[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19909-19928]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 803, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3193) to restore second amendment rights in the District 
of Columbia, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3193 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3193

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Personal Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
     shall not be infringed.
       (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     protects the rights of individuals, including those who are 
     not members of a militia or engaged in military service or 
     training, to keep and bear arms.
       (3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia 
     are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns 
     that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the 
     rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful 
     defense of persons, homes, and families.
       (4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita 
     murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to 
     local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding 
     persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and 
     their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
       (5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the 
     Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady 
     Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide 
     comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District 
     of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of 
     Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of 
     firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there 
     is no need for local laws which only disarm law-abiding 
     citizens.
       (6) Legislation is required to correct the District of 
     Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens 
     under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     and thereby enhance public safety.

     SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

       Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the 
     killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of 
     Columbia'', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-
     303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following: ``This section shall not be construed to 
     permit the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or 
     regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, 
     constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of 
     persons otherwise permitted to possess firearms under Federal 
     law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, 
     or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful 
     purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor 
     regulated by the National Firearms Act. The District of 
     Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or 
     regulations that discourage or eliminate the private 
     ownership or use of firearms.''.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

       Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 
     1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(10) Machine gun means any firearm which shoots, is 
     designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to 
     shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of 
     the trigger.''.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official 
     Code) is amended by striking ``any firearm, unless'' and all 
     that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following: ``any firearm described in subsection (c).''.
       (b) Description of Firearms Remaining Illegal.--Section 201 
     of such Act (sec. 7-

[[Page 19910]]

     2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the 
     following:
       ``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
       ``(2) A machine gun.
       ``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.

     SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

       Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 
     (sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

     SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

       Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 
     (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

     SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.

       Sections 202 through 211 of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, 
     D.C. Official Code) are repealed.

     SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF 
                   UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 706 of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``that:'' and all that follows through 
     ``(1) A'' and inserting ``that a''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 
     60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A PISTOL IN 
                   ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 
     (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other 
     land possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded,'' 
     before ``a pistol''; and
       (2) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows 
     through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that 
     if the violation''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 
     60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the 
amendment printed in House Report 108-707 is considered adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3193, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 803, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 3193

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Personal Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
     shall not be infringed.
       (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     protects the rights of individuals, including those who are 
     not members of a militia or engaged in military service or 
     training, to keep and bear arms.
       (3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia 
     are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns 
     that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the 
     rest of the United States for sporting use and for lawful 
     defense of persons, homes, and families.
       (4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita 
     murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to 
     local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding 
     persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and 
     their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
       (5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the 
     Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady 
     Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide 
     comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District 
     of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of 
     Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of 
     firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there 
     is no need for local laws which only disarm law-abiding 
     citizens.
       (6) Legislation is required to correct the District of 
     Columbia's law in order to restore the rights of its citizens 
     under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     and thereby enhance public safety.

     SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.

       Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the 
     killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of 
     Columbia'', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-
     303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following: ``This section shall not be construed to 
     permit the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or 
     regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, 
     constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of 
     persons otherwise permitted to possess firearms under Federal 
     law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, 
     or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful 
     purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor 
     regulated by the National Firearms Act. The District of 
     Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or 
     regulations that discourage or eliminate the private 
     ownership or use of firearms.''.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.

       Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 
     1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official Code) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(10) Machine gun means any firearm which shoots, is 
     designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to 
     shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of 
     the trigger.''.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official 
     Code) is amended by striking ``any firearm, unless'' and all 
     that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following: ``any firearm described in subsection (c).''.
       (b) Description of Firearms Remaining Illegal.--Section 201 
     of such Act (sec. 7- 2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the 
     following:
       ``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
       ``(2) A machine gun.
       ``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.

     SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.

       Section 601 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 
     (sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

     SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.

       Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 
     (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

     SEC. 8. ADDITIONAL REPEALS.

       Sections 202 through 211 of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-2502.11, 
     D.C. Official Code) are repealed.

     SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF 
                   UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 706 of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``that:'' and all that follows through 
     ``(1) A'' and inserting ``that a''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 
     60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 10. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN 
                   ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 
     (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``a 
     pistol,'' and inserting the following: ``except in his 
     dwelling house or place of business or on other land 
     possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a 
     firearm,''; and
       (2) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows 
     through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that 
     if the violation''.
       (b) Treatment of Certain Exceptions.--Section 5(a) of such 
     Act (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4505(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``pistol'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``firearm''; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, or to any person while carrying or 
     transporting a firearm used in connection with an organized 
     military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target 
     practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a firearms or hunter 
     safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or 
     show, or the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or 
     all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for 
     public or private exhibition while the person is engaged in, 
     on the way to, or returning from that activity if each 
     firearm is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an 
     enclosed holster, or to any person carrying or transporting a 
     firearm in compliance with sections 926A, 926B or 926C of 
     title 18, United States Code.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 
     60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.R. 3193, and to include extraneous material thereon.

[[Page 19911]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, we will be debating a bill that will go a long way in 
protecting the constitutional rights of the residents of the District 
of Columbia.
  As all may know, currently in Washington, D.C., citizens are 
prevented from owning any handgun at all. I am bringing before you 
today a bill that would restore the second amendment rights of D.C. 
citizens. I think it is important to note that my bill would not repeal 
any provision of D.C. law that bans gun possession by criminals, or 
that punishes violent crime.
  In 1976, 2 years after Congress had granted the District of Columbia 
home rule, the D.C. City Council passed a bill which repealed the 
handgun ban in the District. The handgun ban actually arrested 
progress. In the 5 years before 1976, when the handgun ban was put into 
effect, the murder rate in the District of Columbia had fallen to 27 
per 100,000 from 37 per 100,000, according to researchers at the 
American Enterprise Institute. Five years after the ban, the murders 
had climbed back to 35 for every 100,000 residents. From that point, it 
became worse.
  In the 13 years between 1987 and 2000, D.C. earned the dubious 
distinction as the murder capital of the United States. In 2002, it 
once again had the highest murder rate per 100,000 residents, making it 
the murder capital of the United States 14 of the last 15 years.
  There have been a lot of misunderstandings and miscommunication about 
what this bill does and does not do. So I will address the bill's 
provisions in the order in which they appear in the bill.
  First, the bill prohibits the District from prohibiting residents 
from possessing a firearm that is legal for them to possess under 
Federal law, while still maintaining the Federal ban on private 
possession of any firearm regulated by the National Firearms Act.
  Second, the bill would bring the District's definition of a machine 
gun into conformity with Federal law and the laws of the States. 
Currently, the District defines the term machine gun to include 
firearms that fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled. That is 
not what a machine gun is, of course. A machine gun fires repeatedly 
when the trigger is pulled and held back. The District's definition is 
simply factually incorrect, and this bill will perform the necessary 
correction.
  Third, the bill eliminates the District's firearms registration 
requirement and, logically, eliminates the penalty for the possession 
of an unregistered firearm. This does not, however, in any way change 
the Federal requirement that firearm dealers maintain records of 
firearm sales. Dealers will still be required to maintain Federal forms 
which identify the purchasers of firearms by name, address, date and 
place of birth, and other factors.
  Fourth, the bill eliminates the District's ban on private possession 
of handguns and handgun ammunition.
  Fifth, the bill eliminates the District's ban on the use of firearms 
for protection at home. Currently, the District prohibits a person from 
having even a lawfully owned firearm at home, loaded and assembled, and 
unlocked.
  While some States have laws designed to have people keep firearms 
secured in a similar fashion when they are unattended, the District's 
law requires people to keep firearms unloaded and disassembled or 
locked even if a violent criminal is attacking them in their homes.
  The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 States, Federal law, 
and the laws of all 50 States, and the vast majority of Americans 
recognize the right to use firearms for personal protection. Only the 
District of Columbia prohibits a person from having a firearm assembled 
and loaded at home for the purpose of self-defense.
  That is why 229 Members of this body are not supporters of the bill, 
they are cosponsors of this bill. Forty-four of the cosponsors are 
Democrats. This is truly bipartisan legislation that has come up from 
the demands of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to begin by noting the ludicrous logic on 
which this debate has already begun. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder), the prime sponsor, has just argued that gun safety laws cause 
murders by arguing the fallacious notion of causation. I am embarrassed 
for the statement.
  Mr. Speaker, in my nearly 14 years in Congress, I have come to regard 
Members not only as colleagues but as friends. At the same time, I have 
seen various Members of Congress try to do some low-down, dirty, mean 
things to the people of the District of Columbia, all to promote their 
own political agendas against the will of the people who live here.
  This bill to repeal the city's gun safety laws, when child gun 
killings have sharply increased, scrapes the bottom of the lowest level 
yet. As citizens, we in the District of Columbia do not take attacks on 
our all-American right to self-government lying down. I am grateful 
that these attacks occur less frequently today, and am particularly 
grateful to the appropriators who have discouraged the use of the D.C. 
appropriation for such attacks.
  Congress has seen that we are prepared to fight and fight hard, with 
D.C. appropriation fights in the past sometimes lasting 8 to 10 hours, 
with vetoes of our appropriation that we encourage to compel changes. 
And Congress has seen that we are always prepared to take the fight to 
the home district of a Member to let his own constituents know that 
their Member is taking time from their concerns to mettle in the local 
business of a local jurisdiction far from home.

                              {time}  1300

  Notwithstanding prior fights on D.C. matters, the attempt to repeal 
our gun safety laws is a brand new low for this body. That we are here 
discussing this matter is yet a new low. Repeal shows special contempt 
for the people who live here because the city has sharply reduced its 
homicide rate, now at a 20-year low, down almost 25 percent this year 
alone, and down 55 percent since the assault weapon ban and the Brady 
bill were passed in 1994. At the same time, the city is heartbroken 
that 16 children have been killed by gunfire, more than in any recent 
year.
  Repeal advocates claim they want guns here to help people protect 
themselves. Can repeal help the children killed by guns in increasing 
numbers here in the Nation's Capital to protect themselves?
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the 16 names of the children 
killed by gunfire this year, and an article on Chelsea Cromartie, the 
youngest of these children.

                   More Guns Mean More Children Dying

       Robert Adams, 16; Chelsea Cromartie, 8; Devaun Drayton, 17; 
     Javon Gaskins, 16; Timothy Hamilton, 15; Jahkema Hansen, 14; 
     Antoine Holroyd, 16; Myesha Lowe, 15; David McMorris, 16; 
     James Richardson, 17; Michael Simms, 17; Franklin Smith, 17; 
     Wardell Smith, 17; Michael Swann, 13; Roderick Valentine, 16 
     and Ashley Walker, 16.
       D.C. Homicides Down 24% this year but, more children slain 
     by guns in the first 5 months of this year than in all of 
     last year and more than in any recent years.
       Save Our Children.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 16, 2004]

                    Outrage Speeded Probe of Killing


                   chelsea's death galvanized police

                        (By Del Quentin Wilber)

       The killing of 8-year-old Chelsea Cromartie generated a 
     powerful response from the D.C. police. While homicide 
     investigators worked the streets, teams of officers passed 
     out fliers and set up roadblocks in an exhaustive search for 
     witnesses. Top officials appealed for help and boosted a 
     reward for clues.
       Aided by a tip, police identified two suspects within a 
     week of the Northeast Washington shooting. The police work 
     drew praise from neighborhood leaders and fulfilled a promise 
     made by top officials that they would catch whoever fired the 
     bullets that missed their targets and flew into the home that 
     Chelsea was visiting May 3.
       Not every homicide in the District commands so much 
     attention. In a city that is struggling with one of the 
     nation's highest homicide rates, police must make difficult 
     decisions about how to deploy resources.

[[Page 19912]]

     Witnesses frequently are difficult to locate and, even when 
     found, sometimes refuse to give information. This year, 
     police say, the homicide clearance rate is less than 60 
     percent.
       Commanders and former top officers said they must assess a 
     variety of factors after each killing--from the type of crime 
     and the victim's history to how readily witnesses will help 
     them. Although police insist that they investigate each 
     homicide thoroughly, they said they often feel like 
     battlefield surgeons performing triage.
       The choices inevitably add to the grief of family members 
     of victims whose crimes go unsolved.
       Some D.C. Council members and victims' rights advocates 
     said the department should use Chelsea's case as a model for 
     future investigations by adding homicide detectives and 
     offering bigger rewards. It is not fair, they said, that some 
     slayings get more attention than others.
       ``Should one murder be more important than another 
     murder?'' asked Kenneth E. Barnes Sr., whose son was slain in 
     September 2001. ``I don't think so.''
       Barnes's son, Kenneth Barnes Jr., 37, was a well-known shop 
     owner on U Street NW who was killed during an apparent 
     robbery attempt. The killer was sentenced to prison in that 
     case. Barnes has since attempted to aid the families of other 
     victims by creating a nonprofit group called Reaching Out to 
     Victims Together.
       Kami Emanuel's fiance, Derrick Taylor, was killed about 
     6:45 a.m. May 9 in Northeast Washington. She said detectives 
     appear to be working hard but wondered why they have not 
     raised the reward, now up to $25,000, in the case.
       ``A murder is a murder,'' said Emanuel, 27.
       Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said the department takes 
     every killing seriously. He said he did not hesitate to focus 
     so heavily on Chelsea's case. The third-grader was shot in 
     the head while watching television in her aunt's home, and 
     her aunt was wounded by another of the stray shots that came 
     through the living room window.
       The community was outraged, Ramsey noted, with scores of 
     people attending a candlelight vigil and dozens calling 
     police with tips. The killing became the lead story on local 
     television broadcasts and was front-page news. Ramsey said 
     police believed that they had a solid chance at solving the 
     case if they acted aggressively, and they did not want to let 
     any leads slip past them.
       ``It was hot,'' Ramsey said. ``Not every case generates 
     that kind of interest.''
       The nature of the crime and Chelsea's age attracted 
     community attention and sympathy that helped fuel the urgency 
     to solve the case. Detectives and other officers also could 
     imagine their own daughter dying in such a senseless way, 
     police officials said.
       ``Some cases, you don't have to ask guys to come forward 
     and work,'' said lawyer W. Louis Hennessy, former commander 
     of the D.C. homicide unit. ``These are unique cases. The guys 
     take it upon themselves to go the extra mile.''
       Last summer, as the department was under pressure as 
     homicides spiked, Ramsey raised the rewards offered in 
     homicide cases from $10,000 to $25,000 per victim. In 
     Chelsea's case, the department swiftly doubled it to $50,000. 
     The amount eventually reached $75,000 after a private 
     contribution.
       The donation came from William E. Schuiling, a Michigan 
     resident and chairman of Brown's Automotive Group, which has 
     dealerships in the Washington area. He pledged $225,000 more 
     to help police solve other slayings of children. ``Nothing is 
     more sickening or despicable to me as when someone kills an 
     innocent child,'' he wrote in a letter to Ramsey.
       Ramsey said officers and investigators were added to deal 
     with the high volume of calls and leads about Chelsea's 
     slaying. One crucial tip helped lead to the arrests of 
     brothers Raashed and Ricardo Hall, who were charged with 
     first-degree murder.
       Community pressure and an all-out blitz by police are 
     hardly guarantees that cases will be solved quickly. It took 
     police nearly two years to solve the 1997 triple slaying at a 
     Starbucks coffee shop in Georgetown. It took nearly a year to 
     make arrests in the April 2003 slayings of three employees at 
     Colonel Brooks' Tavern. And the slaying of former intern 
     Chandra Levy remains unsolved three years after she 
     disappeared.
       Police received scores of tips in all three of those 
     investigations. But such community interest in homicides--the 
     city recorded 248 killings last year--is not common, 
     detectives say.
       Last year, Ramsey released a surveillance tape that showed 
     a daylight killing at a Northeast Washington gas station--and 
     witnesses doing nothing to report the crime or assist the 
     victim. The killing of Allen E. Price remains unsolved.
       Police detectives tell countless stories about 
     uncooperative witnesses, even relatives who saw their loved 
     ones killed but won't point out the killer. In some cases, 
     witnesses fear they will be targeted. Police and prosecutors 
     said that witness intimidation has been a long-standing 
     obstacle to solving crimes.
       Also, police said, friends of some victims would rather 
     avenge killings on their own than help officials.
       Investigators said they often identify suspects only to 
     stumble when trying to persuade witnesses to come forward.
       Two days before Chelsea was slain, D.C. police were called 
     to investigate a midafternoon killing in a Southeast 
     Washington housing complex. Detectives quickly discovered 
     evidence that pointed to a gun battle: Shell casings from at 
     least four weapons littered the street.
       Scores of residents watched as technicians and detectives 
     scouted for evidence, recalled Lt. Guy Middleton of the 
     violent crime unit. Yet despite the public nature of the 
     gunfight in the Barry Farm complex and detectives canvassing 
     and recanvassing the neighborhood, no one came forward with 
     information, Middleton said. The slaying of Antonio Blakely, 
     18, who lived in another part of town, remains unsolved.
       ``It's frustrating,'' said Middleton, a veteran homicide 
     investigator and supervisor. ``The people continued to stand 
     there when the police arrived. All were out there when it 
     happened.''
       D.C. Council member Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), chairman of 
     the Judiciary Committee, said police could do more in solving 
     homicides. She said officials should add more detectives and 
     resources for investigations. ``Every case should have the 
     kind of tenacity and commitment'' that the Chelsea case did, 
     Patterson said.
       But some former police officials said that certain 
     killings--such as Chelsea's--demand more attention.
       ``There is something exceptional about this homicide,'' 
     said Isaac Fulwood Jr., the District's police chief from 1989 
     to 1993, comparing the handling of the case to how officers 
     work round-the-clock to solve the killing of fellow officers.
       ``You can't shoot 8-year-old girls sitting in their house 
     watching television,'' Fulwood said. ``Everybody was fired up 
     by this little 8-year-old girl. I don't care what you have to 
     stop doing, you have to get on this homicide. That is the 
     reality of it.''

  Mr. Speaker, more guns in the Nation's Capital is a new low because 
it makes a mockery of our congressional obligation and of our actions 
to secure the Nation's Capital against terrorism. Only Washington, D.C. 
and New York City are under an orange alert. No car can travel on the 
streets approaching the Capitol without getting in checkpoint lines for 
police to inspect the inside of the car. So terrified were Capitol 
Police of possible terrorism that they rushed to put permanent 19th 
century approaches in place, including closing the only major street 
leading to the transportation hub of the region, Union Station.
  Encouraging guns, including fully-loaded handguns and military-style 
assault weapons that will soon make their way to the Nation's Capital 
as we struggle under an orange alert would disgrace the Nation here and 
around the world. Creating a new and expanded gun culture here in the 
midst of an orange alert is an act of reckless irresponsibility.
  If Members vote for H.R. 3193, Members are voting to repeal not only 
D.C.'s handgun ban, but also its ban on military-style assault weapons. 
Upon repeal, a loaded AK-47 or a Bushmaster, like the one used in this 
region in the infamous 2002 attack by the snipers that killed 10 
residents in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. and injured 5 others, this 
weapon could be kept here in homes, fully loaded, in workplaces, in 
businesses.
  D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey warns that these guns would make 
their way so quickly to the streets they would not have enough men and 
women to confiscate them all, even though they have confiscated record 
numbers this year. And he said yesterday when he came here to specially 
plead against this bill that this bill would increase gunfires in the 
streets of the Nation's Capital and drive-by shootings.
  Astonishing, if Members vote for H.R. 3193, Members will be voting to 
allow children under 18 years of age to own semiautomatic and assault 
weapons. This year, the very year that 16 children have died from 
gunfire, the year dominated in the local news by grieving for children 
killed by guns, Members will be voting to allow people to carry guns 
who have been declared by a court to be chronic alcoholics or to have 
negligently killed someone with a gun.
  If Members vote for H.R. 3193, Members will be voting to repeal a 
requirement that gun owners notify police if guns have been stolen or 
lost. Surely at a time when guns are being used by kids to kill kids 
here, it should be a requirement of citizenship to at least

[[Page 19913]]

warn the police that a gun has fallen into the hands of criminals.
  A vote for repeal is a vote against the requirement that handguns and 
semiautomatic weapons be kept locked away from children. That is 
pathetic, Mr. Speaker. A vote for repeal is a vote for a provision in 
the bill that is an earmark of its extremism. Local officials would not 
be allowed to even discourage private ownership of handguns and assault 
weapons.
  Although the present D.C. gun law has been held to be constitutional 
by Federal and local courts, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 
and his allies nevertheless persist in citing the second amendment as 
the raison d'etre for this bill. Therefore, I invite the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and other proponents to divert some of their 
attention from the second amendment to the first. Despite their 
efforts, they will not be able to keep me, Mayor Williams, or School 
Superintendent Clifford Janey or other residents from discouraging the 
use and ownership of weapons.
  The Constitution may allow the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) to 
deny me a vote this very day on this bill that affects only the people 
I represent in the District of Columbia, but the gentleman cannot 
silence me or anybody else in the District on the matter of guns or on 
any other matter. The insult to American principles of self-government 
and home rule is too obvious and painful to belabor.
  This bill is the best argument for home rule. We see in this bill why 
local control is a core principle of American citizenship. As a people, 
we stand for the proposition that local matters are for local people. 
No matter is more local than public safety close to home. No one is in 
a better position to write laws about safety in the homes, the 
workplaces, the businesses and the streets of the local jurisdiction 
than those who must live under those laws 24-7.
  This bill, we are told, has the paternalistic purpose of allowing the 
poor, ignorant, elected officials and people of the District of 
Columbia to protect themselves. Thank you very much, presumably because 
we are lesser beings who do not even have enough sense to figure out 
the most basic of principles concerning their own public safety. What 
we cannot figure out is how gun safety repeal would have enabled 
Chelsea Cromartie, 8 years old, a third grader, to have protected 
herself from the stray bullet that killed her, although she was inside 
in the living room of her own aunt.
  This bill has gathered residents into a tight no-repeal coalition 
from businesses in the Greater Washington Board of Trade to parents 
whose kids were killed as bystanders near their schools. Trying to make 
the case for this bill on the basis of self-defense is to dance on the 
graves of Chelsea Cromartie and 15 other defenseless children killed by 
gunfire this year. We in the District of Columbia refuse to dance with 
you.
  Mr. Speaker, in the name of the children of this city, who are at the 
greatest risk if this bill passes, we simply alert Members we will 
fight you now, we will fight you until the end, and then for this child 
and for other children in this city, we will get up and fight you some 
more.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that today 
D.C.'s murder rate is still 8 times higher than the national average.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This is an emotionally charged issue and I can understand why. I 
think it is important, though, that we adhere to the facts. The 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) used the words 
``fallacious'' and ``ludicrous.'' It is ludicrous to suggest that if we 
had a gun ban all across the country, that the bad guys would not have 
guns and that the good guys would then be better off. It is ludicrous 
to suggest that bad guys that do not honor the law are not going to 
always have guns in this society.
  It is fallacious to insinuate to people that somehow they are going 
to be safer if you ban guns. There are no facts to back that up. Gun 
control does not work. I am not interfering in the District of 
Columbia, that is a fact everywhere in this country. Gun control does 
not work. There is no science to show that it works. As a matter of 
fact, what the truth is that when we control guns, the bad guys have 
plenty, and there is a gun culture, and the good guys cannot defend 
themselves.
  In the State of Tennessee, my father-in-law has a right to carry, and 
our family is safer because he does. We are in a new world. The last 
time that 3,000 innocent American lives were lost on September 11, guns 
were not used. Airplanes and fuel was. It was the most destructive, 
violent act in our country's history in this homeland. Guns were not 
there. I do not know what is next, but I think people have a right to 
defend themselves, and gun control simply does not work. Public policy 
should not be based on emotion, and this is emotionally charged. It 
should be based on science, facts, logic, and the truth. The truth is 
this policy does not work.
  I just came back from Africa. I was in Dar es Salaam and 
Johannesburg; dangerous cities. Interestingly, they remind me that the 
city I work in here is more dangerous than the cities there. Let us be 
honest about this, and let us rise above the emotion. Gun control does 
not work anywhere, including the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the full committee with 
jurisdiction over this bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The other 
side would have you believe that they want to repeal legislation in the 
District of Columbia to stop handguns. But that is not what this bill 
does. This bill repeals the District's laws on assault weapons. I want 
to show a chart, if I might, because one of the assault weapons that 
would be made legal if this bill passes is a semiautomatic 50-caliber 
sniper weapon. This is its actual size. It is capable of taking out an 
armored limousine from a mile away. Can you imagine that in the 
District of Columbia someone could have this assault weapon and stick 
it out of a window on Pennsylvania Avenue? We have people coming in and 
out of this city who are very important to the functioning of our 
government, international visitors. Yet they could own and possess this 
weapon if the legislation before us passes.
  We are spending millions of dollars to protect the Nation's capital 
from another terrorist attack, yet we are passing legislation today 
that would invite terrorists to bring assault weapons into the heart of 
the Nation's capital.
  There is a real irony. There are committees that are meeting today to 
pass different parts of legislation based on the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission. Those recommendations were to make our Nation safe 
from terrorist attacks. Yet in this bill we are telling terrorists that 
it is okay for them to have assault weapons when they visit the 
Nation's capital.
  We are under an orange alert because someone working with al Qaeda 
took photos of the World Bank, the IMF, and other buildings in D.C. 
Think of the damage that person could have done if he or she had a 50-
caliber sniper weapon instead of a camera. Two years ago, this city, 
this whole region was gripped with fear when a sniper systematically 
stalked and killed 10 people. The gun he used was the Bushmaster XM-15 
assault rifle. Along with AK-47s and Uzis, the Bushmaster assault rifle 
is one of the guns that this bill would legalize.
  The vast majority of the people in this Nation support the Federal 
ban on assault weapons. Even the President said he supported the 
continuation of the assault weapons ban, but we could not even bring it 
up for a vote in the House of Representatives. Instead, the

[[Page 19914]]

Republican leadership in the House has brought up to the House floor 
legislation that makes assault weapons legal in the Nation's capital. I 
wonder if they are going to get around to mandating that each Member of 
Congress buy an assault weapon rather than ban it all around this 
Nation.
  This bill is being rushed to the floor to score political points with 
the NRA. The bill is an abomination. I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it would be illegal to shoot such a weapon 
now, and it would continue to be illegal to shoot such a weapon at an 
armored truck or anybody else under my legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and 
commend him on his legislation that I am speaking in support of.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who have the honor of serving in Congress 
are in good hands. In the Capitol, in our office buildings, for several 
blocks in each direction, we enjoy the protection of the Capitol 
Police, the Park Police, the Secret Service and the Metropolitan 
Police. Though they represent different law enforcement agencies, these 
officers all have one thing in common, they all carry guns. So why is 
it that residents of Washington, D.C. are forbidden from protecting 
their families in this same fashion?
  The D.C. police, though hardworking, do not have the resources to set 
up a perimeter around neighborhoods the way they do for us. In reality, 
D.C. police usually respond after a crime has been committed. Yet D.C. 
residents are forbidden by law from defending themselves.
  As many residents of Indiana and Virginia and Texas and Florida and 
Vermont know, a firearm is an effective deterrent against crime. Even 
the threat of a firearm can frighten off a criminal. John Pena, born, 
raised and currently living with his family in southeast Washington, 
D.C., about 13 blocks from here, was at home recovering from eye 
surgery a couple of years ago when he heard a noise downstairs. Despite 
his severely blurred vision, he investigated and found a burglar in his 
living room. Mr. Pena is a Navy veteran and served in Vietnam, but he 
was in no condition to confront this criminal. So thinking quickly, Mr. 
Pena called upstairs to his retired father, ``Dad, get the gun.'' Mr. 
Pena was bluffing and I do not want to suggest that he had then or has 
today a firearm in his residence. But at the mention of a gun, the 
thief turned and ran out the back door in such a hurry he neglected to 
open the storm door, cutting himself as he crashed through it.
  Mr. Speaker, we feel secure here on the Capitol grounds knowing we 
are protected by men and women with guns. Tens of thousands of my 
constituents in Indiana also keep their families safe with the presence 
of a gun. It seems to me that a criminal's dream would be a city where 
law-abiding citizens are disarmed. Preventing these law-abiding 
citizens, our fellow Americans of Washington, D.C., from enjoying the 
same protections the rest of us enjoy is unsafe and unfair.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I take the gentleman's suggestion that we 
can scare criminals away by yelling ``gun'' but not that we have guns 
in our own homes fully assembled, loaded and ready to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, have we become unhinged in this House? The 
business that most of us are engaged in all day today and the business 
that we will be engaged in all next week is trying to pass responsible 
reforms to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, 
recommendations intended to make us safer. While we do this, hopefully 
on a bipartisan basis, we are debating today a wedge issue designed to 
make the people who live in the District of Columbia, the Members of 
Congress, and our families less safe.
  Let us understand what we are talking about here. I am reading from 
the description of this bill. We are repealing the ban on semiautomatic 
weapons, we are eliminating criminal penalties for possessing an 
unregistered firearm, and we are amending Federal law to eliminate 
criminal penalties for carrying a pistol whether loaded or unloaded.
  This is incredible, Mr. Speaker. I am astonished that this House 
would even spend 2 seconds on this issue. Maybe this is good rhetoric 
in somebody's campaign, but it is bad policy for the United States of 
America. Shame on this House for wasting time on this bill. I strongly 
oppose it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee 
on Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation 
that is offered by my colleague from Indiana. The gentlewoman from the 
District urged us to respect her and the District residents where the 
city's gun laws are concerned, and I trust that she will be pleased to 
know that is exactly what this bill proposes to do. This is because 
right now residents of the District do not have an option. The law 
prohibits them from using a firearm to defend themselves and their 
families in their own homes and it prohibits them from acquiring 
handguns and other guns whether for defensive, sporting, hunting, or 
recreational purposes. This bill will give them an option by taking 
those prohibitions away.
  If anyone from the District does not want to have a gun in their home 
for protection, they will not be required to do so. If they do not want 
to use a gun for target practice, recreation, hunting sports, they are 
not required to do so. The only purpose of the bill is to give people 
an option, to let them decide whether to have a gun for protection or 
any other of the legitimate uses.
  If no one in the city steps up to buy a gun, then that is fine, 
because it is their decision. I suspect, though, that many of my 
colleagues realize that there will be quite a few law-abiding 
Washingtonians who will want to exercise their individual right to arms 
and their right to engage in shooting sports and recreation as millions 
of Americans do. This bill protects their rights.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, for the information of the gentlewoman, 
100,000 guns are registered in the District of Columbia. We encourage 
people to use rifles for sports.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from the District of Columbia for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Our troops are 
struggling in Iraq. The budget deficit is at an all-time high. The 
Republican-led Congress has failed to finish its work on the budget, on 
appropriations bills, the highway bill, all of the legislation vital to 
keeping our country going, and the response from the Republican 
leadership? Pass a bill repealing gun laws in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill on its own merit and an affront to 
the citizens of Washington, D.C. The citizens of this District have the 
right to enact laws to make their neighborhoods safer without 
interference from the Congress and the NRA. This is election-year 
politics practiced at the expense of District residents who do not even 
have a vote in the House or the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, the fight against terrorism is a focus of this 
Presidential campaign, as it should be, and the fight against terrorism 
is a given in our daily lives. We live in a time of high alerts. 
Checkpoints now ring this Capitol. Yet passage of this bill into law 
would certainly not aid in our war against terrorism. It would in fact 
encourage proliferation of weapons in the immediate vicinity of the 
Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, and scores of Federal 
agencies and foreign embassies located throughout this city.
  One would think that our congressional leadership would want us to 
support the policemen and -women who work to protect us and these 
institutions which are such national symbols, all of which present 
tempting targets for terrorists or the deranged.

[[Page 19915]]

  But this legislation would undermine the efforts of our local law 
enforcement and put our police at even greater risk. It is an 
antipolice bill, abuse of congressional power, and an attempt to draw 
attention away from what we should be working on. I urge my colleagues 
to vote down this ill-conceived measure.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I 
learned a long time ago serving in the Colorado State legislature that 
criminals do not care about the laws we pass. They do not know who 
their Congressman is. They do not know who their Senators are. They do 
not have respect for law or lawmakers.
  Right here in Washington, D.C., there are many things that we are 
extremely proud of. One of the things, though, that really is a blot is 
the infamous distinction as the murder capital of the world. I think 
that we need to give criminals who would commit heinous crimes in this 
District of Columbia pause. I think we ought to make them wonder 
whether or not an individual that they would harm, whether or not they 
are going to harm a family or try to rape a woman or murder someone, 
give them pause, let these criminals wonder if that individual might be 
able to defend themselves.
  It is important when we think that businesses in this District, 
business owners can have guns on the premises, but individuals cannot 
have guns that are ready to use in their homes to protect their family. 
All of us know that our family members are more important to us than 
any material possession that we have. We need to give individuals in 
the District a right to defend themselves and we need to give these 
criminals that make this the murder capital of the world a doubt in 
their mind as to whether or not someone will be able to defend 
themselves.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me say how much I appreciate 
the Delegate from the District of Columbia for carrying on the good 
fight. It is ironic that this bill proposes to implement constitutional 
rights to the District of Columbia when in fact this body has not 
allowed the District of Columbia to have a voting Member of the United 
States Congress and voting Members of the United States Senate. This is 
a cruel hoax under the guise of a constitutional amendment.
  I watched some of the hearing yesterday, and it was ironic. This bill 
was introduced a year ago. Since it was introduced, I thought it had 
gone to the mortuary and that rigor mortis had actually set in on it, 
and I was applauding it. But then I found out yesterday that it was 
just in a calling period where people could come by the pew, sign the 
book until you got over 200 signatures on the book, and then you get it 
out.
  This bill also came out after this House celebrated the life of 
Ronald Reagan who was shot in this city, the District of Columbia. And 
I apologize to Mr. Brady who is still paralyzed from a bullet shot in 
this District. The President said he wants more minorities to join the 
party of Lincoln because he was the Great Emancipator. Lest we forget, 
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, too, by a bullet. He was a 
Republican. Garfield was a Republican. He was assassinated.
  We are so patronizing. We know what is best for the District of 
Columbia. The chief of police said they do not want the bill. The Mayor 
says he does not want the bill. The council does not want the bill. The 
newspapers had an editorial against the bill, and we are going to 
impose this anyway.
  As we speak today, we are memorializing a police officer who came 
from the gentleman's district, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, and was killed 
last week by a bullet. A month before that, we memorialized another 
police officer that was killed by a bullet, and I bet nobody on this 
bill ever visited one of the families of the grandmothers that were 
killed in this District.
  This bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation that I have seen 
as a Member of this House, and I apologize to the grieving families for 
it.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One would think that the District of Columbia has a good record 
rather than eight times the national average, leading the Nation 14 of 
the past 15 years in the murder rate. As a former mayor said, ``Other 
than the killings, their crime rate is not too bad.'' ``Other than the 
killings'' is a relevant thing here. We are trying to make sure honest 
citizens can protect themselves, not just the criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Carter), a member of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
Human Resources Subcommittee, and a former judge.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I want to 
tell some stories. For 20 years, I tried cases. I tried felony criminal 
cases, drive-by shootings and other things which are the kind of stuff 
we read in the newspapers in D.C. every day, and I can say that the 
weapons that were used were acquired illegally and illegitimately, and 
the bad guys always had the chance to get their hands on guns. But the 
good guys that have guns deter crime.
  We passed a right-to-carry permit in Texas after a deranged person 
walked into a Luby's Cafeteria in Texas and just began randomly 
shooting the diners in a crowded Luby's Cafeteria. As a result of that 
right-to-carry permit, which enhanced our laws in Texas, the amount of 
violent crime has fallen off about 40 percent with the use of handguns. 
And what is interesting, if that same person were to walk into a Luby's 
Cafeteria today, he would not know whether or not there might be 
anywhere from two to 15 armed persons in that place who could return 
fire, and it would deter him from doing so. And that is a proven fact.
  The weapon that was shown today as an assault weapon, a semi-
automatic rifle, I hunt with a semi-automatic rifle, and with the right 
cartridge, it will shoot through anything. But that is a perfectly 
legal and legitimate weapon. An automatic weapon that fires fully 
automatic is probably, as we speak, in the hands of someone who likes 
to do drive-by shootings in this town because the criminals will get 
their hands on fully automatic weapons, which are assault weapons and 
have been against the law in this country since the 1930s.
  So the reality is, if we have a ban on guns, we ban those guns from 
the people who need to protect themselves.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 3193, and I respect the gentleman from Indiana's perspective on 
this issue. I think there is room in the House for disagreement. But my 
opposition is based on the legislation's blatant and potentially 
dangerous assault on home rule in the District of Columbia.
  There is an appropriate place for debate on D.C.'s gun laws, and that 
place is the chambers of the District of Columbia Council, not the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  This bill repeals protections from gun violence that have been sought 
by the citizens of the District. It would end the city's ban on semi-
automatic assault weapons, its ban on armor-piercing or ``cop killing'' 
ammunition, its requirement for gun registration. Even if we want to 
debate the merits of the gun laws, no one should question the 
importance of keeping fully loaded assault weapons off the streets of 
the Nation's capital.
  Ninety-seven percent of all guns used in crimes in the District 
originate outside the District. Children in the Nation's capital are 
already at risk. This year, 21 young people in the District, all of 
them under 18 years of age, have been killed, most of them by gunshot. 
Our priority should be in reducing this

[[Page 19916]]

disturbing rise in juvenile slayings, and I do not think this 
legislation helps.
  The crime rate, by the way, in the city is going down. The police 
chief was quoted just last week as saying a 13 percent drop in overall 
crime this year, 24 percent reduction in homicides this year.
  Proponents of this bill want to frame this debate in terms of the 
constitutionality of the District's law, but that is a straw man. 
Earlier this year, a U.S. District Court rejected constitutional 
challenge to the District's statute. This is a home rule fight. We do 
not allow the city a vote on the House floor, and now, we are taking 
away the rights of the Council and the elected mayor of the city to 
make decisions that they have made and will omit Oak Park, Chicago, 
Evanston, Illinois. We are not touching those areas that have 
representation in this body. We are just dealing with the Nation's 
capital. For our system of federalism and democracy to work, States and 
localities need to be able to make their own decisions on these sorts 
of matters, even if some of us think they are bad decisions.
  We are only here today because of Congress's plenary power over the 
District. This is a constitutional authority that is unfortunately 
occasionally abused as it is in this case.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairman of the 
Committee on Government Reform, this is a constitutional argument, and 
I rise today to express my support for the D.C. Personal Protection 
Act, which would restore the second amendment rights for the residents 
of Washington, D.C.
  This legislation will allow law-abiding citizens the right to own 
rifles, shotguns and handguns and permit the storage of these firearms 
in their homes. The District of Columbia, again, has been labeled the 
murder capital of America, and that is 14 of the past 15 years. And 
that is despite its current ban on guns. It is time we lift this 
ineffective law and bring back the constitutional rights of individuals 
who reside in our Nation's capital.
  Under the current law, even legal handgun owners cannot carry them 
into their own homes or use illegal firearms to protect their life or 
property. In 2002, while this gun ban had been in effect for 25 years, 
Washington's homicide rate was five times higher than the national 
average. It is obvious the ban is not working.
  The D.C. Personal Protection Act would eliminate criminal penalties 
for legal possession of firearms and repeal the ban on the possession 
of ammunition. If enacted, this legislation will simply afford 
residents the same self-defense as the rest of the country.
  It is easy for my friends on the other side of the aisle and the 
editorial board of the Washington Post who live in affluent or safe 
neighborhoods to take aim at the personal freedoms of law-abiding 
citizens here in Washington, D.C., and many of them living in the 
southwest live in neighborhoods that have become battlegrounds where 
criminals run the streets. So it is time to give them the right to 
defend their lives, their personal property. Congress must take action 
and give that second amendment right back to the law-abiding citizens 
of Washington, D.C.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My law-abiding citizens in the southeast and everywhere else in the 
District of Columbia have not elected this Member but only the Member 
before him. So I would appreciate the courtesy of his not telling me 
what the law-abiding citizens of the southeast want or need. They will 
get rid of me if I am doing the wrong thing today. They cannot touch 
him, unfortunately, if he does the wrong thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, when I listen to this debate 
and I hear everyone talking about giving the people of D.C. the right 
to protect themselves, we have seen crime deterred here in the D.C. 
area. We are seeing less gun violence here in the D.C. area. But, 
again, last night in the Committee on Rules, we tried to at least ban 
assault weapons in the D.C. area, large-capacity clips, killer bullets. 
Unfortunately, all those amendments were turned down.
  We heard earlier from the other side of the aisle that we have all 
the security of the Capitol Hill Police. We do, and we are very lucky 
on that. And now, we are going to put them all at risk because they are 
going to be allowed to have the guns back in the D.C. area.
  This is absolutely crazy. Assault weapons coming into the D.C. area 
when our men out there and our women out there are there to protect us.
  And, by the way, I happen to think by reducing gun violence there has 
to be several approaches: Enforce the laws on the books; make it harder 
for criminals to be able to get the guns; and why in God's name are we 
cutting out the COPS Program? We have seen, going on across this Nation 
and here in D.C., that it works. And yet we are going to take that 
program away. The people of D.C. have the right for home rule. They do 
not want the guns. I think they know better than those Members here in 
Congress who are not living in the D.C. area.
  So, with that, I hope that we can defeat H.R. 3193. And it is not 
fair. This is not democracy, and reducing gun violence can happen. Over 
30,000 people a year die on that. It costs this Nation a billion 
dollars in health care. We can do a better job.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the State of Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the second amendment 
to the Constitution clearly prohibits the Federal Government from 
denying law-abiding citizens, let me underline that, law-abiding 
citizens the right to own and bear arms. Yet the residents in our 
Nation's capital are deprived of this right. Full-time and part-time 
residents like Members of Congress are actually denied the right to 
defend themselves. This is the very city that is the home to America's 
experiment in democracy. It deprives its citizens of one of our most 
basic and sacred rights.
  D.C. is a prime example of the failure of radical gun-control 
policies. The city has one of the most restrictive gun-control policies 
in the country, and yet D.C. is infamous for its exorbitant amount of 
violent crime. The city has gun-control but not very much crime 
control.
  Since 1976, the residents of our Nation's capital have been deprived 
of the right to bear arms, the right to protect their homes and the 
right not to be victimized. For 28 years, D.C. families have been held 
hostage. D.C. communities and homes are no longer safe. Unfortunately, 
they have become targets for theft and violent crimes. Regrettably, 
individuals on my D.C. staff who live here have suffered the effects of 
poor crime control. In addition to my staff, I have personally 
experienced situations where I have felt threatened in and around my 
D.C. residence. I believe that I should be able to defend myself 
against assault, theft and other violent crimes in D.C., the same as I 
am able to do in the State of Florida because I have a carry permit. 
And I also have had training. I believe that the answer is tougher laws 
against criminal activities.
  H.R. 3193 ends the tyrannical reign of D.C.'s repressive gun-control 
laws and returns to law-abiding citizens the right to protect 
themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to also support this bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which will turn 
the District of Columbia into a security nightmare. Just over 2 weeks 
ago, this body ignored the appeals of law enforcement and ignored 
overwhelming public opinion and allowed the ban on assault weapons to 
expire.

[[Page 19917]]

  Now, Members of this body are trying to repeal every one of the 
District of Columbia's firearms laws. Since the 9/11 disaster, the 
Federal Government has directed billions of taxpayer dollars to make 
our Nation's capital safer for residents, commuters, tourists, public 
officials and the law enforcement professionals dedicated to public 
safety.
  Today, security is the single overwhelming challenge facing our 
Nation. As I speak, the Capitol Hill Police are manning checkpoints 
around the perimeter of the Capitol, searching private automobiles and 
inspecting public buses. Law enforcement officials have bravely risen 
to this challenge of the terrorist threat that exploded in our skies.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a mockery out of law enforcement's 
commitment to safeguard the Nation's Capitol and to protect the Members 
of this Congress. This body should be ashamed to engage in such 
hypocrisy.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), the lead Democratic cosponsor of 
this bill. We have 44 Democratic cosponsors, and I very much appreciate 
his leadership and help on this issue.
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. To put it as 
simply as other speakers have, this bill restores constitutional self-
defense rights to law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia.
  Currently, the District of Columbia has the strictest gun-control 
laws in the Nation. Honest, law-abiding citizens may not possess a 
handgun unless it was registered before 1977.

                              {time}  1345

  Legally owned rifles and shotguns must be kept unloaded and 
disassembled. These restrictions make it useless for District residents 
who wish to defend themselves against criminal attacks. This dangerous 
gun control law only infringes on the rights of those who obey the law 
and does nothing to reduce violent crime.
  These laws have made Washington, D.C. the homicide capital of America 
and to those in my party who disagree, and I know there are those who 
do, I merely suggest that they consider the following facts: Prior to 
the enactment of the gun ban, the number of homicides had been 
declining in Washington, D.C. but increased after the ban was imposed. 
By 1991, Washington, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more than 200 
percent. By comparison, the national homicide rate rose 12 percent in 
the same period.
  These statistics clearly show that the District's gun control 
experiment has failed. It is time the Congress restore the second 
amendment rights to the citizens of the District and allows them to 
protect their homes and families.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote yes on the District of 
Columbia Personal Protection Act.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise today and join 43 
of my Democratic colleagues to voice my support for H.R. 3193, a bill 
that would allow citizens of the District of Columbia to own rifles, 
shotguns and handguns.
  The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of 
America specifically grants all Americans the right to bear arms in 
order to protect themselves and their families. Under this bill, 
Washington, D.C. citizens would simply have the same self-defense 
rights as residents of the 50 States of America do.
  In a New York Sun editorial printed on Thursday, September 23 of this 
year, a D.C. resident expressed his concerns on not being able to 
legally protect his home from intruders. He stated, ``The fact is, if 
you have an intruder come to your home, there is nothing you can do to 
protect yourself except wait for the police.'' This Washington, D.C. 
resident went on to describe an incident where he stared and waited as 
a man was attempting to break into his home.
  This is absolutely inexcusable. No one, no one, should be forced to 
sit and wait while witnessing an intrusion upon their home, upon their 
family, possibly putting themselves and their family in danger.
  Mr. Speaker, I stay in Washington, D.C. 3 or 4 nights most weeks, and 
I truly believe the police do a fine job in this city. But if someone 
were to break into my apartment, I would have to wait for them to 
arrive before any action to be taken.
  If I were to have a gun, if I were to have gone through all the red 
tape, which includes taking an exam and paying money for fees and a 
license to have a shotgun in my home, I would have to take the time to 
assemble or unlock and load my gun. By that time, it could be too late 
to defend myself. No intruder is going to stand around and wait for me 
to assemble or unlock and load my gun, and they certainly are not going 
to wait for the police to arrive before completing the job they came to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not just a matter of personal protection, it is 
a matter of constitutional freedom. The second amendment is a right 
bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers. It is a right I have 
exercised my entire life in my home State of Arkansas.
  Current Washington, D.C. law requires all guns to be registered with 
the Metropolitan Police Department. All handguns are banned unless they 
were registered before the gun ban was enacted, but, even so, 
Washington, D.C. citizens are prohibited from carrying their handguns 
in their homes, even those legal handgun owners. Rifles and shotguns 
can be legally registered and owned, but they must be stored unloaded 
and disassembled or locked.
  The District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in 
the Nation, but at the same time, the District has one of the highest 
murder rates in the United States of America. Prior to the enactment of 
the gun ban, homicide had been declining in Washington, D.C. but 
increased after the ban was imposed back in 1976. In 2002, the D.C. 
homicide rate was almost double the rate when the handgun ban took 
effect, and was five times higher than the national average.
  H.R. 3193 simply allows law-abiding citizens to possess a firearm 
without going through the registration requirements and they would not 
suffer criminal penalties for such possession. This bill permits 
storage of armed firearms in one's home or place of business and 
repeals the ban on the possession of ammunition, allowing citizens to 
protect their home and family in times of danger within Washington, 
D.C., as families can do in all 50 States across America.
  H.R. 3193 would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct. 
This bill leaves in place strict penalties for gun possession by 
criminals and for those who commit a violent crime with a gun.
  Any criminal interested in obtaining a gun for harm against another 
can easily do so right now. This bill simply ensures that law-abiding 
citizens of the District of Columbia are able to protect themselves by 
legally owning a firearm, just as the citizens of the 50 States of 
America can do.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of commonsense legislation, and I urge 
my colleagues to join the 44 Democratic cosponsors of this legislation 
and vote in favor of the bill.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in all deference to the gentleman from Arkansas, 
handguns in homes in this town are not used by people. Those guns, 
according to the police chief, quickly make their way to the streets 
and do not stay at home. At home, however, they are overwhelmingly used 
for domestic violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, you would not know by today's discussions that the 
President,

[[Page 19918]]

the other candidate for President, Senator Kerry, and all of the 
Nation's leaders have been telling us that we are at war, that we are 
in this war on terrorism, because there has been no discussion about 
that today, even though on the front page yesterday of one of the 
Washington newspapers it says that our number one enemy, al Qaeda, is 
meeting with and making arrangements with local criminal gangs here in 
D.C., for whatever purposes.
  You would not know that we are at war. You would not know this was on 
the front page of the papers yesterday. You would not know that because 
of all of this discussion here today about allowing people to have 
arms.
  I am just trying to imagine the Inaugural parade next year here in 
the District, as people have now had this ability to go arm themselves 
to the teeth, even people who might have purposes that are untoward in 
terms of our activities.
  I am going to just say that this is a new type of cowboy, where they 
take the stage coach, they get themselves in a gun-restricted area, and 
let the women and children and the God-fearing people of this city stay 
off.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, while we ultimately are debating two 
different gun control bans in the District of Columbia, I am going to 
confine my comments to the District's ban on the acquisition or 
possession of a handgun. The evidence is clear that this handgun ban 
has not reduced crime.
  Since the ban, the city's violent crime rates, particularly its 
murder rates, have increased. When the ban went into effect, the city's 
murder rate was twice the national rate. Today it is more than seven 
times the national rate.
  Chicago is the other major American city that has a handgun ban, and 
it has been on the books almost as long as the District's. The Chicago 
ban went into effect in 1982, and within a decade murders with handguns 
doubled.
  California banned so-called ``assault weapons'' in 1989. For the next 
5 years, California's murder rate increased every year, 26 percent 
overall.
  Of course, I am sure we are all familiar with the study that was 
conducted of the Federal assault weapons law, under Congress's mandate. 
That study found no hard evidence that the ban had any effect on crime. 
Among the reasons for this, the guns that were banned were rarely used 
in crime before the ban.
  Many of our colleagues may also remember that several years ago we 
passed legislation prohibiting the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention from using Federal funds to pay for so-called studies 
designed from the outset to reach conclusions that political activists 
could use to promote gun control for policy purposes.
  It was clear that there was a significant bias at the CDC in favor of 
gun control. And that bias remains. But even the CDC, in a study 
conducted last year, found no evidence that gun bans reduce crime. For 
that matter, the study found no evidence that any form of gun control 
reduces crime.
  Around the same time, the Library of Congress studied the 
relationship of gun control to crime in 27 foreign countries, and it 
concluded there was no relationship between gun restrictions and crime.
  Even though Americans buy about 5 million new guns a year, the 
Nation's violent crime rate has dropped every year since 1991 and it is 
now at a 27-year low; that is, if you base the counts on crimes 
reported to the police and the FBI. If you base the counts on the 
National Crime Victimization surveys, however, the Nation's violent 
crime is at a 30-year low.
  Based upon crimes reported to the police and FBI, the Nation's murder 
rates the last few years have been lower than any time since the mid-
1960s.
  So, the gun control supporters' motto, ``More guns means more 
crime,'' is demonstrably false.
  These statistics from around the country and around the world cannot 
be expected to alter the thinking of people who are ideologically 
opposed to private ownership of guns. However, ideology has been proven 
false by hard facts and should not dictate the policies under which the 
rest of us should live.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article on al 
Qaeda seeking ties to local gangs that appeared in the Washington 
Times.

              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 28, 2004]

                   Al Qaeda Seeks Tie to Local Gangs

                            (By Jerry Seper)

       A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent 
     Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United 
     States--including a stronghold in the Washington area--in an 
     effort by the terrorist network to seek help infiltrating the 
     U.S.-Mexico border, law enforcement authorities said.
       Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a key al Qaeda cell leader for 
     whom the U.S. government has offered a $5 million reward, was 
     spotted in July in Honduras meeting with leaders of El 
     Salvador's notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, which immigration 
     officials said has smuggled hundreds of Central and South 
     Americans--mostly gang members--into the United States.
       Although they are actively involved in alien, drug and 
     weapons smuggling, Mara Salvatrucha members in America also 
     have been tied to numerous killings, robberies, burglaries, 
     carjackings, extortions, rapes and aggravated assaults--
     including at least seven killings in Virginia and a machete 
     attack on a 16-year-old in Alexandria that severely mutilated 
     his hands.
       The Salvadoran gang, known to law enforcement authorities 
     as MS-13 because many members identify themselves with 
     tattoos of the number 13, is thought to have established a 
     major smuggling center in Matamoros, Mexico, just south of 
     Brownsville, Texas, from where it has arranged to bring 
     illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico into the 
     United States.
       Authorities said al Qaeda terrorists hope to take advantage 
     of a lack of detention space within the Department of 
     Homeland Security that has forced immigration officials to 
     release non-Mexican illegal aliens back into the United 
     States, rather than return them to their home countries.
       Less than 15 percent of those released appear for 
     immigration hearings. Nearly 60,000 illegal aliens designated 
     as other-than-Mexican, or OTMs, were detained last year along 
     the U.S.-Mexico border.
       El Shukrijumah, born in Saudi Arabia but thought to be a 
     Yemen national, was spotted in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in 
     July, having crossed the border illegally from Nicaragua 
     after a stay in Panama. U.S. authorities said al Qaeda 
     operatives have been in Tegucigalpa planning attacks against 
     British, Spanish and U.S. embassies.
       Known to carry passports from Saudi Arabia, Trinidad, 
     Guyana and Canada, El Shukrijumah had sought meetings with 
     the Mara Salvatrucha gang leaders who control alien-smuggling 
     routes through Mexico and into the United States.
       El Shukrijumah, 29, who authorities said was in Canada last 
     year looking for nuclear material for a so-called ``dirty 
     bomb'' and reportedly has family members in Guyana, was named 
     in a March 2003 material-witness arrest warrant by federal 
     prosecutors in Northern Virginia, where U.S. Attorney Paul J. 
     McNulty said he is sought in connection with potential 
     terrorist threats against the United States.
       A former southern Florida resident and pilot thought to 
     have helped plan the September 11 attacks, El Shukrijumah was 
     among seven suspected al Qaeda operatives identified in May 
     by Attorney General John Ashcroft as being involved in plans 
     to strike new targets in the United States.
       Citing ``credible intelligence from multiple sources,'' Mr. 
     Ashcroft said at the time that El Shukrijumah posed ``a clear 
     and present danger to America.'' In August, an FBI alert 
     described him as ``armed and dangerous'' and a major threat 
     to homeland security.
       Earlier this month, Mr. Ashcroft confirmed that U.S. border 
     agents and inspectors had ramped up efforts to find El 
     Shukrijumah amid reports that the al Qaeda leader was thought 
     to be seeking entry routes into the United States along the 
     U.S.-Mexico border.
       Mr. Ashcroft noted that increased enforcement efforts were 
     under way in the wake of a rise of arrests of border jumpers 
     from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, 
     the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
       Authorities said Mara Salvatrucha gang members moved into 
     the Los Angeles area in the 1980s and developed a reputation 
     for being organized and extremely violent. The gang since has 
     expanded into the Washington area, including Virginia and 
     Maryland, and into Oregon, Alaska, Texas, Nevada, Utah, 
     Oklahoma, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Georgia and Florida.
       More than 3,000 Mara Salvatrucha gang members are thought 
     to be in the Washington area, with a major operation in 
     Northern Virginia. Other gang centers, authorities said, 
     include Montgomery and Prince George's counties and the 
     Hispanic neighborhoods of Washington.

[[Page 19919]]

       Mr. McNulty, whose office has prosecuted Mara Salvatrucha 
     gang members, has described the organization as the ``gang of 
     greatest interest'' to law enforcement authorities. He said 
     gang members are recruited predominantly from Hispanic 
     communities and typically among juveniles, some as young as 
     13. Recruits are ``jumped'' into the gang by being beaten by 
     members while others count to 13, he said.
       Gang rules, he said, are indoctrinated into new recruits 
     and ruthlessly enforced. Those who cooperate with law 
     enforcement are given the ``green light,'' he said, meaning 
     that the gang had approved their killing.
       In March, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office filed an 
     injunction against Mara Salvatrucha, charging that the gang's 
     criminal activity constituted a ``public nuisance'' based on 
     the number of killings, robberies and drug crimes. The 
     injunction requires gang members, under public nuisance 
     statutes, to follow curfew rules and regulations and 
     prohibits them from associating, driving or appearing 
     together in designated areas of the city.

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the full committee.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago my colleague 
from New York said that this was absolutely crazy, and I will simply 
say that it is about as crazy as it can get without being absolute.
  Every bit of information that we have available to us lets us know 
that gun violence is unnecessarily killing people. In 2001, 29,000 
people in this country died from gun violence. Fifty percent of all the 
African American youngsters between the ages of 15 and 19 who die, die 
from gun violence.
  We talk about the Constitution. Please be reminded that when this 
Constitution was enacted, my ancestors were counted as three-fifths of 
a person and women did not have the right to vote. The Constitution was 
created at a time when there was need for what it created itself for. 
This is a different era, a different time.
  If you want to help the people of D.C., give the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) a vote on the floor of this House. 
Give them two Senators who can vote in the other Chamber. That is how 
you help the people in D.C.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a series of stories 
of individuals who were terrified but defended themselves and could 
have been prosecuted under the D.C. law.
  I will also include for the Record, what would the District of 
Columbia's gun laws look like after this law passes?

  What Would the District of Columbia's Gun Laws Look Like After H.R. 
                                 3193?

       Even if H.R. 3193 were signed into law in its present form, 
     it would leave in place an extensive set of laws governing 
     possession, sale and use of guns. District laws would still 
     be far more restrictive than the laws of most states:
       It would still be illegal to carry firearms outside one's 
     own property, either openly or concealed. Violations would 
     still be punishable by a fine of up to $1000 or imprisonment 
     for not moire than one year for a first offense, and up to 
     $10,000 and 10 years' imprisonment, or both, for a second 
     offense or for any violation by a convicted felon. All 
     penalties are doubled for illegal carry in a ``gun free 
     zone'' within 1000 feet of a school, day care center, 
     college, or various youth recreation facilities such as 
     swimming pools and video arcades.
       Possession or use of a firearm while committing a crime of 
     violence would remain punishable by up to 30 years in prison, 
     with a minimum of 5 years served before parole or probation.
       Handgun possession would remain illegal for drug addicts, 
     convicted felons, and persons convicted of various public 
     order offenses such as vagrancy.
       It would still be illegal to possess machineguns, sawed-off 
     shotguns or short-barreled rifles. The definition of ``sawed-
     off shotgun'' is more restrictive than federal law.
       It would still be illegal to manufacture firearms or 
     ammunition in the District.
       Vehicles used to illegally transport firearms would still 
     be subject to seizure and forfeiture.
       All these provisions are in addition to federal laws that 
     extensively regulate commerce in firearms, and which provide 
     strict penalties for gun possession by convicted felons and 
     other ``prohibited persons'' and for use of firearms in 
     violent crimes.
       H.R. 3193 focuses entirely on restoring fundamental self-
     defense rights to honest citizens, by repealing the handgun 
     ban, gun registration laws, and laws on carry and storage in 
     the home that prevent people from exercising those rights.
                                  ____


                          Self-Defense Stories

       In each of these stories, D.C. residents used a handgun 
     that was banned under D.C. law. However, if they had not used 
     their banned weapon to defend themselves against crime, it is 
     quite possible that many of them would not be alive today.
       D.C. law should not make it a criminal offense to possess a 
     firearm for self defense in one's own home or business. H.R. 
     3193 would decriminalize the ownership of handguns and 
     restore 2nd Amendment rights to the residents of D.C.


        Source: Washington Post, Washington, DC, Sept. 18, 2004

     (Letter to the Editor)

       It was shortly after midnight when my wife and I were 
     awakened by pounding at our front door. When I went to the 
     window, I saw a large man trying to kick down our door. I 
     warned him to stop, but he started swearing, insisting that I 
     give him money. He then started kicking the door again.
       I called 911 and was put on hold. I waited for about 30 
     seconds and then realized that the man at my front door 
     probably would be inside before the 911 operator answered. 
     Despite the D.C. gun laws, I have a gun for just such a 
     situation.
       I took the gun from my closet, went to the window and 
     pointed it at the man. I warned him that I would shoot if he 
     came through my door. He stopped kicking and ran away.
       Every few months, people are shot and killed within a block 
     or two of our home. It is absurd for Washington to outlaw 
     guns; it guarantees that only outlaws will have guns.
       Citizens should be allowed to protect themselves, and, as a 
     homicide detective once told me when I confessed to keeping a 
     gun, ``I would rather be judged by 12 of my peers than 
     carried out by six of my friends.''
       I thank God that Congress has some power over the 
     District's laws.
                                          Tony Snesko, Washington.


           source: washington times, washington, dc, 12/14/94

       Rebecca Griffin awoke to the screams of her daughter, who 
     was being bound and gagged by two kidnappers in her 
     Washington, D.C., home. She confronted the men, one of whom 
     was carrying a knife, and brought the attack to a quick halt 
     when she was bale to break free and retrieve a .32-cal. 
     revolver from the basement, shooting the knife-weilder four 
     times. The other suspect fled. Griffin and one daughter were 
     slashed during the attack. Some news accounts made no mention 
     that the handgun that saved the Griffins is illegal in the 
     District. (American Rifleman: March 1995)


            source: washington times, washington, DC, 5/5/93

       In Washington, where armed criminals run rampant but honest 
     citizens are denied the right to own handguns for personal 
     protection, one city resident stood up for himself when he 
     shot a man who tried to rob him in his home. The homeowner 
     had given the thug a bucket of water, but when the bucket was 
     returned, the good samaritan found himself looking down the 
     barrel of a pistol. Raising his hands as ordered, he grabbed 
     a pistol he had secreted on a shelf and shot the would-be 
     robber. Police confiscated his gun, but the district 
     commander said, ``If the circumstances are as they seem, I 
     don't think justice will be served if they charge this guy.'' 
     (American Rifleman: July 1993)


                source: washington post, washington, dc,
                                3/19/88

       Stabbed several times in a robbery attempt at a Washington, 
     D.C., market, employee Cha Ma grabbed a gun and shot his 
     assailant, who fled. A wounded suspect was arrest a short 
     distance away and charged with assault with intent to rob 
     while armed. Police said no charges had been filed against 
     Ma. (American Rifleman: August 1988)

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the District of 
Columbia Personal Protection Act, I urge my colleagues to join me and 
the citizens of Washington, D.C. to free them from a failed 27-year 
experiment with gun control policy.
  One thing that we all do know for sure is that criminals have guns, 
and criminals are the people that are being described by folks on the 
other side of the aisle in this case. Criminals have guns, but 
hardworking, honest, law-abiding citizens are not allowed to have guns 
in the District of Columbia to defend themselves.
  The statistics clearly show that the District's firearm restrictions 
have done nothing to combat crime, while crippling the right of every 
Washington, D.C. citizen to protect their homes and their families.

                              {time}  1400

  I hail from a State that respects the fundamental, individual rights 
to own firearms granted to us by the second amendment of the 
Constitution; but in the District of Columbia, it is a world

[[Page 19920]]

upside down. Law-abiding citizens are left defenseless to face 
criminals. They live behind locked doors, and they walk city streets 
with one eye on their children and their other eye on the lookout for 
armed criminals.
  I, and many more, realize that gun bans do not work against 
criminals, but they do endanger law-abiding citizens. This is no more 
evident than in this city which, in the past 2 decades, has become 
known as the murder capital of the United States.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3193 and allow the 
people of Washington, D.C. the right they are guaranteed, and that is 
to defend themselves and their families.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from the neighboring congressional district, 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), in opposing this bill.
  The District of Columbia's gun laws have already been upheld by the 
Federal courts as constitutional, so the second amendment argument in 
this context is just a bogus one.
  This bill represents the height of arrogance. Members of this body 
have got to stop treating the District of Columbia and the people of 
the District of Columbia as their personal playground where they impose 
their will on people who did not elect them. The people of the District 
of Columbia elected the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton). They elected the Mayor. They elected the D.C. Council. They 
elected the people who put these laws into effect.
  This legislation is nothing more than a contemptible effort to 
placate certain special interests at the expense of the people of the 
District of Columbia.
  We talk about a world upside down. The House leadership have 
prohibited this body from taking a vote on extending the ban on 
military-style assault weapons; and at the same time today we rush 
through a bill put at the top of the schedule to impose our will 
against the wishes of the people of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record a letter from the 
representatives of the business community of Washington, D.C., the 
Washington Board of Trade, opposing this legislation at this time.

                                               September 20, 2004.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives.
     Hon. Tom DeLay,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives.
       Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader DeLay: As the 
     unified voice of business in Washington, DC, we are deeply 
     troubled by efforts within the House Republican caucus to 
     repeal the gun safety laws that exist for the protection of 
     the families, workers and tourists of the District of 
     Columbia.
       If passed by Congress into law, The District of Columbia 
     Personal Protection Act (H.R. 3193) would eliminate the ban 
     on handguns in the District of Columbia, eliminate the ban on 
     semiautomatic weapons, eliminate criminal penalties for 
     possession of unregistered firearms and even eliminate 
     registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms. 
     The rollback of these fundamental public safety laws would 
     have a significant, negative effect on the District's 
     business climate, and could undermine the foundations of our 
     city's economy and quality of life.
       The leaders of this city are working hard every day to 
     sustain the progress of recent years by making this an even 
     more attractive destination for tourism, redevelopment and 
     relocation. We have had to overcome the lingering perception 
     that D.C. neighborhoods are especially unsafe, and that our 
     city is uniquely susceptible to terrorist attack in the 
     aftermath of 9/11.
       To those ends, we have been very successful. Last year, 
     more than six million people visited Downtown Washington. 
     Large, international retailers have returned to the District, 
     making this a regional shopping destination once again. The 
     District's restaurant scene has never been more vibrant, as 
     nearly 30 restaurants have opened in the downtown area since 
     1999 alone, while the District's hotel market has nearly 
     returned to its pre-9/11 performance. Finally, the 
     performance of our city's office market is the best in the 
     nation--at this time, we are the only major downtown market 
     in the United States with a vacancy rate under ten percent.
       However, much of our progress could be undone by passage of 
     this bill into law. This would fuel the harmful perception 
     that the District is a haven for weapons that have no place 
     in our society, and that visitors, employers and new 
     residents should come here at their own risk. Given the 
     continued efforts of the business community to sustain our 
     economic recovery, and the extraordinary steps of our state 
     and local governments to safeguard against terrorist attack, 
     the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act is the last 
     thing our city needs right now. We intend to pursue vigorous 
     efforts to see this bill defeated, and we hope that you will 
     not allow this bill to reach the floor of the House of 
     Representatives for a vote.
       Thank you in advance for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
       Robert A. Peck, President, Greater Washington Board of 
     Trade.
       Robert A. Malson, President, District of Columbia Hospital 
     Association.
       John Childers, President and CEO, Consortium of 
     Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area.
       Barbara R. Lang, President and CEO, DC Chamber of Commerce.
       William A. Hanbury, President and CEO, Washington, DC 
     Convention and Tourism Corporation.
       Lynne Breaux, Executive Director, Restaurant Association 
     Metropolitan Washington.
       Reba Pittman Walker, President, Hotel Association of 
     Washington, DC.

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, imagine living in a world where you believe 
owning weapons is the only way to feel safe, so you decide 
semiautomatic weapons which are made easily available to you are the 
weapon of your choice. But then you decide to buy handguns so you can 
keep that gun concealed on your body when you go to the store, or on 
your pillow at night, because you believe that the enemy could be 
lurking anywhere. You figure while you are beefing up your home 
artillery, you should also pick up some cop-killer bullets because you 
never know when your enemy might have a bullet-proof vest on.
  I do not know about you folks, but this is my idea of a nightmare: a 
world made less safe, not safer, by this legislation.
  This bill not only ignores D.C. voters' choice to ban assault 
weapons, it also makes certain that the city council cannot enact any 
further gun-owning restrictions.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I would just like to give the Members a sense of what 
this bill would do. If it passes, it would allow someone to carry a 50-
caliber sniper rifle in one hand, armor-piercing ammunition, and 
incendiary combination ammunition in the other, and go into our Metro, 
so long as he, and let me read this to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, as 
long as he was on his way to an informal target practice or a dog 
obedience training class.
  Mr. Speaker, this is sheer lunacy. Save yourself from embarrassment. 
Save our children. Save our Nation. Save this Congress from looking 
like idiots and fools in the middle of an orange alert by bringing more 
guns into the Nation's capital. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3193.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I would just like to say that the citizens of D.C. have a 
right to defend themselves, a constitutional right to defend 
themselves. This has been the murder capital of the United States for 
14 of the last 15 years, currently is eight times the national average. 
American citizens have a right to defend themselves.
  The only people who have a right to guns right now are criminals. 
They will still be punished. Anybody who violates the law will still be 
punished. Anybody who uses the type of weapons we have heard described 
away from their property are still going to be punished.
  The question is, can law-abiding citizens defend themselves in their 
homes and in their businesses?
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record at this time a list of the 
229 cosponsors of this bill, including 44 Democratic sponsors.

[[Page 19921]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Office                           State                   Staff contact              First contact            R or D        Govt. reform
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Johnson..........................  IL......................  Erik Woehrmann..............  3-Sep..................               R
Jim DeMint...........................  SC......................  Kara Borie..................  3-Sep..................               R
Joe Wilson...........................  SC......................  Laurin Groover..............  3-Sep..................               R
Jo Ann Davis.........................  VA......................  Jonathan Kidwell............  4-Sep..................               R                X
Ed Schrock...........................  VA......................  Cheryl Clark................  4-Sep..................               R                X
Dan Burton...........................  IN......................  Mary Valentino..............  4-Sep..................               R                X
Pete Sessions........................  TX......................  Tucker Anderson.............  5-Sep..................               R
Jeb Hensarling.......................  TX......................  Derek Baker.................  5-Sep..................               R
John Carter..........................  TX......................  Ryan Henery.................  5-Sep..................               R                X
Kevin Brady..........................  TX......................  Gene Irisari................  5-Sep..................               R
Sam Johnson..........................  TX......................  Spencer Ritchie.............  9-Sep..................               R
Michael Burgess......................  TX......................  Stacey DeFino...............  9-Sep..................               R
Dennis Rehberg.......................  MT......................  Jay Martin..................  9-Sep..................               R
Lamar Smith..........................  TX......................  Allison Beach...............  9-Sep..................               R
Randy Neugebauer.....................  TX......................  Peter Andres................  9-Sep..................               R
David Vitter.........................  LA......................  Greg Facchiano..............  9-Sep..................               R
Ron Paul.............................  TX......................  Anamarie Pratt..............  10-Sep.................               R
Terry Everett........................  AL......................  Jeff Rabren.................  10-Sep.................               R
Chris Cannon.........................  UT......................  Trevor Kolego...............  10-Sep.................               R                X
Butch Otter..........................  ID......................  Brandon Heiner..............  10-Sep.................               R
Adam Putnam..........................  FL......................  Casey Welch.................  11-Sep.................               R                X
Todd Platts..........................  PA......................  Nate Sloan..................  11-Sep.................               R                X
Joe Barton...........................  TX......................  Joby Fortson................  11-Sep.................               R
Candice Miller.......................  MI......................  David Hemenway..............  12-Sep.................               R                X
Virgil Goode.........................  VA......................  Ward Anderson...............  12-Sep.................               R
Phil Gingrey.........................  GA......................  Jonathan Osborne............  16-Sep.................               R
Barbara Cubin........................  WY......................  Brandi Ladd.................  16-Sep.................               R
Ron Lewis............................  KY......................  Josh Nacey..................  17-Sep.................               R                X
John Sullivan........................  OK......................  John Rainbolt...............  17-Sep.................               R                X
Spencer Bachus.......................  AL......................  Johanna Cole................  22-Sep.................               R
Marsha Blackburn.....................  TN......................  Mike Platt..................  23-Sep.................               R                X
John Duncan..........................  TN......................  Patra Stephen...............  23-Sep.................               R                X
Bill Janklow.........................  SD......................  Marshall Damgard............  24-Sep.................               R                X
Bob Ney..............................  OH......................  Greg Mesack.................  24-Sep.................               R
Nathan Deal..........................  GA......................  Todd Smith..................  24-Sep.................               R                X
Ernest Istook........................  OK......................  John Albaugh................  24-Sep.................               R
John Mica............................  FL......................  Gary Burns..................  24-Sep.................               R                X
Pat Toomey...........................  PA......................  Brain Wild..................  25-Sep.................               R
Bob Goodlatte........................  VA......................  Branden Ritchie.............  25-Sep.................               R
John Doolittle.......................  CA......................  Kara Dougherty..............  26-Sep.................               R
Roscoe Bartlett......................  MD......................  Chris Tontz.................  26-Sep.................               R
Mac Collins..........................  GA......................  Shawn Friesen...............  26-Sep.................               R
Mike Rogers..........................  AL......................  Amy Albro...................  26-Sep.................               R
Jeb Bradley..........................  NH......................  Brien Miller................  29-Sep.................               R
Wally Herger.........................  CA......................  Dan MacLean.................  29-Sep.................               R
Thaddeus McCotter....................  MI......................  Patrick Rothwell............  29-Sep.................               R
Steve King...........................  IA......................  Brenna Findley..............  29-Sep.................               R
Cass Ballenger.......................  NC......................  Tim Linker..................  29-Sep.................               R
Roger Wicker.........................  MS......................  Susan Sweat.................  29-Sep.................               R
Duke Cunningham......................  CA......................  Katie Hanvey................  29-Sep.................               R
Marilyn Musgrave.....................  CO......................  Jacob Leis..................  29-Sep.................               R
Ginny Brown-Waite....................  FL......................  Bob Honold..................  30-Sep.................               R
Robin Hayes..........................  NC......................  Jon Causey..................  30-Sep.................               R
Sam Graves...........................  MO......................  Paul Sass...................  30-Sep.................               R
Trent Franks.........................  AZ......................  John Graves.................  30-Sep.................               R
Tom Feeney...........................  FL......................  Ryan Visco..................  30-Sep.................               R
Jim Gibbons..........................  NV......................  Dan Waters..................  30-Sep.................               R
Chip Pickering.......................  MS......................  Mike Hurst..................  30-Sep.................               R
Chris Chocola........................  IN......................  Rich Dunn...................  30-Sep.................               R
Steve Pearce.........................  NM......................  Matt Meagher................  30-Sep.................               R
Gresham Barrett......................  SC......................  Greg Thomas.................  30-Sep.................               R
Eric Cantor..........................  VA......................  Bill Doblow.................  30-Sep.................               R
Jeff Miller..........................  FL......................  Steve Holton................  30-Sep.................               R
John Hostettler......................  IN......................  Erin Berry..................  1-Oct..................               R
Duncan Hunter........................  CA......................  Lorissa Bounds..............  1-Oct..................               R
Todd Akin............................  MO......................  Franz Kohler................  1-Oct..................               R
Jo Bonner............................  AL......................  ............................  1-Oct..................               R
Henry Brown..........................  SC......................  Joe Gleboki.................  2-Oct..................               R
John Boozman.........................  AR......................  Brian Bullard...............  2-Oct..................               R
John Culberson.......................  TX......................  Ellie Essalih...............  3-Oct..................               R
Roy Blunt............................  MO......................  Amy Field...................  3-Oct..................               R
Johnny Isakson.......................  GA......................  Tucker Shumack..............  6-Oct..................               R
John Kline...........................  MN......................  Jim McGuire.................  6-Oct..................               R
Mike Simpson.........................  ID......................  John Revier.................  7-Oct..................               R
Rick Renzi...........................  AZ......................  Joanne Keene................  7-Oct..................               R
Don Young............................  AK......................  Justin Sprinzen.............  7-Oct..................               R
Todd Tiahrt..........................  KS......................  AmyClair Brusch.............  8-Oct..................               R
Bill Shuster.........................  PA......................  Alex Mistri.................  8-Oct..................               R
Mike Pence...........................  IN......................  Trip Radtke.................  8-Oct..................               R
Jack Kingston........................  GA......................  Stephen Anderson............  9-Oct..................               R
Donald Manzullo......................  IL......................  Conor Brown.................  9-Oct..................               R
Philip Crane.........................  IL......................  Andrew Wankum...............  9-Oct..................               R
Charlie Norwood......................  GA......................  Jason Paluskiewiz...........  10-Oct.................               R
Jim Ryun.............................  KA......................  Marcus Friesen..............  10-Oct.................               R
Rob Bishop...........................  UT......................  Miriam Harmer...............  14-Oct.................               R
Richard Baker........................  LA......................  Scott Kirkpatrick...........  14-Oct.................               R
Joseph Pitts.........................  PA......................  Cindy Diggs.................  15-Oct.................               R
Lee Terry............................  NE......................  Robert Stein................  15-Oct.................               R
Mike Rogers..........................  MI......................  Mike Ward...................  15-Oct.................               R
Zach Wamp............................  TN......................  Alex Richard................  17-Oct.................               R
Robert Aderholt......................  AL......................  Brian Johnston..............  20-Oct.................               R
Jerry Weller.........................  IL......................  Troy Babson.................  20-Oct.................               R
Jim McCrery..........................  LA......................  Bob Brooks..................  20-Oct.................               R
Bob Beauprez.........................  CO......................  Bruce Miller................  21-Oct.................               R
Randy Forbes.........................  VA......................  Andy Halataei...............  21-Oct.................               R
Henry Bonilla........................  TX......................  Patrick Anderson............  21-Oct.................               R
Thomas Petri.........................  WI......................  Elizabeth Foy...............  21-Oct.................               R
Melissa Hart.........................  PA......................  William Rys.................  23-Oct.................               R
Billy Tauzin.........................  LA......................  James White.................  27-Oct.................               R
Steve Buyer..........................  IN......................  Myrna Dugan.................  28-Oct.................               R
Deborah Pryce........................  OH......................  Peter Freeman...............  29-Oct.................               R
Fred Upton...........................  MI......................  Charles Yessiaian...........  29-Oct.................               R
Thomas Reynolds......................  NY......................  Tina Mufford................  30-Oct.................               R
William Jenkins......................  TN......................  Megan Caldwell..............  30-Oct.................               R
Steve Chabot.........................  OH......................  Kevin Fitzpatrick...........  31-Oct.................               R
Wiliam Thornberry....................  TX......................  Trey Bahm...................  3-Nov..................               R
Cliff Stearns........................  FL......................  Alan Hill...................  3-Nov..................               R
Scott Garrett........................  NJ......................  Jay Fahrer..................  5-Nov..................               R
Ken Calvert..........................  CA......................  Deena Contreras.............  7-Nov..................               R
Phil English.........................  PA......................  Christine Rogala............  12-Nov.................               R

[[Page 19922]]

 
Devin Nunes..........................  CA......................  Kedrin Simms................  18-Nov.................               R
Max Burns............................  GA......................  Zach Procter................  19-Nov.................               R
Tom Tancredo.........................  CO......................  Mac Zimmerman...............  21-Nov.................               R
Jim Nussle...........................  IA......................  Luke........................  24-Nov.................               R
Tom Cole.............................  OK......................  Chris Arnold................  1-Dec..................               R
Rick Keller..........................  FL......................  Mike Shutley................  9-Jan..................               R
Scott McInnis........................  CO......................  Jack Allen..................  22-Jan.................               R
Walter Jones.........................  NC......................  Anne Cassity................  26-Jan.................               R
Sue Myrick...........................  NC......................  Matt Priest.................  28-Jan.................               R
John Peterson........................  PA......................  Angela Ambrose..............  29-Jan.................               R
Dana Rohrabacher.....................  CA......................  Meredith Curcio.............  29-Jan.................               R
Mario Diaz-Balart....................  FL......................  Charles Cooper..............  29-Jan.................               R
Paul Ryan............................  WI......................  Ryan........................  4-Feb..................               R
Joel Hefley..........................  CO......................  Larry Hoja..................  9-Feb..................               R
Nick Smith...........................  MI......................  Alan Knapp..................  26-Feb.................               R
Frank Lucas..........................  OK......................  Marna Harris................  26-Feb.................               R
Darrell Issa.........................  CA......................  Josh Brown..................  9-Mar..................               R
Gary G. Miller.......................  CA......................  Sandra......................  11-Mar.................               R
Jeff Flake...........................  AZ......................  Margaret Klessig............  12-Mar.................               R
Tom Latham...........................  IA......................  Kevin Berents...............  22-Mar.................               R
Kenny Hulshof........................  MO......................  Shaun Duignan...............  25-Mar.................               R
Nicholas Lampson.....................  TX......................  Aaron Schmidt...............  31-Mar.................               R
Gary Miller..........................  CA......................  John Rothrock...............  1-Apr..................               R
Curt Weldon..........................  PA......................  Mary........................  5-Apr..................               R
George Radanovich....................  CA......................  Emma........................  23-Apr.................               R
Sherwood Boehlert....................  NY......................  Sam.........................  23-Apr.................               R
Charles Taylor.......................  NC......................  Adam Shepard................  26-Apr.................               R
Dave Weldon..........................  FL......................  Eric........................  26-Apr.................               R
Jo Ann Emerson.......................  MO......................  Tony Eberhard...............  28-Apr.................               R
Greg Walden..........................  OR......................  Dallas......................  28-Apr.................               R
Shelley M. Capito....................  WV......................  Adam........................  4-May..................               R
Richard Pombo........................  CA......................  Josh Rolph..................  5-May..................               R
Harold Rogers........................  KY......................  Ben.........................  12-May.................               R
Katherine Harris.....................  FL......................  Stuart Mallory..............  17-May.................               R                X
Dave Camp............................  MI......................  Chris Wenk..................  17-May.................               R
Jim Gerlach..........................  PA......................  William Tighe...............  19-May.................               R
Gil Gutknecht........................  MN......................  Ryan McLaughlin.............  19-May.................               R
Mark Kennedy.........................  MN......................  Tim Morrison................  1-Jun..................               R
Steven LaTourette....................  OH......................  Ryan........................  2-Jun..................               R                X
Anne Northup.........................  KY......................  Brooken Smith...............  4-Jun..................               R
Richard Burr.........................  NC......................  Ricky Welborn...............  4-Jun..................               R
John Shimkus.........................  IL......................  Bill........................  9-Jun..................               R
Howard McKeon........................  CA......................  Brandi......................  9-Jun..................               R
George Nethercutt....................  WA......................  Rob.........................  9-Jun..................               R
Don Sherwood.........................  PA......................  John Ormasa.................  9-Jun..................               R
Doc Hastings.........................  WA......................  Jenny Gorski................  9-Jun..................               R
John McHugh..........................  NY......................  Melanie Turpin..............  9-Jun..................               R                X
Jerry Moran..........................  KS......................  Jenny Guttery...............  14-Jun.................               R
Ed Whitfield.........................  KY......................  Benjamin Beaton.............  15-Jun.................               R
Charles Bass.........................  NH......................  Jennifer Warren.............  16-Jun.................               R
Tom DeLay............................  TX......................  Elliot Burke................  16-Jun.................               R
John Linder..........................  GA......................  Mike Swansburg..............  16-Jun.................               R
John Boehner.........................  OH......................  Gary........................  17-Jun.................               R
John Sweeney.........................  NY......................  Jim Christopolous...........  17-Jun.................               R
Kay Granger..........................  TX......................  Darin.......................  17-Jun.................               R
Patrick Tiberi.......................  OH......................  Adam (LD)...................  17-Jun.................               R                X
Ed Royce.............................  CA......................  Darin Schrader..............  17-Jun.................               R
Ander Crenshaw.......................  FL......................  Francis.....................  17-Jun.................               R
Paul Gillmor.........................  OH......................  Andrew Beck.................  18-Jun.................               R
Joseph Knollenberg...................  MI......................  Kelly Haskin................  20-Jun.................               R
Michael Bilirakis....................  FL......................  Jerry White.................  20-Jun.................               R
Jerry Lewis..........................  CA......................  Arlene......................  20-Jun.................               R
Lincoln Diaz-Balart..................  FL......................  Ceaser Gonzo................  22-Jun.................               R
John Shadegg.........................  AZ......................  Stephen Prather.............  22-Jun.................               R
Elton Gallegly.......................  CA......................  Michelle M..................  22-Jun.................               R
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen..................  FL......................  ............................  6-Jul..................               R                X
Howard Coble.........................  NC......................  Anna Sagley.................  15-Jul.................               R
Jim Kolbe............................  AZ......................  ............................  .......................               R
Judy Biggert.........................  IL......................  ............................  .......................               R
Micheal Turner.......................  OH......................  ............................  8-Jul..................               R                X
Michael Oxley........................  OH......................  ............................  21-Jul.................               R
Peter Hoekstra.......................  MI......................  ............................  21-Jul.................               R
Rob Portman..........................  OH......................  ............................  .......................               R
Ralph Regula.........................  OH......................  ............................  .......................               R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago this House blocked 
consideration of legislation sponsored by my colleague from New York, 
Mrs. McCarthy, to extend the ban on the manufacture, transfer, or 
possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. The assault weapons ban is 
supported by the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, National 
Association of Police Organizations, American Nurses Association, 
American Psychiatric Association, American Public Health Association, 
American Academy of Pediatrics, Urban League, National Education 
Association, United Federation of Teachers, Children's Defense Fund, 
NAACP, Anti-Defamation League, and the National Coalition Against 
Domestic Violence.
  The House instead today, voted to enact legislation which was 
introduced by a member from Indiana to get rid of the ban on firearms 
in the District of Columbia, against the wishes of elected Mayor, City 
Council, and U.S. Delegate to Congress. Federal courts have upheld the 
constitutionality of the DC ban.
  These actions by this distinguished body distress me greatly because 
it was just a day ago that a 4-year-old boy was shot to death and a 7-
year-old boy was injured in a shooting Monday night at the Kirwan 
Terrace housing community on St. Thomas in my District.
  This heinous act has outraged my community which is seeking any and 
all assistance to prevent this kind of despicable crime, which 
apparently was perpetrated through the use of a high-powered firearm, 
from ever occurring again.
  Mr. Speaker, gun violence is reaching epidemic proportions in all of 
our communities and this body should be doing all we can to reduce the 
number of guns that are available, not increasing them. I urge all my 
colleagues to support the Meehan discharge petition, H. Res. 769, to 
allow a vote on Representative Carolyn McCarthy's Assault Weapons Ban 
and Law Enforcement Protection Act, H.R. 2038.
  We have a responsibility as leaders of our communities to do all that 
we can to keep our citizens safe from the ravages of crime--
particularly gun violence, such as what tragically befell four year old 
Leon Bowery. May he rest in peace.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  Nearly thirty years ago, handguns were banned in Washington, D.C. by 
the will of the people. Yet here we are, once again, dictating to the 
citizens of the District of Columbia the laws that govern them when 
their own elected delegate will not even have the opportunity to vote 
on passage of this bill. Like any metropolitan area, Washington, D.C. 
has crime, much of which is because of guns. Therefore, I do not 
understand why the Majority thinks the solution to that problem is 
allowing more guns on the streets of this city. We should be

[[Page 19923]]

reducing crime by preventing gun violence and by ensuring that there 
are enough policemen who have the necessary resources to do their jobs. 
At a time when citizens from across the nation have returned to D.C., 
despite their security concerns, to enjoy its attractions, we should 
not be passing legislation that sends the message that the city is 
unsafe.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3193, the 
District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is a good bill. It 
is a sensible bill. This bill allows the citizens of the District of 
Columbia the right to protect their home and their families.
  For almost three decades now, the District of Columbia has had some 
of the most extensive gun control laws in the nation. Despite this, the 
District is not only known as our nation's capital, but also the murder 
capital of the world. This is shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before the full House to reiterate my strong 
support for the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I believe that 
all Americans have the right to own firearms. The citizens of 
Washington, D.C. should have the same rights as most other Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible 
legislation and allow District of Columbia residents the means to 
protect themselves.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3193, 
the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, a bill that 
interferes with the District's gun registration law and puts 
semiautomatic weapons back in the hands of terrorists and criminals. 
Just two weeks ago the majority of this chamber allowed the national 
assault weapons ban to expire. Now the District of Columbia's gun 
regulations are in danger of repeal. As D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams 
noted in today's Washington Post, ``The District knows what firearms 
regulations work best for its residents.'' As such, in 1975 District 
residents enacted the Firearms Control Regulations Act to protect 
residents of and visitors to our nation's capital. As a result the 
District is on pace to post its lowest homicide rate in 20 years.
  The passage of this legislation would mean that as parts of this city 
remain under a code orange terrorism alert, it would become legal for 
an AK-47 or AR-15 to be carried down the street in the name of personal 
safety, making it more difficult for our federal and local law 
enforcement officers to do their jobs.
  The current D.C. law works. The District's gun law does not prevent 
citizens in good standing from owning guns for legitimate needs. Since 
1976, more than 100,000 firearms have been registered with District 
Police--most of these as rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this unnecessary legislation 
that not only does nothing to keep the streets of our nation's capital 
safer, but also would make it easier for terrorists to strike at the 
seat of our government.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in outraged opposition to H.R. 3193, 
the so-called District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This bill 
strips away gun safety laws passed by the City Council here in our 
Nation's capital. It allows people in DC to buy assault weapons and use 
``cop-killer'' bullets. It overturns laws that ban criminals from 
owning guns.
  Mr. Speaker, the internal contradictions and extremism of this bill 
say a lot about the Republican majority's desperation to please the 
National Rifle Association shortly before the election. In order to 
chock up a vote for the NRA scorecard, Republicans play lip service to 
States' rights and local control while nullifying laws passed by the 
elected leaders of DC.
  Do the people of Washington, DC want their gun laws repealed? Not on 
you life.
  Residents of DC will be less safe, but who cares say the Republicans. 
They've got to reward the NRA for millions in campaign contributions 
dumped into their reelection coffers. They have no shame.
  Consider the parents of the 16 DC children killed by guns this year. 
They have to relive their nightmare every day and now the tragedy of 
more children murdered by guns and more parents mourning as assault 
weapons again rule the streets. Their wishes are being dishonored and 
stripped away today. Their calls for safe streets ignored. Their hope 
for safer neighborhoods--gone. All capriciously taken away by 
Republicans and the NRA.
  I bet these parents, like any other parent in any community across 
this Nation, wish they had the same grip over their local gun laws as 
the National Rifle Association.
  The 230 cosponsors of this legislation work in a building where guns 
are banned. Every visitor has to pass through a metal detector. 
Millions have been spent on Homeland Security upgrades in and around 
the Capitol. Yet, they foolishly think the Global War on Terror stops 
at the banks of the Potomac. Or maybe they figure they're safe behind 
the barricades and armed police so why worry about gun laws that 
protect other people who life in this city?
  If you're worried about your safety in some of the most dangerous 
neighborhoods just blocks from the Capitol, here's the Republicans' 
message to you: buy an AK-47 and pray that you're a better shot than 
the other guy. Never mind studies published in the New England Journal 
of Medicine that conclude that guns kept in the home for self-
protection triple the risk of homicide, and are 43 times more likely to 
kill a family member or friend than an intruder.
  Any member of this body who feels safer because of the extensive gun 
control here in the Capitol Building has an obligation to vote against 
this bill so that the people of DC have the same right to control their 
personal safety. If you vote for a firearms free-for-all in Washington, 
DC, then you should have the decency to introduce legislation allowing 
assault weapons right here, in your own workplace, in this Capitol. 
Even Republicans know that would be wrong, but if that's really where 
you stand, then I stand with the citizens of DC who know what's best. 
Do what they'd do. Vote down this bill.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a father of three 
teenage children, I understand the importance of keeping our streets 
free of violence. And as a gun owner and sportsman, I also understand 
the importance of the rights afforded to Americans by the second 
amendment. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act protects 
our citizens while also protecting the constitutional rights of the 
citizens of the District of Columbia to own rifles, shotguns, and 
handguns.
  H.R. 3193 would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct. 
As a matter of fact it would leave in place strict penalties for gun 
possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with guns. I 
firmly believe banning a firearm is not the answer to preventing crime. 
Interestingly enough, the District of Columbia has some of the most 
restrictive gun laws in our Nation. Yet, at the same time, recent FBI 
figures show that the District has regained its former title as the 
murder capital of the United States.
  As a matter of fact, according to U.S. Justice Department figures, 
Washington, DC, has been the ``murder capital of the country'' for 14 
of the last 15 years. And currently, the DC homicide rate is nearly 
five times greater than the national average. This escalating murder 
rate began only after the DC Council deprived law-abiding citizens of 
the right to defend themselves and their families by effectively 
banning handguns and other firearms in 1976. I believe it is only by 
strictly enforcing laws to prosecute those who misuse a gun in the 
commission of a crime that we can ensure our families remain safe from 
those who would prey on the innocent, and that the rights of law-
abiding Americans are protected.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3193 and allow law abiding 
people to use guns to protect their homes and families, essentially 
stating that DC citizens would enjoy the same self-defense rights as 
residents of the 50 States.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I always try to apply a personal ``Three C'' 
test to questions of public policy. First I ask myself whether it's 
constitutional. Then I consider whether it's something my constituents 
want. Finally, I examine my own conscience.
  The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act passes that test 
with flying colors. What's more, the existing policy of denying basic 
second amendment rights to the people of the District of Columbia not 
only fails the ``Three C'' test, it also is offensive to the very 
principles on which our nation was founded.
  The second amendment clearly states that ``the right of the people to 
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' It does not say the right 
to keep and bear arms applies only to people who live within the 
jurisdiction of a State. It does not say the right to keep and bear 
arms is subject to the wrong-headed whims of social engineers. And it 
does not say the right to keep and bear arms may be infringed in 
misguided response to violent crime.
  The second amendment was designed to empower the people--the source 
of American sovereignty--to protect themselves, their families, and 
their homes. Instead, unreasonable restrictions and outright 
prohibitions on firearms in the District of Columbia have emboldened 
criminals to prey on innocent and unarmed citizens. The result is that 
America's Capital City has been consistently and needlessly turned into 
America's Murder Capital.
  The record is clear: Twenty-eight years of keeping firearms out of 
the hands of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia has 
contributed to the most pervasive culture of

[[Page 19924]]

violent crime in America. The American people are most secure and most 
confident in their personal safety when their constitutional rights are 
protected.
  Mr. Speaker, just as it's my right as a citizen to protect my home 
and family, it is my responsibility as a Member of Congress to protect 
our citizens' constitutional rights. Let's focus our law enforcement 
efforts on preventing and punishing real violent crimes rather than 
denying second amendment rights to honest Americans--whether they're 
from Idaho or the District of Columbia.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3193, legislation that would repeal Washington, DC's, self-enacted gun 
ban. For nearly 30 years, this ban has protected the citizens of 
Washington and the city's 20 million annual tourists. Over the last 
year, D.C. homicides are down 24 percent, and there have been 55 
percent fewer murders since 1994. While the ban has not been perfect, 
there is no excuse for Congress making it easier for murderers and 
terrorists to get their hands on legal assault weapons. More guns will 
lead to more murders.
  If enacted, H.R. 3193 would repeal the District's ban on handguns and 
semiautomatic firearms, including assault weapons, and end criminal 
penalties for failure to register a gun. This ban was enacted by an 
elected mayor and city council in 1976 and has never been eroded by 
legislation or court challenge. The House is now attempting to change 
the will of elected D.C. officials, but Washington does not even have a 
voting representative to voice the will of the people most affected by 
this legislation.
  The dangers inherent in this bill are complicated by the recent 
expiration of the assault weapons ban. Should this bill become law, 
someone could purchase an Uzi or AK-47 and legally keep it at his or 
her home within sight of the White House, Capitol Building, or Supreme 
Court. During this time of unprecedented security, weakening gun laws 
will only make the job of law enforcement officers more difficult and 
more dangerous.
  Unfortunately, the rule prevents all amendments, including those to 
ban assault weapons and cop-killer bullets. Without these life-saving 
provisions, it is only a matter of time until a member of he 
Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Capitol Police, Secret Service, or 
other law enforcement officer is outgunned with a legal assault weapon.
  Washington, DC, has the right to determine its own laws, and those 
laws deserve our respect. As D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey recently 
stated, ``We don't need a law that puts more assault weapons in 
circulation in D.C.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 
3193.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill, which 
would repeal a number of local laws adopted by the District of Columbia 
City Council and would prohibit the passage of similar local laws in 
the future.
  The laws in question deal with regulation of firearms. But that is 
not the reason for my opposition.
  Instead, I oppose the bill because I think its enactment would be an 
abuse of our authority as Members of Congress. Its effect would be to 
reduce the right of self-government for one group of Americans--those 
who reside in Washington, DC.
  I know the Constitution gives Congress the power ``to exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of 
Columbia--even though the residents of the district are not fully 
represented in either the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
  But Congress, through the Home Rule Act, has authorized the 
district's residents to elect a city council and mayor who will be 
immediately responsible for governing the city.
  I am convinced this was the right thing to do. I support home rule 
for Washington, DC, because I think Americans who live in the district 
deserve to be able to govern themselves as much as possible consistent 
with the necessary functioning of the Federal Government. And this bill 
flies in the face of that principle.
  It's true that the bill includes a ``finding'' that its enactment 
``is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to 
restore the rights of its citizens under the second amendment to the 
United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.'' But I 
don't think that settles the matter.
  I take seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution. But I am not 
convinced that fidelity to that oath requires a vote to repeal these 
local laws--especially since as far as I know there has been no 
successful challenge to their constitutionality in all the years they 
have been on the books.
  And I certainly don't think fidelity to my oath requires me to 
support a reduction in the authority of the D.C. City Council to pass 
similar laws in the future, as this bill would do.
  Further, while there is plenty of room to debate whether repealing 
these particular laws would or would not enhance public safety--just as 
there is room to debate whether the laws themselves are desirable or 
effective--I think that debate should not take place here in Congress. 
The laws this bill would repeal were duly adopted by the elected 
government of the district and they have not interfered with the 
orderly functioning of the Federal Government. So, in my opinion, 
decisions about retaining, amending, or repealing these local laws 
should be made by the city council--a body that is elected by and 
accountable to the people who are subject to them.
  Instead, by passing this bill Congress would substitute its judgment 
for that of the local elected government--in effect denying their 
constituents the right to govern themselves on this subject.
  We cannot--and we should not--do that to the residents of Colorado or 
any other State. I do not think we should do it to the people who live 
here in Washington, DC. We may not think these local laws are well-
designed. But I think we should allow those covered by the laws to 
decide that for themselves.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 3193, 
the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of 
this legislation that ensures greater respect for the right to bear 
arms in Washington, DC.
  H.R. 3193 repeals several of the more draconian citywide Washington, 
DC, gun restrictions enacted in 1976. Restrictions H.R. 3193 will 
repeal include the requirement that all firearms be registered. Gun 
registration in other countries has created government lists of who 
owns what guns. Such lists facilitate the harassment of gun owners and 
the confiscation of their guns. Also repealed are blanket bans on the 
possession of handguns and handgun ammunition as well as any semi-
automatic guns. These bans exist despite the fact that handguns and 
semi-automatic guns are regularly used outside Washington, DC, for 
self-defense. Also repealed is the prohibition on carrying a gun on 
one's own property. It is hard to say a person is free if he is 
prohibited from using the means of protecting himself and his family 
even in his own home.
  It is unfortunate that people in the federal capital city have for 
nearly 30 years faced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in 
the country. This fact is particularly unfortunate given Washington, 
DC's recent history as the murder capital of the United States. 
Ironically, the place where people most need to bear arms to defend 
themselves from violent crimes has been one of the places where the 
exercise of that right has been most restricted.
  A strong case can be made that the high rate of violent crimes, 
including murders, in Washington, DC, is due in part to restrictions on 
the exercise of the right to bear arms. When potential victims are 
likely armed, criminals think twice about committing violent crimes; a 
gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is an excellent deterrent to 
crime. Across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, Virginia does not 
have this horrific crime and murder rate. Yet, people in Virginia can 
buy, own, and even carry guns in public.
  I am hopeful that the House's consideration of H.R. 3193 indicates a 
new openness to legislation that will roll back other unconstitutional 
and dangerous restrictions on Americans' right to bear arms. For years, 
federal lawmakers have been passing gun control laws, even though they 
have no authority to do so. Crime control, the stated reason for 
passing gun control laws in the first place, is a function belonging to 
the states.
  Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation 
to restore the Federal Government's respect for the right to bear arms 
throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on 
gun rights nationwide--not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced 
several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore 
respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment 
Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto 
ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and ``instant'' background check 
imposed on gun purchases, and delete the ``sporting purposes'' test 
that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a 
destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be 
``non-sporting.'' Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to 
Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers' 
dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations 
actions that could infringe on the second amendment.
  In 1976, I spoke on the floor of the House against the adoption of 
restrictions on the right to bear arms in Washington, DC, that H.R. 
3193 seeks to repeal. Unfortunately, my argument then was ruled out of 
order, and the restrictions went into effect. While it has been too 
long in coming, I am glad that the House

[[Page 19925]]

is finally considering this important issue. The District of Columbia 
Personal Protection Act would restore some much needed respect for the 
fundamental rights of people in Washington, DC.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in firm opposition to this 
legislation, which aims to repeal Washington, DC's local gun ban. I 
find it troubling and illogical that the House is repealing a ban on 
handguns and assault weapons in a city where the Federal Government has 
invested millions of dollars to increase and improve security. It is 
foolhardy for Congress to counter these actions by allowing loaded 
assault weapons to be carried around this city, putting officers as 
well as citizens and visitors in danger.
  Washington, DC has made great strides to reduce its crime rate--
homicide has decreased by 25 percent over the past year and it has 
decreased by 55 percent since the passage of the Brady Bill and the 
Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Despite these improvements, violence 
remains a serious problem in the District of Columbia. Sixteen children 
have been killed by gunfire in DC so far this year. These numbers are 
not going to improve if we allow loaded assault weapons to be carried 
within the city.
  Not only is this legislation ill conceived and dangerous, it is a 
local matter that should not be within Congress's jurisdiction. The 
District of Columbia City Council and Mayor passed this ban during its 
first session in 1976. No laws have been passed locally to repeal the 
law and the courts have maintained its constitutionality. Now, this 
body, which does not even grant over half a million United States 
citizens living in the District of Columbia voting representation in 
Congress, is trying to further strip rights to these citizens by taking 
away a self-imposed law to protect their safety.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to join many 
of my colleagues to argue that guns are disproportionately killing our 
children in our cities and this law has no basis to be here in front of 
us today. We must act instantly to strike down both H.R. 3193 and S. 
1414. DC has its own rules regulating purchasing and owning a gun, and 
we do not need to create legislation to usurp their power and go 
against their interest.
  H.R. 3193 wants to repeal DC's handgun, semi-automatic, and 
ammunition bans, as well as the registration requirement. The bills 
will allow gun possession at home, work and on any property a person 
owns.
  We are drowned in rhetoric saying that a Member of Congress who does 
not think handguns should be floating freely on our streets is someone 
who is anti-gun and wants to take your hunting rifles away. That is not 
this bill before us. You can keep your hunting rifles, you can keep 
your loaded guns in your business, but you do need some semblance of 
order on the street, where a small, innocent mistake encounter can turn 
into a massive bloodbath once guns are used instead of words.
  Right now, DC's local laws do not prevent law abiding citizens from 
owning a firearm. Since 1976, District residents have registered over 
100,000 firearms (mostly rifles and shotguns) with the Metropolitan 
Police Department (MPD).
  Study after study is showing that guns protect very few at home and 
result in thousands of Americans killed in family and acquaintance 
quarrels, domestic violence and suicides. Guns obtained legally end up 
as weapons in domestic or neighborhood quarrels. Is this what we want 
in our neighborhoods? What is wrong with the mentality that it takes 
guns to solve problems and make people feel safe?
  There is also the possibility of break-ins and thefts of guns. DC is 
on pace for a 20-year low in its homicide rate due in large part to DC 
police department's efforts at getting guns off the streets. It appalls 
me that Congress will sit here and enact measures to bring more guns 
back to the neighborhoods.
  The homicide rate in DC is approaching a 20-year low, but the rate 
among juveniles is escalating. As chair of the Congressional Children's 
Caucus, and as a mother, I can tell you that providing troubled teens 
easier access to weapons is not the answer to lowering the rate of 
violent death among juveniles.
  As a member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, we 
need to be doing everything we can to keep the men and women who 
protect the Nation's capitol out of harm's way. The Nation's capital is 
under an orange alert.
  Placing more unregulated guns in the streets of DC undermines 
homeland security measures. Why must we compromise our own homeland 
security efforts by bring more handguns to the streets? Where are our 
priorities?
  I have been collaborating with my colleague and good friend from the 
District of Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. She can echo 
that DC's current firearm laws are working. 97 percent of all guns used 
in crimes in DC originate outside of DC and 59 percent of traceable 
guns were first purchased in Maryland and Virginia. In addition, 8 
percent of traceable guns were bought in North Carolina, Florida, 
Georgia and South Carolina.
  In addition, H.R. 3193 violates state's rights. Its enactment would 
overturn the will of both DC elected officials and local residents. DC, 
like the 50 states, knows best what firearm regulations work for its 
residents. Firearm laws that work in Montana would not be perfect fit 
for a densely populated urban setting like DC. Both bills contain an 
especially odious provision forbidding the Council to enact any gun 
safety laws in the future.
  It is a sad day for me to know that both H.R. 3193 and S. 1414 are 
driven by the NRA lobby and not by DC residents or Members of Congress 
who respect home rule. Neither H.R. 3193 nor S. 1414 is supported by 
local leaders, business groups or DC residents. These are the people 
who are most affected by its passage! Every major elected local 
official in DC along with business and labor groups, all the city's 
major community groups and civil groups have come out against any 
effort to overturn, modify or change the DC's gun safety laws.
  As legislators, we must take our role in as decision makers very 
seriously. This includes knowing when we have overstepped our bounds. 
Please, listen to the people of DC to hear if they want guns on their 
streets.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, the provisions 
of the District of Columbia's gun laws that have the most adverse 
effect upon the largest number of law-abiding District residents, are 
the ban on using firearms to defend yourself at home, the handgun ban, 
and other measures that prevent or discourage the purchase of rifles 
and shotguns.
  Much has already been said about those provisions of the District's 
gun laws, so I would like to address a provision that hasn't received 
the same amount of attention.
  I refer to the section of the District's laws that define various 
types of firearms, particularly the definition of ``machine gun.''
  As is fairly common knowledge, machine guns were invented in the late 
1800s, and they are fundamentally the same today as they were then. 
They fire repeatedly as long as you hold the trigger down. They are the 
only firearms that operate in that way. And they all operate in that 
way.
  Federal law defines a machine gun appropriately, as a gun that 
shoots--and I quote--``automatically more than one shot, without manual 
reloading, by a single function of the trigger.'' I know of no one who 
disagrees with that definition.
  The problem is, the District also defines some semi-automatic 
firearms as machine guns.
  Semi-automatic firearms were also invented in the late 1800s, but 
that is about where the similarity between them and machine gun ends.
  Like a lever-action, bolt-action, or pump-action firearm, or a 
revolver, a semi-automatic firearm fires only once when you pull the 
trigger.
  I realize that not everyone is clear on that point. ``Gun control'' 
supporters have gone to considerable lengths to suggest that a semi-
automatic fires like a machine gun. For example, in the context of the 
``assault weapon'' issue, ``gun control'' supporters often claim that 
semi-automatics ``spray fire.''
  That does not change the facts, however. Thus, federal law correctly 
defines a semi-automatic firearm as one that, among other things--and I 
quote--``requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each 
cartridge.''
  And so that no one misunderstands, let me be clear that conforming 
the District's definition to the Federal definition, does not change 
the law with respect to the ownership or possession of machine guns. 
Such guns are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and 
will remain regulated under that law.
  Conforming the District's definition will mean only that District 
residents will not be prohibited from owning semi-automatic firearms 
that are legal to possess under federal law.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first. In addition to violating 
the Republicans' ``sacred oath'' to support ``states' rights;'' this 
body is violating the citizens of the District of Columbia's right to 
self-determination with respect to guns . . . just because it can. 
Congress, in 1993, denied American citizens the right to statehood and 
continues to deny them voting rights. DC's young people are fighting, 
dying and being wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of 
democracy and self-determination . . . something they don't have back 
home in DC! So Republicans in Congress exercise outside control over DC 
citizens, and DC citizens have limited means of fighting

[[Page 19926]]

back, since they have no voting representation in Congress.
  Second. The other side is forcing us to vote on this bill just to 
send a political message back home. The Senate has already rejected it, 
so we know it will not become law this year. They are doing it for 
political reasons just before the election on November 2--which they 
would never even think about doing to another state because the 
Americans they represent have a member in the House and two in the 
Senate. They are exploiting the politically impotent citizens of DC. It 
reminds me of the big bully in school picking on the littlest and 
weakest kid in the class. Let's be clear. They are forcing us to vote 
on this legislation in order to politicize the gun issue on the eve of 
the election in order to send a political message back home.
  Third. In addition to all of that, let's look at the Republican flip-
flop on the gun issue! What was the Republican Party saying about guns 
in 1968? And, I might add for context, in 1967-1968 our cities were in 
rebellion and our colleague, Congressman Bobby Rush, was a Black 
Panther, and the Panthers had guns?
  But let's look at the Republican Platform language in 1968!


                     republican party platform 1968

       ``We pledge an all-out federal-state-local crusade against 
     crime, including enactment of legislation to control 
     indiscriminate availability of firearms.''


                    republicans in congress in 2004

       First, on September 13, Republicans let the assault weapons 
     ban expire!
       Now the ``Republican District of Columbia Personal 
     Protection Act''!
       Sec. 3. Reform DC Council's authority to restrict firearms.
       This section shall not be construed to permit the Council, 
     the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the 
     District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or 
     unduly burden the ability of persons otherwise permitted to 
     possess firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing 
     in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-
     protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither 
     prohibited by Federal law nor regulated by the National 
     Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have 
     authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or 
     eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.
       Sec. 4. Repeal DC semiautomatic ban.
       Sec. 5. Repeal registration requirement.
       Sec. 6. Repeal handgun ammunition ban.
       Sec. 8. Additional repeals.
       Sec. 9. Remove criminal penalties for possession of 
     unregistered firearms.

  This bill is a waste of this body's time. It is wrongheaded. It is 
patently unfair. It is nakedly political. It is anti-democratic. And I 
urge its defeat.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
legislation that has been introduced to usurp the District of 
Columbia's home rule and greatly exacerbate an already very serious gun 
violence problem here in our Nation's Capital.
  I am baffled at what the so-called ``District of Columbia Personal 
Protection Act'' introduced by the gentleman from Indian, has to do 
with personally protecting anyone in Washington, DC. To the contrary, 
if enacted, this legislation would work to increase homicides and gun 
violence in a city that has a history of struggling to protect its 
citizens from crimes involving firearms.
  Leaders in the District of Columbia have long recognized that they 
have a serious crime and gun violence problem. Therefore, since 1976 
they have seen fit to enact strict gun control laws in the District.
  Last year, DC police confiscated a whopping 1,982 firearms from 
criminal suspects. So far this year, 1,385 guns have been recovered. If 
the aforementioned legislation were in place, most of those guns would 
still be on the streets and in the hands of criminals looking to use 
them to do harm.
  Even more disturbing, the gentleman from Indiana's legislation 
doesn't stop at just repealing important DC laws such as those 
preventing the sale of assault weapons. No, it even goes so far as to 
prevent DC elected officials from enacting any regulation addressing 
the ownership or use of a firearm. That would mean no restrictions in 
the District on carrying concealed firearms in churches, movie theaters 
or shopping centers, no local requirement for gun safety training and 
no ability whatsoever for local officials to take action that will help 
keep guns out of the hands of gang members, terrorists or criminals.
  Public officials on the ground, working in the District, know the 
needs of their constituents and the best means to protect them from gun 
violence. This legislation is a total affront to the concept of ``Home-
Rule'' and a slap in the face to the people of the District of 
Columbia. Coming on the heels of the repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban, 
the House is leading the charge to strip the District's ability to 
protect its citizens by repealing popular and life-saving gun control 
measures.
  Mr. Speaker, we've got a war raging right now in Iraq. We don't need 
to open another front right here on the city streets of our Nation's 
Capital. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, all Americans know that gun 
control continues to be a serious subject of debate, right here in the 
District of Columbia, in the State of Georgia, which I represent, and 
across this Nation. It's an issue of personal safety and of 
constitutional rights embedded in the fabric of our Nation.
  I agree with those who want to restrict criminal access to guns. 
However, this must be done without compromising the constitutional 
rights of our law-abiding citizens.
  I strongly support the right of law-abiding adults to purchase and 
own firearms for the protection of their homes and families, 
collecting, target shooting, and hunting. That's why I have and will 
continue to oppose any proposal that threatens this basic second 
amendment right.
  I realize the concerns of some Americans who, in the wake of school 
shootings and other heinous illegal acts, call for stricter gun control 
measures. I understand those concerns. That's why I fully support 
measures that call for tougher sentences for the illegal use of 
firearms, to get offenders off the streets and out of our communities. 
I support stiff sentences of juveniles who use firearms illegally, and 
I support increasing the maximum penalty for adults who illegally 
provide those juveniles with firearms. That's how we must keep our 
schools and communities safe.
  Mr. Speaker, tougher gun laws should not infringe on the rights of 
law-abiding citizens, and Congress has both the authority and the 
responsibility to ensure that they do not. So, the question before us 
today is not whether Congress can repeal the District of Columbia's 
handgun and self-defense bans, it is whether Congress should do so. The 
U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 States, Federal law, the 
laws of all 50 States, the vast majority Georgians and of Americans 
recognize the right for law-abiding citizens to use firearms for 
protection, and for other legal purposes. Only the District of Columbia 
prohibits a person from having a firearm assembled and loaded at home 
for the purpose of self-defense. I believe that that's wrong. Pass this 
bill and allow DC residents to protect themselves from crime.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to H.R. 3193, the so-called District of Columbia Personal Protection 
Act.
  I do not agree with the premise that more hand guns and assault 
weapons in the District will mean less crime on the streets of our 
Nation's Capital. The experts don't either. The Mayor of the District, 
Anthony Williams, strongly opposes this bill. The District's Chief of 
Police, Charles Ramsey, recently said that ``to reduce crime and 
prevent more senseless tragedies like the recent killings in Anacostia 
and Ballou, we need fewer--not more--weapons. . .'' The District's 
Delegate in the Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton, is strongly against 
this legislation, as is the City Council.
  Why, Mr. Speaker, do all these District leaders oppose this effort to 
overturn their gun laws? Because, to cite just recent examples, they 
have seen their neighbors, their family, and their co-workers mourn the 
loss of 16 local children killed by guns this year. And yet, today in 
the House, a place secured from weapons by metal detectors at every 
entrance and protected by our own dedicated police force, we are voting 
on legislation that will overrule the District's own sensible gun laws.
  Today, I have heard from a number of my colleagues who support this 
legislation that the District of Columbia is the murder capital of the 
United States and that the best way to solve this problem is to 
increase access to hand guns and assault weapons. But what I want to 
ask is why we are not actually helping the District with its real 
underlying problems. Why are we not doing more to support the police 
officers on the streets of the District? Why are we not doing more to 
support after-school programs to keep children off the streets and away 
from guns and crime? Why are we not providing funds for job training 
and other educational programs for the District's residents, who 
desperately want to end the cycle of crime that plagues many of their 
District's communities? The simple answer is that this legislation is 
based not on sound public policy or on a desire to end gun-related 
crimes; this is a politically motivated attempt to curry favor with the 
National Rifle Association and other opponents of reasonable gun 
safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why those who, day after day, rail 
on the floor of the House about their support for federalism are now 
taking significant steps to trample the right of the District to decide 
its own affairs. If my colleagues who support this measure really feel 
that the District should repeal its gun

[[Page 19927]]

registration laws, repeal its assault weapons ban, and allow ``cop 
killer'' bullets on the streets, then I recommend that they register to 
vote in the District and lobby their local councilmember for such a 
change. This is the appropriate way to change the laws of the District 
of Columbia.
  The elected leaders of the District of Columbia do not want this 
legislation. The people of the District of Columbia do not want this 
legislation. If passed, this legislation will put more people at risk 
of being shot with assault weapons or handguns--particularly at risk 
are children and police officers. It's time to stand up to the gun 
lobby and oppose legislation that will make the District of Columbia 
less safe. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 3193.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and 
this bill. The rule before us is a closed rule allowing only 60 minutes 
of debate and prohibits consideration of all the Democratic amendments 
offered to the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill repeals District of Columbia's laws that ban 
the sale and possession of handguns and semiautomatic weapons that have 
been in effect for over three decades.
  Our constituents expect us to work on issues of national concern.
  They expect us to complete the annual appropriations process and 
avoid a government shutdown. Yet, today, with the end of the fiscal 
year 2 days away, Congress has only managed to complete one 
appropriation bill.
  They expect us to continue to provide States with Federal assistance 
to build and maintain the Nation's highways. However, Congress has not 
acted to renew authorization for billions of dollars for critical 
surface transportation projects that expire on Friday. They expect us 
to take up the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to make America safer. 
They expect us to enact legislation to create new jobs and address the 
plight of the unemployed.
  They do not expect us to waste the little time remaining on a bill 
that the chief sponsor in the other body has all but abandoned hope of 
getting to the President.
  Why on earth is this body squandering the little time remaining in 
this session on this bill? One word. Politics. Brazen, election-year 
politics.
  With only 7 legislative days left in this Congress, I know that my 
constituents sent me here to vote on bills of more importance to their 
lives.
  H.R. 3193 repeals several District of Columbia firearms laws and 
limits the authority of the District to enact new firearms legislation.
  Specifically, the bill repeals the District's ban on the sale and 
possession of handguns, handgun ammunition and semiautomatic weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin in expressing my outrage 
about the legislation before us today.
  The rule before us blocks consideration of meritorious amendments 
offered by my colleagues at Rules last night. These amendments would 
have reinstated the District's ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, 
reinstated the Federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, and 
reinstated the District's prohibition on the sale of armor-piercing 
bullets--the so-called ``cop-killer'' bullets.
  I think the majority of our constituents would be appalled to learn 
that this bill exempts semiautomatic weapons that fire 12 or more shots 
without manual reload from the District's ``machine gun'' restrictions.
  We should be here considering legislation to renew the national 
assault weapons ban that unceremoniously expired a couple of weeks 
ago--not making a mockery of DC's restrictions on semi-automatic 
weapons.
  As DC Mayor Anthony Williams wrote to congressional leadership, ``It 
is unthinkable that while the Nation's capital is under alert, Congress 
should take action to expose more than half a million residents, almost 
200,000 federal workers and 20 million tourists to greater danger.''
  It is unthinkable to put our officers at greater risk at a time when 
Capitol Police--alone--are asking for $20 million to secure the Capitol 
Building for this year. The last thing they need to hear is that semi-
automatic weapons can now be carried on the National Mall or cop-killer 
bullets are legal in the District.
  It is worth pointing out the hypocrisy of my colleagues who support 
this bill by arguing that the District's gun laws infringe on DC 
citizens' second amendment right to bear arms.
  While the bill changes the law to allow DC residents to carry 
pistols, open or concealed, in their homes and places of business, it 
does not repeal another DC gun law. The law we will not repeal today is 
the provision outlawing people from carrying or having readily access 
to a firearm ``upon the United States Grounds or within the Capital 
Buildings.''
  So we will vote to approve guns in another person's workplace in DC, 
but not in our offices.
  It is unthinkable that only 2 years after the Washington area was 
terrorized by snipers who killed 10 people in the region, and while the 
Nation's capital is still under a terrorist alert, Congress would take 
action on this bill.
  We must not lose sight of the innocent victims of gun violence.
  Yesterday, the front page of the Washington Post reported that a 13-
year-old boy was fatally shot inside his apartment, the 21st child 
killed this year in DC.
  When we voted on this same issue in the aftermath of the Columbine 
shootings, it failed by a vote of 175 to 250. I hope my colleagues 
remember their outrage to that senseless killing and recognize that 
this bill and the recent lapse of the 1994 Federal ban on semi-
automatic weapons place our children in more danger.
  So, Mr. Speaker, to recap, we are not considering bills to create 
jobs, we are not passing the budgets for Federal agencies and services, 
and we are not improving our homeland security. No, today we are 
debating legislation to allow more lethal guns and ammunition to be on 
the streets of our Nation's capital--in the hands of would-be 
terrorists, gang members, and other violent criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this 
closed rule and to vote against the underlying bill.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of the DC Personal Protection Act.
  This commonsense legislation will restore the constitutional right of 
DC citizens to lawfully protect themselves and their families from 
criminals.
  The simple fact is that Washington, DC is one of the most dangerous 
cities in America.
  Year after year, Washington, DC, is in the running for the 
disgraceful title of ``the murder capital of the United States.'' FBI 
statistics released last year reveal that Washington, DC, has the 
highest per capita homicide rate of any big city in America.
  Ironically Washington, DC, has the toughest gun control laws of any 
city in the Nation.
  In 1976 the City Council banned handguns and required rifles and 
shotguns to be registered and stored disassembled.
  What's really sad is that prior to the DC gun ban, the city's 
homicide rate was on the decline.
  However in the 15 years between 1976 and 1991, the District's 
homicide rate skyrocketed 200 percent while the national homicide rate 
rose just 12 percent.
  And as of 2002, DC's homicide rate was almost double the rate from 
when the gun ban took effect--nearly five times higher than the 
national average.
  When will we learn that gun control does not make the public safer?
  Criminals ignore gun bans while good citizens abide by them.
  That's a recipe for disaster, just as we've seen in our Nation's 
capital.
  For the sake of our constitutional right to bear arms and for the 
safety of law abiding DC citizens and their families, support this 
bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the District of 
Columbia Personal Protection Act, H.R. 3193, an outrageous effort 
spearheaded by my friend Representative Souder of Indiana, to repeal 
the ban on the possession of firearms in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, 
the DC elected officials, Mayor Anthony Williams, business, labor and 
civil rights groups and most importantly the District's local 
residents, who have spoken out against repealing this ban. If this 
Congress passes H.R. 3193, we will ignore their urgent cries--to spare 
their communities from further gun violence.
  I think I should point out to those Members who believe that the NRA 
interests should trump the interests of the District's citizens, let's 
remember the principles of DC home rule that were recently cemented by 
the Federal courts in Seegars v. Ashcroft. In Seegars, the court held 
that because the District of Columbia is not a State, then the second 
amendment did not apply and the ban was not unconstitutional. Congress 
should respect the court's decision and the District's right to home 
rule to allow the gun ban to remain in place.
  Just ask the parents of 16-year-old Ashley Walker, killed Sunday, 
September 26, 2004, and the parents of 13-year-old Michael Swan, killed 
Monday, September 27, 2004, if they believe that more guns should be 
permitted in the District. These parents know all too well what it 
means to lose someone to gun violence. They know the importance of 
maintaining this ban and that creating an environment

[[Page 19928]]

of proliferation of guns is antithetical to saving lives.
  Yet despite these tragedies, Mr. Speaker, the homicide rate in DC is 
approaching a 20-year low. In fact, DC homicides are down by 24 percent 
from last year and 55 percent since 1994. It is clear that this ban 
saves lives.
  In my own district in Maryland, there has been an overwhelming 
decline of assault pistols used in crimes since the Maryland Assault 
Pistol Ban in 1994.
  The Baltimore City Police Department concluded that since the ban's 
enactment that 55 percent fewer assault pistols were used in crimes. 
These are real statistics from cities that had been plagued by violence 
in the past decade; but these cities are also evidence of the success 
that has sprung from banning assault weapons.
  Once again Mr. Speaker, with statistics such as these, we cannot 
ignore the fact that this ban saves lives.
  There are Members of this body who will argue that this bill will 
give DC residents a sense of protection and restore their second 
amendment rights. I argue just the opposite. First, under the current 
law, DC residents may currently own registered guns--in fact over 
100,000 firearms have been registered since 1976. Secondly, lifting the 
ban would engender all sorts of travesties: fully loaded assault 
weapons--to be carried in public in some instances--acquisition of 
armor-piercing ammunition--including ``cop-killer'' bullets--
elimination of the District's registration program--even for assault 
weapons--and issuance of permits to individuals to carry concealed 
handguns in their places of business. I and other reasonable-minded 
individuals agree that this legislation is a far cry from providing 
residents with a ``sense of protection.'' We would argue that this 
legislation would only restore a culture of violence that the ban has 
significantly reduced.
  Mr. Speaker, if H.R. 3193 is passed we will once again ignore the 
millions of Americans who have pleaded with the administration and this 
body to extend the ban in the District of Columbia and the national 
assault weapons ban, contained in H.R. 2038. We cannot fail the 
residents of the District like we failed the millions of Americans when 
we allowed the assault weapons ban to expire just weeks ago.
  Mr. Speaker, we must listen to the residents of this District, 
citizens who do not have voting representation in Congress. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against repealing the DC gun ban--vote against H.R. 
3193.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment to discuss today's 
floor vote on H.R. 3193, to repeal the DC gun ban. I voted in favor of 
this bill. However, I am concerned with how this legislation came to 
the floor--without a hearing and without the opportunity to offer 
amendments. In addition, I am a strong supporter of local rule and this 
legislation, although I agree with the principle, blocks the local 
District of Columbia government from having any authority over the 
matter. Again, I support the legislation in general, I just don't 
believe appropriate procedure was followed on such a controversial 
issue.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 803, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________