[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 163 (Wednesday, November 17, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H12165-H12168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ISSUES, NOT SOLUTIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I had originally requested 
only 5 minutes, but a number of things have happened in the last 
several hours that have forced me to come back and request more time to 
address the issues that I wanted to bring to the attention of the body 
today.
  Certainly, some of the things that have been discussed by previous 
speakers here lead me to take the floor today and to do so for at least 
some more time than 5 minutes.
  When I was in high school, our class used to have the task at the end 
of the year of coming up with a motto, among other things, to attach to 
ourselves for the rest of eternity and it would always be placed in the 
little book, the annual. It would say the class motto was such and such 
for this. Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion after listening to the 
discussion for the last hour. I have a suggestion of what our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle might use for their class 
motto this session, and it would be this: ``Issues, not solutions.''
  Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest that as the class motto for the 
Democrats of the 106th Congress. That their real purpose is to have an 
issue to run on and to avoid the possibility of achieving a solution in 
this body at all costs.
  Now, I say that recognizing that it is certainly not a revelation. I 
bring to the body that this is the strategy that the Democrats are 
employing. I say that because the minority leader has said that. The 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has indicated in articles that I 
have read, and certainly have been brought to the attention on the 
floor in the past, that it is his purpose to try and present as many 
obstacles as he possibly can to the accomplishment of the goals 
established by the majority in the area of education reform, in the 
area of tax reform, in any area important to the people of the country, 
there they would be.
  It is not surprising, therefore, when we look at the majority 
responsibility of the Congress, that is the passage of 13 
appropriations bills, that when we look at how that eventually got 
done, it got done without the help of our Members on the other side. 
Without the help of any of them. Maybe three or four at a time would 
come on board, but almost always it was the Republicans in the Congress 
that had to carry the load because everybody over there was going to 
play hard ball because they want issues, not solutions.
  The last thing they want, in fact, is a solution to the problem. So 
much rhetoric has been devoted to the Social Security issue. I am so 
glad to hear that at least there is a concern on the other side with 
regard to Social Security and, in fact, holding it sacrosanct, because 
that is a very interesting thing. We, in fact, passed a law, passed a 
bill out of this House. It went over to the other side and that law was 
designed to, in fact, codify this idea of holding Social Security 
sacrosanct. Not using it for the general fund. Something that we even 
hear the President saying that he agrees to.
  But what has happened, Mr. Speaker, I ask? Where is that bill? And 
why is it not now part of the solution to the Social Security issue?
  Well, of course, it is because the Senate Democrats have had a 
filibuster. The issue has been brought forward five times at least in 
the Senate, and each time it has been filibustered by the Democrats and 
essentially killed.
  So where is the desire for the solution here? It is not their desire. 
It is, in fact, to maintain an issue to go into the next campaign with.
  Beyond that, when the discussion resolves to the next stage, and that 
is the fix for Social Security, where is the President's plan for that? 
Has anyone heard of the President's plan? I certainly have not. I 
recognize fully well that the continuation of the Social Security 
system is in great, great jeopardy; and we must do something to change 
that. And I do not even suggest for a moment that not spending Social 
Security funds for general fund purposes will solve the Social Security 
problem. It will not. It does, in fact, however, slow the growth of 
government quite dramatically and makes us a little more honest to our 
constituents. Those two things are pretty good things in and of 
themselves.
  But if, in fact, there is such a desire to fix Social Security, then 
of course we should hear something out of the White House about how we 
should go about doing that. That would be nice. That would be good. But 
we have not. Why have we not heard that, Mr. Speaker? Let me suggest 
the reason is because it does not fit the motto. The motto is, 
remember: ``Issues, not solutions.''


                 Columbine High School and Gun Control

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, let me go on to the purpose of my original 
request for this time to speak. It is my understanding that today a 
group of Members of this body held a press conference in which they 
unveiled a clock of sorts. And this clock, I am told, has recorded the 
amount of time, minutes and hours and days, since the event at 
Columbine High School. And it is meant, I suppose, well, I know it is 
meant as a political gag in order to try and embarrass the Congress for 
not having, quote, moved ahead on gun legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I can understand the desire on the part of a lot of 
people, especially as we move to the very end of the session, to grasp 
at straws to do the most outrageous things in order to try to get the 
attention of the general public and in order to try and score some sort 
of political advantage.

                              {time}  1545

  But I must say, Mr. Speaker, as the Representative from Columbine, 
from that area, the school is half a mile from my home, and my 
neighbors have children there, and we suffered through this event 
together.
  I must tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that to have this kind of 
political shenanigan pulled at this late date to try and remind us of 
when Columbine occurred, let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there 
is not a parent in my district, there is not a parent of a single child 
who was murdered at that school or injured in that school who needs to 
be reminded of when that happened.
  There is not a single living soul in my district that needs to be 
told when that occurred, how long ago, because it is etched indelibly 
in our memories and in my mind.
  To suggest that any action taken subsequent to that time by this 
Congress could possibly have changed the situation there is, of course, 
both ludicrous and hypocritical. It is especially hypocritical, Mr. 
Speaker, because of course this Congress did attempt to address the 
issue of gun safety.
  There was a bill, Mr. Speaker. There was a bill. It made it to the 
floor. H.R. 2122. Now, maybe it was not a perfect piece of legislation. 
There were certainly things about it that I had concerns about. But let 
me just go it just to remind all of us what exactly it was that we were 
talking about in that particular piece of legislation.
  Under current law, background checks are not conducted at gun shows 
concerning transactions by private vendors but, instead, are only 
required of Federal licensees. This allows for a loophole of sorts in 
the acquisition of firearms.
  There was an amendment proposed as a matter of fact by a Democrat, by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). That amendment I believe was 
the most accommodating option, both in keeping guns out of the hands of 
the criminals and in protecting the rights of gun owners across the 
country. Certainly it was controversial. There were many people in my 
own district, certainly people in my own constituency that said it 
still went too far. As a

[[Page H12166]]

matter of fact, I was the only Member in my delegation to vote for 
this. It was, in fact, the best possible option of all the options I 
think we had available to us.
  By the way, the Dingell amendment would have, in fact, closed that 
loophole, would have required someone that was a private vendor to do 
background checks on people purchasing guns.
  The argument revolved around the length of time that would be allowed 
for these checks to be completed and that sort of thing, and those were 
arguable points. I will not say that they were not. It was not, as I 
say, a perfect bill. But it was a Democrat amendment that achieved 
about 45 or 50 Democrats in its support originally, and then it became 
part of the bill.
  The next amendment dealt with large capacity devices. They prohibited 
the manufacture of large capacity clips, ammunition clips. Another one 
prevented juveniles from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons. 
Another one made it mandatory to provide trigger locks and safety 
devices when guns were purchased.
  Another amendment qualified current and former law enforcement 
officers to carry a concealed weapon whereby allowing them to continue 
to serve our communities as safety personnel. In a way, this is 
something that my friends on the other side have been pushing for all 
the time, that 100,000 cops. Well, this is a way of putting a lot of 
police on the beat. These are retired former law enforcement police 
officers who could be carrying weapons and protecting the community.
  Another amendment in that particular bill said that, when guns were 
pawned for more than a year, they would not be returned to their owner 
until they pass an NIC background check.
  This amendment makes sure that, during periods when the firearm is 
under the possession of the pawn shop, that the original owner does not 
undergo circumstances which would hinder them from possessing the 
firearm. Likewise, it allows for checks to be done on the pawned weapon 
so as to make sure it has not been stolen.
  Then the juvenile Brady part where the amendment would prohibit 
persons who commit violent acts of juvenile delinquency from possessing 
firearms as adults.
  All right. Those are the parts of the bill, the most significant 
parts of the bill, H.R. 2122, that came to this floor.
  After a great deal of debate after originally supporting that, my 
colleagues remember what happened. My colleagues may recall, Mr. 
Speaker, how that all played out. I often think of that cartoon, the 
Peanuts cartoon, and that character when Lucy is holding the ball that 
Charlie is coming to kick. Just as he gets there, she pulls it away, 
and he falls back. That is in a way what the Democrats did with that 
bill.
  They put this bill out there. The Dingell amendment was part of it. 
We assumed, of course, that we would get some support, although it may 
not have been perfect, because when was the last perfect piece of 
legislation that passed this body. Every piece of legislation is made 
up of compromises on both sides of the issue. Certainly it was not 
perfect for me. But I also knew that it was going to be the best chance 
we had of getting this kind of legislation out of this Congress. So did 
the other side, and that is my point. They also knew that that was the 
best chance we had.
  So what happened, Mr. Speaker, after all the rhetoric about gun 
legislation, and I asked the people across the street holding press 
conferences and unveiling these clocks, telling us how long it has 
been, and people holding up replicas of tombstones saying ``rest in 
peace gun control measures,'' I want to ask them where they were on the 
day that H.R. 2122 came to the floor.
  I will tell my colleagues what happened when that bill came to the 
floor. It failed. It failed with 198 Democrats voting no, 81 
Republicans voting no. Let me say that again. The chart depicts this: 
198 Democrat no votes, 81 Republican no votes. The final vote, 147 aye, 
280 no. The 147 broke down in the following manner: Republicans, 137; 
Democrats 10.
  Now, I do not know, I have heard of awards that are given annually, 
maybe monthly, or something by various members for the pork of the week 
award. There are all these things that are picked out, and people, 
individuals get sometimes these awards that are not really all that 
much appreciated.
  I am not sure, but perhaps we should come up with a chutzpah award 
because I cannot think of a better word, a fine Jewish word to explain 
what we are talking about here when somebody can actually stand up here 
in this body and tell us that we have prevented the movement of this 
kind of legislation of gun control legislation when this is the fact of 
the matter: 198 Democrat noes. 198. Republican noes, 81.
  Who stopped it? Why did they stop it, Mr. Speaker? The answer I 
believe is the answer I gave at the beginning. It is the motto of the 
Democratic class of 1999 in the House of Representatives. The motto is: 
``Issues, not solutions. We want problems to carry forward.''
  Mr. Speaker, I received just a little bit before I came over here a 
communication from Mr. William Maloney. Mr. Maloney is the Colorado 
Commissioner of Education. This is not a political position. He is 
appointed by an elected board. It was a communication that I did not 
prompt, I did not request, and it is in response to the events, I hate 
to even characterize it as a press conference, because a press 
conference would indicate that there was something newsworthy about it, 
but it was the event to which I referred earlier, this thing where they 
unveiled this clock that is supposed to remind us all how long it has 
been since Columbine.
  Mr. Maloney puts it very, very clearly and very succinctly and 
articulately. Remember, Mr. Maloney is the Commissioner of Education in 
Colorado. It is a nonpartisan position. He says the following about 
their antics, and I will say antics rather than activities:
  ``We would deeply regret that anyone would address the Columbine 
tragedy without any consultation with those who were most deeply 
involved. To do so in a simplistic fashion is to disrespect the full 
dimension of this tragedy and the diverse and earnest efforts being 
made to deal with it.''
  Mr. Speaker, I suppose I cannot say much more than that, and perhaps 
do not need to. I hope the point has been made. Issues, issues, not 
solutions. Certainly not everything that has been proposed, not just on 
gun legislation, but anything else, not everything would have 
completely solved these things, but many would have come close, Mr. 
Speaker, if there would have truly been that bipartisan desire to get 
the job done.
  There is plenty of partisan wrangling that goes on during the course 
of one session of Congress. Even though I am a freshman, I am certainly 
well aware of that. To a large extent, I think it is fine, healthy, and 
appropriate.
  We have, of course, very legitimate clashes of ideas that are 
articulated on the floor of this House. We disagree on the size and 
scope of government. That disagreement, that very basic disagreement 
that usually separates the two sides plays itself out in many 
interesting ways.
  I will never forget the day here on the floor of the House when the 
final vote was taken on the tax relief measure. I was proud to be a 
Republican, perhaps more so than any other time since I have been here 
in the past 11 months, because we were actually doing something that 
was very, very characteristic, I thought, of Republican principles.
  So it is absolutely appropriate for us to be divided on those issues, 
have battles on those issues, fight it out on this floor, go to a vote, 
everybody doing what they truly believe in their heart of hearts should 
be done because of their commitment to what is good for the country.

  Mr. Speaker, sometimes other things happen, other things happen here, 
and decisions are made and events occur that really are not based on 
those heartfelt opinions and ideas. It is based on sheer, pure 
politics. I would say to my colleagues that when we look at the issues 
as we approach the next election, be very, very, very discerning. Mr. 
Speaker, be discerning and try to determine whether or not they are 
being brought to us for purely political reasons or because in fact 
there is concern about the way they would have affected the outcome of 
America.

[[Page H12167]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado Springs, Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding. I have to admit to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
that I was not back in my office hanging on every one of his words. But 
when I realized he was doing this special order, I hoped he was doing 
it in reaction to the news conference which was held earlier today, the 
made-for-TV political news conference that was held earlier today. I 
wanted to come over and just visit with him a little bit about this 
thing.
  Columbine for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) particularly 
more than anyone else in this chamber, for him particularly, was a 
hard-hitting experience. Because this was in his district. But it 
adjoins my district. I have some addresses that are Columbine 
addresses.

                              {time}  1600

  And I do not know of any tragedy like this that has hit me so hard in 
a long, long time. It was a terrible tragedy to the folks that 
experienced it and to all of us in Colorado and, I hope, across the 
country.
  The day after this tragedy, this tragedy I believe occurred on a 
Tuesday, on Wednesday the chairman of the Democratic National Committee 
from this House was standing before his colleagues in his conference 
saying this is a great political issue for us, a great political issue 
for us, and we need to flood the Congress with gun control bills 
because the Republicans will vote against them and this will be a great 
issue for us in the next election.
  I was appalled. I was offended, I was disgusted that someone would 
jump in and make political hay when my heart was broken. We had had a 
terrible tragedy, and this was going on.
  I also noticed that as we went through the debate and discussion 
about gun control after that, because they did exactly that, flooded 
the Congress with gun control bills; and as I looked at each one of 
those, it was my opinion that not a single one of them, had they been 
law prior to Columbine, would have altered the Columbine experience one 
iota. I think there were 18, 20, 21 laws violated there already. None 
of these new laws would have done anything. None of the laws that they 
were talking about at that news conference in the basement of this 
Capitol would have done one thing to alter the Columbine experience or 
to prevent an additional Columbine experience.
  One thing that I think might help prevent something like that is if 
we would enforce the gun control laws which are on the books right now. 
And the gentleman has probably said all this, and better than I can, 
but if we would enforce the laws that are on the books right now, which 
this Justice Department has had a dismal record of enforcing the gun 
laws that are on the books, absolute dismal record. And in an instant 
or two that I am aware of, where a U.S. attorney or assistant U.S. 
attorney has taken it into his own hands to be strict in his 
enforcement of gun law violations, the gun crime rates have dropped 
like a rock.
  But the Justice Department does not like that. In one case they were 
even trying to get a U.S. attorney fired because he was enforcing the 
gun laws too strictly. Now, what can I assume from that? All I can 
assume from that is if we actually did enforce the laws on the books, 
and if it did reduce gun crime, then there would not be the motivation 
to accomplish their goal, which is to take away private ownership of 
guns in America. I do think that is this administration's goal.
  So we do not want to reduce the rate of crime with guns, because if 
we did that, then they would not have that argument. That is appalling 
as well. We need to enforce the laws that are on the books and stop 
making phony political hay out of one of the worst tragedies that has 
occurred in this country in a long, long time.
  I thank the gentleman for having this special order and giving me an 
opportunity to express, too emotionally, but I feel emotional about it, 
some of my feelings about this situation.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments; and I certainly and completely understand the degree of 
emotion that is connected with making them because I assure the 
gentleman that I empathize in that regard.
  I do not think, in fact I know, that there has been no more difficult 
issue with which I have had to try to deal than the issue of Columbine 
High School, not just from the standpoint of the pure politics of it, 
the issues of gun control and the rest, but the neighbors that I see 
when I go home every weekend and the children that I see and the 
concerns I have, Mr. Speaker.
  And just perhaps for a moment, if I could be allowed, I would 
reference those concerns and ask for the prayers of America to be 
directed to the parents and to the children who are still suffering to 
this day. We are seeing every time when I go home this subject being 
brought up, and the papers play it up, and there are some very good 
things, positive things that are happening in terms of children being 
healed, children coming out of the hospital who are now walking, these 
kids that were so terribly wounded in this. Then we will have another 
setback, and we had one not too long ago, when a mother of one of the 
students took her own life.
  And it is so hard for us to understand. We think about how much pain 
any community, any family can deal with or can endure. How much can we 
endure? And I look at those students, as I say, those children who are 
recuperating, and I thank God for their recuperation. The physical 
signs of healing are there. Their scars are healing and we can see 
that, and that is good and as it should be. But, Mr. Speaker, what we 
cannot see are those scars that do not manifest themselves on the 
outside of the body. They are the scars in the mind and in the heart 
and on the soul, and they do not heal as quickly as the scars on the 
outside.

  We do not see people coming out of the hospital being welcomed home 
with flowers and friends. We do not see how they live through the agony 
of this thing and are tormented by the thought of Columbine over and 
over again. And fear, fear in their hearts, fear of going to school, 
fear on the part of parents in taking their children to school, because 
they do not know what is going to happen and because they feel totally 
helpless. These are the things with which we are still dealing.
  And I can tell my colleagues, my friends who had this press 
conference giving us the clock, they do not have to tell me when this 
happened. I know exactly when it happened, and so do those parents. And 
what they have done today does not help the healing. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, one might even suggest that it digs deeper at the wound. And 
that is why I do have emotion in my voice; and I am filled with emotion 
about this, because this is not just a typical political debate or 
fight we are having here. These are about real people whose hearts have 
been broken, and it disgusts me to think that they are being used as 
pawns in this political battle.
  But that is the only way I can see it right now. Because, Mr. 
Speaker, we could have had at least attempts at solutions. Although I 
was the only one, as I say, that voted for the bill, I know my 
colleague did not vote for the bill that I referred to, I was the only 
one from Colorado to have done so, and I know in my heart that that 
bill would not have changed anything had it been in place, I understand 
full well that there is really so little, in fact, we can do.
  But what little we can do to have somebody then stand up later on and 
blame us, blame this side for not having moved this process along, when 
as anyone can see, 191 Democrat noes on the bill to 80 Republican. It 
was not us. But even had this passed, we would not be safe in our 
schools, we would not be safe on our streets. Much, much more has to 
occur.
  And in a way, my fear with this particular piece of legislation, and 
all the others that were suggested, I had this great fear in my heart 
that if we had passed them, that in fact people would have walked away 
from the table thinking, oh, good, now we have done something to stop 
violence.
  And here is another aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, that I failed to 
bring out. Just the other day, in Decatur, Illinois, when there was an 
act of violence that, thank God, did not end up with someone being 
killed, but it was a very, very harsh violent act committed by several 
students, what did we hear in

[[Page H12168]]

this House about that? Would Jesse Jackson, who has now involved 
himself in this whole thing, would he have been there if one of those 
students had been carrying a gun, even if no one had been hurt? I think 
not.
  So is the real issue school violence? Are we really worried about 
juvenile violence? Are we trying to do something about violence, or are 
we just trying to look at the political advantage we can get out of the 
``gun issue ``? How come there has not been an outrage voiced in this 
House about Jesse Jackson's involvement in this thing and his attempt 
to intimidate the school board to put these kids back in school when 
they did the absolute right thing in throwing those kids out of school.
  If I had had time, Mr. Speaker, we are at the closing minutes of this 
session, perhaps days, I do not know how long we have, but I know it is 
not going to be too long, but if I had had the time, I would have 
issued a resolution commending the school board for their actions. 
Because, of course, that is the kind of thing that can help us avoid 
the next Columbine tragedy, the absolute avoidance, the zero tolerance 
policy for any sort of violence on a school campus or at a school 
event. In this case it was at a game.
  I do not know if my colleagues saw the videotape of this, but I can 
assure them that this was not just a couple of school bullies roughing 
up some of their classmates. These were very violent young men. And as 
I say, I thank God they did not have a gun or some other weapon, and I 
thank God today that there was not even severe damage done even without 
the use of a firearm. But the fact is that there should have been just 
as much outrage expressed in this House at any attempt to quiet that 
school district or to intimidate that school district into putting 
those kids back in school. But no, we have not heard a word about that.
  Well, I would tell my colleagues they did exactly the right thing, 
and I commend the school board for it and I hope they stick to their 
guns and do not be bullied by Jesse Jackson. They did what is right. 
They should keep those kids out of that school. Those are the things 
that can help us, Mr. Speaker, those and hundreds of people, thousands 
of people, millions of people around this country changing their own 
hearts, connecting back with their own families, thinking more about 
how they raise their own children, and what can be done not just maybe 
for our children but for our Nation's children and becoming a community 
again.

  All these things matter more than this bill would have ever mattered, 
but it was a stab at it anyway. It was killed by Democrats because they 
want issues not solutions.

                          ____________________