Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to discuss our substitute amendment and I appreciate the questions of the gentleman. In some cases he has misread the amendment, and in other cases he is exactly right. Let me first deal with the issue of exempting abortion from our bill. We do not need to exempt abortion from the substitute. Because in order to fall within the penumbra number of the amendment, one must have been convicted of one of the enumerated crimes that are listed within the bill. And abortion, thank goodness, is not a crime in America, although some in this body would wish it were so. So there is no need to do that. Secondarily, really the amendment and the discussion is about choice. Let me discuss it in this way: if she is a pregnant woman and she wants desperately to have a child and she is assaulted and, as a consequence, she miscarries, she has been denied her choice to have a child. And that is an injury and it is a separate offense in the substitute amendment. The gentleman is correct. It is a separate and severable offense that is punishable by up to life imprisonment, as it should be. There is another potential harm that could be done to a woman who is hoping to have a child, and that is assault that would result in a prenatal injury to that wanted child. I do thank the parliamentarian for his assistance yesterday in helping to craft the language on lines 10 and 11 of page 1 of the substitute. The interruption of a normal pregnancy through the imposition of a prenatal injury because of an assault or one of the other crimes listed on page 2 of the amendment is also a punishable offense, as it should be. So, yes, we do not need a separate intent provision in the substitute. The gentleman is correct in that regard. But we do need a conviction for the predicate offense, which in almost every case would also require a finding of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I have just a little bit of time left under the rule, and I do know that my colleague and cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, did also want to make a few comments on this entire issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. MR. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Lofgren) for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, we have a large problem in this country with violence against women, and it is obviously a great tragedy if a physical assault against a woman results in damage to the fetus she carries and damage to the baby when it is born or, God forbid, in a miscarriage. Such an assault should clearly be punished more severely than an assault on her that does not harm the fetus. Both the bill before us and the Lofgren substitute would accomplish this end. Both provide for penalties up to life in prison. Both suffer from the fact that they amend only Federal law. Of course, most cases of violence against women are prosecuted in State courts, and so it would be unaffected by either the bill or the substitute. If we really want to protect women and their unborn children, we should pass the Violence Against Women Act, too. But that is not, that is not, I repeat, the real purpose of this bill. If it were the real purpose, the sponsors would agree to the Lofgren substitute, which provides for enhanced sentences up to life imprisonment for people who, while assaulting the woman, injure or kill the fetus. But they will not accept the substitute. Why not? Because the real purpose of the bill is, as the distinguished chairman the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the sponsor of the bill, have admitted is not to protect the mother or the fetus, but to establish the status of the fetus or the embryo or even the zygote as a legally separate person, and thus to undermine the Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing a woman's right to choose an abortion. Neither the Congress nor the Federal courts have ever recognized the fetus as a separate person. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was eloquent in his description of the separate personhood of the fetus. That of course is the central question in the abortion debate. If an embryo or fetus is, in fact, a separate person, then abortion is murder. Now, some people may think that. A majority of the Americans may not agree. But the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and others are entitled to their opinion. They are entitled to introduce a constitutional amendment to try to overturn Roe v. Wade and to send desperate women back to the back alley coat hanger abortionists. We would fight that, but at least we would have an honest debate on the real issue. But do not ask us to vote for a bill to undermine a woman's right to choose an abortion disguised as a bill to protect victims of violence. Be honest with us and with the American people. Be direct. If my colleagues' interest is to protect the mother and the fetus, then they should support the Lofgren substitute, because it does exactly that up to life imprisonment. But if my colleagues' intent is to establish the legal status of a fetus as a separate person, then they support this bill. That is a totally new concept in Federal law. Congress and the courts have never agreed with that. It undermines Roe v. Wade. It undermines a woman's right to choose. That is the real purpose of this bill. It also establishes another novel legal concept that we should punish somebody specifically when there is no intent. That is undermining the general intent of the criminal law. So the real question is not protecting women. We can protect women. Support the Lofgren substitute. Bring up for a vote the Violence Against Women Act. Bring that to the floor. Do not pretend that this is what this is. This is simply an assault on abortion. As the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) said, it is a disguised human-life amendment. That is its purpose. I do not believe we should act on this floor with subterfuge. If that is my colleagues' purpose, say so. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was honest about it. But we should have a direct bill to do that and not try to disguise it under assaults against women, which this is. I would hope that we would adopt the Lofgren substitute so that we can protect women so that we do express our horror and give additional heavier penalties to someone who assaults a woman and harms and kills the fetus and causes a miscarriage, but not get involved in the other debate, which we should debate in a different time, rather, on the issue of whether we want to ban abortions and send women back to the back alley coat hanger abortions. A vote for this bill and against the Lofgren substitute is exactly a vote to do that, to say to desperate women they have no right to choose and we want to undermine abortion. Those who say it is not because we exempt it in the bill are not recognizing the real intent and the purpose and effect of the bill. So I urge a vote for the Lofgren substitute.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I oppose this bill, and I would urge my colleagues in the House, who believe that Roe versus Wade should be upheld and honored because it protects the reproductive choice of women in America, to vote against this bill. I will offer later today a substitute to the underlying bill that will accomplish what the author of this bill says he wants to do. Obviously, I believe that it is wrong to assault women. If the assault causes a miscarriage, that is a grievous harm and deserves to be punished. What the underlying bill does, however, is to create an unprecedented right for the fetus that is not permissible under Roe versus Wade. Indeed, it flies in the face of Roe's holding. More than that, as one speaker during the discussion of the rule pointed out, should this bill ever become law, it will be almost impossible for a prosecutor to actually use this bill in any effort to go after someone who might engage in the unbelievably odious behavior contemplated by the bill, namely, assaulting a woman and causing her to miscarry. I want my colleagues to understand the obvious, that those of us who oppose the underlying bill do not condone violence against women. To the contrary, the ranking member the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) asked permission of the Committee on Rules to offer a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and was denied that request. I regret in so many ways that we are once again here divided on the issue of reproductive choice in America. I believe very strongly that it is the woman who should make this decision about whether or not to have a family, and not the U.S. Congress. I recognize that there are people on the other side of this issue who have enormously strong religious beliefs that Congress should make that decision and outlaw reproductive choice. What bothers me, and what I think is really very sad, is that we would bring this dispute about reproductive choice that is so heartfelt into this issue of violence against women. It is unnecessary to do so, and I am hopeful that as Members listen to the debate today, they can take a look at the substitute that the Ranking Member and I will offer so that we can come together for once--instead of continuing to divide over this very emotional issue. I look forward to outlining in some detail at a later time in this debate the substitute that I will offer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think we can make this very simple for the Members today. This motion basically asserts, and the debate has emphasized, that the Second Amendment prohibits the ability of Congress to regulate in any manner guns or weaponry. I think that is clearly not what the Second Amendment does. What we are really wanting it do here is to come up with some modest, reasonable, sensible gun safety measures. Why? Because children all across America are at risk from evildoers who are armed at the teeth; and children, in fact up to 13 children a day, are losing their lives to arms and to weaponry. We are not talking about the duck hunter. Duck season, duck hunting season will go on again this year, and that is absolutely fine. The Brady bill and its extension to juveniles is intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, not the duck hunters, but of criminals. We are trying to close a loophole that has allowed criminals and people who are mentally unstable to get guns from flea markets and the like because the Brady law has prevented them from getting their hands on those weapons at licensed gun dealers. That is really all this is about. I believe that the American people strongly want us to do that very simple thing. Why? Because they know it is in their best interest. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this very ill-founded motion.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment very briefly on the comments just made regarding our constitutional system. I think it is actually a frightening concept to, at this late date, as we enter the next century, question the role of the Supreme Court in our Constitution as the interpreter of the Constitution itself. That is well settled law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I believe that unless one is a member of the committee, one does not have the right to close.

Ms. LOFGREN. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In a way, I appreciate the debate this morning, because I think it is a more direct division of where we are with the Members of the House, and the American people can really see what the dispute is about. We have heard a lot of cases and quotes today, but former Supreme Court justice Warren E. Burger, a very conservative Chief Justice who served on the court from 1969 to 1986, had a quote that I think really does sum it up quite well, and I would like to mention that to my colleagues. He said, and I quote, It is the simplest thing, a well-regulated militia. If the militia, which is what we now call the National Guard essentially, has to be well regulated, in heaven's name, why shouldn't we regulate 14, 15, 16-year-old kids having handguns or hoodlums having machine guns. I was raised on a farm, and we had guns around the house all the time. So I am not against guns, but the National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public. The issue here is whether or not we will take modest steps to make the children, and I would add, the adults of America a little bit safer from crazed individuals who want to harm them with weapons of destruction. I think of the bills that we have put in place, and although they are not enough, they have done some good. The Brady law, which the author of the motion to instruct voted against, and the Federal assault weapons ban, which he also voted against, have proven to be successful and effective tools for keeping the wrong guns out of the wrong people's hands. In fact, violent crime has fallen for 6 straight years, thanks, in some part, to the strong gun laws that provide mandatory background checks and banned the most dangerous types of assault weapons and limited, to some extent, the accessibility to kids and criminals. The Brady law has proven that criminals do try to buy handguns in stores. The background checks nationwide stopped approximately 400,000 felons and other prohibited purchasers from buying handguns over the counter from federally-licensed firearm dealers. Now, what does this mean? Thousands of murderers, spousal abusers, drug traffickers, fugitives from justice, people who were mentally unstable were unable to get a gun and go out and harm someone. That is important, and what we want to do here today, and the reason why we are continuing to discuss this issue is that we want to close the loopholes that exist in current law so that those same murderers, spousal abusers, mentally ill individuals cannot, when they are turned down for the gun at the licensed gun dealer merely go over to the flea market and buy that weapon. That is really what we are here about. We are here because, without closing that loophole, real people are suffering real harm. Now, I have heard a lot of discussion that we have problems in American society. Clearly, we are not a trouble-free society. Clearly, regulation and sensible gun safety measures will not solve all of the problems of American society. We know that. But we also know that if those boys who were so distorted and filled with evil had walked into Columbine High School without arms, without guns, they would not have been able to kill as many children as they did. We know that if that middle-aged, hate-filled maniac who shot little 5-year-old children in the day care center in the Jewish community center in Los Angeles, if he had not had access to those weapons, he would not have been able to do the damage that he did. So these are modest issues that we are trying to deal with. We are opposed by people who have, I believe distorted the law, but who, in fact, just oppose having regulations of any sort on guns. Now, they can have that opinion. They answer not to me, but to their own constituents. But I would like this House to give an answer to the mothers of America and say, we are going to put the gamesmanship behind us; we are going to focus on what matters to the mothers and fathers of America, which is to do something reasonable, modest, rational, that will make guns less prevalent in our society, that will make it harder for people who have no business having those weapons to have them, so that children like those little kids who were in the day care center will not have to face some crazed maniac with a gun, so that children like those in Columbine High School will not have to live in fear that they will suffer, be killed or be harmed by young people so disturbed and well armed. That is what this debate is about. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to search their heart and to understand that we ought to reject this motion. This motion really is about shall we have any gun control or gun safety legislation, or not. That is what this motion is about. I hope that this House will stand proudly and say, yes, we do think we can have some gun safety measures that make sense. We can yield that result to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that although reasonable people can differ, there are many cases that have held that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable regulation, and I have submitted to the Record two pages of the names of those cases which will be printed in the Congressional Record today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this body will approve this motion. But when we convene for the votes that have been postponed, we will have several motions that we will be asked to cast a vote upon. First, of course, there is the parks measure that is not the heart of the gun safety discussion we have had this morning. Then there will be a vote on the motion to instruct offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), that basically says this, conferees, get to work, produce something, work every day until you come up with common sense, reasonable gun safety measures. We have a motion to instruct offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Doolittle) that distorts, I believe, the meaning of the Second Amendment and, as the Members who listened to the debate well understand, really asserts that we have no ability to do any regulation of guns at all because of the Second Amendment. That is clearly not what the Supreme Court has found. It is not the law in America. And it is also not what the American people want. Finally, we will have a vote on this motion to instruct that says let us ask and instruct the conferees to adopt meaningful reasonable gun safety measures that are consistent with the Second Amendment. Now, we have been here several days now engaged in these motions to instruct; and I am mindful that, instead of being here talking about these issues, instructing conferees through votes, we could have been meeting as conferees. I hope that we will finally have a meeting. On August 3, when we had our first and only meeting of the conference committee when we gave the speeches to each other, the hope was that the staff, at least we were told by the chairman of the conference committee, that it was necessary for the staff to get together over the August recess and the hope was that we would have something we could get behind as schools started. Now, I have two teenagers. They are both in high school. School started quite some time ago. As a matter of fact, they are starting to get a little nervous about midterms coming up. And we have not produced a darn thing. Now, I hear about these compromises and how difficult it is, and I am sure it is not the easiest thing to find that sensible middle ground that really is the genius of the American political system, to find this sensible reasonable measure that we can send to the President that will make the American people safe. But we are not going to find that sensible middle ground if we never talk to each other. Now, I am mindful that the chairman of the committee and the ranking Democrat on the committee are having discussions, and I commend them for that; but we have not seen the product of their discussions. And I really do believe that, while I am sure their discussions are undertaken in good faith, that if we were to shine the light of public view on what is being done, we would get to a conclusion a little bit faster. Because some of the things that were said in this chamber today about the inability to do anything to regulate assault weapons, to keep criminals from getting guns is preposterous, it is preposterous, and the American people will have none of it. So let us have that discussion in open session. Let us have the conference committee meeting. Let us come up with a measure. None of us can be in love with our own words. We need to be flexible and reasonable. But the bottom line is we need a measure that closes the loophole that does not purport to do so and not actually achieve that goal. If we can come together on that, we will end up with a bill that we can send to the President and sign into law. I hope that we can. But we are not going to do so if all next week we have to once again have motions to instruct instead of meetings of the conference committee. I know that we will be in recess to go home to our districts for the weekend, coming back on Monday. I hope that Members can listen closely to what mothers are telling them in the supermarkets when they are home this weekend. Do the right thing, vote ``yes'' on the McCarthy motion to instruct. Oppose the Doolittle flawed motion and please vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It occurs to me that some of the arguments being made about gun control are sort of like when we cook spaghetti at home. When we try to see if it is ready, or one of the techniques, is we can throw it at the wall to see if it sticks. And if it sticks, it is done. We have had now this morning three different things: The Second Amendment does not allow us to do any regulation of weapons. Or, well, we should not do anything about regulating weapons because we are not happy with enforcement. It should be better. Or, we should not have any regulation of assault weapons or other things because the laws do not work. And I think each one of those points is off base and will not stick to the wall. First, we had a great discussion about the Second Amendment earlier. I will not go on at too great a length about that, but I would note that, clearly, we have the ability to do sensible regulation in this arena. On the issue of enforcement, I have heard a lot of comments made about this. And, of course, there are darn lies and statistics, and so we all are a victim of that phenomena, but I do want to just lay out some facts. Since 1992, the total number of Federal and State prosecutions has actually increased. About 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for State and Federal weapon offenses than in 1992. And the numbers are 20,681 in 1992 to 25,186 currently. The number of high-level offenders, those sentenced to 5 or more years, has gone up nearly 30 percent. That is 1,409 to 1,345 in 5 years. The number of inmates in Federal prison on firearm or arson charges, the two are counted together, increased 51 percent from 1993 to 1998 to a total of 8,979. In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms brought 3,619 criminal cases involving 5,620 defendants to justice. Now, on the issue of it would not make a difference, and none of the tragedies that have occurred would have been prevented had these gun safety measures been adopted, that is just not correct. Michael Fortier, the friend of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, helped both fence stolen guns at a Midwest gun show. If he had not been able to do that, we might have had a different outcome. We have had the serial murderer in Ohio, Thomas Dillon, who bought his murder weapon at an Ohio gun show so that he would not be detected at a licensed dealer. Gian Ferri, who did the massacre in San Francisco at the law firm, used a pistol, an assault weapon, that he bought at a Nevada gun show. If he had had a background check, that might not have occurred either. So these many arguments are a little bit of protest here over what most of America knows should occur and would help make our country a safer place. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the gentlewoman from California, because I would just like to comment that I would love to work on this supposed compromise. I know that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) have had some discussions. I am a conferee. I am a member of the conference committee. And the only time I have ever had an opportunity to discuss this was on August 3. And we did not have an opportunity to discuss it then. We gave speeches to each other and we left town, and there has been no communication. We have asked for these proposed compromises. I would like to see the language. I would like to come up with good, strong legislation. I am willing to work through this so long as it actually achieves something. However, what it has to achieve is a background check that will catch individuals who have restraining orders against them. It cannot define a gun show in a way that would exempt events where thousands of guns are sold. I would hope and absolutely insist that it would not repeal or reopen the question of the Lee Harvey Oswald law that prevents the interstate mailing or shipment of firearms. Those would not be an advance. That would not be an improvement under current law. So I am eager to look at this supposed compromise. And if it is, as the gentleman says, an improvement on gun safety laws, I will be eager to support it. I cannot really understand why the members of the conference committee have not yet been afforded the opportunity to see this great proposal that is supposedly a compromise. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, every year, an estimated 2,000 to 5,000 gun shows take place across the Nation in convention centers, school gyms, fairgrounds, and other facilities paid for and maintained often with taxpayer money. These arms bazaars provide a haven for criminals and illegal gun dealers who want to skirt Federal gun laws and buy and sell guns on a cash-and-carry, no-questions-asked basis. The Brady law background check applies to licensed gun dealers only. The same is true of most State firearm background checks. At gun shows, it is perfectly legal in most States and under Federal law for individuals to sell guns from their private collections without a waiting period or background check on the purchaser. However, licensed Federal firearm dealers operating at these same shows must comply with background checks and waiting periods. Many unscrupulous gun dealers exploit this loophole to operate full- fledged businesses without following Federal gun laws. Since so many sales that occur at gun shows are essentially unregulated, guns obtained at these shows that are later used in crime are difficult, if not impossible, to trace. When the United States Senate debated juvenile justice legislation in June of this year, an amendment proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg to require that background checks be done on all purchases made at gun shows was passed and included in the legislation. However, when this House debated its version of the juvenile justice legislation, no such amendment was included. It is not clear what the outcome will be in the conference committee, but we believe it is important, and I believe, to instruct the conferees to include this crucial loophole closure on the Brady bill. The Brady bill has made our country safer. It has proven that criminals do try to buy handguns at many shows and has stopped over 400,000 criminals and other prohibited persons from obtaining weapons in the licensed gun offices. The second provision in the motion to instruct is the banning of juvenile possession of assault weapons. The assault weapons ban has been effective, but it could be even more effective. In 1989, when President Bush stopped the importation of certain assault rifles, the number of imported assault rifles traced to crime dropped by 45 percent in 1 year. After the 1994 ban, there were 18 percent fewer assault weapons traced to crime in the first 8 months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994. The wholesale price of grandfathered assault rifles nearly tripled in the post-ban year. Assault weapons are terrific weapons if one wants to do a lot of damage to innocent people in a hurry. I remember so well the shooting in the school yard in Stockton, California, in 1989 when a maniac with an AK-47 that held 75 bullets killed five little children on the school ground and wounded 29 others. In San Francisco, California, just about 40 miles to the north of my home in San Jose, a disturbed person with a TEC-9 holding 50 rounds went into a San Francisco law firm and killed eight people and wounded six others with these assault weapons; to kill four ATF special agents and wound 16 others at the Texas incident. Although assault weapons comprise only 1 percent of privately owned guns in America, they accounted for 8.4 percent of all guns traced to crime in 1988 and 1991. Now, although juveniles 18 and younger are prohibited by Federal law from purchasing handguns, neither the Federal Government nor most States restrict the purchase and ownership of these guns. This loophole allows teenagers with rifles and shotguns. It also allows them to possess semi-automatic AK-47s, AR-15s, and other assault rifles manufactured before 1994 and grandfathered under the 1994 assault weapon ban. No kid should be allowed to buy or possess an assault weapon. And the gun lobby and the NRA, who has opposed the assault weapon ban and attempted to get the assault weapon ban repealed in an earlier Congress, has actually in some cases said that maybe it would be okay to keep assault weapons out of the hands of teenagers. So I would hope that that small concession might allow us to move ahead on this provision. Section 3 of the motion would require that child safety locks be sold with every handgun. Every day in America, 13 children under the age of 19 are killed with firearms. Some of those are the result of violent assault, but some of them are easily preventable. They are accidents or suicides. And one of the best ways to prevent and keep children from gaining access to a gun at home is to make sure that it is locked. Public opinion surveys indicate that, really, the public does not understand why we would not do this simple thing. It has nothing to do with duck hunting, it just would keep children safer throughout our country. And, finally, the background check that is applied under current law to adult criminals should be applied equally to juveniles who have committed a criminal offense. I think that just makes good common sense. So I am hopeful that we can support this motion to instruct. It is completely modest. It is consistent with what the Senate was able to achieve. It would give an increased measure of safety to the children of this country. And I believe that it is the least we can do for the mothers and fathers of America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)