Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to hear that a bill that could come through could have juvenile possession of an assault weapon, have limitations on that, have a juvenile Brady law, clip bans, trigger locks, close some of the loopholes on gun bills, that it is not good enough, so a Member ends up defeating it and ends up voting with the National Rifle Association who would like to see the bill defeated. That is disappointing to me. If putting the gentlewoman's name on this amendment would get her vote, I would be honored to have my former law school classmate. She has been a champion on gun measures. But I would hope the gentlewoman would not put this in the partisan realm of stopping Congress from moving ahead, when we could pass this legislation which is better than what is on the books today and send it to a conference committee where maybe it could be improved. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman to think about that in terms of moving this legislation on, so we could go on, protecting our youth in this country. Defeating this bill does nothing. We walk away.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have worked very long and hard in the District of Columbia to try to bring this Nation's Capital back. If you take a look at the crime rates over the last couple of years, they have gone down dramatically. We have done that by taking the police force away from politics. Putting in a new chief, a professional cadre of officers and trained officers, and controlling the flow of guns into our city is one way that we do that. I have the highest respect for the author of this amendment and recognize the area that he comes from and the philosophy he represents, but, in this particular case, I have to reluctantly oppose him. The reason is because the Nation's Capital, they have to have the same rights of self-determination on these kinds of issues that States and other cities and counties do across this country. The District of Columbia, the D.C. Council in 1976 approved this enactment, and it not only has been confirmed through the years by D.C. elected officials, but your police chief; and around the metropolitan area I think you will find representatives of police officers feel stopping the flow of guns into this city is very critical. This amendment would defeat that purpose, so I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully return to the floor today to oppose the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Representative Goode. In doing so, I want to first convey the unalterable opposition of the Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and Chief of Police Charles Ramsey. This amendment is an abrogation of the very core principles of home rule here in the Nation's Capital, and of the right of States and localities to determine the needs of their communities. In 1976, the D.C. City Council approved one of its first enactment under home rule. Mr. Goode's amendment would repeal Title 6, Chapter 23 of D.C. Code, Section 6-2301 thru 6-2379, which includes the entire subchapter on firearms and destructive devices. The enactment of these provisions were a very important step for the District during its fledgling steps towards self-government and was affirmed by a U.S. District Court in 1978. My good friend from Virginia's amendment unfortunately strikes at the very heart of home rule, and does so without any prior consultation from the elected officials of the District or the House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. It shows no respect for the principle of permitting local citizens and elected leaders to make local decisions. In 1995, Ms. Norton and I introduced and passed the D.C. Financial Control Board Act which took numerous financial decisions away from the Mayor and City Council. Unlike Mr. Goode's amendment the Control Board Act underwent hearings and a mark-up through the Committee process before passage by Congress. The Act creating the Control Board also enjoyed the input and support of the D.C. Mayor and Chairman of the City Council. I urge every Member to oppose Mr. Goode's amendment, not on Constitutional grounds but on procedural ones. While the Congress certainly has the authority to take this action, I call on every Member to consider carefully what the reaction of their constituent would be should the House decide to target them and them alone, for a law they have not expressly supported.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for requesting this colloquy. I am happy to tell the gentleman that is exactly our intent, that safety devices such as the Saf-T-Hammer and other developing handgun safety technologies be included under the definition of a safety device in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the truth is this amendment is about public safety, not gun control. It is about protecting children, not about the second amendment. It is important to remember that nothing in this amendment changes the standards of who can own a gun or any type of gun they can own, it only limits the access that children have to their parents' guns. Despite the divisiveness of this bill and H.R. 1501 yesterday, this amendment enjoys both strong bipartisan and leadership support on both sides. I urge all Members concerned about the safety and the well-being of America's youth to vote ``yes'' on this common-sense amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I differ on this particular issue. I think a congruity between the Senate and House is very important, and I do not think we ought to let someone's definition of ``perfect'' be the enemy of the ``pretty good.'' This is a pretty good advancement from where we sit today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield further, title 18, section 921, section 34, defines the standards. Those are defined. This language parallels the Senate language. At this point we are trying to find some congruity with our colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we do have standards in the current law that make definition. It was not exactly the standards that the gentlewoman and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) put together. We went with the current law standards.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the problem is you do not start the process over again. It has taken up the better part of a week here, and we have appropriations bills here. For Members who walk away from this at this point means walking away, not moving it to conference with the Senate and defeating every aspect of this, including trigger locks. I hope that my colleagues on the other side will reconsider. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who has been outspoken in her support of trigger locks and other child safety measures.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Long Beach, California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we traverse this very controversial mine field of gun control legislation, I want to make sure we do not lose sight of who this bill is designed to protect. The simple and common-sense focus of my amendment is on preventing children from becoming the intentional or accidental victims of domestic handgun violence. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, each year nearly 500 children are killed in gun-related accidents. I remember last year going to a joint Eagle Scout ceremony. One of the boys had died and was given posthumously his Eagle Scout award, and he had been killed by a handgun that had gone off while playing with a friend at a friend's house. Approximately 1,500 children commit suicide with guns, 500 are killed in gun-related accidents and 5,000 are hospitalized with nonfatal gunshot wounds. Additionally, some 7,000 juveniles use guns found in their homes to commit crimes each year. These crimes are unacceptably high and constitute a significant public health threat that has to be addressed. The fact is that children are inquisitive and adept at finding those things in the house that are dangerous. These dangers can vary from household products to prescription medicines and even guns. Now, we have put child safety caps on medicine, we have encouraged parents to lock up household chemicals, but gun safety in the home has been lacking. In a 1995 study, the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that children as young as 3 are strong enough to fire most commercially available handguns. Having three children of my own, I can testify to the difficulty of telling a 3-year-old not to play with something. This amendment addresses the issue of minimum handgun safety standards by requiring that every handgun sold has to include safe handgun storage or an individual safety device. I have the enviable task today of offering an amendment that has received strong support from almost every group that has weighed in on this debate. In a few minutes, this House will be addressed by Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and rural and urban Members who all will support this amendment. The mandatory transfer of safety devices has received equally strong support from groups outside the Congress as varied as Handgun Control and a coalition of 35 gun manufacturers. Even the National Rifle Association has said, ``We support and encourage the distribution, development and use of safety locks, gun safes or any voluntary means necessary and appropriate to keep firearms away from or inoperable by those who should not have them.'' This amendment does precisely that by mandating the transfer of a secure gun storage or safety device while not mandating their use. It is estimated that today in the United States there are nearly 100 million privately owned firearms that are stored unlocked. Of those, approximately 22 million are handguns that are kept loaded and unlocked. Alarmingly, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that 24 percent of children ages 10 to 17 can find and gain access to a firearm in their home. And 1.2 million elementary age schoolchildren return to a home where no adult is present and there is at least one firearm. I would like to address a concern that a number of gun owners have raised. Some have claimed that using one of these devices will defeat the purpose of keeping a handgun in the house for self-defense by hindering access to the firearm when it is most needed. It is important to keep in mind that this amendment does not mandate use; that is still the choice of the gun owner. Even if the safety device is used, most can be removed from the gun in a matter of seconds which, as Gun Test magazine explains, conveniently preserves access to guns for self- protection. In addition, always keeping guns loaded for self-defense may be self- defeating. It is estimated that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than to kill in self-defense. And finally, Mr. Chairman, the amendment also establishes criteria for the liability of a gun owner should his or her handgun be used in an unlawful act. Over the past several days, my office has been deluged by calls from other Members' offices regarding this issue of liability. Immunity from liability is granted to any individual who lawfully owns a handgun and who uses a secured gun storage or safety device with the handgun. Additionally, the gun owner is not liable if the handgun was accessed by another person without the authorization of the lawful owner. And finally immunity from liability is also extended if at the time that the gun was accessed it was rendered inoperable by the use of a secure gun storage or safety device. My intent in this amendment is that the liability provisions are specifically targeted to gun owners who have a reasonable expectation of having a child in their home. This amendment does not try to limit or address who can purchase a handgun. It does not try to dictate the type or use of a handgun, and it certainly does not try to limit the right of any legal adult from purchasing a handgun. In 1968, the Federal Government mandated that every car sold in America had to be equipped with seat belts. Finally, in 1999, we can do the same for handguns. I urge every Member to support this very common- sense amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my colleague from Illinois, Representative Crane, for his hard work in bringing this important legislation forward early on in this Congress. H.R. 1833 will provide the U.S. Customs Service with additional tools to prevent illegal drugs from entering our nation. This is a vital bill that will go a long way in winning the war on drugs but the most valuable asset of any agency is its workforce. Unfortunately, H.R. 1833 also contains a provision which I believe will seriously harm the morale of our Customs agents and impede our ability to recruit qualified individuals. H.R. 1833 contains a provision that restricts the hours during which customs agents can earn night shift differential pay to between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. Currently, Customs agents earn night shift differential pay between the hours of 3 p.m. and 8 a.m. The Customs Agency is the only federal agency where employees work a constantly changing shift. For example, employees work days for two weeks, then evenings, then nights. Night shift differential pay is a standard law enforcement benefit and one of the few federal law enforcement benefits extended to Customs agents. If this bill passes the House, we will reduce the amount of pay at Customs agent earns by an average of $96.00 a week or $5000.00 a year. A Customs agent making $40,000 a year will face a reduction in pay of nearly 12%. Do we really want to tell Customs agents that we are only willing to spend more money on desperately needed equipment to fight the war on drugs if they give up a portion of their yearly salary? I think not, this provision sends entirely the wrong message to these brave men and women. Moreover, I have serious concerns that this provision says to Customs agents that they can make up for the lost night shift differential pay due to enhancements in overtime benefits. But in order to earn back lost pay, an individual would be required to work more than forty hours a week. This is simply wrong. We would be telling these federal workers that they must spend greater and greater amounts of time away from their family just to meet their current needs. Again, this is backwards and contrary to the family values we should be promoting. This provision sends the wrong message to the indvidiuals who play a significant role in protecting our border and our entire nation from shipments of illegal drugs. During the week of May 10th, a Customs Agent was shot on his way home from work by an individual who had targeted him as a law enforcement official. The Federal Government does not extend most law enforcement officer benefits to Customs Agents. This bill would limit one of the few law enforcement benefits that Customs Agents receive. I am greatly disappointed that H.R. 1833 is on the Suspension Calendar today, and that we do not have the opportunity to even offer an amendment that would have removed section 123(b), the new night shift differential pay provisions. I think that Members of this House deserve the opportunity to support this important bill while also supporting our U.S. Customs Agents. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Crane for all of his work in bringing H.R. 1833 forward and express my profound disappointment in the currently included night shift differential pay provisions. I believe we need to strengthen the Customs Agency if we are going to stop illegal drugs from entering our Country and we must do all that we can to protect our children. However, we must not say to Customs Agents that their tireless efforts are insufficient, and that equipment counts more than the personnel. I firmly hope that we can work our differences out when this bill goes to Conference with the Senate.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 197) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service at 410 North 6th Street in Garden City, Kansas, as the ``Clifford R. Hope Post Office''.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), an active, dedicated and respected member of the Subcommittee on Postal Service, introduced H.R. 1191 on March 18, 1999. This legislation names four post offices, all located in Chicago, Illinois. Pursuant to the policy of the Committee on Government Reform, H.R. 1191 enjoys the cosponsorship of all members of the House Delegation from the State of Illinois. As was the case in previous bills naming post offices, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the enactment of this bill will have no significant impact on the Federal budget and would not affect direct spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. Section 1 of H.R. 1191 designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 433 West Harrison Street in Chicago, Illinois as the ``Cardiss Collins Post Office Building.'' Ms. Collins, many of us will remember, represented Illinois' 7th Congressional District for 22 years. I had the pleasure and the opportunity to work with her for two of those years. She was the first and only African-American woman from Illinois to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. She was known for her outstanding work on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and on the Committee on Commerce. Section 2 of the legislation designates the Postal Service building located at 2302 South Pulaski Street in Chicago, Illinois as the ``Otis Grant Collins Post Office Building.'' Mr. Collins served the 21st District in the Illinois General Assembly for four terms. He is recognized as a premier activist against insurance redlining in the country. Mr. Collins died in 1992. Section 3 of H.R. 1191 designates the postal facility located at 4222 West Madison Street as the ``Mary Alice (Ma) Henry Post Office Building.'' Ma Henry was known as one of the leading activists on the West Side, dedicating her life to serving humanity and building her community. She developed a plan for a primary care clinic at Garfield Hospital and that was dedicated in 1976 as the Mary Alice ``Ma'' Henry Family Health Center, and it presently serves more than 20,000 patients yearly. ``Ma'' Henry died in 1995. H.R. 1191, in section 4, also names the postal facility located at 50001 West Division Street as the ``Robert LaFlore, Jr. Post Office Building.'' Mr. LaFlore served in the Illinois General Assembly for 11 years and was known as a powerful voice for the disadvantaged and underprivileged. Prior to his death in 1993, Mr. LaFlore left behind legislation to help children and senior citizens. Mrthcoah Mr. Speaker, this legislation has passed both the subcommittee and the committee levels. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1191, introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1191) to designate certain facilities of the United States Postal Service in Chicago, Illinois.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 197.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who is also the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Postal Service, introduced H.R. 100 on January 6, 1999. The bill names three post offices located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the long-standing policy of the Committee on Government Reform, all of the Members of the House Delegation of the State of Pennsylvania support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, the committee voted unanimously to bring this legislation to the floor. I would also like to inform all of our colleagues that the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this bill, and estimates the enactment of the provisions would have no significant impact on the Federal budget and would not affect direct spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. Furthermore, the provision contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, nor would it impose any costs on State, local or tribal governments. The legislation indicates the Postal Service building located at 2601 North 16th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, be known and designated as the ``Roxanne H. Jones Post Office Building.'' In 1984, Roxanne H. Jones was the first African-American woman elected to the State Senate in Pennsylvania. She was reelected for two additional terms prior to her death in 1997. During her tenure, she helped pass legislation that aided people on welfare to break the cycle of welfare dependency by supporting legislation providing job training opportunities, introducing and passing legislation to expand affordable housing, and to obtain State funding for drug treatment centers for addicted mothers and their children. Ms. Jones was a former welfare recipient. The bill also designates the Post Office located at 5300 West Jefferson Street in Pennsylvania as the ``Freeman Hankins Post Office Building.'' Freeman Hankins was elected to the Pennsylvania Senate in 1968 and served until his retirement in 1989. He served on the boards of the Pennsylvania Higher Development Agency, Lincoln University and the Mercy Douglas Corporation. Additionally, H.R. 100 provides that the United States Postal Service building located at 2037 Chestnut Street in Philadelphia be designated as the ``Max Weiner Post Office building.'' Mr. Weiner, a steadfast advocate for consumer rights and protections, was the founder of the Consumers Education and Protective Association and the Independent Consumer Party. He was effective in helping many Pennsylvanians to keep their homes, heat their homes, protect their privacy and have access to public transportation. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for recognizing these individuals who worked diligently for the betterment of their community. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 100 designating the naming of three post offices in Philadelphia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 100) to establish designations for United States Postal Service buildings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.