[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7741-H7749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3193, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONAL 
                             PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 803 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 803

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3193) to restore 
     second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Government Reform; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 803 is a 
closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3193, the District 
of Columbia Personal Protection Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate 
in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, and provides that the amendment printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3193 is a bipartisan measure sponsored by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). The bill has 228 cosponsors from 
across the country, including 44 Democrats.
  The bill simply permits law-abiding citizens of the District of 
Columbia to own firearms, a right currently denied them by act of the 
D.C. City Council. The Nation's capital has the toughest laws and 
regulations in the country prohibiting gun ownership by citizens. This 
bill would repeal the most onerous of those laws, thereby permitting 
individuals to protect themselves and their families in their own homes 
and otherwise enjoy privileges of gun ownership comparable to those 
enjoyed by most American citizens.
  This bill would not affect any laws currently aimed at criminals and 
would place strict penalties on criminals who use guns to commit 
crimes. In addition, all penalties are doubled for illegal possession 
of a firearm in a ``gun-free zone'' within 1,000 feet of a school, day 
care center, college, or various youth facilities such as swimming 
pools and video arcades. Possession or use of a firearm while 
committing a crime of violence would remain punishable by up to 30 
years in prison with a minimum 5 years served before eligibility for 
parole or probation.
  Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that passage of H.R. 3193 may lead 
to an increase in violent crime, but I have to say that the facts 
suggest otherwise. Before the D.C. City Council imposed a handgun and 
home-defense ban in 1976, D.C.'s homicide rate had been declining. 
After the ban was instituted, however, D.C.'s homicide rate rose by 
more than 200 percent by 1991, while during the same period, the 
national homicide rate rose by just 12 percent. It is clear that this 
misguided and overly restrictive gun ban has not only failed to 
decrease violent crime in the District of Columbia, but it may have 
contributed to its increase. We have a chance today to do something 
about that.
  So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called District of 
Columbia Personal Protection Act and to this closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Republican leadership is, once again, letting 
the American people down by considering the wrong bill at the wrong 
time under the wrong circumstances. Once again, we are considering 
legislation in the shadow of the November elections. With 5 weeks to go 
until Election Day, the Republican leadership has put the country's 
agenda on hold in order to force an unnecessary vote on a bad and 
stupid bill. Once again, the Republican leadership is catering to the 
special interests at the expense of the public good; and once again, 
the Republican leadership is squandering the House's very limited time 
with this foolish, misguided, election-year legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we are just one day away from the end of the fiscal 
year, and only one, and I repeat, one, appropriation bill has been sent 
to the White House. Not only are the remaining 12 appropriations bills 
left on the table, not only has the House failed to complete 
consideration of all of the appropriations bills, but the Republican 
leadership, which controls both Houses of Congress, cannot even agree 
upon a budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership cannot get its act together on 
the highway bill, a bill that would create thousands of good-paying 
jobs. The Republican leadership cannot find the time to work on a bill 
to increase the minimum wage, even though wages are stagnant and over 4 
million Americans have fallen out of the middle class and into poverty 
since George Bush became President. And the Republican leadership 
cannot even get its act together on the Department of Defense 
authorization or the FSC/ETI bill, each of which has languished in 
conference for months.
  Mr. Speaker, as the House takes up this frivolous legislation today, 
the Republican leadership has yet to act on the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission report.

                              {time}  1045

  Although the other body is working on legislation to implement the 9/
11 report and the Democratic leader of this

[[Page H7742]]

House has introduced legislation that addresses the report's 
recommendations, here we are today wasting precious time that could be 
used to debate the 9/11 report's recommendations. Will it take another 
September 11 anniversary before the Republican leadership will act? 
Will we see the Republican leaders' bill before the election? Will we 
have to wait until after November for the necessary reforms that will 
help make our country and our citizens safer against terror?
  Mr. Speaker, if the American people want real leadership on real 
issues facing the Nation, they certainly should not look to this House 
of Representatives. Under this Republican leadership, this House has 
become a place where trivial issues are debated casually, and serious 
and important ones not at all.
  In fact, today, we are debating H.R. 3193, a bill that would overturn 
Washington, D.C.'s laws and restrictions on the possession of firearms. 
Among its provisions, H.R. 3193 repeals the District's ban on semi-
automatic assault weapons, its gun registration requirements and its 
ban on cop-killer ammunition.
  That is right, Mr. Speaker, this bill puts cop-killer ammunition on 
the streets of our Nation's capital. Simply put, this legislation makes 
the Nation's capital a more dangerous place to be a police officer.
  As D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams wrote to the congressional leadership, 
``It is unthinkable that, while the Nation's capital is under alert, 
Congress should take action to expose more than half a million 
residents, almost 200,000 Federal workers and 20 million tourists to 
greater danger.''
  It is unthinkable, Mr. Speaker, to put our officers at greater risk 
at a time when Capitol Police expect $20 million in additional 
unbudgeted expenditures to secure the Capitol Building for this year. 
The last thing they need to hear is that semi-automatic weapons can now 
be carried on the National Mall or cop-killer bullets are legal in the 
District of Columbia.
  While the bill changes the law to allow District of Columbia 
residents to carry pistols, open or concealed, in their homes and 
places of business, it does not repeal another District of Columbia gun 
law. The law we will not repeal today is the provision outlawing people 
carrying or having readily access to firearms ``upon the United States 
grounds or within the Capitol Buildings.''
  So we will vote to approve guns in another person's workplace in the 
District but not in our offices.
  It is unthinkable that only 2 years after the Washington area was 
terrorized by snipers who killed ten people in the region and while the 
Nation's capital is still under terrorist alert, Congress would take 
action to expose more than half a million District residents, almost 
200,000 Federal workers and 20 million tourists to greater danger.
  This bill will make the District of Columbia a more dangerous place 
to live, to work and to study.
  Although Members of this body may disagree on gun issues, surely, we 
can all agree that the citizens of the District of Columbia should not 
have to face fully-loaded assault weapons on their streets, in their 
neighborhoods and around their schools.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this bill and this rule did not have to be so 
lousy. Last night, the Committee on Rules had the chance to make this a 
better bill and a better process. Instead, the leadership of the 
Committee on Rules decided to pass a rule that makes a mockery of the 
deliberative process Congress is supposed to follow when we consider 
bills.
  First of all, the Republican leadership brought this bill to the 
floor without consideration by the committee of jurisdiction, the 
Committee on Government Reform. Then, last night, when members from 
both parties brought amendments to our committee, the Committee on 
Rules rejected them all. The rule does not make in order the 
gentlewoman from California's (Mrs. Bono) and the gentlewoman from New 
York's (Mrs. McCarthy) amendment addressing the fact that this bill 
repeals the ban on cop-killer bullets. This closed rule guarantees that 
this bill would emerge from this House with no real debate or 
consideration. This House floor has become a ``legislation-free zone.''
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is about more than guns. This issue is about 
how the residents of Washington, D.C., are treated. Mr. Speaker, I do 
not believe that the Members of Congress from Indiana or Texas or 
Massachusetts have a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to local laws, 
and I would not presume to impose on the citizens and elected officials 
of the District of Columbia something that would never, never, never be 
allowed or accepted by my own city council or State legislature.
  Mr. Speaker, not one constituent of any voting Member of Congress 
will benefit by today's action. As the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette 
stated in an editorial published just last week on September 21, 2004, 
``This page believes Washington should be able to set its own gun-
control laws but acknowledges that honest people can disagree regarding 
the city's second amendment rights. But there is little doubt that, 
right now, Souder's bill is simply a waste of Congress' time and does 
nothing to improve good government or help his constituents in 
Indiana.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us follow what the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette wrote 
and address the real needs of our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I just wanted to speak on another issue, if I can just for a minute. 
An earlier speaker mentioned the FBI and funding, and I just wanted to 
make sure the record, since the Congressional Record is supposed to be 
a factual document, to let the Members know on both sides, since 
September 11, 2001, the Committee on Appropriations has supported the 
FBI's transformation, increasing the FBI's budget nearly 50 percent 
from $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $4.6 billion in fiscal year 
2004.
  These funding increases have allowed the FBI to increase the number 
of Joint Terrorism Task Forces to 100; create the Office of 
Intelligence; create the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which the 
administration has done with FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, who meet 
together every day; the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force; and the 
Terrorist Screening Center; hire thousands of new agents and analysts 
and support staff, including 620 additional linguists; create new 
training programs for agents and analysts; and upgrade the technology 
capabilities.
  We have National Academy of Public Administration looking at the 
reformation of the FBI. The General Accounting Office, the 
Congressional Research Service, and the 9/11 Commission in its report 
referenced the work of the House Committee on Appropriations. It must 
have been a misunderstanding, but I just want the Members to know that, 
as we look in the record, this Congress, both sides, and this 
administration have increased the FBI budget by dramatic numbers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I never could have thought 
I would see it, a House that is run by a conservative majority that is 
bent on imposing its will on the minority.
  We have seen it many times, but, Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting to 
see that, this morning, we are taking up an issue, we are enforcing our 
will upon the people of this District of Columbia. Whereas, we would 
not even allow any other State or this Congress to dictate its will 
against the interests of our own local communities, we are prepared to 
do that to the District of Columbia.
  It should not be any surprise, I suppose, to our delegate, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). She has seen it 
too many times where she represents a populace here in Washington, 
D.C., that does not have the vote, does not have the vote here in the 
Halls of Congress. It does have a vote, however, on the local 
management of the city, not until today.
  Today, the Congress says, not only will you not have a vote in the 
Halls of the Congress, not only as United States citizens will you be 
denied the right to vote, but you will also be denied in your own local 
government to decide what is in the best interests of your people.

[[Page H7743]]

  We look at Washington, D.C., and see one of the most murderous 
capitals in this country, where every single day mothers worry about 
whether their children are going to get home at the end of the day, 
whether their children are going to be killed in drive-by shootings, 
whether their children are going to be safe.
  To the mothers in the District of Columbia, terrorism means drive-by 
shootings, not Osama bin Laden. To the people of Washington, D.C., 
terrorism is defined by semi-automatic weapons and unrestricted access 
to all kinds of guns.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill says terrorism is all right. 
Terrorism for the people of this city, who now will have to wonder how 
many guns are staring them down when they go outside every single day 
of the week, are going to have to wonder, when they see all of the 
complement of anti-terrorist measures in this town and know that those 
anti-terrorist measures are for everyone else but them, the inhabitants 
of Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill eliminate all of those laws that 
the people of this city have determined are in their best interest in 
defending their people, and it says, no, we are going to make you an 
example to the NRA that, whatever they want, they will get. When it 
comes to the repeal of the assault weapons ban, not only will this 
President not have fallen through on his commitment, but furthermore, 
they will have retreated on their commitment to defend the people of 
this Capital City and the Capitol Police of this Capital City. They 
ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the vice chairman 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the Committee on 
Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 803, a closed rule that 
provides for the consideration of H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia 
Personal Protection Act. This is an appropriate rule that will allow 
the House to work its will on the underlying legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues in the House to join me in voting for its approval.
  Mr. Speaker, I can certainly appreciate the position of those who 
oppose the underlying legislation. As a consistent proponent of home 
rule, I believe that the Federal Government should be limited in its 
influence over State and local laws.
  The crux of this debate, however, is not whether the Congress has the 
authority to repeal the District's prohibition of owning firearms. The 
Founders were explicit in their desire for congressional oversight and 
responsibility in the affairs and laws of the District of Columbia.
  The heart of the matter before us today is whether the District of 
Columbia should continue to prevent its citizens from exercising their 
full rights under the Constitution. We do not get to pick and choose 
our amendments, and the second amendment was written with just as much 
force and meaning as the first and the fifth and the tenth.
  In 1975, the District's government enacted measures to prevent 
citizens from owning certain firearms in an ill-advised effort to 
reduce its violent crime rate. My colleagues have just heard about that 
from the previous speaker. As many of my colleagues can attest, 
however, the District, despite these laws, continues to be known across 
the country as the ``murder capital.''
  It is beyond me to understand how we can stand here in the well of 
this House and say this is the most violent city in the Nation, this is 
the murder capital of the world, people are being gunned down, please 
do not change anything; leave it as it is. Does it ever strike anybody 
that, perhaps, perhaps, there would be less violence if the bad guys 
who do get guns, who have guns, would think for a moment that the 
people they are approaching might have guns, too?
  This is not the kind of wild west life we want to live, but it is a 
fact of life that, in those areas where we have concealed-carry laws, 
there is less violent gun crime because the bad guys who have an easy 
time getting guns are concerned that maybe they are approaching someone 
who has one, too. There are some nations or some jurisdictions in this 
Nation that actually require people to keep guns in their houses, and 
it is an uncomfortable fact for those who would like to get rid of 
guns, but it is a fact.

                              {time}  1100

  They have less crime. They have far less crime.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
support the underlying law.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit baffled by the previous speaker to 
imply that somehow the passage of this bill would make the residents of 
D.C. safer. If this bill is enacted, the following weapons would be 
lawful to possess:
  The AK-47, the Israeli Semiautomatic Uzi Carbine, the Bushmaster X-
15, which was used by the D.C. area snipers to kill 10 people in 2002; 
the Barrett M82 A-1 50-caliber sniper weapon, which has the range of 
about 1 mile and is used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
worldwide to penetrate bunkers, to disable armored personnel carriers, 
and to take down enemy aircraft. This bill would allow fully-loaded 
assault weapons to be carried in public. This bill would allow armor-
piercing ammunition, including cop-killing bullets. This bill would 
eliminate the District's registration program even for assault weapons. 
This bill would allow individuals to carry concealed hand guns in their 
places of business and property.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that anybody can say with a straight 
face that this will make the residents of D.C. and this country safer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when this law was first introduced, it was simply 
regarded as another absurd piece of legislation. There are lots of them 
during a session of Congress. When we moved toward a vote on this law, 
it left the realm of the absurd and entered the realm of the truly 
reckless, particularly reckless and callous at a time when 16 of our 
children are dead from guns in this city, far more than in any recent 
year; and at a time when, to their credit, the mayor of the city and 
the police chief of the city have reduced adult homicides by 25 
percent.
  I am on the floor this morning largely because this repeal will 
largely affect kids in the District of Columbia, and I cannot believe 
that that is the will of the great majority of the people of this 
House. There could not be a more wrong time or a more wrong place, a 
more wrong city, a more wrong region. This region still has not 
recovered from the sniper attack of 2002, which left 10 people in 
Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia dead, 5 more injured 
from a Bushmaster assault weapon that would now be legal to have in 
your homes, to have in your businesses, to have in your workplaces in 
the District of Columbia, in the Nation's Capital, which is now under 
an orange alert.
  This bill did not move anyplace, Mr. Speaker. It was referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform, on which the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder) and I both serve. He is the primary sponsor of this bill. 
There was no interest in the committee in this bill. The committee is 
deep into matters affecting Iraq and Homeland Security and Federal 
reorganization in the DOD, in the Department of Homeland Security, and 
even in the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources, which I am pleased to serve on with the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Of course, this bill had to leap over every subcommittee and leap 
over the committee, because it never got a hearing, because there was 
no interest and there was no view that this is the kind of bill, 
particularly after 9/11, that any self-respecting Member of Congress 
would want to bring to the floor of the House. Yet here it has come, 
courtesy of the leadership of this House.
  Moreover, this matter was considered a settled matter, if ever any 
matter is. The one group of local matters most prized as local in our 
country are criminal justice matters. And this matter has been settled 
by the people who

[[Page H7744]]

will be overwhelmingly affected if you vote for repeal today. It has 
been settled by the people of the District of Columbia, who alone have 
the right to make decisions as to how to safeguard their lives.
  Thank you very much, you of the paternalistic variety who are going 
to tell us how to safeguard our lives. I am not going to tell you I do 
not expect you to tell my mayor, I do not expect you to tell my 
unanimous city council, I do not expect you to tell me, that is to say, 
if you still believe this is a Federal Government and you believe that 
we are as much citizens of the United States as you are, and we are.
  When this bill came to the floor, with no opportunity to make any 
changes, of course, the only thing you can do is to go to the Committee 
on Rules. There we found a hostile attitude toward amendments, except 
amendments from one Member. Members came forward from both sides. This 
is a matter of compelling interest to the entire country. And the only 
Member to in fact get an amendment in order was the sponsor of the 
bill. He happens to be a Republican. No partisanship there, of course.
  Actually, that fact, the one amendment coming from the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), the sponsor, is the front end of the partisanship 
of this bill. This bill is not about whether it will pass or fail. It 
comes a month before election, for reasons that the Members have not 
even tried to deny: Close to the election, let us hold up the 
Democrats, especially the Democrats from rural areas, from southern 
areas, from western areas. Let us dare them to vote for home rule, as 
they usually do. Let us take them down with NRA ads if they do. 
Everybody gets it. That is the only reason Democrats are on this bill. 
They saw Democrats taken out by NRA distortions of their positions on 
weapons just a few years ago.
  The Souder amendment is really an amendment to wipe the red off the 
sponsor's face because he had sent a Dear Colleague, advising that a 
previous Dear Colleague saying that the bill would allow fully-loaded 
assault weapons to be carried in public was a matter of scare tactics. 
I can understand why the gentleman from Indiana made the mistake. It is 
not his law, it is not his business, he does not know what he is 
talking about, and he made the kind of mistake I would make if I tried 
to mess in the business of his jurisdiction. I am not familiar with 
what they do. He made a straight-out error. He said, oh, no, we were 
wrong; he was right.
  Then, of course, he comes forward with an amendment, which is a mea 
culpa that admits that he was wrong. Actually, his amendment does not 
help very much, because it assumes an assault weapon, a Bushmaster, a 
loaded handgun which you could keep in your home, in your business, 
that somehow they are going to be contained in your homes, in your 
businesses, in your workplaces. Everybody knows that once you have a 
gun there, it stays there. That is, unless you have the experience of 
running the District of Columbia or living in the District of Columbia. 
And as our police chief says, there would be a moment, a moment in time 
before weapons in people's homes would find their ways to the streets 
to settle domestic violence matters, acquaintance quarrels, kids 
settling matters among themselves.
  And, Mr. Speaker, we have even seen some of that when guns have 
gotten into kids' hands. We know what would happen with those guns 
because we live here and we know our people. They would make their way 
into Ward Six, where I live, which is close to the Capitol, and they 
would surely make their way to the streets in the poorest wards of the 
city, across the Anacostia River, where most of the killings of 
residents, and particularly of children, have taken place.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) does not know any better, and 
I can forgive him that. What I cannot forgive him is introducing and 
pressing this bill at a time when we have child killings at a record we 
have not seen in many years. Why in the world would anybody want to 
make laws for somebody else's jurisdiction?
  So I said, well, if I could do only one amendment, what would I do? 
Because I knew that you would not want to put in a great many 
amendments to a bill that was being put forward for transparently 
political reasons. And I said, I know the one I would do, because I 
know what I have heard from my police chief. I would put in an 
amendment to say at least if you are going to have ammunition, let 
there be no cop killers' ammunition. And I came forward with an 
amendment that was aimed chiefly at doing whatever little we could do 
to protect our police officers and our children, the two categories of 
people most vulnerable because they are the disproportionate victims.
  This amendment, however, like every Democratic amendment, was not 
made in order. I think it goes without saying that most Members would 
prefer not to have armor-piercing incendiary ammunition floating around 
their districts. The fact is that the kind of ammunition that my 
amendment would bar are not barred by Federal law. In fact, Congress, 
in fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, and fiscal year 2003, in the DOD 
appropriation, actually added to the appropriation language that barred 
armor-piercing incendiary ammunition being transferred from DOD to 
private parties.
  In the name of my children and police officers, I thought maybe they 
will throw me this sop. There are no sops to be thrown here. This bill 
not only is brought forward for political purposes, this bill is 
brought forward in callous disregard of these children. Their parents 
have been to the Hill, begging to have this vote rescinded. Our mayor, 
our new superintendent of schools, and our police chief were here 
yesterday to say this is exactly what we do not need.
  I ask you to respect the people who know best, the people who will 
have to pay the price, the people who have had to go to the funerals. I 
ask you to defeat this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
State, the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding 
me this time, and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), for introducing legislation to restore our 
constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in the District 
of Columbia. H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection 
Act, would eliminate penalties for the legal possession of a firearm, 
and it would permit the storage of legal firearms in an individual's 
home or place of business.
  This debate is fundamental in its nature. Americans should have the 
right to defend themselves against a violent assault. They should have 
the right to protect their own lives. In 2002, the District of Columbia 
earned the rare distinction of being the murder capital of America for 
14 out of 15 years, yet all handguns have been banned in the District 
since 1976. This simple fact shows that firearm bans do not work to 
decrease crime. D.C. laws should not make it a criminal offense to 
possess a firearm and self-defense in one's own home or business.
  Mr. Speaker, the Washington Times reported on December 14, 1994, that 
Rebecca Griffin heard her daughter screaming one night, only to find 
her bound and gagged by two potential kidnappers. With one carrying a 
knife, she was quick to end the attack after retrieving her 32-caliber 
revolver from the basement. Although her daughter was left cut and 
bleeding, by using a firearm to protect her family in her own home, she 
saved her daughter from abduction and, yes, possibly death.
  It is interesting to note that crime was on the decline in 
Washington, D.C., before the gun ban was imposed. Yet in only the first 
15 years of the ban, from 1976 to 1991, the homicide rate increased by 
more than 200 percent while the rest of the United States had only a 12 
percent increase.
  When Congress chose to delegate home rule in the 1970s, it specified 
that legislation by the District must be consistent with the 
Constitution of the United States, and I hope that the gentleman from 
Rhode Island and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, who 
previously spoke about the rights of D.C. citizens, are listening. 
However, the District of Columbia consistently violates the second 
amendment right to keep and bear arms. It violates the right to self-
defense.

[[Page H7745]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to pass the rule for the District of 
Columbia Personal Protection Act and to restore second amendment rights 
to the law-abiding citizens of our Nation's Capital.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 8 minutes remaining and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3193, the 
District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is a commonsense 
piece of legislation that will rightfully restore the second amendment 
rights of Americans living in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there are Members of this House who support gun 
control. The issue today, however, is not gun control but it is self-
defense. The right to be able to protect yourself and your family is 
always important, but the right to do so in your home is the most 
important of all.
  In America, we consider the home a special place and give greater 
weight to people's liberties in the home. The faulty bureaucratic logic 
of allowing District of Columbia residents to defend themselves is 
refuted by common sense. D.C. has some of the strongest gun laws in the 
Nation, and yet the recent FBI figures show that the District has 
regained its former title as the murder capital of the Nation for 14 of 
the last 15 years. Common sense and the love of life and liberty tells 
us that D.C. residents should have the right to defend themselves in 
their own home.
  According to the FBI, the street and highway robbery rate has 
decreased by 59 percent, which is a greater decrease than other types 
of robbery, so the theory that gun-related street crimes will increase 
because of this bill is not supported by the facts nor by common sense. 
That leaves with us only one question really: Are law-abiding residents 
of this city entitled to the same rights as other Americans? I think 
our answer can be nothing other than a resounding yes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from Mayor Anthony 
Williams and a letter from the Chief of Police, Charles Ramsey, in 
strong opposition to this legislation.
  We have heard from the gentleman from Oklahoma and we have heard from 
the gentleman from Georgia who think they know everything about what 
the people of the District of Columbia need and deserve; how about 
listening to the mayor of this city and to the police chief of this 
city who say this is a bad bill which will make the streets of this 
city more dangerous?

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 2004.
     Hon. Tom DeLay,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative DeLay: Princess Hansen. James 
     Richardson. Chelsea Cromartie. Myesha Lowe. These are the 
     names of four children who will never see adulthood. These 
     are the names of four children whose parents are devastated 
     by grief. These are the names of four children out of 14 who 
     were killed by illegal guns in the District since January.
       On behalf of the residents of the nation's capital, I am 
     writing to express strong displeasure upon learning that 
     federal legislation to repeal the city's gun control laws 
     could shortly come to a vote in the House of Representatives. 
     The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2004 is 
     not just a step back in our efforts to control crime--it is a 
     couple of football fields back.
       I take sharp exception to this wholly inappropriate 
     intrusion into what is clearly a local matter. On behalf of 
     the residents of the District of Columbia, I urgently ask you 
     to take no further action on this legislation. It is 
     unthinkable that while the nation's capital is under alert, 
     Congress would take action to expose more than a half a 
     million District residents, almost 200,000 federal workers 
     and 20 million tourists to greater danger.
       The District of Columbia has been governed by an elected 
     Mayor and thirteen elected Council members since 1975. During 
     the Council's first legislative session in 1976, the District 
     passed legislation that restricted the possession, use and 
     transfer of handguns and semiautomatic weapons. The courts 
     have upheld the constitutionality of this law and no bill has 
     been passed in the District to water down our gun-control 
     laws since.
       District leaders have enacted gun safety legislation based 
     on our citizens' view that any increase in the number of guns 
     in the District increases the likelihood that crimes will be 
     committed with those guns. We have made significant progress 
     in reducing crime, although we still have work to do. This 
     year alone, District residents have witnessed a 24 percent 
     reduction in homicides and a 13 percent decrease in overall 
     crime. There is no way to argue that lifting our weapons bans 
     will not jeopardize this progress. My administration has 
     worked very hard to produce these results and I ask you to 
     respect our efforts by leaving one of our most important 
     anti-crime tools in place. My greatest frustration is that in 
     spite of the significant reduction in homicides, 14 children, 
     the largest number in five years, have been killed by guns 
     this year. These killings, some by children, are reason 
     enough to do no more harm by allowing more guns in our city.
       Our residents know all too well the human costs exacted by 
     guns and violence. Eighty percent of all homicides in the 
     District last year were committed with guns, all of which 
     were brought into the city illegally. Because of the porous 
     nature of our borders, we can never rely on laws alone to 
     keep guns out of our city, but these laws are indispensable 
     local tools to combat crime. Our ability to reduce homicides 
     would be severely compromised if--in addition to confiscating 
     guns brought in from other jurisdictions--we were required to 
     combat gun violence from weapons maintained, carried and 
     bought within the District.
       We are taking aggressive measures to further reduce 
     homicides and violent crime in the city by increasing the 
     number of sworn officers to 3,800, restructuring our Patrol 
     Service Areas, strengthening our investigative capacity, and 
     improving 911 response times.
       For Princess Hansen. For James Richardson. For Chelsea 
     Cromartie. For Myesha Lowe. I implore you to take no further 
     action on the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 
     2004. The citizens of the District of Columbia want nothing 
     more than other American citizens would demand and get--the 
     right to make our own decisions about our public safety.
           Sincerely yours,
                                              Anthony A. Williams,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2004.
     Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Norton: I am writing to express my strong 
     opposition to any efforts in Congress to eliminate or weaken 
     current laws regulating handgun ownership and possession in 
     the District of Columbia.
       As a law enforcement officer with more than 35 years of 
     experience, I know first-hand the devastation of handgun 
     violence in our urban neighborhoods. One need look no farther 
     than Ballou and Anacostia Senior High Schools in Southeast DC 
     for recent examples of gun tragedies: two young student-
     athletes gunned down this school year, either inside or just 
     outside their school building. Like these two killings, 
     nearly 80 percent of the homicides in the District of 
     Columbia are committed with a firearm, not to mention 
     countless assaults, robberies and other crimes of violence.
       The District is facing nothing short of a crisis when it 
     comes to gun crime and gun violence. Every day, our 
     residents--and our police officers--are confronted by far too 
     many firearms, that are easily accessible to far too many 
     people--including young people--who should not possess them. 
     Last year alone, Metropolitan Police officers recovered 
     nearly 2,000 firearms, and we are on track to increase that 
     total this year. To somehow suggest that the District would 
     be safer by introducing even more lethal firepower into our 
     city is pure folly. To reduce crime and prevent more 
     senseless tragedies like the recent killings at Anacostia and 
     Ballou, we need fewer--not more--weapons on our streets. And 
     we need to have strong laws that allow our police officers to 
     identify and arrest criminals who carry guns in our city.
       I appreciate your strong support of DC's gun laws, and I 
     stand ready to assist in working to retain and, if necessary, 
     strengthen those laws. You know, as I do, that tough and 
     sensible gun laws help make our communities--and our police 
     officers--safe. The District of Columbia cannot afford to go 
     backwards when it comes to combating gun violence.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles H. Ramsey,
                                                  Chief of Police.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule; and more 
importantly, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. When I looked 
at this bill, I was compelled to ask the question of the supporters of 
this legislation: What were they thinking?
  Number one, we need less guns in the District of Columbia, not more 
guns.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent the suburban districts in Prince George's 
County and Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside of Washington, 
D.C. The gun violence in D.C. bleeds over, excuse the expression, into 
our communities

[[Page H7746]]

so I have a great concern that we not have more violence and more guns.
  Let me talk for a moment about the question of rights and the rights 
of D.C. citizens. My colleagues on the other side who are sponsoring 
this legislation are the same folks who are saying we have to have 
democracy in Iraq, we need to let the Iraqis decide. They would have 
the Iraqis decide their fate, but they will not let the citizens of the 
District of Columbia decide their fate. That does not make sense.
  The citizens of the District of Columbia have not asked for this 
bill. The mayor is opposed to it, the police chief is opposed to it, 
the elected Representative is opposed to it. That is the democratic 
position, that the citizens of the District of Columbia, under the 
concept of home rule, should be allowed to make this decision, not 
people from Indiana and Georgia.
  It is appalling to think that this measure would repeal the District 
of Columbia's ban on the sale and possession of handguns and 
semiautomatic weapons and eliminates criminal penalties for possessing 
unregistered handguns.
  Earlier a gentleman talked about the facts. Let us talk about the 
reality. The reality is that most if not all of these young people did 
not die as a result of burglaries in their home, they died on the 
streets. They died on the streets as a result of handgun violence, not 
as a result of handguns purchased in the District of Columbia, but from 
Virginia and Maryland and other places.
  That is the problem we have here. There are already too many 
handguns, too many semiautomatic weapons, too much street crime, and 
the sponsor of this measure would allow for more.
  It is very interesting, we are in a period in which there is a great 
deal of concern about terrorism. And of course here in the capital, we 
are greatly concerned for obvious reasons. Why would we want more 
handguns in the possession of individuals in the District of Columbia 
that might pose a terrorist threat, or semiautomatic weapons in the 
hands of the people of District of Columbia who might pose a terrorist 
threat? It just does not make any sense. What were they thinking?
  Under this bill, if a crime is committed and the weapon is found 
because they eliminate the registration process, detectives could not 
determine whose gun it was. It just does not make any sense.
  And then how could people in this body forget the fact that on July 
24, 1998, a gunman came into this Capitol and fired a handgun, killing 
Jacob Chestnut, a United States Capitol Police Officer, and Special 
Agent John Gibson? How can we forget the effects of handgun use, not to 
mention the handgun that was used to shoot at President Ronald Reagan?
  The issue is not well, there is crime in the District of Columbia; 
yes, that is true. There is crime in every city. The issue is, do we 
want more crime and more violence as weapons are more readily available 
under this bill? Again, it just does not make any sense. Let me tell 
Members about the reality of what actually happens. Thieves not only 
break into homes for cash and jewelry, they also break into homes for 
weapons, weapons that can be fenced and transferred and sold through 
other means, and those same weapons that exist in the homes are also 
the weapons that are used to commit crimes.
  So while the gentleman presents one anecdote of somebody who 
protected their family with a handgun, there is a lot more information 
about people who were victimized on the streets by handguns and 
semiautomatic weapons.
  My colleague from the District of Columbia made an impassioned plea 
on behalf of young people, all under the age of 17, who were the 
victims of gun violence. I join her in that plea. Let us have some 
common sense, let us defeat this rule and then defeat the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reading a ``Dear Colleague'' letter from 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) entitled Please ``Oppose 
H.R. 3193.''
  They write, ``We are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 3193, a bill 
that would make Washington, D.C. less safe. H.R. 3193 falls within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform, but was not 
considered by the committee.''
  They say this bill ``repeals the D.C. laws that restrict the 
possession of firearms in the District of Columbia. Among the laws 
repealed are the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, the ban on 
armor-piercing ammunition, and the gun registration requirements. 
Although one can debate the merits of some of D.C.'s gun laws, no one 
should question the importance of keeping fully-loaded assault weapons 
off the streets of the Nation's Capital city.
  ``Another problem with H.R. 3193 is its impact on home rule for the 
District of Columbia. Congress would never act to repeal the gun laws 
for communities in Northern Virginia or Southern California. Whether we 
agree or disagree with the District's laws, we should accord the mayor 
and District city council that same respect.
  ``Please join us in voting no on H.R. 3193.'' This letter was signed 
by the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  A number of speakers have said D.C.'s gun laws violate the second 
amendment. They do not violate the second amendment. In a recent NRA-
inspired lawsuit, D.C. citizens challenged the constitutionality of the 
city's gun laws. In a decision styled Seegers v. Ashcroft, a D.C. 
Federal court judge found that the D.C. gun laws did not violate the 
plaintiff's second amendment rights. In fact, because the second 
amendment specifically applies to State militias, the court held that 
the amendment cannot apply to the District of Columbia, which is not a 
State.
  Mr. Speaker, this body considered this issue in 1999 when the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) offered this repeal as an amendment 
to the gun show bill. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 175-250. 
This House has already spoken. Members defeated that awful idea then, 
and I hope they will defeat it again today when this bill comes to the 
floor.
  I hope Members of this House will stand up to the NRA and will do the 
right thing, will do the right thing by the citizens of this city. How 
anybody can make the case that making more military-style assault 
weapons available on the streets of D.C. somehow is going to decrease 
crime is beyond me. It makes no sense at all.
  This is an arrogant bill, where people who have no idea what is going 
on in this city are imposing their will on the people of the District 
of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record two editorials, one from the 
Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana, entitled ``Where Are Souder's 
Priorities'' and the other from ``The Decatur Daily Democrat'' entitled 
``Souder's Contempt.''
  I wish the gentleman who introduced this bill would have paid 
attention to the editorials from his home newspapers. They are right. 
D.C. has a right to determine its fate on these gun laws. Congress has 
no business repealing what the local leaders and legislators in D.C. 
have decided. I hope all Member of Congress do the right thing, will 
stand up for our kids, will stand up for our police. All of the police 
officers, the police chief, the police associations, are all against 
this bill. Let us do the right thing and defeat this bill.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2004.

                        Please Oppose H.R. 3193

       Dear Colleague: We are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 
     3193, a bill that would make Washington, D.C., less safe. 
     H.R. 3193 falls within the jurisdiction of the Government 
     Reform Committee, but was not considered by the Committee.
       H.R. 3193 repeals the D.C. laws that restrict the 
     possession of firearms in the District of Columbia. Among the 
     laws repealed are the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, 
     the ban on armor-piercing (``cop-killer'') ammunition, and 
     the gun registration requirements. Although one can debate 
     the merits of some of D.C.'s gun laws, no one should question 
     the importance of keeping fully loaded assault weapons off 
     the streets of the nation's capital city.
       Another problem with H.R. 3193 is its impact on home rule 
     for the District. Congress would never act to repeal the gun 
     laws for communities in Northern Virginia or Southern 
     California. Whether we agree or disagree with the District's 
     laws, we should accord the Mayor and the D.C. City Council 
     the same respect.
       Please join us in voting ``No'' on H.R. 3193.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Davis,

[[Page H7747]]

       Chairman.
     Henry A. Waxman,
       Ranking Minority Member.
                                  ____


               [From the Journal Gazette, Sept. 21, 2004]

               Editorial: Where Are Souder's priorities?

       Northeast Indiana residents have good reason to question 
     where Congressman Mark Souder's priorities lie.
       Souder has been receiving national exposure, not for 
     anything he's doing for his constituents but for his attempts 
     to use the Federal government to overturn a local government 
     decision.
       Our congressman believes people in Washington D.C., should 
     be able to carry assault rifles and handguns.
       He believes that Washington police should not be able to 
     jail anyone for having unregistered weapons.
       He believes District of Columbia workers should face no 
     criminal penalties for carrying a gun to work.
       The District of Columbia has banned handguns, but Souder 
     thinks the Federal government should step in and overturn 
     this local decision because Souder knows what's better for 
     residents of the District of Columbia than they do.
       Congressional leaders have placed a priority on Souder's 
     bill--cynically called the District of Columbia Personal 
     Protection Act--mostly to force House Democrats to cast a 
     vote on a gun control issue before Nov. 2.
       This misplaced priority comes days before the fiscal year 
     will begin with 12 of the 13 spending bills needed to keep 
     the government running yet to be approved.
       Many political observers believe Souder's legislation has 
     little chance in the U.S. Senate, making the D.C. gun bill an 
     exercise in political gamesmanship.
       Souder must need the diversion, coming at the end of 
     Congress' longest summer vacation since Harry Truman was in 
     the White House.
       In a statement that has become sadly characteristic of our 
     congressman, Souder compared gun control to owning slaves, 
     telling the Washington Post, ``The fact is, we didn't allow 
     the District to have home rule on the selling of slaves, 
     either.''
       Souder's bill earned him attention in the Post and in the 
     Sunday New York Times shortly after receiving some publicity 
     in U.S. News & World Report for his action on another issue 
     of vital importance to Hoosiers--lighthouses.
       Souder railed against a North Carolina congressman for 
     wanting the Homeland Security Department to audit the group 
     that operates the North Carolina Currituck Beach Lighthouse.
       During an unrelated hearing, Souder blasted the efforts as 
     ``one of the biggest travesties of justice I have ever 
     seen.''
       Perhaps Souder is unaware of the 14 children who have been 
     gunned down in Washington this year.
       Perhaps he is unaware that the handgun ban helped D.C. 
     police take nearly 2,000 guns away from criminal suspects 
     last year and more than 1,300 so far this year.
       Perhaps his beloved lighthouses and efforts to embarrass 
     Democrats have become too important.
       This page believes Washington should be able to set its own 
     gun-control laws but acknowledges that honest people can 
     disagree regarding the city's Second Amendment rights. But 
     there is little doubt that right now, Souder's bill is simply 
     a waste of Congress' time and does nothing to improve good 
     government or help his constituents in Indiana.
                                  ____


           [From the Decatur Daily Democrat, Sept. 20, 2004.]

                           Souder's Contempt

       Rep. Mark Edward Souder is about as interested in the 
     hopes, fears and aspirations of District of Columbia 
     residents as a rock along the Maumee River in his northeast 
     Indiana congressional district.
       What does engage the Republican congressman's enthusiasm is 
     the prospect of forcing House Democrats to vote on a gun 
     control law in a hotly contested election year. That helps 
     explain why Souder is pressing for a vote in his bill, which 
     would remove the District's stringent ban on handguns, lift a 
     restriction against semiautomatic weapons, end registration 
     requirements for ammunition and other firearms, and cancel 
     criminal penalties for possessing unregistered firearms and 
     carrying a handgun in one's home or workplace.
       Wasting no opportunity to thumb their noses at D.C. 
     residents who strongly support the handgun bans--and to 
     ingratiate themselves with gun rights groups--House 
     Republican leaders have promised Souder a vote before the 
     Nov. 2 election. A more contemptible display of cynicism 
     would be hard to find.
       Souder maintains that his bill is not an incursion on home 
     rule but rather is based on the Second Amendment's guarantee 
     of gun rights. He's wrong, of course. The District's 
     authority to enact gun control laws has been successfully 
     challenged in court. Likewise, if Congress adopts language 
     that denies the city's elected leaders ``authority to enact 
     laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private 
     ownership or use of firearms''--as proposed by Souder--what 
     is that but a restriction on the city's self-governing 
     powers? Besides, the District is hardly unique: Seven states 
     also have their own bans on assault weapons. But it's not the 
     Constitution that is at issue. Souder and the House GOP 
     leadership are out to put Democrats on the defensive, 
     especially those in competitive congressional races where the 
     gun lobby might hold sway.
       It matters not a bit to Souder and his gun allies that the 
     D.C. police department has its hands full trying to keep 
     deadly weapons off the streets. Last year D.C. police 
     recovered 1,982 firearms from criminal suspects. As of Sept. 
     8, D.C. cops had already recovered 1,385 guns this year. 
     Justifiable concerns that repeal of the city's gun laws would 
     worsen violence on D.C. streets have fallen on deaf ears in 
     the U.S. Capitol. House Republicans, if they have their way, 
     would just as soon turn the nation's capital into a free-fire 
     zone--and for cheap political reasons.
       It is small comfort to observe, as some have, that the 
     Souder bill would have dim prospects in the Senate this year. 
     This offensive and opportunistic bill should not be allowed 
     to see the light of day in the House of Representatives. But 
     to say that is to hope that respect for the rights of 
     District residents would rank above lust for partisan 
     advantage.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the sponsor of this measure.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for bringing up a very good rule today. 
I rise in support of this rule, and would like to alert all of my 
colleagues, the vote for a rule is a vote for allowing debate on 
restoring the second amendment rights to the District of Columbia 
residents.
  Members have heard much of the debate today that citizens are 
prevented from owning a handgun at all. My bill says even if citizens 
have a gun, let me first state this, even if you have a gun, you store 
a rifle or shotgun, you are prohibited from using them to defend your 
own life, family, and home. District law threatens honest people with 
imprisonment if they unlock, assemble, or load their guns even when 
under attack.
  For this reason, I am bringing before the House a bill that this rule 
would make in order that would restore the second amendment rights of 
D.C. citizens. I think it is important to note that my bill would not 
repeal any provision of D.C. law that bans gun possession by criminals 
or that punishes violent crime.
  The rule also makes two important changes to my bill which would 
clarify the original intent. There has been a misrepresentation in 
``Dear Colleagues'' to this House that said we would allow concealed 
and open carrying of any firearm, loaded or unloaded, outside the 
owner's property. It did not. It said three times in the bill, 
property, home, business or other land, but this clarifies it. It also 
strengthens D.C. code by providing a more complete set of exemptions 
based on Maryland law to allow citizens to transport unloaded, cased 
firearms to and from lawful activities, such as hunting, target 
shooting, and firearm safety training.
  I want to address a number of the things that have come up during 
debate. One is if someone has a gun in their home, could someone go in 
and rob? Of course they could. They can now. It is just the person 
defending their home cannot defend their home, but it is not loaded, it 
has to be encased and cannot be used. But if someone wants to steal the 
guns, they can do that now.
  What happens if they go on the street with an illegal gun? Guess 
what; they are doing that now. That penalty stays in effect. If 
somebody steals the gun or goes off their property with the gun, it is 
already against the law. It will still be against the law, and all 
Members are arguing is the ineffectiveness of the law.
  For years in the United States we have heard this rumor that if we 
ban guns, only the criminals would have guns. In D.C. that seems to 
have come true, because now what we are arguing is that people who 
follow the law are somehow going to turn into criminals. The people who 
are criminals are already making Washington, D.C. the murder capital of 
the United States 14 of the last 15 years. How can it get worse?
  What we are doing is letting the people who are in the homes, as 
people have written in and stated, that when they told, even though the 
gun was illegal, when they said they had a gun inside, people left the 
attacking of their homes. This should increase property values in 
Washington, D.C. It

[[Page H7748]]

should make people safer, and I think it is the right thing to do.
  Another subject that came up was the so-called AK-47s and Uzis. They 
are constantly mentioned, but they are not legal to import now. Even 
though the assault weapon ban has expired, those and other foreign-made 
guns were prohibited under the Federal Firearm Importation Act in 1989, 
and they will still remain prohibited.

                              {time}  1130

  We heard about so-called ``cop killer bullets.'' The fact is on the 
armor piercing ammunition bill, there was a bill passed in 1986 when 
the Democrats controlled this House. After several years of debate and 
discussion, Congress prohibited certain kinds of bullets that could be 
used in a handgun and which were capable of defeating the kinds of 
bullet-resistant vests that police officers wear for protection. Some 
wanted to ban all ammunition. That was defeated. It came up again.
  In 1997, a study conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms found that existing laws are working and no additional 
legislation regarding such laws is necessary. The study also found that 
no law enforcement officer had ever been killed or even injured because 
of these so-called bullets penetrating a bullet-resistant vest. It 
urged Congress to avoid any experimentation with police officer lives 
that could conceivably lead to numerous additional officer fatalities.
  The problem here is all we are doing is making D.C. in conformance 
with the rest of the United States, which is a constitutional right to 
bear arms, and this rule would go forth and do that.
  I include for printing in the Congressional Record the cosponsors of 
this bill.

                     COSPONSORS BY DATE OF H.R. 3193
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Office                State      First Contact      R or D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Stenholm................      TX   5-Sep..............        D
Max Sandlin.....................      TX   5-Sep..............        D
Chris John......................      LA   9-Sep..............        D
Colin Peterson..................      MN   10-Sep.............        D
Jim Matheson....................      UT   10-Sep.............        D
Brad Carson.....................      OK   10-Sep.............        D
Marion Berry....................      AR   10-Sep.............        D
Lincoln Davis...................      TN   10-Sep.............        D
Jim Turner......................      TX   10-Sep.............        D
Bud Cramer......................      AL   10-Sep.............        D
Tim Holden......................      PA   10-Sep.............        D
Silvestre Reyes.................      TX   11-Sep.............        D
Gene Green......................      TX   11-Sep.............        D
Michael Michaud.................      ME   16-Sep.............        D
Sanford Bishop..................      GA   17-Sep.............        D
Jim Marshall....................      GA   17-Sep.............        D
Solomon Ortiz...................      TX   22-Sep.............        D
Rick Boucher....................      VA   24-Sep.............        D
Tim Ryan........................      OH   25-Sep.............        D
Mike McIntyre...................       NC  30-Sep.............        D
John Tanner.....................      TN   30-Sep.............        D
Nick Rahall.....................      WV   1-Oct..............        D
Joe Baca........................        CA 2-Oct..............        D
Gene Taylor.....................      MS   2-Oct..............        D
Chet Edwards....................      TX   7-Oct..............        D
Ken Lucas.......................      KY   8-Oct..............        D
Jerry Costello..................      IL   8-Oct..............        D
John Dingell....................      MI   8-Oct..............        D
Bart Gordon.....................      TN   8-Oct..............        D
John Murtha.....................      PA   21-Oct.............        D
Ciro Rodriguez..................      TX   23-Oct.............        D
Bart Stupak.....................      MI   19-Nov.............        D
Ike Skelton.....................      MO   11-Feb.............        D
Jim Cooper......................      TN   23-Feb.............        D
Alan Mollohan...................      WV   26-Apr.............        D
A.B. Chandler...................      KY   5-May..............        D
Allen Boyd......................      FL   4-Jun..............        D
Paul Kanjorski..................      PA   17-Jun.............        D
Leonard Boswell.................      IA   17-Jun.............        D
Dennis Cardoza..................        CA 17-Jun.............        D
Ted Strickland..................      OH   20-Jun.............        D
Mike Ross.......................      AR   ...................        D
Stephanie Herseth...............  .......  ...................        D
Earl Pomeroy....................  .......  ...................        D
Jim DeMint......................       SC  3-Sep..............        R
Joe WIlson......................       SC  3-Sep..............        R
Tim Johnson.....................      IL   3-Sep..............        R
Dan Burton......................      IN   4-Sep..............        R
Ed Schrock......................      VA   4-Sep..............        R
Jo Ann Davis....................      VA   4-Sep..............        R
Jeb Hensarling..................      TX   5-Sep..............        R
John Carter.....................      TX   5-Sep..............        R
Kevin Brady.....................      TX   5-Sep..............        R
Pete Sessions...................      TX   5-Sep..............        R
David Vitter....................      LA   9-Sep..............        R
Dennis Rehberg..................      MT   9-Sep..............        R
Lamar Smith.....................      TX   9-Sep..............        R
Michael Burgess.................      TX   9-Sep..............        R
Ralph Hall......................      TX   9-Sep..............        R
Randy Neugebauer................      TX   9-Sep..............        R
Sam Johnson.....................      TX   9-Sep..............        R
Butch Otter.....................      ID   10-Sep.............        R
Rodney Alexander................      LA   10-Sep.............        R
Chris Cannon....................      UT   10-Sep.............        R
Ron Paul........................      TX   10-Sep.............        R
Terry Everett...................      AL   10-Sep.............        R
Adam Putnam.....................      FL   11-Sep.............        R
Joe Barton......................      TX   11-Sep.............        R
Todd Platts.....................      PA   11-Sep.............        R
Candice Miller..................      MI   12-Sep.............        R
Virgil Goode....................      VA   12-Sep.............        R
Barbara Cubin...................      WY   16-Sep.............        R
Phil Gingrey....................      GA   16-Sep.............        R
John Sullivan...................      OK   17-Sep.............        R
Ron Lewis.......................      KY   17-Sep.............        R
Spencer Bachus..................      AL   22-Sep.............        R
John Duncan.....................      TN   23-Sep.............        R
Marsha Blackburn................      TN   23-Sep.............        R
Bill Janklow....................      SD   24-Sep.............        R
Bob Ney.........................      OH   24-Sep.............        R
Ernest Istook...................      OK   24-Sep.............        R
John Mica.......................      FL   24-Sep.............        R
Nathan Deal.....................      GA   24-Sep.............        R
Bob Goodlatte...................      VA   25-Sep.............        R
Pat Toomey......................      PA   25-Sep.............        R
John Doolittle..................        CA 26-Sep.............        R
Mac Collins.....................      GA   26-Sep.............        R
Mike Rogers (AL)................      AL   26-Sep.............        R
Roscoe Bartlett.................      MD   26-Sep.............        R
Cass Ballenger..................       NC  29-Sep.............        R
Duke Cunningham.................        CA 29-Sep.............        R
Jeb Bradley.....................      NH   29-Sep.............        R
Marilyn Musgrave................        CO 29-Sep.............        R
Roger Wicker....................      MS   29-Sep.............        R
Steve King......................      IA   29-Sep.............        R
Thaddeus McCotter...............      MI   29-Sep.............        R
Wally Herger....................        CA 29-Sep.............        R
Chip Pickering..................      MS   30-Sep.............        R
Chris Chocola...................      IN   30-Sep.............        R
Eric Cantor.....................      VA   30-Sep.............        R
Ginny Brown-Waite...............      FL   30-Sep.............        R
Gresham Barrett.................       SC  30-Sep.............        R
Jeff Miller.....................      FL   30-Sep.............        R
Jim Gibbons.....................      NV   30-Sep.............        R
Robin Hayes.....................       NC  30-Sep.............        R
Sam Graves......................      MO   30-Sep.............        R
Steve Pearce....................      NM   30-Sep.............        R
Tom Feeney......................      FL   30-Sep.............        R
Trent Franks....................      AZ   30-Sep.............        R
Duncan Hunter...................        CA 1-Oct..............        R
Jo Bonner.......................      AL   1-Oct..............        R
John Hostettler.................      IN   1-Oct..............        R
Todd Akin.......................      MO   1-Oct..............        R
Henry Brown.....................       SC  2-Oct..............        R
John Boozman....................      AR   2-Oct..............        R
John Culberson..................      TX   3-Oct..............        R
Roy Blunt.......................      MO   3-Oct..............        R
John Kline......................      MN   6-Oct..............        R
Johnny Isakson..................      GA   6-Oct..............        R
Don Young.......................      AK   7-Oct..............        R
Mike Simpson....................      ID   7-Oct..............        R
Rick Renzi......................      AZ   7-Oct..............        R
Bill Shuster....................      PA   8-Oct..............        R
Mike Pence......................      IN   8-Oct..............        R
Todd Tiahrt.....................      KS   8-Oct..............        R
Donald Manzullo.................      IL   9-Oct..............        R
Jack Kingston...................      GA   9-Oct..............        R
Philip Crane....................      IL   9-Oct..............        R
Charlie Norwood.................      GA   10-Oct.............        R
Jim Ryun........................      KA   10-Oct.............        R
Richard Baker...................      LA   14-Oct.............        R
Rob Bishop......................      UT   14-Oct.............        R
Joseph Pitts....................      PA   15-Oct.............        R
Lee Terry.......................      NE   15-Oct.............        R
Mike Rogers (MI)................      MI   15-Oct.............        R
Zach Wamp.......................      TN   17-Oct.............        R
Jerry Weller....................      IL   20-Oct.............        R
Jim McCrery.....................      LA   20-Oct.............        R
Robert Aderholt.................      AL   20-Oct.............        R
Bob Beauprez....................        CO 21-Oct.............        R
Henry Bonilla...................      TX   21-Oct.............        R
Randy Forbes....................      VA   21-Oct.............        R
Thomas Petri....................      WI   21-Oct.............        R
Melissa Hart....................      PA   23-Oct.............        R
Billy Tauzin....................      LA   27-Oct.............        R
Steve Buyer.....................      IN   28-Oct.............        R
Deborah Pryce...................      OH   29-Oct.............        R
Fred Upton......................      MI   29-Oct.............        R
Thomas Reynolds.................      NY   30-Oct.............        R
William Jenkins.................      TN   30-Oct.............        R
Steve Chabot....................      OH   31-Oct.............        R
Cliff Stearns...................      FL   3-Nov..............        R
William Thornberry..............      TX   3-Nov..............        R
Scott Garrett...................      NJ   5-Nov..............        R
Ken Calvert.....................        CA 7-Nov..............        R
Phil English....................      PA   12-Nov.............        R
Devin Nunes.....................        CA 18-Nov.............        R
Max Burns.......................      GA   19-Nov.............        R
Tom Tancredo....................        CO 21-Nov.............        R
Jim Nussle......................      IA   24-Nov.............        R
Tom Cole........................      OK   1-Dec..............        R
Ric Keller......................      FL   9-Jan..............        R
Scott McInnis...................        CO 22-Jan.............        R
Walter Jones....................       NC  26-Jan.............        R
Sue Myrick......................       NC  28-Jan.............        R
Dana Rohrabacher................        CA 29-Jan.............        R
John Peterson...................      PA   29-Jan.............        R
Mario Diaz-Balart...............      FL   29-Jan.............        R
Paul Ryan.......................    Wisc   4-Feb..............        R
Joel Hefley.....................        CO 9-Feb..............        R
Frank Lucas.....................      OK   26-Feb.............        R
Nick Smith......................      MI   26-Feb.............        R
Darrell Issa....................        CA 9-Mar..............        R
Gary G. Miller..................        CA 11-Mar.............        R
Jeff Flake......................      AZ   12-Mar.............        R
Tom Latham......................      IA   22-Mar.............        R
Kenny Hulshof...................      MO   25-Mar.............        R
Nicholas Lampson................      TX   31-Mar.............        R
Gary Miller.....................        CA 1-Apr..............        R
Curt Weldon.....................      PA   5-Apr..............        R
George Radanovich...............        CA 23-Apr.............        R
Sherwood Boehlert...............      NY   23-Apr.............        R
Charles Taylor..................       NC  26-Apr.............        R
Dave Weldon.....................      FL   26-Apr.............        R
Greg Walden.....................      OR   28-Apr.............        R
Jo Ann Emerson..................      MO   28-Apr.............        R
Shelley M. Capito...............      WV   4-May..............        R
Richard Pombo...................        CA 5-May..............        R
Harold Rogers...................      KY   12-May.............        R
Dave Camp.......................      MI   17-May.............        R
Katherine Harris................      FL   17-May.............        R
Gil Gutknecht...................      MN   19-May.............        R
Jim Gerlach.....................      PA   19-May.............        R
Mark Kennedy....................      MN   1-Jun..............        R
Steven LaTourette...............      OH   2-Jun..............        R
Anne Northup....................      KY   4-Jun..............        R
Richard Burr....................       NC  4-Jun..............        R
Doc Hastings....................      WA   9-Jun..............        R
Don Sherwood....................      PA   9-Jun..............        R
George Nethercutt...............      WA   9-Jun..............        R
Howard McKeon...................        CA 9-Jun..............        R
John McHugh.....................      NY   9-Jun..............        R
John Shimkus....................      IL   9-Jun..............        R
Jerry Moran.....................      KS   14-Jun.............        R
Ed Whitfield....................      KY   15-Jun.............        R
Charles Bass....................      NH   16-Jun.............        R
John Linder.....................      GA   16-Jun.............        R
Tom DeLay.......................      TX   16-Jun.............        R
Ander Crenshaw..................      FL   17-Jun.............        R
Ed Royce........................        CA 17-Jun.............        R
John Boehner....................      OH   17-Jun.............        R
John Sweeney....................      NY   17-Jun.............        R
Kay Granger.....................      TX   17-Jun.............        R
Patrick Tiberi..................      OH   17-Jun.............        R
Paul Gillmor....................      OH   18-Jun.............        R
Jerry Lewis.....................        CA 20-Jun.............        R
Joseph Knollenberg..............      MI   20-Jun.............        R
Michael Bilirakis...............      FL   20-Jun.............        R
Elton Gallegly..................        CA 22-Jun.............        R
John Shadegg....................      AZ   22-Jun.............        R
Lincoln Diaz-Balart.............      FL   22-Jun.............        R
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.............      FL   6-Jul..............        R
Michael Turner..................      OH   8-Jul..............        R
Howard Coble....................       NC  15-Jul.............        R
Hoekstra........................  .......  21-Jul.............        R
Oxley...........................  .......  21-Jul.............        R
Jim Kolbe.......................  .......  ...................        R
Judy Biggert....................  .......  ...................        R
Portman.........................  .......  ...................        R
Regula..........................  .......  ...................        R
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  There have been a number of statements made about jurisdiction, 
process and so on. I was put under a very tough standard and that was 
that a majority of this Congress had to back my bill before it would be 
allowed to come to the floor. That is a very tough standard. Then after 
we achieved that, we were told we had to have a majority of the 
Committee on Government Reform, which we have, a bipartisan majority of 
the Committee on Government Reform. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis) has stated openly and consistently that he opposes this 
bill. At the same time he also made it clear to the Committee on Rules 
that he understood that a majority of the Committee on Government 
Reform, a bipartisan majority of the Committee on Government Reform, 
supported this

[[Page H7749]]

bill and that he would approve of the Committee on Rules going ahead, 
in effect. He would still oppose the bill, still does oppose the bill 
and always will oppose the bill as he has done because he has been very 
consistent on this issue.
  But there was also a statement made as though we were, ``we'' being 
the Republican leadership as well as outside groups, trying to 
intimidate these poor western Members in the United States who were 
afraid of ads.
  First, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), people in tough races, actually believe in gun rights. That 
is why they are on the bill. It is demeaning to have their colleagues 
undermine them on the House floor and imply that the only reason they 
got in the bill was for political purposes. That is things like people 
from our side would say about people from their side. Their own side 
should not be saying that. Furthermore, the last I saw, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) are not in tough races and they are 
not intimidated by outside groups.
  This bill has 45 Democratic cosponsors in addition to the majority of 
the Republican Party. When we talk about bipartisan legislation, this 
is bipartisan legislation. The D.C. handgun ban has failed. It has 
failed miserably. This bill is demanded by the people of the United 
States. They wrote into their Members. Members from both parties got on 
this bill. This is a good rule, and I hope Members will support and 
pass this rule and pass the bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I am 
here today to fight a closed rule on what will be one of the more 
tragic pieces of legislation that we try to pass through the House of 
Representatives. We have very important interests that are being 
ignored by this closed rule.
  Guns are disproportionately killing our children in our cities and 
this law has no basis to be here in front of us today. DC has its own 
rules regulating purchasing and owning a gun, and we do not need to 
create legislation to usurp their power and go against their interest.
  We are drowned in rhetoric saying that a Member of Congress who does 
not think handguns should be floating freely on our streets is someone 
who is anti-gun and wants to take our hunting rifles away. That is not 
this bill before us. You can keep your hunting rifles, you can keep 
your loaded guns in your business, but you do need some semblance of 
order on the street, where a small, innocent mistake encounter can turn 
into a massive bloodbath once guns are used instead of words.
  Right now, DC's local laws do not prevent law abiding citizens from 
owning a firearm. Since 1976, District residents have registered over 
100,000 firearms (mostly rifles and shotguns) with the Metropolitan 
Police Department (MPD).
  Study after study is showing that guns protect very few at home and 
result in thousands of Americans killed in family and acquaintance 
quarrels, domestic violence and suicides. Guns obtained legally end up 
as weapons in domestic or neighborhood quarrels. Is this what we want 
in our neighborhoods? What is wrong with the mentality that it takes 
guns to solve problems and make people feel safe?
  As a member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, we 
need to be doing everything we can to keep the men and women who 
protect the nation's capital out of harm's way. The nation's capital is 
under an orange alert.
  Placing more unregulated guns in the streets of DC undermines 
homeland security measures. Why must we compromise our own homeland 
security efforts by bringing more handguns to the streets? Where are 
our priorities?
  I have been collaborating with my colleague and good friend from the 
District of Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. She can echo 
that DC's current firearm laws are working. 97% of all guns used in 
crimes in DC originate outside of DC and 59% of traceable guns were 
first purchased in Maryland and Virginia. In addition, 8% of traceable 
guns were bought in North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and South 
Carolina. It is a travesty that her concerns are being ignored, both by 
the House Rules committee and by the larger body.
  As legislators, we must take our role in as decision makers very 
seriously. This includes knowing when we have overstepped our bounds. 
Please, listen to the people of DC to hear if they want guns on their 
streets.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________