[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 22, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8524-H8531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1501, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT 
                                OF 1999

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501, be 
     instructed to insist that the committee of conference 
     recommend a conference substitute that--
       (1) includes a loophole-free system that assures that no 
     criminals or other prohibited purchasers (e.g. murderers, 
     rapists, child molesters, fugitives from justice, 
     undocumented aliens, stalkers, and batterers) obtain firearms 
     from non-licensed persons and federally licensed firearms 
     dealers at gun shows;
       (2) does not include provisions that weaken current gun 
     safety law; and
       (3) includes provisions that aid in the enforcement of 
     current laws against criminals who use guns (e.g. murderers, 
     rapists, child molesters, fugitives from justice, stalkers 
     and batterers).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 7 of rule XX, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 13 children a day are being killed by gun violence. 
Perhaps we have repeated this statistic so frequently that we do not 
fully feel it anymore that these are children, and that is a shame.
  I ask the Members here in this Chamber and listening to this 
discussion in their offices, how we can possibly ignore any legislative 
measure that could help protect these children?
  I ask the Members on all sides of this issue to agree with me that, 
whatever else we do, we agree we shall not pretend we are making 
children safer at the same time we are building into our legislation 
weasel worded modifiers and exceptions that make the promised 
protections meaningless.
  After I gave notice of this motion to instruct the conferees last 
night, the Associated Press was told there was a compromise being 
circulated by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I wish to 
make that A.P. article a part of this Record.
  Since the A.P. article was received in my office this afternoon, I 
have asked the chairman for a copy of his proposal so I can determine 
for myself whether it is, indeed, a compromise I could embrace; and I 
am hopeful that I can get a copy of the proposal. I have had members of 
the press call my office about this proposed compromise, and I am all 
the more concerned that we not offer some proposal that might have 
loopholes.

                              {time}  1830

  That is why I thought it was necessary to propose this motion to 
instruct.
  Since there has been no joint meeting of the conference or staff 
since early August, and I have had to read the AP wire to learn what is 
going on, even as a conferee, I ask the Members of this body to 
instruct the conference:
  One, not to include loopholes that favor the wrong people getting 
guns, those who have been arrested, those who have restraining orders, 
and those who have been adjudicated mentally ill;
  Two, not to weaken current gun safety laws;
  And, three, not to compromise the ability of law enforcement officers 
to find those criminals who use guns in the crimes that they commit.
  First, my colleagues may ask what loopholes I am worried about. I am 
worried we are going to define gun shows or gun vendors in such a way 
to make the Lautenberg gun show provision ineffective, if not 
meaningless. I am worried that we are not going to define background 
checks in such a way as to exclude some persons we really should be 
concerned about.
  Second, my colleagues may wonder how we could weaken current gun 
safety laws. Would anyone in this chamber want to permit the interstate 
shipment of firearms by mail again? Do we want to repeal the Lee Harvey 
Oswald gun provision?
  Third, my colleagues may wonder what could compromise law 
enforcement's ability to fine those criminals who use guns in the 
crimes they commit. Well, suppose the records to run the gun check on 
the purchaser were destroyed immediately after the check was run. And 
suppose the gun show vendor did not have to retain the serial number of 
the gun? How would law enforcement follow the trail to the bad actor 
who bought that gun?
  There are those in this House who prefer that we do nothing. The 
NRA's chief lobbyist says, and I quote, ``Nothing is better than 
anything.'' That is what this House did only a few month ago. The House 
majority whip made his position crystal clear when he was quoted in The 
Washington Post as saying that killing the gun safety bill was ``a 
great personal victory.'' Does the majority whip really want this House 
to do nothing when it comes to the safety of our children? Does the 
majority prefer to release its proposal to the press rather than to the 
conferees? In other words, does the majority really prefer to have a 
news story rather than a legislative solution? I hope not, and I trust 
not.
  I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct as a further 
guarantee that this Congress does something, that it does something 
meaningful, that it does something soon, and that it does it in a 
bipartisan way, in the best interests of the mothers and children of 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press article I referred to earlier is 
included for the Record herewith.

          Hyde Floats Compromise Proposal on New Gun Controls

                            (By David Espo)

       Washington (AP).--The chairman of the House Judiciary 
     Committee is circulating a proposal designed to break a 
     months-long deadlock over the sale of weapons at gun shows, 
     congressional officials said Tuesday night.
       The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said 
     Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., is proposing a two-step system of 
     background checks. Most gun show sales could be cleared 
     within 24 hours but others could be delayed for up to three 
     additional business days for additional investigation.
       Republican and Democratic aides said Hyde's proposal 
     includes a ban on importing certain large capacity ammunition 
     clips as well as a requirement for the sale of safety devices 
     with handguns.
       It also includes a lifetime ban on the purchase of a 
     handgun by anyone convicted of a gun-related felony as a 
     juvenile. And minors would be prohibited from possessing 
     assault weapons.
       Separately, GOP aides said any compromise juvenile crime 
     bill would likely include a House-passed provision allowing 
     the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools. Supporters 
     claim that would help promote morality; critics say it is 
     unconstitutional.
       Any compromise is also expected to toughen prosecution of 
     juvenile gun-related crimes, and provide additional federal 
     funding for anti-crime programs.
       Hyde has outlined his gun proposal to Rep. John Conyers of 
     Michigan, the senior Democrat on his committee, as well as to 
     Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee. It was not clear if any senior GOP leaders had yet 
     turned their attention to the issue.
       The gun control issue has been percolating in congress 
     since last spring, when two students invaded their high 
     school in Colorado and killed 12 fellow students and a 
     teacher before taking their own lives.
       The Senate passed a series of gun control provisions a few 
     weeks later, but a slightly different set of proposals died 
     in a House crossfire when Republicans complained the measures 
     were too strong and some Democrats griped they were too weak.

[[Page H8525]]

       Efforts at a compromise have moved fitfully since, and 
     Hyde's proposal marked an attempt to find middle ground 
     before lawmakers go home for the year.
       The gun show issue is widely regarded as the hardest to 
     resolve, given close votes in the House and the Senate.
       Under Hyde's proposal, all gun show purchasers would be 
     subject to a 24-hour check under the proposal. Those that 
     hadn't been cleared by then would be subject to a wait of up 
     to three additional business days.
       Hyde's proposal defines a gun show as any gathering of five 
     or more sellers.
       The Senate-passed measure would give the government three 
     days to complete the required background check. The House 
     measure that was defeated called for one day, but extended 
     that to other sales outside gun shows that now are covered by 
     the three-day rule.
       Current law regarding gun shows requires background checks 
     only for sales by licensed dealers.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the gentlewoman from 
California that we do not have a text of a bill yet, despite the 
Associate Press's somewhat premature remarks. The gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I have been meeting for many hours with our 
staffs, and we are still negotiating, so any text would be premature. I 
would prefer releasing a text when we have one, a final one.
  I rise actually to support the gentlewoman's motion, but first I want 
to commend the senior Senator from Utah, who is the chairman of the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary and chairman of the Juvenile Justice 
Conference. And he has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and 
has done everything in his power to bring the Senate, the House, and 
the administration together and hammer out a proposal that can pass 
both Houses of Congress and be signed into law. He and his staff have 
put politics aside, rolled up their sleeves and sought a solution.
  I also want to thank the Speaker of the House and the leadership of 
this House. I have had their constant support and cooperation in 
finding the appropriate balance of juvenile justice, enforcement, gun 
safety, and cultural provisions to respond to the horrific violence 
that plagues our society.
  And, finally, I want to commend my colleague from Michigan, the 
ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. I have had the 
pleasure of working closely with him over the last few months to 
resolve the differences in the House over this juvenile justice 
provision. It is worth noting that, after 4\1/2\ years, we came to a 
bipartisan agreement on juvenile justice legislation early this year. 
Unfortunately, that proposal is now wrapped up in a larger package of 
much more controversial items, including gun safety measures. I respect 
the courage of the gentleman from Michigan to seek a meaningful 
resolution to issues that others would rather exploit than solve.
  Now, the gentlewoman's motion calls for background checks at gun 
shows without loopholes, no weakening of current law, and improved 
enforcement of current firearms laws. To the gentlewoman I say, 
consider me instructed. I can state unequivocally that I support each 
of these goals. Since the tragic school shooting at Columbine high 
school in April, the Committee on the Judiciary has been holding 
hearings and working on legislation to address the growing culture of 
youth violence. And the three goals stated in the gentlewoman's motion 
have been our guiding effort. And they were reflected in the 
legislation we brought to the House floor in June, legislation that she 
and many of her colleagues, unfortunately, did not support.
  While I support these laudable objectives, I do not support using 
them as a Trojan horse for more invidious goals. I support mandatory 
background checks at gun shows without loopholes. I do not support 
eliminating gun shows. I agree we should not weaken current law. I do 
not agree that we should allow for a national registry of firearms.
  But as I rise to support the motion, I want to make a few points that 
I think shed important light on the issues that the gentlewoman's 
motion addresses. Her motion directs that our conference report include 
a loophole-free system that ensures that no criminals or other 
prohibited purchasers obtain firearms from nonlicensed persons and 
federally licensed firearms dealers at gun shows.
  Well, I hope the gentlewoman knows that current law already requires 
federally-licensed firearms dealers at gun shows to perform background 
checks prior to the sale of any firearm, and I trust the gentlewoman 
knows that H.R. 2122, the legislation the House considered on the floor 
back in June, that addressed gun shows, would have required that all 
vendors at gun shows, including nonlicensed vendors, perform background 
checks prior to the sale of any firearm.
  I assume the gentlewoman knows that all of the persons on her list of 
prohibited purchasers, ``murderers, rapists, child molesters, fugitives 
from justice, undocumented aliens, stalkers and batterers,'' are 
prevented under current law from lawfully purchasing a firearm. And 
does the gentlewoman know that the list of prohibited purchasers under 
current law is actually much longer than her list? All felons, not just 
the few she lists, are prohibited purchasers under current law.
  Furthermore, an individual does not even have to be a felon to be 
prohibited, but merely needs to be under indictment for a felony to be 
prohibited. And the list also includes persons that have been 
dishonorably discharged, and persons who have denounced or renounced 
their U.S. citizenship. That is all under current law.
  Now, I want to say that while I will vote for this motion, I am 
concerned about what the gentlewoman means when she calls for a 
loophole-free system. If by that she means mandatory background checks 
at gun shows prior to the sale of any firearm, with no exceptions and 
no loopholes, then I am with her all the way. If she means, however, to 
define gun shows to include every private gun transaction under the 
sun, then I am not with her. That would be a gross incursion of the 
liberties that law-abiding U.S. citizens enjoy and would represent an 
unprecedented degree of Big Brother.

  And that is why I do not support the so-called Lautenberg gun show 
provision. It goes far beyond requiring mandatory background checks at 
gun shows. Permit me to list a few of its excesses. Its definition of a 
gun show is so broad that it could include a few family members or 
neighbors who gathered together to trade firearms. It imposed myriad 
new excessive regulations on gun show organizers, seemingly with the 
aim of driving them out of business, including criminal penalties for 
conduct of persons not within their control. It required federally 
licensed vendors to do the background checks for nonlicensed vendors at 
gun shows. That is for their competitors. And it would then impose new 
regulatory burdens on the federally licensed vendors, making it more 
difficult for them to stay in business.
  And get this, it would further allow Federal ATF agents to search a 
gun show promoter or a federally licensed vendor without reasonable 
cause and without a warrant. And, finally, it created a new huge gun 
control bureaucracy with vast new authority. Indeed, the most oft 
repeated phrase in the Lautenberg provision is, ``as shall be required 
by regulation from the Secretary of the Treasury.''
  This new gun control bureaucracy would make organizing and 
participating in a gun show so onerous and costly that it appears to 
have been designed to shut down gun shows altogether. One example is 
handing to every participant a copy of title 18's gun control 
regulations and statutes, plus a copy of the regulations. As such, it 
is my considered view that the Lautenberg amendment does not represent 
reasonable common ground as we continue to work toward reasonable gun 
control.
  What is reasonable gun control? Well, how about a ban on importing 
large capacity ammunition clips; a requirement for the sale of safety 
devices with handguns; Juvenile Brady, prohibiting juveniles convicted 
of a violent offense from owning a firearm; prohibiting minors from 
possessing assault weapons; and, yes, mandatory background checks at 
gun shows before the sale of any firearm. This is what we propose.
  The gentlewoman's motion also urges the conferees to, and I quote, 
``include provisions that aid in the enforcement of current laws 
against criminals who

[[Page H8526]]

use guns.'' I hope no one misses the point that the motion is concerned 
about the enforcement of firearms laws already on the books. Let me say 
that I share that concern, because the administration has been derelict 
when it comes to firearms enforcement.
  Consider the following: In 1992, there were 7,048 Federal 
prosecutions of Federal firearms violations. In 1998, there were only 
3,807 such prosecutions. This is a reduction of nearly one-half. Over 
the last 3 years, the total number of prosecutions of gun criminals has 
been pitiful. During that period, there were only 38 prosecutions of 
juveniles in possession of a handgun, that is over 3 years, even though 
juvenile gun violence is way up. There were only 22 prosecutions for 
illegally transferring a handgun to a juvenile. There were only 17 
prosecutions for possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone. 
And, get this, only one Brady Act violation or background check 
prosecution in 3 years.
  Now, some can argue that the numbers fail to point out the States are 
doing a better job. Well, even if the States are picking up some of the 
slack, it does not diminish the fact that the Federal Government has 
been prosecuting less. And less Federal prosecutions mean less prison 
time by gun criminals, because the Federal system is the toughest in 
the Nation.
  I also wonder if the gentlewoman is aware that the McCollum amendment 
to H.R. 1501, which passed the House in June, included the armed 
criminal apprehension program. This program was precisely designed to, 
in the words of the motion, aid in the enforcement of current laws 
against criminals who use guns. The program in the McCollum amendment 
required the Justice Department to establish an armed criminal 
apprehension program in each U.S. Attorney's Office. Under the program, 
every U.S. Attorney would designate one or more Federal prosecutors to 
prosecute firearms offenses and coordinate with State and local 
authorities for more effective enforcement.
  In conclusion, let me say I wholeheartedly agree that enforcement of 
current gun laws has become a national problem, even a national 
disgrace. I am glad the gentlewoman's motion makes the point and calls 
for improved enforcement efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I begin my discussion by commending the 
gentlewoman from California. This motion to instruct is right on time. 
It tries to put together what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) 
and I are working on into a general picture that can lead to a 
resolution that will satisfy the majority of the Members of the House 
of Representatives and the American people.

                              {time}  1845

  Now, if we can accomplish this difficult goal, I think that we will 
have a successful conclusion to a serious problem that has been 
neglected for far too long.
  May I also say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that 
negotiations have been in total good faith from the beginning. It is 
not out of order for me to let everybody know that we are meeting on 
this even as the motion to instruct is being resolved here on the 
floor; and these meetings will go on as long, as often, as frequently 
is necessary if between us and the forces that we represent we can 
hammer out a consensus that will lead us to a position that the 
majority of the Members of this House can repair. If that happens, I 
will be very personally gratified.
  Now, these discussions are in good faith. They have been productive 
over the last 2 months. The possibility of reaching a bipartisan 
agreement on reasonable and commonsense gun safety legislation is good. 
It is positive. It is in that spirit that I join both the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the chairman of the committee in 
urging that the motion to instruct be adopted by as great a majority as 
is possible.
  It is true that the descriptions of the compromises that the chairman 
and I are working on have been inaccurate and incomplete. But that is 
not news with the press. The media has not been a party to our 
meetings. They do not know what we have been talking about and what 
agreements have been reached. But let me tell my colleagues what, in my 
mind, are the kind of things that we should be looking for if we are 
going to resolve the question of commonsense gun safety legislation.
  Would it not be wonderful that there would be no exemption of a 
substantial number of gun shows for events where guns are sold simply 
because other items are sold as well? I think that is reasonable, and I 
hope that we will include this in our thinking on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Would it not be wonderful if proposals for independent check 
registrants that will invite fly-by-night background checkers who will 
consummate sales that are difficult to trace may be impossible, making 
the enforcement of our gun laws against dangerous criminals who use 
guns even more unlikely, eliminating sufficient recordkeeping 
requirements which might tempt fraud to enter into this system?
  There should be, in my view, no exclusion of coverage of domestic 
violence offenders and mentally disturbed individuals from the 
background check requirement. And hopefully, unconstitutional 
provisions, the Ten Commandments proposal, for example, is something 
that probably does not materially fit into the notion of how we achieve 
commonsense gun safety in America.
  So personally, my colleagues, I believe that these matters are 
resolvable. We are still confronted with the goal of coming to a 
conclusion and then going into conference. After all, the meetings are 
not going to solve the problem. The meetings are laying the groundwork 
for the conference committee to come to the agreements that the 
chairman and I are struggling toward.
  There are over 35,000 gun-related deaths in the country, and the ease 
with which wrongdoers can obtain semiautomatic weapons and other 
firearms is a national outrage.
  So what we seek is to meet the modest goals established in the 
Senate-passed bipartisan gun violence bill. I will continue to commit 
to do everything in my power to see that this is accomplished.
  Again, I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the wise comments of the chairman and 
ranking member. I am concerned, however, that despite all the good will 
and the coming together about this motion, we met last on August 3, we 
gave speeches to each other as conferees; and now it is September, 
midterms are almost here, and we still have not gotten anything into 
law.
  So that is a concern, and it is shared by the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
motion to instruct the conferees on the Juvenile Justice Reform Act.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and I offer this motion 
to help move the conference committee forward towards approval of 
effective juvenile justice legislation that will help save children's 
lives.
  I will skip part of my written testimony mainly because of what I 
have already heard tonight. I think what is important to realize is why 
did we even start this journey. It all had to do with the shooting at 
Columbine.
  We know the gun that was used in that particular shooting was bought 
at a gun show. No questions asked. That is why we are dealing with the 
gun show loophole. That is why we are here. That is what the American 
people want us to do.
  Our job here is to listen to the American people. Our job here is 
certainly not to be on an emotional fever but certainly to say we are 
listening and we are trying to work something out.
  But I have to say, people in this chamber seem to think that we might 
be able to get through some sort of a gun show amendment that is not 
going to close the loopholes. The American

[[Page H8527]]

people are watching this. Being somewhat of a newer Member, I have a 
great deal of faith in the American people now knowing when there is a 
good bill and there is a bad bill, and they will judge us on that. And 
I think that is the important thing to remember.
  Tomorrow, on the steps of this Capitol, the beginning of the yearlong 
procedure as far as a million women, mothers, grandmothers will be 
starting so they can be here next Mother's Day. They are going to be 
the ones that are going across this country saying that we have to do 
something.
  I say to all of us, let us work together, let us put a good bill 
through, and let us not have the NRA write something up knowing that 
they do not want anything done.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct the 
Conferees on the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. The Gentlewoman from 
California and I offer this motion to help move the Conference 
Committee forward, toward approval of effective Juvenile Justice 
legislation that will help save children's lives.
  The motion is simple and straightforward. It contains a 3-part 
instruction:
  (1.) The Juvenile Justice legislation should include a loophole-free 
system that assures that no criminals or other prohibited purchasers 
obtain firearms from gun shows; (2.) The Juvenile Justice bill should 
not include provisions that weaken current gun safety law; (3.) The 
Juvenile Justice legislation should include provisions that aid in 
enforcement of current laws.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion to instruct. I 
believe it is fundamentally important that the House overwhelmingly 
support this balanced motion because the American people are looking to 
Congress for leadership. The American people want Congress to help make 
our school's safer.
  If we are going to make our schools safer, we have to address the 
issue of easy access to guns. In every one of the tragic school 
shootings over the last two years, it was too simple for children to 
get a hold of guns. In Littleton, Colorado, Eric Harris was able to 
purchase a TEC-9 used in the Columbine High School shooting no 
questions asked at a gun show. The motion to instruct includes a 
provision requesting that the conferees close the deadly gun show 
loophole.
  The motion to instruct also includes a provision that states we must 
NOT weaken current gun law. Before Members vote on the motion, I think 
it is important that we remember why we are having the debate over 
juvenile justice. As my colleagues know, legislation regarding juvenile 
justice stalled last year. And the Juvenile Justice bill was moving 
slowly this year until the shooting at Columbine High School caused the 
American people to stand-up and say that Congress must do something 
about kids and guns.
  It would be a total disaster if Congress responds to the recent 
outbreak of school shootings by approving a Juvenile Justice bill that 
actually weakens our current gun safety laws. I would warn my 
colleagues that the American people will not be fooled by a juvenile 
justice bill that responds to the deaths in our schools with NRA-
drafted proposals that do not truly address the problem of children's 
access to firearms.
  We are fighting for children's lives here. Congress must approve a 
bill that truly protects our kids by keeping guns out of the hands of 
juveniles and criminals. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to 
instruct and show the American people that Congress is listening to 
their concerns.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me add my appreciation to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for this motion to 
instruct. It is constructive because it says to those of us who are 
conferees that, one, we still have a task to do and this is how we 
should do it.
  In addition, let me frankly thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers). It tells us, I say to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Hyde) that we should not believe everything we read.
  I am delighted that there are ongoing discussions regarding gun 
safety laws in America and that, in fact, even though there are ongoing 
discussions, those of us conferees will be included in those 
discussions, for we have a great concern about gun safety but, more 
importantly, gun violence that needs a response.
  Needless to say, our Nation leads the world in firearm deaths. 
Particularly as it relates to deaths, the leading cause of death in 
100,000 people are firearms.
  We already heard many times before, particularly this morning as many 
of us read, a number of children who have died from gun violence since 
Columbine that 13 children die every day and that firearms are the 
fourth leading cause of deaths among children age 5 to 14.
  I would like to just simply refer my colleagues to a series that was 
done, ``America Under the Gun.'' I think it is worth noting some very 
important factors here that talk about the number of killings that we 
have had, the weapons used, the Uzi semiautomatic, a .40 caliber Glock 
semiautomatic, a .9 millimeter pistol Glock, a .357 Magnum revolver, a 
Tec DC-9 handgun, .22 Ruger, a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. A 
number of these that were used to do a series of killings across this 
Nation had an automatic ammunition clip.
  At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, we do not have that provision 
nailed down in the conference. But I am glad that our chairman has 
indicated, along with my support and that of the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and Senator Feinstein that we are going to 
discuss and get into this bill the prohibition on automatic clips. This 
is important because this is what we see as one of the main causes of 
deaths.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of us know in 
addition to the loopholes in gun shows that in many States children can 
go unaccompanied into these gun shows. I would be looking for the 
chairman to work with him to at least do as much as we do for children 
going into R-rated movies where children under 17 cannot go into these 
movies of violence without an adult; but yet we allow children randomly 
to go into gun shows where we found that many of the perpetrators of 
violent crimes have gotten their guns.
  This instruction emphasizes to us that we must not weaken gun safety 
laws. And as well, Mr. Chairman, it emphasizes to us that we must get 
down to our task.
  I simply close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that although the Second 
Amendment stands strong, guns are not relics; guns can be regulated. We 
must regulate guns on behalf of our children. Let us get to the 
conference and do our job.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune, September 22, 1999:

       Two Fenger High School students were injured Tuesday when a 
     gunman opened fire on a crowd of students walking home, 
     Chicago police said.
       Authorities said between 6 and 12 shots were fired, sending 
     the students scurrying for cover. Witnesses told the police 
     the shooter was a 17-year-old male who had been expelled from 
     the South Side High School a year ago.
       The shooting near Fenger took place about 3 p.m. A large 
     group of students walking south on Wallace began arguing with 
     a smaller group of at least four people near the 
     intersection.
       The gunman, who was in the smaller group, allegedly pulled 
     out a handgun and began firing into the other crowd of 
     students. It was unclear whether the gunman intended to hit 
     the two injured students or whether he knew them.
       ``It's crazy. It's just crazy out there,'' said Crystal 
     Allen, Darrell Allen's mother, as she rushed into the 
     hospital's emergency room. ``Your kids can't even walk to 
     school without being shot. It's a shame. They have metal 
     detectors in the schools. But what happens when they walk 
     outside?''.

  Conferees, please do something meaningful to keep guns from turning 
school yard brawls into injury and death.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his 
courtesy in yielding me the time and also for his leadership on these 
most important issues.
  I think perhaps, colleagues, the best thing we could do in this 
debate, which will certainly not be the final word, we will debate this 
issue many, many days this session and the next session of Congress, is 
to provide a little bit of background.
  All of us talk about prosecution of violent crimes, prosecution of 
crimes involving firearms.

[[Page H8528]]

                              {time}  1900

  We also talk about providing the necessary resources to our 
Department of Justice to enforce those federal laws that relate to 
violent crime. I think it is important to place this debate in context, 
to look at the increases in the Clinton administration Department of 
Justice budget that had been provided by the Congress for the 
administration to carry out its mandate to enforce those Federal 
criminal laws including, but not limited to, those that relate to the 
use of firearms.
  One does not have to see the small print on this chart to recognize 
that there has been a substantial increase just over the last 6 years 
of the Clinton administration in the billions of dollars that have been 
provided to the Department of Justice for its budget increasing from 
9.63 billion to 14.82, well over a 50 and close to a 55 percent 
increase. One would expect to see not necessarily a 55 percent increase 
in the prosecution of the criminal use of firearm statutes during the 
same period of time, but perhaps leave something close to it. Certainly 
one would not expect to, given the rhetoric of the Clinton-Gore 
administration, expect to see even a modest decrease in the prosecution 
of criminal use of firearms during the last 6 years.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is, in fact, what we see. We see a 
substantial decrease in the prosecution of the criminal use of firearms 
during each year from 1992 to 1998, nearly a 50 percent decrease.
  So at the same time as we have increased the budget for the 
Department of Justice to prosecute violent crimes by over 50 percent, 
we have seen a 50 percent decrease in the actual prosecutions of these 
cases. Therefore, those of us on this side of the aisle serving on the 
conference committee on this piece of legislation are concerned that 
we, in fact, provide something more than simply more money for the 
Clinton administration to prosecute violent crime, and that is in fact 
one of the things that we are looking at. We are looking at, for 
example, programs that actually work, such as Project Exile in the 
Richmond, Virginia area which resulted over about a 2-year period in a 
40 percent decrease in the incidents of violent crimes in that 
jurisdiction.
  The way that this came about was very simple. An Assistant United 
States Attorney in Richmond called the local prosecutors and law 
enforcement officials into his office and said, ``If you bring me the 
gun cases, I will prosecute them. If you build it; they will come. If 
you bring me those cases, they will be prosecuted; I guarantee you,'' 
he told them, ``and I will seek maximum penalties under the federal 
laws.'' The fact of the matter is that he did just that. He developed 
the credibility with local law enforcement, and the results speak for 
themselves. That is what we need to be doing, Mr.
Speaker.
  Now I understand the gentlewoman from California, and I would presume 
that she agrees with us that what we ought to be looking at is more 
than simply providing more money to an administration that has received 
substantially more money to prosecute cases yet has not done so, that 
we ought to be looking at ways to prod the administration and future 
administrations to actually prosecute gun cases, to actually prosecute 
those who commit a felony every time they provide misleading or false 
information on the instant background check form. Rather than talk 
about so many tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of felons who have 
escaped, who are not able to purchase firearms because of the NICS 
system, let us talk also about those very, very few, .2 percent, that 
have actually been prosecuted for committing what amounts to about as 
close as one can get to an open and shut felony. They put false 
information on that form; the form says if they do so, they are subject 
to a 5-year penalty in the Federal penitentiary, and, in fact, those 
cases, if they were prosecuted, would send a very important message to 
the American people.
  So in conclusion, and in support of what the chairman and us on this 
side of the aisle, those of us on this side of the aisle concerned with 
doing something that actually does more than just talk about these 
problems; what we are trying to do is to work with the conferees and 
present back to this body something that this body actually had a 
chance to vote on. Yet the vast majority of Democrats, even most of 
those who voted for the so-called Dingell amendment to tighten up on 
provision of background checks, national instant checks at gun shows, 
they turned around and then voted to kill the bill that had that 
provision in it.
  What we are trying to do is to put politics aside and look at the 
substance of these issues, look at the substance of providing the 
guarantees insofar as we are able and the impetus for prosecuting these 
gun cases to provide the resources to the Department of Justice, that 
it needs to do so. None of us are interested in weakening current gun 
laws. That is a red herring. None of us are interested in doing that, 
and there is nothing in the bill that we are considering in the 
conference report that would do that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, one really has to wonder when one looks at the 
language of the gentlewoman from California which provides for a 
loophole-free system, includes provisions that do not weaken current 
gun safety law; we are not in disagreement on those, and includes 
provisions that aid in the enforcement of current laws; we certainly 
support that. One has to wonder, since she disagrees with what we are 
saying what the agenda is. Is there a hidden agenda there? What is the 
purpose of this other than to provide a smokescreen for perhaps other 
legislative initiatives that the House has already voted down?
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
motion to recommit with instructions, allow the flexibility to our 
conferees, as provided by the House and by the Senate, to work on these 
matters, bring this matter back to the House and to the Senate with 
measures that have some actual teeth in them, that have more than sound 
bites, that provide our law enforcement officials and our prosecutors 
at the national level and at U.S. Attorneys' offices across the country 
the tools that they need to actually get something done.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren), and I applaud her for her consistent leadership on this 
issue.
  With approximately 13 young people dying each day since the Columbine 
massacre, almost 2,000 young people have been victims of gun violence, 
and yet as more and more children become statistics, this Congress 
continues to look the other way.
  Since the beginning of this debate, opponents of tough gun safety 
measures have relied on the strategy of delay, delay, delay. This 
motion to instruct is a signal to the conference committee that delay 
is no longer acceptable. It tells the conferees that we cannot wait 
until another child falls victim to gun violence before we act.
  This motion does three things.
  First, it says that the bill should ensure that no criminals are able 
to purchase guns at gun shows; second, it says that a conference report 
should not weaken current law; and third, it says that we should work 
to strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws.
  I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would oppose this motion 
to instruct. Please vote for the motion to instruct.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the 
debate on juvenile justice. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) has introduced this motion to instruct 
conferees. Since we approved the bill in the House on June 17, and the 
Senate on July 28, to date there has been no motion on the conference 
between the House and the Senate on this legislation. In the meantime, 
children across America die as a result of violent crime.
  My colleague has instructed the conferees that would require a 
loophole-free system. People keep saying, ``Well, what do you mean a 
loophole-free system?'' We are talking about the fact that under a 24-
hour gun check in a gun show people whose records are not clear in 
records like on post cards or index cards in little communities

[[Page H8529]]

 might get a gun because if one does not reveal it within 24 hours, 
they still get a gun. That is what we are talking about, loophole-free, 
loop-free situations.
  Let me say this to my colleagues. Innocent children like those in 
Fort Worth, those in Columbine, and those across our country whose 
names unfortunately never reach the media because they die on the 
streets of this Nation unnoticed are worried about what is happening 
with this gun control legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues who 
are here on this floor within my voice to vote in favor of the motion.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who just spoke.
  We are not delaying this. We are working as hard as we can. It is no 
easy matter to reconcile the left, the right, the center, the pro-gun, 
the anti-gun, the liberals, the conservatives. This a very difficult 
question.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) told us earlier that we 
have been meeting even today, and we are going to meet tomorrow. We are 
working very hard, and please do not beat us over the head that we are 
trying to delay this. We are moving with all deliberate speed, I can 
assure the gentlewoman from Ohio, and if she doubts it, ask Mr. 
Conyers.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I Yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to point a finger. 
What I want to say is the people of these United States want to hear 
from us. If I am part of the delay, I accept the delay. I am standing 
here saying let us get it on.
  Mr. HYDE. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I am here to tell the 
gentlewoman we are getting it on as fast as we can, believe me.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. With all deliberate speed.
  Mr. HYDE. Yes, speed. Emphasize speed, but it takes deliberation, 
too. We cannot do this, as my colleagues know, with a snap of the 
fingers.
  I know the gentlewoman has had vast experience in negotiating these 
matters, and I want to defer to her, but I want her to know we are 
trying as hard as we can. Believe me.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, while we haggle over tax breaks and F-22 
bombers, 13 children are dying each day in this country as a result of 
gun violence. While we play politics with spending caps and budget 
priorities, 13 children will be killed by guns. So I ask who is taking 
care of our children?
  Nearly 5 months after the tragedy at Columbine, we have done nothing 
to strengthen gun laws or to enact commonsense gun regulations, but 
while we have done nothing, 13 families every day are faced with 
burying a child. This is disgraceful that we have not passed gun safety 
legislation this Congress, and it would be even more disgraceful to 
pass a bill that actually weakened current gun laws.
  This is not a game. We are talking about children's lives.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren motion to instruct; and 
after that when we tighten gun control laws, then when we ask who is 
taking care of our children, the answer can be and will be:
  We are.
  But until then our children remain at risk.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding this time to me.
  This is a motion that I rise today to support. As one of the 
conferees on H.R. 1501 and as the principle sponsor of the bill, I do 
very much want to support the gentlewoman's motion; but I want to take 
a few moments to speak on the motion and on the ongoing conference that 
is going on this bill.
  First, let me address the first part of the motion, that the 
conference report include a, quote, loophole-free system that assures 
that no criminals or other prohibited purchasers obtain firearms from 
nonlicensed persons and federally licensed firearm dealers at gun 
shows, unquote.

                              {time}  1915

  I hope everybody knows that federally licensed firearm dealers now 
under current law are required to perform background checks prior to 
the sale of any firearm, whether they are making that sale in their own 
store or at a gun show. It does not make any difference. That is 
current law.
  The law currently provides that it is a crime for these prohibited 
persons to possess a firearm of any kind. What we have been working 
long and hard on is a provision that will address the other sellers of 
guns at gun shows, ordinary citizens who do not have as their principal 
business the sale of guns.
  I introduced a bill, H.R. 2122, to do just that, which was debated on 
this floor in June. Unfortunately, the bill was voted down largely 
because most of the Members on the gentlewoman's side of the aisle 
voted against it. Since that time, some of us on this side of the aisle 
have been working to come up with a new and different approach, one 
that attempts to address many of the concerns that Members of the 
gentlewoman's side of the aisle have expressed during the debate on 
H.R. 2122.
  I must say that our inability to find common ground is caused by some 
of the Members, including perhaps the majority on the gentlewoman's 
side, taking an all-or-nothing approach. We really do need to find a 
way to compromise this issue.
  There is nothing magical in the language that passed in the other 
body. In fact, we have heard from thousands of our constituents that 
the provisions of the bill passed there would reach far beyond what its 
proponents represent that it would do. I know that the gentlewoman and 
others on her side of the aisle appreciate that there almost always are 
a number of ways to write a law to reach the same end. All we are 
asking is that she encourage the conferees on her side of the aisle to 
be open to a different way to accomplish the goal that I believe we all 
share.
  I must also express some confusion at the provision of the motion 
that states that we should achieve a, quote, ``loophole-free system,'' 
unquote. I do not think anybody intends to construct a system with a 
loophole and I hope that the gentlewoman is not intending to use this 
provision to broaden the debate on the bill. Up to this point, we have 
been discussing ways to ensure that no prohibited purchaser can buy a 
gun at a gun show, that is, nobody who is a convicted felon or has any 
other disability that says they are not permitted to own a gun. I am 
committed and I have been committed to making that a reality, but I 
must say that if the gentlewoman seeks to use her motion to move the 
debate into regulating every private gun transaction, then we part 
company.
  I believe that it is clear the American public does not support the 
Government regulating private firearms transactions any more than they 
already do.
  The gun show issue is another story, and I agree with the gentlewoman 
on that; and I think we should reach a common ground to resolve this.
  Finally, I must point out that the gentlewoman's motion speaks to 
only one small part of the bill. I think it is vitally important for 
Members to bear in mind this bill contains a number of very important 
provisions. Many of them have enjoyed bipartisan support for quite some 
time. It would be a shame if we did not allow these other provisions to 
become law because Members cannot agree on a single provision.
  The underlying bill is the juvenile justice bill. It is a bill that 
was totally bipartisan when it came out of the Subcommittee on Crime 
and it is, I believe, totally bipartisan today, which deals with an 
effort to put consequences for juveniles who commit misdemeanor crimes, 
the lesser crimes than the ones with violence and guns, give them 
consequences early on because all of the experts say that without those 
consequences in the law, which are not there today for a variety of 
reasons, but principally because we have an overworked and understaffed 
juvenile court system in the States,

[[Page H8530]]

without those consequences we see kids thinking they can get away with 
crime when they rob a store or they steal a car or they steal a radio 
out of a car or whatever, and later on then they think they can get 
away also with violent crime. They don't believe they are going to get 
punished.
  I know that is a simple concept, but it is a valid concept; and it is 
one that all law enforcement and sociologists who deal with kids 
understand.
  The underlying bill addresses that problem by providing a grant 
program to the States to allow them to improve their juvenile justice 
systems with more probation officers, more judges, more of all of those 
things they need, including diversion programs for kids, with only one 
caveat, and that is that every juvenile justice system in the Nation, 
every State, assure the United States Attorney General that they are 
going to punish a juvenile for the very first misdemeanor crime and 
every crime of a more serious nature thereafter with an increasingly 
greater punishment. That does not mean jail time. It does not mean 
lock-up time. It means community service or whatever, but some kind of 
punishment.
  So I certainly support the motion the gentlewoman is offering, but I 
hope that Members on both sides will see it as a call to work more 
closely together to reach what I believe is a widely accepted goal and 
pass what is fundamentally a good bill and close the existing loophole 
in the gun show law.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for purposes of a 
notification.
  (Mrs. McCARTHY of New York asked and was given permission to speak 
out of order.)


  Notice of Intention to Offer a Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 
               1501, Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 
XXII, I give notice of my intent to offer a motion to instruct 
conferees on H.R. 1501 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows:

       Mrs. McCarthy of New York moves that the managers on the 
     part of the House at the conferees on the disagreeing votes 
     on the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 
     1501, be instructed to insist that, one, the committee of the 
     conferees should this week have its first substantive meeting 
     to offer amendments and motions, including gun safety 
     amendments and motions; and, two, the committee of conference 
     should meet every weekday in public session until the 
     committee of conference agrees to recommended a substitute.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a Member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct. I think the motion to instruct is important to correct a 
deeply flawed bill, a bill that, in fact, left this House and weakened 
the Brady statute; therefore, has put lethal weapons, if it should be 
enacted, into the hands of criminals. Let me explain why.
  During the past 5 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. If we 
pass this bill, we will be handing them a loaded weapon and inviting 
them to pull the trigger. That is because the House-passed bill denies 
the FBI the 3 days it needs to complete its background check on the 
very people most likely to have a criminal history, like a convicted 
rapist who traveled from Virginia to North Carolina several months ago 
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 6 months and were stopped because a 3-day 
background check revealed their criminal history before the sale could 
be consummated.
  If the House bill had been the law of the land 6 months ago, 9,000 of 
these people would have been walking the streets with a license to 
commit crime. I ask my colleagues to think about that before they vote. 
Think about the lives that could very well be destroyed because one of 
those 9,000 criminals got a hold of a weapon and pulled the trigger. 
Think about what we would have to say to the families of the victims if 
we allow the House bill, which weakens the Brady bill, to become law.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Lofgren motion to instruct for juvenile justice conference. Mr. 
Speaker, I find it hard to believe that despite the overwhelming desire 
by the American people for reasonable and common sense limitations on 
access to guns, this Congress has still not passed and sent to the 
President the Senate version of the juvenile justice bill.
  The parents of America are concerned, and given the tragedies that 
have occurred across this Nation, they have a right to be. They are 
concerned about the proliferation of guns, of kids gaining access to 
guns without trigger locks, of guns being bought and sold at gun shows 
and flea markets without adequate background checks, and of the ability 
to buy guns anonymously over the Internet.
  They are concerned, Mr. Speaker, because current U.S. law is 
inadequate to prevent guns from easily falling into the wrong hands. 
They are concerned and want action by this Congress. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, they demand action by this Congress. I would urge all of my 
colleagues to support the Lofgren motion, which instructs the conferees 
to include a loophole-free system that assures murderers, rapists, 
child molesters, and other criminals do not gain access to guns, and 
instruct them not to weaken existing gun safety laws.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, within the last 6 months, America has 
witnessed shootings at Columbine High School, the Jewish Community 
Center in Los Angeles, hate crime shootings in Illinois and in Indiana 
and now most recently the shootings in Fort Worth, Texas. In each one 
of those shootings, guns were involved that were purchased at either 
gun shows or at flea markets. No surprise, last year in America 54,000 
guns were confiscated in crimes that originated at gun shows. The 
Senate-passed legislation, mirrored on the Brady law, would simply 
apply the background check requirements at gun shows that we require at 
retail gun stores. This Congress has yet to do that. I urge the 
conferees to do what the Senate did, provide common sense, basic 
background requirements at gun shows that we apply to retail gun 
stores.
  This is not, Mr. Speaker, about gun control. This is about crime 
prevention and about public safety.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) has the right to close.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to supporting this resolution. I 
will say it is a little distressful, and I searched for a word and I 
came up with distressful, to be unjustly criticized for foot dragging. 
I would presume to direct those who criticize us for lack of progress, 
I would direct them to their committee staff and to their ranking 
member for verification that no one has been delaying a solution.
  I want a solution. I am in good faith. So is our staff. We have met 
time and time again. These are difficult, emotional issues; and they 
are not going to be solved easily. It seems to me by accusing us 
lopsidedly, one-sidedly, of foot dragging, my colleagues are injecting 
a distinctly political tone into an issue that deserves nonpolitical 
treatment.
  There is a lot of hard work ahead, believe me. We are a long ways 
from agreement, but we are closer than we

[[Page H8531]]

 have ever been. I am committed to remaining at the negotiating table, 
and not get stampeded, as long as it takes to try and find reasonable, 
common ground.
  If my colleagues really want a bill, and that is a question number 
one, do my colleagues really want a bill? Or are we to encounter 
gridlock and failure and say, see, these guys cannot govern; they 
really cannot run the House? There is that question, and I have tried 
to dispel it. I certainly do not think it animates the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and his staff, because we have had excellent 
discussions in the best of good faith, and so I discount that.
  There may be others who do not want a bill because they do not want 
the Republicans to have any success whatsoever. I would look upon this 
not as a Republican success but as congressional success that we can 
respond to the tragedies that have bloodied our country.
  If we really do not want a bill, there are a couple of ways we can 
kill it.

                              {time}  1930

  One is to draw a bill that is empty and hollow and meaningless, and 
the other is at the opposite end of the spectrum: strengthen a bill to 
death.
  Now, when we are negotiating, we have people who we have to appeal to 
differently on different issues. It is not easy. We have to get some 
democratic support. I do not think we have enough on our side to pass 
this.
  Now, either they can kill it, or they can help us. But I ask my 
colleagues for their help. They certainly have mine. But to any of my 
colleagues who accuse us of foot-dragging, please talk to the staff, 
please talk to the ranking member. My democratic colleagues do not have 
to accept our statement that we are doing the best we can.
  Now, tomorrow, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is going 
to instruct us to meet every day in public. I will not object to that, 
but we do not get things solved with formal meetings. We talk, and we 
talk out, and we find out what we can agree on, what we cannot. We make 
trade-offs; we do the best we can; and we come up with a bill. Do we 
want a bill, or do we want an issue? I want a bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am confident that this motion to instruct will receive support when 
we vote on it from both sides of the aisle, and that is a good thing, 
but it certainly does not solve the concern that brought me here today 
and has consumed our time here this evening.
  As I think through the scenario of how we got to this point in time, 
I think back to earlier in the summer when we had almost a surprise, 
really, to some of us that the United States Senate was able to come 
together after the terrible tragedy in Colorado at Columbine High 
School and to come up with a set of modest, centrist measures that 
would make the availability of guns less so, in the hopes that the 
violence that beset the youngsters in Columbine and in other schools in 
other parts of our country would be diminished.
  When this House took that measure up, and I believe it was something 
like 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning, we ended up with a measure, 
when all was said and done and the amendments concluded, that the NRA 
said vote ``yes'' on the bill, and handgun control urged us to vote 
``no'' on the bill. We did not have a strong bill, as the Senate had 
done. So, we moved on to conference.
  Now, the conference committee met just once, on August 3, and each 
member of the conference committee was permitted to make a statement, 
and I did as well, and then we left town, and the conference committee 
has not met again since.
  Now, I understand that the chairman has, in fact, on many occasions 
supported centrist gun control measures. He voted for the Brady Bill; I 
was proud to be a part of the Hyde-Lofgren amendment on clips, and I am 
hopeful that we can get some sound things done. I realize that this is 
not easy, but it also needs to move apace, because it is now September 
22; and when we talked in July, we were anxious to get a good measure 
that would be in place before school started. And now, as I mentioned, 
my two high school students are starting to fret about the mid-terms 
that are almost here; and we will be recessing soon if the target date 
is to be believed. And so unless we can pick up the pace, I am 
concerned that we will not achieve our goal of getting good, strong, 
solid, sensible gun control, gun safety measures adopted; and I want to 
do that.
  I can assure the chairman, I want a bill. I want to be able to tell 
my children that we managed to get something done that might make them 
a little bit safer from gun violence. I want a bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman said, do we want to prove that the 
Republicans cannot run the House. Well, no. I think on September 22, 
without our appropriations done, that has already been proven. We do 
not need to prove it with a gun bill stalled in the conference 
committee and not brought to the floor. I want strong legislation. I 
will work on a bipartisan basis to get that done, but what I will not 
do is to stand silent if the measure comes back and there is actually 
less safety for the children of America than exists in current law. 
That I cannot do. That is what we were faced with that early morning in 
July when the House took up its measure.
  It is not comfortable. It is not a delight to stand here and make 
motions to instruct and to be somewhat obstreperous; but I would rather 
do that than not come to a conclusion, than not to stand up for the 
mothers who I represent in this House. And when I go home and I am in 
the grocery store, the other mothers want to know how come we cannot 
get this done, something this simple. They cannot understand it. And I 
cannot really explain it to them, because I cannot understand it 
either.
  So let us reach out across the aisle, let us work together, let us 
get this done. Let us make sure it is solid, that it is valid, that it 
is honest, it is true, it is tough, and it is done promptly. I would 
urge that we bring some of these discussions out into the open. There 
have been many discussions between the chairman and the ranking member, 
I understand, and I have no doubt that they are sincerely done and 
difficult discussions. But sometimes the light of day can help move 
things forward a bit.
  So I am hopeful that we will be able to do that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the participation of all of 
the Members of the House. I look forward to a very positive vote on 
this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed until tomorrow.

                          ____________________