[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 126 (Friday, September 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8645-H8653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1045
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1501, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT 
                                OF 1999

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Doolittle moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1501 be 
     instructed to insist that the conference report not include 
     Senate provisions that--
       (1) do not recognize that the second amendment to the 
     Constitution protects the individual right of American 
     citizens to keep and bear arms; and
       (2) impose unconstitutional restrictions on the second 
     amendment rights of individuals.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7, rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard numerous statements made about the further 
efforts to secure gun control which I believe to be in violation of our 
fundamental liberties as citizens of this Republic and which I believe 
do violence to our United States Constitution and the Second Amendment 
contained therein. And I offer this resolution to instruct our 
conferees to abide by the Constitution and to do no harm thereto in the 
deliberations that will occur in the points of agreement arrived at in 
this conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, let us begin with the Second Amendment: ``A well-
regulated militia being necessary for security of a free state, the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
  I would submit that it is not the right of the Army, not the right of 
the National Guard; it says the right of the people, an individual 
right.
  In the Second Amendment, James Madison used the phrase: right of the 
people, as he often did throughout the entire Bill of Rights. In each 
case the right secured has been considered an individual right.
  For example, the First Amendment contains the right of the people 
peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of 
grievances. The Fourth Amendment contains the provision, the right of 
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and affects 
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
  The structure of the Constitution is persuasive, I believe, in 
upholding the right of the individual to exercise his Second Amendment 
rights. The right to bear arms appears early in the Bill of Rights, 
listed with other personal liberties such as the personal right to free 
speech, the right to the free exercise of religion, the right to 
assembly as well as the freedom from unreasonable searches and 
seizures. Even more persuasive evidence comes from Madison's original 
proposal to interlineate the new rights within the Constitution's text 
rather than placing them at the end of the original text as, in fact, 
actually happened. Madison in his proposed Constitution placed the 
First and Second Amendments immediately after Article 1, section 1, 
clause 3, which includes the Constitution's original guarantees of 
individual liberties, freedom from ex post facto laws, and from bills 
of attainder.
  If, as some claim, that the Second Amendment protects a collective 
right that resides with the State or the local militia, in his original 
plan Madison surely would have placed the Second Amendment in Article 
1, section 8, which deals with the powers of Congress including 
Congress' power to organize and call out the militia. But Madison did 
not do that. He placed it with the individual rights because that is 
what it was intended to protect.
  In Federalist Paper No. 46, James Madison, who later drafted the 
Second Amendment, argued that, quote, the advantage of being armed, 
which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other 
Nation, would deter the central government from tyranny. That view was 
consistent with Madison's contemporaries and certainly with the framers 
of the Constitution.
  The new Constitution respected individuals' rights, Madison wrote, 
whereas the old world governments, quote, were afraid to trust the 
people with arms. Surprise, surprise. Nothing has changed over 200 
years later, and the present governments of the world are afraid to 
trust people with arms, and unfortunately some in their own government 
have now succumbed to that fear.
  But indeed that is what we face today, a distrustful government that 
wants to take away guns from the people in the name of safety and which 
unfortunately at State and local levels all too often has been 
successful, and we see a direct rise in violent crimes as a result of 
that limitation of handguns.
  Not only does this effort discount the thousands of lives saved by 
firearms each year, it strips away a precious freedom. Let us not 
forget what Benjamin Franklin said, quote:
  Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  The importance of individual gun rights was a point on which both the 
Federalists led by Madison and the anti-Federalists agree.
  Though he was strongly critical of Madison in the course of many 
other

[[Page H8646]]

constitutional disputes, Richard Henry Lee wrote, quote:
  To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the 
people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, 
how to use them.
  Patrick Henry, the great Virginian, said, quote:
  The great object is that every man be armed.
  When Madison wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, he was not 
writing on a clean slate. Many States were demanding inclusion of a 
list of fundamental rights before they would agree to ratify the 
Constitution. Madison purchased a pamphlet containing the demands of 
the States of over 200 rights listed therein. He chose a total of 19 
for express listing. This number was eventually whittled down, but one 
right Madison had to include, which was demanded by State conventions 
in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York 
was the express right to keep and bear arms. The States did not 
equivocate as to whether this right belonged to individuals or the 
State militia. Here from Pennsylvania is what was contained in their 
Constitution, quote:
  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of 
themselves and their own State or the United States or for the purpose 
of killing game.
  New Hampshire Constitution says this, quote:
  Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have 
been in actual rebellion. End of quote.
  New York has this. Quote:
  That the people have the right to keep and bear arms, that a well-
regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing 
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.
  Here is a great one. I am not going to tell my colleagues who said 
this, but let me just read it, and I will tell them at the end. Quote:
  What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned 
from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? 
Let them take arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to 
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
  That was not a quote from a modern militia member. That was a quote. 
It was not Charlton Heston talking or it was not some official from the 
National Rifle Association. Those words were spoken by the author of 
the Declaration of Independence himself, Thomas Jefferson.
  Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time to go through these quotes by way 
of background to illustrate that the Second Amendment is a precious 
personal right of every American. I believe, if we gave full force and 
effect to it, that we would see a safer society, and it is my desire to 
have a safer society that leads me to stand up and make this privileged 
motion. I believe it is very wrong to continue to head down this path 
of Federal regulation, taking away fundamental rights on the supposed 
premise that somehow this is going to improve our society when, in 
fact, all of the empirical evidence shows that restrictive gun control 
makes us a less safe society, that it makes our cities very dangerous 
places to be. The urban areas have the most violent crime, have the 
least number of handguns. There is a direct correlation, and later on 
here I will talk about that, but for now, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) has offered a motion that, if adopted, would impair the 
ability of the House and Senate to adopt reasonable gun regulations, 
gun safety measures, and that is because in his motion he distorts the 
actual interpretation of the Second Amendment and interprets it in such 
a way that courts do not.
  I would like to briefly reference some of the U.S. Supreme Court 
decisions that have addressed the issue of the Second Amendment. The 
most prominent one is U.S. versus Miller, a 1939 case where the court 
said, In the absence of any evidence tending to show the possession or 
use of a shotgun at this time has some reasonable relationship to the 
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. We cannot say 
that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an 
instrument with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render 
possible the effectiveness of such forces the Declaration and guarantee 
of the Second Amendment will note it must be interpreted and applied 
with that end in view.
  In another case, U.S. versus Hale, a 1992 case from the 8th Circuit 
and not overturned, but the Supreme Court opined that the purpose of 
the Second Amendment is to restrain the Federal Government from 
regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere 
with the preservation or efficiency of the militia.
  The Second Amendment has often been used to try and thwart sensible 
gun safety measures. In 1992, six of the Nation's former attorneys 
general wrote in a joint and bipartisan letter, and I quote:
  For more than 200 years the Federal courts have unanimously 
determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the 
people in service to an organized State militia. It does not guarantee 
immediate access to guns for private purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's 
distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to 
implement an effective national policy towards guns and crimes, and 
that was signed by attorneys general Nicholas Katzenback, Ramsey Clark, 
Elliot Richardson, Edward Levy, Griffin Bell, and Benjamin Civiletti. I 
think it is important to outline the vast number of cases that have 
reached the same conclusion, and I submit for the Record a list of all 
of the court citations that established this point:

       Court decisions supporting the ``militia'', rather than 
     ``individual rights'' reading of the second amendment


                           u.s. supreme court

       U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
       Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)


                         u.s. courts of appeals

       U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 
     435 U.S. 926 (1978)
       U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975)
       Hickman v. Block, No. 94-55836 (9th Cir. April 5, 1996)
       U.S. v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
       U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)
       U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
       U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972)
       U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
       U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on 
     other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972)
       Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 
     1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983)
       U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
       U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 
     U.S. 948 (1976)
       U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
       Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
       U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
       Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
     116 S.Ct. 64 (1995)
       U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
       U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other 
     grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943)
       U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
       U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
       U.S. v. Graves, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 
     sub nom., Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943)
       Fraternal Order of Police v. United States, 173 F.3d 898 
     (D.C. Cir. 1999)
       United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)
       Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 1999 WL 463577 (7th Cir. July 9, 
     1999)
       United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025 (5th Cir. 1996)
       United States v. Williams, 446 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1971)
       United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3d Cir. 1977)
       Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 
     1984)
       National Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F. 
     Supp. 1564 (N.D. Ga. 1997), aff'd, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 
     1998)


                      u.s. federal district courts

       Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F. Supp. 1307 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)
       In re Brown, 189 B.R. 653 (M.D. La. 1996)
       In re Evans, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)
       National Ass'n of Gov't Employees, Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F 
     Supp. 1564 (N.D. Ga. 1997), U.S. v. Gross, 313 F. Supp. 1330. 
     (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th 
     Cir. 1971)
       U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
       Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
       Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F. Supp. 198 
     (S.D. Tex. 1982)
       U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F. Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. 
     denied, 496 U.S. 842 (1984)

[[Page H8647]]

       Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

  Mr. Speaker, I think we should be clear about what we are doing here 
today. The maker of the motion does not believe that we ought to have 
gun regulation, he does not believe we ought to have gun safety 
measures. He has a right to that opinion. He voted against the Brady 
bill. He voted to repeal the assault weapons ban. He voted to repeal 
the ban on the domestic production of large capacity clips. He and I do 
not agree on the issue of sensible gun safety regulation.
  But I think we ought to be clear that his motion is to prevent gun 
safety regulations from being adopted by this House. The Second 
Amendment has nothing to do with it, and I would urge my colleagues to 
see through the kind of legal murkiness that is being put forth here 
today and to understand that this is really once again a disagreement 
between those who stand for sensible, moderate, reasonable gun safety 
regulation and those who believe we ought not have that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Second Amendment has everything to do with it; that is my point. 
The proponents of unconstitutional gun control want to avoid the 
Constitution because we do have a Second Amendment, and that cuts 
against them, so they want to talk about gun safety and how they have 
such reasonable, responsible proposals, proposals which have never 
worked, which have utterly failed.
  Crime continues to get worse or has gotten worse until demographic 
trends kicked in in the early 1990's, having nothing to do with gun 
control, and yet we continue to see these relentless efforts by our 
left wing advanced to take away our precious fundamental rights.

                              {time}  1100

  So I believe it has everything to do with it. The issue is precisely 
joined here, and that is why I began with talking about the Second 
Amendment and with the statements of the author of the Second 
Amendment, and with contemporaries who wrote and voted on the Second 
Amendment back in the days when it was approved. I just think it is 
important, Mr. Speaker, that that be noted.
  I also want to point out that the Supreme Court has never ruled that 
the Second Amendment is not an individual right. Interestingly enough, 
Justice Scalia has come out with a book recently where he says it is a 
personal right. Now, that is one member of the Court, I stipulate, but 
nevertheless it is a member of the Court.
  Justice Thomas in the Printz case, which thankfully overturned the 
Brady law, it was a great decision, made this observation,

       This court has not had recent occasion to consider the 
     nature of the substantive rights safeguarded by the Second 
     Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to 
     confer a personal right to keep and bear arms, a colorable 
     argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory 
     scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale 
     or possession of firearms, runs afoul of the amendment's 
     protections.

  So the fact of the matter is, it has been some 60 years since the 
Supreme Court has actually interpreted the Second Amendment. We may 
have a case heading there now, and we will finally get to hear what the 
justices think that it means.
  I just want to emphasize, we have never had a U.S. Supreme Court 
decision where they have held that the Second Amendment is not an 
individual right, nor could they reasonably so hold, because it is so 
clearly in the history of statements of Madison, the other Founders, 
meant to be an individual right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. 
Chenoweth).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Doolittle motion which 
simply reaffirms the importance of our Second Amendment right. Mr. 
Speaker, we take for granted the amount of lives that the Second 
Amendment right has saved, and I would like to take a moment and share 
with the House just a few experiences of actual people who in the last 
year have been able to protect their own lives and their property 
because of this very necessary and critical right.
  In December of 1998, Kenneth Thornton of Memphis, Tennessee, 
protected himself from a personal assault at his business. In January 
of 1999, 62-year-old Perry Johns of Pensacola, Florida, was able to 
stop an assailant from taking him to the bank and forcing him to 
withdraw his money. In December of 1998, Jerry and Mary Lou Krause were 
able to ward off two intruders in their Toledo, Ohio, home, and in 
January of 1999, Gregory W. Webster of Omaha, Nebraska, was able to 
defend himself from three individuals wearing masks who fired shots at 
him in his own basement.
  Now, in June of 1999, David Zamora was able to stave off an attempted 
highjack of his car at a fast foods drive-in at Phoenix, Arizona, and 
in June of 1999, 83-year-old poet Carlton Eddy Breitenstein of Rhode 
Island was able to defend himself from a repeated intruder.
  Now, in June of 1999, Jack Barrett of Augusta, Georgia, was able to 
stop a prowler from invading his home who was dressed in black military 
clothing and brandishing a knife. In July of 1999, a former Marine was 
able to protect seven of his family members from five gun-toting thugs 
who descended on him and his family in their Tucson, Arizona, home.
  In July of 1999, a Boulder, Colorado, woman was able to ward off and 
detain her estranged husband who threatened to murder and burglarize 
her in her very own home.
  Mr. Speaker, the stories go on and on, and, in fact, in 1997, the 
Clinton Justice Department study found that as many as 1.5 million 
people use a gun in self-defense every year.
  Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we not learn to appreciate what 
we have by losing it. If we even slightly diminish our Second Amendment 
rights, millions of Americans will be left vulnerable to attack. Let us 
continue to uphold that very right, which has allowed law-abiding 
citizens to protect themselves from cold blooded criminals. I urge a 
yes vote for the Doolittle motion.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, first 
because there are no provisions in either the House or Senate version 
of H.R. 1501 which violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, 
and second because the motion suggests an individual right to bear 
arms, which is, in fact, not found in the Constitution.
  The argument offered by some and by the sponsor of the amendment is 
that the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws 
regulating individual gun laws.
  The Second Amendment provides, quote, ``A well regulated militia, 
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the 
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
  Mr. Speaker, the United States Supreme Court declared in 1939, in the 
case United States versus Miller, that the Second Amendment right to 
keep and bear arms applies only to the right of a State to maintain a 
militia and not to an individual's right to bear arms. More 
specifically, the Court stated that the obvious purpose of the Second 
Amendment was to assure the continuation and render possible the 
effectiveness of the State militia and that the amendment must be 
interpreted and implied with that end in view.
  Following the Miller decision, numerous court decisions have 
consistently held that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to be 
armed only by persons using the arms in service to an organized State 
militia. The modern, well-regulated militia, is the National Guard, a 
State-organized militia force made up of ordinary citizens serving as 
part-time soldiers. Courts have consistently held that gun control laws 
affecting the private ownership, sale and use of firearms do not 
violate the Second Amendment because such laws do not adversely affect 
the arming of a well-regulated militia.
  In fact, during the May 27, 1999, hearing on firearm legislation 
before the House Committee on the Judiciary's

[[Page H8648]]

 Subcommittee on Crime, I personally asked the executive director of 
the National Rifle Association to cite any court decision which 
interpreted the Second Amendment as granting an individual right to 
bear arms, and he could not cite a single court decision.
  The sponsor of the amendment likewise has offered his analysis but 
has been unable to cite a single Supreme Court decision which supports 
those views. Thus, the Second Amendment does not constitute a barrier 
to congressional regulation of firearms. Rather, the real challenge 
before us is to determine what Congress can do in the form of 
regulating firearms which will actually result in the reduction of gun 
violence.
  Now, we do know that some modest provisions currently in existence 
have made a difference. 300,000 felons, fugitives and others prohibited 
from receiving firearms were prevented by the Brady law between 1993 
and 1998 from making those purchases. Provisions passed in the Senate 
would bring about a significant reduction in the number of criminals 
acquiring guns.
  Unfortunately, those good provisions in the Senate version of 1501 
are coupled with counterproductive provisions affecting the system of 
juvenile justice in this country. Several of those provisions, such as 
jailing more children with adult criminals and kicking children with 
disabilities out of school without alternative educational services 
have been shown to be counterproductive.
  On the other hand, the bill also contains bipartisan legislation 
reflecting proven initiatives which will, in fact, reduce juvenile 
crime. So, Mr. Speaker, we should focus on these reasonable gun safety 
provisions and proven juvenile justice provisions which will assist 
localities in substantially reducing the carnage of youth violence in 
this country and focus not on the counterproductive sound bites and 
flawed interpretations of the Constitution. I, therefore, ask my 
colleagues to oppose the motion.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just observe how odd that the Constitution would 
give the individual the right to freedom of religion, the right to free 
speech, then give a right to the State about keeping and bearing arms 
and then go back to the right of the individual to be free from 
unreasonable searches and seizures. It just does not flow.
  The fact of the matter is, the gentleman says there is no Supreme 
Court decision that supports my position. I have quoted the author of 
the Second Amendment and of the Constitution, James Madison, and of 
contemporaries who voted on the amendment themselves. Those are the 
ones the Supreme Court looks to when it renders its decision.
  Are the Supreme Court decisions muddled on this issue? Yes. Have we 
had a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment in the last 60 
years before the gentleman and I were even in existence here on this 
Earth? We have not. So the fact of the matter is, we need the Supreme 
Court to speak out, but I did say what one member of the Court said, 
Justice Scalia.
  I do want to just also point out with reference to the Brady law, 
this book contains the most comprehensive study of gun control laws 
ever done. It is entitled, More Guns, Less Crime, Understanding Crime 
and Gun Control Laws. It is by John R. Lott, Jr.
  So with that background, I just want to cite this statement in 
rebuttal of what the gentleman said.

       No statistically significant evidence has appeared that the 
     Brady law has reduced crime and there is some statistically 
     significant evidence that rates for rape and aggravated 
     assault have actually risen by about 4 percent relative to 
     what they would have been without the law.

  So here are the facts and the statistics, but better than that we 
have the Constitution itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, when our forefathers came here 
a number of years ago and in 1776 wrote the Declaration of 
Independence, they broke with a tradition in essentially all of the 
countries they came from, mainly then from Europe and the British 
Isles. That tradition was a divine right of kings, that somehow people 
accepted the notion that the rights came from God to the king and the 
king would then give what rights he wished to his people.
  In the Declaration of Independence, they made a radical departure 
from that because they said that we, we the people, are endowed by our 
Creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are the right 
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  Consistent with this notion that the rights belong to the people, and 
with their concern about the tyranny of the crown, the tyranny of the 
State, they wrote and it was ratified in 1791, 4 years after the 
ratification of the Constitution, the Second Amendment, part of the 
first 10 amendments which we know as the Bill of Rights, and there they 
continue this theme that has been mentioned a couple of times now by my 
good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), that they 
really were concerned that the people should have this right, the 
people.
  Let me read the Second Amendment. My liberal friends rarely read the 
whole amendment. They read the second part of it: ``a well-regulated 
militia being necessary to the security of a free State.''
  What does one think that means? What that means is that they were 
concerned that without a well-regulated militia, without the people 
having the right to keep and bear arms, that we could not be assured of 
all of the freedoms guaranteed to us, given to us by God, and 
guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
  Let me read again: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the 
security of a free State, the right of the people,'' the right of the 
people, not the National Guard, not the Army, not the Navy, the right 
of the people, ``to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
  We meddle with this at the risk of losing all of those great 
guarantees of freedom, of rights that we have in the Constitution. I 
support wholeheartedly this privileged motion.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that although reasonable 
people can differ, there are many cases that have held that the Second 
Amendment allows for reasonable regulation, and I have submitted to the 
Record two pages of the names of those cases which will be printed in 
the Congressional Record today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  The eloquent statements that are referred to by James Madison, 
Richard Henry Lee, and others made 200 years ago were proper and a 
reflection of their great leadership at that time. But it was also a 
time when slavery was legal and we slaughtered Native Americans to take 
their land; when we resolved disputes by gunfights at the OK Corral or 
wherever. We were a pioneering Nation and, in fact, most families had 
guns. It was a small population. It was a population in danger. Our 
enemy was England at that time.
  However over the last 200 years, we have progressed to become the 
greatest democracy in the history of western civilization. And yet, 
this issue is the one aspect of our society and our democracy which is 
the least civilized, which is the most embarrassing distinction of our 
country because every other civilized Nation in the world today has a 
handful of deaths by firearms. Whereas, the United States has more than 
20,000 deaths by firearms, most of them innocent, accidental, or 
victims of the kind of carnage that we have witnessed this year and in 
so many subsequent years: teenagers getting their hands on lethal 
weapons.
  There is a reason, and it is because of this perverse distortion of 
the meaning of the Constitution.
  Let me just cite the words of Chief Justice Warren Burger, who was a 
gun collector. He loved guns. He had almost every major gun in his 
collection. He prized them. He was also a Republican appointee to the 
Supreme Court, became Chief Justice, served with great distinction. 
This is his public statement: ``One of the greatest pieces of fraud,'' 
and he said, ``I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American people by 
special interest groups that I have ever

[[Page H8649]]

seen in my lifetime is this interpretation of the Second Amendment.''
  Our Federal courts have ruled that this did not give individuals the 
right to bear arms. The purpose of this language was clearly to enable 
people to bear arms to the extent that it contributed to a well-
regulated militia that was essential at that period of our growing 
Nation.
  We have statements that reflect this interpretation of the 
Constitution that explain why the NRA has never challenged a gun 
control law by taking it to the Federal courts. They try the Tenth 
Amendment, they try other ways; they know they would lose on the Second 
Amendment. Nicholas Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, Elliot Richardson, Edward 
Levi, Griffin Bell, Benjamin Civiletti, all of our U.S. Attorneys 
General, they say, For more than 200 years, the Federal courts have 
determined that the Second Amendment concerns the arming of the people 
in service to an organized State militia; it does not guarantee access 
to guns for private purposes.
  All we are trying to do is to reflect the intent of the American 
people in a democratic society. The vast majority of the people want 
reasonable gun control. They want their children to live safely in 
their streets and to be safe in their schools. That is why this 
amendment should be soundly rejected.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each 
side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) has 11 minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 17 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the point that there 
are, in fact, have been presented two interpretations of the Second 
Amendment to the Constitution. One, that there is an individual right; 
another is that the right is connected to the well-regulated militia.
  I would point out and remind the Speaker that the gentlewoman from 
California has entered into the record a list of court cases, including 
Supreme Court cases in 1939 and 1980, and over 20 cases decided in the 
United States Court of Appeals that support the militia interpretation 
of the Second Amendment. We have not found a single court decision 
offered today or previously, just public statements and interpretations 
supporting the individual right to bear arms.
  I think that the people can read the court cases for themselves. They 
will be listed in the Congressional Record. It is an important 
documentation of the militia interpretation of the second amendment.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In a way, I appreciate the debate this morning, because I think it is 
a more direct division of where we are with the Members of the House, 
and the American people can really see what the dispute is about.
  We have heard a lot of cases and quotes today, but former Supreme 
Court justice Warren E. Burger, a very conservative Chief Justice who 
served on the court from 1969 to 1986, had a quote that I think really 
does sum it up quite well, and I would like to mention that to my 
colleagues. He said, and I quote,

       It is the simplest thing, a well-regulated militia. If the 
     militia,

which is what we now call the National Guard essentially,

     has to be well regulated, in heaven's name, why shouldn't we 
     regulate 14, 15, 16-year-old kids having handguns or hoodlums 
     having machine guns. I was raised on a farm, and we had guns 
     around the house all the time. So I am not against guns, but 
     the National Rifle Association has done one of the most 
     amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public.

  The issue here is whether or not we will take modest steps to make 
the children, and I would add, the adults of America a little bit safer 
from crazed individuals who want to harm them with weapons of 
destruction.
  I think of the bills that we have put in place, and although they are 
not enough, they have done some good. The Brady law, which the author 
of the motion to instruct voted against, and the Federal assault 
weapons ban, which he also voted against, have proven to be successful 
and effective tools for keeping the wrong guns out of the wrong 
people's hands. In fact, violent crime has fallen for 6 straight years, 
thanks, in some part, to the strong gun laws that provide mandatory 
background checks and banned the most dangerous types of assault 
weapons and limited, to some extent, the accessibility to kids and 
criminals. The Brady law has proven that criminals do try to buy 
handguns in stores. The background checks nationwide stopped 
approximately 400,000 felons and other prohibited purchasers from 
buying handguns over the counter from federally-licensed firearm 
dealers.
  Now, what does this mean? Thousands of murderers, spousal abusers, 
drug traffickers, fugitives from justice, people who were mentally 
unstable were unable to get a gun and go out and harm someone. That is 
important, and what we want to do here today, and the reason why we are 
continuing to discuss this issue is that we want to close the loopholes 
that exist in current law so that those same murderers, spousal 
abusers, mentally ill individuals cannot, when they are turned down for 
the gun at the licensed gun dealer merely go over to the flea market 
and buy that weapon. That is really what we are here about.
  We are here because, without closing that loophole, real people are 
suffering real harm.
  Now, I have heard a lot of discussion that we have problems in 
American society. Clearly, we are not a trouble-free society. Clearly, 
regulation and sensible gun safety measures will not solve all of the 
problems of American society. We know that. But we also know that if 
those boys who were so distorted and filled with evil had walked into 
Columbine High School without arms, without guns, they would not have 
been able to kill as many children as they did. We know that if that 
middle-aged, hate-filled maniac who shot little 5-year-old children in 
the day care center in the Jewish community center in Los Angeles, if 
he had not had access to those weapons, he would not have been able to 
do the damage that he did.
  So these are modest issues that we are trying to deal with. We are 
opposed by people who have, I believe distorted the law, but who, in 
fact, just oppose having regulations of any sort on guns. Now, they can 
have that opinion. They answer not to me, but to their own 
constituents. But I would like this House to give an answer to the 
mothers of America and say, we are going to put the gamesmanship behind 
us; we are going to focus on what matters to the mothers and fathers of 
America, which is to do something reasonable, modest, rational, that 
will make guns less prevalent in our society, that will make it harder 
for people who have no business having those weapons to have them, so 
that children like those little kids who were in the day care center 
will not have to face some crazed maniac with a gun, so that children 
like those in Columbine High School will not have to live in fear that 
they will suffer, be killed or be harmed by young people so disturbed 
and well armed. That is what this debate is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to search their heart and to 
understand that we ought to reject this motion. This motion really is 
about shall we have any gun control or gun safety legislation, or not. 
That is what this motion is about. I hope that this House will stand 
proudly and say, yes, we do think we can have some gun safety measures 
that make sense. We can yield that result to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it unbelievable, that we are the ones who are 
accused of distorting the Second Amendment. The gentleman from Virginia 
submitted a list of cases which he claims supports his position. I will 
tell my colleagues, not one of those cases that he has submitted 
supports the proposition that the Second Amendment is not an individual 
right, because the U.S. Supreme Court has never so held.
  I heard Justice Burger quoted. He is not a member of the Supreme 
Court anymore. But Justice Scalia is, and he just wrote it is an 
individual right. He is a well-known conservative on the

[[Page H8650]]

court, but let us take a well-known liberal, not on the court, but a 
legal scholar known to all, Laurence Tribe who, in his latest treatise, 
has just acknowledged that the Second Amendment is, surprise, a 
personal right. Is Laurence Tribe committing gross distortions?
  I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear what Madison and the founders 
intended, and I have submitted a list of his statements and other 
statements of the Founders to be in the Record. It is very clear they 
believed it to be an individual right. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) got up here and said well, the Second Amendment is outdated. 
Well, in view of all of the violent crime we are seeing, we ought to 
have a little more of the Second Amendment, and we would reduce some of 
that crime.

                              {time}  1130

  But the fact of the matter is if the Second Amendment is outdated, 
then introduce a bill in Congress to repeal it and submit it to the 
States for ratification. That is the procedure we go through.
  Alternatively, he can abandon or waive his Second Amendment rights, 
but do not waive mine and do not waive the rights of the people I 
represent and the people we collectively represent. Mr. Speaker, I 
would submit that it clearly is an individual right.
  Reference to slavery was made. I cannot resist doing this. The 
Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, rendered a lengthy opinion. 
In that opinion, the supporter argued that the States adopting the 
Constitution could not have meant to consider even free blacks as 
citizens, and outlined the rights which black Americans would have if 
given citizenship. And then in Dred Scott they outlined these rights 
that blacks would have if indeed they had been citizens at the time.
  Guess what one of them was? I am quoting from Dred Scott: ``And to 
keep and carry arms wherever they went.'' So that was Dred Scott. Now, 
we fought a Civil War over that. When the slaves were freed as a result 
of the Civil War, the southern States reenacted the slave codes, which 
made it illegal for blacks to exercise basic civil rights, including 
the right to purchase, own, and carry firearms.
  So then the co-equal branch of Congress to the Supreme Court 
responded to this action of the States by passing the Freedmen's Bureau 
Act of 1866, which provided ``the right . . . to have full and equal 
benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, 
personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of 
estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear 
arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of each State 
or district without respect to race or color or previous condition of 
slavery.''
  That was what the Congress did in 1866 by passing that law. 
Obviously, they believed that citizens had the right to keep and bear 
arms because they put it right there in the Federal statute.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the debate in my 
office, I could not help but realize that there are times when students 
all across the United States tune in to C-Span, and not only students 
in school but individuals tune in to find out how their government 
operates, even to learn a little bit about constitutional issues, and 
how constitutionally the branches should operate, sometimes referred to 
as co-equal, discussions of separation of powers, and the like.
  I find it intriguing that in many of these discussions and debates 
there are a great many people that rely on the opinion of the Supreme 
Court, somehow giving the inference to those who view and those who 
want to learn a little something about government when they view C-Span 
to believe that the Supreme Court guides the decisionmaking of the 
United States House of Representatives or United States Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very intriguing doctrine. It is one that I 
know is stressed in many law schools. However, I am not an attorney, I 
am not a lawyer. I do not really know a lot about what Supreme Court 
Justices have said in the past about the Constitution. All I know is 
what the Constitution says.
  We have to go back from time to time and actually read the 
Constitution, which the Framers made very simple so that an individual 
that was not a trained attorney could realize just what in fact the 
government was recognizing as rights, for example, in the Bill of 
Rights.
  This is so prevalent in days gone by that Congress and the President 
have not felt the need or an obligation to give in to the wills and 
whims of whoever may be sitting on the Supreme Court, in that President 
Jackson, in his veto message regarding the creation of the Bank of 
United States on July 10, 1832, spoke directly about this issue of what 
Congress or the President should do with regard to the opinion or 
decision of the Supreme Court, when he said, ``Each public officer who 
takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support 
it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others,'' for 
example, the Supreme Court.
  ``The opinion of the judges has no more authority over the Congress 
than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the 
President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court 
must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the 
executive.''
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on quoting from people who actually 
knew what the Constitution says, and were not necessarily impressed by 
the opinions of another branch of the Federal Government.
  What I want to say in conclusion is that the gentleman from 
California has offered a great deal to the debate on the Constitution 
itself, and specifically the Second Amendment. I believe his motion to 
instruct is reasonable, rational, and bottom line, constitutional. I 
thank him for doing it.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. LOFGREN. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller). The gentlewoman will state the 
point of order.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I believe that unless one is a member of 
the committee, one does not have the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The proponent of a motion to instruct has 
the right to close.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment very briefly on the comments 
just made regarding our constitutional system.
  I think it is actually a frightening concept to, at this late date, 
as we enter the next century, question the role of the Supreme Court in 
our Constitution as the interpreter of the Constitution itself. That is 
well settled law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I would like to state 
that I disagree the with the Dred Scott decision. It has been 
overturned and is not good law at this time.
  Second, I would like to point out that some citations made by the 
supporters of the motion that certain Supreme Court Justices have made 
certain statements in regard to their interpretation, no case for which 
those statements were in the majority has ever been cited.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read part of the 1939 Miller case, so 
that it is clear what the Miller case said: ``In the absence of any 
evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [shotgun] at this 
time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency 
of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment 
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument . . . With 
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the 
effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the 
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with 
that end in view.''
  That is the Miller case in 1939. Later, in 1980 in the Lewis case, we 
have this language from the case: ``These legislative restrictions on 
the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect 
criteria nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected

[[Page H8651]]

 liberties. The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a 
firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the 
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to state our opinion about what the 
constitutional law ought to be, we ought to acknowledge that the clear 
state of the law is that the Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals 
decisions are clear that there is no individual right. It has to be 
connected with the militia.
  If we wish the Supreme Court would change its mind, then we ought to 
say that. But the constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court is 
clear that any right to bear arms must be reasonably related to the 
well regulated militia.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), for continuing the fight on this issue, and 
as well, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), 
for allowing us, I think, to have a very important debate on the Second 
Amendment.
  The reason why I am delighted that he has brought this to the 
attention of the American people and to this body, and I would hope the 
Senate would have the equal opportunity to debate the Second Amendment, 
is that the Second Amendment has been used and abused by the opponents 
of what we would like to think is real gun safety reform, reasonable 
gun safety reform; gun safety reform in fact, Mr. Speaker, that has 
been supported by almost 80 percent of the American people, and I might 
add the large numbers of communities and parents tragically who have 
lost their children, their babies, in the midst of gunfire and the use 
of guns.
  The reason why I think this debate is extremely important is because 
the Second Amendment has been used to create unnecessary hysteria among 
those in all of our communities. It has created hysteria in the 
African-American community. It has created hysteria in the rural and 
suburban communities. It has created hysteria among those groups that I 
believe have a right to express their view, but I disagree with, many 
of them militias, many of the people who feel the government is out to 
get them, and they must undermine the government and must keep 
themselves armed.
  I disagree with that philosophy, I think it is not a reasonable 
perspective to take at this point in time in our history, but they have 
every right under the First Amendment to enjoy that position.
  But as they enjoy that position, the fuel and fire is being lit, 
using that fear and apprehension. They are then being stimulated with 
real misinformation that this Congress or those of us who propose 
reasonable gun regulation, gun safety, are opposed to or are 
eliminating the Second Amendment.
  Let me first of all provide those who may be somewhat confused as to 
what it means to undermine a constitutional amendment. One, it can be 
done. Certainly there is some suggestion that statutes may in fact 
undermine particular constitutional amendments. But if that is the 
case, if a statute passed by this body is viewed to undermine a 
constitutional amendment, the petitioner has every right to go to the 
other body of government, the judiciary, and challenge that that law is 
unconstitutional.
  Might I say, Mr. Speaker, that in many instances those petitioners 
have prevailed; that laws in this Congress, passed with good intentions 
and good minds and good hearts, have been ruled unconstitutional by our 
Supreme Court or by our Federal court system. I might say, some of that 
I agree with. Some I disagree. It means that the system of checks and 
balances does work in this particular Nation.
  The motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from California is 
again fueling the fire of that hysteria. But might I educate the 
listening and viewing public, and maybe Members on both sides of this 
issue. My understanding is that if we were to eliminate the Second 
Amendment, as has been suggested, or we might do such damage to it, 
that is in actuality putting forth a constitutional amendment that 
takes away the Second Amendment. If this body did that, it would take a 
two-thirds vote of this House, a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and a 
three-fourths vote of the State legislatures.
  My question to my colleague is, have any of us done that? Do we have 
a motion to instruct from any of us who are advocates of strong gun 
safety reform to eliminate the Second Amendment? I think not. The 
Second Amendment stands on its own two feet. But let me cite again for 
my colleagues the 1939 Miller case, which has been stated previously 
before.
  It says, ``In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the 
possession or use of a [shotgun] at this time has some reasonable 
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated 
militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right 
to keep and bear such instrument . . .With obvious purpose to assure 
the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, 
the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It 
must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.''
  What we are saying, or what I believe the Miller case is saying, the 
U.S. Supreme Court, 307 U.S. 174, 1939, is saying, we are reasonable 
people, here. We understand the intent of the Founding Fathers on 
retaining a well-organized militia under the Second Amendment. It was 
to protect us, this fledgling Nation, against the invasion of outside 
forces.
  We are not intending, with real gun safety regulation, to go into the 
homes of law-abiding citizens and take away the arms that they might 
have. We are not asking for that, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking to 
stop the sports activities.
  Some of us may disagree with the overproliferation of guns. We have 
too many guns in this country. But all we are asking for is a 
reasonable background check. We are asking for the unlicensed dealers 
who willy-nilly sell guns illegally, by the ATF's own documentation, 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, we are asking for the ban 
of ammunition clips, for child safety locks, for a ban on juvenile 
possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. We should reasonably ask 
that children be accompanied by adults when they go to gun shows. We 
are asking for juvenile Brady.
  What we are really asking for is to ensure, for the mothers and 
fathers of those who have died, who have lost their children, that 
those children not die in vain.

                              {time}  1145

  How many more of our children's funerals can we go to? My community, 
Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the Nation and colleagues of 
mine in other inner cities have suffered year after year when no one 
was paying attention to gun violence, when our children were dying, 
when, yes, they were taking guns against each other; but also they were 
caught in the midst of adult violence and they lost their lives. No one 
was crying out. Now we are crying out together, Mr. Speaker.
  I think the Second Amendment is an unfortunately bogus argument. I 
ask for my colleagues to vote against this instruction and that we get 
down to business in saving the children of America.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the Doolittle Motion 
Instruct. The Doolittle to Motion to Instruct would do little other 
than upset 60 years of American Jurisprudence. The Doolittle Motion is 
yet another attempt by the Republican leadership to delay and distract 
Americans from the real issues facing this nation.
  The NRA is trying to kill any gun safety legislation and the 
Republican leadership is the trigger man. This phony argument, long 
floated by the NRA, has been rejected by virtually every court and is 
merely an effort to distract from the reasonable and commonsense gun 
safety measures the Senate passed that would help keep guns out of the 
hands of dangerous criminals and protect children from gun violence: 
Requiring a criminal background check on every sale of a gun at a gun 
show; Banning the Importation of high capacity ammunition clips that 
have no other purpose than to kill lots of people very quickly; 
Requiring that a child safety lock be sold with every handgun; Banning 
the juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault weapons; and Juvenile 
Brady.

[[Page H8652]]

  The NRA wants to kill gun safety legislation of any kind and has 
launched a massive lobbying campaign. Under the headline ``NRA Achieves 
its Goal: Nothing,'' James Jay Baker, the chief Lobbyist for the NRA 
said: ``Nothing is better than anything. *NRA Achieves its goal: 
Nothing,'' Washington Post, June 19, 1999, A01.
  The Republican Leadership never wanted a gun safety bill--``(The 
defeat of the gun safety bill in the House) is a great personal victory 
for me.''--Tom Delay, House GOP Whip,'' House Defeats Gun Control 
Bill,'' Washington Post, June 19, 1999, A01. Despite the GOP's 
accusations, it is the GOP that is using the gun safety issue for 
partisan political gain. DeLay's spokesman, Michael Scanlon said, by 
November 2000, ``the gun debate this month will be long forgotten, with 
the exception of 2.8 million screaming mad gun owners who belong to the 
NRA. And I can tell you this, my friend: They will be lined up at the 
voting booth three days in advance to vote on this issue along, and 
they'll be pulling the Republican lever each time.'' ``Strategy Change 
Seen in Battle Over Gun Control,'' Baltimore Sun, June 28, 1999, A1.
  The Doolittle Motion would preclude adoption of any provision of the 
Senate bill because it is so poorly drafted. By its own terms, the 
Doolittle motion's instruction that the conferees reject any Senate-
adopted provision which does not affirmatively ``recognize'' that the 
second amendment to the Constitution applies to the rights of 
individuals would preclude the conferees from adopting virtually any 
Senate provision, since every Senate provision is silent with respect 
to the second amendment.
  The second amendment is a nonissue in this debate, virtually every 
court has held that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. The 
substance of the motion doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny any better 
than its form. The bottom line is that, until April of 1999, every 
federal court which has examined the question--the Supreme Court, every 
Circuit Court of Appeal and every Federal District Court--has flatly 
rejected the utterly baseless claim that the second amendment has 
anything to do with an individual's rights as opposed to the collective 
rights of the people (with a capital *P*) to form a ``well regulated 
militia.''
  In the 1939 Miller case, the Supreme Court said on the facts there 
that: ``In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession 
or use of a [shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to 
the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot 
say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear 
such an instrument . . . With obvious purpose to assure the 
continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the 
declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be 
interpreted and applied with that end in view.'' U.S. v. Miller, 307 
U.S. 174 (1939).
  Forty years later, the Court reaffirmed this principle in Lewis v. 
United States (445 U.S. 55 (1980)) even more explicitly:

       These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are 
     neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do 
     they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties . . 
     . the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a 
     firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to 
     the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

  Since Miller was decided in 1939, only a single Federal District 
Court (last April) has interpreted the second amendment to confer an 
individual right and that interpretation was immediately rejected by 
both federal courts that have since addressed the issue. In United 
States v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D.Ct. Kan. 1999) Boyd challenged 
his indictment under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) the domestic restraining 
provision Emerson challenged as violative of the Second and Tenth 
Amendments.
  The court cited United States v. Oakes, 564 F. 2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 
1977) which held that ``[t]o apply the [Second][A]mendment so as to 
guarantee appellants' right to keep an unregistered firearm which has 
not been shown to have any connection to the militia,*, would be 
unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy.'' The Tenth Circuit 
has relied on Oakes to summarily reject all subsequent Second Amendment 
challenges. Boyd's Second Amendment challenge failed.
  Similarly, in United States v. Henson, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8987, *3 
(S.D. W. Vir., June 14, 1999) the Court held that:
  ``Defendant's reliance on Emerson is misplaced (in his attempt to 
overturn his indictment under the same federal statute prohibiting 
those under a domestic restraining order from possessing weapons). Our 
Court of Appeals has held consistently that the Second Amendment 
confers a collective, rather than an individual right to keep and bear 
arms.''
  Moreover, very recently in Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis Police 
Department, et al., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 15117, *42 (7th Cir. July 9, 
1999) yet another Federal Court has found that:
  ``Whatever questions remain unanswered, Miller and its progeny do 
confirm that the Second Amendment establishes no right to possess a 
firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in 
maintaining a state militia.''
  No one has gotten to the bottom line on the second amendment myth 
ruthlessly promoted by the gun lobby better than six of the nation's 
former Attorneys General in a joint and bipartisan letter to the 
Washington Post on October 3, 1992. They wrote:
  ``For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously 
determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the 
people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee 
immediate access to guns for private purposes. The national can no 
longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution 
cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national 
policy toward guns and crime.'' Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, 
Elliot L. Richardson, Edward H. Levi, Griffen B. Bell, Benjamin R. 
Civiletti
  It is precisely such distortion for precisely the purpose of 
thwarting an ``effective national policy toward guns and crime'' that 
is transparently at the core of the Doolittle Motion. Will we have the 
courage--once and for all--to turn our backs on an argument that Warren 
Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, called *one of the 
greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ``fraud,'' on the American 
public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my 
lifetime.'' [Appearing on McNeil/Lehrer News Hour]
  But the best proof of the bankruptcy of the ``individual rights'' 
claim comes from the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby itself. How many 
times do my colleagues think that the second amendment has served as 
the basis of an appeal by the NRA or anyone else trying to invalidate a 
gun control statute? Exactly NEVER; not once. Not when the Brady Law 
was challenged by sheriffs. Not when the NRA sued to block the assault 
weapons ban. NEVER. It isn't even mentioned. They cite the 10th 
Amendment, other amendments; NEVER the second. Why? Because they know 
themselves that no court in the nation (now save one likely to be 
reversed on appeal) will tolerate such nonsense.
  For the Framers. For our children. Reject the Doolittle Motion and 
its gun lobby authors.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Doolittle) has 4\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from 
California has the right to close.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we can make this very simple for the Members 
today. This motion basically asserts, and the debate has emphasized, 
that the Second Amendment prohibits the ability of Congress to regulate 
in any manner guns or weaponry. I think that is clearly not what the 
Second Amendment does.
  What we are really wanting it do here is to come up with some modest, 
reasonable, sensible gun safety measures. Why? Because children all 
across America are at risk from evildoers who are armed at the teeth; 
and children, in fact up to 13 children a day, are losing their lives 
to arms and to weaponry.
  We are not talking about the duck hunter. Duck season, duck hunting 
season will go on again this year, and that is absolutely fine. The 
Brady bill and its extension to juveniles is intended to keep guns out 
of the hands of criminals, not the duck hunters, but of criminals.
  We are trying to close a loophole that has allowed criminals and 
people who are mentally unstable to get guns from flea markets and the 
like because the Brady law has prevented them from getting their hands 
on those weapons at licensed gun dealers. That is really all this is 
about. I believe that the American people strongly want us to do that 
very simple thing. Why? Because they know it is in their best interest.
  So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this very ill-founded motion.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, what is great about this issue is we can quote liberals 
and make our point. I quoted Lawrence Tribe who says it is a personal 
right. I am going to quote the icon of liberal journalism throughout 
the country, the Washington Post. Sunday, September 19, 1999, the 
headline, and this is in the front page of the paper by the way, ``Gun 
controls limited aim bills. Would not have stopped recent killings''.

[[Page H8653]]

  For weeks we have heard people come up here on the other side and 
orate about the terrible killings that have occurred, and, yes, they 
are terrible. What is also terrible is that they have represented that 
the bills, the legislation that they are trying to pass would have 
prevented them.
  What this article goes on to say, if I may quote, ``None of the gun 
control legislation under discussion in Congress would have prevented 
the purchase of weapons by shooters in a recent spate of firearms 
violence, including last week's massacre at a Texas church, gun control 
supporters and opponents agree.''
  The fact of the matter is I find the left's approach on gun control 
is just like it is on the so-called campaign finance reform. The 
assault on the Second Amendment is just like the assault on the First 
Amendment. These things do not work. They are undesirable. They are 
unconstitutional. But they do not give up. The more violence we hear 
about, the more shootings we have, the more bad legislation that comes 
forward promising to do something when, in fact, what they have already 
given us has utterly failed. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we need to 
take a new approach.
  Here is an interesting quote by the way, just to see what the other 
half of society thinks about all of this, the criminal half. This is a 
quote from Sammy ``The Bull'' Gravano, former Mafia member. Check this 
one out:

       Gun control, it's the best thing you can do for crooks and 
     gangsters. I want you, the law-abiding citizen, to have 
     nothing. If I am the bad guy, I am always going to have a 
     gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, 
     and I will pull the trigger without the safety lock. We will 
     see who wins.

  This is tragic that we continue to push this disastrous legislation 
which strips us of our constitutional right and, further more, which 
does not even work, which disarms the very communities that need 
protection.
  I told my colleagues about this book, More Guns, Less Crime, by John 
R. Lott, Jr., the most exhaustive authoritative statistical analysis of 
gun control laws in the United States.
  Let me just quickly cite some points that he makes in his conclusions 
in this book, because I think it illustrates what we are really up 
against.
  Point number one, ``Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying 
handguns does not end violence; it merely makes victims more vulnerable 
to attack.'' So now we have the professor saying this, agreeing with 
the former Mafia member, and, by the way, agreeing with what we all 
know is perfect common sense.
  Number two, ``My estimates indicate that waiting periods and 
background checks appear to produce little if any crime deterrence.''
  Most exhaustive study ever done.
  Point number three, ``The evidence also indicates that the states 
with the most guns have the lowest crime rates. Urban areas may 
experience the most violent crime, but they also have the smallest 
number of guns.''
  Point number four, ``Allowing citizens without criminal records or 
histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns 
deters violent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and 
statistically insignificant change in accidental deaths. If the rest of 
the country had adopted right-to-carry concealed-handgun provisions in 
1992, about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes would have been avoided.''
  This approach works. Our constitutional approach works. Our 
constitutional approach is still the law. Because the other side cannot 
manage to change the law, it does not give them the right to do an end 
run and try and pass a bill through Congress which strips us of our 
sacred constitutional rights.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for my motion.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the motion to 
instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) because, like him, I want the conferees on the Juvenile 
Justice legislation to omit any provisions that would be contrary to 
the Constitution. However, I do not think that the Constitution 
prohibits carefully-drawn, measured provisions dealing with access to 
firearms by minors and criminals or with firearm safety. In particular, 
I agree with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that there 
is no constitutional impediment to the kind of provisions specified in 
her motion to instruct, which is why I also will vote for that motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  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 gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. 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 motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________