[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 100 (Thursday, July 15, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5677-H5680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RETURNING TO THE SENATE S. 254, VIOLENT AND 
 REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of 
the House, and I offer a resolution (H. Res. 249) returning to the 
Senate the bill S. 254.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 249

       Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 254) entitled the 
     ``Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1999'', in the opinion of this House, 
     contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the 
     first article of the Constitution of the United States and is 
     an infringement of the privileges of this House and that such 
     bill be respectively returned to the Senate with a message 
     communicating this resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution constitutes a question of the 
privileges of the House.
  Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule IX, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to 
the Senate the bill S. 254 of the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender 
Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. S. 254 contains an 
import ban and thus contravenes the constitutional requirement that 
revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives.
  Section 702 of S. 254 would impose the ban by amending section 922(w) 
of Title 18, U.S. Code, to make it unlawful to import large capacity 
ammunition feeding devices.

                              {time}  2340

  While violators would be subject to criminal penalties, existing 
tariff laws also generally provide that merchandise introduced into the 
United States contrary to law is subject to seizure and forfeiture. 
Therefore, by criminalizing the importation of these items, the 
amendment would cause the merchandise to be denied entry into the 
United States by these Customs officers at the border. This proposed 
change in law would be identical in law in operation, Mr. Speaker, to a 
direct import ban.
  Further, the items covered by the amendment includes items that are 
subject to duty and Customs in fact collects measurable amounts of duty 
on them.
  Accordingly, the change in law would have a direct impact on Customs 
revenues. The provision, therefore, is revenue affecting and 
constitutes a revenue measure in the constitutional sense. On that 
basis, I am asking that the House insist on its constitutional 
prerogatives.
  Mr. Speaker, there are numerous precedents for the action I am 
requesting. For example, on October 22, 1991, the House returned to the 
Senate S. 1241, the Violent Crime Act of 1991, containing, among other 
things, a provision amending Section 922 of Title 18 U.S.C. making it 
illegal to transport or possess assault weapons.
  I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the 
constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the 
Senate bill. In fact, the House spoke on this issue when it recently 
approved an identical proposal made by our colleague and chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  This proposed action, thus, is strictly procedural in nature and is 
necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate 
revenue measures, a point on which there has been long-standing and 
bipartisan agreement.
  It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for 
dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a 
revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees 
fit. This will allow this legislation to proceed forward to conference 
in an orderly and expeditious manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this resolution is necessary 
because the Constitution requires that revenue legislation originate in 
the House of Representatives.
  Our action tonight is not a rejection of the merits of the Senate's 
so-called ``ammo ban provisions.'' Rather, their so-called ``blue 
slip'' simply makes it clear to the Senate that the appropriate 
procedure for dealing with tax and tariff matters that affect revenues 
is for the House to act first and the Senate to add its amendment and 
to seek a conference.

[[Page H5678]]

  With that said, no one supports the elimination of guns in our inner 
cities and in the hands of our children more than I do.
  The dominance of guns in our community continues to threaten the 
lives of too many law-abiding citizens. The situation cannot be ignored 
any longer and must start with the cleanup of the deadliest murder 
weapons on our streets.
  Why do some feel so threatened by preventing the importation of high-
capacity ammunition clips? How many of us have even seen, let alone 
owned, these magazine belt drum belt strips and other types of 
ammunition devices that have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds 
of ammunition?
  The troubled young man who killed two and injured 15 people in 
Springfield, Oregon, had a 30-round clip. The misguided youths who 
engaged in this horrific shooting spree at the Columbine High School 
were equipped with a TEC DC-9 with multiple round ammunition. These 
types of ammunition clips are not for hunting or sport. These clips are 
designed to kill a lot and to kill a lot quickly.
  Yes, people will continue to kill with guns. And, yes, these 
criminals must not escape justice. However, the death count criminals 
are able to achieve before getting caught is unnecessarily much greater 
with the high-capacity ammunition clips.
  No one has explained to me how society benefits from high ammunition 
clips or cop killer bullets, for that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) is a leader 
on this issue and is the author of the House-passed ammunition import 
ban. She should be commended for her commitment to ensuring that these 
provisions become law. I am confident that once the procedural problems 
created with the Senate's action are resolved, she will prevail on the 
merits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this week, 80 Colorado high school students 
came to Washington to visit with Members of Congress. These students 
were literally lobbying for their lives. They eloquently insisted that 
Congress support child gun safety legislation in the name of the 
Columbine students who were so senselessly murdered. They were asking 
Congress to forward at least the three Senate-passed child gun safety 
provisions to the President's desk so they may return to a safer school 
next year.
  After 15 funerals in one year, one student sadly stated to us that he 
refused to attend another. That is why he was here today, to give us a 
reality check.
  In light of these kids' pleas, it seems ironic that here tonight the 
House is forced on procedural grounds to request the Senate to remove 
one of only three child gun safety provisions in the bill, a high-
capacity ammunition ban.
  There are, however, some actions this body can take to correct this 
technicality and ensure the passage of this important legislation to 
finally stop these deadly weapons from crossing into our country. When 
a dynamic group of young men and women like the kids from SAFE Colorado 
emerge to promote something the House has already passed, the least we 
can do is preserve the few provisions we all in good conscience 
supported last month.
  Last month, when the House considered child gun safety legislation, 
there were many passionate disagreements and little agreement on which 
amendments we should pass. Just like now, at about midnight or a little 
after, one provision passed in the middle of the night with little 
fanfare and no objection on a voice vote.
  Along with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), I 
introduced an amendment to the bill, my pending legislation, to ban 
high-capacity ammunition magazines.
  As I said, this amendment passed with no objection and by a voice 
vote and strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the underlying 
juvenile justice bill did not. Therefore, the House has not 
communicated its will to the Senate or to the conference committee. We 
need to bring this bill to the floor, and we need to pass it once and 
for all so that it is included in any final conference committee report 
that is approved.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1994, when Congress passed the Violent Crime Control 
Law Enforcement Act, we thought we banned magazines for semi-automatic 
weapons which hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. However, because 
of a concession to firearms distributors, high-capacity ammunition 
magazines manufactured prior to September, 1994, were exempted by 
Congress. We only agreed to this compromise with the expectation that 
manufacturers would sell off existing stockpiles.
  Unfortunately, contrary to the spirit of this compromise, supplies 
have been seemingly limitless because of uncontrolled imports of 
magazines from such countries as China and Russia.

                              {time}  2350

  As a result, these deadly clips are as readily available today as 
they were in 1994 and the only purpose for these clips is to kill human 
beings.
  Denver police officer Bruce Vander Jagt, for example, was shot 15 
times in the head, neck and torso by the rapid-fire capabilities of his 
assailant's weapon.
  One answer to this technical flaw that we are seeing here tonight, I 
think, must be a bipartisan solution. I want to thank the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his steadfast commitment to fighting for 
this ban in the conference committee, but I am concerned that without a 
strong message from this House, a single conferee could procedurally 
block the ammunition ban from inclusion in the conference report.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon this House to 
pass H.R. 1037 which is the bill which has one purpose, and that is to 
ban these high capacity magazines, to pass it and say to the Senate, 
include it in the conference report. People will no longer tolerate a 
country where thousands of people die of gunshot wounds every year and 
seven school shootings occur within a 2-year period. We all supported 
this ban before. Let us send a message and support it now again as a 
full House.
  Mr. Speaker, I have filed House Resolution 192, a discharge petition, 
to bring my ammunition magazine ban, H.R. 1037, to the House floor for 
a vote. It is at the desk, and in a moment I am going to ask for 
unanimous consent to bring H.R. 1037 to the floor for immediate 
consideration. If this motion is ruled out of order, I urge all Members 
from both parties who are for reasonable gun control legislation to 
sign the discharge petition.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring H.R. 1037 which would 
ban the sale, transfer and possession of high capacity ammunition 
magazines to the House floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). There is a question of privilege 
pending before the House.
  In any event, under the guidelines consistently issued by successive 
Speakers and recorded on page 534 of the House Rules Manual, the Chair 
is constrained not to entertain the gentlewoman's request until it has 
been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I wish we were here, Mr. Speaker, in fact this evening to seriously 
deal with the concerns that have been expressed by the students from 
Columbine High School, to seriously deal with the issue of 13 children 
dying every day from gunfire, and realizing that the responsibility of 
the House of Representatives is to answer the question about gun safety 
and gun safety responsibility. Yet what we find ourselves doing at 
11:50 at night is to deal with a procedural question which would in 
fact stymie the opportunity to pass legislation banning large capacity 
ammunition clips.
  Mr. Speaker, during the work recess, I had the opportunity to visit 
one of the many gun shows that show up in the Houston area. It reminded 
me of the very intense debate that we had just a couple of weeks ago 
around the issue of gun safety and safety as it relates to our 
children. The McCarthy

[[Page H5679]]

amendment, for example, that would close the gun show loophole. We 
failed to do our job at that time, Mr. Speaker, and now we come at 
11:50 again to deal with the procedural constitutional question to make 
in order the Senate bill because it is not consistent with the House 
legislation. While we are doing that, we are ignoring why we should be 
here. Every day we are allowing large capacity ammunition clips to be 
available, gun shows continue to proliferate around the Nation, guns 
are proliferating in the hands of children, there is no waiting period. 
In fact, we are finding individuals, felons who are not supposed to 
have guns in their hands, every day are securing them. Tragedies are 
occurring in places like Chicago where hate crimes are being 
perpetrated against blacks and Jews and others because guns are so 
freely utilized in this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not opposed to the second amendment. We want to 
just get to work. It is unfortunate tonight that we cannot cure the 
problem and provide a ban for large capacity ammunition clips, but more 
importantly it is very sad that we cannot respond to the children of 
America as they are playing and enjoying their summer but looking 
toward to the start of a new school year, we cannot say to them that 
this Congress has joined together to ensure that they will enter the 
new school year with dreams and aspirations and the belief that they 
will be safe.
  Let us not perpetrate another Columbine. Let us tell the students of 
America that we are much more willing to stand with them than we are to 
stand with the National Rifle Association. Although this is a 
procedural discussion tonight, I want to offer my sadness and encourage 
the Speaker and encourage my colleagues in a bipartisan way to get back 
to work on gun safety legislation, to look seriously at juvenile 
justice and really look seriously at banning large capacity ammunition 
clips as was noted by my colleague from Colorado that was passed by 
voice vote. We can get to work and stand on the side of our children 
and against those who would provide or create an atmosphere that was 
not safe.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that Congress has not 
yet enacted common sense gun safety legislation to save the lives of 
American children. Today, we heard firsthand from Colorado students who 
pleaded for Congress to take the steps needed to keep guns out of the 
hands of criminals and children.
  But congressional leaders have not acted. Congress has not listened 
to the children whose classmates' lives were claimed by gun violence. 
And today we see even more delay, more obstacles blocking efforts to 
save children's lives. The time is long past to enact gun safety 
measures, but sadly the leaders of this Congress have consistently 
turned their backs on limited common sense measures that would take 
children out of the line of fire.
  Today I listened to a young woman named Erin from Columbine High 
School talk about the tragic loss she suffered when close friends of 
hers were shot dead. She fought back tears as she said that no one 
should have to experience the loss that she has. Erin and her fellow 
Colorado high school students urged the Congress to move forward to 
protect young people with reasonable gun safety measures such as those 
passed by the Senate. Ensuring that criminals will not be able to buy 
weapons at gun shows, that child safety locks will be provided with 
handguns and that unnecessarily lethal high capacity ammunition clips 
will be kept out of the country.
  This effort tonight is just one more excuse not to do what the 
American public would like us to do. If this was a problem, why did we 
not deal with it weeks ago? If it is not a problem, it appears that 
Republican leaders are using procedural gimmicks to go back on the 
commitment made to appoint conferees who will support gun safety 
measures, including a ban on importing dangerous high capacity 
ammunition clips. The clip ban passed without objection in the House 
and must be part of any gun safety package that this Congress passes.
  When students who have experienced tragic gun violence put their 
pleas in heartfelt and straightforward terms as Colorado students did 
today, how in good conscience can Congress delay any longer? Let us go 
to conference, let us do what it takes to make our schools and our 
streets safer for our young people by passing gun safety legislation. 
Let us stop making excuses and start making progress.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people do not 
understand the damage that large capacity clips can do. I know 
firsthand the damage they can do. On the Long Island Railroad, Colin 
Ferguson had large capacity clips. Many people said it would not have 
made any difference. It would not have made a difference to the people 
that were killed in the front of the train, but at the end of the train 
where the clips were finally taken away from him, we might have been 
able to save some young people at the end of the train. That is what 
large capacity clips do.
  I beg the Speaker to bring it forward again so we can get going on 
this. We saw so many young people here today in Washington, bright 
young people, people I think that are smarter than us here in Congress. 
If you listen to them, they are the ones that were facing the violence 
in the schools.
  The other day in my district, we talked about gun violence. Our 
parents, our children, they are scared. We have to do something. We can 
do it bipartisanly. We can. We can work together and work something 
out. The bottom line is we have to keep guns, high capacity clips, away 
from criminals. And we certainly have to make sure guns do not get into 
the hands of children. That is all we are asking. Nothing more, nothing 
less. I think if we all sit down together and work together, we can do 
this.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).

                              {time}  0000

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for? Instead of moving 
forward and appointing conferees, we are playing more political games 
with the lives of children, using the cloak of what is unobjectionable 
through unnecessary procedure to create the illusion of forward 
progress, doing nothing while we create the illusion of progress, doing 
nothing while 13 children are killed as a result of gun violence in 
this Nation every day.
  In one month exactly the children who attend Columbine High School in 
Littleton, Colorado, will be returning to school. That means we have 
only 3 weeks to settle the gun safety issues before we adjourn for 
summer recess. It has been 3 months, 90 days, since the tragedy in 
Columbine occurred.
  Just several years ago the Republicans took 1 week to propose 
legislation to undo the assault weapons ban, but a simple proposal to 
close the gun show loopholes to keep guns out of the hands of children 
takes months and months. We all know it is a stall.
  The entire process on gun violence has been a shell game, but as 
parents and children shop for clothes and notebooks and backpacks, and 
my children and I will be shopping for backpacks in the next 3 weeks, 
they should be free from worries about their children's safety from gun 
violence in schools.
  We have differences to settle between the House and Senate passed gun 
safety and juvenile justice bills. We should be appointing conferees 
and getting down to the serious work of debating and voting on the gun 
safety provisions passed by the Senate instead of wasting more time.
  This conference should be a careful and deliberative process that 
American families and schoolchildren can be proud of. We should get 
started today.
  All we are proposing are modest and reasonable steps to make all of 
us, especially the children, safer from dangerous people and disturbed 
kids with guns, plugging the gun show loophole, requiring the gun 
safety locks, banning the high capacity ammo clips, the Hyde-Lofgren 
amendment banning juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault weapons.
  What criminals are stopped from getting guns from licensed dealers 
because of the Brady background check? Murders, rapists, child 
molesters, fugitives,

[[Page H5680]]

stalkers, batterers, and who wants these people to buy guns and 
threaten us and our children? Why would anyone want criminals to get 
guns?
  We should plug the loophole and stand up to the gun lobby.
  Mr. Speaker, kids are going back to school. It is time for Congress 
to act before they end up there. Let us stop the stalling. Let us stop 
the games. Let us do our job.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), beloved former candidate for 
the United States Senate.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean for his generosity at 
midnight.
  I do think, Mr. Speaker, that it is extremely unfortunate that we are 
here tonight at midnight debating this procedural motion, but I have to 
say that it is just typical of the way the leadership has managed the 
gun safety issue. Instead of appointing conferees and enacting 
meaningful gun safety measures, they are once again throwing an 
obstacle in the way of legislation to protect our children from gun 
violence. The truth is that there have been delaying tactics at every 
turn.
  The long, sad saga of this bill is a disgrace to this House. First we 
were told not to offer gun safety amendments to an appropriations bill 
because we would consider the juvenile justice bill in regular order. 
Then, after the Committee on the Judiciary was totally bypassed and a 
sham juvenile justice bill was put up on the floor and defeated, we 
were told that conferees would be appointed before July 4. Then we were 
told again just 2 days ago not to offer or vote for amendments to 
appropriation bills on gun safety because the conference would be 
meeting soon on juvenile justice.
  Well, here we are months after the tragedy of Columbine High School, 
we still do not have conferees appointed. What is it going to take for 
the leadership to wake up and listen to the cries of American families? 
When are our colleagues going to understand that the issue is not going 
away? How long will we have to wait before Congress does something to 
protect our schools from gun violence?
  Each time we are faced with a delay, our calls will only get louder. 
We will not back down, we will not go away, we will continue to insist 
that Congress do its part to make our communities safer.
  It is clear that the American people are demanding action now, and it 
is time for us to say loud and clear that we cannot allow the NRA to 
write our Nation's gun laws any more.
  Mr. Speaker, after talking to these young people that came to 
Washington today, I do not know how any of us can look in their eyes 
and not make a very clear commitment that we are going to do our best 
to pass common sense gun legislation now.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues again that tonight 
we are only dealing with a procedural issue, and it is one that is very 
important because it is necessary to protect the prerogatives of the 
House, something I know the gentleman, the courteous gentleman from New 
York, and many other Members of this House feel very strongly about. 
This is not about the substantive policy issue of the legislation. In 
fact, the action tonight will allow the juvenile justice legislation to 
move toward conference in a more expeditious and orderly manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________