[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13081-13095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1501, CONSEQUENCES FOR JUVENILE 
  OFFENDERS ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 2122, MANDATORY GUN SHOW BACKGROUND 
                               CHECK ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 209 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 209

       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. 1501) to provide grants to ensure increased 
     accountability for juvenile offenders. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispersed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. No amendment to the 
     bill shall be in order except those printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Except as otherwise specified in this resolution, 
     each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     part A of the report. Each amendment may be offered only by a 
     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, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments 
     printed in the report are waived. The chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may recognize for consideration of any 
     amendment printed in part A of the report out of the order 
     printed, but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary or a designee announces from 
     the floor a request to that effect. The chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. 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. 2122) to require background checks at gun shows, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and the amendments made in order by this resolution and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in part B 
     of the report, may be offered only by a 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, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments 
     printed in the report are waived. The Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 1501, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) await the disposition of H.R. 2122;
       (2) add the text of H.R. 2122, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 1501;
       (3) conform the title of H.R. 1501 to reflect the addition 
     of the text of H.R. 2122 to the engrossment;
       (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (5) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 2122 to the 
     engrossment of H.R. 1501, H.R. 2122 shall be laid on the 
     table.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), my very good friend, pending which I yield myself such time 
as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order two separate bills, each under 
a structured amendment process. They are H.R. 1501, the Consequences 
for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999, and H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun 
Show Background Check of 1999. Let me state at the outset, the rule 
does not specify the order of consideration of the two bills. That is 
left to the discretion of the Speaker.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate for each bill divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Judiciary. The rule provides for consideration of 44 
amendments to H.R. 1501 printed in part A of the Committee on Rules 
report and 11 amendments printed in part B of the report.
  Except as otherwise specified, the amendments to each bill will be 
considered only in the order specified in each part of the report, may 
be offered only by a 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 a demand for the division of the 
question.
  Except for certain amendments to H.R. 1501 specified in part A of the 
report, the amendments printed in the report shall not be subject to 
amendment, and all points of order against the amendments are waived.
  The rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
recognize for consideration of any amendment to H.R. 1501, which are 
printed in part A of the report, out of the order in which it is 
printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary or a designee announces from the floor a request to 
that effect. This authority applies only to amendments offered to H.R. 
1501, not to amendments offered to H.R. 2122.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes on questions during the consideration of both bills and 
to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote 
follows a 15-minute

[[Page 13082]]

vote. With respect to each bill, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 1501, the 
Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 2122, as passed by the House, as a new 
matter at the end of H.R. 1501, and then lay H.R. 2122 on the table.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, if both bills are passed by the House, 
the Clerk of the House is simply instructed to combine or engross the 
two bills into one bill before being transmitted to the Senate.
  This is not, I say again, this is not an unprecedented rule. There 
are a number of instances in recent years where the House has adopted 
single rules making in order multiple bills, which were then combined 
into one bill upon their passage. Examples include H. Res. 159 in the 
10th Congress, and H. Res. 440 in the 104th Congress. Again this is 
done so we can have a full airing of a wide range of issues.
  Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of the national community that is 
preparing to enter the 21st century, the issue of youth crime is both 
troubling and confounding. The statisticians tell us that juvenile 
crime and violence are at 30-year lows. Let me say that again. We get 
the reports that juvenile crime and violence are at 30-year lows. At 
the same time, several tragedies have struck a chord that resonates 
across the United States.
  The fact is, when kids kill classmates and teachers over problems 
that have always confronted teenagers, people recognize that something 
is wrong.
  I believe that while we will debate and vote on dozens of different 
ideas of good faith and sound intentions to address this national 
concern, we all agree on one essential truth: Each and every one of us 
is fully committed to keeping children safe.
  In fact, all Americans need to look inside themselves for answers to 
the troubling societal questions raised by these violent incidents. 
While in most cases those questions must be answered outside the halls 
of government, today we begin to do our part to tackle this problem.
  While we are united in our goals, make no mistake about the variety 
of the opinions and proposals to reach those ends. Over 175 amendments 
submitted to the Committee on Rules can attest to that.
  This rule attempts to provide the House with a full, fair, and 
focused debate that allows votes in a large number of these varied 
proposals. Of course, the amendments come from both sides of the 
political divide, Democrats and Republicans.
  Although the issue of youth violence has led people to search for 
answers in many places, one issue, legal restrictions on the possession 
of firearms, has taken a particularly prominent place in the rhetorical 
debate.
  The rule will ensure the opportunity to vote up or down on a number 
of firearms restrictions and safety measures, including mandatory 
trigger locks, banning youth possession of so-called assault weapons, 
and background checks at gun shows.
  When the House works its will on guns, whatever that might be, the 
outcome will be included in the final version of the juvenile justice 
legislation. That is both fair and clear.
  Of course, serious people agree that this problem goes beyond guns, 
and this rule will permit the House to deal with a range of measures 
dealing with prevention, law enforcement, and popular culture.
  While we must search for answers in the wake of Columbine and Conyers 
and other tragedies, we cannot lose faith in America's families. Our 
children are not reflected in the twisted rage of Columbine's killers, 
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but rather in the diverse, energetic, 
and religious lives of victims such as Cassie Bernall, whose faith in 
God was stronger than the fear of death.
  Again, the statisticians give us good news. Young people are more 
religious and do more volunteer work than earlier generations. Just a 
few weeks ago, I was honored to present local Youth Volunteer Awards to 
high school students in southern California who spend time volunteering 
in hospitals, police departments, at homeless shelters, and a wide 
range of other community projects. They are the types of kids we find 
if we walk through any school library or flip through the pages of any 
high school yearbook.
  As we move forward on these bills, let us not forget that young 
people, their parents, and all Americans expect to find appropriate, 
firm, and targeted measures that address youth violence and child 
safety. The most troubling questions we face, Mr. Speaker, arise from 
the reality that our society was able to give rise to such different 
kids, and that we do not really know why. However, I am confident that 
this rule will give us a fair and orderly process to begin to answer 
those questions and to help make our children safer.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my 
very dear friend, my chairman, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes. I was afraid that something may have befallen him when he did 
not show up on time.
  Mr. Speaker, all eyes are on the House of Representatives today just 
to see what we are going to do with the long-awaited juvenile justice 
bill.
  After the horrible massacre at Columbine High School, the entire 
country cried out for Congress to pass legislation to stop the scourge 
of violence in our schools. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, all they are 
getting this morning from the Republican leadership is a skewed process 
which will please only some people. It will certainly please the right 
wing militia groups. It will certainly please the National Rifle 
Association, which today's Post states that this bill addresses all of 
their concerns.
  But, Mr. Speaker, in the end, it will virtually do nothing for the 
safety of American school children and the anxieties plaguing their 
parents. Because, despite the nearly 2 months that have passed since 
the Columbine massacre, despite the country's clamoring for action, 
despite the Senate's passage of a bipartisan safety bill, the House 
Republican leadership has decided that bill is not good enough, and a 
better approach is to divide and conquer.
  So this rule, Mr. Speaker, cuts in half the bipartisan juvenile 
justice bill for which nearly everyone would have voted. It separates 
gun safety legislation from the rest of the bill in order to expose it 
to the full onslaught of the NRA's lobbying fusillade. It prohibits 
democratic ideas on school safety, and it also introduces a horrifying 
attack on the first amendment under the guise of stopping violence.
  So instead of allowing a vote on the Senate school safety bill, the 
Republican leadership has decided to carve it up so that the various 
parts of it are easier to kill, especially the Democratic parts.
  Mr. Speaker, American children deserve better. American children 
deserve after-school programs. American children deserve more police 
officers protecting them in school. American children deserve crisis 
prevention counselors who raise an alarm about potential dangers before 
any lives are lost. But because Democrats started those solutions, they 
will not be part of the answer. They will not be part of the answer, 
Mr. Speaker, because they might pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I for one think 13 American children killed by guns 
every single solitary day is 13 American children too many. I for one 
think schools should be havens for learning, not places of fear. I for 
one think the well-being of our children should be put before partisan 
politics. But that is not going to happen today, Mr. Speaker. No, that 
will not happen, Mr. Speaker, because partisan politics won out over 
common sense. The only people to suffer will be the American children 
and their parents.
  The Republican leadership had a great chance to move this country 
toward the days when schools were safe and children were innocent. 
Because no matter what the NRA says, Mr. Speaker, that is the way it 
should be. I am sorry they decided not to take that chance.

[[Page 13083]]

  I will read just the first paragraph from the New York Times 
editorial entitled, ``Republican Mischief on Gun Control.''

       House Republican leaders have already forgotten Speaker 
     Dennis Hastert's pledge last month to support ``common-
     sense'' gun control. Instead of moving to strengthen and 
     expand upon the handful of gun control initiatives heading 
     for votes on the House floor this week, G.O.P. leaders have 
     worked out a scheme to make it easier for lawmakers who take 
     their cue from the National Rifle Association to vote against 
     meaningful reform.

  Mr. Speaker, today's rule reminds me of a line in Genesis 27 when 
Isaac says: ``The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the 
hands of Esau.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss), Vice Chairman 
on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Dreier) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this comprehensive, complex, but 
very fair rule. It makes in order over 50 amendments from both sides of 
the aisle, including one very important bipartisan amendment that I 
will offer later today.
  The Goss amendment mirrors language in the Senate bill to create 4 
new Federal judgeships in the Middle District of Florida, 3 in Arizona, 
and 2 in Nevada. These States have hit critical caseload level, and I 
encourage colleagues to support these emergency amendments.
  However, today we have the opportunity to take a balanced approach to 
curbing juvenile crime and closing the loopholes in our gun laws. I 
want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for not 
taking the politically expedient route, but, instead, crafting a 
thoughtful, deliberative approach to vexing social problems.

                              {time}  1100

  It is an approach that recognizes that the symptoms of teenage 
violence, involving firearms or not, speak to a larger and more 
difficult issue of far greater import, the coarsening, permissiveness 
the self-indulgence of our culture.
  Several years ago, I supported the Brady Act in hopes of keeping guns 
out of the hands of violent convicted felons. There is evidence the 
implementation of an instant background check has been successful, but 
it did inadvertently leave a loophole that has been exploited.
  It is time to close that loophole by requiring instant background 
checks at gun shows. The majority of the folks who attend gun shows are 
law abiding citizens who do not need to be overburdened with 
regulation. However, we cannot allow gun shows to become a magnet for 
criminals who know that they can easily obtain weapons.
  More importantly, though, we must ensure that the gun laws on the 
books right now are being enforced. It is simply not fair to ask 
millions of legitimate American gun owners to submit to further 
restrictions without vigorously enforcing existing law. Too often, gun 
laws are ignored, like the incident in Littleton, Colorado, a tragic 
incident, where more than 22 Federal and State laws were broken. We 
must get serious about punishing criminals and realize that stump 
speeches and partisan vitriol are very poor substitutes for responsible 
law enforcement.
  Society must demand strict and swift justice when our laws are 
broken. But society has become too complacent. It is tragic that it 
takes an unspeakable crime, like the one at Columbine before the public 
feels a sense of outrage. This is not just about law enforcement or 
public officials, this is about each one of us, like Pogo, taking 
responsibility every day for making sure that the laws we have on the 
books are, in fact, upheld.
  Then we can look for ways to make our laws more effective. It makes 
sense to implement tough sanctions for juvenile offenders. This 
legislation will provide States with greater resources to come down 
hard, fair but hard, on youth that break the law, especially repeat 
offenders. Our kids need to know and see that bad choices and bad 
actions have bad consequences. But, of course, this problem is more 
complex than that. Just look at Littleton again. There it was clear 
that the two young people involved, tragically, were prepared to accept 
the consequences of their actions: Violent death. Society has become so 
bent that some kids just will not respond to the threat of punishment.
  The folks in my district know that the problem of teen violence will 
never ultimately be solved in Washington, D.C. What we can do is 
provide our communities with the resources to do their job better and 
empower the people that can best respond to this problem. We have to 
take a hard look at ourselves, our leadership, our celebrity role 
models, and our way of life to determine why it is that some of our 
young people choose the wrong course with such tragic results.
  This is a big challenge. I believe this rule provides for that 
debate. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from California.


   making in order conyers amendment to h.r. 1501, consequences for 
                     juvenile offenders act of 1999

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 
I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding any other provisions of 
the pending resolution, the Conyers amendment that I have placed at the 
desk shall be deemed to have been included as the last amendment 
printed in part B of House Report 106-186, may be offered only by 
Representative Conyers of Michigan or his designee, and shall be 
debatable for 30 minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

          Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute to H.R. 2122

                   Offered by Mr. Conyers of Michigan

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:
                  TITLE I--GENERAL FIREARM PROVISIONS

     SECTION. 101. EXTENSION OF BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS TO GUN 
                   SHOWS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) more than 4,400 traditional gun shows are held annually 
     across the United States, attracting thousands of attendees 
     per show and hundreds of Federal firearms licensees and 
     nonlicensed firearms sellers;
       (2) traditional gun shows, as well as flea markets and 
     other organized events, at which a large number of firearms 
     are offered for sale by Federal firearms licensees and 
     nonlicensed firearms sellers, form a significant part of the 
     national firearms market;
       (3) firearms and ammunition that are exhibited or offered 
     for sale or exchange at gun shows, flea markets, and other 
     organized events move easily in and substantially affect 
     interstate commerce;
       (4) in fact, even before a firearm is exhibited or offered 
     for sale or exchange at a gun show, flea market, or other 
     organized event, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, 
     and the raw materials from which it is manufactured have 
     moved in interstate commerce;
       (5) gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events at 
     which firearms are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange, 
     provide a convenient and centralized commercial location at 
     which firearms may be bought and sold anonymously, often 
     without background checks and without records that enable gun 
     tracing;
       (6) at gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events 
     at which guns are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange, 
     criminals and other prohibited persons obtain guns without 
     background checks and frequently use guns that cannot be 
     traced to later commit crimes;
       (7) many persons who buy and sell firearms at gun shows, 
     flea markets, and other organized events cross State lines to 
     attend these events and engage in the interstate 
     transportation of firearms obtained at these events;
       (8) gun violence is a pervasive, national problem that is 
     exacerbated by the availability of guns at gun shows, flea 
     markets, and other organized events;
       (9) firearms associated with gun shows have been 
     transferred illegally to residents of another State by 
     Federal firearms licensees and nonlicensed firearms sellers, 
     and have been involved in subsequent crimes including drug 
     offenses, crimes of violence, property crimes, and illegal 
     possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited 
     persons; and

[[Page 13084]]

       (10) Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce 
     clause and other provisions of the Constitution of the United 
     States, to ensure, by enactment of this Act, that criminals 
     and other prohibited persons do not obtain firearms at gun 
     shows, flea markets, and other organized events.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) Gun show.--The term `gun show' means any event--
       ``(A) at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited 
     for sale, transfer, or exchange, if 1 or more of the firearms 
     has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, 
     interstate or foreign commerce; and
       ``(B) at which--
       ``(i) not less than 20 percent of the exhibitors are 
     firearm exhibitors;
       ``(ii) there are not less than 10 firearm exhibitors; or
       ``(iii) 50 or more firearms are offered for sale, transfer, 
     or exchange.
       ``(36) Gun show promoter.--The term `gun show promoter' 
     means any person who organizes, plans, promotes, or operates 
     a gun show.
       ``(37) Gun show vendor.--The term `gun show vendor' means 
     any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, 
     or exchanges 1 or more firearms at a gun show, regardless of 
     whether or not the person arranges with the gun show promoter 
     for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for 
     sale, transfer, or exchange 1 or more firearms.''
       (c) Regulation of Firearms Transfers at Gun Shows.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 931. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows

       ``(a) Registration of Gun Show Promoters.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any person to organize, plan, promote, or 
     operate a gun show unless that person--
       ``(1) registers with the Secretary in accordance with 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) pays a registration fee, in an amount determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(b) Responsibilities of Gun Show Promoters.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any person to organize, plan, promote, or 
     operate a gun show unless that person--
       ``(1) before commencement of the gun show, verifies the 
     identity of each gun show vendor participating in the gun 
     show by examining a valid identification document (as defined 
     in section 1028(d)(1)) of the vendor containing a photograph 
     of the vendor;
       ``(2) before commencement of the gun show, requires each 
     gun show vendor to sign--
       ``(A) a ledger with identifying information concerning the 
     vendor; and
       ``(B) a notice advising the vendor of the obligations of 
     the vendor under this chapter; and
       ``(3) notifies each person who attends the gun show of the 
     requirements of this chapter, in accordance with such 
     regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe; and
       ``(4) maintains a copy of the records described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) at the permanent place of business of 
     the gun show promoter for such period of time and in such 
     form as the Secretary shall require by regulation.
       ``(c) Responsibilities of Transferors Other Than 
     Licensees.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any part of a firearm transaction 
     takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any 
     person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a 
     firearm to another person who is not licensed under this 
     chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in 
     accordance with subsection (e).
       ``(2) Criminal background checks.--A person who is subject 
     to the requirement of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall not transfer the firearm to the transferee 
     until the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under 
     subsection (e) makes the notification described in subsection 
     (e)(3)(A); and
       ``(B) notwithstanding subparagraph (A), shall not transfer 
     the firearm to the transferee if the licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer through which the 
     transfer is made under subsection (e) makes the notification 
     described in subsection (e)(3)(B).
       ``(3) Absence of recordkeeping requirements.--Nothing in 
     this section shall permit or authorize the Secretary to 
     impose recordkeeping requirements on any nonlicensed vendor.
       ``(d) Responsibilities of Transferees Other Than 
     Licensees.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any part of a firearm transaction 
     takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any 
     person who is not licensed under this chapter to receive a 
     firearm from another person who is not licensed under this 
     chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in 
     accordance with subsection (e).
       ``(2) Criminal background checks.--A person who is subject 
     to the requirement of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall not receive the firearm from the transferor 
     until the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under 
     subsection (e) makes the notification described in subsection 
     (e)(3)(A); and
       ``(B) notwithstanding subparagraph (A), shall not receive 
     the firearm from the transferor if the licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer through which the 
     transfer is made under subsection (e) makes the notification 
     described in subsection (e)(3)(B).
       ``(e) Responsibilities of Licensees.--A licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer who agrees to 
     assist a person who is not licensed under this chapter in 
     carrying out the responsibilities of that person under 
     subsection (c) or (d) with respect to the transfer of a 
     firearm shall--
       ``(1) enter such information about the firearm as the 
     Secretary may require by regulation into a separate bound 
     record;
       ``(2) record the transfer on a form specified by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(3) comply with section 922(t) as if transferring the 
     firearm from the inventory of the licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer to the designated transferee 
     (although a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer complying with this subsection shall not be 
     required to comply again with the requirements of section 
     922(t) in delivering the firearm to the nonlicensed 
     transferor), and notify the nonlicensed transferor and the 
     nonlicensed transferee--
       ``(A) of such compliance; and
       ``(B) if the transfer is subject to the requirements of 
     section 922(t)(1), of any receipt by the licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer of a notification 
     from the national instant criminal background check system 
     that the transfer would violate section 922 or would violate 
     State law;
       ``(4) not later than 10 days after the date on which the 
     transfer occurs, submit to the Secretary a report of the 
     transfer, which report--
       ``(A) shall be on a form specified by the Secretary by 
     regulation; and
       ``(B) shall not include the name of or other identifying 
     information relating to any person involved in the transfer 
     who is not licensed under this chapter;
       ``(5) if the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer assists a person other than a licensee in 
     transferring, at 1 time or during any 5 consecutive business 
     days, 2 or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of 
     pistols and revolvers totaling 2 or more, to the same 
     nonlicensed person, in addition to the reports required under 
     paragraph (4), prepare a report of the multiple transfers, 
     which report shall be--
       ``(A) prepared on a form specified by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) not later than the close of business on the date on 
     which the transfer occurs, forwarded to--
       ``(i) the office specified on the form described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the 
     jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs; and
       ``(6) retain a record of the transfer as part of the 
     permanent business records of the licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer.
       ``(f) Records of Licensee Transfers.--If any part of a 
     firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, each licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer who 
     transfers 1 or more firearms to a person who is not licensed 
     under this chapter shall, not later than 10 days after the 
     date on which the transfer occurs, submit to the Secretary a 
     report of the transfer, which report--
       ``(1) shall be in a form specified by the Secretary by 
     regulation;
       ``(2) shall not include the name of or other identifying 
     information relating to the transferee; and
       ``(3) shall not duplicate information provided in any 
     report required under subsection (e)(4).
       ``(g) Firearm Transaction Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `firearm transaction'--
       ``(1) includes the offer for sale, sale, transfer, or 
     exchange of a firearm; and
       ``(2) does not include the mere exhibition of a firearm.''.
       (2) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 931(a) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 
     both.
       ``(B) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (b) or (c) of 
     section 931, shall be--
       ``(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 
     years, or both; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, 
     such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(C) Whoever willfully violates section 931(d), shall be--
       ``(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 
     years, or both; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, 
     such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 5 years, or both.

[[Page 13085]]

       ``(D) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (e) or (f) of 
     section 931 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(E) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary may, with respect to any person who 
     knowingly violates any provision of section 931--
       ``(i) if the person is registered pursuant to section 
     931(a), after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend 
     for not more than 6 months or revoke the registration of that 
     person under section 931(a); and
       ``(ii) impose a civil fine in an amount equal to not more 
     than $10,000.''.
       (3) Technical and conforming amendments.--Chapter 44 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in the chapter analysis, by adding at the end the 
     following:

       ``931. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows.'';

     and
       (B) in the first sentence of section 923(j), by striking 
     ``a gun show or event'' and inserting ``an event''; and
       (d) Inspection Authority.--Section 923(g)(1) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the Secretary may 
     enter during business hours the place of business of any gun 
     show promoter and any place where a gun show is held for the 
     purposes of examining the records required by sections 923 
     and 931 and the inventory of licensees conducting business at 
     the gun show. Such entry and examination shall be conducted 
     for the purposes of determining compliance with this chapter 
     by gun show promoters and licensees conducting business at 
     the gun show and shall not require a showing of reasonable 
     cause or a warrant.''.
       (e) Increased Penalties for Serious Recordkeeping 
     Violations by Licensees.--Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any 
     licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or 
     representation with respect to the information required by 
     this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed 
     under this chapter, or violates section 922(m) shall be fined 
     under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(B) If the violation described in subparagraph (A) is in 
     relation to an offense--
       ``(i) under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 922(b), such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 5 years, or both; or
       ``(ii) under subsection (a)(6) or (d) of section 922, such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 10 years, or both.''.
       (f) Increased Penalties for Violations of Criminal 
     Background Check Requirements.--
       (1) Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``subsection (s) or (t) 
     of section 922'' and inserting ``section 922(s)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(t) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 
     both.''.
       (2) Elimination of certain elements of offense.--Section 
     922(t)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``and, at the time'' and all that follows through 
     ``State law''.
       (g) Gun Owner Privacy and Prevention of Fraud and Abuse of 
     System Information.--Section 922(t)(2)(C) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, as soon as possible, consistent with 
     the responsibility of the Attorney General under section 
     103(h) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to ensure 
     the privacy and security of the system and to prevent system 
     fraud and abuse, but in no event later than 90 days after the 
     date on which the licensee first contacts the system with 
     respect to the transfer''.
       (h) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       TITLE II--RESTRICTING JUVENILE ACCESS TO CERTAIN FIREARMS

     SEC. 201. PROHIBITION ON FIREARMS POSSESSION BY VIOLENT 
                   JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 921(a)(20) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(20)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) For purposes of subsections (d) and (g) of section 
     922, the term `act of violent juvenile delinquency' means an 
     adjudication of delinquency in Federal or State court, based 
     on a finding of the commission of an act by a person prior to 
     his or her eighteenth birthday that, if committed by an 
     adult, would be a serious or violent felony, as defined in 
     section 3559(c)(2)(F)(i) had Federal jurisdiction existed and 
     been exercised (except that section 3559(c)(3)(A) shall not 
     apply to this subparagraph).''; and
       (4) in the undesignated paragraph following subparagraph 
     (B) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection), by 
     striking ``What constitutes'' and all that follows through 
     ``this chapter,'' and inserting the following:
       ``(C) What constitutes a conviction of such a crime or an 
     adjudication of an act of violent juvenile delinquency shall 
     be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction 
     in which the proceedings were held. Any State conviction or 
     adjudication of an act of violent juvenile delinquency that 
     has been expunged or set aside, or for which a person has 
     been pardoned or has had civil rights restored, by the 
     jurisdiction in which the conviction or adjudication of an 
     act of violent juvenile delinquency occurred shall not be 
     considered to be a conviction or adjudication of an act of 
     violent juvenile delinquency for purposes of this chapter,''.
       (b) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) has committed an act of violent juvenile 
     delinquency.''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) who has committed an act of violent juvenile 
     delinquency,''.
       (c) Effective Date of Adjudication Provisions.--The 
     amendments made by this section shall only apply to an 
     adjudication of an act of violent juvenile delinquency that 
     occurs after the date that is 30 days after the date on which 
     the Attorney General certifies to Congress and separately 
     notifies Federal firearms licensees, through publication in 
     the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Treasury, that 
     the records of such adjudications are routinely available in 
     the national instant criminal background check system 
     established under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act.

     SEC. 202. PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS BY JUVENILES.

       (a) Juvenile Weapons Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4) by striking ``Whoever'' at the 
     beginning of the first sentence, and inserting in lieu 
     thereof, ``Except as provided in paragraph (6) of this 
     subsection, whoever''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by amending it to read as follows:
       ``(6)(A) A juvenile who violates section 922(x) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or 
     both, except--
       ``(i) a juvenile shall be sentenced to probation on 
     appropriate conditions and shall not be incarcerated unless 
     the juvenile fails to comply with a condition of probation, 
     if--
       ``(I) the offense of which the juvenile is charged is 
     possession of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in violation of section 922(x)(2); and
       ``(II) the juvenile has not been convicted in any court of 
     an offense (including an offense under section 922(x) or a 
     similar State law, but not including any other offense 
     consisting of conduct that if engaged in by an adult would 
     not constitute an offense) or adjudicated as a juvenile 
     delinquent for conduct that if engaged in by an adult would 
     constitute an offense; or
       ``(ii) a juvenile shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, if--
       ``(I) the offense of which the juvenile is charged is 
     possession of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in violation of section 922(x)(2); and
       ``(II) during the same course of conduct in violating 
     section 922(x)(2), the juvenile violated section 922(q), with 
     the intent to carry or otherwise possess or discharge or 
     otherwise use the handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in the commission of a violent felony.
       ``(B) A person other than a juvenile who knowingly violates 
     section 922(x)--
       ``(i) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 1 year, or both; and
       ``(ii) if the person sold, delivered, or otherwise 
     transferred a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon to a 
     juvenile knowing or having reasonable cause to know that the 
     juvenile intended to carry or otherwise possess or discharge 
     or otherwise use the handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon in 
     the commission of a violent felony, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph a `violent felony' 
     means conduct as described in section 924(e)(2)(B) of this 
     title.
       ``(D) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in any 
     case in which a juvenile is prosecuted in a district court of 
     the United States, and the juvenile is subject to the

[[Page 13086]]

     penalties under clause (ii) of paragraph (A), the juvenile 
     shall be subject to the same laws, rules, and proceedings 
     regarding sentencing (including the availability of 
     probation, restitution, fines, forfeiture, imprisonment, and 
     supervised release) that would be applicable in the case of 
     an adult. No juvenile sentenced to a term of imprisonment 
     shall be released from custody simply because the juvenile 
     reaches the age of 18 years.''.
       (b) Unlawful Weapons Transfers to Juveniles.--Section 
     922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, 
     deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor 
     knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile--
       ``(A) a handgun;
       ``(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a 
     handgun;
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile 
     to knowingly possess--
       ``(A) a handgun;
       ``(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a 
     handgun;
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
       ``(3) This subsection does not apply to--
       ``(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun, ammunition, large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault 
     weapon to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a 
     handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding device 
     or a semiautomatic assault weapon by a juvenile--
       ``(i) if the handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon are possessed 
     and used by the juvenile--
       ``(I) in the course of employment,
       ``(II) in the course of ranching or farming related to 
     activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property 
     used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the 
     permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing 
     activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch),
       ``(III) for target practice,
       ``(IV) for hunting, or
       ``(V) for a course of instruction in the safe and lawful 
     use of a firearm;
       ``(ii) clause (i) shall apply only if the juvenile's 
     possession and use of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     under this subparagraph are in accordance with State and 
     local law, and the following conditions are met--
       ``(I) except when a parent or guardian of the juvenile is 
     in the immediate and supervisory presence of the juvenile, 
     the juvenile shall have in the juvenile's possession at all 
     times when a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon is in the 
     possession of the juvenile, the prior written consent of the 
     juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by 
     Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm or 
     ammunition; and
       ``(II) during transportation by the juvenile directly from 
     the place of transfer to a place at which an activity 
     described in clause (i) is to take place the firearm shall be 
     unloaded and in a locked container or case, and during the 
     transportation by the juvenile of that firearm, directly from 
     the place at which such an activity took place to the 
     transferor, the firearm shall also be unloaded and in a 
     locked container or case; or
       ``(III) with respect to employment, ranching or farming 
     activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess 
     and use a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault rifle with the 
     prior written approval of the juvenile's parent or legal 
     guardian, if such approval is on file with the adult who is 
     not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from 
     possessing a firearm or ammunition and that person is 
     directing the ranching or farming activities of the juvenile;
       ``(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed 
     with a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device or semiautomatic assault weapon in the line of duty;
       ``(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not 
     possession) of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     to a juvenile; or
       ``(D) the possession of a handgun, ammunition, large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault 
     weapon taken in lawful defense of the juvenile or other 
     persons in the residence of the juvenile or a residence in 
     which the juvenile is an invited guest.
       ``(4) A handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon, the 
     possession of which is transferred to a juvenile in 
     circumstances in which the transferor is not in violation of 
     this subsection, shall not be subject to permanent 
     confiscation by the Government if its possession by the 
     juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct 
     of the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner 
     when such handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon is no longer 
     required by the Government for the purposes of investigation 
     or prosecution.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `juvenile' 
     means a person who is less than 18 years of age.
       ``(6)(A) In a prosecution of a violation of this 
     subsection, the court shall require the presence of a 
     juvenile defendant's parent or legal guardian at all 
     proceedings.
       ``(B) The court may use the contempt power to enforce 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) The court may excuse attendance of a parent or legal 
     guardian of a juvenile defendant at a proceeding in a 
     prosecution of a violation of this subsection for good cause 
     shown.
       ``(7) For purposes of this subsection only, the term `large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device' has the same meaning as 
     in section 921(a)(31) of title 18 and includes similar 
     devices manufactured before the effective date of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                       TITLE III--ASSAULT WEAPONS

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Juvenile Assault Weapon 
     Loophole Closure Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 302. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICES.

       Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (B)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) Paragraph (1)'' and 
     inserting ``(B) Subparagraph (A)'';
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``(1)(A)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)(B)''.

     SEC. 303. DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICE.

       Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``manufactured after the date of 
     enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994''.
                     TITLE IV--CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Safe Handgun Storage and 
     Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 402. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are as follows:
       (1) To promote the safe storage and use of handguns by 
     consumers.
       (2) To prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to 
     or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in 
     possession of a handgun, unless it is under one of the 
     circumstances provided for in the Safe Handgun Storage and 
     Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999.
       (3) To avoid hindering industry from supplying law abiding 
     citizens firearms for all lawful purposes, including hunting, 
     self-defense, collecting and competitive or recreational 
     shooting.

     SEC. 403. FIREARMS SAFETY.

       (a) Unlawful Acts.--
       (1) Mandatory transfer of secure gun storage or safety 
     device.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:
       ``(z) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed 
     importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer 
     any handgun to any person who is not licensed under section 
     923, unless the licensee provides the transferee with a 
     secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the--
       ``(A)(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, 
     the United States or a department or agency of the United 
     States, or a State or a department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(B) transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer 
     employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a 
     police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for 
     purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
       ``(C) transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio 
     or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or
       ``(D) transfer to any person of a handgun for which a 
     secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily 
     unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions 
     stated in section 923(e): Provided, That the licensed 
     manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed

[[Page 13087]]

     dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days 
     from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the 
     transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the 
     handgun.
       ``(3) Liability for use.--(A) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and 
     control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or 
     safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity 
     from a civil liability action as described in this paragraph.
       ``(B) Prospective actions.--A qualified civil liability 
     action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. The 
     term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action 
     brought by any person against a person described in 
     subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the unlawful 
     misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--
       ``(i) the handgun was accessed by another person without 
     authorization of the person so described; and
       ``(ii) when the handgun was so accessed, the handgun had 
     been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety 
     device.

     A `qualified civil liability action' shall not include an 
     action brought against the person having lawful possession 
     and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or 
     negligence per se.''.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``, or (p)'' before 
     ``this section''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating To Secure Gun Storage or Safety 
     Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or 
     licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend for up to six months, or revoke, the license 
     issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to 
     conduct the firearms transfer; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $2,500.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
       (c) Liability; Evidence.--
       (1) Liability.--Nothing in this chapter shall be construed 
     to--
       (A) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms 
     licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or
       (B) establish any standard of care.
       (2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
     amendments made by this chapter shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 922(z), or to give effect 
     to paragraph (3) of section 922(z).
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty 
     under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a 
     failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title.

     SEC. 404. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) reserves the right to object and is recognized under his 
reservation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my chairman, my 
friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), if this is the same 
amendment that I proposed last night that was voted down 8 to 4.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in response to the inquiry of my colleague, 
let me say this is the exact same amendment, and I want to congratulate 
my friend for his vision and his encouragement. I think it is important 
that we do what we can to accommodate some of those concerns.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, evidently my chairman 
was visited by some great thoughts while he was sleeping last night. 
Does he have any other amendments that were voted against that I 
proposed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, at 
this juncture we plan to move ahead with what is a very fair, balanced 
and focused rule, and we will be, as I said, making in order the 
Conyers amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think we should 
congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for his progress in 
counting. Clearly, what happened was they voted my colleague down last 
night by a party majority. They then counted and found they did not 
have enough votes for the rule. And having lost a couple of rules 
already, they did not want to complete that.
  So I congratulate the gentleman from California who managed to count 
enough votes for the rule before this time, reverse himself and then 
take the amendment only because they have to, and that is why we have 
this.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to correct my friend, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and say that we have not 
lost a single rule in the 106th Congress.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I hope the standard of completion is 
better. It is true there was never a vote to reject the rule. That is 
because prudence being the rule on the rules, they have withdrawn rules 
before they were voted on.
  Now, we remember what happened on the Armed Services rule. It came 
forward, there was some discussion, and it disappeared. So the 
gentleman is correct, it was not actually defeated. The gentleman ran 
away before it was defeated.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we are adding amendments to the rule, 
as a member of the Committee on Rules in, I assume, good standing, I 
would very much like to inquire whether my amendment can be made in 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) has the time under his reservation of objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I need to inquire of the gentleman from 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond and say that we 
believe that we are going to have a very clear and focused debate on a 
wide range of issues, and inclusion of this Conyers amendment will 
allow us to do that further, and that is the reason I propounded the 
unanimous consent request, in the hope that my friends would not object 
to our offering the Conyers amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
if I may say, we are getting accustomed to rewriting the rules on the 
floor, and I just thought if there was an opportunity to add another 
amendment, I would very much like it to be mine because it does address 
the problem of violence.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her message.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am very glad my 
chairman has had a restful night and had a chance to really assess 
this. It is probably his best hours of thinking. And after spending two 
evenings, two late nights going over the rules, I am glad we have this 
addendum.
  And, actually, if the gentleman wants to go home and take another 
nap, he may come back with something else that might be pleasant, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment to the resolution is adopted.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this rule.

[[Page 13088]]

  With this rule, the Republican majority has demonstrated it is more 
interested in keeping order in the Republican Conference than in 
keeping American schools safe for our children. Incredibly, this rule 
sets up a process that ignores prevention in the schools themselves. 
This rule sets up a process that does little or nothing to help make 
schools safer or head off trouble before it starts. This is Alice in 
Wonderland at its worst.
  With my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), I submitted four substantive 
amendments to the Committee on Rules. These amendments deal squarely 
and directly with what we in the Congress can do to prevent school 
violence. But, Mr. Speaker, they were rejected by the Republican 
majority on the Committee on Rules, although parts of them were lumped 
into a larger Democratic substitute that the Republicans intend to 
defeat.
  For example, the Republican majority has rejected an amendment which 
would provide grants to local school districts to help put 50,000 new 
counselors in our schools to help students who are troubled or who have 
been threatened by violence. These grants would also help pay for 
training for these counselors in conflict resolution and could also be 
used to enhance school safety programs.
  Mr. Speaker, school administrators in my district have told me 
providing more counselors is the single most important thing we can do 
for school safety. Yet the Republican majority refused to make this 
common sense amendment in order.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority also refused to make in order an 
amendment which would have provided up to 10,000 new uniformed school 
safety officers as well as 10,000 additional police officers to be 
hired by local communities through the COPS program. In my district, 
uniformed public safety officers have proven to be an effective way of 
heading off trouble before it starts. Yet the Republican majority 
refused to allow the House the opportunity to debate that proposal.
  My colleagues and I also proposed an amendment which would fund local 
after-school programs which would provide a safe haven for children in 
the hours when most juvenile crime takes place, between 3 and 6 p.m. 
The committee refused to make this amendment in order, an amendment 
which might prevent crime and which might keep kids out of trouble.
  There is a huge demand for these kind of programs, programs which are 
cost effective and which can keep juveniles out of a jail cell and in a 
classroom. But the Republican majority refused to allow this amendment 
to be heard.
  Finally, we offered an amendment that would direct the Department of 
Education and the Department of Justice to develop a model violence 
pro-prevention program for the use of school districts around the 
country and to create an information clearinghouse within the Education 
Department.
  Mr. Speaker, our amendments are just plain common sense. We have a 
national crisis in our schools, and when they reopen in the fall, all 
of us would feel better knowing that we have done something to make 
those schools centers of learning, not havens of fear. The programs 
that would be created by these four amendments would go a long way 
toward making that a reality.
  There are many things wrong with this rule, Mr. Speaker, not the 
least of which is the failure to include these amendments.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), an able member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment for the consideration 
of the Committee on Rules which was rejected. It would have made 
abundantly clear the important relationship between the Federal law 
enforcement agencies, in the person of the U.S. Attorney, and the local 
law enforcement, in the person of the district attorney, police chief, 
and other officers of the local law enforcement community.
  It is not clear yet whether the current language of the bill that 
will be considered by the House makes that relationship one that is as 
strong as we would like to see it become. But it may be that in future 
hearings that will be conducted in our committee, the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
that that voice of the U.S. Attorney, consistent with the voice of the 
district attorney and local law enforcement, will be even stronger than 
it now is and must be.
  What we are concerned about is that if there is an interpretation 
placed on the current language that mandates the U.S. attorneys to 
handle all gun charges, without regard to whether or not law 
enforcement has a stake in the pursuit or investigation and prosecution 
of a gun-wielding criminal, it might damage that relationship. But, 
worse, it might damage a case that has been put together by a local law 
enforcement agency that the Federal involvement would only seek to, by 
its involvement, destroy.
  So these relationships are so important that we intend to have 
further hearings on these questions, and suffice it to say that when 
this bill passes, if it should, we will reexamine it to see how the 
U.S. Attorney's Office may be adversely impacted, if at all; and, if 
so, we will then hone in on remedies that can be applied to this law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to clarify its 
statement of a few moments ago about the amendment to the resolution, 
and would clarify that the order by unanimous consent that was entered 
into at that time was just that and not stated as itself an amendment 
to the resolution. It was a unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the recent school tragedies in Colorado and Georgia were 
a cry for help, and my friends on the other side have answered with an 
NRA wish list and a near-to-far-Right agenda.
  The bill is full of solutions in search of a problem, while the real 
challenges go unmet. I offered an amendment to reach out to those 
children who are living in the shadows, to give them a chance to learn 
that someone does care about them, by using the school facilities that 
we have all paid for in our communities that sit idle during after-
school hours. We even had a way to pay for it from the juvenile justice 
budget, but I was not allowed to offer that amendment.
  Instead, this rule says, put the Ten Commandments on the wall and 
hush.

                              {time}  1115

  The people of America want to control gun violence, and the 
leadership on the other side offers us two amendments to put more guns 
on the streets of the national capital of Washington, D.C. Talk about 
offering a drowning man a glass of water.
  We ask for more police in the schools. No, says today's amendment, 
just pray more in school. Well, I believe that God helps those that 
help themselves, Mr. Speaker, and we are obligated to do what only we 
in Congress can do.
  Mr. Speaker, our children are praying. They are praying for relief 
from the terror of violence bursting through their school doors. Please 
defeat this rule and this bill and let them know and their families 
know that we support their prayers.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule. I believe 2 days of 
debate on this very important issue is about as fair as we can get. I 
know a lot of people are not satisfied with the rule. But I think under 
the circumstances it is fair, and I will support the rule.
  However, I am not optimistic that much good will come out of the next 
2 days of debate. I think there is a lot of mischief going on here. I 
see that one-half of this Congress is quite capable and anxious to 
defend the First Amendment, and I think that is good. I see

[[Page 13089]]

the other half of the Congress is quite anxious and capable of 
defending the second amendment, and I think that is good. But it seems 
strange because I see these two groups coming together in a coalition 
to pass a bill that will undermine the first amendment and undermine 
the second amendment.
  That does not make a whole lot of sense to me because I think that we 
are obligated here in the Congress to defend both the first and the 
second amendment and were not here for the purpose of undermining both 
amendments.
  We should be reminded, though, that traditionally, up until the 
middle part of this century, crime control was always considered a 
local issue. That is the way the Constitution designed it. That is the 
way it should be. But every day we write more laws here in the Congress 
building a national police force. We now have more than 80,000 
bureaucrats in this country carrying guns. We are an armed society, but 
it is the Federal Government that is armed.
  So I think we should think seriously before we pass more laws whether 
they undermine the first amendment or whether we pass more laws 
undermining the second amendment. We do not need more Federal laws.
  Recently there was a bipartisan study put out and chaired by Ed 
Meese, and he is not considered a radical libertarian. He was quoted in 
an editorial in the Washington Post as to what we here in the Congress 
are doing with nationalizing our police force. The editorial states: 
``The basic contention of the report, which was produced by a 
bipartisan group headed by former Attorney General Edward Meese, is 
that Congress' tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of 
offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous 
implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the 
principle that States are something more than mere administrative 
districts of a national government.''
  Along with this, we have also heard Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist 
say the same thing. ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally 
have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the 
nature of our Federal system.''
  We are unfortunately bound and determined to continue this trend. It 
looks like we are going to do so today. We are going to place a lot 
more rules and regulations restricting both the first and second 
amendment.
  We are bound and determined to write more rules and regulations 
dealing with the first and the second amendment, and I do not see this 
as a good trend. It is said today that those who want to undermine the 
first amendment, that it is already established that pornography is not 
protected under the first amendment. And today the goal is to make sure 
that the depiction of violence is not protected under the first 
amendment. But do my colleagues know that the major cause of violence 
in the world throughout history have been abuse of religion and the 
abuse of philosophy?
  So, therefore, the next step will be, if we can limit the depiction 
of pornography and then violence, be the limitation of the depiction of 
a philosophy that deals with religion or political systems such as 
Communism or other fascism.
  I say, today we should move carefully and not undermine either the 
first or the second amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Congratulations are in order to the National Rifle Association. They 
are attempting to destroy vital and sensible gun safety legislation 
with the help of a disorganized Republican leadership.
  This is not a game, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about protecting the 
lives of our kids. This should not be an opportunity for Congress to 
bring up legislation that appeases the gun lobby but does very little 
to seriously address the problem of gun violence in this country. We 
need meaningful legislation. The rhetoric is not going to cut it. 
Walking away, this is not going to cut it. We owe it to our communities 
and to our country to do the right thing.
  There is a lot about this rule that is offensive, from keeping out 
good amendments to allowing amendments designed to obliterate the first 
amendment. But regardless of where my colleagues stand on these issues 
or on the issue of gun control, the least we should be able to expect 
from the Republican leadership is fairness.
  This rule is many things, but it is certainly not fair. We should 
reject this rule, go back to the drawing board, and start over, keeping 
our children's best interests in mind, not the gun lobby's best 
interests.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Yorkville, Illinois (Mr. Hastert) the very distinguished 
and hard-working Speaker of the House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule; and I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to support it.
  When this rule came before the committee, there were well over 100, 
almost 150, amendments that were requested. There were 55 amendments, I 
believe, made in order from all points of belief and perspective. This 
rule gives the House the most open debate possible regarding the issues 
surrounding violence in our schools and violence with our children.
  As a former public school teacher, I worked almost my whole career to 
make sure that there is good education both as a practitioner, then in 
the State legislature, and here in the Congress. What makes too many of 
our students do these things to their classmates, their teachers, and 
their friends? How can we stop it? Those are the questions.
  Our colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) put it well 
when he said, we should explore not only these things and how they 
happen but also why these things happen.
  Earlier this year, legislation authored by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), would start the process of 
answering the questions of why. This legislation assembles experts from 
around the country who will investigate the common reasons why so many 
children act so violently.
  In this debate we attempt to provide some answers to both of these 
questions. But let us not kid ourselves. Congress cannot quickly and 
easily provide complete answers that will solve the complex problems of 
juvenile violence. So we can only try to highlight some of those issues 
that we as a society should work to solve. We will debate options 
regarding guns in our society.
  I believe that there are common-sense steps that we can take to keep 
guns out of the hands of unsupervised children. This rule sets up a 
fair process that lets the House speak on gun legislation. We should 
look at the disparity between gun shops and gun shows. It makes no 
sense to put restrictions on the gun shops if a juvenile or a criminal 
can easily purchase a gun at a gun show.
  The gun debate helps us to partially answer the ``how'' question. The 
juvenile justice debate will help us answer the ``why'' question. Why 
have our children lost sense of the value for human life? Why do they 
not know the difference between right and wrong? What in our culture 
promotes this kind of reprehensible conduct from our very children?
  This debate will help to address these questions. We will have a 
debate about our justice system and how it deals with young people. We 
will have a debate on prayer in the schools and how that might help 
children understand the difference between right and wrong. We will 
have a debate on obscenity in our culture. And if sexual obscenity is 
left unprotected by the Constitution, why should violent obscenity be 
protected when studies already show the damage it does to our young 
people?
  This will be a long debate, but it will be a good debate that 
reflects the many opinions of this great Nation.

[[Page 13090]]

  Many have asked why this rule allows for two different debates on two 
different bills. The answer is simple. This strategy allows the House 
to work its will on two separate issues joined by one common tragedy. 
The House will work its will on the issue of gun restrictions. We 
cannot and should not hide from this issue that occupies the attention 
of the American people. And the House will work its will on the wider 
issues surrounding our culture and our society and its impact on our 
children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to join with me in 
starting the process of finding solutions to the problems surrounding 
the violence of youth in our schools.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, if one is a child in the United States, 
they are 12 times more likely to die from gun violence than a child in 
any other industrialized country in the world. Each day in America, Mr. 
Speaker, 14 children die because of gun violence. And every year in 
America, 38,000 Americans lose their lives because of gun violence.
  The Committee on Rules has allowed 14 of 70 amendments offered by 
Democrats relating to gun control to see the light of day on the House 
floor. And the Committee on Rules has only allowed 4 hours to debate 
these very important issues.
  Among those amendments on the cutting room floor is a bill that would 
increase the age of possession for handguns from 18 to 21. In the 
United States 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds are the most likely to commit 
murders with guns. Eighteen-year-olds rank first. Nineteen-year-olds 
rank second. Twenty-year-olds rank third among those who commit 
homicides with firearms in our society. Yet the Committee on Rules will 
not allow that amendment to see the light of day on this House floor 
for a full debate.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a better rule. We need an open debate. And we 
should have a full and free debate on all the issues of amendments 
relating to this important issue.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) the very distinguished chairman of 
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent Conyers, Georgia, where the last school 
shooting occurred. And over the next several hours, every major TV 
network invited me to be on their morning talk shows to discuss the 
problem, and I politely declined in each instance. Because I think it 
is unseemly for political leaders to get on TV that surround personal 
tragedies to further a personal political agenda.
  The agenda here is the action the President said is to register all 
guns. We will have to pass more gun laws, we are told, so kids cannot 
shoot each other in school yards. And yet we have 20,000 gun laws on 
the books in this country.
  In Littleton, they broke 17 gun laws, Federal gun laws, and 7 State 
gun laws. And one more is supposed to help? Why do we not enforce the 
gun laws we have? Over the last many months, 6,000 young people were 
caught illegally bringing guns into schools and 9 have been prosecuted. 
What good does it do to have more laws on the books if we refuse to 
prosecute the ones that we have?
  Let me tell my colleagues something that is not being addressed here. 
I read on two occasions in the last 2 weeks that of the last 8 kids 
shooting up school yards, 7 were on drugs, either Ritalin or Prozac or 
mind-altering drugs, legally on drugs, prescribed drugs. This is a very 
high percentage, 7 out of 8. There might be some connection here.
  But nobody wants to talk about that. They want to talk about guns.
  Well, in Conyers, I stayed off the television and stayed out of 
people's lives. Because the local officials, the sheriff, the school 
board chairman, the school superintendent, did just fine. They quelled 
the anger and the fear, and they did not do it with school 
psychologists and they did not do it with more school cops. They did it 
in the churches. They took the kids to the churches and they talked 
about values and trust and the value of life, all life.
  I am happy to report that Conyers is doing just fine without my help. 
We need to focus on other things than guns, and we need to enforce the 
gun laws that are on the books, and we need not to continue to take 
advantage of personal tragedy to further political agendas.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I come here this morning disappointed, deeply 
disappointed. The tragedy at Littleton followed a year of school 
shootings, and it hammered home a terrible truth, and that truth is 
that all across our Nation our schools are suffering through an 
epidemic of violence and alienation. The threats continue. They 
continue in Conyers, Georgia; they continued in my own home of Port 
Huron, Michigan; and to address this crisis, we needed to come together 
as a community of people who were elected to represent our constituents 
and face a crisis in a cooperative manner. The country is looking for 
real leadership here, but the majority in this House is failing to 
provide that leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, the proposals that are brought to the floor under this 
rule today are confusing, they are divisive, and they do not address 
the real issues. There was a bipartisan agreement out of the committee 
on a good bill that was put together by both sides. That has been 
thrown out the window. Instead of embracing that and building on that, 
we now are in combat at three or four different levels.
  This rule loads down this bill with controversial amendments and 
divisive amendments that are sponsored and advocated by special 
interest groups, and it disallows measures that enjoy broad public 
support. My colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
myself, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost), we have offered in the committee an opportunity 
to deal with this question of school violence. I used to be a probation 
officer. I worked with juvenile delinquents. I know when the problems 
occur. They occur when no one is at home, between 3 and 7.
  So we put together a proposal that would have allowed a number of 
things, that we would have after-school programs so there would be a 
safe haven for children, they would not be out on the streets, so they 
could mesh with seniors and other adults and be mentored in the school. 
Schools should be opened. They should be a citadel of protection where 
values are cherished and learned like the home, like the church, 
through synagogue, the mosque. The school is a place where kids spend 
most of their time. It ought to be a place where they can get these 
values inculcated into them and have adult leadership and have people 
there who care and love them and will show them the way.
  We asked that that be in order; it was not made in order. We asked 
for school resource officers to be in school to stop the violence. It 
was not made in order. We asked for a number of things that deal with 
this question. Guidance counselors. We do not have guidance counselors 
any more in America. That was not made in order. We have put these 
things in our substitute, but let me tell my colleagues. These issues 
deserve to be debated on their own, and they deserve an opportunity to 
be heard in this country.
  So I say to my colleagues vote against this rule, vote against this 
rule, send it back to the Committee on Rules so we can have a more 
open, a more cooperative debate on this fundamental issue.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to start off with a 
discussion of

[[Page 13091]]

how this process started. It started with two bipartisan bills, one in 
the Committee on Education, one on the Committee on the Judiciary that 
were based on deliberation and research, both were reported from 
subcommittee without opposition. That process has now degenerated into 
a political charade with dozens of amendments, many of which have 
severe constitutional implications and none of which have gone through 
the committee process.
  If we are serious about crime, we should reject that rule and send 
all of these amendments back to the Committee on the Judiciary where 
they may receive appropriate consideration. Otherwise we are going to 
spend the next two days slinging sound bites at each other without any 
serious attempt in reducing juvenile crime.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a sorry response to the events in Littleton, 
Colorado and Conyers, Georgia. I would hope that we would reject the 
rule and go back to a deliberative process where we can do something 
about juvenile crime.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, there is something terribly wrong going on 
in this House today. We will spend more time today discussing why a 
child should not even see a handgun on TV rather than debating how we 
prevent a handgun from getting into his hands in the first place.
  The other body did its part, and it did it quickly. It passed 
reasonable legislation to protect our children including background 
checks at gun shows and safety locks on handguns to protect our 
children. It turned to this body to finish the work. The country turned 
to this body to finish the work. And then suddenly something went 
wrong. Republican leadership said we could not use an expedited 
process, we had to go through the normal committee process, and then 
they abrogate the committee process by this rule and do not even listen 
to what has happened within our body. They do not even allow an up or 
down vote on what the other body passed. That is wrong. We should be 
able to vote on what the Senate passed.
  This is a wrong way, Mr. Speaker. The process insults the Columbine 
victims, it insults the American public, and insults the Members of 
this body who will have to explain to their constituents why this body 
chose politics over debate on a reasonable gun safety and juvenile 
justice measure.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), who is an author of one of the 55 amendments that 
have been made in order as we proceed with what will be clearly a very 
fair and open debate.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the Speaker and the 
chairman, number one, for allowing my amendment to be made in order 
today, but also I think it very important to understand that today we 
are going to focus on what is the real issue, and that is what is 
happening in our society as far as our families, the control that we 
have at the local level in our schools, and we have got to have 
legislation that allows families, empowers them, empowers the local 
school district, the teachers, gives them the resources to solve this 
very, very difficult situation that we are in.
  I just had the opportunity to visit with 48 students from Carroll, 
Iowa, seventh and eighth graders or middle school, and to see those 
young people, the kind of quality people that we have that want to do 
well in the future, who want to have a bright, safe, secure future. 
That is what this legislation is all about, and I am just very, very 
pleased that we are moving ahead today with legislation that is going 
to be very positive for these young folks from Carroll, Iowa, and all 
young folks in our schools.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me and rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will take action on legislation which is 
supposed to reduce violence in our country. Instead the Republican 
majority has chosen to do violence to the gun issue by its tactics of 
delay and process manipulation. Today we are here to make legislation. 
Instead the Republican majority is here to make mischief on this issue.
  The American people expect and our children deserve a timely and open 
debate. Instead we have a delayed debate camouflaged by a convoluted 
legislative mischief. It is amazing to see how far the Republican 
majority will go to do the bidding of the NRA.
  Just so we know what is happening, here today the House bypassed its 
traditional order, and debate takes place without the benefit of 
authorizing committee action. Last month the Republican leadership 
promised committee action, and today's floor action breaks that 
promise. The House leadership denied the Committee on the Judiciary 
members the opportunity to debate these issues and instead has allowed 
the National Rifle Association the time to mobilize and deflect 
America's pro gun control sentiment with a multi million-dollar 
lobbying campaign and recently drafted legislative maneuvers.
  If we were serious about this, we would have allowed the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to come up. I urge 
my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson debated 
the issues of church State separation and religious liberty for 10 
years in the Virginia legislature. Our Founding Fathers dedicated the 
first 16 words of the Bill of Rights to the principle of religious 
freedom. But the Republican leadership in this House through this rule 
will limit amendment, debate on issues that go directly to the core 
principle of religious freedom to 10 minutes a side. Ten years for 
Madison and Jefferson, 10 minutes per side in this House today.
  That is an insult to this House, it is an insult to the Bill of 
Rights, and it shows disrespect to the principle, the important 
principle of religious liberty. If the school prayer, Ten Commandments 
and religious funding amendments in this bill are serious, I would ask 
my Republican colleagues to say why they limited the debate to 10 
minutes a side. If they are not serious, why do they show disrespect to 
the principles of the first amendment to the Constitution by letting 
them be debated on such a superficial basis on the floor of this House. 
The Republican leadership that is not listening now owes this House an 
answer why they are denying us the right to debate these important 
issues.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to say to 
the American people that I am deeply saddened. Going to the Committee 
on Rules as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and Subcommittee 
on Crime, led to believe that there would be a fair assessment of our 
amendments, acknowledged as a person who is deliberative in thinking 
along with my colleagues, I guess I was just sent down a primrose path, 
and I am disappointed in the Committee on Rules and its leadership 
because I believe truly that this was a serious opportunity for all of 
us to engage in a real discussion for America's children.
  I had an amendment to address the question of unaccompanied minors 
into gun shows, traveling circuses around this country; 10-year-olds, 
12-year-olds, and 6-year-olds can go into these shows, and yet we were 
not allowed a debate.
  I answered the question about assisting children with their troubles, 
with a mental health amendment that would provide school counselors and 
nurses and guidance counselors to address the needs of our children, 
and yet we were rejected. I am sorry today, Mr. Speaker, that this will 
be a circus, frivolous, wrong, misdirected and controlled by the 
National Rifle Association. I wish I could have been here applauding 
the Committee on Rules and its leadership. I guess I will get no 
amendments for the rest of the 2 years I am here, but I

[[Page 13092]]

am standing for principle. I do not care. They did not do what they 
were supposed to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which frames the 
debate on the issue of juvenile justice and gun control. I rise in 
opposition to this rule because it represents the near completion of a 
process which held great promise in the beginning, but that has been 
mired in partisan politics ever since.
  Just over a month ago, H.R. 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile 
Offenders Act of 1999 was introduced with the support of both the 
Chairmen and the Ranking Members of the Committee on the Judiciary and 
the Subcommittee on Crime. It was a bill that was a bipartisan effort 
to address some of our nation's most serious juvenile delinquency 
problems--a bill that was cosponsored by all the Members of the 
Subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats alike.
  The bill passed through the Subcommittee on Crime unanimously and 
unscathed. It has provisions that aim to improve enforcement, but at 
the same time prevent juveniles from entering the juvenile justice 
system. Part of that prevention effort includes mental health services 
for children, something that I have been a strong proponent of in my 
capacity as the Chair and Founder of the Congressional Children's 
Caucus.
  Just a short time after the passage of H.R. 1501 in the Subcommittee, 
the bill was scheduled to be marked up by the Full Committee. In the 
meantime, however, we heard of the tragic events in Littleton, 
Colorado--and the American public demanded that this Congress do 
something about children's access to guns.
  But the markup for H.R. 1501 was continually delayed in the face of 
progressive and constructive gun amendments by the Democratic Members 
of the Judiciary Committee. Finally, the week before the Memorial Day 
Recess, the Chairman of the Committee issued a letter which stated that 
we would have to undergo a substantive and thorough process in 
Committee so that we can fully work through the issues presented by 
juvenile justice reform--including a debate on guns.
  During the following week's district work period, the Republican plan 
changed. Instead of ``give and take'' with the Democrats in the 
Committee, we had ``hide the ball.'' It was not until the following 
week that we understood that the intent of the Majority, in spite of 
the Hyde letter, was to bring this bill free-form to the floor of the 
House this week! Even then, we had no idea what bill we were amending 
because it was unclear whether H.R. 1501 would be the actual vehicle 
that would be used to debate the issues of juvenile justice and gun 
control.
  With that understanding, or shall I say misunderstanding, we entered 
our debate in Rules. At least partially the result of not having 
undergone the markup process, over 170 amendments were filed in the 
Rules Committee--four of them by me. We strongly encouraged the Rules 
Committee to allow a full and robust debate on each of the issues of 
juvenile justice and gun control, including the use of trigger locks, 
closing the loopholes for gun shows, and banning the importation of 
high-capacity gun magazines.
  It seems that only some of those issues are to be willingly and fully 
discussed today. And when they are discussed, they will be only done so 
with a partisan tenor. Of the 44 amendments to be debated on the floor, 
only 11 of them are Democratic. This flies in the face of the fact that 
we Democrats are only six seats short of having a majority in this 
House. And the American public knows this--they can do the math: we 
have approximately 48% of the seats, yet we only have 25% of the 
amendments.
  I submitted an amendment, along with Congresswomen Julia Carson and 
Juanita Millender-McDonald that would have directed the Secretary of 
the Treasury to develop regulations governing the manufacture of child 
safety locks for firearms. It also would have promoted the safe storage 
and use of handguns by consumers by providing for a gun safety 
education program to be conducted by local law enforcement agencies.
  The statistics on injuries and fatalities for children by firearms 
are startling. In the 10 years from 1987 to 1996, nearly 2,200 children 
in the United States ages 14 and under died from unintentional 
shootings. The U.S. leads the world in the rates of children killed by 
firearms.
  Our amendment would have required minimum safety standards to govern 
the design, manufacture and performance for trigger locks. These 
standards would be used to ensure that no firearms that are unsafe 
would be sold in the United States.
  The amendment also would have authorized the Attorney General to 
provide grants to local law enforcement agencies to sponsor gun safety 
classes for parents and their children. This provision encourages 
parents and their children to develop a responsible attitude toward 
firearms. I firmly believe that if parents choose to own firearms, then 
every member of the household should be taught gun safety.
  I also offered a more modest amendment jointly with my colleague 
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, also on the issue of safety locks. The 
amendment is similar to the amendment that was offered by Senator Kohl 
to S. 254, and which passed with over 70 votes.
  The amendment would have promoted the safe storage and use of 
handguns by consumers by requiring that each gun transferred or sold in 
this country by a licensed dealer should include secure gun storage or 
safety device. This requirement is minimal to promote gun safety. It 
protects the gun owner from any accidental or unintentional shootings 
that might occur without safety devices or storage included.
  I also offered an amendment which would have increased our ability to 
control the sale of illicit firearms. The amendment would have 
increased the number of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm (ATF) agents by 
1000 over the next five years. These are the agents whose primary focus 
is to keep illegal firearms off our streets.
  We hear from all sides of this gun control issue that we have gun 
laws that are not adequately enforced, and by increasing the number of 
ATF agents this amendment would have provided a solution.
  Currently there are about 1,800 ATF agents that work to enforce the 
current gun laws. This is wholly inadequate to deal with the illegal 
gun sales and transfers. For example, here are a few cases:
  In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a retired security officer for the U.S. Army 
purchased a handgun and a semiautomatic pistol which had been recovered 
from a gang member. ATF traced the weapon through its illegal tracking 
information system.
  In El Paso, Texas, an individual bought and sold numerous firearms at 
gun shows throughout Texas, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico. He was a 
straw purchaser for over 800 guns and had supplied over 1200 firearms 
to a narcotics trafficking organization in Mexico.
  In Rhode Island, a gun dealer directed a purchaser to falsify the 
required paperwork and on another occasion, the dealer sold two long 
guns without requiring the purchaser to complete any paperwork at all.
  If we are serious about enforcing the gun laws to prevent illegal 
transfers of guns, then we need to properly equip the ATF with the 
manpower to carry out these responsibilities.
  I also offered a constructive amendment would require that no child 
under 18 would be admitted to a gun show without being accompanied by a 
parent or legal guardian. Just as we prevent our children from 
attending R-rated movies without being accompanied by an adult, this 
amendment would have kept unsupervised children away from gun shows 
where they have unlimited access to guns.
  For the past few weeks, we have discussed the impact that the 
depiction of violence in the media has had on desensitizing children to 
violence. I believe there are several amendments being offered today 
that address this issue. But are conceding that being at a gun show 
does not have a similar affect?
  It is obvious that if our children are unsupervised at gun shows 
there may be an implicit message that it is okay for children to 
possess or play with guns. We do not want our children to view guns in 
a flippant way, but to understand that it is a serious weapon. 
Supervision by a parent is crucial to ensure that children understand 
that concept.
  I see that amendment as extending some of the same protections we 
already have in place for restricting children from places like night 
clubs and bars. It does not take away the right of a parent to take a 
child to one of these shows, but it does protect the child who may 
wander alone into such an event out of curiosity. It is a simple and 
unassuming amendment that I believed, would receive bipartisan 
support--yet we will not have the time to debate this amendment on the 
floor.
  Finally, I also sought to amend this bill to include comprehensive 
mental health for our children in schools. It would assist to bring 
staff, like school counselors, social workers and psychologists, that 
can help detect children who will have problems before they get into 
trouble. The amendment would have made grants available for schools 
with an enrollment of more than 400 students, so that they can each 
afford to bring in this necessary staff. At the same time, the measure 
would require that those counselors hired would have the credentials 
required for them to be able to do their task successfully. It is the 
quintessential preventive approach to the problem of youth crime and 
youth violence. One that we should have the opportunity to debate 
today.

[[Page 13093]]

  I urged the Committee on the Rules to give this House the opportunity 
to pass a juvenile justice bill, with my amendments, which will balance 
punishment and prevention of youth crime and that will also address one 
symptom of the problem, guns in the hands of children. We will not have 
that opportunity today. By accepting this rule, we will continue the 
tradition of short-circuiting this debate, and short-changing the 
American people. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the rule, 
and give our families a chance to better protect our children from 
harm.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a place in 
America where debate is supposed to be the freest and the most open. 
This is the place where the first amendment protects all speech made on 
the floor of the Congress, and yet we find each and every time that we 
come next to it, to an important issue that confronts our country, in 
this case, the safety and the future of our children, the role of 
violence in our society and the future, the future of this country, and 
the increased violence in our society, we see the Republicans once 
again want to close down debate, want to limit free and open debate, 
want to limit the amendments, not make in order amendments that they 
are afraid might pass.
  That should not be the hallmark of the Congress of the United States, 
but unfortunately the Republicans have decided that they will let the 
NRA, the National Rifle Association, design this debate, design the 
amendments, say what amendments will be in order and what amendments 
will not be in order. They have chosen to side with the NRA against 
free and open debate.
  As my colleagues know, this is the House of Congress which this year 
has mastered working 2 and 3 days a week, 1 and 2 hours a day, but now 
we are told that all of this has to happen in a very brief period of 
time without free and open debate. It is a travesty again the first 
amendment, and it is a travesty against the Members of this House.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to respond 
to my very good friend from Martinez, California. There were 178 
amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules for consideration of 
this bill. We have made in order 55 amendments. We have considered 
basically every conceivable option that was out there, and we have 
broken this bill up. Why? So that we can have a full and fair debate.
  So we have not closed this rule down. This is a structured rule. It 
is put into place so that virtually every Member who had an idea will 
have a chance to have that heard, and I believe that it is a rule that 
is very worthy of our support.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House 
for 7 years now, and this is the most outrageous process I have seen in 
the 7 years I have been here.
  Just before the Memorial Day break, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) and I, in the Judiciary Committee, sided with the Republicans to 
go through a deliberative process for this bill. Two weeks later, the 
same people who sat in the committee and argued that the bill should go 
through the deliberative judiciary process pulled the rug from under 
us, took it to the Committee on Rules, and are bringing the bill 
directly to the floor.
  My colleagues heard the gentleman: 178 amendments offered in the 
Committee on Rules, amendments that should have been debated in the 
deliberative process in the Committee on the Judiciary. And of the 178 
amendments offered in the committee, 14 Democratic amendments made in 
order to be debated on the floor of the House. How can we have a 
deliberative process about such an important issue without 
deliberation?
  We should reject this rule and reject these bills.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, because my speakers are being 
used up much more than my Chairman's, I would like to inquire as to the 
time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 
8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for yielding me this time and for doing such a great job on 
providing this rule that gives us the opportunity of a full and open 
debate.
  One of my colleagues just raised the issue that the Committee on 
Rules did not provide the Democratic minority with enough amendments. 
It has come to my attention that, in fact, a Democratic Member of the 
Committee on Rules tried to deny one of those Democratic amendments. 
Two of them, rather; I stand corrected.
  So I think we have done a good job giving everybody the opportunity 
to present their amendments. We have to move this debate along. I think 
we are giving the opportunity for a thoughtful, thorough debate on 
issues that go far deeper than just guns; that go right to the heart of 
our society, of our culture, of the direction that this country is 
headed in, and it is a far more complex issue than just violence. 
Violence in the schools is the tip of the iceberg. But we are trying to 
deal with this in an honest and fair way and I think this rule provides 
us with the parameters to do that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
restricted rule.
  In the weeks after the terrible tragedy at Columbine High School, the 
American people cried out for leadership from this House. They demanded 
that we do something to stop the violence that has invaded our schools 
and is killing our children. The response from the Republican 
leadership was to delay. We were told we could not move forward 
quickly. We were told that we needed to address this issue in regular 
order, starting with the subcommittee, and then the committee, then the 
House floor.
  But what has happened to that regular order? The Committee on the 
Judiciary was not allowed to consider this bill, and the closed rule we 
are debating right now locks dozens of amendments to address the crisis 
of gun violence in this country. It does not even allow a sensible vote 
on these proposals.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a sham. This day was supposed to be about 
Members of the House coming together across the aisle to pass common-
sense gun safety measures. It was supposed to demonstrate nonpartisan 
courage and leadership in the face of a crisis. Instead, sadly, the 
Republican leadership in this House has turned its back on the American 
people and embraced the NRA instead.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this terrible rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the rule and 
against the procedure that has governed the debate of this juvenile 
justice legislation.
  I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1501, the underlying juvenile justice bill. 
In fact, every member of the Subcommittee on Crime is a cosponsor of 
the underlying 1501 legislation.
  From time to time, people across America say, why can Democrats and 
Republicans not work together on major pieces of legislation? This was 
an opportunity where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) got together and worked for 
months on a compromise juvenile justice bill. We urged within the 
subcommittee, within the committee, to get this bill debated on the 
floor right away, with bipartisan consensus.
  But why did we not do it? We did not do it because the Republican 
leadership

[[Page 13094]]

had to figure out a way to deal with the tricky issue of guns and 
violence in schools. They capitulated and delayed and played games 
because they did not have the courage to just report this bill to the 
floor and allow an open discussion about guns.
  The next time people in America are looking for an opportunity to 
vote on bipartisan legislation, they will look to the crime bill and 
what the Republican leadership did with this bill. This bill should 
have been passed before Memorial Day.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, 192 million guns flood our streets. The 
Littleton tragedy galvanized Americans to action. And what is this 
Congress doing? Instead of gun control, we are doing remote control. 
Instead of worrying about kids and gun shows, we are worried about TV 
shows. Every parent in America understands that kids are exposed to too 
much violence. But to only condemn the entertainment industry and not 
the gun industry is deadly.
  So let us get this straight, America. Instead of going after the NRA, 
Congress is going after NBC. Mr. Speaker, 10,000 people were murdered 
by handguns in America in 1996. Only 30 in Great Britain, 15 in Japan. 
Those countries have violent entertainment too, but they have something 
we do not: real gun control.
  So wake up, Congress. It is not just the entertainment. It is the 
guns.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  While some of the people at the microphone say we have to study the 
causes and the whys, and that is true, but when firemen arrive at the 
scene of a fire, they do not sit down and say, I wonder how this 
started; they put out the fire first and then they decide what started 
the fire. Well, what we have to do is get rid of the guns and then talk 
about some of the other social programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. We are dealing 
with what is obviously a very, very troubling and complex issue. It is 
clear to me that there are problems that exist in our society. They are 
at the edges. Basically, our society is good. We have young people who 
are out there who are volunteering, who work hard, who study hard, and 
I think are going to lead this country into the 21st century. I am very 
proud of what it is that they have done. But, we also do have some 
problems, as I said, at the edges.
  It is not easy for us to tackle those questions, but I believe that 
the rule that we are about to vote on is going to provide us with the 
opportunity to address virtually every concern that is there.
  There were 178 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules, and we 
have made in order 55 of those amendments. My good friend from south 
Boston just talked about the issue of guns. And when we look at the gun 
bill that we will be considering, one-half of the amendments that we 
made in order have Democrats as sponsors of those amendments. So the 
Democrats are clearly going to have their opportunity to be heard.
  I listened to what quite frankly was at a very, very high volume, a 
lot of stuff come from the other side of the aisle over the past hour, 
and it came from people who have amendments made in order, and yet they 
talked about how outrageous this rule is. We are going to have a clear 
and focused debate to try and help the greatest deliberative body known 
to man do our part in dealing with this societal challenge that we face 
as a Nation.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is very fair; it is 
very balanced, and then let us move ahead with what will be 2 full 
days, not a closed-down debate, 2 full days of debate. Hours and hours 
and hours we will be considering these questions, and I hope my 
colleagues will allow us to move ahead with it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule 
on H.R. 1501 and H.R. 2122. On May 25, the Speaker stated that we 
should consider this bill in a ``timely yet responsible way'' and that 
``rushing it to the floor . . . will not result in a better product in 
the long run.'' The actions of the Rules Committee late last night has 
been anything but timely and responsible. After the majority pledged to 
work together to draft a bipartisan bill that contained the reasonable 
gun-safety legislation in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee canceled 
the scheduled mark-up and took the juvenile justice and gun violence 
proposals directly to the floor.
  Now, just twelve hours after passing the rule, we are debating two 
bills that Members and staffs have had inadequate time to prepare for.
  Mr. Speaker, after the events of the past two months, this should not 
become a partisan debate. We must take as many steps as we can to 
eliminate the environment of violence and reduce risk to our children, 
families and neighbors. The culture of violence is magnified every day 
by rapidly expanding communication technology. Television, movies, the 
internet, violent video games all conspire to make violence a part of 
the lives of each of us every day.
  The Senate has done its part to provide sensible legislation, and it 
is now up to us to adopt a package of legislation that addresses the 
violence that has frightened families and communities across the 
Nation. No legislation alone is potent enough to stop youth violence, 
but it is truly unfortunate that we could not come up with one bill 
that addresses both the need for juvenile justice programs and sensible 
gun safety provisions.
  As the Ranking Member on the Appropriations Treasury-Postal 
Subcommittee, I was prepared to introduce an amendment in the Treasury 
Postal Appropriations Bill that would close the gun-show loophole just 
as the Senate bill did. But a last minute decision by the Republican 
leadership that gun violence would be addressed in a timely and 
substantive manner kept me from offering my amendment. We were 
reassured that this issue would be addressed swiftly and cooperatively.
  But here we are today debating a pair of bills that never made it 
through Committee debate and were brought to the floor in a haphazard 
and truly partisan fashion.
  I urge members to vote against this rule.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders 
Act of 1999, and amendments thereto.
  As many of my colleagues know, we have been trying for several years 
to pass legislation addressing the growing problem of juvenile crime in 
the United States. It is time that we take definitive action.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce has responsibility for 
programs directed at preventing juvenile crime. I will be offering an 
amendment to modify the current Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act to provide States and local communities with the 
resources they need to operate effective delinquency prevention 
programs.
  This amendment is based on legislation authored by Congressman Jim 
Greenwood, H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
Prevention Act. A similar version of this legislation, H.R. 1818 passed 
the House twice during the 105th Congress. Changes made to H.R. 1150 
and included in the amendment have been worked out in a bipartisan 
basis with Minority Members on the Committee.
  Mike Castle, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 
Youth and Families, Congressman Greenwood, Ranking Minority member Bill 
Clay, Congressmen Dale Kildee and Bobby Scott deserve a great deal of 
credit for all of the time they have devoted to crafting this 
legislation. I would also be remiss if I did not thank Congresswoman 
Roukema, and Congressmen Schaffer, Tancredo, Souder, Ford and Miller 
for their efforts to work with us in putting together a bipartisan 
bill. Last, but not least, I would like to thank Congressman Martinez, 
who helped craft the original version of H.R. 1818, which passed the 
House twice last Congress.
  I note that a number of these amendments supported by Members of the 
House address issues that have already been taken care of in our bill. 
For example, our bill allows the use of funds in both the formula grant 
program and the Prevention Block Grant Program for after-school 
programs. There is also a study on after-school programs. Congressman 
Castle, who is a strong supporter of after-school programs, crafted 
these provisions. Funds may also be used for programs directed at 
preventing school violence. In addition, the Prevention Block Grant 
includes language allowing local grantees to use funds for a toll-free 
school violence hotline. Congressman Tancredo, who represents 
Littleton, Colorado, is the author of this provision.

[[Page 13095]]

  The amendment I am offering also includes several provisions dealing 
with the delivery of mental health services to youth in the juvenile 
justice system. These provisions include: allowing the use of funds in 
the formula and block grant programs for mental health services, 
training and technical assistance for service providers, and a study on 
the provision of mental health services to juveniles. Congresswoman 
Roukema has provided the Committee with vital information on the 
importance of mental health services for at-risk juveniles and juvenile 
offenders and should be commended for her work in this area.
  I have also noticed that a number of proposed amendments attempt to 
direct that a portion of funding under the Prevention Block Grant 
Program be used for specific purposes. The Committee created the block 
grant by combining a number of existing discretionary programs. We did 
this to provide States and local communities with broad flexibility in 
designing programs to meet their local needs. Putting any restrictions 
on the use of these funds would tie the hands of local communities who 
are in the best position to know how to address their unique problems 
with juvenile crime.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few programs at the federal level which 
provide services directed at preventing juvenile crime, particularly 
programs to provide assistance to juvenile offenders.
  It is my hope that we can keep the focus of my amendment on providing 
assistance to this high-risk population and other juveniles at risk of 
involvement in delinquent activities.
  I urge my Colleagues to support my amendment when it is offered and 
to support the Rule under which this legislation is being considered.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 189, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                               YEAS--240

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Gordon
     Houghton
     Lantos
     Owens

                              {time}  1218

  Mr. ROEMER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________