[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2843-2854]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

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

       Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501,

[[Page 2844]]

     be instructed to insist that the committee of conference 
     should have its first substantive meeting to offer amendments 
     and motions within the next 2 weeks.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for 8 months the conference committee on the juvenile 
justice bill has done nothing, has not met. In fact, the last and the 
only meeting of the conference committee that has the opportunity to 
deal with the issue of gun safety was in August, and was not 
substantive.
  Since then, we have seen shootings in day care centers and schools, 
we have seen 6-year-olds shoot 6-year-olds, we have seen firefighters 
shot as they try to do their jobs, and the congressional response has 
been simply nothing.
  When the President calls congressional leaders to the Oval Office to 
get the conference started and no meeting is scheduled, something is 
wrong. A few days ago, the President called the chairman and the 
ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to 
meetings at the White House to simply ask them to meet in an open and 
public conference meeting, and still no such meeting has been called.
  We need to stop hiding behind closed-door negotiations. We cannot 
have a bill without a conference meeting, so we need to meet. Not 
having a meeting is the same as killing the bill. Time is running out, 
and the families of this Nation are waiting to see what we will do.
  I am hopeful that we can come together on a bipartisan basis to 
support this motion to instruct, which simply says, get the job done. 
Sit down. Talk to each other. Have a meeting. I hope that such a 
meeting will produce a bill, will produce a law that we will all be 
able to support.
  Recently I had the chance to read the statement of Robin Anderson, 
who bought the guns for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the young men 
who killed those kids at Columbine High School.
  What she says in her statement was that if there had been an instant 
check, if there had been a background check from the private gun 
dealers at the gun show where she bought the weapons that those boys 
used to kill all those kids, that she would not have purchased those 
guns. In fact, she says, ``I wish a law requiring background checks had 
been in effect at the time. I don't know if Eric and Dylan would have 
been able to get guns from another source, but I would not have helped 
them. It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn't 
have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check.''
  There has been a lot of unfortunate rhetoric in the last few days 
about the issue of gun safety and people questioning motives and the 
like. But I like the statement made by one of the Republican Members of 
this body at the White House earlier this morning. He said, what we 
want is we want to bury this as an issue. We do not want to bury any 
more kids. So please, let us support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) on this motion to instruct conferees.
  First, I want to say that this is an important issue. No one treats 
this issue lightly, because we are dealing with the lives of 
individuals as well as dealing with constitutional liberties. So it is 
a very, very important subject that arouses the passions of people, as 
it should. It is something that we have to deal with and should deal 
with.
  I believe that we do have a consensus that we want to make progress 
on this. But as the gentlewoman knows, when we make progress in this 
body, there are many ways to do that, particularly whenever we not only 
have to work with ourselves but we have to work with our colleagues at 
the other end of this Capitol in the United States Senate. So there are 
a lot of ways to make progress.
  I will oppose the motion to instruct conferees because I generally 
oppose motions to instruct because these artificial time lines, these 
artificial constraints, are really not helpful in the negotiating 
process, in the coming together of the different points of view. I 
believe that can be done as the conference committee has already met, 
and the gentlewoman, and she well knows, they have met. She argues that 
that is not a substantive meeting, but they discussed, they articulated 
their different views on this particular bill. To me that is a very 
substantive meeting.
  The way the legislative process works, then we go back and we start 
working. We put out ideas. The chairman, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), who is on the conference committee, has an idea that he has 
presented that is being examined. There is a lot of work that is going 
on on this very, very important issue.
  Whenever there is some indication that there is a meeting of the 
minds, that there is some room on both sides to come together, I am 
confident that this conference will meet and that they will pass 
substantive legislation.
  I would also point out that not only is this an artificial time line, 
but it directs our conferees. As the gentlewoman knows, the chairman of 
the conference, who has the right to call the conference together, is 
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary on the Senate side, 
Chairman Hatch. So it is he that must make the decision to call the 
conferees together.
  When I talk about areas of agreement, as I talk to my constituents 
and as I hear from different people, I believe that we have an 
agreement that we ought to protect children. I believe that we ought to 
provide parents with tools with which they can protect firearms, and 
they do not expose those children. Parents need all the tools that they 
can have.
  I believe this is an area that we can reach agreement on. I believe 
we can reach agreement that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of 
criminals.
  Whenever we want to expand the background checks to gun shows, there 
is basically a debate between a 24-hour waiting period and a 72-hour 
waiting period. I believe that people of good faith can resolve these 
differences, but there are clear differences. There are substantive 
constitutional rights at stake, so people, being passionate about this, 
want to be able to work these things out, fighting for their 
principles. I hope that we can come together on this.
  But a lot of work is being done between the Members, dialogues are 
going on, ideas are being discussed. I believe this is the way to get 
this job done, rather than having these artificial time lines and 
constraints that are imposed.
  So I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her suggestions and 
engaging in this debate. We have had discussions, and I would be happy 
to sit down with her at any time. But for the conferees, I think the 
motion to instruct is inappropriate, is not conducive to working this 
thing out and reaching common ground.
  For that reason, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that the speeches we gave to each other on 
August 5 have not been followed by action. The check has been in the 
mail for quite a long time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). I am 
horrified that we have to stand here on the floor of this House of 
Representatives, the people's House, and battle to keep the debate on 
gun safety alive.

[[Page 2845]]

  I cannot believe that some of my colleagues, who work so hard every 
day to represent the best interests of the American people, think that 
it is in this country's best interest for Congress to drag its feet in 
passing comprehensive, commonsense gun safety legislation.
  Frankly, in a country that was founded on the ideals of democracy and 
freedom of speech, it seems downright undemocratic to me that we cannot 
even get this conference committee to meet. As I understand it, it has 
been promised since August 5.
  Here we are with the anniversary of Columbine looming, with more of 
our Nation's children dying each day from gun violence, two high school 
students massacre their classmates, and we will not discuss closing the 
gun show loophole; a 6-year-old shoots his classmate dead, and we will 
not discuss mandatory gun child safety locks.
  This is about saving lives. This is about keeping our streets, 
communities, schools, places of worship, safe. Gun violence does not 
discriminate between the inner city and the suburbs. It does not 
discriminate between young and old, rich and poor, black and white. The 
tragedy of gun death touches us all, and shame on us if we stop this 
debate before it can begin in earnest.
  The American people have asked Congress to be leaders in reducing gun 
violence, and have shown that they are willing to back up our 
leadership. As long as we refuse to meet, refuse to negotiate and 
discuss, we are ignoring our responsibility as lawmakers.
  I urge my colleagues, let this conference meet. I urge my colleagues 
to support this motion.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what we are witnessing here today is the 
continued politicization by the Democrats and by this administration of 
issues that really ought to be removed from the political arena and 
looked at objectively in the best interests of the American people, 
with the laws and our Constitution in mind.
  Unfortunately, though, Mr. Speaker, every time there is a tragedy in 
our community, folks on the other side, including those clamoring for 
this resolution today, do not look to those in the community who are 
responsible for enforcing our gun laws, nor, of course, would they even 
dare to think of looking to the administration to enforce existing gun 
laws, which this administration has shamefully refused to enforce in a 
number of areas, including those, Mr. Speaker, relating to the very 
crimes that give rise to these cries today for precipitous action on 
the part of the Committee on the Judiciary conferees.
  Rather, though, Mr. Speaker, than look to continually politicizing an 
issue regarding the safety of our children and efforts to construct a 
framework within which we can protect our children, within the bounds 
of our Constitution and our laws, the other side simply clamors for 
politicization.

                              {time}  1445

  The motivation of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) who 
purports to speak so purely of the interests of the children is suspect 
by a letter that she and her Democrat colleagues sent on, I think it 
was, March 2 signed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), 
minority leader, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and other 
members of their leadership and those who favor gun control.
  What they say really provides a window into their thinking, not the 
language of the resolution today. They are demanding that the House 
accede to the requirements in the Senate bill on youth violence and gun 
control, even though the House of Representatives on two, count them, 
Mr. Speaker, two occasions last summer clearly, clearly voted down 
those provisions in the Senate bill.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) both proposed amendments to the House bill that 
essentially mirror those in the Senate. Now the folks on the other side 
purporting to speak so purely and innocently and to blast us on this 
side for trying to reflect the will of the House rather than their 
political agenda are trying to force us to accede to something that the 
House reflecting the will of the people by majority vote has twice 
refused to adopt.
  Instead of clamoring to politicize this issue, I would urge, although 
I do not think that this offer will be taken up, I would urge those on 
the other side to simply try and work with us, remove their very 
stilted and very blindered focus on gun control and look as we did, Mr. 
Speaker, at the substance of the bills that passed the House earlier 
last year and which were the subject of considerable debate by dozens 
upon dozens of experts in the youth violence legislation working group, 
with an equal number of Republicans and Democrats appointed by the 
Speaker and the Minority Leader on which I and many on the other side 
were honored to have served.
  That body heard from experts all across the geographic agenda, the 
professional agenda and the political agenda, looking at very real, 
very concrete ways that we can help within the bounds of federalism to 
solve the problems of youth violence in our communities. Many of those 
ideas are reflected, Mr. Speaker, in the bill that we did pass in the 
House.
  Now, I do not think any of us on this side, and certainly speaking 
for myself, Mr. Speaker, shy away from the debate on gun control. The 
other side wants to bring up gun control. I say bring it up, let us 
debate it, and let us vote it down. We do it all the time when they try 
and infringe on the Second Amendment.
  But I would implore the other side to stop holding important youth 
violence legislation hostage because they want it to be a political 
Christmas tree for gun control. Let us at least bring it to the floor 
without artificial mandates mandating the House already do something 
that it has twice rejected, and they know it would happen again. They 
are simply trying to make the issue political.
  Let us, instead, Mr. Speaker, pool our efforts, focus on real 
solutions to real problems, bring those pieces of legislation to the 
floor on which we can agree and on which school administrators and 
parents are imploring us to do, not listen to the plaintive cries of 
those that are now convicted of crime facing criminal activity, instead 
of bringing the quotes in here of those who now, after the fact, after 
they have contributed to tragedy say, oh, please, if only there had 
been a law to have stopped me from violating the law, I certainly would 
not have violated the law. That is absolute nonsense.
  Let us look at the real laws that are on the books, those that are 
not being enforced by the Clinton administration, and let us come up 
with some real solutions.
  Work with us on the other side instead of against the efforts to come 
forward and come back to the floor with a conference report that they 
know will not be rejected as the current one would be that they are 
demanding that we take up on the floor.
  There is an historic opportunity here, Mr. Speaker, to come up with 
some real solutions to real problems with youth violence in our 
communities that fit within the bounds of the Constitution, not outside 
of those bounds; and, yet, the other side refuses to work with us, 
simply demanding, they are demanding in this letter, Mr. Speaker, that 
we adopt a position that already has been voted down twice by the 
House.
  I urge rejection of the Lofgren motion to instruct.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the motion before the body is 
only that the conference committee should meet, and I hope that we can 
do that; and if we would meet, that we would be able to find common 
ground that would be of value to the safety of America's children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).

[[Page 2846]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for nearly a year, we have seen the 
Republican leadership scheme with their special interest friends to 
kill meaningful gun safety reform. Behind closed doors, yes, they have 
threatened Members of this House, they have twisted arms, and they have 
used every back-room tactic in the book to make sure that common sense, 
moderate gun safety reform would never see the light of day. They 
would, in fact, thwart the will of the American people.
  Just when one thought that tactics could not get any worse, the 
leader in the NRA said this week that the President is, and I quote 
him, ``willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his 
political agenda.'' Mr. Speaker, these are not the words and the 
comments of someone who is willing to work constructively to keep guns 
out of the hands of children and criminals. These are the views of a 
group that will do anything, say anything to make sure that even the 
most modest gun safety reforms are left for dead.
  I call on the Republican leadership to help Democrats pass a bill 
that requires background checks at gun shows, child safety locks for 
all firearms, and a ban on high capacity ammunition clips. We have 
Democrats and Republicans in this body who are willing to do that. Let 
us vote for this motion to instruct.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) has 19 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a leader in this country for 
gun safety measures.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support on 
letting this motion go forward. We all know that things here in the 
House go extremely slow. But I happen to think that 8 months waiting so 
we can meet together and hash this out is too long. We have seen too 
many killings. We have seen too many killings in our schools, our 
churches. We have seen our firemen being shot.
  I have to believe that the American people want us to do this. What 
upsets me is we know the American people want us to respond. Yet, we 
see the NRA coming out against us constantly, even to the point where 
they will put a flier out asking our Members to vote this down.
  We had a meeting this morning in the White House, Republicans and 
Democrats. And I have to tell my colleagues one of the most interesting 
things that came out, in California, they have what we want to do as 
far as closing the gun show loophole. Do my colleagues know what, the 
gun shows are doing very, very well in California. No one has been 
denied their rights on buying guns. We have to remember the majority of 
people that go buy their guns get cleared extremely fast.
  Let us sit together, let the American people hear our debates. This 
is not like we are rushing through it. Eight months is 8 months.
  I have to tell my colleagues, Mother's Day of this year, the Million 
Mom March is going to be marching across this country because we want 
safety. We can handle all the other issues that work to reduce gun 
violence in this country, but there are more things we can do; and the 
bottom line is it is the easy access to guns that are killing our 
citizens. We can do something. The people of America are looking 
forward to us doing something.
  It is bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats should be joining 
together on this. This is something good for the American people. After 
this morning and seeing my Republican colleagues working with us, and 
across this country, we do not ask registration of all those that are 
going to be in the Million Mom March. They are Republicans. They are 
Democrats. They are Independents. They are going to be sticking with 
us.
  We are going to make a change in this country. We cannot wait any 
longer. Because each day, people are dying: our police officers, our 
firemen, our children, our loved ones. That is wrong. We have to make a 
difference. We have the moral obligation.
  I ask all of my colleagues on the Republican and Democratic side to 
vote to let us sit down and talk. That is all we are doing. This has 
nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with 
the Constitution. We are not even touching those laws. All we are 
trying to do is say we care about everyone in this country.
  I as a victim and now I as a Congressperson have to say enough is 
enough. I cannot face any more victims that keep coming to my office 
and asking why we are not doing anything.
  This should not be politics. We should not bring politics into this 
whatsoever. This is doing the right thing. If it was any other subject, 
it would have been passed more than 8 months ago.
  One more month before Mother's Day, then my colleagues are going to 
see moms across this country making a difference.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
McCarthy) who just spoke and for the tone by which she presented the 
issue and the way she conducts herself on this issue of great 
importance. I know that she has personally been touched by this.
  She indicated that this should not be a partisan issue. I agree with 
her completely. I think that whenever we can diminish the tone from a 
partisan standpoint, because there are people on both sides that take 
different positions on this issue, I would say that I still think it is 
a difficult issue. That is one of the reasons we are having a hard time 
getting together.
  But the tone that the gentlewoman from New York represented is just 
what is needed to bring the sides together. I wanted to take this 
moment to thank her for what she had to say and the manner in which she 
had to say it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion that is 
before us today. The juvenile justice conference was supposed to hammer 
out a compromise bill. Instead, the conference seems to be in 
hibernation.
  It is bad enough that the conference has not met since last August. 
What is even worse is that now Republican leaders have abandoned any 
effort to work out a bipartisan solution.
  Republican leaders are now rapidly backtracking from efforts to move 
a bill out of conference that addresses the core issues behind the 
epidemic of violence that threatens our young people. Yesterday, the 
Majority Leader stated that he would support dismantling the juvenile 
justice bill to eliminate the Senate-passed gun safety provisions.
  I think we have a simple choice to make. Do we back down and 
eviscerate the bipartisan compromise in the Senate, or do we move 
forward to protect the children of America? The choice should be clear 
to anyone who is fed up with violence in our schools and in our 
neighborhoods.
  We must stand up for parents and the safety of their children by 
sitting down and reaching a bipartisan agreement to close the gun show 
loophole.
  I had a policeman in Chicago who had been shot 13 times by a gang 
tell me that, when he goes to the high schools in Chicago and asks the 
students how many have a gun at home, everybody raises their hand. How 
many know where the gun is? Everybody raises their hand. How many have 
shot the gun? Everybody raises their hand.
  He said that the gun show loophole is causing thousands of guns to 
flood into a city like Chicago. He said, look, gun safety measures will 
never stop crime, but it will help because, he said, the truth is our 
cities and our villages of this country are awash in guns. We do not 
need that many. We should not have that many.
  A juvenile justice bill that ignores the issue of gun safety is a 
hollow bill

[[Page 2847]]

that is an insult to the victims of these horrible acts of violence. 
Today we must stand our ground and send a strong message to the 
conferees that they must return with a bill that represents bipartisan 
sentiment and contains real protections for our children.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I want to respond to the minority leader and the remarks 
that he made.
  I think the best way to respond is to go through some of the facts. 
He indicated that we on this side have abandoned an effort to seek a 
bipartisan solution, and that is quite the contrary. The only way 
anything is going to happen is through a bipartisan solution. I know 
that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), on the House side, is 
submitting some proposals out there in seeking a bipartisan solution to 
this. So we very much desire that because that is the only way it is 
going to work.
  Secondly, the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), indicated that we should accept the Senate-passed gun 
provisions. Well, I might remind the gentleman from Missouri that those 
same provisions were defeated in this body. So what he is asking is 
that our conferees reject the will of this House. And I think that the 
will of this House has to carry some weight in the conference 
committee.
  If we go back as to what has happened, some very important things 
happened during the debate. First of all, in the House, and we debated 
this issue, at a vote of 395 to 27 we passed a juvenile Brady law, 
which prohibited juveniles convicted of an act of violent juvenile 
delinquency from possessing a firearm, a common sense gun restriction 
that is appropriate that people in this body supported in a bipartisan 
way, and it was passed. And then again we passed a ban on the juvenile 
possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. It passed by an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote. Child safety locks, which I supported, 
passed by a vote of 311 to 115. It passed on an amendment. The ban of 
importation of large capacity ammo clips passed the House by a voice 
vote.
  So all of this we did when we engaged in the debate. As my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle well know, when these amendments were 
attached to the substantive bill, it was defeated on a bipartisan basis 
because there was a perception that it went too far and that it was not 
acceptable. So the other side had some, as a matter of fact many, 
Democrats voting against it because they felt like it did not go far 
enough, and others that voted against it because it went too far. So it 
was defeated on bipartisan basis by this House.
  This paints the difficulty in which we find ourselves. The best way 
to achieve a result is not to ignore the will of the House, but to 
factor it in, and to try to arrive at a consensus. The motion to 
instruct conferees is not the right way to get it done. We are putting 
out these proposals, we are continuing the dialogue, and we need the 
other side's help in reaching a consensus. We think we can achieve this 
in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Arkansas tell me at 
what point in all of that deliberation did the House express the notion 
that we should not even meet in conference; that we should not even 
discuss these items? There seemed to have been, I would agree with the 
gentleman, broad consensus.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what I was reciting 
was the debate that occurred in this House, which showed how much we 
did accomplish together and how much was defeated that was good that 
was defeated together. That is the difficulty the conferees find 
themselves in.
  This is not a simple issue that we can politicize. We have to debate 
policy. We have to debate policy. And that is what we are doing in a 
very substantive way and that is what we are going to continue to do. 
We ask the help of the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 
a member of the conference committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time and for her leadership on this particular 
legislation.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people can understand and 
decipher between rhetoric and sincerity. On one side we have children 
dying every day; on the other side we have a special interest group 
that intimidates, lobbies, and obstructs. On one side we have those in 
a bipartisan way who are committed to meeting; on the other side we 
have a conference committee that, at best, is limited in its sincerity 
and intent to do right.
  I think it is certainly a crime to suggest that those of us who want 
real gun safety legislation would be those who are undermining laws 
that would prevent gun violence, or that we are undermining laws that 
would want to have us enforce gun laws against those who would be 
criminal. I think our records mutually, both Democrats and Republicans, 
are strong on enforcing criminal laws.
  In fact, the Brady law has seen 500,000 criminals not get guns. I ask 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if they think the Brady 
law is wrong. I have legislation that holds adults responsible for guns 
in the hands of children that supports trigger locks that I will be 
filing. Do they want us to go piece by piece, or can we come and be a 
committee of one that will listen to the American people, that will 
listen to the mothers who are going to march?
  I ask my good friend from Georgia, and I lower my tone and I ask it 
out of great interest and sincerity, would he get the National Rifle 
Association to repudiate its ugly comments that suggest that the 
President of the United States and the Vice President of the United 
States, holding the two highest offices and the respect of the American 
people, that suggest that they are, in fact, fueling the fires of 
violence for their own political interest.
  I am outraged and saddened that we would have an organization that 
has such a dominant hand on the Members of this Congress that they 
cannot even wiggle themselves out to stand up for dying children who 
are dying every day.
  I simply ask, NRA, will you admit to your error and will you draw 
back on those ugly words? Will you pull them down so that we can have a 
conference, Mr. Speaker, that lowers the tone and works in a bipartisan 
way so that we can save the lives of children, so we can pass gun 
safety legislation and be committed not to special interest, not 
Democrats, not Republicans, not independents but the will of the 
American people? I ask my colleagues on the other side and I ask the 
representatives of the National Rifle Association in this Congress, 
will they repudiate such ugly, ugly words?
  I want real gun safety legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I want to do it 
in a bipartisan and forceful manner on behalf of our children.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would advise all 
Members to address their comments to the Chair.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from 
Arkansas for yielding me this time.
  The previous speaker purports to, with all sincerity, indicate her 
willingness to work together in a bipartisan fashion. Yet more than any 
other speaker on this issue, she inflames the passions of 
politicization.
  This is a matter that ought very much to be decided by all of us in 
this body, not by circulating letters drafted by the White House, not 
by taking intransigent positions as reflected in those letters, but by 
listening to our constituents. That is what we do. I presume that that 
is what she does. Until somebody tells me otherwise, I presume and will 
conclude that that is

[[Page 2848]]

what the gentlewoman from Texas does.
  One would simply wish that the gentlewoman would grant to us that 
same courtesy, to believe that we also represent our constituents. And 
our constituents, many of us on this side, including mine in Georgia, 
tell us that they believe in strong enforcement of our gun laws, that 
they believe in responsibility in schools and parents, and that is 
where our focus ought to be. And I would urge the gentlewoman to join 
us in keeping the focus there, not on artificial gun control or on 
outside groups.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner), a new member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my 
colleagues on the other side. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) argued persuasively that there are some very difficult 
issues to resolve here. And I think the forum to resolve these issues 
is in a conference committee where I believe, and many of my colleagues 
believe, that these issues will be resolved favorably to our interest.
  But I think that we have to be careful not to keep repeating things 
that are simply incorrect as an argument for not having the conference. 
The gentleman from Georgia repeats again and again this notion that is 
perpetrated by the NRA that enforcement is down. Simply not true. 
Unsubstantiated by the facts. Twenty-five percent increase in the 
Federal enforcement in the last year; a 7 percent reduction in violent 
crime in the last year alone.
  And the final proof in the pudding, if my colleagues do not want to 
compare it just year to year, there are 22 percent more people in 
prison for gun offenses today than there were in 1992. That is the fact 
of the matter.
  The National Rifle Association would like to repeat and repeat and 
repeat the big lie that these laws are not being enforced. They are 
being enforced more now than at any time in the last decade. So my 
colleagues can have many reasons to oppose the conference committee, 
but that ought not be one of them.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the House Committee on 
the Judiciary, and someone who has spent an enormous amount of time 
trying to forge an answer with the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) for the great work she is doing in bringing 
this motion to instruct, because this is the simplest level we can 
arrive at. I have never heard of a motion to instruct that had no 
substantive purpose whatsoever except to ask the conferees to meet. 
This must be a record of some sort.
  And this is an absurd and morbid game that the National Rifle 
Association is playing, to accuse the President of being dishonest 
about gun safety legislation. Nobody wants it more than the President. 
We have met with him time and time again. We know that that is true.
  The tired old tactics of delaying and distracting cannot hide one 
essential truth: we want an open and public debate of these issues. The 
President says have a conference. Matter of fact, there are more 
conservatives on the committee than there are liberals. So we will take 
whatever happens. But do not tell the American people that for 8 months 
we are not going to do anything whatsoever.
  The NRA fears the debate. And that fact alone speaks volumes. When an 
organization is scared to take this debate out into the open, who is 
really lying? The NRA claimed at one point that they pioneered criminal 
background checks. Do not make me laugh. I was here. They fought the 
Brady bill tooth and nail. So who is really lying? They say they 
support gun show and background checks, but they offer bills that would 
exclude events where hundreds of guns are sold from any background 
checks.
  And by the way, the biggest gun shows in America are in California, 
where they check very carefully the purchases that are done there. So 
we beg our colleagues to support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on the balance of time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) 
has 14 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) has 12 remaining.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I voted for Brady, I voted to ban 
semiautomatics, and I am done voting.
  I think it is time to start enforcing the laws. And I think it is 
time to start looking at political issues around here. I think we are 
playing a lot of football with guns.
  On that juvenile crime bill I passed a little amendment that said, 
look, a teenager or kid that is involved with a gun that gets caught 
loses their driving privileges until they are 21. Where are we 
enforcing this law? Not this one, I hope, that becomes law.
  Where is the aggressive record of this administration and even the 
past administration going after people that violate laws with the use 
of guns? I think we are throwing an awful lot on the NRA that need not 
be on the NRA. My God, when kids are building a bomb in the basement of 
a home, where is mom and dad? It is not the NRA's fault.
  I do not want anybody's guns taken away. And I am telling the 
Democrats this: with the language that the Democrats have for these gun 
shows, there will be more illegal sales at gun shows than there will be 
legal sales if it was just left alone.
  I do not want to argue the case, I say to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Ohio that, as 
the one who made that amendment, I would like him to know that we have 
a modification of Lautenberg which allows 24-hour, 1-day, clearance for 
gun checks. And then for the 5 percent who cannot check in the 1-day, 
we have a 2-day period. Now does that take away anybody's rights?

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what if it was a 2-
day sale, I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and it is 
a Saturday at 4 o'clock and that gun dealer wants to make a buck and 
just sells the gun anyway to Joe Blow.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two sides of this issue, be careful, but the 
Clinton administration could be much more aggressive on crime and guns 
and that is the fact of it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I know I am not alone in asking how long 
we have to wait and what is it going to take?
  It is hard to believe that it is almost 1 year since the Columbine 
tragedy, and yet it appears that we have not learned a thing. Since 
Columbine, we have endured tragedies in Conyers, Georgia; my community 
of Rogers Park in Chicago, Illinois; Bloomington, Indiana; Atlanta, 
Georgia; Pelham, Alabama; Granada Hills, California; Ft. Worth, Texas; 
Honolulu, Hawaii; Seattle, Washington; Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania; 
Memphis, Tennessee; Kayla Rollard in Mt. Morris Township in Michigan. 
Thirteen children, a Columbine's worth of children, every day are 
killed in the United States.
  Communities are waiting. Parents are waiting. But most importantly, 
our children are waiting. Why can we not at least sit down and have 
this conference committee?
  I rise to support this motion to instruct, and I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to get to business. The American people are 
watching and they are waiting.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

[[Page 2849]]


  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, every day children, young people, 
adults and seniors come to these hallowed halls to look to Congress for 
leadership, to set the example, to show democracy in action, to have a 
real debate and discussion on juvenile justice, gun control, and gun 
safety.
  When tragedy strikes, who else should they look to but Congress to 
make the right decisions, to make the decisions that will affect their 
lives?
  To the woman from the 11th Congressional District of Ohio whose son 
was a schizophrenic who was a convicted felon who purchased a gun in a 
gun show and came home and shot her, tell her it is enough. It is not 
enough.
  It is time today to go back to conference and come up with true gun 
safety and true gun control. That is what the people expect. It is not 
the will of Congress. It is the will of the people that we need to 
listen to and follow through on.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson) for yielding me the time.
  Let us step back from the shouting and the dire predictions for just 
a moment, Mr. Speaker, and focus on the facts, as we have been trying 
to do.
  The record of this administration is not one that withstands scrutiny 
on gun prosecutions. Now, one might think if one asked the average 
citizen in America every time the President comes out and talks about 
so many hundreds of thousands of people who have been prohibited from 
purchasing or acquiring a firearm because of the Brady background check 
that if we were to ask that average citizen how many of those cases do 
they think the administration might have prosecuted, I doubt that there 
are many, outside of those of us on the Committee on the Judiciary who 
have inquired of the administration the answer to those particular 
questions, who would know that in 1996 there were zero, in 1997 there 
were zero, and in 1998 that shot up to one prosecution for under the 
Brady instant background check.
  If this administration were serious about enforcing existing laws, 
those statistics, in light of the President's annual trumpeting of how 
many hundreds of thousands of people not authorized to possess firearms 
were stopped because of Brady, they would be far different.
  The prosecution for the transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a 
juvenile, it dropped precipitously, not from the hundreds to the 
hundreds but from nine in 1996 to six in 1998.
  With regard even, Mr. Speaker, to those individuals who were able to 
acquire firearms even though prohibited under Federal law from doing 
so, after the 3-day check there were in excess of 3,000, in other 
words, over 3,000 individuals prohibited from possessing a firearm who 
were able to acquire one after the 3-day check, this administration 
knows who they are. They could find them tomorrow, every one of those 
3,000.
  Yet, what has the administration done? Have they sent for prosecution 
3,000? No. Two thousand? No. One thousand? No. Five hundred? No. They 
have sent less than 200 of those cases referred for prosecution.
  This, Mr. Speaker, is why we are having such a problem with regard to 
enforcement of existing Federal gun laws. This administration is asleep 
at the switch. They are not enforcing them.
  And again, although we may be saying this on deaf ears here today, we 
would implore our colleagues to work with us to try and understand why, 
in the face of a doubling over the last 8 years of this 
administration's budget for ATF and DoJ, these are the statistics, 
shameful statistics on prosecutions. Work with us to figure out why 
they are doing this and then solve the problem with us and not start 
blasting in political terms bringing up the NRA bogeyman out there. 
Work with us on real facts, on real policy, and let us get away from 
the politics.
  I urge this motion to instruct be defeated.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the NRA told us we should not pass 
the Brady bill because the real problem was with the gun shows.
  We passed the Brady bill. In the last 6 years, 500,000 felons and 
mentally disturbed people were prevented by the Brady law from 
acquiring guns; and numerous lives, obviously, were thereby saved.
  Now we are trying to deal with the gun shows, and we are told we 
cannot require a 72-hour wait. Ninety-five percent of the time they 
will not need a wait of more than one day. Five percent of the people 
who want to buy guns cannot be cleared within a day. And those 5 
percent are 20 times more likely, it turns out, to be felons or 
mentally disturbed people who should not get the guns, but they are the 
ones who would get the guns because we are told we cannot have more 
than 24 hours.
  Now, in this country we have 4\1/2\ percent of the world's population 
and 86 percent of the gun deaths in the entire world, 86 percent. This 
is absurd.
  Now we are told that the administration is not enforcing the law. 
Well, I think it has enforced the law, but the administration has asked 
for a large increase in enforcement. And, fine, we should increase 
enforcement. But what kind of foolish argument is it that says, they 
are not punishing people enough, therefore, do not do any prevention?
  These bills are designed to prevent gun deaths. Enforcement is 
designed to punish them. Let us do both. An argument that we should 
have more enforcement is not an argument against intelligent preventive 
legislation.
  No one would say, prosecute the drunk drivers more and eliminate the 
airbags and the seatbelts. That does not make sense.
  Finally, all this resolution asks, Mr. Speaker, is not that these 
bills be passed, not that our version be adopted, but simply that the 
conference committee meet. It has not met since August. If the 
conference does not meet, if this resolution is defeated, it will 
simply confirm once again that the Republican leadership is totally 
subservient to the National Rifle Association.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened for years and years, I have been here 
for 18 years listening to this debate; and I have come to some 
conclusions over that period of time.
  I can understand the anxiety on our side of the aisle to have a 
conference. And I also can understand the anxiousness of people who 
want to stop children from getting killed. But the fact of the matter 
is that I think we are going about it the wrong way.
  We have all kinds of things in our society that kill people: knives, 
bombs, cars. And it is not really those inanimate objects that are 
responsible for that. It is the people who are in control of those 
inanimate objects. I think we are addressing this thing in the wrong 
way.
  Certainly in schools, the school teachers, the principals and all the 
other people ought to recognize behavior that is not right and normal 
and recognize that children ought to be counseled or adults. Certainly 
in our society we can tell the ones that are running around with anger 
in their hearts and such anger that they might pick up a gun and shoot 
somebody. But there are millions of gun owners in this country who keep 
their guns safely who have never killed anybody with that gun, who use 
them either for target shooting, for Olympic shooting, for hunting 
legitimately. They do not use

[[Page 2850]]

many round magazines. They cannot have more than three rounds in a 
magazine at any one time in a hunting field, anyway.
  But the fact is that I think we ought to be concentrating more on the 
deviant behavior of people who will pick up a gun and shoot somebody or 
the person that gets behind the wheel of a car drunk and will kill 
somebody or the person that will pick up a knife and stab somebody or 
the person that will poison somebody.
  My colleague from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) talked about children building 
bombs in garages and the parents did not even know about it. I think we 
ought to start looking at families and start to try to realize that we 
need to do more to bring family solidarity to where the parents know 
what the children are doing and how they are doing it and why they are 
doing it than concentrating on these other things which can be enforced 
every day anyway.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) says 
that we should get with the real facts and recognize the real facts. I 
say to the gentleman and all those in this chamber, these are the real 
facts. A 6-year-old little girl is dead and that is a real fact, and 
she was shot dead by a 6-year-old little classmate who was holding an 
inanimate object, a gun.
  This is a trigger lock. And had this trigger lock been in place, that 
6-year-old little girl would still be alive because the gun could not 
have discharged.
  In my district, in June of last year, a 6-year-old boy picked up a 
rifle leaning against the wall in his apartment when his mom went next 
door and shot his 4-year-old brother in the ear, fortunately not the 
head but the ear. That little boy would not have been injured and that 
gun could not have discharged had there been a trigger lock in place.
  We need to start getting with the real facts and recognizing the 
realities in this country. I do not want to take anybody's gun away 
that is not a convicted felon, a mentally ill person, or a child 
without adult supervision. But, as a prosecutor for 12 years, I have 
seen firsthand gun violence.
  I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a firearm myself. But adults 
who are going to exercise the right to own a firearm should do it 
responsibly.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to respond to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) 
before he leaves the House chamber here.
  In regard to that 6-year-old, what an extraordinary tragedy. But I 
think we have to talk about this in a rational, substantive way.
  The fact is the biggest problem was the breakdown of that home, the 
fact that the mom was I believe in prison, the father was in prison, 
the mom was away, the gun was from an uncle, and the gun was found in a 
crack house. And I do not think in the circumstances of a crack house 
that someone is going to leave and say, oh, I forgot to put the trigger 
lock on.
  Yes, I want my colleagues to know I support and I voted for safety 
locks to be sold with handguns, because we need to give parents the 
tools. But we cannot say to ourselves that this is going to solve the 
problems of violence. It would not have saved the 6-year-old.
  What would have saved the 6-year-old is the strengthening of the 
home, the strengthening of our social service network, good welfare 
people who will help in that home environment. That is what would have 
saved that child.
  And, yes, I am speaking as someone who supports the sale of safety 
locks with a handgun. But that will not carry over and mandate if they 
would follow it a crack dealer who has a handgun. And so, let us deal 
with this in a fair and substantive way.
  I appreciate the gentleman for what he says. I believe that we can 
work together. We are so close on this. We want to do this. But we can 
carry out this battle in good faith. And I really hope that the 
conference will, as we work along the sides and discuss these things, 
that we will come to a closer agreement.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan for a 
question.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman for 
agreeing on the importance of safety locks on handguns. The overriding 
debate here is whether or not we will ask the conference to resume its 
sitting.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is right, and I 
will address that substantive point on this in just a moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute across the aisle to the 
gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that does cross the aisle. 
I think that those of us that really believe strongly in the Second 
Amendment or the First Amendment or any of our given rights realize 
that reasonable restrictions on our freedoms are not a threat to our 
freedoms. They are one of the best foundations of guaranteeing our 
freedoms.
  I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) for his tone of saying we can work together to address 
these issues. I would say to my Democratic colleagues, the President 
has identified in his State of the Union that we need more enforcement; 
we need to crack down on the people who are trying to purchase guns 
illegally. We need to do more. The President agrees with that. The 
Democrats should agree with it. The Republicans should agree with it.
  When it comes to the trigger locks, I am going to introduce a bill 
next week that not only identifies trigger locks but also recognizes 
that gun owners who have done the responsible thing and locked up their 
guns should not be held liable for the abuses of criminals. I think 
that is something we can come together on. We are not talking about in 
this conference very extreme proposals. What is not extreme is for us 
to finally now come together and let us take action on this. Let us not 
delay it. Let us move it forward and then the Republican and the 
Democratic proposals can come together and make it an American 
proposal.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am quite honored to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the Lofgren motion to recommit and commend the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) for her consistent leadership on this issue. 
It has been almost a year since the Columbine tragedy and still the 
conference committee has not yet held one substantive meeting. That is 
what this motion calls for. It calls for them to meet and review and 
act on gun safety measures.
  How many children have to die before this Congress acts?
  My colleagues have mentioned the death of one 6-year old by another 
6-year old. How young must the victims be of gun violence before the 
House leadership acts? Will they finally call a meeting if a 5-year old 
kills a 5-year old or a 4-year old kills a 4-year old? When are they 
going to at least meet and discuss what people on both sides of the 
aisle have said they support, safety locks, child safety locks? If the 
child safety lock was on that gun, whether it was in the house or the 
crack house or the street, that child would be alive today.
  The conference should meet. Pass the Lofgren amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) a question. First of all, looking at the fact situation that 
we are speaking of, I will certainly concede that if there had been a 
trigger lock on the gun then the child would not have been able to pull 
the trigger.
  Would the gentlewoman also concede, though, before that would have 
taken place that the crack dealer or whoever had the gun would have had 
to place the trigger lock on there?

[[Page 2851]]


  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I will state that they would 
have, but the example of the rifle in the home, the degree of 
probability that a trigger lock would have been on that gun is if we 
had passed it into law. That would have been a provision of safety. We 
should take that step.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
honest answer, and I think that is exactly where we are. We want to be 
able to provide a tool, but we have to recognize in this debate as well 
that it takes responsible parents and responsible people to use a 
trigger lock. There is no way we can mandate people to use something. 
We can mandate it, but criminals are not going to use a trigger lock 
when they are going out and doing criminal activity. That is just the 
fact of it.
  We have to keep these guns away from children. We have to give 
parents the tools, and that is what we are trying to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side, and do 
I have the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson) has 4 minutes and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) has 5 minutes. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) 
has the right to close.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just make a couple of observations. No one law 
or measure will solve every problem. We know that. I think that we have 
heard a lot of discussion not only here today in these chambers but 
from individuals outside of this body critical of really very modest 
gun safety measures that if we do not have a 100 percent solution then 
we should just throw up our hands and do nothing.
  That is not the way we operate in this country. Because there are 
some people who drive drunk and we do not effectuate an arrest and 
prosecution of every single person who has gotten behind the wheel 
drunk does not mean that we are going to say that it is okay to drive 
while drunk. Because the 408 children who died in accidental shootings 
last year in this country might not all have been saved because of a 
trigger lock is no excuse not to do what we can so that some of those 
children might have been saved.
  I am hopeful that we can finally have a meeting of the conference 
committee on which I serve. When we met on August 5, we gave speeches 
to each other. I was there. I asked that we stay in that room and that 
we continue to work on the measure. At that point, my two teenagers 
were getting ready to start high school. Now my oldest daughter is 
getting ready to graduate from high school, and we have still done 
absolutely nothing.
  We need to earn our paychecks. I travel 5,000 miles a week to come to 
this body to work, to hopefully serve the American people. I am coming 
here every week hoping that we can gain a law that will make some 
children safer, not just to rename post offices but to do something 
that actually will serve the American people.
  Please, please, let us approve this motion to instruct conferees. Let 
us get to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think this has been a very healthy 
debate. I welcome the debate. I think it has been good and very 
instructive.
  I do want to respond to a number of things that have been raised. 
First of all, the NRA has been used a number of times. In fact, I was 
debating a colleague from the other side of the aisle and he used that 
word in the debate maybe four times, NRA-controlled and so on.
  We have to recognize, and I think people in an honest debate 
recognize, that on the pro-gun side or pro-gun control side would be 
Handgun, Inc. I do not think we ought to silence their trying to get 
information to the Members of this body; nor should someone who is 
concerned about the Second Amendment. I think people have a right to 
speak, but the fact is that we are individual Members of this body 
elected to represent our constituents and that is who we are trying to 
represent in this debate.
  I know the folks on the other side of the aisle are trying to do the 
same thing.
  The substantive issue that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
raised is we are talking about a motion to instruct conferees, just 
wanting to get the conferees together.
  Now, I would just make the case that the way the conferees have 
worked in my experience in this body is that they meet and then they go 
apart for a time and try to negotiate and come together on the issues.
  The fact is, we just passed the conference report on AIR-21, the 
aviation trust fund. I would dare say that that conference committee 
met and then they went away and negotiated, and whenever they 
negotiated the bill back together, and it took awhile to do it, they 
went back in there and they said we have a deal and they voted on it.
  That is exactly what is happening with our conferees. Now I 
understand that my colleagues might want to have them meet together 
more often but the fact is that they are not doing nothing. The fact is 
that the conferees met on one occasion, and secondly they are 
continuing to negotiate.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) did a great job really, in 
essence, in responding to the proposal of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has a proposal that 
is out there on the table right now that we are real close to coming 
together on this conference committee, and I think that the discussion 
has even continued today in this House.
  So it is, I think, an artificial time constraint, artificial time 
lines, instructing the conferees, whenever our Members really do not 
have the control over it and it is the chairman of the Senate side that 
really calls the meeting together. I think it would be ill-advised to 
pass this motion to instruct conferees. I think it has been a healthy 
debate and again I congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) for raising this issue, and I believe this debate should 
continue.
  Once again, what we agree upon, and I should not say we all because 
some of the Democrats do not agree with what I am saying and some of my 
Republican colleagues do not agree with what I am saying, but the fact 
is we want to keep guns away from children. We want to keep guns out of 
the hands of criminals.
  We passed a number of provisions in this body by amendment that 
accomplished that, the juvenile Brady law, the ban of juvenile 
possession of semiautomatic weapons; child safety locks, we passed in 
this body; a ban on importation of large capacity ammo clips, we 
passed. Then whenever it was attached to the main bill, again it was 
defeated by 190 Democrats voted against that, voted against each of 
those things that I just said. A provision that we could have had child 
safety locks was voted down by 190 Democrats.
  Some Republicans joined in that because they did not believe it went 
far enough. I appreciate their point of view on that but the fact is, 
it is a difficult issue. Our conferees are struggling with that.
  So I would ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct 
conferees. I believe we need to continue the discussion and whenever we 
say we are not going to have the conferees forced to meet, I hope they 
do meet. I hope they meet, but I hope they meet because we have reached 
some common ground and we can move this issue forward.
  Again I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for her 
courteousness today in this debate and I look forward to continuing it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 2852]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) spoke what he thought was accurate, but I do not believe it 
is, in fact, accurate. I understand from our staff on the Democratic 
side that there has been no discussions at all at a staff level since 
October. There has been discussion about all of these negotiations that 
are going on behind closed doors. No one has spoken to me, and I am a 
member of the committee. No one has spoken to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy) and she is a member of the conference committee.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has tried very mightily and 
in good faith, and I believe that the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is also operating in good faith, 
trying to find a way for us to reach conclusion, but that is over. We 
are not getting anywhere.
  It may be that we will not, in fact, be able to find common ground 
but I do know this: If we never talk to each other, if we never have a 
meeting, if we never share in public what we think, then we will never 
get to where the country needs us to be.
  We were in the middle of the night last year when we ended up with 
the juvenile justice bill before us, and I thought it was ironic that 
the final bill that we had was actually a retreat from current law. It 
would have actually weakened the current state of the law and that is 
why I believe the NRA urged a yes vote on that bill and handgun 
control, the other side of the coin, urged a no vote. That is why we 
had so many people who believe in sensible gun safety measures opposing 
that measure because it actually was a retreat from where we are today.
  Since that time, we have had many tragedies. We have had a 6-year-old 
kill another 6-year-old. We have had a preschool assaulted by a maniac 
with a gun and shooting little children. We have had firefighters shot 
at. We have had many tragedies and it may be that the 21 individuals 
and Members of this House who did not understand the need for modest 
gun safety measures last year may have received a wake-up call.

                              {time}  1545

  It is possible that we can come together, but it is not going to be 
possible if we never try.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of rhetoric and discussion about 
various interest groups. I have not mentioned the NRA, but I will 
include for the record their missive urging a ``no'' vote on the 
Lofgren motion to instruct, because they have inserted themselves into 
even such an innocuous motion to instruct such as this.
  We are not saying where the conference committee has to end up in 
this motion to instruct, although I have made no secret of the fact I 
hope we can adopt measures. Just that we can try.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the missive from the NRA.

Support the Second Amendment--the National Rifle Association Urges You 
        to Vote ``No'' on the Lofgren Motion to Instruct Today!

       Rep. Lofgren's motion to instruct demands a date certain 
     deadline for the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee to 
     begin deliberations on H.R. 1501. Yet at the same time, Rep. 
     Lofgren is also demanding that the House Conferees accept 
     nothing less than the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1501.
       In a letter, of March 2nd, from Congressmen Gephardt and 
     Bonior, and signed by Rep. Lofgren and other Members, to 
     Senator Orrin Hatch, they demand the following ``Such a 
     conference report MUST include gun safety measures that are 
     AT LEAST as strong as those passed by the Senate.''
       How can Rep. Lofgren expect the House conferees to agree to 
     something that failed in the House twice already last June 
     (McCarthy and Conyers amendments) and will fail again if 
     brought up for a vote? Do they really want to help address 
     the juvenile crime problem in this country or are they just 
     politically posturing in an election year?
       There is no reason to force a deadline other than to allow 
     political grandstanding on issues that Members are already 
     trying to resolve in good faith, the National Rifle 
     Association urges you to vote ``no'' today on the Lofgren 
     motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the American people are urgently waiting for 
the Congress to take meaningful action on gun safety control--and the 
American people are not patient on this issue, Mr. Speaker. The 
American people are not patient. Despite repeated requests from our 
Democratic colleagues in this body and repeated requests of the 
Democratic members of the conference committee on H.R. 1501, the 
Juvenile Justice legislation, we are still awaiting action by the 
Republican leadership and the Republican members of the conference.
  I strongly support the motion to instruct conferees that is being 
offered by my distinguished colleague and fellow Californian, Ms. 
Lofgren. Her motion instructs the conferees to hold its first 
substantive meeting within the next two weeks. As President Clinton has 
said: ``How many more people have to get killed before we do 
something?'' The Senate adopted gun safety measures that close 
loopholes on our gun laws. The American people are strongly supportive 
of the type of provisions that are under consideration in this 
legislation. Now is the time for the conference committee to bring 
legislation back to this House.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the will of the American people to be 
respected in the Congress of the United States, and it is time for us 
to tell the reprehensible representatives of the National Rifle 
Association that the will of the American people will prevail over the 
narrow special interests of groups like the NRA. The appalling attack 
on President Clinton last Sunday by Wayne LaPierre, Vice President of 
the National Rifle Association, only indicates how desperate that 
organization is to stop any meaningful effort to control gun violence 
and to enact needed gun safety legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the San Francisco Chronicle published an excellent 
editorial today which puts this issue and the desperation of the 
National Rifle Association into context. I ask that the editorial from 
the Chronicle be placed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read 
it. Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to support this motion being 
considered by the House today.

           [From the San Francisco Chronicle, March 15, 2000]

          National Rifle Association Takes Desperate New Tack

       National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne 
     LaPierre has crossed over into absurdity in his efforts to 
     stymie gun control legislation this year.
       LaPierre's outrageous accusation that President Clinton is 
     ``willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his 
     political agenda'' can do nothing but backfire. Clinton can 
     be accused of many things, but few would agree that he 
     considers any number of fatalities acceptable.
       LaPierre and his crony, NRA President Charlton Heston, 
     appear to have decided on a take-no-prisoners strategy 
     against gun control even when their statements sound 
     ludicrous.
       Thoughtful NRA members should be embarrassed by the tactics 
     and may want to remember former President George Bush's 
     action after the NRA sent out a fund-raising letter calling 
     federal law enforcement officers ``jackbooted government 
     thugs.'' Bush quit his NRA life membership in protest.
       If it chose, the NRA could be a serious player at 
     discussions on gun control legislation. The proposal that 
     Clinton is trying to push through Congress this year would 
     require background checks of prospective buyers at gun shows, 
     mandate child safety locks on handguns, prohibit imports of 
     large ammunition clips and punish negligent adults if 
     children commit violent crimes because of easy access to 
     guns.
       But NRA arguments on the specifics are drowned out by its 
     leadership's over-the-top rhetoric and knee-jerk opposition 
     to any legislation that smacks of gun control. Contentions 
     that the Clinton administration has not enforced current gun 
     control laws, which may have some merit, also get lost 
     because they appear to be a diversionary tactic to avoid 
     talking about the details of proposed legislation.
       The wave of school killings over the past few years stunned 
     a nation into supporting more restrictions on obtaining guns. 
     Last year, about a month after the Columbine killings, the 
     Senate approved the first gun control measure since 
     Republicans took over Congress in 1994. Agreement later fell 
     apart, but the NRA is all too aware that Congress has been 
     moving in a direction the gun organization detests.
       Its latest tactics show a desperation and an apparent 
     feeling that anything, no matter how outrageous, goes in an 
     election year.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
motion to instruct conferees on the Juvenile Justice legislation. This 
motion would instruct the conferees to meet within the next two weeks 
to have substantive meetings to offer the President a viable gun bill.
  The American people have waited long enough for us to act on this 
legislation. We

[[Page 2853]]

can no longer delay and wait for the next tragedy in order to take 
action.
  Last week's tragedy in Memphis where 2 firefighters, 1 sheriff's 
deputy, and a woman died due to gun violence; underscores the country's 
need for responsible gun legislation.
  It would seem that in almost the year since the Littleton shootings, 
we have done little to more forward on the Juvenile Justice Bill. If 
you recall, it took a considerable amount of time before this bill even 
got to the conference committee.
  In the Crime Subcommittee, the original bill, H.R. 1501, was a 
bipartisan effort that was cosponsored by the entire subcommittee. This 
bill passed the day after the tragedy at Columbine.
  However, after much partisan maneuvering, the bill never made it to 
the full Judiciary Committee. There were several delays and eventually, 
we left for the Memorial Day holiday without any action.
  Through more partisan maneuvering in June, the bill bypassed the 
Committee and proceeded to the floor. The bipartisan bill that 
emphasized prevention and intervention as alternatives to punishment 
only, became a vehicle for a variety of issues--except for protecting 
children. This is a critical mistake.
  Today, I support Senator Daschle's past statement that the Juvenile 
Justice Bill, which concerns access to guns and was adopted by both the 
Senate and the House, should move forward.
  Furthermore, I support his believe that if the Juvenile Justice Bill 
does not go to conference; each Member of Congress should file 
independent bills until safe legislation is adopted.
  I am taking the initiative by announcing, my legislation which would 
increase youth gun safety. My bill, ``The Children Gun Safety and Adult 
Supervision Act,'' is a comprehensive gun safety proposal, but I still 
encourage the Conferees to first pass the current Juvenile Justice Bill 
so that affirmative action will finally be taken.
  Through enhanced penalties for reckless supervising adults, gun 
safety education programs and limitations on the admittance of children 
into gun shows, my legislation seeks to prevent tragedies like the one 
that most recently occurred in Mount Morris Township, Michigan. This 
child shooting is the latest in a series of preventable shootings that 
occurred as a result of adults recklessly leaving firearms in the 
presence of children.
  It is a shame that political maneuvering is still stalling even a 
non-binding resolution like Senator Boxer's that simply supports child 
gun safety legislation. Yet, I would like to say how delighted I was to 
hear of Senator Durbin's amendment that would offer more funding for 
providing gun safety education.
  In the past few weeks my office has received many calls and letters 
from constituents who believe that we support legislation that will 
take away their guns.
  It is obvious that the propaganda machine of the National Rifle 
Association is working to change our focus from the issue of children 
and guns and gun ownership in general. Like many of my colleagues, I do 
not oppose responsible gun ownership.
  However, like President Clinton, I am concerned about children and 
their access to guns. I am concerned that guns are not regulated in the 
same way that toys are regulated. I am concerned that we do not have 
safety standards for locking devices on guns. I am concerned that we do 
not prohibit children from attending gun shows unsupervised. I am 
concerned that we have not focused on the statistics on children and 
guns.
  This motion to instruct urges the conferees to act immediately on the 
Juvenile Justice Bill. We cannot wait for another tragedy to occur. I 
urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 205, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               YEAS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--205

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 2854]]



                             NOT VOTING--11

     Boyd
     Cook
     Hinojosa
     John
     Klink
     Mascara
     Myrick
     Rush
     Stark
     Tanner
     Walden

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. COLLINS, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. COX, and Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CAMPBELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________