[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H8168-H8178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6842, NATIONAL CAPITAL SECURITY AND 
                               SAFETY ACT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1434 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1434

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 6842) to require the District of Columbia to 
     revise its laws regarding the use and possession of firearms 
     as necessary to comply with the requirements of the decision 
     of the Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. 
     Heller, in a manner that protects the security interests of 
     the Federal government and the people who work in, reside in, 
     or visit the District of Columbia and does not undermine the 
     efforts of law enforcement, homeland security, and military 
     officials to protect the Nation's capital from crime and 
     terrorism. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. That amendment may be offered only by the Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order 
     against that amendment are waived except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendment as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 6842 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1434.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1434 provides for the consideration of H.R. 
6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act, under a structured 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
the report if offered by Representative Childers. That amendment is 
debatable for 1 hour. The rule also provides one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House as a supporter of the second 
amendment, but also as a strong supporter of sensible gun safety 
legislation. I also stand here as a strong supporter of the elected 
Government of the District of Columbia, and I respect their right to 
enact and execute their own laws.
  Apparently, and unfortunately, not all of my colleagues agree. They 
believe that Members of Congress from other States have the right to 
dictate matters that are best left to local governments.
  On June 26, 2008, by a 5-4 decision in the Heller case, the Supreme 
Court upheld a ruling of the Federal Appeals Court which found the 
District's ban on handgun possession to be unconstitutional. It is 
important to note that the court stipulated that this right is not 
unlimited; they reaffirmed that ``any gun, anywhere'' is not 
constitutionally protected.
  In response to the ruling, the D.C. City Council passed, and the 
mayor signed, emergency legislation to temporarily allow District 
residents to

[[Page H8169]]

have pistols in their homes. The council will continue their work this 
week by making those changes permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, the elected D.C. City Council and the elected mayor are 
committed to complying with the Heller decision. The plaintiff in the 
case, Dick Heller, was quickly allowed to keep a gun in his home.
  But that is not good enough for my friends on the other side of this 
debate. They believe it is not good enough for the D.C. Government to 
comply with the court's ruling. They believe they can take this 
opportunity to shove the agenda of a single special interest, the gun 
lobby, down the throats of the citizens of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, it is beyond insulting; it is arrogant. I ask my friends 
on the other side, how would they like it if Congress enacted laws that 
took away local control in their own communities? Maybe Congress should 
decide whether the ``Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'' can be assigned 
in the Dallas County schools. Maybe Congress should decide whether a 
new Wal-Mart can be built in Tupelo, Mississippi. Maybe Congress should 
decide how many firefighters the Macon, Georgia Fire Department should 
have.
  I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that if we tried to bring any of those 
things to the House floor, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
would be down here screaming about big government and local control. 
But when it comes to doing the bidding of the gun lobby, they have 
decided that Congress knows best.
  It is bad enough that the citizens of the District of Columbia have 
to endure taxation without representation every single day. And it is 
bad enough that even though soldiers from the District of Columbia can 
fight and die wearing the uniform of the United States, they do not 
have the right to a full vote in the United States Congress.
  We should be strengthening the District's right to govern itself, not 
trouncing on it. For years, Congress treated the District of Columbia 
as its little fiefdom. The amendment made in order under this rule 
would take us back to those bad old days.
  Again, the purpose of the underlying bipartisan legislation before us 
today is to require that the D.C. Government comply with the Heller 
decision within 180 days. There is simply no need, there is no 
justification for this Congress to go beyond the Heller decision and 
impose sweeping changes to the self-governance of D.C. But that is 
exactly what the Heller amendment would do, easing access to guns, 
eliminating gun registration, and making D.C. law enforcement's job to 
protect its residents and the visitors that come here that much harder.

                              {time}  1500

  This will, in no way, make our Nation's capital a safer place.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Holmes Norton for her 
steadfast representation of the District, and for bringing H.R. 6842 to 
the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support her legislation and to 
vote ``no'' on the Childers amendment, and I look forward to the debate 
today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as you might guess, I rise in opposition 
to this rule, to the underlying legislation, and, I believe, to the 
entire process that got this bill here today, which I believe 
represents little more than an opportunity for this Democratic majority 
to thumb its nose at the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding an 
individual's right to keep and bear arms, while also providing some of 
its vulnerable Members with a meaningless political cover vote leading 
up to this fall's election.
  Since taking control of this House almost 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, 
this Democrat majority has done everything in its power to prevent 
Republicans who agree with the Supreme Court that residents of the 
District of Columbia have the right to self-defense, like every other 
American citizen, having a vote on this issue, is very important. In 
fact, last year it was the Democrats' need to prevent a vote on this 
very issue that brought the debate on providing the District of 
Columbia with a voting Member of Congress to a screeching halt.
  Today, however, the Democrat majority has been forced to bring this 
measure to the floor because of a rapidly growing bipartisan support 
for a competing measure to comply with the Supreme Court's affirmation 
of D.C. residents' constitutional rights. Isn't it amazing? The 
District of Columbia went to court and found out that they had to 
follow constitutional rights.
  And there's also a fear by the Democrat majority that a discharge 
petition that has already won the support of 166 Members of Congress, 
the passage of which the Washington Post has recently said would be 
``deeply embarrassing to the House leadership and could infrastructure 
the party's House contingent.''
  Mr. Speaker, instead of providing real, meaningful policy solutions 
to make the lives of law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia 
safer, today we are taking up a measure that would continue to subvert 
the wishes of our Founding Fathers, as recognized and affirmed by the 
Supreme Court, while also allowing Members to have a vote on an 
excellent substitute amendment which I fear will be dead on arrival 
when it reaches the Democrat-controlled Senate.
  This substitute amendment, which I strongly support and have 
cosponsored, along with 115 other bipartisan colleagues, would 
recognize that D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home violates 
the second amendment, as does the District of Columbia's prohibition 
against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the 
purpose of immediate self-defense.
  To correct this injustice, the substitute amendment would repeal the 
District's illogical ban on the most popular home and self-defense 
weapons, restore the right of self-defense in the home, repeal the 
District's intentionally burdensome registration process, and allow 
D.C. residents to finally purchase handguns and defend themselves in 
their own homes.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that as early as today, that the D.C. City 
Council may be meeting to address this issue. But I remain concerned 
about what the same authors of the so-called ``emergency'' legislation 
that violated the Supreme Court's ruling just a few months ago, may try 
to pass in order to continue to drag their feet and to deny D.C. 
residents their constitutional rights to protect themselves and their 
families in their own home. This Congress should not be on record 
trying to avoid what is the law of the land.
  Because of the Council's demonstrated past willingness to abide by 
our Nation's laws, I believe that it is important that this House pass 
the substitute amendment on behalf of all law-abiding citizens who want 
to exercise their constitutional rights within the District of 
Columbia.
  Additionally, as the administration notes in their statement of 
policy on this legislation, the underlying bill in its current form 
would do nothing more than direct the D.C. City Council to reconsider 
within 180 days the emergency firearms legislation it passed in July, 
and which will expire in October, regardless of this House's action on 
this matter. This means that if this legislation is passed without the 
substitute amendment provided for by this rule, the legislation's only 
effect would be to give the City Council even more time to drag its 
feet and remain non-compliant with the directives of the highest court 
in our land.
  Mr. Speaker, it really should not be so difficult to write a law that 
is compliant with the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this Statement of Administration 
Policy in opposition to this bill and in support of the substitute 
amendment in the Congressional Record.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


          H.R. 6842--National Capital Security and Safety Act

 (Del. Norton (D) District of Columbia and Rep. Waxman (D) California)

       The Administration supports the objective behind H.R. 6842 
     of revising the District of Columbia's firearms laws to 
     ensure their conformity with the Second Amendment as 
     interpreted by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. 
     Heller. The bill in its present form, however, would do 
     nothing more than direct the District's City Council to 
     reconsider the emergency firearms legislation that it 
     unanimously passed in July. Because that emergency 
     legislation must by law expire in October, H.R. 6842 simply 
     requires the Council to do what it is effectively required to 
     do already (in far less time than the 180 days that would be 
     required by this bill). Therefore, the Administration 
     strongly opposes this legislation unless it is amended to 
     include the provisions of H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment 
     Enforcement Act.

[[Page H8170]]

       The Administration strongly supports H.R. 6691 because it 
     would immediately advance Second Amendment principles by 
     directly protecting the individual right of law-abiding 
     District residents to keep and bear commonly used firearms 
     not only to protect themselves and their families but also to 
     protect their homes and property. H.R. 6691 would ensure that 
     law-abiding residents of the District have a meaningful 
     opportunity to procure lawful firearms without undue delay, 
     as well as the ability to keep those firearms readily 
     accessible for self-defense without having to unlock or 
     assemble them in the face of imminent danger. H.R. 6691, 
     which has bipartisan support, would responsibly balance 
     individual rights with the public safety by expanding the 
     practical opportunities to keep and bear arms for lawful 
     purposes in the District within the reasonable limits imposed 
     by the Federal firearms laws.

  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support the substitute 
amendment to hold D.C. accountable to the Supreme Court, to the laws of 
this land, and to provide its residents with all the constitutional 
rights enjoyed by other American citizens, and to oppose the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this debate is nuts. The Childers 
amendment, among other things, would allow stockpiling of military-
style weapons with high capacity ammunition magazines. It would 
undermine Federal anti-gun trafficking laws. It would prohibit D.C. 
from enacting commonsense gun laws. It would repeal commonsense 
restrictions on gun possession by dangerous unqualified persons. It 
repeals all age limits for the possession and carrying of long guns, 
including assault rifles. It allows gun possession by many persons who 
have committed violent or drug-related misdemeanor crimes. It allows 
many persons who are dangerously mentally ill to obtain firearms. It 
repeals registration requirements for firearms. It repeals all safe 
storage laws.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my view that, if, in fact, we enacted the Childers 
amendment, that we would create a situation where we put more people in 
danger.
  This is not about security for the citizens of D.C. This, quite 
frankly, is about insecurity. What this amendment is is one big fat wet 
kiss to the National Rifle Association.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I very much 
appreciate that the Rules Committee, under the gentleman, has made the 
Waxman-Norton Home Rule bill in order, and particularly Chairman Waxman 
for affording a hearing which exposed the dangers of this bill, so much 
so that the NRA was driven back to the drawing board to change at least 
some of it. Unfortunately, they've left a very dangerous bill anyway.
  Our Home Rule bill says 180 days after the Heller decision, the 
District must respond, and, of course, within two weeks it had 
responded. Council was about to go out of town; could have gone out of 
town and waited until the Council reconvened today, but it allowed 
registration to occur by passing a stopgap measure. It didn't change 
much because there was no time for hearings. But Heller himself, Dick 
Heller, has registered under that bill.
  They are voting, ironically, as I speak, on a permanent bill that I 
think every Second Amendment advocate would support because it more 
than meets the Heller decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the very painful dilemma that the 
Democratic leadership and our own caucus has been put in. 5 days after 
commemorating
9/11, Democrats were met in a dark alley with a ``do or die'' demand 
from the NRA pointing a proverbial gun at their re-election. This puts 
many Democrats in a terrible position.
  For example, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer have spent 
their careers protecting the Federal presence. They have spent their 
careers supporting home rule and voting against bills just like the 
substitute amendment which has been made in order.
  It is this substitute amendment which has dismayed and, I must tell 
you, even angered many in this House, because what the rule gives with 
one hand, it takes back with another.
  Some people are dismayed because they are gun safety advocates, and 
we haven't been able to get a new assault weapon bill passed through 
the House.
  Some people are dismayed because it is the energy bill they want to 
continue to talk about and other national business, and now they're 
talking about a local council issue.
  Some are dismayed because they've always supported home rule. And 
some are dismayed because this is a bill that threatens, in the worst 
way, the Federal presence. We're putting not just the District at risk. 
That's par for the course. We're putting the entire Federal presence, 
every Federal official, every dignitary, from the President of the 
United States to Federal employees working in cabinet agencies, every 
man, woman and child who works, visits or lives in the District of 
Columbia, is put at risk by a bill that the NRA has insisted come to 
the floor.
  We have before us, if this bill passes, one of the most permissive 
gun laws in the country. Post-9/11, the United States House of 
Representatives would be passing a bill, should this rule survive, that 
arms an entirely new set of people that most jurisdictions would prefer 
not to have guns at all, children. No age limit, for example. People 
just released from a mental institution, like John Hinckley, that is 
people who are voluntarily committed and then released, people 
convicted of very serious crimes, all could get a gun because of the 
NRA bill. Why?
  The Waxman-Norton bill passed 21-1 because there wasn't any reason to 
vote against it and because people didn't want to be seen voting 
against such a bill.
  So why the substitute?
  The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is because the NRA says so. It's a 
short answer. It's a long answer. It's the only answer. NRA has proudly 
announced to every reporter in town that they wrote the bill, that they 
told the Members what to do, and that's why the bill is coming to the 
floor. They have used a combination of campaign funds and, frankly, 
terror in the hearts of some Democrats at least about their own re-
election. Who knows if the NRA will succeed, but people are afraid.
  The public lie that's being pandered here is that the NRA bill was 
necessary because the District isn't complying and won't comply. Never 
mind that if D.C. didn't comply Congress could overturn District law 
because Congress can overturn any law the Council passes. But D.C. has 
already begun to comply. They put in a stopgap measure. Heller is, in 
fact, registered. They did that as they were going out of town.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman another 2 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. As we're speaking, the Council is voting on permanent 
legislation that no gun supporter could oppose. It puts no limit on the 
number of guns you could have in your homes. It allows unlocked semi-
automatic firearms in the home, and it uses other measures to protect 
District residents and to protect the Federal presence, such as 
restrictions, for example, on the age when a child can get a gun.
  But Members are being asked to cast a dangerous vote on a dangerous 
rule, followed by a vote on a dangerous bill that not only has no 
public purpose, but flies in the face of the overriding public purpose 
of the Congress of the United States since 9/11, and of the current 
administration, to protect the country beginning with protecting the 
Nation's Capital.
  You didn't hear it from me. You heard it from the Capitol Police if 
you were at the hearing. You heard it from the Park Police which has 
jurisdiction throughout the region. You heard it. These are the Federal 
police that have enforcement authority. And you heard it from the head 
of the D.C. Police Department, the largest Police Department in the 
region, the woman who set up the Department's Homeland Security 
section, which put her in daily touch with the top Federal security 
network.
  I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, what will happen if this matter passes 
this session. I know what I will do. But even if the danger penetrates 
here or in the Senate, let me give you fair warning, your districts are 
going to hear about what you do today. This has been blown up into a 
national matter because you are threatening the safety of the entire 
Federal presence and every

[[Page H8171]]

dignitary and every Federal employee here.
  No Member of Congress who regards herself or himself as responsible 
Members should want their name attached in the 110th Congress to this 
bill, not to the attached bill. I ask you to consider that before you 
go home and try to explain why you endangered the President of the 
United States and visitors to Washington like themselves.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I find it very interesting that 
the gentleman from Massachusetts talks about ``those Republicans that 
have forced us into having to bring this bill to the floor today.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I didn't accuse the Republicans of forcing. I said 
``those on the other side of this debate.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman clarifying that.
  Reclaiming my time, the gentleman accused those who are on the other 
side of the debate of forcing this issue today.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an internal struggle within the Democratic 
Party. The gentleman who brought the bill to the floor today chaired 
the Rules Committee last night. I heard no voice opposition to the 
rule, to the substitute; and yet today we hear they were being forced 
into doing this by the other side, those who opposed the bill. But it's 
their bill. It's their internal fight. It's their internal 
disagreement. It's their argument that they're having among their own 
family members.
  So for the record, let me just state the Republican Party is for 
following the law. We do believe the Supreme Court got it right. We 
believe that it is wrong to bring a bill to the floor as the majority 
party, the Democratic Party, has done to try and circumvent and 
lengthen out the time that was given by the Supreme Court for someone 
to come into compliance with the law.
  And we do believe that what the Rules Committee did last night was 
not open and honest and not about more accountability. We believe what 
they did was to handle a political matter that is a fight that they're 
having among themselves.
  The Republican Party is pleased to be here on behalf of taxpayers and 
law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. We believe that 
this substitute amendment, which has been made in order by the Rules 
Committee, is the better of the two bills.
  But to say that somebody is struggling or some outside forces are 
forcing this bill upon this Democrat majority is absurd.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia and my former colleague on the Rules Committee, 
Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise very forcibly in favor of this bill. I think that it is a good 
rule and a good underlying bill, and I'm proud to support it.
  I agree with my colleague, my former colleague on the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Texas, when he says that this is an 
internal struggle within the Democratic majority, within the Democratic 
Party over this piece of legislation just as I think, Mr. Speaker, that 
they're engaged in an internal struggle over the issue of whether or 
not to allow drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf for both oil and 
natural gas and to utilize our own resources to bring down the price of 
energy and the price at the pump to the American people who are 
suffering so badly.
  In that particular legislation, of course, the leadership is in favor 
of, Mr. Speaker, of saving the planet. The leadership of the Senate is 
in favor of getting rid of all fossil fuels, which he characterizes as 
poison; the leader of Sierra Club says it would be a good thing if we 
had to pay $10 and $12 a gallon for gasoline at the pump. That's the 
leadership.
  But there are many, Mr. Speaker, in the Democratic majority rank and 
file, if you will, the Blue Dog Coalition, they're struggling. They're 
struggling very badly with that type of policy. And I think they would 
feel just as we do on this side of the aisle that in these dire 
economic times, it's time to save not the planet, but to save the 
United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, as I say, in strong support of the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute the Rules Committee has made in order for 
this legislation. The right of an individual to keep and bear arms is 
one of the most basic rights provided to all Americans by our Bill of 
Rights.
  On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that very right for 
the residents of the Nation's capital in its ruling on the case of the 
District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court's 5-4 decision rightfully 
deemed the longstanding ban on handguns in the homes of law-abiding 
citizens in the District of Columbia to be unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, in theory, the result of this ruling should have simply 
allowed Washington, DC, residents to have the same second amendment 
rights as the rest of this country. Unfortunately though, the D.C. City 
Council chose to ignore the will of the Supreme Court by passing an 
ordinance that continues to infringe upon the rights of individuals 
constitutionally protected.
  The strongly bipartisan amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
H.R. 6842 properly addresses the underlying issue to enforce the will 
of the Supreme Court. It does so by repealing the District of 
Columbia's current ban on semi-automatic pistols, which are the most 
commonly owned handguns in this country. It also repeals the needless 
requirement that a lawful firearm in the home must be either 
disassembled or bound by a trigger lock; these provisions undermining 
an individual's ability to provide for their own self-defense and the 
self-defense of their family and their children.
  Currently, there are no registered firearms dealers within the 
District of Columbia, so the amendment made in order will waive Federal 
law for D.C. residents and simply allow them to lawfully purchase a 
handgun either in the State of Virginia or in the State of Maryland.
  Mr. Speaker, it's imperative that we fully enforce the Supreme 
Court's rule and restore second amendment rights to residents of our 
Nation's capital. I strongly support the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and, 
if it is adopted, the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York, the Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial 
Services and General Government, which oversees the District of 
Columbia, Mr. Serrano.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that would 
allow the Norton bill and in strong opposition to the amendment that 
treats the District of Columbia as a colony.
  I have said many times that Congress needs to stop imposing its will 
on the residents of the District of Columbia. As chairman of the 
subcommittee that overseas the District, I have made noninterference in 
District affairs a priority of my oversight. D.C. does not need a 
second mayor and does not need a second city council, although there 
are Members here today who seem interested in serving for both.
  The amendment to Delegate Norton's bill is particularly offensive. 
Under the cover of forcing D.C. to comply with the Supreme Court 
ruling, it instead guts D.C.'s ability to protect its citizens from 
unnecessary violence.
  I sincerely believe that supporters of this amendment are seeking to 
impose on D.C. that which they would never impose on their own 
communities simply because D.C. is under their control and they're not 
accountable to D.C. residents. What the heck, it's the District of 
Columbia; use it as a testing ground for anything you can't do back 
home.
  One of the most unpleasant features of our current democracy is the 
fact that many millions of U.S. citizens in the District, Puerto Rico, 
and other territories do not have fair and equal representation here in 
Congress but instead are left to the subject of the whims of a Congress 
elected by citizens.
  D.C. is a jurisdiction that does not need constant congressional 
meddling in local affairs. Their gun laws are no exception. They know 
best how to keep their citizens and residents like us safe from the 
threat of deadly gun violence.
  The Supreme Court asked them to modify their laws to comply with the 
Constitution. The District is doing so

[[Page H8172]]

in a responsible manner. In fact, today they are meeting to consider 
amendments to bring their firearm laws in compliance with the Supreme 
Court ruling. The underlying Norton bill would ensure that they 
continue to do so.
  Unfortunately, this amendment would tie the hands of city officials 
to impose even the most basic reasonable safety measures and goes far 
beyond what the Supreme Court has required. It would, for instance, 
prohibit gun registration, prohibit any ban on purchasing in another 
State and bringing the gun to D.C., remove a clip limit--now, are you 
ready for this one--prohibit the D.C. Government from discouraging gun 
purchase and ownership.
  In other words, you can tell people not to drink and drive; you can 
tell them to practice safe sex; you can tell them not to drop out of 
school; but you can't tell them that it's not a good idea to buy a gun.
  This is, my friends, congressional colonialism at its worst. Our rule 
is not to override and interfere with local compliance with Supreme 
Court rulings. The citizens and residents of D.C. deserve our respect. 
This amendment fails that basic test.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for his 
leadership and for yielding this time.
  And I rise to oppose this rule. I support the Childers amendment in 
the form of a substitute. I am left to wonder, as I'm sure any of our 
countrymen looking in are wondering why, after only learning of the 
Democrat's energy bill last night at 9:45 on the House, we have taken 
some sort of a timeout from a contentious, and I thought, substantive 
debate on the Democrat energy bill that will be brought up, I assume, 
within an hour.
  The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this 
issue. I understand there is some disagreement in the Democrat majority 
over how it's to be handled from a funding standpoint, but what I don't 
understand is the timing.
  Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I look across this aisle, I see 
men and women that I respect deeply and with whom I have worked on 
issues, sometimes in nontraditional ways. And so I would not accuse my 
colleagues that are here on the floor doing their duty of any ill 
motive. But I have to wonder about a Democrat majority that introduces 
this discussion about gun control on the one and only day that they are 
going to permit us to debate their energy bill.
  And I think the American people are entitled to know, Mr. Speaker, 
the Democrat Party in the Congress, after spending the last 20 months 
telling their constituency and the American people that there would 
never be a vote allowed on this floor that would permit more domestic 
drilling, abruptly announced last week that they were going to bring an 
energy bill to the floor with drilling.
  Now for those of us who have been clamoring for a comprehensive 
energy bill that included more drilling, more conservation, more fuel 
efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear, this was welcome news. And imagine 
how anxious we were late last week to wait for the Democrat bill to be 
filed, assuming we would have the weekend to examine it.
  And as we waited throughout the first day of the week yesterday, it 
wasn't until 9:45 last night that a 290-page bill was filed on this 
floor. And we found that the drill-nothing Congress has introduced 
legislation that is essentially a drill-almost-nothing bill; and I want 
to speak about that in the very limited time that we have.
  So while I oppose the rule, I want to speak about what is bearing 
upon the American people, bearing upon American families and school 
systems and seniors, and that is the unbridled and unprecedented weight 
of the cost of energy in America.
  As Wall Street reels from another financial crisis, as we hear 
unemployment numbers that are heartbreaking to real working Americans, 
most Americans know the high cost of energy is costing American jobs.
  And so on the one day that the Democrat majority will allow us to 
debate their comprehensive strategy for energy independence, I want to 
speak about what the substance of that bill is.
  Now, as I said, the drill-nothing Democrat Congress announced they 
were going to bring this energy bill to the floor. It includes more 
drilling, and now many of them have said in many corners of the 
national media that Republicans have to take ``yes'' for an answer. 
Well, I would suggest to my countrymen, before you sign a contract, 
read the fine print.

                              {time}  1530

  The fine print of this contract is profoundly disappointing to those 
of us that were looking to give the bipartisan majority of this 
Congress that supports a comprehensive energy strategy, that includes a 
real access to America's domestic reserves, a fair up-or-down vote.
  The drill-nothing Democratic Congress is essentially, as I said, a 
basically drill-almost-nothing. Here's some examples. They say ``yes'' 
to drilling in their bill but not in Alaska, not in the eastern gulf 
and not within 50 miles of our country.
  They say ``yes'' to drilling in the bill, but they say States can 
decide on whether we drill off their coasts, but we will give the 
States no revenues whatsoever for allowing us to drill. The Governor of 
a coastal State was on the floor of the Congress today. When I said, 
``What's the likelihood that your State will permit drilling if we 
offer your State legislature no revenues from the drilling in your 
waters?'' And he only laughed out loud.
  I assume that the Democrat majority, in saying that unlike the Gulf 
States that get some 39 percent of the revenues that are drilled in 
their waters under existing agreements, I assume the Democrat majority 
believes that States will opt in to drilling out of the goodness of 
their hearts, out of their patriotism. Maybe not.
  They say ``yes'' to drilling, but the lack of litigation reform will 
allow environmental lawyers to swarm over any new leases, even those 
that are permitted more than 50 miles out, and they'll be tied up in 
court for years before a single drop is pumped.
  In their legislation, there's a renewable mandate that literally 
could cause electrical rates between now and 2012 to skyrocket on 
working Americans. There's no commitment to increasing our refinery 
capacity. There's huge tax increases on oil companies. As I've asked 
before to my citizens in Indiana, ``Who among you thinks by raising 
taxes on oil companies you're going to lower the price of gasoline at 
the pump?'' That's usually a laugh out loud moment in town hall 
meetings. That's what passes for the Democrat bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I say to my Democrat colleagues, many of whom I respect deeply and 
with whom I work on a broad range of issues, on behalf of our 
constituents that are struggling under the weight of record gasoline 
prices, don't do this. Don't do it this way. This Congress is better 
than that.
  We have a bipartisan majority in this Congress, including some men 
and women that I am looking at right now, who, if given the 
opportunity, would come together in a bipartisan way and pass 
legislation that said ``yes'' to more real drilling, but also ``yes'' 
to conservation, ``yes'' to fuel efficiency, ``yes'' to solar and wind 
and nuclear. But we can't say ``yes'' with a backroom deal brought to 
the floor of the Congress, given one day of debate, no amendments, and 
jammed through the American people.
  Let's end the charade. Let's stop playing politics with American 
energy independence. Let this Congress work its will, and we will come 
together on a strategy that works for all of our Nation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for his interesting speech on drilling. I have to tell him it 
hasn't convinced me to support the Childers amendment on guns. Maybe 
he's implying that more guns on the street means cheaper gas prices, 
but I don't think he even believes that.
  At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Childers).

[[Page H8173]]

  Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule to 
H.R. 6842, the National Security and Safety Act. I was pleased the 
Rules Committee made in order my amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, which is directly in line with H.R. 6691, the Second 
Amendment Enforcement Act.
  My sole intention with my amendment is to make clear law-abiding 
citizens in the District of Columbia are afforded self-protection 
rights within their homes. I do not seek to circumvent or take away any 
power from the District of Columbia. However, I do believe we should 
respect, even if we disagree with, the opinions of the Supreme Court.
  I look forward to debating my substitute amendment in the near 
future, and I welcome the thoughts and concerns of my fellow colleagues 
in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 5 minutes 
to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule, and like our 
previous speaker from Indiana (Mr. Pence), I do support the Childers 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. But I, too, find it ironic 
that we are discussing this today when we have so little time to 
discuss America's future energy security and energy independence.
  Earlier today we've heard that we will be confronting landmark 
legislation. I concur with this assessment. Unfortunately, it will not 
be a landmark energy policy. It is going to be a landmark in political 
cynicism.
  We've heard much about a compromise being struck. Yet as a member of 
a party that has not been consulted on this legislation, let alone 
involved in a free, open, and transparent process, we are left but to 
assume there's a compromise amongst the Speaker herself, potentially 
radical special interest groups, and maybe members of her own caucus 
that were privileged to be a part of its drafting behind closed doors.
  Then what do we celebrate, as we've heard the word ``celebrate'' this 
landmark legislation so much? What do we celebrate? Do we celebrate the 
end of the House as a free, open, transparent institution where the 
voices of the American people are expressed through their servants in 
this Congress, to have an influence on legislation, to have an impact 
on legislation? Or do we actually, more, commemorate the loss of an 
individual's ability to serve as legislators rather than as radical 
rubber stamps for legislation placed under their noses?
  What does this legislation do? Well, it increases a lot of things. It 
increases utility prices. It increases gas prices, increases taxes, 
increases everything but energy. And as we know, this is not what the 
American people demand. It is not what the American people deserve.
  So we ask ourselves why. Well, there are two reasons. The first 
reason comes to us out of the curious visage that we have before us as 
Members, who in the past would not vote to drill a tooth, now embracing 
oil derricks as if they were endangered darter snails.
  The question is why. It's because, as has been pointed out by many of 
my colleagues, this bill is not a drill bill, and drilling is, by the 
way, a technique. It is a technique that meets the goal which is 
maximum American energy production, and in that, this bill falls short. 
In fact, while you might be tempted to judge this book by its cover, 
the Dems are in the details and no drilling will occur, for many of the 
reasons put forward earlier.
  So you ask yourself why. Why would we not expand supply? Why would we 
not allow Americans to access their own domestic energy resources to 
help successfully transition to American energy security and 
independence?
  The reality is this. There are people who believe that high energy 
prices will help make this transition necessary, will force the 
American people to radically change their lifestyles in the pursuit of 
some abstract dystopia put forward by radical environmentalists and 
others who seek to undo the industrial age in American economic 
prosperity during this transition to a globalized economy.
  That is the real basis of this discussion. That is the basis of this 
debate. We can have an all-of-the-above energy strategy that 
responsibly transitions America into a future of energy security and 
independence, or we can have a radical restructuring of their very 
lifestyle through the government regulation and rationing of American 
energy.
  The consequences upon the people of this country will be devastating 
and, in the end, they will not be fooled. For while this bill comes 
before us and we are told the Republicans should not take ``yes'' for 
an answer, the reality is this: The American people will not mistake 
``no'' for a solution, and in the end, they will also come to the 
conclusion that by not increasing American supply of their own energy 
resources, this deadbeat, drill-nothing Democrat Congress is Big Oil's 
best friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know this debate's getting a little 
wacky, but I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan. In those 5 
minutes that he spoke, the big oil companies that the Republicans have 
been so supportive of have made $1.7 million in profits.
  I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with the Supreme Court 
decision on the gun issue. I've always felt that those who claimed that 
there was not an individual protection in the second amendment for gun 
owners were oddly mistaken. But the issue facing us today is not about 
guns. It's about the Federal relationship with local communities.
  The first fight I ever had on this floor was when Bob Giaimo and I 
pried loose the money for the District subway when the Appropriations 
Committee was trying to dictate local transportation policy. I didn't 
like bullying then, and I don't like it now.
  That's why, since that time, I've generally voted ``present'' 
whenever the Congress tries to play city council and dictate local 
business. I do that as a protest against Congress acting like we're 
elected city councilmen.
  Most Members of this Congress would fight to preserve local authority 
for their own communities, but they don't hesitate to destroy it when 
the District of Columbia's around. Well, I, for one, was not elected to 
be a D.C. city councilman. I'm not paid to be a D.C. city councilman. 
If I'm expected to vote on their issues, I want to know where is my 
check from the District government?
  If Members of this body want to decide D.C. policy instead of running 
for the Congress, they ought to run for the district council, and they 
ought to cut their paychecks to the District council level. That's what 
I believe, and that's why I will vote ``present'' on the underlying 
bill, and I will vote ``present'' on any amendment thereto as a protest 
to Congress idiotically playing city council on this or any other 
issue.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we respect this Congress's ability to 
consult with and work with city councils and local governments. But to 
suggest in any way that this Congress should be trying to help anyone 
or collude with them to extend time frames that have been established 
already by the highest court of this land, that I believe was a 
reasonable answer--the gentleman from Wisconsin believes it was a 
reasonable answer--is a different kind of issue.
  And that's all this bill really does today, gives the city council 
more time; wait till after the election before this tough issue can be 
decided any further by that body and by this.
  I think it's a mistake to wait. I think it's a mistake to intervene, 
and I think it's a mistake not to follow the law that the Supreme Court 
has laid out for the D.C. government. D.C. government needs to follow 
the law, needs to follow the Constitution. They've been told that a 
long time. They've fought it. They've done all they can. They lost. The 
Supreme Court issued the decision. It's time to follow the law.
  Mr. Speaker, we reserve our balance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee for allowing me 
this 2 minutes.
  Those of us who support the Childers amendment are not here of our 
volition. We're here because the Supreme

[[Page H8174]]

Court of the United States, in a clarification ruling regarding, in 
this case, the second amendment to the Constitution, said that it's the 
law of the land and certain things must be done.
  This Childers amendment does this and only this. It does not, for 
example, have any provisions that would limit the ability of the 
independent authorities of D.C., such as a public housing authority, 
from restricting firearms. It does not repeal the ammunition ban. It 
does not do anything in terms of strict liability for gun 
manufacturers, as the District law provides, provisions regarding 
exemptions.

                              {time}  1545

  All it does is what we would do routinely around here if it were any 
other group of American citizens in any State or territory. We would 
say, look, the Supreme Court changed the law of the land that Congress 
is going to enact enabling legislation to allow for that decision to be 
instrumental and put into place. And you will do the same whether you 
live in California, New York, Tennessee, the District of Columbia, 
Hawaii, wherever. This is done routinely. I don't understand how people 
can argue that since its the District, it ought to somehow be different 
than any other American citizen.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, this Childers amendment is very narrowly drawn 
to only enforce the Supreme Court decision as it relates to that 
decision; nothing more, nothing less. And whatever the District wants 
to do outside the parameters of that is perfectly all right with me.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  (Mr. ROSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Childers 
amendment to H.R. 6842. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for giving me 2 minutes to address this issue.
  Some folks may say, why would a Member of Congress from Arkansas be 
concerned about D.C. gun laws? It's quite simple. Number one, I'm a 
pro-gun Democrat. Number two, if the Government of D.C. can take your 
guns away from you in our Nation's capital, Prescott, Arkansas and many 
other small towns across this country could be next.
  Now, why are we here? In June, the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s 
ban on handguns and operable firearms within the home for self-defense. 
The District responded by passing an emergency bill that fails to 
comply with the Court's ruling. Here's what D.C.'s response was to the 
Supreme Court ruling saying, yes, the second right applies to the 
citizens of the District of Columbia just as it does to all the other 
citizens in the United States of America, and this is how the 
Government of D.C. responded. They did not correct its machine gun ban, 
which, unlike Federal or State laws, defines machine guns to include 
semi-automatic firearms. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker, almost every 
weapon in America today is a semi-automatic firearm. You can't duck 
hunt without a semi-automatic firearm. Very few pistols can be 
purchased that are not semi-automatic firearms.
  D.C. failed to eliminate its ban on operable firearms within the 
home, allowing a person to assemble and load a firearm at home only if 
a criminal attack is underway. In other words, if someone breaks into 
your house in D.C., you've got to say, excuse me, Mr. Intruder, would 
you pause a moment while I assemble my gun? This bill makes no sense, 
and that's why the Childers amendment is in order and that's why I will 
be supporting it today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman.
  I think I should make an important announcement. The District of 
Columbia has just passed permanent legislation that has no gun lock 
provision; instead, substitutes a child access bill and allows semi-
automatics and allows more than one. And they were always on their way 
to doing it. And the good faith was shown by the fact that they passed 
a stop-gap measure as they left town, which allowed immediate 
registration. This bill federalizes gun laws. It takes D.C. out of the 
gun business. It leaves a naked law with no regulations.
  Scalia gave us a very narrow 5-4 decision. By 5-4, it's because 
that's the only way he could get it through. And you know that he got 
it through that way because it leaves it to local jurisdictions to 
tailor the bill to fit their local needs. D.C. is fitting its local 
needs and the needs of the Federal presence. This bill, the NRA bill, 
throws the doors open to guns and throws away all we've done in 
homeland security.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to voice my strong 
opposition to the substitute amendment that this rule makes in order 
because it usurps D.C.'s home rule authority and imposes upon the 
residents of our Nation's Capital laws that they don't support and that 
will make them less safe.
  The substitute amendment goes well beyond anything contained in the 
Heller decision. It leaves D.C. City Council with little authority to 
impose sensible regulations on deadly weapons. It will repeal 
requirements that guns be properly stored in the home, requirements 
that we know prevent the accidental deaths of hundreds of children 
every year. States with safe storage laws have seen substantial drops 
in unintentional firearm deaths compared with States without those 
laws. And, in fact, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a 
family member or a friend than it is to ward off an intruder or be used 
in self-defense.
  The substitute amendment will repeal the District's ban on semi-
automatic guns. Even a .50 caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle is 
allowed, whose manufacturer publicly advertises that it can pierce the 
fuselage of a jet airplane from miles away. Talk about making a mockery 
of our homeland security rhetoric.
  And the amendment will require Virginia and Maryland to sell guns to 
D.C. residents, breaking with decades of Federal gun trafficking laws, 
forcing the Commonwealth of Virginia to allow guns to fall into the 
hands of the mentally unbalanced and into the hands of criminals. We 
have already seen this happen with Virginia Tech. How dare this 
Congress overturn Virginia's State laws without even consulting them.
  Who does the NRA think it is? There is no reason we're debating this 
issue today other than to appease the NRA at the expense of public 
safety. The Members who would impose this unwanted law onto D.C. 
residents would never do this to their own constituents, but it's being 
done because D.C. residents can't fight back. And that's the definition 
of bullying. It is beneath the character of the Congress to be doing 
this.
  And let me tell you, when you have a Presidential motorcade, you 
clear all the streets in other cities. But in D.C., by this law, you're 
going to be able to have a loaded gun in your window that poses an 
immediate danger to the President.
  What are we thinking of? This is wrong. It needs to be defeated. It 
is beneath the dignity of this Congress to even bring it up, and if it 
passes we will live to regret it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, since taking control of this House, this 
Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address 
the domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, 
diesel and energy costs that American families today and in the future 
are facing.
  By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August while I and 138 other of 
my Republican colleagues stayed in Washington to talk about real energy 
solutions for American families, this Democrat majority has proven that 
they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and 
businesses is important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or 
book tours to get their work done.
  However, enough of their Members must have heard from their 
frustrated constituents over August who are tired of the political 
games that the Democrats are playing and they want some kind of action. 
Because today, we are considering yet another measure to provide their 
Members with a political

[[Page H8175]]

cover vote that will do nothing to bring down the cost of energy at the 
pump because it does nothing to encourage participation by States in a 
program to increase the amount of American-made energy. We are simply 
wasting our time on a sham, and something that will not materialize to 
help energy prices.
  Mr. Speaker, last Friday, an influential Democrat Senator stated what 
everybody in this House knows, that any bill excluding energy 
production revenue sharing for the States will never pass the Senate, 
making the cynical and political exercise that the House will engage in 
shortly even more transparent.
  So today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous 
question so this House can finally consider a real and comprehensive 
solution to rising energy costs in addition to today's bill to buy the 
District of Columbia more time to avoid compliance with the Supreme 
Court's ruling on the second amendment.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule 
to allow for additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy 
Act. This real, all-of-the-above bill would increase the supply of 
American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote 
new and expanding energy technologies to help lower the cost at the 
pump and reduce America's increasing costly and dangerous dependence on 
foreign sources of energy.
  I encourage everyone that believes a comprehensive solution to 
solving this energy crisis and achieving energy independence includes 
increasing the supply of American energy to defeat the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I use my time, I would like to 
insert in the Record a statement by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun 
Violence; a statement by Stop Handgun Violence; a letter signed by a 
number of religious organizations opposed to the Childers amendment; 
and a letter from D.C. Vote, which includes the D.C. Republican 
Committee, which opposes the Childers amendment.

 Childers Amendment Would Repeal D.C. Gun Laws, Endanger Public Safety 
                     and Threaten Homeland Security

       The House may soon consider legislation concerning D.C. gun 
     laws. We support H.R. 6842, the bipartisan Norton/Issa bill 
     to require that D.C. conform its laws to the Supreme Court 
     ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. The D.C. Council is 
     already in the process of amending its gun laws in response 
     to Heller, and this bill requires D.C. to act within 180 
     days.
       A dangerous NRA-backed amendment, proposed by Rep. 
     Childers, would repeal D.C. gun laws and go far beyond 
     authorizing gun possession for self-defense in the home. The 
     amendment is based on H.R. 6691, a reckless bill so broad it 
     even would have allowed the carrying of assault rifles on 
     D.C. streets. After the NRA repeatedly claimed that nothing 
     in H.R. 6691 ``would allow people to carry loaded firearms 
     outside of their home,'' it apparently agreed to undo 
     dangerous provisions that did in fact allow the carrying of 
     assault rifles in public. Yet the rest of the Childers 
     amendment remains almost identical to H.R. 6691--it still 
     undermines gun laws and endangers homeland security.
       After repeatedly misleading Congress about the scope of 
     H.R. 6691, the NRA has no credibility on this issue. Last 
     week, the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, was quoted 
     repeatedly stating that the bill would not allow the open 
     carrying of assault weapons, and ridiculing those who claimed 
     otherwise. The NRA has now implicitly conceded that its 
     repeated prior statements were false, as the revisions are 
     aimed at a problem that the NRA claimed did not exist. Either 
     the NRA was intentionally misleading Congress and the public 
     about the bill, or it did not understand what its top 
     legislative priority would do. It is hard to know which is 
     worse.
       The NRA-backed Childers amendment still creates serious 
     threats to public safety and homeland security by allowing 
     dangerous persons to stockpile semiautomatic assault weapons 
     with high capacity ammunition magazines in D.C., undermining 
     federal laws to curtail gun trafficking, and prohibiting D.C. 
     from passing laws that could ``discourage'' gun possession or 
     use, even basic safe storage requirements or age limits for 
     the possession of assault rifles. We oppose the dangerous 
     Childers amendment to H.R. 6842.


                               BACKGROUND

       H.R. 6691 was introduced following the U.S. Supreme Court's 
     ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that D.C.'s ban on 
     handguns in the home for self-defense was unconstitutional. 
     Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller, however, was 
     narrow and limited. He specifically noted that a wide range 
     of gun laws are ``presumptively lawful''--everything from 
     laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive 
     places'' to ``conditions and qualifications on the commercial 
     sale of arms.''
       After Heller, D.C. passed temporary, emergency regulations 
     to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, and the plaintiff in 
     the case, Dick Heller, was approved by the city to keep a gun 
     in his home. D.C. is currently developing permanent 
     regulations to adapt all of its gun laws to the Court's 
     ruling. Yet instead of giving D.C.'s elected officials a fair 
     and reasonable opportunity to enact permanent regulations, 
     the gun lobby is pushing Congress to enact dangerous and 
     sweeping legislation that goes far beyond the mandates of 
     Heller.
       Even though the bipartisan Norton/Issa bill to require D.C. 
     to conform to Heller was supported by the House Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform by a 21-1 vote, the gun lobby 
     is still pushing for a broad repeal of D.C. gun laws. It now 
     supports the Childers amendment to H.R. 6842, which would bar 
     the city from enacting measures to curb gun crime and weaken 
     federal anti-gun trafficking laws.
       The Childers amendment would endanger not only D.C. 
     residents but also all those who work in and visit the 
     capital. At a time when terrorists continue to look for ways 
     to attack our nation, passing this amendment would be 
     reckless and irresponsible. Congress should reject the 
     dangerous Childers amendment.


               DETAILS OF CHILDERS AMENDMENT TO H.R. 6842

       Allowing stockpiling of military-style weapons with high 
     capacity ammunition magazines--The Childers amendment would 
     repeal D.C.'s ban on semi-automatic weapons, including 
     assault weapons (4). It would also prohibit D.C. from 
     enacting laws discouraging gun use or possession, such as 
     restrictions on military-style weapons (3). It thus allows 
     the stockpiling of military-style semiautomatic assault 
     rifles or .50 caliber sniper rifles that can pierce armored 
     car plating. It would even allow teenagers and children to 
     possess loaded assault rifles by repealing all age 
     restrictions on the possession of long guns (5(b)(1)). This 
     means that law enforcement could not stop dangerous persons 
     from stockpiling assault rifles or .50 caliber sniper rifles 
     in homes or businesses near federal buildings or motorcade 
     routes.
       Undermining federal anti-gun trafficking laws--The Childers 
     amendment would allow D.C. residents to cross state lines to 
     buy handguns in neighboring states, thereby undermining 
     federal anti-trafficking laws (10). For decades, federal law 
     has barred gun dealers from selling handguns directly to out 
     of state buyers (other than licensed dealers) because of the 
     high risk this creates for interstate gun trafficking (18 
     U.S.C. 922(b)(3)). This means that gun traffickers could more 
     easily obtain large quantities of guns outside D.C. to 
     illegally distribute to criminals in D.C.
       Prohibiting D.C. from enacting common sense gun laws--The 
     Childers amendment would bar D.C. from passing any law that 
     would ``prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden'' 
     gun ownership by anyone not barred by already weak federal 
     gun laws (3). It would even bar D.C. from enacting laws or 
     regulations that may ``discourage'' private gun ownership or 
     use, including by felons, children or other dangerous persons 
     (Id.). This means that D.C. could not pass laws requiring 
     shooting proficiency to use a gun, educating parents of the 
     dangers to children of guns in the home, or even restricting 
     gang members without criminal records from possessing assault 
     rifles.
       Repealing common sense restrictions on gun possession by 
     dangerous or unqualified persons--The Childers amendment 
     repeals common sense restrictions on gun possession in D.C. 
     including:
       Repealing the prohibition on most persons under age 21 from 
     possessing firearms (5(b)(1)). It replaces current D.C. law 
     with weaker federal limits that only bar anyone under 18 from 
     possessing handguns (18 U.S.C. 922(x)), and it repeals all 
     age limits for the possession and carrying of long guns, 
     including assault rifles.
       Repealing the prohibition on gun possession by anyone who 
     has committed a violent crime or recent drug crime (5(b)(1)). 
     It replaces this current D.C. law with the weaker federal ban 
     that allows gun possession by many persons who have committed 
     violent or drug-related misdemeanor crimes unrelated to 
     domestic violence.
       Repealing the prohibition on gun possession by anyone 
     voluntarily committed to a mental institution in the last 5 
     years (unless they have a doctor's certification) (5(b)(1)). 
     It replaces this current D.C. law with the weaker federal ban 
     that allows many persons who are dangerously mentally ill to 
     obtain firearms.
       Repealing the prohibition in D.C. law on gun possession by 
     anyone who does not pass

[[Page H8176]]

     a vision test, including if they are blind (5(b)(1)). D.C. 
     would be barred from having any vision requirement for gun 
     use.
       Repealing registration requirements for firearms--The 
     Childers amendment repeals even the most basic gun 
     registration requirements (5). This means that police could 
     no longer easily trace crime guns by tracing them to their 
     registered owner.
       Repealing all safe storage laws--After Heller, D.C. passed 
     emergency legislation allowing guns to be unlocked for self-
     defense but otherwise locked to keep guns from children and 
     dangerous persons. The Childers amendment repeals all safe 
     storage requirements and prohibits D.C. from enacting new 
     safe storage laws, even though every major gun maker 
     recommends that guns be kept unloaded and locked (3, 7). This 
     means that D.C. could not prohibit people from storing loaded 
     firearms near children, posing an extreme danger to the 
     safety of D.C. families.
                                  ____


                               The Facts

       5 children were killed every day in gun related accidents 
     and suicides committed with a firearm, from 1994-1998.
       An average of 5 children were killed every day in gun 
     related accidents and suicides committed with a firearm, from 
     1994-1998. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
     National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National 
     Injury Mortality Statistics, 1994-1998.
       40% of American households with children have guns. Peter 
     Hart Research Associates Poll, July 1999.
       22 million children live in homes with at least one 
     firearm. 34% of children in the United States (representing 
     more than 22 million children in 11 million homes) live in 
     homes with at least one firearm. In 69 percent of homes with 
     firearms and children, more than one firearm is present. The 
     RAND Corporation, ``Guns in the Family: Firearm Storage 
     Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children,'' March 2001, an 
     analysis of the 1994 National Health Interview Survey and 
     Year 2000 objectives supplement. Also published as Schuster 
     et al., ``Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with 
     Children,'' American Journal of Public Health 90(4): 588-594, 
     April 2000.
       A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an 
     unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in 
     self-defense.
       A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an 
     unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an 
     attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or 
     kill in self-defense. Journal of Trauma, 1998.
       In 1997, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of 
     injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age.
       In 1997, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of 
     injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age--second 
     only to motor vehicle crashes--while the firearm injury death 
     rate among males 15-24 years of age was 42% higher than the 
     motor vehicle traffic injury death rate. Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, June 1999.
       In the U.S., children under 15 commit suicide with guns at 
     a rate of eleven times the rate of other countries combined.
       For children under the age of 15, the rate of suicide in 
     the United States is twice the rate of other countries. For 
     suicides involving firearms, the rate was almost eleven times 
     the rate of other countries combined. U.S. Department of 
     Justice, March 2000.
       Guns in the home are the primary source for firearms that 
     teenagers use to kill themselves in the United States.
       Studies show that guns in the home are the primary source 
     for firearms that teenagers use to kill themselves. Injury 
     Prevention, 1999.
       85% of Americans want mandatory handgun registration.
       85% of Americans endorse the mandatory registration of 
     handguns and 72% also want mandatory registration of longguns 
     (rifles and shotguns). 1998 National Gun Policy Survey of 
     the National Opinion Research Center, University of 
     Chicago.
       85% of Americans want a background check and 5-day waiting 
     period before a handgun is purchased.
       85% of Americans want a background check and 5-day waiting 
     period before a handgun is purchased. 1998 National Gun 
     Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, 
     University of Chicago.
       95% of Americans think that U.S. made handguns should meet 
     the same safety standards as imported guns.
       95% of Americans favor having handguns manufactured in the 
     United States meet the same safety and quality standards that 
     imported guns must meet. 1998 National Gun Policy Survey of 
     the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.
       51% of the guns used in crimes by juveniles and people 18 
     to 24 were acquired by ``straw purchasers,'' people who buy 
     several guns legally through licensed dealers, then sell them 
     to criminals, violent offenders, and kids.
       51% of the guns used in crimes by juveniles and people 18 
     to 24 were acquired by ``straw purchasers,'' people who buy 
     several guns legally through licensed dealers, then sell them 
     to criminals, violent offenders, and kids. ATF report, Crime 
     Gun Trace Analysis, February 1999.
       More Americans were killed by guns than by war in the 20th 
     Century.
       More Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period 
     between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle 
     in all wars since 1775 (650,858). And while a sharp drop in 
     gun homicides has contributed to a decline in overall gun 
     deaths since 1993, the 90's will likely exceed the death toll 
     of the 1980s (327,173) and end up being the deadliest decade 
     of the century. By the end of the 1990s, an estimated 350,000 
     Americans will have been killed in non-military-related 
     firearm incidents during the decade. Handgun Control 12/30/99 
     (Press release from CDC data).
       A classroom is emptied every two days in America by 
     gunfire. In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and 
     under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional 
     shootings. That's more than 10 young people a day. 
     Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for 
     Health Statistics, 2000.
       Toy guns and teddy bears have more federal manufacturing 
     regulations than real guns. Centers for Disease Control, 
     National Center for Health Statistics, Deaths: Final Data for 
     1999. NVSR Volume 49, No. 8. 114 pp. (PHS) 2001-1120.
       Every day 79 people are killed by firearms in America. In 
     1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in 
     the United States, down nearly 6 percent from the 30,625 
     deaths in 1998.
       88% of the US population and 80% of U.S. gun owners support 
     childproofing all new handguns. 88% of the U.S. population 
     and 80% of U.S. gun owners support childproofing all new 
     handguns.
       Johns Hopkins University Center of Gun Policy and Research, 
     1997/1998.
       Kids in America are 12 times more likely to be killed by a 
     gun than kids in 25 other industrialized nations combined. 
     The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children 
     aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among 
     children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``Rates of 
     Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children--
     26 Industrialized Countries,'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 
     Report 46(05): 101-105, February 07, 1997.
       Guns stored in the home are used 72% of the time when 
     children are accidentally killed and injured, commit suicide 
     with a firearm. In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, 
     suicide, and suicide attempts with a firearm of 0-19 year-
     olds, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim, 
     a relative, or a friend. Harborview Injury Prevention and 
     Research Center Study, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent 
     Medicine, August 1999.
       Medical costs from gun injuries and deaths cost $19 
     billion. The U.S. taxpayer will pay half of that cost. Direct 
     medical costs for firearm injuries range from $2.3 billion to 
     $4 billion, and additional indirect costs, such as lost 
     potential earnings, are estimated at $19.0 billion. Miller 
     and Cohen, Textbook of Penetrating Trauma, 1995; American 
     Academy of Pediatrics, 2000; Journal of American Medical 
     Association, June 1995; Annals of Internal Medicine, 1998.
                                  ____

                                                September 8, 2008.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: As groups inspired by religious values 
     and ethical principles, we urge you in the strongest terms to 
     oppose H.R. 6691, introduced by Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS). 
     This legislation claims to restore Second Amendment rights in 
     the District of Columbia, but in actuality it prevents the 
     600,000 District of Columbia residents from enacting 
     comprehensive, constitutional commonsense regulations to 
     reduce gun violence and ensure their community's safety.
       This legislation would go far beyond the changes needed to 
     ensure that the District's gun regulations comply with the 
     Supreme Court's recent decision in the case DC v Heller. The 
     bill would drastically erode several regulations that were 
     deemed both constitutional and reasonable by the Heller 
     ruling. H.R. 6691 would completely repeal the District's 
     firearm registration requirements; allow DC residents to 
     travel to Maryland and Virginia to purchase handguns despite 
     longstanding federal law that helps prevent gun trafficking; 
     and legalize military-style assault weapons, whose 
     destructive power goes far beyond what could possibly be 
     necessary for self-defense or sport.
       While we fully acknowledge that the DC law needs to comply 
     with the Supreme Court's recent Heller decision, we believe 
     duly elected District officials should have a fair and 
     reasonable opportunity to develop and implement new locally 
     specific regulations. H.R. 6691 would prohibit the DC 
     government from enacting any future ``laws or regulations 
     that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of 
     firearms''. It would be unconscionable of the House to pass 
     this bill and impose its will on the residents of the 
     District of Columbia when they do not even have a voting 
     member of Congress to register local concerns and defend 
     their prerogatives. Rather than upholding Second Amendment 
     liberties, this bill would restrict local governance, 
     effectively limiting the freedoms of District residents. We 
     find this violation of ``home rule'' to be deeply disturbing.
       As faith inspired organizations, we must actively pursue a 
     world free from bloodshed. This legislation would prevent the 
     District of Columbia from lawfully regulating dangerous 
     weapons. We urge you to help keep

[[Page H8177]]

     Washington, DC, residents safe, and to respect their right to 
     self-government. Please vote against H.R. 6691.
           Sincerely,
       American Jewish Committee
       Anti-Defamation League
       ASHA for Women
       Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
       Church of the Brethren Witness/Washington Office
       FaithTrust Institute
       Fellowship of Reconciliation
       Friends Committee on National Legislation
       Hadassah the Women's Zionist Organization of America
       Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington
       The Jewish Council for Public Affairs
       Jewish Women International
       Jews United for Justice
       Mennonite Central Committee Washington Office
       National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepard
       National Alliance of Faith and Justice
       National Council of Jewish Women
       NA'AMAT USA
       North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists
       Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office
       Sisters of Mercy Institute Justice Team
       Sojourners
       Union for Reform Judaism
       Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
       United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
       United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and 
     Society
       United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
       Women of Reform Judaism
       Women's League of Conservative Judaism
       Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring
                                  ____

                                               September 12, 2008.
       Dear Member of Congress: We urge you to support H.R. 6842, 
     the National Capital Security and Safety Act, and to oppose 
     any and all amendments offered to the bill.
       H.R. 6842, introduced by DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, 
     provides proponents of gun rights with a vehicle for ensuring 
     that the DC government enacts legislation consistent with the 
     requirements of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
     District of Columbia v. Heller. The bill also respects local 
     democracy in our nation's capital by allowing locally elected 
     officials to enact the District's own local gun laws.
       Gun rights proponents support alternate legislation, H.R. 
     1399 and H.R. 6691, claiming they are necessary to restore 
     the Second Amendment rights of individuals in the District of 
     Columbia. H.R. 6842 not only promotes that goal, but would 
     also protect the unique status and security needs of our 
     nation's capital city.
       This summer, the duly elected DC government enacted 
     temporary legislation in response to the Heller decision. 
     Consequently, DC residents are now registering handguns for 
     personal protection in their homes. H.R. 6842 would ensure 
     that the DC government enacts permanent legislation within 
     180 days. Congress would have the power to review, approve, 
     disapprove or override such permanent DC legislation if it 
     believes the measure is inadequate.
       We note that other localities are going through this same 
     legislative process. Congress should afford Washingtonians 
     the same respect and deference it is showing to communities 
     around the country.
       We urge you to support H.R. 6842, the National Capital 
     Security and Safety Act.
           Sincerely,
         DC Vote, DC Republican Committee, Brady Campaign to 
           Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 
           Common Cause, and DC Democratic State Committee.
         DC for Democracy, DC NAACP, Greater Washington Urban 
           League, Jews United for Justice, League of Women 
           Voters, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 
           Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO, NAACP, and 
           National Council of Jewish Women.

  Mr. Speaker, first I want to take a moment to thank Congresswoman 
Eleanor Holmes Norton for her incredible leadership on behalf of the 
people of the District of Columbia. For years, she has been a 
passionate advocate for the cause of local governance here in the 
District.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Childers amendment 
and to vote ``yes'' for the sensible, bipartisan Holmes Norton bill, 
which would ensure that the District comply with the Supreme Court's 
ruling.
  Before my colleagues vote, please ask yourself one simple question: 
What if it was your district we were talking about? What if it was your 
hometown whose rights were being trampled? All I ask is that you give 
the people of D.C. the same respect that you would give the people of 
your constituents.
  This Childers amendment is far-reaching. It eliminates the D.C. 
registration law. If the District of Columbia, Mr. Speaker, wants 
sensible gun safety protections to protect its people, to protect its 
children, and at the same time comply with the second amendment, it 
should have the ability to do that.
  Senator Barack Obama, I think, said it perfectly when he said, ``The 
reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio 
than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but 
don't tell me we can't uphold the second amendment while keeping AK-47s 
out of the hands of criminals.'' I think that says it best.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill by 
Eleanor Holmes Norton. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Childers amendment. I think it is wrong, I think it is arrogant, and it 
does not belong on this House floor.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule that 
will allow us to debate and vote on Congressman Childers' amendment to 
H.R. 6842: legislation that will implement the Supreme Court's historic 
Heller decision, and restore and protect the Second Amendment rights of 
the residents of the District of Columbia.
  This legislation does four things: First, it overturns existing DC 
laws banning semiautomatic firearms, including the types of guns most 
commonly used for self defense. Second, it overturns DC laws requiring 
residents to keep their firearms locked and inoperable until the very 
moment they are attacked. Third, it gives DC residents the ability to 
purchase a firearm in Virginia or Maryland, a necessity because there 
is only one federally licensed firearms dealer in Washington, DC, and 
he operates without a facility that is open to the public. Fourth, this 
legislation removes the lengthy and burdensome registration procedures 
put in place by the DC Council.
  What this legislation does not do is preclude the DC Council in any 
way from passing sensible firearms regulations that comply with the 
Supreme Court's decision in Heller. The DC Council will retain the 
authority to restrict firearms so long as those restrictions do not 
overly burden the Second Amendment rights of DC residents.
  It should also be noted that this legislation does not in any way 
harm our efforts to stop criminals or terrorists that pose a threat to 
DC residents. Indeed, those criminals and terrorists already have 
access to illegal firearms. This legislation will, however, give law 
abiding residents of Washington, DC, with the opportunity to purchase a 
legal firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer and keep it in 
their home or place of business in order to defend themselves.
  I am happy to hear that the DC Council and the Mayor have proposed 
changes to DC's gun laws that will begin to bring the District into 
compliance with the Supreme Court's decision. However, those efforts do 
not preclude us from acting to pass Congressman Childers' amendment. 
Rather, the DC Council's proposals will complement our efforts here 
today.
  In short, I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule today and to 
support Mr. Childers' amendment, which will for the first time in over 
30 years give the residents of Washington, DC, the rights afforded to 
them under the Second Amendment.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in adamant opposition to the 
National Capital Security & Safety Act as amended. I commend my 
colleagues Delegate Holmes-Norton and Representative Waxman on the work 
they have done to ensure that the DC City Council remains the leader in 
enacting the laws necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's decision 
in District of Columbia v. Heller. Unfortunately, Mr. Childers' 
amendment ruins the intent of this legislation and has dire 
consequences for the Nation's capital.
  I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Regardless, I do 
believe that the DC City Council is in the best position to decide what 
regulations are appropriate for their community. Congress has trampled 
on the District's autonomy for long enough. The last thing DC needs is 
Congressional Members to repeatedly and unnecessarily intervene in 
issues specific to the District of Columbia.
  Equally problematic and more disturbing are the repercussions of Mr. 
Childers' amendment. His amendment throws out the DC City Council's 
emergency handgun regulations and replaces them with so-called 
regulations that in fact endanger their communities' public safety. His 
amendment allows for the stockpiling of semiautomatic assault weapons, 
fully loaded firearms in homes, and discourages the passage of common-
sense legislation addressing safe storage requirements or age limits 
for the possession of assault rifles.
  The supporters of this amendment are not representing the people of 
DC, they are representing the gun lobby. The nationwide statistics on 
deaths caused by intentional and accidental gunfire are extreme to 
begin with, but Washington DC is rated as the thirteenth most dangerous 
city in the country, where the homicide rate is almost double the 
national average. Are the supporters of this amendment representing the 
families in the District who have lost their loved ones to gun 
violence? Or

[[Page H8178]]

the policemen and women who experience up close the misuse of guns by 
both kids and adults every day? No. Supporters of this amendment are 
only supporting the National Rifle Association.
  We're not living in the 1700s, when governmental police forces were 
nonexistent and state militias were a constant threat to central 
government. Supporters of Mr. Childers' amendment need to pull their 
heads out of the past and face the present: gun violence is an ugly 
reality, and we're not doing the people of the District of Columbia any 
favors by considering legislation that will endanger lives under the 
disguise of protecting constitutional rights. The people who make up 
this country are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness, and they certainly can't claim their right to the last two 
if they lose their lives. That's what guns do--they kill people.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposing this bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 1434 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down 
     energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production, 
     encouraging the development of alternative and renewable 
     energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order 
     against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority 
     leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if 
     offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall 
     be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 
     40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vole, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________