[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 87 (Friday, June 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4647-H4657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1300

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allocate an 
additional 5 minutes per each side for this debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
reluctantly am going to object because we have Members who plan to 
catch their planes. It is very late now. It is 1:00 in the afternoon. I 
would say to the gentleman from California that we, unfortunately, need 
to get on with it. I hate to do that. I will cancel my reservation and 
make an objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized for 10 
minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a trying event with this legislation, but 
this substitute may be able to provide some solace for those of us who 
want something to take to the American people.
  This substitute is the Senate-passed gun safety provisions word for 
word, which many of us were led to believe at one time that the Speaker 
and the Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary supported.
  I had hoped that in the wake of Littleton that this body could pass 
modest gun safety measures, but leave it to the Republicans to tarnish 
the memory of those children by putting forth a bill that creates 
scores of new loopholes.
  If the bill that is before this body is passed, not only will we have 
gutted the bill, the gun show provision, and given criminals a virtual 
license to buy a gun, but we will have actually weakened current law in 
several important respects, and here is how: Right now, it is illegal 
to ship weapons across State lines into someone's home. This has been 
the law ever since Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. 
The bill before us repeals that law.
  Right now the District of Columbia restricts possession of firearms. 
This bill allows residents to not only own guns, but carry concealed 
weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, we have one last chance to turn this sorry situation 
around and restore some sanity to the process. A yes vote on the bill 
offered by myself and my dear friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell), on this substitute will eliminate all of the loopholes 
and return us word for word to the Senate-passed gun safety provisions.
  The Conyers/Campbell amendment will shut down the gun show loopholes 
once and for all.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment fails, I will be forced to vote 
against final passage of this legislation. The gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy) deserves more than this sorry bill, and the 
parents of 13 school children killed by guns every day deserve far more 
from this House.
  I urge a yes on the substitute, a no on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) will control 
15 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the substitute that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) offers is flawed for two principal reasons. Number one, it is 
a revote of the McCarthy amendment from last night that we defeated on 
the floor, and for anyone who voted against that, I do not wish to 
completely redebate that, but it is indeed a good reason, and, in fact, 
a necessary reason, in my judgment, to vote against this substitute.
  In case somebody needs to be reminded, this substitute, as would the 
McCarthy amendment last night, would essentially not specify what type 
of events fall within the definition of a gun show, so at a community 
yard sale if one person is selling his firearms collection, which could 
easily be more than 50 guns, and another neighbor puts one of his 
firearms on the table, it is a gun show.
  Private yard sales, private home sales would be covered. There are 
all kinds of illustrations that we went over last night where they are 
talking about two or more persons simply exhibiting firearms. A gun 
show is designed by nature to be exactly that, where there are a number 
of vendors, we have in the bill right now 10 or more, who get together 
to sell firearms at some organization's show or event, not a private 
sale among two or three individuals. That is really the biggest flaw in 
the McCarthy and now in the Conyers substitute.
  So I want Members to fully understand that we are revoting, by this 
substitute, the McCarthy proposal.
  Secondly, another reason why the Conyers substitute should be voted 
down, in my judgment, is that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), in his proposal, would amend several sections of the criminal 
code that would put it in direct conflict with what we passed yesterday 
in H.R. 1501, the juvenile justice bill.
  We all want child safety out here. We also all want to deter violent 
juvenile behavior and crimes, not just with guns, but in a number of 
other respects, but because these provisions that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is altering would directly conflict with 
yesterday's amendments that were adopted in the bill on 1501, I think 
that this should be defeated.
  For example, the Conyers substitute does not contain these 
punishments passed yesterday: Increased penalties on juveniles who 
illegally possess a gun with intent to take it to a school or to give 
it to somebody who will take it to a school; the increased penalty on

[[Page H4648]]

adults who illegally give a gun to a juvenile; the mandatory minimum 
sentence imposed on adults who give illegal firearms to juveniles 
intending that they take them to a school; and the mandatory minimum 
penalty imposed on adults who illegally give a gun to a juvenile, 
knowing that a juvenile will use it to commit a serious felony.
  The House, again, has already decided these issues, and the best case 
scenario, the adoption of this substitute is going to confuse the issue 
because the provisions would be directly in conflict, albeit in two 
separate bills.
  Lastly, I would like to comment on where we are as we move to final 
passage. We are about to do that after this substitute, and I would 
certainly encourage the vote for the final passage of this legislation. 
It is a piece of legislation which will close loopholes. It is a piece 
of legislation that without any dispute does four of the five 
provisions from the Senate legislation, the other body's legislation, 
that a lot of people have been discussing out here.
  The question of banning juvenile possession of assault weapons was 
adopted and is part of this bill, as it is a part of the other body's. 
The juvenile Brady provisions with respect to now saying that if 
someone commits certain violent crimes as a juvenile and are 
adjudicated in a juvenile court, they are no longer able to own a gun 
later as an adult, or purchase one, that is part of this bill as it is 
part of the other body's.
  The ban on large magazine clips that were manufactured, or for guns 
manufactured, before 1994 is a part of this bill, as it is the other 
body's. The safety lock language that all of us, at least most of us, 
feel is important with respect to safety of children is also a part of 
this.
  The only debate, again, comes back to the question of the gun shows, 
and that comes back to the debate last night, again, that is in this 
substitute over the McCarthy, or in the other body, the Lautenberg 
proposal.
  I would say shame on anybody who does not vote for this, because as 
we said last night, everybody wants to close the gun show loophole. The 
legislation we have before us does that, and it does all four of the 
other things that I mentioned.
  This is a major advance in the right direction. Maybe some people did 
not get all they wanted. That we can revisit on a future date. But this 
is a vast improvement over the conditions we presently have in current 
law, and anybody, I would suggest, who votes against this, who really 
does so because they do not believe it goes far enough in the way of 
providing more safety in these areas, is doing so and playing politics 
where they should not be playing politics.
  It is a constructive proposal. It may not be, again, what everybody 
wants, but it is a constructive proposal that does advance the purposes 
intended, and that is to protect our Nation from violent felons getting 
access to guns when they should not and protecting children on our 
streets and the playgrounds in our schools and at home. That is what 
this legislation is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, there are Republicans who believe in gun control. We 
are going to hear from them right now. We are hearing from one right 
now, and we will hear from others. There were 47 of us who voted 
against the Dingell watering down. I am proud to say that there were 
eight from California in that group, and today we Republicans who 
recognize the importance of reasonable gun control and the second 
amendment both strongly support the Conyers/Campbell substitute.
  I am proud to put my name right next to that of my good friend and 
mentor and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for 
whom I have the highest regard. That is point one.
  Point two, there is a huge advantage in this version versus the 
underlying bill. If my colleagues are against semiautomatic assault 
weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices for minors, there 
is a flaw in the underlying bill; they did not rectify it under U.S. v. 
Lopez.
  What does that mean? In 1995, the Supreme Court said that we could 
not, as a Federal Government, ban the ownership, the bringing onto 
school grounds of a handgun, because there was no finding of an effect 
on commerce. By contrast, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), in 
his kindness and willingness to accept an accommodation, put that exact 
finding into this bill. So I repeat, if Members want to take 
semiautomatic assault-style weapons away from people under 18, only 
Conyers/Campbell does that. The underlying bill, in my view, is and 
will be held unconstitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, 200 million guns flood the streets of 
America. Two hundred million guns arm us like a Nation at war with 
itself, and this Congress does virtually nothing.
  We are accomplices when 13 of our children are gunned down every day. 
We are accomplices when a child finds the family gun and ends the life 
of a neighbor. We are accomplices when the leading cause of death among 
young African American men is homicide by guns.
  A teen without a gun cannot massacre his classmates. A toddler 
without a gun cannot shoot his playmate. The NRA and Charlton Heston 
are writing our gun laws. Where is the outrage? Congress is playing 
Russian roulette with the lives of our children. America, where is the 
outrage? Support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 6\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for 
a question?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I yield for a question to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to work in a 
bipartisan way. I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), I just simply ask the question, how many guns would nine gun 
show vendors have to sell under this bill?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, I am not going to get into a debate 
over the McCarthy issue again today. I have a limited amount of time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am trying to clarify the bill of the 
gentleman.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would be standing in 
front of this or any other legislative body asking for a vote in favor 
of a bill that has any type of gun control legislation attached to it, 
but then I never thought I would be representing a district in which 
two teenagers would walk into a school and callously, mercilessly, take 
the lives of 12 of their classmates and 1 of their teachers and wound 
over 20 other children.
  Of course, there are things that happen in individual lives that 
delineate one section from another. That is what has happened to every 
one of us who live in Littleton, Colorado. No one will be the same 
after April 20, 1999. Everybody's life has changed and will be dated 
from that point on by that event.
  I do not mean to suggest that what we are doing here in this bill 
will have the effect of guaranteeing that we will never have a 
recurrence of Columbine High School. I know that we cannot make such a 
guarantee, because there is nothing in this bill actually that can cure 
the sickness of the soul that afflicts so many, such an unfortunately 
large segment of the population of this great land.
  I do hope that we have addressed that issue to the extent that we are 
able to address that issue, the underlying issue, the real cause of the 
problem. I hope we did that yesterday and late last night.
  To the extent that we can address the other side of the problem, the 
more superficial side, and I admit fully well

[[Page H4649]]

that I believe that this is relatively superficial, that when we deal 
with the gun side of this thing it is the superficial side. It is the 
attention to a sore that appears on one's body and that they apply a 
Band-Aid to, but that they ignore whatever it is that is causing that 
sore to appear.

                              {time}  1315

  But, nonetheless, we must oftentimes apply that Band-Aid. We have to 
have it. Even though it is relatively superficial, it needs to be done. 
We are bleeding. There is no two ways about that. We are bleeding in my 
district. We are bleeding across this land both literally and 
figuratively.
  So I recognize that there are people on both sides of the aisle who 
are concerned about the ability for this particular piece of 
legislation to get the job done, but I will tell my colleagues that I 
believe that we are far closer to getting it done if we pass this than 
if we do not.
  I fear that, if this fails, first of all, that there will be nothing 
that comes out of this Congress, nothing that can come out even in a 
conference committee if the Conyers amendment passes and eventually 
this bill fails, which I think is exactly what would happen.
  We have done a number of things that I think we can be proud of. We 
have extended Brady. It does now include everyone that walks into the 
door that wants to purchase a gun in a gun show. If the Dingell bill 
passes, that is what we have accomplished.
  There are things that we have done right, Mr. Chairman, and I would 
ask for a yes vote on the bill and no vote on the Conyers amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who has worked so hard on this 
whole subject matter.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, well, I guess my constituents and the 
parents across this country will sleep a lot better this weekend 
knowing that Congress is solving youth violence by posting the Ten 
Commandments in the schools and passing child gun safety laws written 
by the NRA which substantially weaken current laws.
  Do my colleagues know something, if there is anything we should have 
learned in the last year it is that the American people are a lot 
smarter than this, and they will not accept the watered-down bill like 
this.
  It is not right to remember the kids at Columbine, to remember the 
kids across the country this way. Vote yes on Conyers. Vote no on final 
passage if Conyers fails.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute. 
Mr. Chairman, more than 8 weeks ago, 12 students and a teacher were 
killed at Columbine High School. That terrible event shocked this 
Nation to its core; and all across the country, the American people 
cried out for action. That cry was heard in Washington. Carol McCarthy 
heard it. We all heard it, the cry of so many victims, the cry of the 
children.
  A terrible tremor arose from Columbine 8 weeks ago. It spread across 
the entire Nation. Today we stand on the floor after 2 days of debate 
and discussion. Let us vote for this bill, the substitute bill. It is a 
good bill. Let us take action.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and all of our colleagues that have paid very close 
attention to these debates, these monumental, momentous debates over 
these last 3 days.
  Of course, the headlines today, depending on which paper we read, 
which tabloid we picked up, places the consequence for what happened 
last night, the various votes, on one group or another group or one 
person or another person.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the action that this 
House took last night, the action that this House took the day before 
yesterday, the action that this House took this morning, and the action 
that this House will take in a few moments to pass the McCollum bill, 
H.R. 2122, is the American people speaking.
  Every one of us in this Chamber, and all of our colleagues not here 
at this moment, represent 600,000 or more American citizens, families, 
men, women, children, grandparents, aunts, and uncles and friends. They 
have been in touch with us. They are listening.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, because we may disagree on something, my 
colleagues may say, oh, it is another group that is doing this. Huh-uh. 
We listen to our constituents the same way they do. Our constituents 
are telling us they want a comprehensive piece of legislation that 
protects the Constitution, protects the Second Amendment, strengthens 
family, strengthens schools, strengthens the right of all Americans, 
and moves us in the direction of a positive piece of legislation that 
we can go back to the American people and say, yes, Congress has 
listened.
  Yes, we listen to both the Constitution, the American people, our 
American educators, our families, and support this piece of 
legislation. Is it perfect? No. Is it good? Absolutely yes. I urge all 
of my colleagues to vote for this bill, H.R. 2122.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the modest provisions that we have before us today have 
sent the gun lobby into a frenzy because it explodes the myth that we 
are powerless to act only to pass foolish symbolic legislation. We can 
explode that myth. We can stand up to the gun lobby.
  Every day in America we have another Littleton. It is just that the 
dead children are scattered across America rather than concentrated in 
one place for the media. I pray that our hearts are not so hardened 
that all the carnage has to be in one place before we have the courage 
to act.
  Please vote for the Conyers amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), who has worked indefatigably, and I thank her.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conyers-
Campbell substitute and to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for his leadership and that of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. McCarthy).
  This legislation is necessary because it will reduce gun violence, 
save the lives of our children, and protect the safety of our families 
and communities. We have all heard the statistics, Mr. Chairman, about 
every day 13 children's lives are lost to gunfire. But did my 
colleagues also know that, in 1996, gunfire killed 4,643 infants, 
little children, and teens.
  We must take action to protect our children. Support the Conyers-
Campbell bill.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes on behalf 
of reasonable gun control to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a 
reasonable Republican.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers substitute 
and also urge my colleagues to vote no on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember vividly many years ago cradling a 16-year-
old Spanish-American, Mexican-American boy in my arms with a gunshot 
wound to his head and trying to save his life. Mr. Chairman, I remember 
speaking to his family afterward, his brothers, his sisters, his 
parents, his grandparents, his cousins, and explaining to them how 
their son had been killed and died of a gunshot wound to the head.
  What was passed last night was not an improvement on current law. 
Under current law, a retailer has to get a background check and has 3 
business days to do it. What was passed last night was a weakening of 
that law. So that if a retailer goes to a gun show, they only have a 
24-hour period. If the agencies are not open, then that person who has 
not been adequately background checked gets his gun.

[[Page H4650]]

  Mr. Chairman, do we want to pass a law in light of Littleton and all 
the other gun shootings around this country that weakens current law? 
That is what we would do, Mr. Chairman, if we vote for this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute. There are many of my 
Republican colleagues who, once they realize that what the Dingell 
amendment did was weaken current law for retailers, I think would do 
wise to reconsider their vote. I urge a yes vote on the substitute and 
a no vote on final passage.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the last speaker a great deal, but with all 
due respect I disagree. Whatever my colleagues may think of any of the 
proposals that were here before us last night, and we are now revoting 
one of them today, the McCarthy one, every one of them closed the 
loophole with respect to gun shows because every one of them addressed 
the people who sell guns at gun shows who currently are not required in 
any way to get an instant check. Those are the individuals who go 
there.
  If my colleagues vote for this bill today, there will be not a person 
who buys a gun at a gun show who does not have to have their background 
checked to see it they were a felon, a convicted felon. I think that is 
extremely important.
  Most of the checks do not provide a positive result. When they do, 
they are arrests only records, and they can quickly be resolved and 
find out whether the person is convicted.
  Last, but not least, I would like to again reiterate that the Conyers 
proposal does more than simply revote McCarthy. It also undoes some of 
the work we did in H.R. 1501 yesterday, the juvenile justice bill. My 
colleagues should vote no on Conyers. If my colleagues believe in 
closing the gun show loophole and improving our laws, vote yes on final 
passage. It is not perfect, but it is an improvement of significant.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to 
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Conyers-Campbell substitute. 
Let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the 
subcommittee chairman.
  Under current law, and under the underlying bill, individuals will 
still be able to buy guns at gun shows without the background check 
because of the time differences and the definition of what is a gun 
show.
  So if we really want to do something, this is our last chance. Let us 
go along with the other body. We ask for that, many of us, on both 
sides of the aisle. We can do something for child safety. We can do 
something for gun safety.
  The subcommittee chairman says we will have other opportunities. It 
does not come along in this Chamber very often. This is our last 
chance. Let us support the substitute.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the Conyers-Campbell substitute. We very 
often have to make difficult decisions around here balancing different 
interests. This is not a very difficult decision at all, because we are 
balancing the inconvenience of a relative handful of people versus the 
protection of human life.
  I would say we have heard a lot of statistics around here the last 
few hours about percentages that would be involved and numbers of 
people that would be involved. In my judgment, the real number is one. 
If one life is preserved, if one shooting is prevented because of this 
measure, it is worth it. Support the Conyers-Campbell substitute.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the distinguished former Governor of Delaware, a 
reasonable Republican for reasonable gun control.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Obviously, I rise in support of the Conyers-Campbell amendment. Let 
us understand exactly where we are now. The Dingell bill is passed. 
There is a 24-hour check. Ninety percent of all the people that get the 
instant background check can buy their guns right away.
  We are dealing with the 10 percent of people who have been arrested 
at some time in their lives. We are trying to find out if they have 
been convicted. Are they felons, or are they not felons? We need time 
to do that.
  This basic legislation with the Dingell amendment in it now would 
apply to weekend gun shows. That is when gun shows take place, and they 
cannot check it in 24 hours because the courthouses simply are not 
open. It is not a loophole. It is just a wide open highway that a felon 
can take advantage of to go and buy guns. We are going to be arming 
felons if we leave this law the way it is.

                              {time}  1330

  Why do we not pass the Conyers-Campbell substitute now? It does 
exactly what the Senate did. It does it correctly. It has been signed 
off on by virtually every group out there that has looked at the issue 
of guns, and, in my judgment, in this country it is the way to go.
  We do not want to arm felons, we want to prevent them from being 
armed. Let us pass the substitute.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member over the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I want to also thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) very much.
  We can still do something today. We can pass real straightforward gun 
safety legislation. We can take the millions of guns away from 
criminals. We can keep the guns out the hands of violent juveniles. We 
can provide child safety locks, and we can bar large-capacity 
ammunition.
  Here is a letter to the NRA: ``Dear NRA. We are going to turn the 
lights out on you today and the gun lobby of America, but we are going 
to shine the light on America's children for safety and saving their 
lives. We are going to support the Conyers-Campbell substitute.''
  Yes, we can beat the gun lobby. We are going to stand up for America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), who is an old friend of mine from Chicago.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have been to the funerals of 
too many young people who were gunned down by others with semiautomatic 
weapons. I have been through Schwab Rehabilitation Hospital and Chicago 
Rehabilitation Hospital. I have seen too many young people paralyzed 
before they get an opportunity to realize what life is all about. I 
have seen the agony, the frustration, the pain of people in 
neighborhoods and communities afraid to come out of their houses at 
night.
  We must do the only sane, sensible thing on this day. We did not do 
it last night. Do it today, vote for the Conyers substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers' Democratic substitute 
amendment to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act.
  Today, in this sacred chamber, we have an opportunity to address this 
Nation's most pressing problem, gun violence, in a meaningful and 
effective fashion. We have a mandate from the people to take action 
that stems the tide of violence that is sweeping across our Nation from 
Washington, DC to Chicago and LA.
  The biggest victim of this tide of violence is our children. From 
Chicago's west side to Colorado and over to Georgia, we have felt the 
pain of lost precious lives. Now, before we lose another precious life, 
we must take meaningful action.
  Today, we have the opportunity to put in place meaningful gun control 
legislation, a task that we failed to complete last nite. Let's close 
the gun show loophole, let's ban the importation of large ammunition 
clips, let's raise the age to possess a handgun and semi-automatic 
weapon, lets make sure that every gun is sold with a safety device, 
lets adopt the Conyers' substitute. Why do we need these

[[Page H4651]]

protections. Well I'll tell you why, in Chicago we have a gun problem, 
our children are shooting children. In 1997 firearms were used in over 
\3/4\ of the murders committed in Chicago. What makes this statistic so 
disturbing is that over half of the persons committing murder were 
under the age of 21. In 1997 Chicago had 246 murders of people under 
the age of 21 and there were 290 people under the age of 21 charged 
with committing murder. Chicago contributes more than its fair share of 
children to a terrible statistical category: children killed too soon 
by hand guns, and it must stop. How can we in good conscience let this 
situation go on. Did you know that since 1969 that firearms are the 
leading cause of death among African-American youths? For 30 years 
handguns have been killing African-American youth and we still debate 
whether or not we need this common sense gun legislation. When will we 
take this necessary action?
  Now is not the time for loopholes in the bill that's trying to close 
loopholes.
  No one here is saying that someone can't own a gun, all they are 
saying is you have to wait, that your background must be checked out, 
and that children should not have guns. These are simple, straight 
forward, common sense proposals. Let's do it and make America safer and 
better. Let's not fail America's children again, let's take this 
opportunity to the right thing and pass meaningful gun reform.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for all 
his hard work and for allowing me this time.
  Over 70 percent of Democrats are in favor of what the Senate passed, 
yet 70 percent of the Republicans are opposed to what the Senate 
passed.
  Everyone knows the Republicans have played games with this process, 
playing a shell game with the Committee on Rules. This has really been 
a sham. This bill is going down unless we pass the Conyers-Campbell 
substitute to save our children from dying from gun violence.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, without the Conyers substitute, nine 
licensed vendors could sell thousands of guns to felons at a gun show 
without doing one criminal background check.
  Let me repeat. Without the Conyers substitute, nine licensed vendors 
could sell thousands of guns to felons without doing one criminal 
background check.
  In the wake of the Columbine High tragedies, only the NRA and those 
who support them could call this progress.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Conyers substitute.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former member of the judiciary.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I raised it yesterday, I raise it 
again today. No one has responded to the fact that local communities 
are not prepared to provide answers to instant check within 24 hours. 
No one has responded. And the reality of it is they cannot respond 
because local communities cannot help law enforcement comply with 
instant check in 24 hours.
  I rise in support of the Conyers substitute bill and ask all of my 
colleagues to get real. Protect children in this country. Vote against 
this sham of a legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, gun violence is out of control. This House 
is in a state of denial. It is time to stop dancing to the music 
composed by the gun lobby. It is time to face up to the fact of 
providing for a real instant check and to take guns out of the hands of 
criminals, out of the hands of the unstable, to stop the gun violence.
  Vote for the Conyers substitute, a bill that will go to the Senate, 
and we will have a bill that will be law. That is why the gun lobby has 
postponed the consideration of this measure, because they want to kill 
it. That is why they needed the month to do it.
  We should not be the handmaidens of the gun lobby. We should stick up 
for our constituents. We should stick up for the 600,000 people that 
sent us here, not the special interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of sensible gun safety measures that 
will prevent criminals from possessing guns.
  Last night's votes were not about saving lives or about preventing 
tragic events like the shooting in Colorado from happening again, but 
were about inconvenience-waiting three business days to complete a 
transaction. Ask a parent whose child is dead because of senseless gun 
violence if they have been inconvenienced by the loss of their child. 
Or ask the brothers, sisters and friends of these victims if they have 
been inconvenienced by the death of a loved one. It is so unfortunate 
the arguments of the 24-hour National Instant Check System (N.I.C.S.) 
equates the value of a precious life as only a matter of convenience. 
It's a shame when waiting a couple of days is just too much to put up 
with. If we can prevent firearms from being placed into the hands of 
persons that have records of violence or are unstable and stop the gun 
violence at their hands, only then will we have done our job. At least 
27 percent of N.I.C.S. applicants are not processed within 24 hours and 
approximately 80 percent of those denied the purchase, the individuals 
we want to screen out, take longer than 24 hours.
  Although we may not hear about all the other tragedies that occur on 
a daily basis we do know that more and more criminals are finding it 
easier to obtain guns and we must act now to prevent this from 
occurring and making a mockery of the background check procedure. Our 
goal has never been to punish a law-abiding citizen who wishes to own 
guns, but to prevent those individuals who have demonstrated that they 
will break the law, who do have criminal conduct as part of their 
history and those who are incompetent from bypassing the screening 
system and finding other ways to obtain firearms. The fact is that the 
limitations on such problem actors is a positive reinforcement for gun 
ownership by the general population. This provides assurance that there 
are opportunities to responsibly possess firearms for lawful citizens.
  I supported the McCarthy amendment because it just made sense. 
Without creating new, burdensome regulations on firearms collectors and 
hobbyists it would have brought parity, fairness and accountability to 
gun show sales by requiring gun show participants to abide by the same 
laws as the transactions within gun stores. This in fact codifes 
requirements that currently exist for firearms sales that take place at 
conventional retail outlets. This difference is an invitation for those 
who want to avoid a sound background check. Why the law should have two 
standards defies logic.
  We do not have the answers to solve all of the challenging problems 
that face our nation, but we are able to take preventive steps to 
ensure that certain tragedies like the ones we've seen all over the 
country do not continue. The Brady law background check, since enacted, 
has prevented 400,000 gun purchases by screening out those that are a 
risk, a violent risk to society. Congress should act to enhance this 
screening process and close the loophole. Keep the guns, the weapon of 
choice out of the hands of the violent person, especially youth that 
are unstable and lack maturity.
  Today we have another opportunity to restore workability and 
integrity to the screening process by adopting the Conyers substitute. 
Essentially the language and proposals which the Senate passed will 
close the loopholes in current law. Congress ought to do more, but the 
reality is that today we are fighting not to backtrack on existing 
laws, much less voting for new additional common sense measures that 
are needed. These include limiting the number of guns purchased in a 
month, prevention of remanufacturing kits for machine gun performance, 
legal liability and responsibility for the sales stream and for adults, 
including parents.
  All too often this debate on firearm safety and protecting our 
society from gun violence engenders the same canned arguments, no 
matter the substance and different proposals. The gun lobby and their 
supporters have the same script; that assumes the hidden agenda is to 
take all guns and ban them, supposedly violating the Constitution--
plain and simple scare tactics. Well, I own hunting shotguns and I want 
to keep them and I want others in our society who are responsible to 
have the same opportunity. In fact, I've heard no proponent of closing 
the gun show loophole or placing other limits on handguns or assault 
firearms advocate banning or taking all guns away. But the gun lobby 
has stampeded the House, ironically the people's House, into a blind 
canyon. Their arguments reflect an inability to deal with the facts and 
the gun lobby dictates only cosmetic changes.
  Sound regulation of firearms is the best assurance Congress can 
provide for citizen ownership. As for the second amendment to the 
Constitution, I am not aware of any decisions that come close to 
undercutting the laws and proposals on the table. These assertions are

[[Page H4652]]

simply bogus rationalizations. The real friend of the sportsman is a 
policy path that asserts responsibility and sets a standard of common 
sense and not a Congress that dances to the music composed and 
conducted by the gun lobby special interests.
  Vote for the Conyers substitute. Vote to stop the violence. Vote for 
responsible firearm safety and ownership. Vote for your constituents, 
not the special interest. Vote for the Conyers substitute.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Conyers substitute and to protest the majority's restriction on the 
number of Democratic amendments considered to the Mandatory Gun Show 
Background Check Act.
  Clearly, this decision favors the opponents of gun control and 
weakens our efforts to combat the proliferation of gun crimes in our 
Nation. Instead of being a House of the people, we become the water 
carriers for the NRA.
  Mr. Chairman, we are out of step with our colleagues in the Senate, 
and we are certainly out of step with the majority of the people in the 
United States.
  By restricting our ability to offer meaningful anti-gun violence 
amendmentsto this legislation, the Republican leadership has clearly 
let down the children and families of America by putting the interests 
of the gun lobby above the safety and well-being of all our children.
  Therefore I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Conyers 
substitute which will assure that Congress promptly responds to what 
the vast majority of Americans want--commonsense laws which are 
designed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and children.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a reasonable Republican for reasonable gun 
control.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers-Campbell 
substitute, the Senate bill, and I urge Members to vote against final 
passage if the Conyers-Campbell substitute does not pass.
  The bottom line is a 24-hour waiting period is a joke. It is an 
absolute joke. It makes a mockery of the law. We have a gun show on a 
Saturday, on a Sunday, the check means nothing. It is a joke.
  I hope in my lifetime the marriage between the NRA and my party ends 
in divorce. It is a bad marriage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I want to thank all of the Members of this body on both sides of the 
aisle that have joined in for the substitute, particularly, of course, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  What is the question? If we want more criminals to get guns from gun 
shows, vote against Conyers-Campbell. If we do not want criminals to 
get guns from gun shows then we will vote for Conyers-Campbell. It is 
as simple as that.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if all time has expired for 
the others?
  The CHAIRMAN. All other time has expired.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the 
House Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. My colleagues, we have reached the bottom line, and there 
is only one question that remains. Do we go forward, or do we go 
backwards?
  Nobody gets everything they want in a bill, especially one as 
contentious as this bill. But if we can pass a bill, we can get it to 
conference, where the real bill will be written, and we will have a 
chance to get those things that are near and dear to all our hearts. 
But if we stop right now, we will not solve anything.
  So the question is, are we really serious about doing something about 
juvenile crime, or would we rather posture; would we rather demonize 
our opponents and question their motives? Is that too much fun? Or can 
we keep this process alive and get it into conference where we will all 
have a voice, and we will try to shape a bill that suits the needs of 
America?
  This is only the first step. It is not the end game. So I ask my 
colleagues to please not cut the lifeline to this process that we are 
embarked in, this contentious process.
  Everybody here has been voting their district, their community, not 
voting party line, and we should not vote party line. There is no party 
line, although the Republican leadership supports this bill.
  The substitute of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) would 
undo all of the things we did yesterday. Some we may think are bad, but 
some are good. One of the things the gentleman does is denies the 
increased penalty on adults who illegally give a gun to a juvenile. 
That is a step backwards.
  I suggest we support this bill, we keep the process alive, because we 
want to do something about juvenile violence. And maybe someday we can 
elevate our thoughts from things like guns and get into the realm of 
ideas that have horrible consequences and are filling our children's 
souls with hate and death and violence. That is the real enemy, not the 
things.
  But there are too many guns, too many guns available to kids, and 
those people who responsibly use guns are entitled to their 
constitutional right. Balance is what we are looking for, protecting 
constitutional rights, protecting kids.
  The gentlewoman from New York last night, and she is a gentlewoman, 
made a very compelling and moving speech about why she came here. We 
all came here for the same thing. And I suggest we stop playing 
politics and we start playing children and start playing juvenile 
violence and start thinking more deeply about these things and trying 
to come to grips with solutions.
  One thing we can do is pass a bill today. Then it goes to conference, 
and then we will see if we cannot, through some inspiration, come out 
with a bill that advances the cause of tranquility and safety and 
families and kids in this country.
  Vote for the bill; vote against the Conyers substitute, which undoes 
everything we did in the last 2 days, and let us move into conference 
and see if we cannot continue this process.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, my esteemed colleagues, we have an 
opportunity before us today to pass bi-partisan, moderate gun safety 
legislation. We have a chance to make this country a safer place and we 
cannot afford to let this opportunity slip away.
  If this body passes weak and watered down gun safety legislation then 
we have wasted our time. If we do not pass the moderate gun safety 
measures, equivalent to those that passed in the Senate, we might as 
well pass nothing. We have a chance to do something meaningful and we 
cannot afford to fail!
  When it comes to gun safety, the people of this country are not going 
to settle for lip service. They want safe schools for their children. 
They want safe streets. They want to live in a country where thousands 
of people do not die of gun shot wounds every year. They want to live 
in a country where there are not seven school shootings within a period 
of two years.
  There have been charges from Members on the other side of this issue 
that those of us who support these gun safety measures are somehow 
taking political advantage of recent tragedies. Make no mistake. There 
is only one outside agenda here and that is the agenda of the NRA which 
has categorically rejected one reasonable proposal after another. The 
rest of us are attempting to enact smart, sensible gun safety 
legislation which many of us have been working on throughout our 
legislative careers. And every school massacre, drive-by shooting and 
accidental death of a child playing with guns further proves that this 
is the right thing to do.
  Sensible gun control is not about chipping away at the Second 
Amendment. It is not about taking away the right of ordinary citizens 
to own a gun. Those who tell you otherwise are not being straight with 
you because this is not about infringing upon the rights of ordinary 
citizens. This is about keeping guns out of the hands of those who 
should not have them.
  Tightening restrictions on the ability of criminals to purchase 
weapons of mass destruction does not impede on the Bill of Rights. 
Making guns safer and keeping them out of the hands of kids does not 
undermine our constitution.
  We live in an era of automatic weapons and an increasingly violent 
culture. Tackling the problems with guns should not preclude the need 
to address our cultural problems. But to deny that easy access to 
certain guns is a part of the problem is, quite literally, a deadly 
mistake. A disturbed person is dangerous. A disturbed person with a gun 
is deadly.
  We have before us an opportunity to do right by our constituents. If 
this House can't pass a meaningful gun safety bill we should be ashamed 
to go home and face the men, women and children we represent.

[[Page H4653]]

  Vote for the Conyers substitute.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
democratic alternative to the Child Safety Act, offered by Mr. Conyers 
of Michigan. In particular, I urge my colleagues to support the funding 
for crisis prevention counselors and anti-violence initiatives in our 
local schools.
  Early intervention has been shown to greatly reduce incidences of 
violence in schools. Children who need help should be able to get help 
right away. There should be caring adults in the schools who can 
identify children who might be struggling with a problem or with anger 
before it is too late. We cannot cut corners when it comes to our 
children.
  The other body had the opportunity to adopt a true ban on juvenile 
possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, but instead they adopted 
a weak amendment that allows juveniles to possess semi-automatic 
assault weapons with parental consent. There is no legitimate reason 
for a teenager to possess a Street Sweeper or an Uzi. Juvenile 
possession of these weapons should be banned. This provision is an 
invitation for dangerous juveniles to manipulate or pressure a 
permissive or irresponsible parent into allow the teenager to have a 
deadly weapon. We have an opportunity to adopt a strong bill that will 
prioritize youth safety. Then we can advocate for this strong language 
when the bill is in conference.
  I hope that this Congress will prioritize school safety. I hope that 
we will make a commitment to our children to make their schools safer 
and more conducive to learning. I also hope that we will make a 
commitment to examine what our children are learning and to ask if they 
are receiving a quality education that prepares them to be responsible 
citizens in a democracy--to make good, informed choices; to live in 
peace with their neighbors and coworkers; and to enjoy life to the 
fullest extent possible.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, a bright and shining moment to 
better protect our children from gun violence was within our reach and 
we failed to grasp the brass ring.
  We failed to enact modest gun safety measures that many of our states 
have already enacted.
  In my own state of California we have a 10 day waiting period to 
purchase any firearm.
  19 states have enacted their own waiting periods to purchase a 
handgun or a permit to purchase a firearm.
  Why are we afraid to be as bold as our own state legislators.
  Two months ago, following the Columbine High School shooting in 
Colorado, the California General Assembly passed a one-gun-month law 
for California, and the California Senate is expected to approve it.
  If California approves the measure, it will become the fourth and 
largest state to curb gun trafficking through this common sense 
measure.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute--a common 
sense measure--to protect our children from gun violence.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers-Campbell 
substitute. Last night, I believe this House failed to address a gaping 
loophole in the law as it relates to the transfer of guns to criminals.
  I fully appreciate the emotion felt by all members with regard to gun 
control and gun safety laws. I grew up around guns and have enjoyed 
shooting and hunting since I was a young child. I defy anyone to call 
me anti-gun or to imply that I favor banning guns or prohibiting gun 
ownership. I do not agree with those who seek to ban ownership of guns 
by law abiding citizens. I support the second amendment, but we must 
remember we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. In our 212 years 
of experience with the Constitution, our nation and our freedom has 
survived with order. I do not believe the Brady Bill and the instant 
background check have denied any law abiding citizen the right to 
purchase and possess a gun. And it is an undeniable fact that the Brady 
Bill has stopped hundreds of thousands of people whom all of us believe 
should not have guns from getting guns. But the fact remains that 
sellers at gun shows who are not federally licensed gun dealers are 
able to sell guns outside the confines of the background check. Not 
only does this open a loophole for the transfer of guns to people whom 
we all believe should not have access to them, namely criminals, or 
people with criminal backgrounds, but this is also creates an unfair 
advantage for non-licensed dealers. Why should Congress treat one class 
of gun sellers differently than others? Unfortunately, current law 
allows this unequal treatment as does the Dingell amendment, which I 
believe is unfair.
  I opposed the amendment by my good friend Mr. Dingell, with whom I 
have enjoyed many hours freezing in a duck blind, because I do not 
believe it closes the loophole that is allowing criminals access to 
guns. I supported the McCarthy amendment because it would have closed 
this gun show loophole without placing any new restrictions on law 
abiding citizens right to own and purchase a gun. No where in the bill 
did it restrict that right. And, it eliminated the commercial inequity 
that currently exists between licensed gun dealers and non-licensed gun 
dealers.
  I am not comfortable with everything in Conyers-Campbell amendment, 
but I do believe we must close the gun show loophole to prevent 
criminals from having such easy access to guns, just as has been done 
at gun stores, and we should restore commercial equity between 
federally licensed and non-licensed gun sellers to the public. We can 
do so without restricting the right to gun ownership by the law abiding 
public. To say otherwise is simply not correct and fearmongering. As a 
gun owner, hunter and former NRA marksman, I believe the gun show 
loophole for criminals is one which we law abiding gun-owning citizens 
can live without while protecting our Second Amendment right to own 
guns.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 242, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 243]

                               AYES--184

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

                               NOES--242

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John

[[Page H4654]]


     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

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

                              {time}  1402

  Messrs. WALSH, LUCAS of Oklahoma and PEASE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend 
for giving me the time to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2122. In 
lieu of recent events--more specifically, the tragedy in Littleton, 
Colorado--I share the concern and fear for the future of our great 
nation--especially for our children. Such tragic occurrences demand 
serious reflection by all of us--parents, children, educators and 
legislators alike. I pray that such reflection will create serious 
dialogue between parents and their children, for I believe that the 
true solution to such tragedies lies within the family unit.
  We are united in our compassion for those involved in these recent 
tragedies, but we must be careful not to confuse the issues surrounding 
these terrible events. It seems that every time there is a drive-by 
shooting--or every time some mal-contented, misguided, or incorrigible 
youth decides to obtain guns in order to kill innocent people--there is 
a rush to jump on the bandwagon to take away our Second Amendment 
rights. These tragedies ought, instead, to spawn a resurgence of the 
effort to put God back in our schools and in the hearts of every 
student. Such tragedies should also spawn a resurgence in parents' 
commitment to raise their children to respect the sanctity of life and 
to be responsible, law-abiding citizens. We need to focus our efforts 
where we know the problem lies--on the number of broken families in our 
country, on our over-sized classrooms, on the amount of sex and 
violence in our children's music, movies and games, and on the drugs 
and drug dealers that are infiltrating our inner cities. The root of 
the problem is the absence of God in our homes and in our schools--not 
the presence of guns in our society.
  Despite the hundreds of gun laws that exist today, none prevented 
such horrifying events. And none ever will. In Washington, D.C., it is 
a felony to possess a handgun in your home--yet this has had little 
effect on the crime rate in our nation's capital. We must not punish 
the majority of our law-abiding citizens by making it harder on them 
to--legally--pursue a constitutional right. Instead, we must empower 
our law enforcement agencies and judicial system to track down and 
convict those who choose to use guns illegally--regardless of their 
age.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, we need to focus our efforts on strengthening 
our juvenile justice system. We need to instill values and build 
character in our children at home, in our schools and in our churches. 
We need to advocate more parental control--not more gun control. I urge 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 2122.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment 
to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act. This 
amendment takes reasonable steps to reduce gun violence, while 
preserving personal freedoms.
  I believe strongly that law-abiding citizens have a constitutionally 
protected right to purchase and responsibly use firearms. The federal 
government does not and should not have the power to prevent its 
citizens from enjoying recreational activities that involve firearms, 
such as hunting and target shooting. Neither does the federal 
government have the power to restrict our ability to defend ourselves 
by banning the possession of hand guns. My constituents in North 
Dakota, and all American citizens, have the right to use firearms in 
recreation, just as they have the right to use firearms to defend 
themselves and their families. The full strength of the Second 
Amendment to the Constitution is behind that right.
  However, I also believe that the moderate gun safety measures 
included in the Conyers amendment uphold constitutional rights while 
helping to prevent the gun violence that threatens public safety and 
shatters families. The gun safety measures in this amendment are 
identical to those passed last month by the Senate, and offer a common-
sense approach to gun safety. Specifically, the expansion of the 
National Instant Check System to include background checks at gun shows 
will help keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. The 
National Instant Check System (NICS) set up by the Brady bill has 
proven to be highly successful at preventing convicted criminals from 
accessing firearms. In the last six months, the NICS has prevented over 
90,000 illegal gun transactions, many of which would have armed violent 
criminals.
  I do recognize that concerns exist regarding the impact of gun show 
background checks on citizens' rights to purchase firearms. However, 
the NICS system has proven effective at deterring criminals without 
placing an undue burden on law-abiding gun buyers. Nearly ninety-five 
percent of all background checks are resolved within two hours; a full 
seventy-three percent are completed instantly. The handful of 
background checks that take longer than two hours are usually due to an 
arrest record that needs to be investigated further. Law-abiding gun 
owners in this country will not be burdened by this provision, but 
instituting background checks at gun shows will help keep guns out of 
the wrong hands.
  I also support the Senate-passed provision included in this amendment 
that would require safety locks or secure storage devices on every 
newly purchased handgun. This provision would help parents safeguard 
their children from the epidemic of accidental shootings that has 
infected this country. This amendment does not mandate that the gun 
owner take advantage of the safety device; the gun owner may remove the 
device immediately upon purchase of the weapon. This proposal would 
only aid efforts to avoid preventable deaths.
  Mr. Chairman, the Conyers amendment to H.R. 2122 does not tamper with 
our nation's strong tradition of the protection of the right to bear 
arms. This amendment provides a common-sense approach to gun safety, 
and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I have to commend our leader in this 
battle, Mrs. McCarthy. I have worked very closely with her, followed 
her outstanding leadership and been so truly inspired by her commitment 
and bravery.
  None of us can understand the trauma Mrs. McCarthy has endured since 
December 7, 1993, the day Colin Ferguson, armed with an illegal gun, 
opened fire inside a crowded Long Island Railroad passenger car, 
killing six and injuring 19. Her husband, Dennis, who was innocently 
returning home from a hard day at the office, was among those killed. 
Her son, Kevin, was wounded and severely disabled.
  This horrible tragedy instantly shattered Mrs. McCarthy's quiet life 
as a licensed practical nurse, wife and mother. She could have stayed 
at home, absorbed with her grief. Instead, she has gathered strength 
from trauma and grief, and chosen to make a contribution and bring 
something positive out of this tragedy. She is now a leader in the 
efforts to end this terrible cycle of gun violence that is plaguing our 
nation. Speaking at events across the country, crusading to spread the 
message of gun violence and working to pass gun safety legislation here 
in Congress, she is striving to make our streets safe for our children, 
families and neighbors.
  Mrs. McCarthy has shown incredible courage and strength throughout 
this legislative process. She is an inspiration for all of us who have 
lost a loved one to an untimely death and is proof that life can go on.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, as the juvenile crime bill has worked its 
way to the House floor, we have lost sight of something crucial. 
Following the tragic armed assault by two troubled students on 
classmates at Columbine High School, the citizens of this nation cried 
out for policy to stop the killing, a policy that will protect our 
children from gun violence.
  There are many concerns that need to be addressed. We need to take 
action on media violence, to develop programs that build children's 
confidence and self-esteem, to help parents develop the tools they need 
to better raise their children. But before our work in any of these 
areas can be effective, we must face

[[Page H4655]]

one irrefutable fact: our young people are able to act on their anger 
and frustration and rage because it is so easy for them to get their 
hands on a gun. As a result of this--and the ease with which criminals 
can buy guns--we are losing on average 13 children and teenagers every 
single day.
  The vast majority of Americans understand this. In a CNN-Gallup poll 
taken just this week, 87 percent of Americans said they support 
legislation to close the loopholes in the law that put guns in the 
hands of children and criminals.
  Americans favor laws that: Close the loophole that allows people to 
buy guns at gun shows and flea markets without background checks; close 
the loophole that fails to hold gun owners responsible for keeping 
loaded firearms out of the reach of children; close the loophole that 
allows children of any age to purchase or possess assault weapons; 
close the loophole that allows the import of ammunition clips holding 
more than 10 rounds; and close the loophole that allows juveniles under 
21 to purchase handguns.
  This is the bare bones legislation that Americans are demanding. The 
bill passed last month by the Senate would close most of these 
loopholes. Now it is up to us to approve the Senate gun package as 
written or to strengthen it. We must seize the opportunity to close 
loopholes in the law and save children and their families from the 
horror and pain of gun violence.
  But what are we doing instead? We are ignoring the American public 
and playing games with the lives of our children. The bills we have 
before us this week not only water down the Senate's proposal, but they 
actually create new loopholes, like a new definition for gun shows and 
changing the time allotted for background checks. These bills were not 
designed to quell the understandable fears of American parents. They 
were designed to satisfy a small, vocal minority in this country--the 
gun lobby.
  Mr. Chairman, I call on my colleagues today to stop playing politics 
with the lives of our children. You'll never satisfy the gun lobby. 
They care more about their guns and winning the argument than they do 
about protecting the lives of our precious children.
  I am not suggesting that closing these loopholes will stop all gun 
violence. What I am saying is that this is a small, but significant, 
first step to reigning in the violence that is killing our children and 
destroying our families. I ask that you join me in a vote for the 
future of America. Please reject the weak measures before you and vote 
for meaningful laws that will restrict access to guns and keep our 
children safe.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hunter 
amendment. As a homeowner in the District of Columbia, I find it 
offensive that DC gun laws prevent me from protecting my family and 
home.
  We all know that the criminals in this city have guns, yet innocent, 
law-abiding citizens are routinely denied a basic constitutional right 
of protection.
  Mr. Chairman, this defies all common sense. Let's punish criminals, 
not law-abiding citizens. Pass the Hunter amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, like every American, I am deeply disturbed 
by the growing epidemic of violent juvenile crime. The recent tragedy 
at Columbine High School has dramatically heightened concerns about the 
safety of our children, and left parents across the nation searching 
for answers.
  The sad fact is, our society is now permeated with violence. Graphic 
depictions of violent acts can be found all over television, in films 
and music, and on the Internet. By the age of 18, the average American 
child has witnessed over 200,000 acts of violence on television alone, 
including some 16,000 murders. Sadly, the average child under the age 
of eleven watches more than twenty hours of television a week--yet 
spends less than one hour in meaningful conversation with parents. 
America is now in a cultural state of emergency. As parents and leaders 
in our communities, we must reclaim control over our children's lives 
and education.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish we could forever end violent crimes in our 
schools by a simple act of Congress. Unfortunately, no success can ever 
compensate for failure in the home. No new law will repair the damage 
done by the repeated glorification of violence in our society--and no 
new regulation will ever do the job of a caring and attentive parent. 
If we hope to reduce violence in our schools and instill a healthy 
appreciation of life in our children, we must begin by strengthening 
our efforts in the home. If we fail at home as parents, our children 
will have little chance of ever succeeding--or feeling safe--at our 
nation's schools.
  As a strong supporter of the Constitution, I will not support 
unreasonable restrictions on the ability of citizens to exercise their 
Second Amendment right. While I agree that we must do everything 
possible to prevent more violent school tragedies, simply blaming guns 
ignores the root causes of violence among our youth. Strictly enforcing 
the 20,000 existing gun laws already on the books should be our first 
immediate step. The restoration of discipline and accountability in our 
homes, our schools, and in society will help reduce violent juvenile 
crimes--compromising the rights of every free, law-abiding American 
will not.
  Mr. Chairman, there are plenty of people here in Washington who 
believe that we can ``legislate'' a solution to the problem of school 
violence. I wish it were that easy. But the truth is, this is a job for 
parents, not politicians--and the most important thing we can do for 
our children won't happen on the floor of Congress, but within the 
walls of our own homes.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I am supporting the McCarthy 
amendment because I believe this amendment will close a loophole left 
open in the Brady Law passed in 1994. Closing this loophole does not 
create new laws, and I believe, creates very little additional burdens 
for law abiding citizens. However, it will present criminals from 
getting guns and it will save lives.
  I also support this amendment at the request of the law enforcement 
community in my district who have signaled to me that closing the gun 
show loophole is one of their top priorities. They have told me that 
the McCarthy amendment will best help them keep guns out of the hands 
of criminals and prevent violent crime throughout the fifth district 
and the State of Oregon.
  This amendment is a common sense approach to keeping guns out of the 
hands of criminals and is supported by law enforcement and members of 
both parties. I look forward to seeing this amendment passed this 
evening.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this dangerous 
and irresponsible bill. A bill that would weaken the Brady Law and put 
lethal weapons into the hands of criminals.
  During the past five years, the Brady Instant Check System has 
prevented illegal gun purchases by more than 400,000 fugitives, 
convicted felons, drug addicts, and others who cannot lawfully possess 
a firearm.
  But if we pass this bill, we will be handing them a loaded weapon and 
inviting them to pull the trigger.
  That's because the bill denies the FBI the three days it needs to 
complete its background check on the very people most likely to have a 
criminal history.
  Like the convicted rapist who traveled from Virginia to North 
Carolina last month--for the purpose of buying a gun.
  Or the man convicted of armed robbery and burglary in Georgia who 
drove to Missouri last March--for the purpose of buying a gun.
  Or the murderer in Texas.
  Or the arsonist in New Jersey, who went all the way to Mississippi 
last April--for the purpose of buying a gun.
  These are just a few of the thousands of criminals who tried to 
purchase handguns in the last six months and were stopped--because a 
three-day background check revealed their criminal history before the 
sale could go through.
  But if this bill had been the law of the land six months ago, the FBI 
estimates that 9,000 of these people would have been walking the 
streets with a license to kill. If this bill passes in its present 
form, those 9,000 will try again. And this time, they'll get away with 
it.
  I ask my colleagues to think about that before they vote. Think about 
the lives that will be destroyed because one of those 9,000 criminals 
got hold of a weapon and pulled the trigger. Think about what we will 
say to the families of the victims who are killed if we vote tonight to 
weaken the Brady Law.
  Or we can step back from the precipice, Mr. Speaker, as the Senate 
did a few short weeks ago. Tonight the provisions passed by the Senate 
will be offered as an amendment by Congresswoman McCarthy--who knows 
more about what handguns have cost the families of America than anyone 
in this chamber.
  The McCarthy amendment would preserve the Brady Instant Check System 
and extend it to the gun shows where criminals go to buy their weapons.
  It is time for us to stand with her. It is time for us to stand up to 
the NRA.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of the tragedy in 
Littleton, Colorado, there has been a need to find something concrete 
to be culpable for this horrible event. While many have blamed the 
parents, society, movies or video games, most of the condemnation has 
pointed to firearms. As a result, a call for more gun control 
legislation swept across this country to Washington.
  I share many of my colleagues' concerns about the violence that has 
plagued our society and I, too, am particularly concerned about the 
children who have used violence to address a situation rather than 
using other means. However, I do not believe that putting more 
restrictions on guns is the solution to this blame game.
  As many of my colleagues have expressed, there are thousands of guns 
laws on the

[[Page H4656]]

books today and none of them prevented the tragedy in Colorado. 
Furthermore, the proposals here today would not prevent this kind of 
tragedy from happening again.
  The right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in our Constitution 
should not be restricted, but be restored to our law-abiding citizens. 
The way to fight crime is to punish the criminals, not victims, for the 
crimes they commit by imposing harsh punishments and longer sentences. 
It is also important to give the police the resources and authority 
they need to catch and punish criminals without penalizing or 
restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
  If we want to find someone to blame for the crime in our society, we 
should blame ourselves for not spending the time with our children and 
helping them to grow into productive and well-adjusted adults. I urge 
everyone who is a parent or grandparent to try to put more time aside 
and really listen to our children and grandchildren. If there are 
problems, we should be able to address them in a nonviolent fashion. 
Our children, the future leaders of this great country, are calling out 
to us. Listen to them and react to their needs.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, today we debate more than guns, we debate 
how to get a handle on violence. Everyone in this House admits, and the 
majority of Americans recognize, that there are a multitude of factors 
that led to the tragic school shootings this spring in Littleton, 
Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia.
  If we are serious about ending this kind of violence, we have to 
address all the factors that led to it. We must deal with the 
denigration of religion in society, for religion is the foundation of 
personal morality, the greatest of all protections against violence. As 
George Washington stated in his farewell address in 1796:
  ``Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be 
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence 
of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and 
experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail 
in exclusion of religious principle.''
  We must also deal with ensuring a zero-tolerance for any weapons in 
our schools. We must deal with the smut on the Internet and throughout 
our society. We must deal with juvenile crime, and the fact that we too 
often coddle teenagers who engage in murder, rape, and robbery.
  These are the real solutions to Littleton and Conyers, not more gun 
control laws. Let's be honest and quit dealing with just the edges of 
the problems. Let's quit giving the easy political-out answers.
  Let's take a hard, cold look at what kind of nation we've become, 
what we've allowed to develop in this nation, and not shy away from the 
tough actions needed to change our course.
  If anyone commits a violent crime with a gun, they should never again 
be allowed to own one. If an adult illegally provides a weapon to a 
child, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and 
we should increase the penalties to the harshest possible. Children 
should not have access to guns.
  Children should also not be allowed to have access to the filth and 
graphic violence that permeates the Internet, airwaves, cable 
television, electronic games, and record shops.
  Most of our young people manage to maintain morality in spite of this 
smut. A very few, those on the edge, cannot. It only took three of 
those young people to created the havoc that brings us to this debate. 
Unless we deal with these societal problems, we will be doomed to 
repeat the tragedies of Littleton and Conyers.
  Let's rebuild the guardrails of our society that will keep the less 
fortunate or the emotionally-disturbed from going off the side of the 
mountain--and taking the innocents with them.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments in order under the 
rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2122) to 
require background checks at gun shows, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 209, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147, 
noes 280, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 244]

                               AYES--147

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Bryant
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Clement
     Coble
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--280

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin

[[Page H4657]]


     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

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

                              {time}  1421

  Ms. SANCHEZ and Messrs. COSTELLO, HAYES, MOLLOHAN and SHADEGG changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 244, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast a vote on final passage 
of H.R. 2122 because I had to catch the last available plane to Los 
Angeles to attend my daughter's graduation ceremony at 6:00 p.m. 
Pacific time. However, had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________