public safety has been one of the top 
concerns of people who live in the District and among people who live 
in the surrounding jurisdictions. Over the past three years, the crime 
rate has dropped; homicide and robbery rates have plummeted to a 25-
year low. But they are still high compared with other cities, and this 
amendment would jeopardize the District's progress.
  The Mayor, the D.C. City Council, and the D.C. Subcommittee all have 
worked hard to improve the prospects for home rule to succeed. It is 
essential that we take into consideration the views of the District's 
local officials. They are the advocates for a better quality of life 
for the 500,000 citizens who reside in the District of Columbia. They 
are the ones who must decide whether or not to allow the citizens of 
the District to own firearms, not the U.S. Congress.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Goode amendment!
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. It is 
the wrong thing to do. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), I know 
that he appreciates democracy, and I hope that he realizes that the 
people of the District of Columbia have exercised that democracy in a 
legal manner.
  They reacted to the fact that 84 percent of the homicides in this 
District come from firearms. Well, now, in the last 10 years the 
District's homicide rate has gone down to the lowest it has been. It 
has fallen 41 percent from 1994 to 1998.
  Now, what this law would do is to allow gun shops to be set up again, 
to allow people to bring more handguns in. It is going to allow 
explosives.
  This is the Nation's capital. With all the terrorism, threats that we 
have, to allow explosives to come back into the city. The people of the 
District of Columbia knew what they were doing when they passed that 
law. Now to say that we know best, coming from a rural area that has a 
very different economy and society and situation than the District, to 
impose the gentleman's opinion on the District is wrong.
  This amendment should be defeated, defeated soundly.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point this out, Virginia for years regulated 
gun shows, had an instant check. Today in the United States capital, 
every State is going by Federal rule. What is good for the goose is 
good for the gander.
  They talked about bringing bomb material into the United States 
capital. The person would have to go down and be registered with the 
D.C. police chief to be able to do that, and I do not think the D.C. 
police chief is going to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman. I thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) for doing what is right. No 
government has the right, for heaven's sakes, to take away one's God 
given right to defend himself and his family. Why should we think the 
District of Columbia Council have that right. It is wrong for them to 
do that. It is right for people to be able to protect themselves.
  The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction from the U.S. that 
prohibits keeping firearms in an operable condition at home for defense 
against criminal attack. The right for people to be secure in their 
homes is an ages old right, affirmed in law and court decisions, but 
rejected in D.C.
  This jurisdiction is a disaster. It still has one of the highest 
crime rates in the country. Crime generally has dropped over the entire 
country due to demographic trends. We should vote for the gentleman's 
amendment and reaffirm even in the District of Columbia people's God 
given rights to defend themselves and their families with a firearm.
  Ms. LOFGREN. 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 strong opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Goode amendment repeals D.C. law 1-85, which prohibits D.C. 
residents from possessing a firearm.
  The Goode Amendment is paternalistic and is a slap in the face to the 
District of Columbia's right to self-governance. It strips away the 
District's comprehensive firearms and explosives regulation, adopted in 
1976, by permitting the registration of firearms that are now 
prohibited.
  Violent crime in the District of Columbia is at a historic low, 
thanks to a combination of strong community policing, tough gun laws, 
and aggressive law enforcement and prosecution of those who violate the 
laws.
  D.C.'s homicide rate is the lowest it has been in over 10 years.
  Through aggressive gun prosecutions, assaults with a firearm in D.C. 
fell 41% from 1994-1998.
  The Goode amendment will seriously threaten public safety and 
undermine effective law enforcement in the District.
  The Goode amendment will make it legal to buy and sell all kinds of 
bomb-making materials in the District.
  The Goode amendment will make it much easier to obtain handguns in 
the District by allowing gun shops to open their doors for business.
  The only individuals who will benefit from this amendment are 
criminals in the District of Columbia.
  This is especially troubling when the D.C. Police Department reports 
that 84% of all homicides this year resulted from guns.

[[Page H4635]]

  There is no justification for this amendment. It will only put the 
lives of District residents--and especially children--at risk by 
tearing down the District's firearms and explosives laws and depriving 
District citizens of their ability to decide what kinds of firearms 
laws they want to have.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this usurpation of local control. We have 183 local firearm laws in 
California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing unique about the 
District's handgun ban law. Dozens of cities have the exact same law 
across this United States. What the gentleman proposes is dangerous. He 
cannot even describe what would remain in place if his amendment were 
passed.
  For example, today one has to register annually under the existing 
regulations. Under pre 1976 rules, one can register once. Then if one 
became a criminal after registering once, so be it for the people in 
the District of Columbia.
  As to the gentleman's views about constitutionality, this law has 
been found constitutional. To quote the courts, ``the Act is a valid 
exercise of the City Council's legislative authority, and it offends no 
constitutional protection of appellees.''
  Do my colleagues want to know about the Second Amendment? From the 
(Supreme Court) Miller case: ``The obvious purpose of the Second 
Amendment is to assure continuation and to render possible the 
effectiveness of State militia. It must be interpreted and applied with 
that view in mind.''
  This is not a gun vote. This is a vote to stay out of somebody else's 
business. This is a vote to respect me, to respect the people I 
represent, to respect the laws that have been made in our local 
jurisdiction.
  This gentleman has some nerve. Most of the guns that are killing 
people in the District of Columbia come from the State of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goode). They come from his State. Get off of my 
back. Get out of my business.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in Part B of 
House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered By Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. 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. 10 offered by Mr. Hunter:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. ____. RIGHT OF LAW-ABIDING RESIDENTS OF THE DICTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA TO KEEP A HANDGUN IN THE HOME.

       (a) Defense.--Notwithstanding any provision of law, a 
     person may not be held criminally responsible for the 
     possession of a handgun, or ammunition appropriate to the 
     handgun, if each of the following elements are established:
       (1) The person is a law-abiding individual not less than 18 
     years of age.
       (2) The person is the sole owner of the handgun and is in 
     compliance with all applicable Federal and State registration 
     laws and regulations with respect to the handgun.
       (3) The possession occurred in the District of Columbia--
       (A) in a place of residence of the person; or
       (B) if the handgun is unloaded, while the person was 
     traveling to or from a place of residence of the person 
     solely for the purpose of transporting the handgun in 
     connection with an otherwise lawful transaction or activity 
     relating to the handgun.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``handgun'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 921 of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) The term ``law-abiding individual'' means an individual 
     who has never been convicted of a criminal offense for which 
     the person actually served time in jail or prison, and has 
     never been convicted of battery, assault, or any other 
     violent criminal offense.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1933, a young lady named Melba Loman was being 
robbed at gunpoint next to a high-rise building. During the robbery, a 
young man leaned out the window with a gun and shouted to the robber, 
drop that gun or I will shoot, at which point the robber ran off.
  The young man's name was Ronald Reagan, and he knew something then 
intuitively that we have learned now; and that is that law-abiding 
citizens who are allowed to defend themselves will deter crime.
  I want to talk in this amendment about something that we have not 
talked much about during this gun debate; and that is simply this, 2 
million times each year, American citizens across this country 
successfully defend their lives and the lives of their family members 
and their property with guns.
  In most cases, this does not involve a shoot-out, because FBI studies 
now show that when law-abiding citizens simply have guns in these 
confrontations, in 98 percent of the cases that alone deters crime. So 
American citizens throughout this country in almost every place, 2 
million times a year, protect their families, protect their children, 
protect their wives, and protect their property with guns. There is one 
place where that does not happen, and that is here in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I was talked to by 
residents of Washington, D.C. I just want to quote a couple times.
  ``If someone is breaking into your home, and you are being put on 
hold by 911, what should you do to protect your wife and children? Or 
how does my wife protect herself if caught in the same situation when I 
am out of town?'' D.C. resident.
  ``As a District resident for 10 years, I have been a victim of 
violent crime. It is a tragedy that the reality in the Nation's Capital 
is not if you will be a victim of crime, but when you will be preyed 
upon by the vicious criminal element that roams our streets and 
neighborhoods.'' D.C. resident.
  ``The memory of holding a sobbing hysterical woman after she, by the 
grace of God, warded off a rapist who managed to rip steel bars off her 
window and break into her home still sends chills in my mind.'' D.C. 
resident.
  All these letters came in, Mr. Chairman, when it became known that I 
was going to offer this amendment. In my view, all law-abiding citizens 
should therefore have the option of being able to protect their homes 
with deadly force if they see fit. As it stands now, and we all know 
this, in D.C. only the crooks have guns.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the case. The D.C. government has 
successfully disarmed every law-abiding citizen in Washington, D.C. I 
have never seen the case made that there are crooks who want guns in 
Washington, D.C. who cannot get them.
  So the only people that have guns in this community are the bad 
people, the people that want to rob, rape, and kill. The point was made 
in the FBI analysis that was done by the University of Chicago that 
guns in America are used five times as often to prevent crime, to keep 
somebody from robbing, raping, or killing than they are to commit 
crime.
  We want to give to D.C. residents, whom we do have a constitutional 
responsibility to have oversight over, we do want to give those people 
the same rights that millions of other Americans have. So this 
amendment simply offers the right of law-abiding D.C. residents to have 
a registered handgun in their home for home protection. I think it is a 
very modest amendment. I think it is very basic.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.

[[Page H4636]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
may have been ``talked to,'' as he said, by residents from the District 
of Columbia. Ninety percent of them voted for me, and I think that I am 
entitled to speak for them on the floor this afternoon.
  I respect the differences among us on gun issues. I ask only that my 
colleagues respect me and the people I represent by allowing us to 
tailor our gun laws to local demographic circumstances, just as my 
colleagues tailor their laws to their districts.
  Here, the Hunter amendment would inflame an already violence-prone 
atmosphere. It invites citizens to arm themselves. But they will never 
keep up with the criminals, thugs, and thieves in this town, according 
to our local police chief. At least now we put thugs to considerable 
inconvenience by making them find guns illegally.
  Although teen gun violence has brought us to our senses on the need 
for new gun laws, the Hunter amendment would allow teens, as young as 
18, the troubled teens, the first to get ahold of guns in this city, to 
keep a gun in the Nation's capital. Violent youths could own guns at 18 
legally because they were delinquent, not convicted as criminals.
  The Hunter amendment is so poorly and loosely drafted that 
individuals carrying concealed guns might convince a jury that they 
believe they were transporting them for a purpose allowed by the Hunter 
amendment. Many other unintended consequences overwhelm any legitimate 
purpose for allowing residents to arm themselves in their homes here.
  I do not know about my colleagues' towns, but in this town, guns in 
homes would lure criminals for break-ins and thefts, putting more guns 
on the streets. In this town, troubled teens, who most eagerly search 
out guns here, might find them at home instead of in the streets. In 
this town, kids would more likely find and use guns than adults 
thwarting criminals. In this town, with one of the highest domestic 
violence rates in the country, the last thing we need are guns to 
inject into family arguments.
  The Hunter amendment adds to these catastrophic results a new D.C. 
immunity from Federal laws enforced everywhere else in the U.S. The 
Hunter amendment nullifies ``any other provisions of law.'' Therefore, 
the Hunter amendment also wipes out Federal provisions, including the 
only provisions that deny handguns to fugitives, drug addicts, people 
under indictment and some felons, among others.
  A vote for the Hunter amendment is no vote for law-abiding citizens. 
The Hunter amendment is a vote to ease guns into the hands of troubled 
teens in this troubled city. The Hunter amendment is a vote the 
criminals in D.C. have been waiting for for 23 years.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time. This is actually an inquiry. I do not know how I intend to vote 
on this. I would just like to be informed.
  If I am correct that this bill will restore or will recognize the 
right to private possession of a handgun, I think that is protected 
under the second amendment, what is our duty as a Federal Congress if 
we believe the District of Columbia has not adequately protected the 
Constitution, given that the Supreme Court has in 62 years not taken a 
second amendment case?
  It is a question on which I would sincerely seek advice.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question is 
that this is an excellent vehicle to give law-abiding citizens the 
right to have a gun for home protection and to solve that problem.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 2\1/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute for each side.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I 
regretfully am going to have to object, because I have been advised 
there are a lot of Members with planes going out. I have lots more 
materials and lots more speakers, but I am not going to ask for more 
time.
  So I regretfully am going to object not only on this amendment, but 
on others.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I will talk quickly and say I am in very 
strong opposition to the Hunter amendment. It is going to implement a 
new law in the District of Columbia that would allow law-abiding 
citizens to possess a loaded handgun in their home in order to protect 
themselves and their families, and my understanding is that this 
amendment may include drug dealers who have not been convicted in the 
definition of law-abiding citizens who would be permitted to carry 
firearms.
  I am opposed to this amendment just as I was to the Goode amendment. 
It attempts to micromanage the government of the District of Columbia 
without consulting the locally elected officials. We deserve to respect 
those people who are residents of the District of Columbia. Congress 
should not override local efforts to reduce gun violence in their 
community.
  I hope this body will vote against the Hunter amendment.
  Congress should not override local efforts to reduce gun violence in 
their community.
  The crime rate is down in the District, and homicides have also 
declined. But while the crime rate in the District has declined, so too 
has the age of our criminals. Arrests of juveniles under 18 for violent 
offenses increased by more than 57 percent between 1983 and 1992. It is 
imperative that juveniles in the District should get one unified 
message from their local officials. We should not be interfering with 
local policies and confusing young people in the District with a 
different message.
  it has been more than two decades since Congress granted residents of 
the District of Columbia the right to elect their own leaders. A 
generation later, Congress snatched back power from the mayor and the 
D.C. Council, putting it in the hands of an appointed financial control 
board. This year, with a new Mayor and a new D.C. City Council, many of 
the privileges of local self-rule have been returned to local 
officials. We should allow this process to continue without 
micromanaging the affairs of the District.
  I urge a ``no'' on the Hunter amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 30 
seconds remaining, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if I have the right to close, I will defer 
to the other side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), as a 
member of the committee, has the right to close.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just take the last 30 seconds simply to say this. This is the 
most basic and simple and, I think, moderate of amendments. And if drug 
dealers in this town are not given any time, then I think the D.C. 
Council should be taken to task by the gentlewoman who just talked. But 
this gives law-abiding citizens the right to have a registered handgun 
complying with all registration laws in their home for the protection 
of their loved ones.
  All our statistics show that armed citizens do deter crimes. They do 
it 2 million times a year throughout this Nation. Let us give D.C. 
residents that right.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H4637]]

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to this 
amendment, an intrusion into local decision-making.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise to take strong exception to this amendment.
  I represent the neighboring jurisdiction, the State of Maryland, and 
ironically enough, in concept, I agree with the gentleman. In our State 
we have those rights, and there is nothing wrong with it. But this 
amendment is wrong, because fundamentally it infringes on the rights of 
local government to make their own decisions.
  If the District of Columbia were a State, any other State, the 
gentleman would never consider imposing the will of this body on a 
State. They would argue States rights. In this cases it should be local 
jurisdictions' rights.
  The District of Columbia Council, in their wisdom, have made the 
decision that they want to ban handgun possession. I think we should 
respect that. We should not continue to treat the District of Columbia 
as a colony and treat it at our whim. We should honor and respect the 
local officials and local jurisdictions.
  Ms. LOFGREN. 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 opposition to the 
Hunter amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the DC subcommittee, I join my 
colleagues in strong opposition to this amendment.
  I cannot understand why, in the wake of the tragedies in Littleton, 
Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia, this Congress would even consider a 
measure that would roll back gun laws in our nation's capital.
  But even more importantly, I cannot understand why some members of 
this body, who pride themselves on their commitment of honoring power 
to states and local governments, would deliberately thwart the will of 
the people of the District of Columbia.
  My home city of New York has enacted its own tough gun-control laws, 
and I am proud to support them. But even if I didn't, I would defend 
the rights of New York to pass laws that are binding on its own 
citizens.
  This Congress should accord the same respect to the residents of our 
nation's capital.
  This amendment is about more than gun control. It is about local 
control, and the right of the people of the District of Columbia to 
enact their own laws.
  I applaud my colleague from the District of Columbia, and my 
colleague from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for their leadership on this issue, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for the purpose 
of closing the debate.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this loosely-worded law, for example, 
defines a law-abiding individual, who would carry a gun in the streets, 
as one who has not been convicted and served time. That leaves lots of 
felons who have not served time as an example of unintended 
consequences from the gentleman's bill. Domestic violence felons often 
do not serve time.
  But one of the main reasons one would want to vote against this 
amendment is who would indeed profit? First, criminals; secondly, 
troubled teens; third, accidental shootings by kids; fourth, increased 
shootings of D.C. cops; gun violence during family arguments; break-ins 
and theft of guns. That is what happens in big cities when guns are 
freely available. That is what would happen.
  I ask the Member to remember that the demographics of my district are 
as personal to me as his are to him.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 11 printed in Part B of 
House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rogan

  Mr. ROGAN. 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. 11 offered by Mr. Rogan:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. PROHIBITION ON FIREARMS POSSESSION BY VIOLENT 
                   JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 921(a)(20) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(20)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) For purposes of subsections (d) and (g) of section 
     922, the term `adjudicated to have committed an act of 
     violent juvenile delinquency' means an adjudication of 
     delinquency in Federal or State court, based on a finding of 
     the commission of an act by a person prior to his or her 
     eighteenth birthday that, if committed by an adult, would be 
     a serious or violent felony (as defined in section 
     3559(c)(2)(F)(i)) had Federal jurisdiction existed and been 
     exercised.''; and
       (4) in the undesignated paragraph following subparagraph 
     (B) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection), by 
     striking ``What constitutes'' and all that follows through 
     ``this chapter,'' and inserting the following:
       ``(C) What constitutes a conviction of such a crime or an 
     adjudication of an act of violent juvenile delinquency shall 
     be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction 
     in which the proceedings were held. Any State conviction or 
     adjudication of an act of violent juvenile delinquency that 
     has been expunged or set aside, or for which a person has 
     been pardoned or has had civil rights restored, by the 
     jurisdiction in which the conviction or adjudication of an 
     act of violent juvenile delinquency occurred shall not be 
     considered to be a conviction or adjudication of an act of 
     violent juvenile delinquency for purposes of this chapter,''.
       (b) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) has been adjudicated to have committed an act of 
     violent juvenile delinquency.''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) who has been adjudicated to have committed an act of 
     violent juvenile delinquency,''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall only apply to an act of violent juvenile delinquency 
     that occurs 180 days or more after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, should the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Blagojevich) arrive during the debate, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be able to divide my time with the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois and that he be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. ROGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, in the hands of a felon, a firearm is a 
ticking time bomb. That is why it is illegal for a convicted felon to 
purchase one. Yet shockingly, in many States, violent criminals are 
legally allowed to purchase guns. Today, it is perfectly legal for a 
violent juvenile who has committed a felony to walk into a gun store on 
his 18th birthday and legally walk out armed to kill.
  In many States, juveniles convicted of violent crime frequently get 
their criminal records erased when they turn 18. This is wrong. Today 
we have an opportunity to act. I am proud to join with my good friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) to 
introduce the violent

[[Page H4638]]

youth offender accountability amendment, which will ban the most 
violent and dangerous juvenile offenders from ever possessing a gun. We 
must put violent juvenile crime on par with violent adult crime.
  The violent youth offender accountability amendment will keep 
firearms out of the hands of dangerous violent felons. Under Federal 
law, these felonies include murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, sexual 
abuse, kidnapping, carjacking, air piracy, robbery, extortion and 
arson. Simply put, juveniles who commit these adult crimes must face 
adult consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, every year approximately 116,000 violent or serious 
juvenile arrests are processed by the juvenile courts. Very few are 
processed as adult crimes. Most are repeat criminals. This dangerous 
loophole in the Brady law rewards the most violent of these offenders 
with the right to possess a gun when they reach their 18th birthday. It 
is time to close this loophole and keep our schools and communities 
safe by keeping firearms out of the hands of these violent felons.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join the broad coalition who 
support this bill and keep guns out of the hands of violent juveniles.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the 
amendment, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is supported by the administration, and it would ban 
juveniles found delinquent of certain serious violent crimes from 
buying guns. That is to the good. The amendment extends the lifetime 
ban on firearms possessions to any juvenile who is found delinquent of 
a crime that would be a serious violent felony as defined by 18 U.S. 
Code 3559(c)(2)(F)(i). These offenses include murder, sexual abuse, 
carjacking, and extortion, among other offenses punishable by more than 
10 years in prison.
  However, I think it is worth pointing out that some serious violent 
felonies are excluded from the amendment. The amendment would not 
extend the lifetime ban to the State law offenses punishable by 10 
years or more that have as an element the use, attempted use, or 
threatened use of physical force, including assault with a deadly 
weapon, vehicular manslaughter and mayhem.
  Nevertheless, the amendment does represent progress. The 
administration believes all crimes committed by juveniles of serious 
violent felonies would be preferable. I believe as well that that is 
the case, but I intend to vote for the amendment.
  I would note, however, that even though this amendment improves the 
situation on Brady checks for juveniles, it is ironic that because of 
what we did in the dark of night, the extension of the check to 
juveniles is merely appended to a weakening of our current gun laws. As 
we sort through what this body did last night, the retreat we made from 
sensible gun safety measures, it seems to me that licensed gun dealers 
will now go to the flea markets, the pawn shops, the parking lot, and 
they will sell unchecked, due to the Dingell loophole, guns to people 
who would not otherwise be eligible, and that will include the 
juveniles who would have been covered by this amendment that is before 
us.
  So while I support the amendment, recognizing it is weaker than it 
should be, I would note that it is not going to be sufficient to save 
this very flawed effort that we are engaged in here. We have failed the 
mothers and fathers of America who look to us to stand up to the 
special interests and to stand up for the children of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) controls 
5 minutes, and the gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) for 
providing me with this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say I am honored to join my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan). He and I are cosponsoring 
perhaps one of the few pieces of legislation under consideration today 
that can tout endorsements from both handgun control and the NRA. As a 
Member of Congress who has been rated an F minus from the NRA, I do not 
know if I should celebrate or cry by that combination. But the fact 
remains that the handgun control advocates and NRA support this because 
it is very sensible, and it really has to do with what many of us have 
been trying to do over the last several weeks here in the Congress, and 
that is pass legislation that prevents those with criminal backgrounds 
from getting guns.
  This legislation is simple and straightforward. It bans the most 
violent juvenile offenders in our society from possessing firearms for 
life. As a matter of fact, it is a common-sense issue that is hard to 
believe was not law already. The fact remains a juvenile that has been 
convicted of murder, a juvenile that has been convicted of aggravated 
assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, can still buy guns. Under 
our legislation, we will apply the same rules to juvenile offenders as 
we apply to adult offenders. If a juvenile is convicted of the more 
serious felonies, murder, rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery, that 
juvenile will be prevented from legally owning firearms as adults.

                              {time}  1145

  Young people convicted in juvenile courts of serious violent crimes 
such as murder, rape, assault with attempt to commit murder still can, 
under present law, possess the right to own firearms on their 18th 
birthday even though, as I said moments ago, adults are barred from 
doing so.
  Since an average of 116,000 juvenile arrests for violent crimes are 
referred to the juvenile court system every year, this loophole leaves 
the door wide open for the most violent offenders to obtain firearms 
and gives them the opportunity only to use them to commit more crimes.
  History has proven that criminals are ready, willing, and able to 
walk through that door time and time again. Case studies recently 
compiled by the Violence Prevention and Research Institute at the 
University of California have cited dramatic instances of violent 
juvenile offenders, who had no business purchasing firearms, legally 
obtaining them and using then to commit serious crimes.
  In one particular case, a 17-year-old California youth who served 
time in juvenile detention in the juvenile detention center for assault 
with a deadly weapon wasted no time in exercising his legal right to 
purchase a handgun as soon as he turned 21. Over the next 10 years, he 
was arrested 14 times for crimes, including burglary, theft, and 
murder.
  In a second case, an 18-year-old who was processed through the 
juvenile court system in California on two occasions for assault with a 
deadly weapon and assault with intent to kill was also able to legally 
purchase a handgun when he turned 18. In fact, he was 27 at the time. 
At that point, he was later arrested and convicted of felony robbery 
with a gun.
  In short and in summation, our amendment would treat the most serious 
class of violent juveniles as adults for their adult crimes and stop 
them from getting weapons to hurt others in our society.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting what I think in this 
case really is truly a bipartisan effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) a member of the committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand seven pages listing the names of dead 
children. This amendment is an important one. It deals with a different 
perspective, the juvenile Brady bill, which

[[Page H4639]]

says that those juveniles who themselves committed violent crimes 
during their status as a juvenile cannot, in fact, secure a gun as an 
adult.
  This is a good bill. In fact, as I wear this blue ribbon in 
commemoration and sadness for the tragedy in Columbine, if the two 
perpetrators had lived, obviously they may not have ever been out of 
jail, but they would then be under this particular bill. It is a 
tragedy that we even have to speak to the idea of juveniles 
perpetrating such violent crimes. It does, however, prevent or provide 
a sensitive aspect to the extent that if the juvenile has been pardoned 
or that their civil rights restored, it does not apply.
  But what it does not do, Mr. Chairman, although this is a very 
excellent bill, and I congratulate my colleague from Illinois, I rise 
to support it, and my colleague from California, it does not answer the 
question of the seven pages of dead children, because what it does not 
answer is how do we stop those juveniles in the first instance from 
getting guns from flea markets and gun shows and the back of a station 
wagon of a seller who comes into their neighborhood or community or 
garage sale and opens up 25 Saturday night specials. It does not answer 
the question of whether or not we can even prevent the transfer of a 
handgun to someone under 21.
  So I would simply say to my colleagues that we have at least a first 
step, but we still have seven pages of murdered children. Amanda Cindy 
Garza, 15, died from a gunshot wound to the head after unintentionally 
shooting herself with a .357 revolver. No one knows where the gun came 
from. The owner was unknown. Or Shawn Harvey, 16, was shot and killed 
mistakenly when they thought the boy was stealing a neighborhood car. 
He was shot in the head. The shooter had similar prior offenses and was 
using an unlicensed gun. Or when Jesse Duane Rogers, 10, and Amanda 
Rogers, 6, were playing Nintendo when their cousin unintentionally shot 
and killed them. The 17-year-old cousin, who had completed an NRA 
hunter's safety course, was baby-sitting them when he discovered the 9 
millimeter semiautomatic pistol in the closet.
  I hope this amendment passes, Mr. Chairman. But I simply say, we have 
not done enough. We need to do more.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent amendment. I 
certainly hope that we adopt it today and trust that most of my 
colleagues will vote for it.
  It is closing a major loophole in the current law with regard to 
those who commit very bad, violent crimes. In this case, they happen to 
be under 18, they happen to be teenagers, juveniles, but they are not 
tried in an adult court, for whatever reason. And then, as opposed to 
somebody who commits a crime as an adult or tried as an adult, they are 
not disqualified from owning a gun later.
  Anybody who commits the crimes that are under this particular 
amendment as an adult or being tried as an adult, even under 18, would 
never be able to own a gun in their life again. But that is not true 
unless this amendment is adopted with regard to those juveniles who are 
tried as delinquents or tried in juvenile courts as opposed to being 
tried as adults.
  Let me make clear what these crimes are that need to have this 
prohibition: Murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to commit 
murder, assault with intent to commit rape, sexual molestation, 
kidnapping, carjacking, robbery, and arson.
  If they commit a crime of this gravity and they are convicted of 
that, adjudicated of that in a juvenile proceeding, they should never 
be allowed to own a gun again in the future. If they are an adult, they 
never would be. Why should there be a difference with these serious 
crimes if they are a juvenile and adjudicated in a juvenile court? They 
committed these crimes. They should be disqualified, as the Rogan 
amendment does, from ever being able to own a gun again.
  This is a very important provision. It definitely deals with youth 
violence, and it is by far and away one of the hearts of this 
legislation. I again commend him.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 4 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) has 1 
minute remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is, it is good to see that today, 
with the help of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and former 
prosecutor, we are able to pass in a bipartisan fashion legislation 
that closes the loophole. And I regret to say that we failed to do that 
last night and passed legislation that did not really close the 
loophole that is gaping and wide, and that we need to readdress it at 
some point in the future, and I would hope that my friend the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rogan) and I and others on that side of the aisle 
can join us to do that down the road because I do not think that we 
have done what we really need to do on the gun show loophole.
  Having said that again, I commend the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank my colleague and my good friend 
for his leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure working with 
him. I want to thank him again and his dedicated staff for all the hard 
work that they have put into this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, it takes me back to California days, 
and I am very, very happy to stand here in support of this amendment 
with my colleague from California.
  Understand that, in California, we have taken very, very many steps 
to try to control the proliferation of guns amongst our children, and 
we have not been able to successfully deal with the young people who 
are able to acquire these guns and be able to use them 
indiscriminately, whether they are on drugs or whether they are doing 
the drive-bys in the areas where we have the least control.
  Now, under this law, any person who is an adjudicated juvenile 
delinquent may possess firearms when they become adults. This will 
prevent those juveniles from being able to legally obtain and be 
licensed to carry a gun. This is a very necessary item to the Brady 
bill, and we may want to call it the juvenile Brady. And I believe that 
all of us should support this bill to be able to allow our law 
enforcement officers to have one more tool to keep guns away from 
violent individuals, whether they be juveniles or adults.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me the time and for her leadership on this issue.
  I, too, support this amendment, but I rise to really express my 
disgust and disappointment that this body reversed gun safety in this 
country last night. Only in a Republican-controlled Congress, in the 
wake of tragedies like Littleton, Colorado, would they come to the 
floor and pass an amendment which makes it easier, makes it easier, for 
criminals to get their hands on guns.
  Under current law, licensed dealers must wait 3 business days for a 
Brady background check before giving a gun to a purchaser. But last 
night, last night, the majority voted to reduce this time to 24 hours.
  Well, guess who would have gotten a gun last year if this had been 
the law? I have a list here from the Department of Justice, and it 
talks about people who were stopped because of the Brady bill because 
of the background check. But if they had just the 24 hours, they would 
have gotten a gun.
  On February 6, 1999, a twice-convicted domestic violence batterer; on

[[Page H4640]]

April 24, 1999, a person convicted of domestic assault and battery. It 
goes down. A person convicted of second degree murder, rape, crack 
cocaine.
  This is outrageous that when this country is experiencing youth 
violence in our schools, in our neighborhoods, children killing 
children, this body voted to turn back the clock and make it easier for 
people to get their hands on guns, felons.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Conyers substitute and to vote 
for this bill that turns back the clock and makes it easier for felons 
to get their hands on guns. It is outrageous and it is wrong.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying that it is fine to vote for the 
Rogan amendment, but let us not fool ourselves. We are voting to extend 
the Brady background check to juveniles. That is fine. But, in the dead 
of night, when they thought no one was watching, we weakened the Brady 
law so that criminals, and I would add juvenile criminals, are going to 
be able to buy these guns in the parking lots, in the flea markets, in 
the gun shows.
  I do not think the American people have been fooled one bit. This is 
not what the mothers and fathers of America expected us to do in the 
wake of the massacre at Columbine High.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1200


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions); 
amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); 
amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter); 
and amendment No. 11 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rogan).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 181, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 239]

                               AYES--247

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Minge
     Pascrell
     Salmon
     Thomas

                              {time}  1226

  Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of 
Texas, Ms. DeGETTE, Mr. HINCHEY, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Messrs. DELAHUNT, 
RAMSTAD, LoBIONDO, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Messrs. DOOLEY of California, 
CASTLE, FOSSELLA, WALSH, SCARBOROUGH, CARDIN, GILMAN, GILCHREST, 
WELLER, MORAN of Kansas, ROEMER and LIPINSKI changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HINOJOSA, DINGELL, SKEEN, Ms. CARSON, Messrs. MOORE, KLINK, 
HEFLEY, KIND, Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. JONES of North Carolina, 
STRICKLAND and MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

[[Page H4641]]

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


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                  amendment no. 9 offered by mr. goode

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 250, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                               AYES--175

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boucher
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Lampson
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--250

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Obey
     Strickland
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bonilla
     Brown (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Minge
     Pascrell
     Salmon
     Thomas

                              {time}  1236

  Mr. KASICH and Mr. FOSSELLA changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 240, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                 amendment no. 10 offered by mr. hunter

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 208, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--213

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds

[[Page H4642]]


     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Green (WI)
     Obey
     Strickland

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Archer
     Bonilla
     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     Farr
     Lewis (CA)
     Minge
     Pascrell
     Salmon
     Thomas

                              {time}  1244

  Mr. HOLDEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 241, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Rogan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 395, 
noes 27, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 242]

                               AYES--395

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--27

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Barton
     Blunt
     Burton
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Cubin
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Hansen
     Hill (MT)
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Kingston
     Linder
     Obey
     Paul
     Riley
     Scarborough
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stump
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Wamp

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bonilla
     Brown (CA)
     Cooksey
     Everett
     Forbes
     Graham
     Lewis (CA)
     Minge
     Pascrell
     Rogan
     Salmon
     Thomas

[[Page H4643]]



                              {time}  1252

  Mr. KLINK and Mr. INSLEE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
  Stated for:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 242, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. OBEY moves that the Committee of the Whole now rise and 
     report the bill back to the House with the recommendation 
     that the enacting clause be stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I voted in the end against passage of the so-
called juvenile justice bill yesterday, and I will oppose this bill on 
final passage today. I do not disagree with much of the content. I 
voted for the Dingell amendment last night.
  I will vote against this bill today because the process by which 
Congress considered both of these bills is a national disgrace. It has 
resulted in Congress making crucial decisions on matters ranging from 
legal liabilities of families, local school governance, judicial 
sentencing, and religious liberty and other issues without any clear 
understanding of the legal impact and the real-world effect of our 
actions.
  That happened because neither of these bills was produced through the 
normal committee hearing and deliberation process, which is the main 
tool Congress has to protect liberty and protect justice for the people 
we represent.
  There is a reason why Congress normally has a hearing process to 
allow the general public and experts alike to think aloud about what it 
is that Congress is planning to do, to make sure that they and Congress 
have a full understanding of the results of the contemplated actions.
  But these bills were brought to the floor in a process that short-
circuits what Congress is able to do best as an institution: Namely, to 
carefully sort out in committee the nuances of critical issues, aided 
by the expertise that committee members develop in their specialty 
areas of jurisdiction.
  The process by which these bills were considered has contributed to a 
continuing erosion of this body as a respected legislative institution. 
More and more, the Congress is not passing real legislation, it is 
passing institutional press releases aimed far more at sending 
political messages than they are at solving problems.
  This chaos must stop or this institution will lose the confidence of 
the public, which has the right to believe that we will consider each 
and every matter in a manner that is designed to protect their real-
life interests, rather than our partisan interests.
  I deeply believe in the need to take strong, meaningful action and 
thoughtful action to deal with the problems of juvenile violence, 
public safety, and the protection of basic American values. But this 
process virtually guarantees that this Congress will produce nothing of 
the kind. So my vote will be a protest against the way Congress has 
politicized a critical national problem.
  I also want to note that I voted present on two of the previous four 
issues that we just voted on, the two relating to the District of 
Columbia, because in my view I was not elected to be a city councilman 
for the District of Columbia. I believe the city's issues should be 
left to themselves, so I voted present as an effort to protest the way 
that this House routinely interposes its judgment on matters that are 
strictly local affairs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and remain 
standing. The Chair will count all Members standing.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
request for a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  So the motion was rejected.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment deemed as the last 
amendment printed in Part B of House Report 106-186.


 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 12 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Part B amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 12 
     deemed printed in House Report 106-186 offered by Mr. 
     Conyers:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

                  TITLE I--GENERAL FIREARM PROVISIONS

     SECTION. 101. EXTENSION OF BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO 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;
       (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) in fact, even before a firearm is exhibited or offered 
     for sale or exchange at a gun show, flea market, or other 
     organized event, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, 
     and the raw materials from which it is manufactured have 
     moved in interstate commerce;
       (5) 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 anonymously, often 
     without background checks and without records that enable gun 
     tracing;
       (6) 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 obtain guns without 
     background checks and frequently use guns that cannot be 
     traced to later commit crimes;
       (7) many persons who buy and sell firearms at gun shows, 
     flea markets, and other organized events cross State lines to 
     attend these events and engage in the interstate 
     transportation of firearms obtained at these events;
       (8) gun violence is a pervasive, national problem that is 
     exacerbated by the availability of guns at gun shows, flea 
     markets, and other organized events;
       (9) 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
       (10) 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 Act, 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) 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--
       ``(i) not less than 20 percent of the exhibitors are 
     firearm exhibitors;
       ``(ii) there are not less than 10 firearm exhibitors; or
       ``(iii) 50 or more firearms are offered for sale, transfer, 
     or exchange.
       ``(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:

[[Page H4644]]

     ``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 commencement of the gun show, 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 commencement of the gun show, requires each 
     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 
     requirements of this chapter, 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:
       ``(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

[[Page H4645]]

     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 on which the licensee first contacts the system with 
     respect to the transfer''.
       (h) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

       TITLE II--RESTRICTING JUVENILE ACCESS TO CERTAIN FIREARMS

     SEC. 201. PROHIBITION ON FIREARMS POSSESSION BY VIOLENT 
                   JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 921(a)(20) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(20)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) For purposes of subsections (d) and (g) of section 
     922, the term `act of violent juvenile delinquency' means an 
     adjudication of delinquency in Federal or State court, based 
     on a finding of the commission of an act by a person prior to 
     his or her eighteenth birthday that, if committed by an 
     adult, would be a serious or violent felony, as defined in 
     section 3559(c)(2)(F)(i) had Federal jurisdiction existed and 
     been exercised (except that section 3559(c)(3)(A) shall not 
     apply to this subparagraph).''; and
       (4) in the undesignated paragraph following subparagraph 
     (B) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection), by 
     striking ``What constitutes'' and all that follows through 
     ``this chapter,'' and inserting the following:
       ``(C) What constitutes a conviction of such a crime or an 
     adjudication of an act of violent juvenile delinquency shall 
     be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction 
     in which the proceedings were held. Any State conviction or 
     adjudication of an act of violent juvenile delinquency that 
     has been expunged or set aside, or for which a person has 
     been pardoned or has had civil rights restored, by the 
     jurisdiction in which the conviction or adjudication of an 
     act of violent juvenile delinquency occurred shall not be 
     considered to be a conviction or adjudication of an act of 
     violent juvenile delinquency for purposes of this chapter,''.
       (b) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) has committed an act of violent juvenile 
     delinquency.''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) who has committed an act of violent juvenile 
     delinquency,''.
       (c) Effective Date of Adjudication Provisions.--The 
     amendments made by this section shall only apply to an 
     adjudication of an act of violent juvenile delinquency that 
     occurs after the date that is 30 days after the date on which 
     the Attorney General certifies to Congress and separately 
     notifies Federal firearms licensees, through publication in 
     the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Treasury, that 
     the records of such adjudications are routinely available in 
     the national instant criminal background check system 
     established under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act.

     SEC. 202. PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS BY JUVENILES.

       (a) Juvenile Weapons Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4) by striking ``Whoever'' at the 
     beginning of the first sentence, and inserting in lieu 
     thereof, ``Except as provided in paragraph (6) of this 
     subsection, whoever''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by amending it to read as follows:
       ``(6)(A) A juvenile who violates section 922(x) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or 
     both, except--
       ``(i) a juvenile shall be sentenced to probation on 
     appropriate conditions and shall not be incarcerated unless 
     the juvenile fails to comply with a condition of probation, 
     if--
       ``(I) the offense of which the juvenile is charged is 
     possession of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in violation of section 922(x)(2); and
       ``(II) the juvenile has not been convicted in any court of 
     an offense (including an offense under section 922(x) or a 
     similar State law, but not including any other offense 
     consisting of conduct that if engaged in by an adult would 
     not constitute an offense) or adjudicated as a juvenile 
     delinquent for conduct that if engaged in by an adult would 
     constitute an offense; or
       ``(ii) a juvenile shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, if--
       ``(I) the offense of which the juvenile is charged is 
     possession of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in violation of section 922(x)(2); and
       ``(II) during the same course of conduct in violating 
     section 922(x)(2), the juvenile violated section 922(q), with 
     the intent to carry or otherwise possess or discharge or 
     otherwise use the handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in the commission of a violent felony.
       ``(B) A person other than a juvenile who knowingly violates 
     section 922(x)--
       ``(i) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 1 year, or both; and
       ``(ii) if the person sold, delivered, or otherwise 
     transferred a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon to a 
     juvenile knowing or having reasonable cause to know that the 
     juvenile intended to carry or otherwise possess or discharge 
     or otherwise use the handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon in 
     the commission of a violent felony, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph a `violent felony' 
     means conduct as described in section 924(e)(2)(B) of this 
     title.
       ``(D) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in any 
     case in which a juvenile is prosecuted in a district court of 
     the United States, and the juvenile is subject to the 
     penalties under clause (ii) of paragraph (A), the juvenile 
     shall be subject to the same laws, rules, and proceedings 
     regarding sentencing (including the availability of 
     probation, restitution, fines, forfeiture, imprisonment, and 
     supervised release) that would be applicable in the case of 
     an adult. No juvenile sentenced to a term of imprisonment 
     shall be released from custody simply because the juvenile 
     reaches the age of 18 years.''.
       (b) Unlawful Weapons Transfers to Juveniles.--Section 
     922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, 
     deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor 
     knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile--
       ``(A) a handgun;
       ``(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a 
     handgun;
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile 
     to knowingly possess--
       ``(A) a handgun;
       ``(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a 
     handgun;
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
       ``(3) This subsection does not apply to--
       ``(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun, ammunition, large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault 
     weapon to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a 
     handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding device 
     or a semiautomatic assault weapon by a juvenile--
       ``(i) if the handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon are possessed 
     and used by the juvenile--
       ``(I) in the course of employment,
       ``(II) in the course of ranching or farming related to 
     activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property 
     used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the 
     permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing 
     activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch),
       ``(III) for target practice,
       ``(IV) for hunting, or
       ``(V) for a course of instruction in the safe and lawful 
     use of a firearm;

[[Page H4646]]

       ``(ii) clause (i) shall apply only if the juvenile's 
     possession and use of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     under this subparagraph are in accordance with State and 
     local law, and the following conditions are met--
       ``(I) except when a parent or guardian of the juvenile is 
     in the immediate and supervisory presence of the juvenile, 
     the juvenile shall have in the juvenile's possession at all 
     times when a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon is in the 
     possession of the juvenile, the prior written consent of the 
     juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by 
     Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm or 
     ammunition; and
       ``(II) during transportation by the juvenile directly from 
     the place of transfer to a place at which an activity 
     described in clause (i) is to take place the firearm shall be 
     unloaded and in a locked container or case, and during the 
     transportation by the juvenile of that firearm, directly from 
     the place at which such an activity took place to the 
     transferor, the firearm shall also be unloaded and in a 
     locked container or case; or
       ``(III) with respect to employment, ranching or farming 
     activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess 
     and use a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault rifle with the 
     prior written approval of the juvenile's parent or legal 
     guardian, if such approval is on file with the adult who is 
     not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from 
     possessing a firearm or ammunition and that person is 
     directing the ranching or farming activities of the juvenile;
       ``(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed 
     with a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device or semiautomatic assault weapon in the line of duty;
       ``(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not 
     possession) of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     to a juvenile; or
       ``(D) the possession of a handgun, ammunition, large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault 
     weapon taken in lawful defense of the juvenile or other 
     persons in the residence of the juvenile or a residence in 
     which the juvenile is an invited guest.
       ``(4) A handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon, the 
     possession of which is transferred to a juvenile in 
     circumstances in which the transferor is not in violation of 
     this subsection, shall not be subject to permanent 
     confiscation by the Government if its possession by the 
     juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct 
     of the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner 
     when such handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon is no longer 
     required by the Government for the purposes of investigation 
     or prosecution.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `juvenile' 
     means a person who is less than 18 years of age.
       ``(6)(A) In a prosecution of a violation of this 
     subsection, the court shall require the presence of a 
     juvenile defendant's parent or legal guardian at all 
     proceedings.
       ``(B) The court may use the contempt power to enforce 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) The court may excuse attendance of a parent or legal 
     guardian of a juvenile defendant at a proceeding in a 
     prosecution of a violation of this subsection for good cause 
     shown.
       ``(7) For purposes of this subsection only, the term `large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device' has the same meaning as 
     in section 921(a)(31) of title 18 and includes similar 
     devices manufactured before the effective date of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

                       TITLE III--ASSAULT WEAPONS

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Juvenile Assault Weapon 
     Loophole Closure Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 302. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICES.

       Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (B)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) Paragraph (1)'' and 
     inserting ``(B) Subparagraph (A)'';
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``(1)(A)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)(B)''.

     SEC. 303. DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICE.

       Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``manufactured after the date of 
     enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994''.

                     TITLE IV--CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Safe Handgun Storage and 
     Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 402. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are as follows:
       (1) To promote the safe storage and use of handguns by 
     consumers.
       (2) To prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to 
     or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in 
     possession of a handgun, unless it is under one of the 
     circumstances provided for in the Safe Handgun Storage and 
     Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999.
       (3) To avoid hindering industry from supplying law abiding 
     citizens firearms for all lawful purposes, including hunting, 
     self-defense, collecting and competitive or recreational 
     shooting.

     SEC. 403. FIREARMS SAFETY.

       (a) Unlawful Acts.--
       (1) Mandatory transfer of secure gun storage or safety 
     device.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:
       ``(z) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed 
     importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer 
     any handgun to any person who is not licensed under section 
     923, unless the licensee provides the transferee with a 
     secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the--
       ``(A)(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, 
     the United States or a department or agency of the United 
     States, or a State or a department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(B) transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer 
     employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a 
     police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for 
     purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
       ``(C) transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio 
     or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or
       ``(D) transfer to any person of a handgun for which a 
     secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily 
     unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions 
     stated in section 923(e): Provided, That the licensed 
     manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers 
     to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of 
     the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun 
     storage or safety device for the handgun.
       ``(3) Liability for use.--(A) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and 
     control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or 
     safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity 
     from a civil liability action as described in this paragraph.
       ``(B) Prospective actions.--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 
     subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the unlawful 
     misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--
       ``(i) the handgun was accessed by another person without 
     authorization of the person so described; and
       ``(ii) when the handgun was so accessed, the handgun had 
     been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety 
     device.

     A `qualified civil liability action' shall not include an 
     action brought against the person having lawful possession 
     and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or 
     negligence per se.''.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``, or (p)'' before 
     ``this section''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Secure Gun Storage or Safety 
     Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or 
     licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend for up to six months, or revoke, the license 
     issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to 
     conduct the firearms transfer; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $2,500.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
       (c) Liability; Evidence.--
       (1) Liability.--Nothing in this chapter shall be construed 
     to--
       (A) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms 
     licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or
       (B) establish any standard of care.

[[Page H4647]]

       (2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
     amendments made by this chapter shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 922(z), or to give effect 
     to paragraph (3) of section 922(z).
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty 
     under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a 
     failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title.

     SEC. 404. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) so that 
he may yield blocks of time at his own discretion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) will 
control 5 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).


Modification to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 12 Offered 
                             by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute approved by the Committee on Rules be 
modified in the manner which I have caused to be placed at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Conyers to amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute No. 12:
       At page 22, line 8, insert after ``person'' the following: 
     ``, in or affecting interstate commerce,''.
       At page 22, line 17, insert after ``person'' the following: 
     ``, in or affecting interstate commerce where the proof of 
     such is an element of the offense,''.

  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Is there objection to the modification of the amendment?
  There was no objection.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute is modified.

                          ____________________