[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22535-22538]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1501, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT 
                                OF 1999

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501, be 
     instructed that the committee on the conference recommend a 
     conference substitute that includes provisions within the 
     scope of conference which are consistent with the Second 
     Amendment to the United States Constitution (e.g., (1) 
     requiring unlicensed dealers at gun shows to conduct 
     background checks; (2) banning the juvenile possession of 
     assault weapons; (3) requiring that child safety locks be 
     sold with every handgun; and (4) Juvenile Brady).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, every year, an estimated 2,000 to 5,000 gun shows take 
place across the Nation in convention centers, school gyms, 
fairgrounds, and other facilities paid for and maintained often with 
taxpayer money. These arms bazaars provide a haven for criminals and 
illegal gun dealers who want to skirt Federal gun laws and buy and sell 
guns on a cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis.
  The Brady law background check applies to licensed gun dealers only. 
The same is true of most State firearm background checks. At gun shows, 
it is perfectly legal in most States and under Federal law for 
individuals to sell guns from their private collections without a 
waiting period or background check on the purchaser. However, licensed 
Federal firearm dealers operating at these same shows must comply with 
background checks and waiting periods.
  Many unscrupulous gun dealers exploit this loophole to operate full-
fledged businesses without following Federal gun laws. Since so many 
sales that occur at gun shows are essentially unregulated, guns 
obtained at these shows that are later used in crime are difficult, if 
not impossible, to trace.
  When the United States Senate debated juvenile justice legislation in 
June of this year, an amendment proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg to 
require that background checks be done on all purchases made at gun 
shows was passed and included in the legislation. However, when this 
House debated its version of the juvenile justice legislation, no such 
amendment was included.
  It is not clear what the outcome will be in the conference committee, 
but we believe it is important, and I believe, to instruct the 
conferees to include this crucial loophole closure on the Brady bill.
  The Brady bill has made our country safer. It has proven that 
criminals do try to buy handguns at many shows and has stopped over 
400,000 criminals and other prohibited persons from obtaining weapons 
in the licensed gun offices.
  The second provision in the motion to instruct is the banning of 
juvenile possession of assault weapons. The assault weapons ban has 
been effective, but it could be even more effective.
  In 1989, when President Bush stopped the importation of certain 
assault rifles, the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime 
dropped by 45 percent in 1 year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18 
percent fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first 8 months of 
1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994. The wholesale price 
of grandfathered assault rifles nearly tripled in the post-ban year.
  Assault weapons are terrific weapons if one wants to do a lot of 
damage to innocent people in a hurry. I remember so well the shooting 
in the school yard in Stockton, California, in 1989 when a maniac with 
an AK-47 that held 75 bullets killed five little children on the school 
ground and wounded 29 others.
  In San Francisco, California, just about 40 miles to the north of my 
home in San Jose, a disturbed person with a TEC-9 holding 50 rounds 
went into a San Francisco law firm and killed eight people and wounded 
six others with these assault weapons; to kill four ATF special agents 
and wound 16 others at the Texas incident.
  Although assault weapons comprise only 1 percent of privately owned 
guns in America, they accounted for 8.4 percent of all guns traced to 
crime in 1988 and 1991.
  Now, although juveniles 18 and younger are prohibited by Federal law 
from purchasing handguns, neither the Federal Government nor most 
States restrict the purchase and ownership of these guns. This loophole 
allows teenagers with rifles and shotguns. It also allows them to 
possess semi-automatic AK-47s, AR-15s, and other assault rifles 
manufactured before 1994 and grandfathered under the 1994 assault 
weapon ban.

                              {time}  1200

  No kid should be allowed to buy or possess an assault weapon. And the 
gun lobby and the NRA, who has opposed the assault weapon ban and 
attempted to get the assault weapon ban repealed in an earlier 
Congress, has actually in some cases said that maybe it would be okay 
to keep assault weapons out of the hands of teenagers. So I would hope 
that that small concession might allow us to move ahead on this 
provision.
  Section 3 of the motion would require that child safety locks be sold 
with every handgun. Every day in America, 13 children under the age of 
19 are killed with firearms. Some of those are the result of violent 
assault, but some of them are easily preventable. They are accidents or 
suicides. And one of the best ways to prevent and keep children from 
gaining access to a gun at home is to make sure that it is locked.
  Public opinion surveys indicate that, really, the public does not 
understand why we would not do this simple thing. It has nothing to do 
with duck hunting, it just would keep children safer throughout our 
country.
  And, finally, the background check that is applied under current law 
to adult criminals should be applied equally to juveniles who have 
committed a criminal offense. I think that just makes good common 
sense.
  So I am hopeful that we can support this motion to instruct. It is 
completely modest. It is consistent with what the Senate was able to 
achieve. It would give an increased measure of safety to the children 
of this country. And I believe that it is the least we can do for the 
mothers and fathers of America.

[[Page 22536]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a conferee on this bill, and the original sponsor of 
the underlying bill, I claim the time in opposition, but I do not 
oppose the actual measure here. I support the gentlewoman's motion. It 
states several provisions that I agree with and that I believe that the 
majority of the Members of the House agree with.
  I believe most of us agree today that there ought to be a background 
check before somebody can buy a gun at a gun show. And most of us agree 
today that juveniles should not possess assault weapons, except in the 
narrowest of circumstances under direct parental supervision. And most 
of us believe, without much convincing, that it is a good idea to 
require gun dealers to give customers who buy a gun a gun safety lock, 
which they can decide whether to use or not. In fact, this idea is so 
good that 90 percent of gun dealers already do this without the 
government telling them to do so. And I believe most of us today 
support the concept of a juvenile Brady law, in other words, a law that 
will prevent people who commit serious violent acts as juveniles from 
owning a gun, even after they reach the age of 18.
  And so, as written, this motion is not objectionable. But while I 
will support the motion, I must also say I fear it is so general that 
some Members may get the wrong impression. This motion may lead other 
Members to think that these provisions are still in dispute. In fact, 
most of us working to achieve a compromise between the two bodies on 
this issue have already agreed to include these provisions. The real 
problem that remains is that Members on the gentlewoman's side of the 
aisle will not seem to accept any language other than that which passed 
in the other body.
  The provision they insist on, the so-called Lautenberg provision, 
would do the following: It would require anyone visiting a gun show, 
who merely discusses selling a gun, to sign a ledger and provide 
identifying information even if they do not bring a gun to the gun show 
to sell.
  It would make gun show promoters liable if a person who is not a 
vendor at the show sells somebody else a gun without first doing a 
background check.
  It would require persons who merely discuss selling a gun during the 
gun show, but who do not sell the gun for weeks after the show, to 
nevertheless have a background check performed. Even current law does 
not require background checks for gun sales by private citizens.
  It would require licensed dealers to perform all of the background 
checks at the gun show, even for purchasers who do not intend to buy a 
gun from that dealer.
  And it could turn estate sales, yard sales, even casual gatherings of 
friends who collect or trade guns into a gun show by definition, with 
all of the regulatory requirements and attendant liability for failing 
to follow these regulations.
  In short, the Lautenberg provision goes far beyond simply requiring 
background checks to be done for the sale of a gun at a gun show. And 
so I say to the gentlewoman, if she means what she says in her motion, 
that she wants background checks at gun shows, then I am confident we 
can produce a bill that will pass and do exactly that. But if what she 
means is to insist on the language from the other body, then she is 
seeking to regulate in a manner that goes far beyond what is stated in 
her motion.
  So I support the motion. But I caution Members that this issue is not 
as simple as this motion might make it seem to look on first 
appearance. And I urge the gentlewoman and the Members of the other 
side of the aisle to work with us on a provision that will do what she 
seeks to instruct today but which does not bring with it all of the 
other regulatory requirements of the Lautenberg amendment in the other 
body's bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
before yielding to the gentlewoman from California, because I would 
just like to comment that I would love to work on this supposed 
compromise.
  I know that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) have had some discussions. I am a conferee. I am a 
member of the conference committee. And the only time I have ever had 
an opportunity to discuss this was on August 3. And we did not have an 
opportunity to discuss it then. We gave speeches to each other and we 
left town, and there has been no communication. We have asked for these 
proposed compromises. I would like to see the language. I would like to 
come up with good, strong legislation. I am willing to work through 
this so long as it actually achieves something.
  However, what it has to achieve is a background check that will catch 
individuals who have restraining orders against them. It cannot define 
a gun show in a way that would exempt events where thousands of guns 
are sold. I would hope and absolutely insist that it would not repeal 
or reopen the question of the Lee Harvey Oswald law that prevents the 
interstate mailing or shipment of firearms. Those would not be an 
advance. That would not be an improvement under current law.
  So I am eager to look at this supposed compromise. And if it is, as 
the gentleman says, an improvement on gun safety laws, I will be eager 
to support it. I cannot really understand why the members of the 
conference committee have not yet been afforded the opportunity to see 
this great proposal that is supposedly a compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct 
of my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), as she 
has described it. I value the views of my colleagues who are speaking 
today of protecting our fundamental rights. America's children also 
have rights. They have the right to be safe from gun violence.
  As a school nurse, I feel so strongly that we must keep guns out of 
our schools and away from our children. These feelings are not unique 
to Congress. Just last week, the Mayor of Santa Barbara came to 
Washington, D.C., along with mayors and police chiefs from around this 
country. Speaking for thousands of people in my hometown, our mayor 
called for passage of common-sense gun safety legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans around the country are shocked by the 
shootings that are plaguing this Nation, and they are stunned by the 
inaction and delay of this Congress. With this vote we must take a 
stand against gun violence and we must do it today.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on this side 
of the aisle, as we debate these motions to instruct the conferees on 
the juvenile justice bill, that I would like to just share with them 
some recent information on the decline of Federal firearm prosecution. 
I do not ever hear the other side talk about this, and I think this 
should be something that we should all be concerned about.
  Federal firearms prosecutions have dropped by 44 percent since 1992. 
And we know all too well it is not because criminals have started to 
obey the law, it is because our government does not enforce the law. We 
can sit here this afternoon and pass all kinds of gun laws, but if we 
are not going to prosecute, it does not matter.
  The Brady Act prevented 400,000 illegal firearm purchases. Let us 
take for a moment that those statistics are correct. Two-thirds were 
attempted by prior felons. Let me repeat that. Two-thirds were 
attempted by prior felons. But there is barely a prosecution of these 
400,000 illegal firearms.

[[Page 22537]]

  So what I am saying this afternoon is that if we place our entire 
focus on gun control, which this side of the aisle continues to do, we 
miss the larger picture of this rampant violence. What is causing the 
depravity of our young people today? What makes one person's bad day 
turn into an act of taking another person's life?
  Until we focus on the underlying cause of these horrific acts, no 
Band-Aid gun control laws will prevent another occurrence. And, more 
importantly, whatever gun laws are on the books, we need the Justice 
Department to prosecute and not just sit there and talk about more gun 
control.
  So what we need to do is to instruct the Justice Department today to 
prosecute the laws that already exist on our books.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It occurs to me that some of the arguments being made about gun 
control are sort of like when we cook spaghetti at home. When we try to 
see if it is ready, or one of the techniques, is we can throw it at the 
wall to see if it sticks. And if it sticks, it is done. We have had now 
this morning three different things: The Second Amendment does not 
allow us to do any regulation of weapons. Or, well, we should not do 
anything about regulating weapons because we are not happy with 
enforcement. It should be better. Or, we should not have any regulation 
of assault weapons or other things because the laws do not work. And I 
think each one of those points is off base and will not stick to the 
wall.
  First, we had a great discussion about the Second Amendment earlier. 
I will not go on at too great a length about that, but I would note 
that, clearly, we have the ability to do sensible regulation in this 
arena.
  On the issue of enforcement, I have heard a lot of comments made 
about this. And, of course, there are darn lies and statistics, and so 
we all are a victim of that phenomena, but I do want to just lay out 
some facts.
  Since 1992, the total number of Federal and State prosecutions has 
actually increased. About 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison 
for State and Federal weapon offenses than in 1992. And the numbers are 
20,681 in 1992 to 25,186 currently. The number of high-level offenders, 
those sentenced to 5 or more years, has gone up nearly 30 percent. That 
is 1,409 to 1,345 in 5 years. The number of inmates in Federal prison 
on firearm or arson charges, the two are counted together, increased 51 
percent from 1993 to 1998 to a total of 8,979. In 1998, the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms brought 3,619 criminal cases involving 
5,620 defendants to justice.
  Now, on the issue of it would not make a difference, and none of the 
tragedies that have occurred would have been prevented had these gun 
safety measures been adopted, that is just not correct. Michael 
Fortier, the friend of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, helped both 
fence stolen guns at a Midwest gun show. If he had not been able to do 
that, we might have had a different outcome. We have had the serial 
murderer in Ohio, Thomas Dillon, who bought his murder weapon at an 
Ohio gun show so that he would not be detected at a licensed dealer. 
Gian Ferri, who did the massacre in San Francisco at the law firm, used 
a pistol, an assault weapon, that he bought at a Nevada gun show. If he 
had had a background check, that might not have occurred either.
  So these many arguments are a little bit of protest here over what 
most of America knows should occur and would help make our country a 
safer place.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I commend her for once again sparking this important debate 
on the House floor.

                              {time}  1215

  Another day has passed and another 13 of our children have been lost 
to gun violence. But still the majority stalls and stonewalls, ignoring 
the cries of parents, of siblings, and of friends who continue to lose 
their loved ones.
  Another day has passed. And while we debate gun safety in this room, 
on the streets of our cities and town, felons with guns threaten 
American families. While we debate, our constituents are left to fight 
the daily battle against gun violence alone. Another day has passed, 
and still handguns in homes where children play remain unsecured, 
criminals build collections at gun shows, and the numbers of victims 
mounts.
  Passing comprehensive gun safety legislation does not limit the 
rights of people. The Constitution, the cornerstone of the philosophy 
of this Nation, is not compromised by protecting children and families 
from deadly weapons. Freedoms and responsibilities go hand in hand, and 
it is reasonable to require citizens to exercise their freedoms safely 
and responsibly.
  Ensuring the safety of our schools, streets, and places of worship 
enables people to enjoy the inalienable right to which they are 
entitled under the Constitution.
  We have simple goals: ensure that unlocked guns do not get into 
children's hands; ensure that juveniles are prohibited from possessing 
assault weapons; ensure that all people buying a gun, in any venue, are 
subject to the same thorough background checks. This is what the 
American people are asking for, and we have an obligation to respond.
  With each passing day, the price of our inaction rises, the human 
toll of our procrastination increases, the loved ones of victims of gun 
violence plead with Congress to lead the charge to make our communities 
safe again. Each day that we turn our backs on the American people, we 
undermine the freedoms and rights that make the United States a safe 
and stable place to live.
  I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in showing the American 
people that their cries have not gone unanswered. Let us not delay one 
more day in passing comprehensive gun safety legislation. Again, I 
support the motion of my good colleague.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady) has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor again to talk about 
the Republican leadership's failure to enact common sense gun safety 
measures for one simple reason, children's lives are at stake. We 
remember the tragedy at Columbine High School, where at the end of the 
day, 14 students and one teacher were dead because of guns. Columbine 
captured headlines 5 months ago, but it should not obscure the fact 
that 13 children die every day due to gunfire.
  Many of the 13 children that die each day do so because handguns are 
not properly secured. This is not a question of whether or not someone 
should or can own a handgun. They can. This is about properly securing 
the handgun.
  The motion of my colleague from California (Ms. Lofgren) 
appropriately calls for child safety locks to be provided with 
handguns. It is a common sense measure that will stop the heart-
wrenching deaths where young children find a gun in the house and they 
accidentally kill themselves or a friend or a brother or a sister. 
Providing a lock with a handgun is common sense.
  I think that Westbrook, Connecticut's Police Union President Douglas 
Senn, put it well when he said, ``You keep plugs in outlets and 
medicine up in high cabinets to keep children safe. Why not put a lock 
on a gun?'' He said this during a program to provide free gun locks to 
Connecticut gun owners.
  The Connecticut Police Union and, I might add, in conjunction with a 
company in Connecticut that, in fact, is a gun company, but they were 
cooperating in this effort in order to provide free safety locks so 
that our youngsters can be safe.
  The Connecticut Police Union president gets it. The company gets it 
when

[[Page 22538]]

it comes to gun locks. What we are asking is that the Republican 
leadership get this.
  If there was any question about the effectiveness of child safety 
locks for guns, that should be answered by a potential tragedy in 
Florida, a tragedy that was in fact averted because of a gun lock. An 
obviously troubled young 14-year-old girl planned to kill first her 
mother and then her father and her sister, too. She was a troubled 
youngster. She held a gun to her mother's head but could not fire the 
gun because of the trigger lock.
  We must and we can do something about keeping guns out of the hands 
of children and of criminals. We do not want to prevent law-abiding 
citizens from their opportunity to own a gun and to do what is right. 
We want to provide a safety lock to make sure that our kids are safe.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just make one comment. I commend the gentlewoman 
for recognizing the Second Amendment rights in her motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that this body will approve this motion. But when 
we convene for the votes that have been postponed, we will have several 
motions that we will be asked to cast a vote upon.
  First, of course, there is the parks measure that is not the heart of 
the gun safety discussion we have had this morning. Then there will be 
a vote on the motion to instruct offered by my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), that basically says this, 
conferees, get to work, produce something, work every day until you 
come up with common sense, reasonable gun safety measures.
  We have a motion to instruct offered by my colleague from California 
(Mr. Doolittle) that distorts, I believe, the meaning of the Second 
Amendment and, as the Members who listened to the debate well 
understand, really asserts that we have no ability to do any regulation 
of guns at all because of the Second Amendment. That is clearly not 
what the Supreme Court has found. It is not the law in America. And it 
is also not what the American people want.
  Finally, we will have a vote on this motion to instruct that says let 
us ask and instruct the conferees to adopt meaningful reasonable gun 
safety measures that are consistent with the Second Amendment.
  Now, we have been here several days now engaged in these motions to 
instruct; and I am mindful that, instead of being here talking about 
these issues, instructing conferees through votes, we could have been 
meeting as conferees. I hope that we will finally have a meeting.
  On August 3, when we had our first and only meeting of the conference 
committee when we gave the speeches to each other, the hope was that 
the staff, at least we were told by the chairman of the conference 
committee, that it was necessary for the staff to get together over the 
August recess and the hope was that we would have something we could 
get behind as schools started.
  Now, I have two teenagers. They are both in high school. School 
started quite some time ago. As a matter of fact, they are starting to 
get a little nervous about midterms coming up. And we have not produced 
a darn thing.
  Now, I hear about these compromises and how difficult it is, and I am 
sure it is not the easiest thing to find that sensible middle ground 
that really is the genius of the American political system, to find 
this sensible reasonable measure that we can send to the President that 
will make the American people safe. But we are not going to find that 
sensible middle ground if we never talk to each other.
  Now, I am mindful that the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
Democrat on the committee are having discussions, and I commend them 
for that; but we have not seen the product of their discussions. And I 
really do believe that, while I am sure their discussions are 
undertaken in good faith, that if we were to shine the light of public 
view on what is being done, we would get to a conclusion a little bit 
faster.
  Because some of the things that were said in this chamber today about 
the inability to do anything to regulate assault weapons, to keep 
criminals from getting guns is preposterous, it is preposterous, and 
the American people will have none of it.
  So let us have that discussion in open session. Let us have the 
conference committee meeting. Let us come up with a measure. None of us 
can be in love with our own words. We need to be flexible and 
reasonable. But the bottom line is we need a measure that closes the 
loophole that does not purport to do so and not actually achieve that 
goal. If we can come together on that, we will end up with a bill that 
we can send to the President and sign into law. I hope that we can. But 
we are not going to do so if all next week we have to once again have 
motions to instruct instead of meetings of the conference committee.
  I know that we will be in recess to go home to our districts for the 
weekend, coming back on Monday. I hope that Members can listen closely 
to what mothers are telling them in the supermarkets when they are home 
this weekend. Do the right thing, vote ``yes'' on the McCarthy motion 
to instruct. Oppose the Doolittle flawed motion and please vote ``yes'' 
on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. 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.

                          ____________________