Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 120 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7758-H7776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H7758]]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 803, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3193) to restore second amendment rights in the District
of Columbia, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3193 is as follows:

H.R. 3193

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia
Personal Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
protects the rights of individuals, including those who are
not members of a militia or engaged in military service or
training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia
are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns
that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the
rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful
defense of persons, homes, and families.
(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita
murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to
local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding
persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and
their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide
comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District
of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of
Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of
firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there
is no need for local laws which only disarm law-abiding
citizens.
(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of
Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens
under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
and thereby enhance public safety.

SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the
killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of
Columbia'', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-
303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``This section shall not be construed to
permit the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or
regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit,
constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of
persons otherwise permitted to possess firearms under Federal
law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses,
or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful
purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor
regulated by the National Firearms Act. The District of
Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or
regulations that discourage or eliminate the private
ownership or use of firearms.''.

SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of
1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to
read as follows:
``(10) Machine gun means any firearm which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to
shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of
the trigger.''.

SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official
Code) is amended by striking ``any firearm, unless'' and all
that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the
following: ``any firearm described in subsection (c).''.
(b) Description of Firearms Remaining Illegal.--Section 201
of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the
following:
``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
``(2) A machine gun.
``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.

SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
(sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
(sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.

Sections 202 through 211 of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11,
D.C. Official Code) are repealed.

SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF
UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.--Section 706 of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``that:'' and all that follows through
``(1) A'' and inserting ``that a''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the
60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A PISTOL IN
ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932
(47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other
land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded,''
before ``a pistol''; and
(2) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows
through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that
if the violation''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the
60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of
this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the
amendment printed in House Report 108-707 is considered adopted.
The text of H.R. 3193, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 803,
is as follows:

H.R. 3193

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia
Personal Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

[[Page H7759]]

2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the
following:
``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
``(2) A machine gun.
``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.

SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
(sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
(sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.

Sections 202 through 211 of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11,
D.C. Official Code) are repealed.

SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF
UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN
ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932
(47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``a
pistol,'' and inserting the following: ``except in his
dwelling house or place of business or on other land
possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a
firearm,''; and
(2) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows
through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that
if the violation''.
(b) Treatment of Certain Exceptions.--Section 5(a) of such
Act (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4505(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``pistol'' each place it appears and
inserting ``firearm''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, or to any person while carrying or
transporting a firearm used in connection with an organized
military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target
practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a firearms or hunter
safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or
show, or the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or
all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for
public or private exhibition while the person is engaged in,
on the way to, or returning from that activity if each
firearm is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an
enclosed holster, or to any person carrying or transporting a
firearm in compliance with sections 926A, 926B or 926C of
title 18, United States Code.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the
60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of
this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

General Leave

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 3193, and to include extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, we will be debating a bill that will go a long way in
protecting the constitutional rights of the residents of the District
of Columbia.
As all may know, currently in Washington, D.C., citizens are
prevented from owning any handgun at all. I am bringing before you
today a bill 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.
In 1976, 2 years after Congress had granted the District of Columbia
home rule, the D.C. City Council passed a bill which repealed the
handgun ban in the District. The handgun ban actually arrested
progress. In the 5 years before 1976, when the handgun ban was put into
effect, the murder rate in the District of Columbia had fallen to 27
per 100,000 from 37 per 100,000, according to researchers at the
American Enterprise Institute. Five years after the ban, the murders
had climbed back to 35 for every 100,000 residents. From that point, it
became worse.
In the 13 years between 1987 and 2000, D.C. earned the dubious
distinction as the murder capital of the United States. In 2002, it
once again had the highest murder rate per 100,000 residents, making it
the murder capital of the United States 14 of the last 15 years.
There have been a lot of misunderstandings and miscommunication about
what this bill does and does not do. So I will address the bill's
provisions in the order in which they appear in the bill.
First, the bill prohibits the District from prohibiting residents
from possessing a firearm that is legal for them to possess under
Federal law, while still maintaining the Federal ban on private
possession of any firearm regulated by the National Firearms Act.
Second, the bill would bring the District's definition of a machine
gun into conformity with Federal law and the laws of the States.
Currently, the District defines the term machine gun to include
firearms that fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled. That is
not what a machine gun is, of course. A machine gun fires repeatedly
when the trigger is pulled and held back. The District's definition is
simply factually incorrect, and this bill will perform the necessary
correction.
Third, the bill eliminates the District's firearms registration
requirement and, logically, eliminates the penalty for the possession
of an unregistered firearm. This does not, however, in any way change
the Federal requirement that firearm dealers maintain records of
firearm sales. Dealers will still be required to maintain Federal forms
which identify the purchasers of firearms by name, address, date and
place of birth, and other factors.
Fourth, the bill eliminates the District's ban on private possession
of handguns and handgun ammunition.
Fifth, the bill eliminates the District's ban on the use of firearms
for protection at home. Currently, the District prohibits a person from
having even a lawfully owned firearm at home, loaded and assembled, and
unlocked.
While some States have laws designed to have people keep firearms
secured in a similar fashion when they are unattended, the District's
law requires people to keep firearms unloaded and disassembled or
locked even if a violent criminal is attacking them in their homes.
The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 States, Federal law,
and the laws of all 50 States, and the vast majority of Americans
recognize the right to use firearms for personal protection. Only the
District of Columbia prohibits a person from having a firearm assembled
and loaded at home for the purpose of self-defense.
That is why 229 Members of this body are not supporters of the bill,
they are cosponsors of this bill. Forty-four of the cosponsors are
Democrats. This is truly bipartisan legislation that has come up from
the demands of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to begin by noting the ludicrous logic on
which this debate has already begun. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder), the prime sponsor, has just argued that gun safety laws cause
murders by arguing the fallacious notion of causation. I am embarrassed
for the statement.
Mr. Speaker, in my nearly 14 years in Congress, I have come to regard
Members not only as colleagues but as friends. At the same time, I have
seen various Members of Congress try to do some low-down, dirty, mean
things to the people of the District of Columbia, all to promote their
own political agendas against the will of the people who live here.
This bill to repeal the city's gun safety laws, when child gun
killings have sharply increased, scrapes the bottom of the lowest level
yet. As citizens, we in the District of Columbia do not take attacks on
our all-American right to self-government lying down. I am grateful
that these attacks occur less frequently today, and am particularly
grateful to the appropriators who have

[[Page H7760]]

discouraged the use of the D.C. appropriation for such attacks.
Congress has seen that we are prepared to fight and fight hard, with
D.C. appropriation fights in the past sometimes lasting 8 to 10 hours,
with vetoes of our appropriation that we encourage to compel changes.
And Congress has seen that we are always prepared to take the fight to
the home district of a Member to let his own constituents know that
their Member is taking time from their concerns to mettle in the local
business of a local jurisdiction far from home.

{time} 1300

Notwithstanding prior fights on D.C. matters, the attempt to repeal
our gun safety laws is a brand new low for this body. That we are here
discussing this matter is yet a new low. Repeal shows special contempt
for the people who live here because the city has sharply reduced its
homicide rate, now at a 20-year low, down almost 25 percent this year
alone, and down 55 percent since the assault weapon ban and the Brady
bill were passed in 1994. At the same time, the city is heartbroken
that 16 children have been killed by gunfire, more than in any recent
year.
Repeal advocates claim they want guns here to help people protect
themselves. Can repeal help the children killed by guns in increasing
numbers here in the Nation's Capital to protect themselves?
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the 16 names of the children
killed by gunfire this year, and an article on Chelsea Cromartie, the
youngest of these children.

More Guns Mean More Children Dying

Robert Adams, 16; Chelsea Cromartie, 8; Devaun Drayton, 17;
Javon Gaskins, 16; Timothy Hamilton, 15; Jahkema Hansen, 14;
Antoine Holroyd, 16; Myesha Lowe, 15; David McMorris, 16;
James Richardson, 17; Michael Simms, 17; Franklin Smith, 17;
Wardell Smith, 17; Michael Swann, 13; Roderick Valentine, 16
and Ashley Walker, 16.
D.C. Homicides Down 24% this year but, more children slain
by guns in the first 5 months of this year than in all of
last year and more than in any recent years.
Save Our Children.
____

[From the Washington Post, May 16, 2004]

Outrage Speeded Probe of Killing

chelsea's death galvanized police

(By Del Quentin Wilber)

The killing of 8-year-old Chelsea Cromartie generated a
powerful response from the D.C. police. While homicide
investigators worked the streets, teams of officers passed
out fliers and set up roadblocks in an exhaustive search for
witnesses. Top officials appealed for help and boosted a
reward for clues.
Aided by a tip, police identified two suspects within a
week of the Northeast Washington shooting. The police work
drew praise from neighborhood leaders and fulfilled a promise
made by top officials that they would catch whoever fired the
bullets that missed their targets and flew into the home that
Chelsea was visiting May 3.
Not every homicide in the District commands so much
attention. In a city that is struggling with one of the
nation's highest homicide rates, police must make difficult
decisions about how to deploy resources. Witnesses frequently
are difficult to locate and, even when found, sometimes
refuse to give information. This year, police say, the
homicide clearance rate is less than 60 percent.
Commanders and former top officers said they must assess a
variety of factors after each killing--from the type of crime
and the victim's history to how readily witnesses will help
them. Although police insist that they investigate each
homicide thoroughly, they said they often feel like
battlefield surgeons performing triage.
The choices inevitably add to the grief of family members
of victims whose crimes go unsolved.
Some D.C. Council members and victims' rights advocates
said the department should use Chelsea's case as a model for
future investigations by adding homicide detectives and
offering bigger rewards. It is not fair, they said, that some
slayings get more attention than others.
``Should one murder be more important than another
murder?'' asked Kenneth E. Barnes Sr., whose son was slain in
September 2001. ``I don't think so.''
Barnes's son, Kenneth Barnes Jr., 37, was a well-known shop
owner on U Street NW who was killed during an apparent
robbery attempt. The killer was sentenced to prison in that
case. Barnes has since attempted to aid the families of other
victims by creating a nonprofit group called Reaching Out to
Victims Together.
Kami Emanuel's fiance, Derrick Taylor, was killed about
6:45 a.m. May 9 in Northeast Washington. She said detectives
appear to be working hard but wondered why they have not
raised the reward, now up to $25,000, in the case.
``A murder is a murder,'' said Emanuel, 27.
Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said the department takes
every killing seriously. He said he did not hesitate to focus
so heavily on Chelsea's case. The third-grader was shot in
the head while watching television in her aunt's home, and
her aunt was wounded by another of the stray shots that came
through the living room window.
The community was outraged, Ramsey noted, with scores of
people attending a candlelight vigil and dozens calling
police with tips. The killing became the lead story on local
television broadcasts and was front-page news. Ramsey said
police believed that they had a solid chance at solving the
case if they acted aggressively, and they did not want to let
any leads slip past them.
``It was hot,'' Ramsey said. ``Not every case generates
that kind of interest.''
The nature of the crime and Chelsea's age attracted
community attention and sympathy that helped fuel the urgency
to solve the case. Detectives and other officers also could
imagine their own daughter dying in such a senseless way,
police officials said.
``Some cases, you don't have to ask guys to come forward
and work,'' said lawyer W. Louis Hennessy, former commander
of the D.C. homicide unit. ``These are unique cases. The guys
take it upon themselves to go the extra mile.''
Last summer, as the department was under pressure as
homicides spiked, Ramsey raised the rewards offered in
homicide cases from $10,000 to $25,000 per victim. In
Chelsea's case, the department swiftly doubled it to $50,000.
The amount eventually reached $75,000 after a private
contribution.
The donation came from William E. Schuiling, a Michigan
resident and chairman of Brown's Automotive Group, which has
dealerships in the Washington area. He pledged $225,000 more
to help police solve other slayings of children. ``Nothing is
more sickening or despicable to me as when someone kills an
innocent child,'' he wrote in a letter to Ramsey.
Ramsey said officers and investigators were added to deal
with the high volume of calls and leads about Chelsea's
slaying. One crucial tip helped lead to the arrests of
brothers Raashed and Ricardo Hall, who were charged with
first-degree murder.
Community pressure and an all-out blitz by police are
hardly guarantees that cases will be solved quickly. It took
police nearly two years to solve the 1997 triple slaying at a
Starbucks coffee shop in Georgetown. It took nearly a year to
make arrests in the April 2003 slayings of three employees at
Colonel Brooks' Tavern. And the slaying of former intern
Chandra Levy remains unsolved three years after she
disappeared.
Police received scores of tips in all three of those
investigations. But such community interest in homicides--the
city recorded 248 killings last year--is not common,
detectives say.
Last year, Ramsey released a surveillance tape that showed
a daylight killing at a Northeast Washington gas station--and
witnesses doing nothing to report the crime or assist the
victim. The killing of Allen E. Price remains unsolved.
Police detectives tell countless stories about
uncooperative witnesses, even relatives who saw their loved
ones killed but won't point out the killer. In some cases,
witnesses fear they will be targeted. Police and prosecutors
said that witness intimidation has been a long-standing
obstacle to solving crimes.
Also, police said, friends of some victims would rather
avenge killings on their own than help officials.
Investigators said they often identify suspects only to
stumble when trying to persuade witnesses to come forward.
Two days before Chelsea was slain, D.C. police were called
to investigate a midafternoon killing in a Southeast
Washington housing complex. Detectives quickly discovered
evidence that pointed to a gun battle: Shell casings from at
least four weapons littered the street.
Scores of residents watched as technicians and detectives
scouted for evidence, recalled Lt. Guy Middleton of the
violent crime unit. Yet despite the public nature of the
gunfight in the Barry Farm complex and detectives canvassing
and recanvassing the neighborhood, no one came forward with
information, Middleton said. The slaying of Antonio Blakely,
18, who lived in another part of town, remains unsolved.
``It's frustrating,'' said Middleton, a veteran homicide
investigator and supervisor. ``The people continued to stand
there when the police arrived. All were out there when it
happened.''
D.C. Council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, said police could do more in solving
homicides. She said officials should add more detectives and
resources for investigations. ``Every case should have the
kind of tenacity and commitment'' that the Chelsea case did,
Patterson said.
But some former police officials said that certain
killings--such as Chelsea's--demand more attention.
``There is something exceptional about this homicide,''
said Isaac Fulwood Jr., the District's police chief from 1989
to 1993, comparing the handling of the case to how officers
work round-the-clock to solve the killing of fellow officers.
``You can't shoot 8-year-old girls sitting in their house
watching television,'' Fulwood said. ``Everybody was fired up
by this little 8-year-old girl. I don't care what you have to
stop doing, you have to get on this homicide. That is the
reality of it.''

[[Page H7761]]

Mr. Speaker, more guns in the Nation's Capital is a new low because
it makes a mockery of our congressional obligation and of our actions
to secure the Nation's Capital against terrorism. Only Washington, D.C.
and New York City are under an orange alert. No car can travel on the
streets approaching the Capitol without getting in checkpoint lines for
police to inspect the inside of the car. So terrified were Capitol
Police of possible terrorism that they rushed to put permanent 19th
century approaches in place, including closing the only major street
leading to the transportation hub of the region, Union Station.
Encouraging guns, including fully-loaded handguns and military-style
assault weapons that will soon make their way to the Nation's Capital
as we struggle under an orange alert would disgrace the Nation here and
around the world. Creating a new and expanded gun culture here in the
midst of an orange alert is an act of reckless irresponsibility.
If Members vote for H.R. 3193, Members are voting to repeal not only
D.C.'s handgun ban, but also its ban on military-style assault weapons.
Upon repeal, a loaded AK-47 or a Bushmaster, like the one used in this
region in the infamous 2002 attack by the snipers that killed 10
residents in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. and injured 5 others, this
weapon could be kept here in homes, fully loaded, in workplaces, in
businesses.
D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey warns that these guns would make
their way so quickly to the streets they would not have enough men and
women to confiscate them all, even though they have confiscated record
numbers this year. And he said yesterday when he came here to specially
plead against this bill that this bill would increase gunfires in the
streets of the Nation's Capital and drive-by shootings.
Astonishing, if Members vote for H.R. 3193, Members will be voting to
allow children under 18 years of age to own semiautomatic and assault
weapons. This year, the very year that 16 children have died from
gunfire, the year dominated in the local news by grieving for children
killed by guns, Members will be voting to allow people to carry guns
who have been declared by a court to be chronic alcoholics or to have
negligently killed someone with a gun.
If Members vote for H.R. 3193, Members will be voting to repeal a
requirement that gun owners notify police if guns have been stolen or
lost. Surely at a time when guns are being used by kids to kill kids
here, it should be a requirement of citizenship to at least warn the
police that a gun has fallen into the hands of criminals.
A vote for repeal is a vote against the requirement that handguns and
semiautomatic weapons be kept locked away from children. That is
pathetic, Mr. Speaker. A vote for repeal is a vote for a provision in
the bill that is an earmark of its extremism. Local officials would not
be allowed to even discourage private ownership of handguns and assault
weapons.
Although the present D.C. gun law has been held to be constitutional
by Federal and local courts, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder)
and his allies nevertheless persist in citing the second amendment as
the raison d'etre for this bill. Therefore, I invite the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and other proponents to divert some of their
attention from the second amendment to the first. Despite their
efforts, they will not be able to keep me, Mayor Williams, or School
Superintendent Clifford Janey or other residents from discouraging the
use and ownership of weapons.
The Constitution may allow the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) to
deny me a vote this very day on this bill that affects only the people
I represent in the District of Columbia, but the gentleman cannot
silence me or anybody else in the District on the matter of guns or on
any other matter. The insult to American principles of self-government
and home rule is too obvious and painful to belabor.
This bill is the best argument for home rule. We see in this bill why
local control is a core principle of American citizenship. As a people,
we stand for the proposition that local matters are for local people.
No matter is more local than public safety close to home. No one is in
a better position to write laws about safety in the homes, the
workplaces, the businesses and the streets of the local jurisdiction
than those who must live under those laws 24-7.
This bill, we are told, has the paternalistic purpose of allowing the
poor, ignorant, elected officials and people of the District of
Columbia to protect themselves. Thank you very much, presumably because
we are lesser beings who do not even have enough sense to figure out
the most basic of principles concerning their own public safety. What
we cannot figure out is how gun safety repeal would have enabled
Chelsea Cromartie, 8 years old, a third grader, to have protected
herself from the stray bullet that killed her, although she was inside
in the living room of her own aunt.
This bill has gathered residents into a tight no-repeal coalition
from businesses in the Greater Washington Board of Trade to parents
whose kids were killed as bystanders near their schools. Trying to make
the case for this bill on the basis of self-defense is to dance on the
graves of Chelsea Cromartie and 15 other defenseless children killed by
gunfire this year. We in the District of Columbia refuse to dance with
you.
Mr. Speaker, in the name of the children of this city, who are at the
greatest risk if this bill passes, we simply alert Members we will
fight you now, we will fight you until the end, and then for this child
and for other children in this city, we will get up and fight you some
more.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that today
D.C.'s murder rate is still 8 times higher than the national average.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This is an emotionally charged issue and I can understand why. I
think it is important, though, that we adhere to the facts. The
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) used the words
``fallacious'' and ``ludicrous.'' It is ludicrous to suggest that if we
had a gun ban all across the country, that the bad guys would not have
guns and that the good guys would then be better off. It is ludicrous
to suggest that bad guys that do not honor the law are not going to
always have guns in this society.
It is fallacious to insinuate to people that somehow they are going
to be safer if you ban guns. There are no facts to back that up. Gun
control does not work. I am not interfering in the District of
Columbia, that is a fact everywhere in this country. Gun control does
not work. There is no science to show that it works. As a matter of
fact, what the truth is that when we control guns, the bad guys have
plenty, and there is a gun culture, and the good guys cannot defend
themselves.
In the State of Tennessee, my father-in-law has a right to carry, and
our family is safer because he does. We are in a new world. The last
time that 3,000 innocent American lives were lost on September 11, guns
were not used. Airplanes and fuel was. It was the most destructive,
violent act in our country's history in this homeland. Guns were not
there. I do not know what is next, but I think people have a right to
defend themselves, and gun control simply does not work. Public policy
should not be based on emotion, and this is emotionally charged. It
should be based on science, facts, logic, and the truth. The truth is
this policy does not work.
I just came back from Africa. I was in Dar es Salaam and
Johannesburg; dangerous cities. Interestingly, they remind me that the
city I work in here is more dangerous than the cities there. Let us be
honest about this, and let us rise above the emotion. Gun control does
not work anywhere, including the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the full committee with
jurisdiction over this bill.

{time} 1315

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The other
side

[[Page H7762]]

would have you believe that they want to repeal legislation in the
District of Columbia to stop handguns. But that is not what this bill
does. This bill repeals the District's laws on assault weapons. I want
to show a chart, if I might, because one of the assault weapons that
would be made legal if this bill passes is a semiautomatic 50-caliber
sniper weapon. This is its actual size. It is capable of taking out an
armored limousine from a mile away. Can you imagine that in the
District of Columbia someone could have this assault weapon and stick
it out of a window on Pennsylvania Avenue? We have people coming in and
out of this city who are very important to the functioning of our
government, international visitors. Yet they could own and possess this
weapon if the legislation before us passes.
We are spending millions of dollars to protect the Nation's capital
from another terrorist attack, yet we are passing legislation today
that would invite terrorists to bring assault weapons into the heart of
the Nation's capital.
There is a real irony. There are committees that are meeting today to
pass different parts of legislation based on the recommendations of the
9/11 Commission. Those recommendations were to make our Nation safe
from terrorist attacks. Yet in this bill we are telling terrorists that
it is okay for them to have assault weapons when they visit the
Nation's capital.
We are under an orange alert because someone working with al Qaeda
took photos of the World Bank, the IMF, and other buildings in D.C.
Think of the damage that person could have done if he or she had a 50-
caliber sniper weapon instead of a camera. Two years ago, this city,
this whole region was gripped with fear when a sniper systematically
stalked and killed 10 people. The gun he used was the Bushmaster XM-15
assault rifle. Along with AK-47s and Uzis, the Bushmaster assault rifle
is one of the guns that this bill would legalize.
The vast majority of the people in this Nation support the Federal
ban on assault weapons. Even the President said he supported the
continuation of the assault weapons ban, but we could not even bring it
up for a vote in the House of Representatives. Instead, the Republican
leadership in the House has brought up to the House floor legislation
that makes assault weapons legal in the Nation's capital. I wonder if
they are going to get around to mandating that each Member of Congress
buy an assault weapon rather than ban it all around this Nation.
This bill is being rushed to the floor to score political points with
the NRA. The bill is an abomination. I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it would be illegal to shoot such a weapon
now, and it would continue to be illegal to shoot such a weapon at an
armored truck or anybody else under my legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and
commend him on his legislation that I am speaking in support of.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who have the honor of serving in Congress
are in good hands. In the Capitol, in our office buildings, for several
blocks in each direction, we enjoy the protection of the Capitol
Police, the Park Police, the Secret Service and the Metropolitan
Police. Though they represent different law enforcement agencies, these
officers all have one thing in common, they all carry guns. So why is
it that residents of Washington, D.C. are forbidden from protecting
their families in this same fashion?
The D.C. police, though hardworking, do not have the resources to set
up a perimeter around neighborhoods the way they do for us. In reality,
D.C. police usually respond after a crime has been committed. Yet D.C.
residents are forbidden by law from defending themselves.
As many residents of Indiana and Virginia and Texas and Florida and
Vermont know, a firearm is an effective deterrent against crime. Even
the threat of a firearm can frighten off a criminal. John Pena, born,
raised and currently living with his family in southeast Washington,
D.C., about 13 blocks from here, was at home recovering from eye
surgery a couple of years ago when he heard a noise downstairs. Despite
his severely blurred vision, he investigated and found a burglar in his
living room. Mr. Pena is a Navy veteran and served in Vietnam, but he
was in no condition to confront this criminal. So thinking quickly, Mr.
Pena called upstairs to his retired father, ``Dad, get the gun.'' Mr.
Pena was bluffing and I do not want to suggest that he had then or has
today a firearm in his residence. But at the mention of a gun, the
thief turned and ran out the back door in such a hurry he neglected to
open the storm door, cutting himself as he crashed through it.
Mr. Speaker, we feel secure here on the Capitol grounds knowing we
are protected by men and women with guns. Tens of thousands of my
constituents in Indiana also keep their families safe with the presence
of a gun. It seems to me that a criminal's dream would be a city where
law-abiding citizens are disarmed. Preventing these law-abiding
citizens, our fellow Americans of Washington, D.C., from enjoying the
same protections the rest of us enjoy is unsafe and unfair.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I take the gentleman's suggestion that we
can scare criminals away by yelling ``gun'' but not that we have guns
in our own homes fully assembled, loaded and ready to go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, have we become unhinged in this House? The
business that most of us are engaged in all day today and the business
that we will be engaged in all next week is trying to pass responsible
reforms to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission,
recommendations intended to make us safer. While we do this, hopefully
on a bipartisan basis, we are debating today a wedge issue designed to
make the people who live in the District of Columbia, the Members of
Congress, and our families less safe.
Let us understand what we are talking about here. I am reading from
the description of this bill. We are repealing the ban on semiautomatic
weapons, we are eliminating criminal penalties for possessing an
unregistered firearm, and we are amending Federal law to eliminate
criminal penalties for carrying a pistol whether loaded or unloaded.
This is incredible, Mr. Speaker. I am astonished that this House
would even spend 2 seconds on this issue. Maybe this is good rhetoric
in somebody's campaign, but it is bad policy for the United States of
America. Shame on this House for wasting time on this bill. I strongly
oppose it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation
that is offered by my colleague from Indiana. The gentlewoman from the
District urged us to respect her and the District residents where the
city's gun laws are concerned, and I trust that she will be pleased to
know that is exactly what this bill proposes to do. This is because
right now residents of the District do not have an option. The law
prohibits them from using a firearm to defend themselves and their
families in their own homes and it prohibits them from acquiring
handguns and other guns whether for defensive, sporting, hunting, or
recreational purposes. This bill will give them an option by taking
those prohibitions away.
If anyone from the District does not want to have a gun in their home
for protection, they will not be required to do so. If they do not want
to use a gun for target practice, recreation, hunting sports, they are
not required to do so.

[[Page H7763]]

The only purpose of the bill is to give people an option, to let them
decide whether to have a gun for protection or any other of the
legitimate uses.
If no one in the city steps up to buy a gun, then that is fine,
because it is their decision. I suspect, though, that many of my
colleagues realize that there will be quite a few law-abiding
Washingtonians who will want to exercise their individual right to arms
and their right to engage in shooting sports and recreation as millions
of Americans do. This bill protects their rights.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, for the information of the gentlewoman,
100,000 guns are registered in the District of Columbia. We encourage
people to use rifles for sports.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from the District of Columbia for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Our troops are
struggling in Iraq. The budget deficit is at an all-time high. The
Republican-led Congress has failed to finish its work on the budget, on
appropriations bills, the highway bill, all of the legislation vital to
keeping our country going, and the response from the Republican
leadership? Pass a bill repealing gun laws in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill on its own merit and an affront to
the citizens of Washington, D.C. The citizens of this District have the
right to enact laws to make their neighborhoods safer without
interference from the Congress and the NRA. This is election-year
politics practiced at the expense of District residents who do not even
have a vote in the House or the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, the fight against terrorism is a focus of this
Presidential campaign, as it should be, and the fight against terrorism
is a given in our daily lives. We live in a time of high alerts.
Checkpoints now ring this Capitol. Yet passage of this bill into law
would certainly not aid in our war against terrorism. It would in fact
encourage proliferation of weapons in the immediate vicinity of the
Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, and scores of Federal
agencies and foreign embassies located throughout this city.
One would think that our congressional leadership would want us to
support the policemen and -women who work to protect us and these
institutions which are such national symbols, all of which present
tempting targets for terrorists or the deranged.
But this legislation would undermine the efforts of our local law
enforcement and put our police at even greater risk. It is an
antipolice bill, abuse of congressional power, and an attempt to draw
attention away from what we should be working on. I urge my colleagues
to vote down this ill-conceived measure.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I
learned a long time ago serving in the Colorado State legislature that
criminals do not care about the laws we pass. They do not know who
their Congressman is. They do not know who their Senators are. They do
not have respect for law or lawmakers.
Right here in Washington, D.C., there are many things that we are
extremely proud of. One of the things, though, that really is a blot is
the infamous distinction as the murder capital of the world. I think
that we need to give criminals who would commit heinous crimes in this
District of Columbia pause. I think we ought to make them wonder
whether or not an individual that they would harm, whether or not they
are going to harm a family or try to rape a woman or murder someone,
give them pause, let these criminals wonder if that individual might be
able to defend themselves.
It is important when we think that businesses in this District,
business owners can have guns on the premises, but individuals cannot
have guns that are ready to use in their homes to protect their family.
All of us know that our family members are more important to us than
any material possession that we have. We need to give individuals in
the District a right to defend themselves and we need to give these
criminals that make this the murder capital of the world a doubt in
their mind as to whether or not someone will be able to defend
themselves.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me say how much I appreciate
the Delegate from the District of Columbia for carrying on the good
fight. It is ironic that this bill proposes to implement constitutional
rights to the District of Columbia when in fact this body has not
allowed the District of Columbia to have a voting Member of the United
States Congress and voting Members of the United States Senate. This is
a cruel hoax under the guise of a constitutional amendment.
I watched some of the hearing yesterday, and it was ironic. This bill
was introduced a year ago. Since it was introduced, I thought it had
gone to the mortuary and that rigor mortis had actually set in on it,
and I was applauding it. But then I found out yesterday that it was
just in a calling period where people could come by the pew, sign the
book until you got over 200 signatures on the book, and then you get it
out.
This bill also came out after this House celebrated the life of
Ronald Reagan who was shot in this city, the District of Columbia. And
I apologize to Mr. Brady who is still paralyzed from a bullet shot in
this District. The President said he wants more minorities to join the
party of Lincoln because he was the Great Emancipator. Lest we forget,
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, too, by a bullet. He was a
Republican. Garfield was a Republican. He was assassinated.
We are so patronizing. We know what is best for the District of
Columbia. The chief of police said they do not want the bill. The Mayor
says he does not want the bill. The council does not want the bill. The
newspapers had an editorial against the bill, and we are going to
impose this anyway.
As we speak today, we are memorializing a police officer who came
from the gentleman's district, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, and was killed
last week by a bullet. A month before that, we memorialized another
police officer that was killed by a bullet, and I bet nobody on this
bill ever visited one of the families of the grandmothers that were
killed in this District.
This bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation that I have seen
as a Member of this House, and I apologize to the grieving families for
it.

{time} 1330

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
One would think that the District of Columbia has a good record
rather than eight times the national average, leading the Nation 14 of
the past 15 years in the murder rate. As a former mayor said, ``Other
than the killings, their crime rate is not too bad.'' ``Other than the
killings'' is a relevant thing here. We are trying to make sure honest
citizens can protect themselves, not just the criminals.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Carter), a member of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources Subcommittee, and a former judge.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I want to
tell some stories. For 20 years, I tried cases. I tried felony criminal
cases, drive-by shootings and other things which are the kind of stuff
we read in the newspapers in D.C. every day, and I can say that the
weapons that were used were acquired illegally and illegitimately, and
the bad guys always had the chance to get their hands on guns. But the
good guys that have guns deter crime.
We passed a right-to-carry permit in Texas after a deranged person
walked into a Luby's Cafeteria in Texas and just began randomly
shooting the diners in a crowded Luby's Cafeteria. As a result of that
right-to-carry permit, which enhanced our laws in Texas, the amount of
violent crime has fallen off about 40 percent with the use of handguns.
And what is interesting, if that same person were to walk into a Luby's
Cafeteria today, he would not know whether or not there might be
anywhere from two to 15 armed persons in that place who could return
fire, and it would deter him from doing so. And that is a proven fact.

[[Page H7764]]

The weapon that was shown today as an assault weapon, a semi-
automatic rifle, I hunt with a semi-automatic rifle, and with the right
cartridge, it will shoot through anything. But that is a perfectly
legal and legitimate weapon. An automatic weapon that fires fully
automatic is probably, as we speak, in the hands of someone who likes
to do drive-by shootings in this town because the criminals will get
their hands on fully automatic weapons, which are assault weapons and
have been against the law in this country since the 1930s.
So the reality is, if we have a ban on guns, we ban those guns from
the people who need to protect themselves.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on
Government Reform.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 3193, and I respect the gentleman from Indiana's perspective on
this issue. I think there is room in the House for disagreement. But my
opposition is based on the legislation's blatant and potentially
dangerous assault on home rule in the District of Columbia.
There is an appropriate place for debate on D.C.'s gun laws, and that
place is the chambers of the District of Columbia Council, not the
floor of the House of Representatives.
This bill repeals protections from gun violence that have been sought
by the citizens of the District. It would end the city's ban on semi-
automatic assault weapons, its ban on armor-piercing or ``cop killing''
ammunition, its requirement for gun registration. Even if we want to
debate the merits of the gun laws, no one should question the
importance of keeping fully loaded assault weapons off the streets of
the Nation's capital.
Ninety-seven percent of all guns used in crimes in the District
originate outside the District. Children in the Nation's capital are
already at risk. This year, 21 young people in the District, all of
them under 18 years of age, have been killed, most of them by gunshot.
Our priority should be in reducing this disturbing rise in juvenile
slayings, and I do not think this legislation helps.
The crime rate, by the way, in the city is going down. The police
chief was quoted just last week as saying a 13 percent drop in overall
crime this year, 24 percent reduction in homicides this year.
Proponents of this bill want to frame this debate in terms of the
constitutionality of the District's law, but that is a straw man.
Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court rejected constitutional
challenge to the District's statute. This is a home rule fight. We do
not allow the city a vote on the House floor, and now, we are taking
away the rights of the Council and the elected mayor of the city to
make decisions that they have made and will omit Oak Park, Chicago,
Evanston, Illinois. We are not touching those areas that have
representation in this body. We are just dealing with the Nation's
capital. For our system of federalism and democracy to work, States and
localities need to be able to make their own decisions on these sorts
of matters, even if some of us think they are bad decisions.
We are only here today because of Congress's plenary power over the
District. This is a constitutional authority that is unfortunately
occasionally abused as it is in this case.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairman of the
Committee on Government Reform, this is a constitutional argument, and
I rise today to express my support for the D.C. Personal Protection
Act, which would restore the second amendment rights for the residents
of Washington, D.C.
This legislation will allow law-abiding citizens the right to own
rifles, shotguns and handguns and permit the storage of these firearms
in their homes. The District of Columbia, again, has been labeled the
murder capital of America, and that is 14 of the past 15 years. And
that is despite its current ban on guns. It is time we lift this
ineffective law and bring back the constitutional rights of individuals
who reside in our Nation's capital.
Under the current law, even legal handgun owners cannot carry them
into their own homes or use illegal firearms to protect their life or
property. In 2002, while this gun ban had been in effect for 25 years,
Washington's homicide rate was five times higher than the national
average. It is obvious the ban is not working.
The D.C. Personal Protection Act would eliminate criminal penalties
for legal possession of firearms and repeal the ban on the possession
of ammunition. If enacted, this legislation will simply afford
residents the same self-defense as the rest of the country.
It is easy for my friends on the other side of the aisle and the
editorial board of the Washington Post who live in affluent or safe
neighborhoods to take aim at the personal freedoms of law-abiding
citizens here in Washington, D.C., and many of them living in the
southwest live in neighborhoods that have become battlegrounds where
criminals run the streets. So it is time to give them the right to
defend their lives, their personal property. Congress must take action
and give that second amendment right back to the law-abiding citizens
of Washington, D.C.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My law-abiding citizens in the southeast and everywhere else in the
District of Columbia have not elected this Member but only the Member
before him. So I would appreciate the courtesy of his not telling me
what the law-abiding citizens of the southeast want or need. They will
get rid of me if I am doing the wrong thing today. They cannot touch
him, unfortunately, if he does the wrong thing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, when I listen to this debate
and I hear everyone talking about giving the people of D.C. the right
to protect themselves, we have seen crime deterred here in the D.C.
area. We are seeing less gun violence here in the D.C. area. But,
again, last night in the Committee on Rules, we tried to at least ban
assault weapons in the D.C. area, large-capacity clips, killer bullets.
Unfortunately, all those amendments were turned down.
We heard earlier from the other side of the aisle that we have all
the security of the Capitol Hill Police. We do, and we are very lucky
on that. And now, we are going to put them all at risk because they are
going to be allowed to have the guns back in the D.C. area.
This is absolutely crazy. Assault weapons coming into the D.C. area
when our men out there and our women out there are there to protect us.
And, by the way, I happen to think by reducing gun violence there has
to be several approaches: Enforce the laws on the books; make it harder
for criminals to be able to get the guns; and why in God's name are we
cutting out the COPS Program? We have seen, going on across this Nation
and here in D.C., that it works. And yet we are going to take that
program away. The people of D.C. have the right for home rule. They do
not want the guns. I think they know better than those Members here in
Congress who are not living in the D.C. area.
So, with that, I hope that we can defeat H.R. 3193. And it is not
fair. This is not democracy, and reducing gun violence can happen. Over
30,000 people a year die on that. It costs this Nation a billion
dollars in health care. We can do a better job.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the State of Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the second amendment
to the Constitution clearly prohibits the Federal Government from
denying law-abiding citizens, let me underline that, law-abiding
citizens the right to own and bear arms. Yet the residents in our
Nation's capital are deprived of this right. Full-time and part-time
residents like Members of Congress are actually denied the right to
defend themselves. This is the very city that is the home to America's
experiment in democracy. It deprives its citizens of one of our most
basic and sacred rights.

[[Page H7765]]

D.C. is a prime example of the failure of radical gun-control
policies. The city has one of the most restrictive gun-control policies
in the country, and yet D.C. is infamous for its exorbitant amount of
violent crime. The city has gun-control but not very much crime
control.
Since 1976, the residents of our Nation's capital have been deprived
of the right to bear arms, the right to protect their homes and the
right not to be victimized. For 28 years, D.C. families have been held
hostage. D.C. communities and homes are no longer safe. Unfortunately,
they have become targets for theft and violent crimes. Regrettably,
individuals on my D.C. staff who live here have suffered the effects of
poor crime control. In addition to my staff, I have personally
experienced situations where I have felt threatened in and around my
D.C. residence. I believe that I should be able to defend myself
against assault, theft and other violent crimes in D.C., the same as I
am able to do in the State of Florida because I have a carry permit.
And I also have had training. I believe that the answer is tougher laws
against criminal activities.
H.R. 3193 ends the tyrannical reign of D.C.'s repressive gun-control
laws and returns to law-abiding citizens the right to protect
themselves.
I urge my colleagues to also support this bill.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which will turn
the District of Columbia into a security nightmare. Just over 2 weeks
ago, this body ignored the appeals of law enforcement and ignored
overwhelming public opinion and allowed the ban on assault weapons to
expire.
Now, Members of this body are trying to repeal every one of the
District of Columbia's firearms laws. Since the 9/11 disaster, the
Federal Government has directed billions of taxpayer dollars to make
our Nation's capital safer for residents, commuters, tourists, public
officials and the law enforcement professionals dedicated to public
safety.
Today, security is the single overwhelming challenge facing our
Nation. As I speak, the Capitol Hill Police are manning checkpoints
around the perimeter of the Capitol, searching private automobiles and
inspecting public buses. Law enforcement officials have bravely risen
to this challenge of the terrorist threat that exploded in our skies.
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a mockery out of law enforcement's
commitment to safeguard the Nation's Capitol and to protect the Members
of this Congress. This body should be ashamed to engage in such
hypocrisy.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the lead Democratic cosponsor of
this bill. We have 44 Democratic cosponsors, and I very much appreciate
his leadership and help on this issue.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
(Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. To put it as
simply as other speakers have, this bill restores constitutional self-
defense rights to law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia.
Currently, the District of Columbia has the strictest gun-control
laws in the Nation. Honest, law-abiding citizens may not possess a
handgun unless it was registered before 1977.

{time} 1345

Legally owned rifles and shotguns must be kept unloaded and
disassembled. These restrictions make it useless for District residents
who wish to defend themselves against criminal attacks. This dangerous
gun control law only infringes on the rights of those who obey the law
and does nothing to reduce violent crime.
These laws have made Washington, D.C. the homicide capital of America
and to those in my party who disagree, and I know there are those who
do, I merely suggest that they consider the following facts: Prior to
the enactment of the gun ban, the number of homicides had been
declining in Washington, D.C. but increased after the ban was imposed.
By 1991, Washington, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more than 200
percent. By comparison, the national homicide rate rose 12 percent in
the same period.
These statistics clearly show that the District's gun control
experiment has failed. It is time the Congress restore the second
amendment rights to the citizens of the District and allows them to
protect their homes and families.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote yes on the District of
Columbia Personal Protection Act.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise today and join 43
of my Democratic colleagues to voice my support for H.R. 3193, a bill
that would allow citizens of the District of Columbia to own rifles,
shotguns and handguns.
The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America specifically grants all Americans the right to bear arms in
order to protect themselves and their families. Under this bill,
Washington, D.C. citizens would simply have the same self-defense
rights as residents of the 50 States of America do.
In a New York Sun editorial printed on Thursday, September 23 of this
year, a D.C. resident expressed his concerns on not being able to
legally protect his home from intruders. He stated, ``The fact is, if
you have an intruder come to your home, there is nothing you can do to
protect yourself except wait for the police.'' This Washington, D.C.
resident went on to describe an incident where he stared and waited as
a man was attempting to break into his home.
This is absolutely inexcusable. No one, no one, should be forced to
sit and wait while witnessing an intrusion upon their home, upon their
family, possibly putting themselves and their family in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I stay in Washington, D.C. 3 or 4 nights most weeks, and
I truly believe the police do a fine job in this city. But if someone
were to break into my apartment, I would have to wait for them to
arrive before any action to be taken.
If I were to have a gun, if I were to have gone through all the red
tape, which includes taking an exam and paying money for fees and a
license to have a shotgun in my home, I would have to take the time to
assemble or unlock and load my gun. By that time, it could be too late
to defend myself. No intruder is going to stand around and wait for me
to assemble or unlock and load my gun, and they certainly are not going
to wait for the police to arrive before completing the job they came to
do.
Mr. Speaker, this is not just a matter of personal protection, it is
a matter of constitutional freedom. The second amendment is a right
bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers. It is a right I have
exercised my entire life in my home State of Arkansas.
Current Washington, D.C. law requires all guns to be registered with
the Metropolitan Police Department. All handguns are banned unless they
were registered before the gun ban was enacted, but, even so,
Washington, D.C. citizens are prohibited from carrying their handguns
in their homes, even those legal handgun owners. Rifles and shotguns
can be legally registered and owned, but they must be stored unloaded
and disassembled or locked.
The District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in
the Nation, but at the same time, the District has one of the highest
murder rates in the United States of America. Prior to the enactment of
the gun ban, homicide had been declining in Washington, D.C. but
increased after the ban was imposed back in 1976. In 2002, the D.C.
homicide rate was almost double the rate when the handgun ban took
effect, and was five times higher than the national average.
H.R. 3193 simply allows law-abiding citizens to possess a firearm
without going through the registration requirements and they would not
suffer criminal penalties for such possession. This bill permits
storage of armed firearms in one's home or place of business and
repeals the ban on the possession of

[[Page H7766]]

ammunition, allowing citizens to protect their home and family in times
of danger within Washington, D.C., as families can do in all 50 States
across America.
H.R. 3193 would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct.
This bill leaves in place strict penalties for gun possession by
criminals and for those who commit a violent crime with a gun.
Any criminal interested in obtaining a gun for harm against another
can easily do so right now. This bill simply ensures that law-abiding
citizens of the District of Columbia are able to protect themselves by
legally owning a firearm, just as the citizens of the 50 States of
America can do.
Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of commonsense legislation, and I urge
my colleagues to join the 44 Democratic cosponsors of this legislation
and vote in favor of the bill.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in all deference to the gentleman from Arkansas,
handguns in homes in this town are not used by people. Those guns,
according to the police chief, quickly make their way to the streets
and do not stay at home. At home, however, they are overwhelmingly used
for domestic violence.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, you would not know by today's discussions that the
President, the other candidate for President, Senator Kerry, and all of
the Nation's leaders have been telling us that we are at war, that we
are in this war on terrorism, because there has been no discussion
about that today, even though on the front page yesterday of one of the
Washington newspapers it says that our number one enemy, al Qaeda, is
meeting with and making arrangements with local criminal gangs here in
D.C., for whatever purposes.
You would not know that we are at war. You would not know this was on
the front page of the papers yesterday. You would not know that because
of all of this discussion here today about allowing people to have
arms.
I am just trying to imagine the Inaugural parade next year here in
the District, as people have now had this ability to go arm themselves
to the teeth, even people who might have purposes that are untoward in
terms of our activities.
I am going to just say that this is a new type of cowboy, where they
take the stage coach, they get themselves in a gun-restricted area, and
let the women and children and the God-fearing people of this city stay
off.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, while we ultimately are debating two
different gun control bans in the District of Columbia, I am going to
confine my comments to the District's ban on the acquisition or
possession of a handgun. The evidence is clear that this handgun ban
has not reduced crime.
Since the ban, the city's violent crime rates, particularly its
murder rates, have increased. When the ban went into effect, the city's
murder rate was twice the national rate. Today it is more than seven
times the national rate.
Chicago is the other major American city that has a handgun ban, and
it has been on the books almost as long as the District's. The Chicago
ban went into effect in 1982, and within a decade murders with handguns
doubled.
California banned so-called ``assault weapons'' in 1989. For the next
5 years, California's murder rate increased every year, 26 percent
overall.
Of course, I am sure we are all familiar with the study that was
conducted of the Federal assault weapons law, under Congress's mandate.
That study found no hard evidence that the ban had any effect on crime.
Among the reasons for this, the guns that were banned were rarely used
in crime before the ban.
Many of our colleagues may also remember that several years ago we
passed legislation prohibiting the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention from using Federal funds to pay for so-called studies
designed from the outset to reach conclusions that political activists
could use to promote gun control for policy purposes.
It was clear that there was a significant bias at the CDC in favor of
gun control. And that bias remains. But even the CDC, in a study
conducted last year, found no evidence that gun bans reduce crime. For
that matter, the study found no evidence that any form of gun control
reduces crime.
Around the same time, the Library of Congress studied the
relationship of gun control to crime in 27 foreign countries, and it
concluded there was no relationship between gun restrictions and crime.
Even though Americans buy about 5 million new guns a year, the
Nation's violent crime rate has dropped every year since 1991 and it is
now at a 27-year low; that is, if you base the counts on crimes
reported to the police and the FBI. If you base the counts on the
National Crime Victimization surveys, however, the Nation's violent
crime is at a 30-year low.
Based upon crimes reported to the police and FBI, the Nation's murder
rates the last few years have been lower than any time since the mid-
1960s.
So, the gun control supporters' motto, ``More guns means more
crime,'' is demonstrably false.
These statistics from around the country and around the world cannot
be expected to alter the thinking of people who are ideologically
opposed to private ownership of guns. However, ideology has been proven
false by hard facts and should not dictate the policies under which the
rest of us should live.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article on al
Qaeda seeking ties to local gangs that appeared in the Washington
Times.

[From the Washington Times, Sept. 28, 2004]

Al Qaeda Seeks Tie to Local Gangs

(By Jerry Seper)

A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent
Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United
States--including a stronghold in the Washington area--in an
effort by the terrorist network to seek help infiltrating the
U.S.-Mexico border, law enforcement authorities said.
Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a key al Qaeda cell leader for
whom the U.S. government has offered a $5 million reward, was
spotted in July in Honduras meeting with leaders of El
Salvador's notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, which immigration
officials said has smuggled hundreds of Central and South
Americans--mostly gang members--into the United States.
Although they are actively involved in alien, drug and
weapons smuggling, Mara Salvatrucha members in America also
have been tied to numerous killings, robberies, burglaries,
carjackings, extortions, rapes and aggravated assaults--
including at least seven killings in Virginia and a machete
attack on a 16-year-old in Alexandria that severely mutilated
his hands.
The Salvadoran gang, known to law enforcement authorities
as MS-13 because many members identify themselves with
tattoos of the number 13, is thought to have established a
major smuggling center in Matamoros, Mexico, just south of
Brownsville, Texas, from where it has arranged to bring
illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico into the
United States.
Authorities said al Qaeda terrorists hope to take advantage
of a lack of detention space within the Department of
Homeland Security that has forced immigration officials to
release non-Mexican illegal aliens back into the United
States, rather than return them to their home countries.
Less than 15 percent of those released appear for
immigration hearings. Nearly 60,000 illegal aliens designated
as other-than-Mexican, or OTMs, were detained last year along
the U.S.-Mexico border.
El Shukrijumah, born in Saudi Arabia but thought to be a
Yemen national, was spotted in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in
July, having crossed the border illegally from Nicaragua
after a stay in Panama. U.S. authorities said al Qaeda
operatives have been in Tegucigalpa planning attacks against
British, Spanish and U.S. embassies.
Known to carry passports from Saudi Arabia, Trinidad,
Guyana and Canada, El Shukrijumah had sought meetings with
the Mara Salvatrucha gang leaders who control alien-smuggling
routes through Mexico and into the United States.
El Shukrijumah, 29, who authorities said was in Canada last
year looking for nuclear material for a so-called ``dirty
bomb'' and reportedly has family members in Guyana, was named
in a March 2003 material-witness arrest warrant by federal
prosecutors in Northern Virginia, where U.S. Attorney Paul J.
McNulty said he is sought in connection with potential
terrorist threats against the United States.
A former southern Florida resident and pilot thought to
have helped plan the September 11 attacks, El Shukrijumah was

[[Page H7767]]

among seven suspected al Qaeda operatives identified in May
by Attorney General John Ashcroft as being involved in plans
to strike new targets in the United States.
Citing ``credible intelligence from multiple sources,'' Mr.
Ashcroft said at the time that El Shukrijumah posed ``a clear
and present danger to America.'' In August, an FBI alert
described him as ``armed and dangerous'' and a major threat
to homeland security.
Earlier this month, Mr. Ashcroft confirmed that U.S. border
agents and inspectors had ramped up efforts to find El
Shukrijumah amid reports that the al Qaeda leader was thought
to be seeking entry routes into the United States along the
U.S.-Mexico border.
Mr. Ashcroft noted that increased enforcement efforts were
under way in the wake of a rise of arrests of border jumpers
from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan,
the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Authorities said Mara Salvatrucha gang members moved into
the Los Angeles area in the 1980s and developed a reputation
for being organized and extremely violent. The gang since has
expanded into the Washington area, including Virginia and
Maryland, and into Oregon, Alaska, Texas, Nevada, Utah,
Oklahoma, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Georgia and Florida.
More than 3,000 Mara Salvatrucha gang members are thought
to be in the Washington area, with a major operation in
Northern Virginia. Other gang centers, authorities said,
include Montgomery and Prince George's counties and the
Hispanic neighborhoods of Washington.
Mr. McNulty, whose office has prosecuted Mara Salvatrucha
gang members, has described the organization as the ``gang of
greatest interest'' to law enforcement authorities. He said
gang members are recruited predominantly from Hispanic
communities and typically among juveniles, some as young as
13. Recruits are ``jumped'' into the gang by being beaten by
members while others count to 13, he said.
Gang rules, he said, are indoctrinated into new recruits
and ruthlessly enforced. Those who cooperate with law
enforcement are given the ``green light,'' he said, meaning
that the gang had approved their killing.
In March, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office filed an
injunction against Mara Salvatrucha, charging that the gang's
criminal activity constituted a ``public nuisance'' based on
the number of killings, robberies and drug crimes. The
injunction requires gang members, under public nuisance
statutes, to follow curfew rules and regulations and
prohibits them from associating, driving or appearing
together in designated areas of the city.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the full committee.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago my colleague
from New York said that this was absolutely crazy, and I will simply
say that it is about as crazy as it can get without being absolute.
Every bit of information that we have available to us lets us know
that gun violence is unnecessarily killing people. In 2001, 29,000
people in this country died from gun violence. Fifty percent of all the
African American youngsters between the ages of 15 and 19 who die, die
from gun violence.
We talk about the Constitution. Please be reminded that when this
Constitution was enacted, my ancestors were counted as three-fifths of
a person and women did not have the right to vote. The Constitution was
created at a time when there was need for what it created itself for.
This is a different era, a different time.
If you want to help the people of D.C., give the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) a vote on the floor of this House.
Give them two Senators who can vote in the other Chamber. That is how
you help the people in D.C.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a series of stories
of individuals who were terrified but defended themselves and could
have been prosecuted under the D.C. law.
I will also include for the Record, what would the District of
Columbia's gun laws look like after this law passes?

What Would the District of Columbia's Gun Laws Look Like After H.R.
3193?

Even if H.R. 3193 were signed into law in its present form,
it would leave in place an extensive set of laws governing
possession, sale and use of guns. District laws would still
be far more restrictive than the laws of most states:
It would still be illegal to carry firearms outside one's
own property, either openly or concealed. Violations would
still be punishable by a fine of up to $1000 or imprisonment
for not moire than one year for a first offense, and up to
$10,000 and 10 years' imprisonment, or both, for a second
offense or for any violation by a convicted felon. All
penalties are doubled for illegal carry in a ``gun free
zone'' within 1000 feet of a school, day care center,
college, or various youth recreation 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 of 5 years served before parole or probation.
Handgun possession would remain illegal for drug addicts,
convicted felons, and persons convicted of various public
order offenses such as vagrancy.
It would still be illegal to possess machineguns, sawed-off
shotguns or short-barreled rifles. The definition of ``sawed-
off shotgun'' is more restrictive than federal law.
It would still be illegal to manufacture firearms or
ammunition in the District.
Vehicles used to illegally transport firearms would still
be subject to seizure and forfeiture.
All these provisions are in addition to federal laws that
extensively regulate commerce in firearms, and which provide
strict penalties for gun possession by convicted felons and
other ``prohibited persons'' and for use of firearms in
violent crimes.
H.R. 3193 focuses entirely on restoring fundamental self-
defense rights to honest citizens, by repealing the handgun
ban, gun registration laws, and laws on carry and storage in
the home that prevent people from exercising those rights.
____

Self-Defense Stories

In each of these stories, D.C. residents used a handgun
that was banned under D.C. law. However, if they had not used
their banned weapon to defend themselves against crime, it is
quite possible that many of them would not be alive today.
D.C. law should not make it a criminal offense to possess a
firearm for self defense in one's own home or business. H.R.
3193 would decriminalize the ownership of handguns and
restore 2nd Amendment rights to the residents of D.C.

Source: Washington Post, Washington, DC, Sept. 18, 2004

(Letter to the Editor)

It was shortly after midnight when my wife and I were
awakened by pounding at our front door. When I went to the
window, I saw a large man trying to kick down our door. I
warned him to stop, but he started swearing, insisting that I
give him money. He then started kicking the door again.
I called 911 and was put on hold. I waited for about 30
seconds and then realized that the man at my front door
probably would be inside before the 911 operator answered.
Despite the D.C. gun laws, I have a gun for just such a
situation.
I took the gun from my closet, went to the window and
pointed it at the man. I warned him that I would shoot if he
came through my door. He stopped kicking and ran away.
Every few months, people are shot and killed within a block
or two of our home. It is absurd for Washington to outlaw
guns; it guarantees that only outlaws will have guns.
Citizens should be allowed to protect themselves, and, as a
homicide detective once told me when I confessed to keeping a
gun, ``I would rather be judged by 12 of my peers than
carried out by six of my friends.''
I thank God that Congress has some power over the
District's laws.
Tony Snesko, Washington.

source: washington times, washington, dc, 12/14/94

Rebecca Griffin awoke to the screams of her daughter, who
was being bound and gagged by two kidnappers in her
Washington, D.C., home. She confronted the men, one of whom
was carrying a knife, and brought the attack to a quick halt
when she was bale to break free and retrieve a .32-cal.
revolver from the basement, shooting the knife-weilder four
times. The other suspect fled. Griffin and one daughter were
slashed during the attack. Some news accounts made no mention
that the handgun that saved the Griffins is illegal in the
District. (American Rifleman: March 1995)

source: washington times, washington, DC, 5/5/93

In Washington, where armed criminals run rampant but honest
citizens are denied the right to own handguns for personal
protection, one city resident stood up for himself when he
shot a man who tried to rob him in his home. The homeowner
had given the thug a bucket of water, but when the bucket was
returned, the good samaritan found himself looking down the
barrel of a pistol. Raising his hands as ordered, he grabbed
a pistol he had secreted on a shelf and shot the would-be
robber. Police confiscated his gun, but the district
commander said, ``If the circumstances are as they seem, I
don't think justice will be served if they charge this guy.''
(American Rifleman: July 1993)

source: washington post, washington, dc,
3/19/88

Stabbed several times in a robbery attempt at a Washington,
D.C., market, employee Cha Ma grabbed a gun and shot his
assailant, who fled. A wounded suspect was arrest a short
distance away and charged with assault with intent to rob
while armed. Police said no charges had been filed against
Ma. (American Rifleman: August 1988)

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the District of
Columbia Personal Protection Act, I

[[Page H7768]]

urge my colleagues to join me and the citizens of Washington, D.C. to
free them from a failed 27-year experiment with gun control policy.
One thing that we all do know for sure is that criminals have guns,
and criminals are the people that are being described by folks on the
other side of the aisle in this case. Criminals have guns, but
hardworking, honest, law-abiding citizens are not allowed to have guns
in the District of Columbia to defend themselves.
The statistics clearly show that the District's firearm restrictions
have done nothing to combat crime, while crippling the right of every
Washington, D.C. citizen to protect their homes and their families.

{time} 1400

I hail from a State that respects the fundamental, individual rights
to own firearms granted to us by the second amendment of the
Constitution; but in the District of Columbia, it is a world upside
down. Law-abiding citizens are left defenseless to face criminals. They
live behind locked doors, and they walk city streets with one eye on
their children and their other eye on the lookout for armed criminals.
I, and many more, realize that gun bans do not work against
criminals, but they do endanger law-abiding citizens. This is no more
evident than in this city which, in the past 2 decades, has become
known as the murder capital of the United States.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3193 and allow the
people of Washington, D.C. the right they are guaranteed, and that is
to defend themselves and their families.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with my
colleague, the gentlewoman from the neighboring congressional district,
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), in opposing this bill.
The District of Columbia's gun laws have already been upheld by the
Federal courts as constitutional, so the second amendment argument in
this context is just a bogus one.
This bill represents the height of arrogance. Members of this body
have got to stop treating the District of Columbia and the people of
the District of Columbia as their personal playground where they impose
their will on people who did not elect them. The people of the District
of Columbia elected the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton). They elected the Mayor. They elected the D.C. Council. They
elected the people who put these laws into effect.
This legislation is nothing more than a contemptible effort to
placate certain special interests at the expense of the people of the
District of Columbia.
We talk about a world upside down. The House leadership have
prohibited this body from taking a vote on extending the ban on
military-style assault weapons; and at the same time today we rush
through a bill put at the top of the schedule to impose our will
against the wishes of the people of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record a letter from the
representatives of the business community of Washington, D.C., the
Washington Board of Trade, opposing this legislation at this time.

September 20, 2004.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives.
Hon. Tom DeLay,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives.
Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader DeLay: As the
unified voice of business in Washington, DC, we are deeply
troubled by efforts within the House Republican caucus to
repeal the gun safety laws that exist for the protection of
the families, workers and tourists of the District of
Columbia.
If passed by Congress into law, The District of Columbia
Personal Protection Act (H.R. 3193) would eliminate the ban
on handguns in the District of Columbia, eliminate the ban on
semiautomatic weapons, eliminate criminal penalties for
possession of unregistered firearms and even eliminate
registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms.
The rollback of these fundamental public safety laws would
have a significant, negative effect on the District's
business climate, and could undermine the foundations of our
city's economy and quality of life.
The leaders of this city are working hard every day to
sustain the progress of recent years by making this an even
more attractive destination for tourism, redevelopment and
relocation. We have had to overcome the lingering perception
that D.C. neighborhoods are especially unsafe, and that our
city is uniquely susceptible to terrorist attack in the
aftermath of 9/11.
To those ends, we have been very successful. Last year,
more than six million people visited Downtown Washington.
Large, international retailers have returned to the District,
making this a regional shopping destination once again. The
District's restaurant scene has never been more vibrant, as
nearly 30 restaurants have opened in the downtown area since
1999 alone, while the District's hotel market has nearly
returned to its pre-9/11 performance. Finally, the
performance of our city's office market is the best in the
nation--at this time, we are the only major downtown market
in the United States with a vacancy rate under ten percent.
However, much of our progress could be undone by passage of
this bill into law. This would fuel the harmful perception
that the District is a haven for weapons that have no place
in our society, and that visitors, employers and new
residents should come here at their own risk. Given the
continued efforts of the business community to sustain our
economic recovery, and the extraordinary steps of our state
and local governments to safeguard against terrorist attack,
the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act is the last
thing our city needs right now. We intend to pursue vigorous
efforts to see this bill defeated, and we hope that you will
not allow this bill to reach the floor of the House of
Representatives for a vote.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Peck, President, Greater Washington Board of
Trade.
Robert A. Malson, President, District of Columbia Hospital
Association.
John Childers, President and CEO, Consortium of
Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area.
Barbara R. Lang, President and CEO, DC Chamber of Commerce.
William A. Hanbury, President and CEO, Washington, DC
Convention and Tourism Corporation.
Lynne Breaux, Executive Director, Restaurant Association
Metropolitan Washington.
Reba Pittman Walker, President, Hotel Association of
Washington, DC.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, imagine living in a world where you believe
owning weapons is the only way to feel safe, so you decide
semiautomatic weapons which are made easily available to you are the
weapon of your choice. But then you decide to buy handguns so you can
keep that gun concealed on your body when you go to the store, or on
your pillow at night, because you believe that the enemy could be
lurking anywhere. You figure while you are beefing up your home
artillery, you should also pick up some cop-killer bullets because you
never know when your enemy might have a bullet-proof vest on.
I do not know about you folks, but this is my idea of a nightmare: a
world made less safe, not safer, by this legislation.
This bill not only ignores D.C. voters' choice to ban assault
weapons, it also makes certain that the city council cannot enact any
further gun-owning restrictions.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I would just like to give the Members a sense of what
this bill would do. If it passes, it would allow someone to carry a 50-
caliber sniper rifle in one hand, armor-piercing ammunition, and
incendiary combination ammunition in the other, and go into our Metro,
so long as he, and let me read this to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, as
long as he was on his way to an informal target practice or a dog
obedience training class.
Mr. Speaker, this is sheer lunacy. Save yourself from embarrassment.
Save our children. Save our Nation. Save this Congress from looking
like idiots and fools in the middle of an orange alert by bringing more
guns into the Nation's capital. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3193.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I would just like to say that the citizens of D.C. have a
right to defend themselves, a constitutional right to defend
themselves. This has

[[Page H7769]]

been the murder capital of the United States for 14 of the last 15
years, currently is eight times the national average. American citizens
have a right to defend themselves.
The only people who have a right to guns right now are criminals.
They will still be punished. Anybody who violates the law will still be
punished. Anybody who uses the type of weapons we have heard described
away from their property are still going to be punished.
The question is, can law-abiding citizens defend themselves in their
homes and in their businesses?
Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record at this time a list of the
229 cosponsors of this bill, including 44 Democratic sponsors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office State Staff contact First contact R or D Govt. reform
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Johnson.......................... IL...................... Erik Woehrmann.............. 3-Sep.................. R
Jim DeMint........................... SC...................... Kara Borie.................. 3-Sep.................. R
Joe Wilson........................... SC...................... Laurin Groover.............. 3-Sep.................. R
Jo Ann Davis......................... VA...................... Jonathan Kidwell............ 4-Sep.................. R X
Ed Schrock........................... VA...................... Cheryl Clark................ 4-Sep.................. R X
Dan Burton........................... IN...................... Mary Valentino.............. 4-Sep.................. R X
Pete Sessions........................ TX...................... Tucker Anderson............. 5-Sep.................. R
Jeb Hensarling....................... TX...................... Derek Baker................. 5-Sep.................. R
John Carter.......................... TX...................... Ryan Henery................. 5-Sep.................. R X
Kevin Brady.......................... TX...................... Gene Irisari................ 5-Sep.................. R
Sam Johnson.......................... TX...................... Spencer Ritchie............. 9-Sep.................. R
Michael Burgess...................... TX...................... Stacey DeFino............... 9-Sep.................. R
Dennis Rehberg....................... MT...................... Jay Martin.................. 9-Sep.................. R
Lamar Smith.......................... TX...................... Allison Beach............... 9-Sep.................. R
Randy Neugebauer..................... TX...................... Peter Andres................ 9-Sep.................. R
David Vitter......................... LA...................... Greg Facchiano.............. 9-Sep.................. R
Ron Paul............................. TX...................... Anamarie Pratt.............. 10-Sep................. R
Terry Everett........................ AL...................... Jeff Rabren................. 10-Sep................. R
Chris Cannon......................... UT...................... Trevor Kolego............... 10-Sep................. R X
Butch Otter.......................... ID...................... Brandon Heiner.............. 10-Sep................. R
Adam Putnam.......................... FL...................... Casey Welch................. 11-Sep................. R X
Todd Platts.......................... PA...................... Nate Sloan.................. 11-Sep................. R X
Joe Barton........................... TX...................... Joby Fortson................ 11-Sep................. R
Candice Miller....................... MI...................... David Hemenway.............. 12-Sep................. R X
Virgil Goode......................... VA...................... Ward Anderson............... 12-Sep................. R
Phil Gingrey......................... GA...................... Jonathan Osborne............ 16-Sep................. R
Barbara Cubin........................ WY...................... Brandi Ladd................. 16-Sep................. R
Ron Lewis............................ KY...................... Josh Nacey.................. 17-Sep................. R X
John Sullivan........................ OK...................... John Rainbolt............... 17-Sep................. R X
Spencer Bachus....................... AL...................... Johanna Cole................ 22-Sep................. R
Marsha Blackburn..................... TN...................... Mike Platt.................. 23-Sep................. R X
John Duncan.......................... TN...................... Patra Stephen............... 23-Sep................. R X
Bill Janklow......................... SD...................... Marshall Damgard............ 24-Sep................. R X
Bob Ney.............................. OH...................... Greg Mesack................. 24-Sep................. R
Nathan Deal.......................... GA...................... Todd Smith.................. 24-Sep................. R X
Ernest Istook........................ OK...................... John Albaugh................ 24-Sep................. R
John Mica............................ FL...................... Gary Burns.................. 24-Sep................. R X
Pat Toomey........................... PA...................... Brain Wild.................. 25-Sep................. R
Bob Goodlatte........................ VA...................... Branden Ritchie............. 25-Sep................. R
John Doolittle....................... CA...................... Kara Dougherty.............. 26-Sep................. R
Roscoe Bartlett...................... MD...................... Chris Tontz................. 26-Sep................. R
Mac Collins.......................... GA...................... Shawn Friesen............... 26-Sep................. R
Mike Rogers.......................... AL...................... Amy Albro................... 26-Sep................. R
Jeb Bradley.......................... NH...................... Brien Miller................ 29-Sep................. R
Wally Herger......................... CA...................... Dan MacLean................. 29-Sep................. R
Thaddeus McCotter.................... MI...................... Patrick Rothwell............ 29-Sep................. R
Steve King........................... IA...................... Brenna Findley.............. 29-Sep................. R
Cass Ballenger....................... NC...................... Tim Linker.................. 29-Sep................. R
Roger Wicker......................... MS...................... Susan Sweat................. 29-Sep................. R
Duke Cunningham...................... CA...................... Katie Hanvey................ 29-Sep................. R
Marilyn Musgrave..................... CO...................... Jacob Leis.................. 29-Sep................. R
Ginny Brown-Waite.................... FL...................... Bob Honold.................. 30-Sep................. R
Robin Hayes.......................... NC...................... Jon Causey.................. 30-Sep................. R
Sam Graves........................... MO...................... Paul Sass................... 30-Sep................. R
Trent Franks......................... AZ...................... John Graves................. 30-Sep................. R
Tom Feeney........................... FL...................... Ryan Visco.................. 30-Sep................. R
Jim Gibbons.......................... NV...................... Dan Waters.................. 30-Sep................. R
Chip Pickering....................... MS...................... Mike Hurst.................. 30-Sep................. R
Chris Chocola........................ IN...................... Rich Dunn................... 30-Sep................. R
Steve Pearce......................... NM...................... Matt Meagher................ 30-Sep................. R
Gresham Barrett...................... SC...................... Greg Thomas................. 30-Sep................. R
Eric Cantor.......................... VA...................... Bill Doblow................. 30-Sep................. R
Jeff Miller.......................... FL...................... Steve Holton................ 30-Sep................. R
John Hostettler...................... IN...................... Erin Berry.................. 1-Oct.................. R
Duncan Hunter........................ CA...................... Lorissa Bounds.............. 1-Oct.................. R
Todd Akin............................ MO...................... Franz Kohler................ 1-Oct.................. R
Jo Bonner............................ AL...................... ............................ 1-Oct.................. R
Henry Brown.......................... SC...................... Joe Gleboki................. 2-Oct.................. R
John Boozman......................... AR...................... Brian Bullard............... 2-Oct.................. R
John Culberson....................... TX...................... Ellie Essalih............... 3-Oct.................. R
Roy Blunt............................ MO...................... Amy Field................... 3-Oct.................. R
Johnny Isakson....................... GA...................... Tucker Shumack.............. 6-Oct.................. R
John Kline........................... MN...................... Jim McGuire................. 6-Oct.................. R
Mike Simpson......................... ID...................... John Revier................. 7-Oct.................. R
Rick Renzi........................... AZ...................... Joanne Keene................ 7-Oct.................. R
Don Young............................ AK...................... Justin Sprinzen............. 7-Oct.................. R
Todd Tiahrt.......................... KS...................... AmyClair Brusch............. 8-Oct.................. R
Bill Shuster......................... PA...................... Alex Mistri................. 8-Oct.................. R
Mike Pence........................... IN...................... Trip Radtke................. 8-Oct.................. R
Jack Kingston........................ GA...................... Stephen Anderson............ 9-Oct.................. R
Donald Manzullo...................... IL...................... Conor Brown................. 9-Oct.................. R
Philip Crane......................... IL...................... Andrew Wankum............... 9-Oct.................. R
Charlie Norwood...................... GA...................... Jason Paluskiewiz........... 10-Oct................. R
Jim Ryun............................. KA...................... Marcus Friesen.............. 10-Oct................. R
Rob Bishop........................... UT...................... Miriam Harmer............... 14-Oct................. R
Richard Baker........................ LA...................... Scott Kirkpatrick........... 14-Oct................. R
Joseph Pitts......................... PA...................... Cindy Diggs................. 15-Oct................. R
Lee Terry............................ NE...................... Robert Stein................ 15-Oct................. R
Mike Rogers.......................... MI...................... Mike Ward................... 15-Oct................. R
Zach Wamp............................ TN...................... Alex Richard................ 17-Oct................. R
Robert Aderholt...................... AL...................... Brian Johnston.............. 20-Oct................. R
Jerry Weller......................... IL...................... Troy Babson................. 20-Oct................. R
Jim McCrery.......................... LA...................... Bob Brooks.................. 20-Oct................. R
Bob Beauprez......................... CO...................... Bruce Miller................ 21-Oct................. R
Randy Forbes......................... VA...................... Andy Halataei............... 21-Oct................. R
Henry Bonilla........................ TX...................... Patrick Anderson............ 21-Oct................. R
Thomas Petri......................... WI...................... Elizabeth Foy............... 21-Oct................. R
Melissa Hart......................... PA...................... William Rys................. 23-Oct................. R
Billy Tauzin......................... LA...................... James White................. 27-Oct................. R
Steve Buyer.......................... IN...................... Myrna Dugan................. 28-Oct................. R
Deborah Pryce........................ OH...................... Peter Freeman............... 29-Oct................. R
Fred Upton........................... MI...................... Charles Yessiaian........... 29-Oct................. R
Thomas Reynolds...................... NY...................... Tina Mufford................ 30-Oct................. R

[[Page H7770]]

William Jenkins...................... TN...................... Megan Caldwell.............. 30-Oct................. R
Steve Chabot......................... OH...................... Kevin Fitzpatrick........... 31-Oct................. R
Wiliam Thornberry.................... TX...................... Trey Bahm................... 3-Nov.................. R
Cliff Stearns........................ FL...................... Alan Hill................... 3-Nov.................. R
Scott Garrett........................ NJ...................... Jay Fahrer.................. 5-Nov.................. R
Ken Calvert.......................... CA...................... Deena Contreras............. 7-Nov.................. R
Phil English......................... PA...................... Christine Rogala............ 12-Nov................. R
Devin Nunes.......................... CA...................... Kedrin Simms................ 18-Nov................. R
Max Burns............................ GA...................... Zach Procter................ 19-Nov................. R
Tom Tancredo......................... CO...................... Mac Zimmerman............... 21-Nov................. R
Jim Nussle........................... IA...................... Luke........................ 24-Nov................. R
Tom Cole............................. OK...................... Chris Arnold................ 1-Dec.................. R
Rick Keller.......................... FL...................... Mike Shutley................ 9-Jan.................. R
Scott McInnis........................ CO...................... Jack Allen.................. 22-Jan................. R
Walter Jones......................... NC...................... Anne Cassity................ 26-Jan................. R
Sue Myrick........................... NC...................... Matt Priest................. 28-Jan................. R
John Peterson........................ PA...................... Angela Ambrose.............. 29-Jan................. R
Dana Rohrabacher..................... CA...................... Meredith Curcio............. 29-Jan................. R
Mario Diaz-Balart.................... FL...................... Charles Cooper.............. 29-Jan................. R
Paul Ryan............................ WI...................... Ryan........................ 4-Feb.................. R
Joel Hefley.......................... CO...................... Larry Hoja.................. 9-Feb.................. R
Nick Smith........................... MI...................... Alan Knapp.................. 26-Feb................. R
Frank Lucas.......................... OK...................... Marna Harris................ 26-Feb................. R
Darrell Issa......................... CA...................... Josh Brown.................. 9-Mar.................. R
Gary G. Miller....................... CA...................... Sandra...................... 11-Mar................. R
Jeff Flake........................... AZ...................... Margaret Klessig............ 12-Mar................. R
Tom Latham........................... IA...................... Kevin Berents............... 22-Mar................. R
Kenny Hulshof........................ MO...................... Shaun Duignan............... 25-Mar................. R
Nicholas Lampson..................... TX...................... Aaron Schmidt............... 31-Mar................. R
Gary Miller.......................... CA...................... John Rothrock............... 1-Apr.................. R
Curt Weldon.......................... PA...................... Mary........................ 5-Apr.................. R
George Radanovich.................... CA...................... Emma........................ 23-Apr................. R
Sherwood Boehlert.................... NY...................... Sam......................... 23-Apr................. R
Charles Taylor....................... NC...................... Adam Shepard................ 26-Apr................. R
Dave Weldon.......................... FL...................... Eric........................ 26-Apr................. R
Jo Ann Emerson....................... MO...................... Tony Eberhard............... 28-Apr................. R
Greg Walden.......................... OR...................... Dallas...................... 28-Apr................. R
Shelley M. Capito.................... WV...................... Adam........................ 4-May.................. R
Richard Pombo........................ CA...................... Josh Rolph.................. 5-May.................. R
Harold Rogers........................ KY...................... Ben......................... 12-May................. R
Katherine Harris..................... FL...................... Stuart Mallory.............. 17-May................. R X
Dave Camp............................ MI...................... Chris Wenk.................. 17-May................. R
Jim Gerlach.......................... PA...................... William Tighe............... 19-May................. R
Gil Gutknecht........................ MN...................... Ryan McLaughlin............. 19-May................. R
Mark Kennedy......................... MN...................... Tim Morrison................ 1-Jun.................. R
Steven LaTourette.................... OH...................... Ryan........................ 2-Jun.................. R X
Anne Northup......................... KY...................... Brooken Smith............... 4-Jun.................. R
Richard Burr......................... NC...................... Ricky Welborn............... 4-Jun.................. R
John Shimkus......................... IL...................... Bill........................ 9-Jun.................. R
Howard McKeon........................ CA...................... Brandi...................... 9-Jun.................. R
George Nethercutt.................... WA...................... Rob......................... 9-Jun.................. R
Don Sherwood......................... PA...................... John Ormasa................. 9-Jun.................. R
Doc Hastings......................... WA...................... Jenny Gorski................ 9-Jun.................. R
John McHugh.......................... NY...................... Melanie Turpin.............. 9-Jun.................. R X
Jerry Moran.......................... KS...................... Jenny Guttery............... 14-Jun................. R
Ed Whitfield......................... KY...................... Benjamin Beaton............. 15-Jun................. R
Charles Bass......................... NH...................... Jennifer Warren............. 16-Jun................. R
Tom DeLay............................ TX...................... Elliot Burke................ 16-Jun................. R
John Linder.......................... GA...................... Mike Swansburg.............. 16-Jun................. R
John Boehner......................... OH...................... Gary........................ 17-Jun................. R
John Sweeney......................... NY...................... Jim Christopolous........... 17-Jun................. R
Kay Granger.......................... TX...................... Darin....................... 17-Jun................. R
Patrick Tiberi....................... OH...................... Adam (LD)................... 17-Jun................. R X
Ed Royce............................. CA...................... Darin Schrader.............. 17-Jun................. R
Ander Crenshaw....................... FL...................... Francis..................... 17-Jun................. R
Paul Gillmor......................... OH...................... Andrew Beck................. 18-Jun................. R
Joseph Knollenberg................... MI...................... Kelly Haskin................ 20-Jun................. R
Michael Bilirakis.................... FL...................... Jerry White................. 20-Jun................. R
Jerry Lewis.......................... CA...................... Arlene...................... 20-Jun................. R
Lincoln Diaz-Balart.................. FL...................... Ceaser Gonzo................ 22-Jun................. R
John Shadegg......................... AZ...................... Stephen Prather............. 22-Jun................. R
Elton Gallegly....................... CA...................... Michelle M.................. 22-Jun................. R
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.................. FL...................... ............................ 6-Jul.................. R X
Howard Coble......................... NC...................... Anna Sagley................. 15-Jul................. R
Jim Kolbe............................ AZ...................... ............................ ....................... R
Judy Biggert......................... IL...................... ............................ ....................... R
Micheal Turner....................... OH...................... ............................ 8-Jul.................. R X
Michael Oxley........................ OH...................... ............................ 21-Jul................. R
Peter Hoekstra....................... MI...................... ............................ 21-Jul................. R
Rob Portman.......................... OH...................... ............................ ....................... R
Ralph Regula......................... OH...................... ............................ ....................... R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago this House blocked
consideration of legislation sponsored by my colleague from New York,
Mrs. McCarthy, to extend the ban on the manufacture, transfer, or
possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. The assault weapons ban is
supported by the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National
Association of Police Organizations, American Nurses Association,
American Psychiatric Association, American Public Health Association,
American Academy of Pediatrics, Urban League, National Education
Association, United Federation of Teachers, Children's Defense Fund,
NAACP, Anti-Defamation League, and the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence.
The House instead today, voted to enact legislation which was
introduced by a member from Indiana to get rid of the ban on firearms
in the District of Columbia, against the wishes of elected Mayor, City
Council, and U.S. Delegate to Congress. Federal courts have upheld the
constitutionality of the DC ban.
These actions by this distinguished body distress me greatly because
it was just a day ago that a 4-year-old boy was shot to death and a 7-
year-old boy was injured in a shooting Monday night at the Kirwan
Terrace housing community on St. Thomas in my District.
This heinous act has outraged my community which is seeking any and
all assistance to prevent this kind of despicable crime, which
apparently was perpetrated through the use of a high-powered firearm,
from ever occurring again.
Mr. Speaker, gun violence is reaching epidemic proportions in all of
our communities and this body should be doing all we can to reduce the
number of guns that are available, not increasing them. I urge all my
colleagues to support the Meehan discharge petition, H. Res. 769, to
allow a vote on Representative Carolyn McCarthy's Assault Weapons Ban
and Law Enforcement Protection Act, H.R. 2038.
We have a responsibility as leaders of our communities to do all that
we can to keep our citizens safe from the ravages of crime--
particularly gun violence, such as what tragically befell four year old
Leon Bowery. May he rest in peace.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
legislation.
Nearly thirty years ago, handguns were banned in Washington, D.C. by
the will of the people. Yet here we are, once again, dictating to the
citizens of the District of Columbia the laws that govern them when
their own elected delegate will not even have the opportunity to vote
on passage of this bill. Like any metropolitan area, Washington, D.C.
has crime,

[[Page H7771]]

much of which is because of guns. Therefore, I do not understand why
the Majority thinks the solution to that problem is allowing more guns
on the streets of this city. We should be reducing crime by preventing
gun violence and by ensuring that there are enough policemen who have
the necessary resources to do their jobs. At a time when citizens from
across the nation have returned to D.C., despite their security
concerns, to enjoy its attractions, we should not be passing
legislation that sends the message that the city is unsafe.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3193, the
District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is a good bill. It
is a sensible bill. This bill allows the citizens of the District of
Columbia the right to protect their home and their families.
For almost three decades now, the District of Columbia has had some
of the most extensive gun control laws in the nation. Despite this, the
District is not only known as our nation's capital, but also the murder
capital of the world. This is shameful.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before the full House to reiterate my strong
support for the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I believe that
all Americans have the right to own firearms. The citizens of
Washington, D.C. should have the same rights as most other Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible
legislation and allow District of Columbia residents the means to
protect themselves.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3193,
the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, a bill that
interferes with the District's gun registration law and puts
semiautomatic weapons back in the hands of terrorists and criminals.
Just two weeks ago the majority of this chamber allowed the national
assault weapons ban to expire. Now the District of Columbia's gun
regulations are in danger of repeal. As D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams
noted in today's Washington Post, ``The District knows what firearms
regulations work best for its residents.'' As such, in 1975 District
residents enacted the Firearms Control Regulations Act to protect
residents of and visitors to our nation's capital. As a result the
District is on pace to post its lowest homicide rate in 20 years.
The passage of this legislation would mean that as parts of this city
remain under a code orange terrorism alert, it would become legal for
an AK-47 or AR-15 to be carried down the street in the name of personal
safety, making it more difficult for our federal and local law
enforcement officers to do their jobs.
The current D.C. law works. The District's gun law does not prevent
citizens in good standing from owning guns for legitimate needs. Since
1976, more than 100,000 firearms have been registered with District
Police--most of these as rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes. I
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this unnecessary legislation
that not only does nothing to keep the streets of our nation's capital
safer, but also would make it easier for terrorists to strike at the
seat of our government.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in outraged opposition to H.R. 3193,
the so-called District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This bill
strips away gun safety laws passed by the City Council here in our
Nation's capital. It allows people in DC to buy assault weapons and use
``cop-killer'' bullets. It overturns laws that ban criminals from
owning guns.
Mr. Speaker, the internal contradictions and extremism of this bill
say a lot about the Republican majority's desperation to please the
National Rifle Association shortly before the election. In order to
chock up a vote for the NRA scorecard, Republicans play lip service to
States' rights and local control while nullifying laws passed by the
elected leaders of DC.
Do the people of Washington, DC want their gun laws repealed? Not on
you life.
Residents of DC will be less safe, but who cares say the Republicans.
They've got to reward the NRA for millions in campaign contributions
dumped into their reelection coffers. They have no shame.
Consider the parents of the 16 DC children killed by guns this year.
They have to relive their nightmare every day and now the tragedy of
more children murdered by guns and more parents mourning as assault
weapons again rule the streets. Their wishes are being dishonored and
stripped away today. Their calls for safe streets ignored. Their hope
for safer neighborhoods--gone. All capriciously taken away by
Republicans and the NRA.
I bet these parents, like any other parent in any community across
this Nation, wish they had the same grip over their local gun laws as
the National Rifle Association.
The 230 cosponsors of this legislation work in a building where guns
are banned. Every visitor has to pass through a metal detector.
Millions have been spent on Homeland Security upgrades in and around
the Capitol. Yet, they foolishly think the Global War on Terror stops
at the banks of the Potomac. Or maybe they figure they're safe behind
the barricades and armed police so why worry about gun laws that
protect other people who life in this city?
If you're worried about your safety in some of the most dangerous
neighborhoods just blocks from the Capitol, here's the Republicans'
message to you: buy an AK-47 and pray that you're a better shot than
the other guy. Never mind studies published in the New England Journal
of Medicine that conclude that guns kept in the home for self-
protection triple the risk of homicide, and are 43 times more likely to
kill a family member or friend than an intruder.
Any member of this body who feels safer because of the extensive gun
control here in the Capitol Building has an obligation to vote against
this bill so that the people of DC have the same right to control their
personal safety. If you vote for a firearms free-for-all in Washington,
DC, then you should have the decency to introduce legislation allowing
assault weapons right here, in your own workplace, in this Capitol.
Even Republicans know that would be wrong, but if that's really where
you stand, then I stand with the citizens of DC who know what's best.
Do what they'd do. Vote down this bill.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a father of three
teenage children, I understand the importance of keeping our streets
free of violence. And as a gun owner and sportsman, I also understand
the importance of the rights afforded to Americans by the second
amendment. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act protects
our citizens while also protecting the constitutional rights of the
citizens of the District of Columbia to own rifles, shotguns, and
handguns.
H.R. 3193 would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct.
As a matter of fact it would leave in place strict penalties for gun
possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with guns. I
firmly believe banning a firearm is not the answer to preventing crime.
Interestingly enough, the District of Columbia has some of the most
restrictive gun laws in our Nation. Yet, at the same time, recent FBI
figures show that the District has regained its former title as the
murder capital of the United States.
As a matter of fact, according to U.S. Justice Department figures,
Washington, DC, has been the ``murder capital of the country'' for 14
of the last 15 years. And currently, the DC homicide rate is nearly
five times greater than the national average. This escalating murder
rate began only after the DC Council deprived law-abiding citizens of
the right to defend themselves and their families by effectively
banning handguns and other firearms in 1976. I believe it is only by
strictly enforcing laws to prosecute those who misuse a gun in the
commission of a crime that we can ensure our families remain safe from
those who would prey on the innocent, and that the rights of law-
abiding Americans are protected.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3193 and allow law abiding
people to use guns to protect their homes and families, essentially
stating that DC citizens would enjoy the same self-defense rights as
residents of the 50 States.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I always try to apply a personal ``Three C''
test to questions of public policy. First I ask myself whether it's
constitutional. Then I consider whether it's something my constituents
want. Finally, I examine my own conscience.
The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act passes that test
with flying colors. What's more, the existing policy of denying basic
second amendment rights to the people of the District of Columbia not
only fails the ``Three C'' test, it also is offensive to the very
principles on which our nation was founded.
The second amendment clearly states that ``the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' It does not say the right
to keep and bear arms applies only to people who live within the
jurisdiction of a State. It does not say the right to keep and bear
arms is subject to the wrong-headed whims of social engineers. And it
does not say the right to keep and bear arms may be infringed in
misguided response to violent crime.
The second amendment was designed to empower the people--the source
of American sovereignty--to protect themselves, their families, and
their homes. Instead, unreasonable restrictions and outright
prohibitions on firearms in the District of Columbia have emboldened
criminals to prey on innocent and unarmed citizens. The result is that
America's Capital City has been consistently and needlessly turned into
America's Murder Capital.
The record is clear: Twenty-eight years of keeping firearms out of
the hands of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia has
contributed to the most pervasive culture of violent crime in America.
The American people are most secure and most confident in their
personal safety when their constitutional rights are protected.

[[Page H7772]]

Mr. Speaker, just as it's my right as a citizen to protect my home
and family, it is my responsibility as a Member of Congress to protect
our citizens' constitutional rights. Let's focus our law enforcement
efforts on preventing and punishing real violent crimes rather than
denying second amendment rights to honest Americans--whether they're
from Idaho or the District of Columbia.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
3193, legislation that would repeal Washington, DC's, self-enacted gun
ban. For nearly 30 years, this ban has protected the citizens of
Washington and the city's 20 million annual tourists. Over the last
year, D.C. homicides are down 24 percent, and there have been 55
percent fewer murders since 1994. While the ban has not been perfect,
there is no excuse for Congress making it easier for murderers and
terrorists to get their hands on legal assault weapons. More guns will
lead to more murders.
If enacted, H.R. 3193 would repeal the District's ban on handguns and
semiautomatic firearms, including assault weapons, and end criminal
penalties for failure to register a gun. This ban was enacted by an
elected mayor and city council in 1976 and has never been eroded by
legislation or court challenge. The House is now attempting to change
the will of elected D.C. officials, but Washington does not even have a
voting representative to voice the will of the people most affected by
this legislation.
The dangers inherent in this bill are complicated by the recent
expiration of the assault weapons ban. Should this bill become law,
someone could purchase an Uzi or AK-47 and legally keep it at his or
her home within sight of the White House, Capitol Building, or Supreme
Court. During this time of unprecedented security, weakening gun laws
will only make the job of law enforcement officers more difficult and
more dangerous.
Unfortunately, the rule prevents all amendments, including those to
ban assault weapons and cop-killer bullets. Without these life-saving
provisions, it is only a matter of time until a member of he
Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Capitol Police, Secret Service, or
other law enforcement officer is outgunned with a legal assault weapon.
Washington, DC, has the right to determine its own laws, and those
laws deserve our respect. As D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey recently
stated, ``We don't need a law that puts more assault weapons in
circulation in D.C.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R.
3193.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill, which
would repeal a number of local laws adopted by the District of Columbia
City Council and would prohibit the passage of similar local laws in
the future.
The laws in question deal with regulation of firearms. But that is
not the reason for my opposition.
Instead, I oppose the bill because I think its enactment would be an
abuse of our authority as Members of Congress. Its effect would be to
reduce the right of self-government for one group of Americans--those
who reside in Washington, DC.
I know the Constitution gives Congress the power ``to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of
Columbia--even though the residents of the district are not fully
represented in either the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
But Congress, through the Home Rule Act, has authorized the
district's residents to elect a city council and mayor who will be
immediately responsible for governing the city.
I am convinced this was the right thing to do. I support home rule
for Washington, DC, because I think Americans who live in the district
deserve to be able to govern themselves as much as possible consistent
with the necessary functioning of the Federal Government. And this bill
flies in the face of that principle.
It's true that the bill includes a ``finding'' that its enactment
``is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to
restore the rights of its citizens under the second amendment to the
United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.'' But I
don't think that settles the matter.
I take seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution. But I am not
convinced that fidelity to that oath requires a vote to repeal these
local laws--especially since as far as I know there has been no
successful challenge to their constitutionality in all the years they
have been on the books.
And I certainly don't think fidelity to my oath requires me to
support a reduction in the authority of the D.C. City Council to pass
similar laws in the future, as this bill would do.
Further, while there is plenty of room to debate whether repealing
these particular laws would or would not enhance public safety--just as
there is room to debate whether the laws themselves are desirable or
effective--I think that debate should not take place here in Congress.
The laws this bill would repeal were duly adopted by the elected
government of the district and they have not interfered with the
orderly functioning of the Federal Government. So, in my opinion,
decisions about retaining, amending, or repealing these local laws
should be made by the city council--a body that is elected by and
accountable to the people who are subject to them.
Instead, by passing this bill Congress would substitute its judgment
for that of the local elected government--in effect denying their
constituents the right to govern themselves on this subject.
We cannot--and we should not--do that to the residents of Colorado or
any other State. I do not think we should do it to the people who live
here in Washington, DC. We may not think these local laws are well-
designed. But I think we should allow those covered by the laws to
decide that for themselves.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 3193,
the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of
this legislation that ensures greater respect for the right to bear
arms in Washington, DC.
H.R. 3193 repeals several of the more draconian citywide Washington,
DC, gun restrictions enacted in 1976. Restrictions H.R. 3193 will
repeal include the requirement that all firearms be registered. Gun
registration in other countries has created government lists of who
owns what guns. Such lists facilitate the harassment of gun owners and
the confiscation of their guns. Also repealed are blanket bans on the
possession of handguns and handgun ammunition as well as any semi-
automatic guns. These bans exist despite the fact that handguns and
semi-automatic guns are regularly used outside Washington, DC, for
self-defense. Also repealed is the prohibition on carrying a gun on
one's own property. It is hard to say a person is free if he is
prohibited from using the means of protecting himself and his family
even in his own home.
It is unfortunate that people in the federal capital city have for
nearly 30 years faced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in
the country. This fact is particularly unfortunate given Washington,
DC's recent history as the murder capital of the United States.
Ironically, the place where people most need to bear arms to defend
themselves from violent crimes has been one of the places where the
exercise of that right has been most restricted.
A strong case can be made that the high rate of violent crimes,
including murders, in Washington, DC, is due in part to restrictions on
the exercise of the right to bear arms. When potential victims are
likely armed, criminals think twice about committing violent crimes; a
gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is an excellent deterrent to
crime. Across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, Virginia does not
have this horrific crime and murder rate. Yet, people in Virginia can
buy, own, and even carry guns in public.
I am hopeful that the House's consideration of H.R. 3193 indicates a
new openness to legislation that will roll back other unconstitutional
and dangerous restrictions on Americans' right to bear arms. For years,
federal lawmakers have been passing gun control laws, even though they
have no authority to do so. Crime control, the stated reason for
passing gun control laws in the first place, is a function belonging to
the states.
Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation
to restore the Federal Government's respect for the right to bear arms
throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on
gun rights nationwide--not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced
several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore
respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment
Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto
ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and ``instant'' background check
imposed on gun purchases, and delete the ``sporting purposes'' test
that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a
destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be
``non-sporting.'' Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to
Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers'
dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations
actions that could infringe on the second amendment.
In 1976, I spoke on the floor of the House against the adoption of
restrictions on the right to bear arms in Washington, DC, that H.R.
3193 seeks to repeal. Unfortunately, my argument then was ruled out of
order, and the restrictions went into effect. While it has been too
long in coming, I am glad that the House is finally considering this
important issue. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would
restore some much needed respect for the fundamental rights of people
in Washington, DC.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in firm opposition to this
legislation, which aims to repeal Washington, DC's local gun ban. I
find it troubling and illogical that the House is repealing a ban on
handguns and assault weapons in a city where the Federal Government has
invested millions of dollars to increase and improve security. It is
foolhardy for Congress to counter these actions by allowing loaded
assault weapons to be carried

[[Page H7773]]

around this city, putting officers as well as citizens and visitors in
danger.
Washington, DC has made great strides to reduce its crime rate--
homicide has decreased by 25 percent over the past year and it has
decreased by 55 percent since the passage of the Brady Bill and the
Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Despite these improvements, violence
remains a serious problem in the District of Columbia. Sixteen children
have been killed by gunfire in DC so far this year. These numbers are
not going to improve if we allow loaded assault weapons to be carried
within the city.
Not only is this legislation ill conceived and dangerous, it is a
local matter that should not be within Congress's jurisdiction. The
District of Columbia City Council and Mayor passed this ban during its
first session in 1976. No laws have been passed locally to repeal the
law and the courts have maintained its constitutionality. Now, this
body, which does not even grant over half a million United States
citizens living in the District of Columbia voting representation in
Congress, is trying to further strip rights to these citizens by taking
away a self-imposed law to protect their safety.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to join many
of my colleagues to argue that guns are disproportionately killing our
children in our cities and this law has no basis to be here in front of
us today. We must act instantly to strike down both H.R. 3193 and S.
1414. 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.
H.R. 3193 wants to repeal DC's handgun, semi-automatic, and
ammunition bans, as well as the registration requirement. The bills
will allow gun possession at home, work and on any property a person
owns.
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 your 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?
There is also the possibility of break-ins and thefts of guns. DC is
on pace for a 20-year low in its homicide rate due in large part to DC
police department's efforts at getting guns off the streets. It appalls
me that Congress will sit here and enact measures to bring more guns
back to the neighborhoods.
The homicide rate in DC is approaching a 20-year low, but the rate
among juveniles is escalating. As chair of the Congressional Children's
Caucus, and as a mother, I can tell you that providing troubled teens
easier access to weapons is not the answer to lowering the rate of
violent death among juveniles.
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 capitol 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 bring 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 percent of all guns used
in crimes in DC originate outside of DC and 59 percent of traceable
guns were first purchased in Maryland and Virginia. In addition, 8
percent of traceable guns were bought in North Carolina, Florida,
Georgia and South Carolina.
In addition, H.R. 3193 violates state's rights. Its enactment would
overturn the will of both DC elected officials and local residents. DC,
like the 50 states, knows best what firearm regulations work for its
residents. Firearm laws that work in Montana would not be perfect fit
for a densely populated urban setting like DC. Both bills contain an
especially odious provision forbidding the Council to enact any gun
safety laws in the future.
It is a sad day for me to know that both H.R. 3193 and S. 1414 are
driven by the NRA lobby and not by DC residents or Members of Congress
who respect home rule. Neither H.R. 3193 nor S. 1414 is supported by
local leaders, business groups or DC residents. These are the people
who are most affected by its passage! Every major elected local
official in DC along with business and labor groups, all the city's
major community groups and civil groups have come out against any
effort to overturn, modify or change the DC's gun safety laws.
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. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, the provisions
of the District of Columbia's gun laws that have the most adverse
effect upon the largest number of law-abiding District residents, are
the ban on using firearms to defend yourself at home, the handgun ban,
and other measures that prevent or discourage the purchase of rifles
and shotguns.
Much has already been said about those provisions of the District's
gun laws, so I would like to address a provision that hasn't received
the same amount of attention.
I refer to the section of the District's laws that define various
types of firearms, particularly the definition of ``machine gun.''
As is fairly common knowledge, machine guns were invented in the late
1800s, and they are fundamentally the same today as they were then.
They fire repeatedly as long as you hold the trigger down. They are the
only firearms that operate in that way. And they all operate in that
way.
Federal law defines a machine gun appropriately, as a gun that
shoots--and I quote--``automatically more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger.'' I know of no one who
disagrees with that definition.
The problem is, the District also defines some semi-automatic
firearms as machine guns.
Semi-automatic firearms were also invented in the late 1800s, but
that is about where the similarity between them and machine gun ends.
Like a lever-action, bolt-action, or pump-action firearm, or a
revolver, a semi-automatic firearm fires only once when you pull the
trigger.
I realize that not everyone is clear on that point. ``Gun control''
supporters have gone to considerable lengths to suggest that a semi-
automatic fires like a machine gun. For example, in the context of the
``assault weapon'' issue, ``gun control'' supporters often claim that
semi-automatics ``spray fire.''
That does not change the facts, however. Thus, federal law correctly
defines a semi-automatic firearm as one that, among other things--and I
quote--``requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each
cartridge.''
And so that no one misunderstands, let me be clear that conforming
the District's definition to the Federal definition, does not change
the law with respect to the ownership or possession of machine guns.
Such guns are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and
will remain regulated under that law.
Conforming the District's definition will mean only that District
residents will not be prohibited from owning semi-automatic firearms
that are legal to possess under federal law.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first. In addition to violating
the Republicans' ``sacred oath'' to support ``states' rights;'' this
body is violating the citizens of the District of Columbia's right to
self-determination with respect to guns . . . just because it can.
Congress, in 1993, denied American citizens the right to statehood and
continues to deny them voting rights. DC's young people are fighting,
dying and being wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of
democracy and self-determination . . . something they don't have back
home in DC! So Republicans in Congress exercise outside control over DC
citizens, and DC citizens have limited means of fighting back, since
they have no voting representation in Congress.
Second. The other side is forcing us to vote on this bill just to
send a political message back home. The Senate has already rejected it,
so we know it will not become law this year. They are doing it for
political reasons just before the election on November 2--which they
would never even think about doing to another state because the
Americans they represent have a member in the House and two in the
Senate. They are exploiting the politically impotent citizens of DC. It
reminds me of the big bully in school picking on the littlest and
weakest kid in the class. Let's be clear. They are forcing us to vote
on this legislation in order to politicize the gun issue on the eve of
the election in order to send a political message back home.
Third. In addition to all of that, let's look at the Republican flip-
flop on the gun issue! What was the Republican Party saying about guns
in 1968? And, I might add for context, in 1967-1968 our cities were in
rebellion and our colleague, Congressman Bobby Rush, was a Black
Panther, and the Panthers had guns?

[[Page H7774]]

But let's look at the Republican Platform language in 1968!

republican party platform 1968

``We pledge an all-out federal-state-local crusade against
crime, including enactment of legislation to control
indiscriminate availability of firearms.''

republicans in congress in 2004

First, on September 13, Republicans let the assault weapons
ban expire!
Now the ``Republican District of Columbia Personal
Protection Act''!
Sec. 3. Reform DC Council's authority to restrict firearms.
This section shall not be construed to permit the Council,
the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the
District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or
unduly burden the ability of persons otherwise permitted to
possess firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing
in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-
protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither
prohibited by Federal law nor regulated by the National
Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have
authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or
eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.
Sec. 4. Repeal DC semiautomatic ban.
Sec. 5. Repeal registration requirement.
Sec. 6. Repeal handgun ammunition ban.
Sec. 8. Additional repeals.
Sec. 9. Remove criminal penalties for possession of
unregistered firearms.

This bill is a waste of this body's time. It is wrongheaded. It is
patently unfair. It is nakedly political. It is anti-democratic. And I
urge its defeat.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
legislation that has been introduced to usurp the District of
Columbia's home rule and greatly exacerbate an already very serious gun
violence problem here in our Nation's Capital.
I am baffled at what the so-called ``District of Columbia Personal
Protection Act'' introduced by the gentleman from Indian, has to do
with personally protecting anyone in Washington, DC. To the contrary,
if enacted, this legislation would work to increase homicides and gun
violence in a city that has a history of struggling to protect its
citizens from crimes involving firearms.
Leaders in the District of Columbia have long recognized that they
have a serious crime and gun violence problem. Therefore, since 1976
they have seen fit to enact strict gun control laws in the District.
Last year, DC police confiscated a whopping 1,982 firearms from
criminal suspects. So far this year, 1,385 guns have been recovered. If
the aforementioned legislation were in place, most of those guns would
still be on the streets and in the hands of criminals looking to use
them to do harm.

Even more disturbing, the gentleman from Indiana's legislation
doesn't stop at just repealing important DC laws such as those
preventing the sale of assault weapons. No, it even goes so far as to
prevent DC elected officials from enacting any regulation addressing
the ownership or use of a firearm. That would mean no restrictions in
the District on carrying concealed firearms in churches, movie theaters
or shopping centers, no local requirement for gun safety training and
no ability whatsoever for local officials to take action that will help
keep guns out of the hands of gang members, terrorists or criminals.
Public officials on the ground, working in the District, know the
needs of their constituents and the best means to protect them from gun
violence. This legislation is a total affront to the concept of ``Home-
Rule'' and a slap in the face to the people of the District of
Columbia. Coming on the heels of the repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban,
the House is leading the charge to strip the District's ability to
protect its citizens by repealing popular and life-saving gun control
measures.
Mr. Speaker, we've got a war raging right now in Iraq. We don't need
to open another front right here on the city streets of our Nation's
Capital. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, all Americans know that gun
control continues to be a serious subject of debate, right here in the
District of Columbia, in the State of Georgia, which I represent, and
across this Nation. It's an issue of personal safety and of
constitutional rights embedded in the fabric of our Nation.
I agree with those who want to restrict criminal access to guns.
However, this must be done without compromising the constitutional
rights of our law-abiding citizens.
I strongly support the right of law-abiding adults to purchase and
own firearms for the protection of their homes and families,
collecting, target shooting, and hunting. That's why I have and will
continue to oppose any proposal that threatens this basic second
amendment right.
I realize the concerns of some Americans who, in the wake of school
shootings and other heinous illegal acts, call for stricter gun control
measures. I understand those concerns. That's why I fully support
measures that call for tougher sentences for the illegal use of
firearms, to get offenders off the streets and out of our communities.
I support stiff sentences of juveniles who use firearms illegally, and
I support increasing the maximum penalty for adults who illegally
provide those juveniles with firearms. That's how we must keep our
schools and communities safe.
Mr. Speaker, tougher gun laws should not infringe on the rights of
law-abiding citizens, and Congress has both the authority and the
responsibility to ensure that they do not. So, the question before us
today is not whether Congress can repeal the District of Columbia's
handgun and self-defense bans, it is whether Congress should do so. The
U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 States, Federal law, the
laws of all 50 States, the vast majority Georgians and of Americans
recognize the right for law-abiding citizens to use firearms for
protection, and for other legal purposes. Only the District of Columbia
prohibits a person from having a firearm assembled and loaded at home
for the purpose of self-defense. I believe that that's wrong. Pass this
bill and allow DC residents to protect themselves from crime.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition
to H.R. 3193, the so-called District of Columbia Personal Protection
Act.
I do not agree with the premise that more hand guns and assault
weapons in the District will mean less crime on the streets of our
Nation's Capital. The experts don't either. The Mayor of the District,
Anthony Williams, strongly opposes this bill. The District's Chief of
Police, Charles Ramsey, recently said that ``to reduce crime and
prevent more senseless tragedies like the recent killings in Anacostia
and Ballou, we need fewer--not more--weapons. . .'' The District's
Delegate in the Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton, is strongly against
this legislation, as is the City Council.
Why, Mr. Speaker, do all these District leaders oppose this effort to
overturn their gun laws? Because, to cite just recent examples, they
have seen their neighbors, their family, and their co-workers mourn the
loss of 16 local children killed by guns this year. And yet, today in
the House, a place secured from weapons by metal detectors at every
entrance and protected by our own dedicated police force, we are voting
on legislation that will overrule the District's own sensible gun laws.
Today, I have heard from a number of my colleagues who support this
legislation that the District of Columbia is the murder capital of the
United States and that the best way to solve this problem is to
increase access to hand guns and assault weapons. But what I want to
ask is why we are not actually helping the District with its real
underlying problems. Why are we not doing more to support the police
officers on the streets of the District? Why are we not doing more to
support after-school programs to keep children off the streets and away
from guns and crime? Why are we not providing funds for job training
and other educational programs for the District's residents, who
desperately want to end the cycle of crime that plagues many of their
District's communities? The simple answer is that this legislation is
based not on sound public policy or on a desire to end gun-related
crimes; this is a politically motivated attempt to curry favor with the
National Rifle Association and other opponents of reasonable gun
safety.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why those who, day after day, rail
on the floor of the House about their support for federalism are now
taking significant steps to trample the right of the District to decide
its own affairs. If my colleagues who support this measure really feel
that the District should repeal its gun registration laws, repeal its
assault weapons ban, and allow ``cop killer'' bullets on the streets,
then I recommend that they register to vote in the District and lobby
their local councilmember for such a change. This is the appropriate
way to change the laws of the District of Columbia.
The elected leaders of the District of Columbia do not want this
legislation. The people of the District of Columbia do not want this
legislation. If passed, this legislation will put more people at risk
of being shot with assault weapons or handguns--particularly at risk
are children and police officers. It's time to stand up to the gun
lobby and oppose legislation that will make the District of Columbia
less safe. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3193.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and
this bill. The rule before us is a closed rule allowing only 60 minutes
of debate and prohibits consideration of all the Democratic amendments
offered to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, this bill repeals District of Columbia's laws that ban
the sale and possession of handguns and semiautomatic weapons that have
been in effect for over three decades.
Our constituents expect us to work on issues of national concern.
They expect us to complete the annual appropriations process and
avoid a government

[[Page H7775]]

shutdown. Yet, today, with the end of the fiscal year 2 days away,
Congress has only managed to complete one appropriation bill.
They expect us to continue to provide States with Federal assistance
to build and maintain the Nation's highways. However, Congress has not
acted to renew authorization for billions of dollars for critical
surface transportation projects that expire on Friday. They expect us
to take up the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to make America safer.
They expect us to enact legislation to create new jobs and address the
plight of the unemployed.
They do not expect us to waste the little time remaining on a bill
that the chief sponsor in the other body has all but abandoned hope of
getting to the President.
Why on earth is this body squandering the little time remaining in
this session on this bill? One word. Politics. Brazen, election-year
politics.
With only 7 legislative days left in this Congress, I know that my
constituents sent me here to vote on bills of more importance to their
lives.
H.R. 3193 repeals several District of Columbia firearms laws and
limits the authority of the District to enact new firearms legislation.
Specifically, the bill repeals the District's ban on the sale and
possession of handguns, handgun ammunition and semiautomatic weapons.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin in expressing my outrage
about the legislation before us today.
The rule before us blocks consideration of meritorious amendments
offered by my colleagues at Rules last night. These amendments would
have reinstated the District's ban on semiautomatic assault weapons,
reinstated the Federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, and
reinstated the District's prohibition on the sale of armor-piercing
bullets--the so-called ``cop-killer'' bullets.
I think the majority of our constituents would be appalled to learn
that this bill exempts semiautomatic weapons that fire 12 or more shots
without manual reload from the District's ``machine gun'' restrictions.
We should be here considering legislation to renew the national
assault weapons ban that unceremoniously expired a couple of weeks
ago--not making a mockery of DC's restrictions on semi-automatic
weapons.
As DC Mayor Anthony Williams wrote to 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 to put our officers at greater risk at a time when
Capitol Police--alone--are asking for $20 million 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.
It is worth pointing out the hypocrisy of my colleagues who support
this bill by arguing that the District's gun laws infringe on DC
citizens' second amendment right to bear arms.
While the bill changes the law to allow DC residents to carry
pistols, open or concealed, in their homes and places of business, it
does not repeal another DC gun law. The law we will not repeal today is
the provision outlawing people from carrying or having readily access
to a firearm ``upon the United States Grounds or within the Capital
Buildings.''
So we will vote to approve guns in another person's workplace in DC,
but not in our offices.
It is unthinkable that only 2 years after the Washington area was
terrorized by snipers who killed 10 people in the region, and while the
Nation's capital is still under a terrorist alert, Congress would take
action on this bill.
We must not lose sight of the innocent victims of gun violence.
Yesterday, the front page of the Washington Post reported that a 13-
year-old boy was fatally shot inside his apartment, the 21st child
killed this year in DC.
When we voted on this same issue in the aftermath of the Columbine
shootings, it failed by a vote of 175 to 250. I hope my colleagues
remember their outrage to that senseless killing and recognize that
this bill and the recent lapse of the 1994 Federal ban on semi-
automatic weapons place our children in more danger.
So, Mr. Speaker, to recap, we are not considering bills to create
jobs, we are not passing the budgets for Federal agencies and services,
and we are not improving our homeland security. No, today we are
debating legislation to allow more lethal guns and ammunition to be on
the streets of our Nation's capital--in the hands of would-be
terrorists, gang members, and other violent criminals.
Mr. Speaker, again, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this
closed rule and to vote against the underlying bill.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the DC Personal Protection Act.
This commonsense legislation will restore the constitutional right of
DC citizens to lawfully protect themselves and their families from
criminals.
The simple fact is that Washington, DC is one of the most dangerous
cities in America.
Year after year, Washington, DC, is in the running for the
disgraceful title of ``the murder capital of the United States.'' FBI
statistics released last year reveal that Washington, DC, has the
highest per capita homicide rate of any big city in America.
Ironically Washington, DC, has the toughest gun control laws of any
city in the Nation.
In 1976 the City Council banned handguns and required rifles and
shotguns to be registered and stored disassembled.
What's really sad is that prior to the DC gun ban, the city's
homicide rate was on the decline.
However in the 15 years between 1976 and 1991, the District's
homicide rate skyrocketed 200 percent while the national homicide rate
rose just 12 percent.
And as of 2002, DC's homicide rate was almost double the rate from
when the gun ban took effect--nearly five times higher than the
national average.
When will we learn that gun control does not make the public safer?
Criminals ignore gun bans while good citizens abide by them.
That's a recipe for disaster, just as we've seen in our Nation's
capital.
For the sake of our constitutional right to bear arms and for the
safety of law abiding DC citizens and their families, support this
bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the District of
Columbia Personal Protection Act, H.R. 3193, an outrageous effort
spearheaded by my friend Representative Souder of Indiana, to repeal
the ban on the possession of firearms in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton,
the DC elected officials, Mayor Anthony Williams, business, labor and
civil rights groups and most importantly the District's local
residents, who have spoken out against repealing this ban. If this
Congress passes H.R. 3193, we will ignore their urgent cries--to spare
their communities from further gun violence.
I think I should point out to those Members who believe that the NRA
interests should trump the interests of the District's citizens, let's
remember the principles of DC home rule that were recently cemented by
the Federal courts in Seegars v. Ashcroft. In Seegars, the court held
that because the District of Columbia is not a State, then the second
amendment did not apply and the ban was not unconstitutional. Congress
should respect the court's decision and the District's right to home
rule to allow the gun ban to remain in place.
Just ask the parents of 16-year-old Ashley Walker, killed Sunday,
September 26, 2004, and the parents of 13-year-old Michael Swan, killed
Monday, September 27, 2004, if they believe that more guns should be
permitted in the District. These parents know all too well what it
means to lose someone to gun violence. They know the importance of
maintaining this ban and that creating an environment of proliferation
of guns is antithetical to saving lives.
Yet despite these tragedies, Mr. Speaker, the homicide rate in DC is
approaching a 20-year low. In fact, DC homicides are down by 24 percent
from last year and 55 percent since 1994. It is clear that this ban
saves lives.
In my own district in Maryland, there has been an overwhelming
decline of assault pistols used in crimes since the Maryland Assault
Pistol Ban in 1994.
The Baltimore City Police Department concluded that since the ban's
enactment that 55 percent fewer assault pistols were used in crimes.
These are real statistics from cities that had been plagued by violence
in the past decade; but these cities are also evidence of the success
that has sprung from banning assault weapons.
Once again Mr. Speaker, with statistics such as these, we cannot
ignore the fact that this ban saves lives.
There are Members of this body who will argue that this bill will
give DC residents a sense of protection and restore their second
amendment rights. I argue just the opposite. First, under the current
law, DC residents may currently own registered guns--in fact over
100,000 firearms have been registered since 1976. Secondly, lifting the
ban would engender all sorts of travesties: fully loaded assault
weapons--to be carried in public in some instances--acquisition of
armor-piercing ammunition--including ``cop-killer'' bullets--
elimination of the District's registration program--even for assault
weapons--and issuance of permits to individuals to carry concealed
handguns in their places of business. I and other reasonable-minded
individuals agree that this legislation is a far cry from providing
residents with a ``sense of protection.'' We would argue

[[Page H7776]]

that this legislation would only restore a culture of violence that the
ban has significantly reduced.
Mr. Speaker, if H.R. 3193 is passed we will once again ignore the
millions of Americans who have pleaded with the administration and this
body to extend the ban in the District of Columbia and the national
assault weapons ban, contained in H.R. 2038. We cannot fail the
residents of the District like we failed the millions of Americans when
we allowed the assault weapons ban to expire just weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, we must listen to the residents of this District,
citizens who do not have voting representation in Congress. I urge my
colleagues to vote against repealing the DC gun ban--vote against H.R.
3193.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment to discuss today's
floor vote on H.R. 3193, to repeal the DC gun ban. I voted in favor of
this bill. However, I am concerned with how this legislation came to
the floor--without a hearing and without the opportunity to offer
amendments. In addition, I am a strong supporter of local rule and this
legislation, although I agree with the principle, blocks the local
District of Columbia government from having any authority over the
matter. Again, I support the legislation in general, I just don't
believe appropriate procedure was followed on such a controversial
issue.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________