[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 153 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9443-S9446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 6842

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6842, a bill to 
restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and a 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  This is the bill that was passed by the House last week by an 
overwhelming margin, and I move my unanimous consent request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is an attempt to write the DC gun 
laws and to take away the authority of the elected government of the 
District of Columbia to write its own laws relative to firearms 
consistent with the new Supreme Court decision. If the Senator from 
Texas were making such a proposal for the city of Dallas or the city of 
Houston or the city of San Antonio, it would have some credibility 
because that is her State. But to make this request that we would 
overrule the power of the elected government of DC to implement the 
Supreme Court decision is inappropriate.
  On behalf of Senators who have signed a public letter in opposition 
to the bill that passed the House, Senators Lautenberg, Feinstein, 
Menendez, Mikulski, Akaka, Jack Reed, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris 
Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ben Cardin, and myself, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just respond by saying that it 
is the prerogative of Congress to make laws that are directly 
appropriate for the District of Columbia. I have been on the DC 
Appropriations Subcommittee; I actually was chairman when Senator 
Durbin was ranking member, so he knows well that we pass laws for the 
District of Columbia because it is the District of Columbia, and we all 
appropriate money for the city to function. We have introduced this 
bill because the District of Columbia failed to protect the second 
amendment rights of the citizens of the city over which Congress has 
the ultimate responsibility.
  It is entirely within the role of Congress to address an issue where 
a city is not protecting the constitutional rights of its constituents, 
over which the Congress has the authority. It would not be the same in 
the city of Chicago or the city of Dallas or other cities in our 
country. The District of Columbia is a unique city in that it is 
overseen by Congress. Congress has acted in the past over many issues 
where the District has fallen short, and I would say Senator Durbin and 
I have done quite a bit to strengthen the government of the District of 
Columbia and make it more financially responsible.
  So I am disappointed that the Senator has objected. I have submitted 
for the Record a letter to Senator Reid from 47 of our Members who 
asked Senator Reid to let this bill come forward because, in fact, the 
District of Columbia acted--and I waited. I did not pursue this until 
the District of Columbia City Council acted because I hoped

[[Page S9444]]

they would do the right thing. Unfortunately, they put up so many 
barriers to a person's right to self-defense in their home by requiring 
that a handgun be locked and unloaded, and that is not protection--not 
in Chicago, not in Dallas, not in Houston, and not in the District of 
Columbia--nor can we overcome the Federal law that does not allow 
interstate sales of guns across State borders because in the District 
of Columbia, one should be able to go to Maryland or Virginia and buy 
from a licensed gun dealer to be able to pursue their right to protect 
their home and their family in the District of Columbia.
  So the bill is necessary for the rights of the people of the District 
of Columbia over which Congress does have ultimate responsibility, and 
it is my hope that we will do what the House did overwhelmingly and 
pass this bill and send it to the President. I will continue to pursue 
opportunities to make that happen. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I first came to this city over 40 years 
ago as a student. It was a time before the District of Columbia had 
home rule. There was a certain paternalism felt by Congress toward the 
city of Washington, DC. Of course, the city of Washington, DC, does not 
have a voting representative in the Senate, and the delegate, Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, who serves in the House, has limited authority to vote 
in committee but not on the floor. So DC does not have a voice in the 
House or Senate Chambers, despite the fact that some 600,000 taxpaying 
Americans live in our Capital City. I think that is wrong. I have 
consistently supported giving DC representation in Congress because I 
believe these Americans living in this city deserve the same rights to 
have a vote and be heard as those who live in Chicago or Dallas or 
Houston. But that has been the course of history.
  Many people who come to Congress, always longing to be a mayor, get a 
chance to be a mayor over the District of Columbia. So this poor 
Capital City has 535 would-be mayors in the House and Senate who want 
to write ordinances for the city of Washington, DC, some of whom have 
been mayors at home, some of whom have lost in elections for mayor, but 
they are going to come here and be the mayor of Washington, DC, in 
addition to being a Member of the House and Senate.
  There was another event that occurred shortly after I arrived in 
Washington--in fact, within a few weeks after I arrived--and that event 
occurred on November 22, 1963, in the city of Dallas, TX, when a great 
man and wonderful President, John Kennedy, was assassinated because 
another man took a long-range rifle and shot at his motorcade as he 
passed through that city, mortally wounding the President of the United 
States and claiming his life. It was a tragedy which those of us who 
lived through will never forget as long as we live, and it is a 
reminder that even if you recognize and respect rights under the second 
amendment--and I do--there have to be reasonable limits in terms of 
firearms and weapons. Otherwise, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of tomorrow can 
literally menace those who visit this city.

  I just left a meeting with the President of Afghanistan, a wonderful 
man who risks his life in Kabul every day to give his people in 
Afghanistan a chance for freedom. He is under heavy security and guard 
not only in Afghanistan but in the United States. Are we going to put 
ourselves in a position to say--as the bill that the Senator from Texas 
wanted to bring to the floor says--that we are going to repeal the 
District of Columbia's laws on semiautomatic and assault weapons?
  Are we going to now say that Congress will mandate that weapons which 
could be dangerous for those who live here and those who visit here in 
this Capital City, that we will decide in Congress which weapons will 
be allowed and which will not be allowed? That is what this bill does. 
That is exactly what it does. It goes much further than the Supreme 
Court decision in DC v. Heller reached just a few weeks ago.
  Let me be specific. The bill would severely undermine DC gun laws far 
beyond the scope of that Supreme Court decision. That decision 
invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban and found that the 
second amendment confers an individual right. I don't quarrel with 
that, but it did not require the invalidation of all other types of 
laws, as this bill does. In fact, Justice Scalia--no liberal--Justice 
Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion in Heller, 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.''
  Justice Scalia, in acknowledging that the second amendment creates an 
individual right to firearms, still made it clear that individual 
jurisdictions--States, local units of government--would still have the 
authority to forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places and to 
impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
  The bill that Senator Hutchison wants us to impose on the District of 
Columbia, however, repeals the prohibition of the District of Columbia 
of carrying guns in public, directly counter to the language of Justice 
Scalia; repeals DC's gun registration requirements, though it is clear 
in the language of the Supreme Court decision that jurisdictions such 
as Washington have the right to impose conditions and qualifications on 
the commercial sale of arms; repeals the requirement of the District of 
Columbia that guns are not sold to those who abuse them in crimes or 
those who are mentally unstable. The provisions of the bill which 
Senator Hutchison would impose on the District of Columbia repeals 
their right to stop people with mental illness from buying firearms or 
those with a history of commission of felonies. Does that make sense? 
Does it make sense in Washington? Does it make sense in Chicago? Does 
it make sense in Dallas or Houston? It does not make sense.
  To come here and say that we are going to write the DC gun law, we 
are going to decide the safety of 600,000 people and every visitor to 
this city, is plain wrong. Give the city of Washington the same 
opportunity that the city of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Chicago 
asks: to write laws consistent with this Supreme Court decision. They 
have to. Ultimately, any effort to do otherwise is going to be 
overturned by that Court. But to impose, as the Childers bill would--
Representative Childers of Mississippi introduced this bill--as this 
bill would, is to go too far.
  I will object to this because I think this city of Washington, as 
well as the cities of Chicago and Springfield, IL, which I represent, 
and the cities of Texas have the right to write their laws to protect 
their citizens. When we come here and impose on them requirements and 
restrictions that are not being imposed on cities in our own State, it 
goes too far.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it was not quite accurate to 
suggest that repealing the DC's gun ban and all of the onerous 
restrictions put on it weren't replaced in the law to require that 
there be licensed gun dealers from which you could purchase a gun.
  Of course, they would be licensed with all the Federal requirements, 
all the State requirements in Maryland and the State of Virginia. Of 
course, that would be a part of this law.
  I have to say, I am not understanding why the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois continues to say the Congress does not have a right to 
impose our will on the District of Columbia. I have the Constitution of 
the United States. Article I gives the exclusive jurisdiction over the 
District of Columbia to the Congress ``To exercise exclusive 
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. . . .''
  The District of Columbia was created to be the seat of government 
over which Congress would have exclusive jurisdiction. It would not 
apply to any other State where the Constitution says the States rights 
prevail. But the District of Columbia is a special city, which I know 
the Senator from Illinois knows. It is not 535 people trying to usurp 
the rights of the mayor. It is 535 people who are trying to exercise 
our responsibility to have laws in the District of Columbia that would 
adhere to

[[Page S9445]]

the constitutional rights of the citizens here. It is our 
responsibility, and that is what we are trying to do.
  Of course, I know the Senator from Illinois knows it has been clearly 
upheld that preventing certain areas for the carriage of guns, 
qualifications on sales, bans on automatics have been declared 
reasonable. I know the Senator from Illinois knows that. Those would be 
provided for, of course, because it is Federal law.
  What we are trying to do is give the basic rights, which is our 
responsibility as Congress, to the citizens of this District to keep 
and bear arms, to have the individual right to have a handgun in their 
home to protect their families, not a handgun that is locked and 
unloaded, which is what the District of Columbia Council has put out as 
its response to the Supreme Court case that declared their ban 
unconstitutional; not to provide so many restrictions and costs on 
registering a gun that it becomes very difficult and creates a 
restriction on those second amendment rights; and last but not least, 
giving them the right in this one instance to buy a gun across State 
lines because this District is bordered by Virginia and Maryland, where 
there are gun dealers who are licensed, who do have the correct 
restrictions and background checks in place to be able to do that 
because there are not gun dealers in the District of Columbia who would 
give the proper access to people who would want to protect themselves 
and their homes.
  When I look at the statistics in the District of Columbia, I look at 
the person who is robbed and murdered in their home. I look at the 
policeman who is shot in the face doing his duty in this District. I 
think people should have the right in this District to protect their 
businesses with a handgun, which is barred by the District of Columbia, 
and to have a firearm in their homes unlocked and able to protect their 
families from an intruder.
  We did not get to bring up this legislation today. When the House of 
Representatives passes something 266 to 152, that makes a clear 
statement that this Congress is trying to do the right thing to help 
the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights.
  I hope at some point the Senate will take up this bill that has been 
passed by the House overwhelmingly and send it to the President, who I 
know will sign it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The assistant majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the police chief of the District of 
Columbia, Cathy Lanier, testified before the House of Representatives 
and said this bill, which Senator Hutchison is trying to impose on the 
District of Columbia, would make it far more difficult for the 
policemen in the District of Columbia and Federal agencies ``to ensure 
safety and security in the Nation's capital,'' and she cited particular 
concerns about providing security for the thousands of dignitaries, 
motorcades, and special events that occur in our Nation's capital.
  I wish to listen to those who are in uniform risking their lives in 
Washington, DC, to keep it safe for the people who live and visit here. 
They should be given the opportunity to make sure the laws that are 
written are written in a way to be consistent with the Supreme Court 
decision, consistent with the individual right to bear arms but also 
consistent with the standards that Justice Scalia mentioned.
  The Childers bill that Senator Hutchison would say must be the law of 
the District of Columbia would repeal the District of Columbia's 
prohibition of carrying guns in public. That runs directly counter to 
the language of Justice Scalia, who said that States and cities could 
impose laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive 
places.'' Does that mean we would be prohibited from searching people 
coming into the Capitol complex and taking their guns away under the 
Hutchison provision? I am not sure I know the answer to that question, 
but I think it is worth thinking about carefully before we consider 
imposing this gun ordinance from the House.
  I am also concerned about the fact that this bill would repeal the 
right of Washington, DC, to regulate gun sales. I don't want guns to 
end up in the hands of the mentally ill and those with a history of 
felonies, violent felonies. Does that make you feel safer?
  My State of Illinois, similar to the State of Virginia, recently went 
through this tragic episode, where someone brought a gun into college 
last year at Northern Illinois University, killing innocent people. It 
also happened across the river at Virginia Tech.
  Do I think in Illinois and in Virginia we want to make sure on 
college campuses and other sensitive places that people do not carry 
firearms? Of course, I do. If I am going to send a child of mine or 
grandchild to a university, the first thing I want is for them to come 
home alive. If it means putting reasonable standards so people cannot 
carry guns into those surroundings, we should do it. Why would we 
create a different circumstance for the District of Columbia? I went to 
school at Georgetown University. If Georgetown wants to make certain 
that students do not carry guns on to certain elements of the campus, I 
stand behind them and I will fight for them. It is consistent with the 
Supreme Court decision.
  I wish to tell you something, the Childers bill that Senator 
Hutchison would impose on Washington repeals Washington's right to 
prohibit the carrying of guns in public. That goes too far. To take 
this provision that has been written by the gun lobby and impose it on 
the District of Columbia and on all the people who live here is wrong.
  The Senator is right; in the past, Congress has done just about 
anything you can think imaginable when it comes to imposing laws on the 
District of Columbia. Many Members of Congress who never served as 
mayors get their chance to pick on this city right here, to write 
Federal legislation that they would never think of introducing back 
home for their own hometowns. Let's do it for Washington; let's go 
ahead and try a little experiment. That is not fair, it is not just, 
and it is not American.
  These people in this town deserve a voice in their own future, to 
elect people who speak for them and represent them, as we do all across 
America, to have a chance, as Delegate Norton has asked for, only 6 
months to implement this new Supreme Court decision is not 
unreasonable. I know there are those who want it done today, and I am 
anxious to see it done, too, but I am not going to try to impose a law 
on the District of Columbia that is unfair, that creates insecurity 
where we have been warned by the police chief that it makes it less 
safe for visitors to the Nation's capital. That is irresponsible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter, dated September 22, 2008, to our majority leader from some of 
my colleagues expressing concern about this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2008.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Reid: We are writing to express our concern 
     about H.R. 6842, the ``National Capital Security and Safety 
     Act,'' which would override the laws of the District of 
     Columbia on the ownership of firearms in the District. The 
     bill passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 
     September 17, and we understand it will be placed on the 
     Senate calendar without being referred to the Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs Committee or the Judiciary 
     Committee.
       This legislation would have a considerable impact on safety 
     and security in the nation's capital. In addition, we 
     understand that it makes at least one significant change to 
     federal criminal law. As a result, we are concerned about 
     proceeding to this bill without hearing from local and 
     federal law enforcement officials and other interested 
     parties. We also believe there should be an opportunity to 
     offer and debate amendments to this bill.
       In short, this legislation is too important to consider 
     according to a truncated process. Thank you for your 
     attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
         Frank R. Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, Robert Menendez, 
           Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Ted 
           Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham 
           Clinton, Ben Cardin.

  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to make sure the record shows 
that, No. 1, it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to 
assure that

[[Page S9446]]

the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights. 
That is our highest calling. It is our highest responsibility. It is 
not usurping anyone's right in the District of Columbia City Council. 
It is standing for the rights of the people of the District of 
Columbia, which is our responsibility to do.
  Secondly, I want the record to be very clear that every gun dealer in 
the District of Columbia--there is one--in the State of Virginia, and 
in the State of Maryland all have the same requirements that are 
Federal law that would have to be adhered to that would require a 
record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 
There would be no exceptions to that. Having the background check would 
be essential for anyone to purchase a gun under our law or any law of 
the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________