Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

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

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.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California (Mr. Doolittle) has offered a motion that, if adopted, would impair the ability of the House and Senate to adopt reasonable gun regulations, gun safety measures, and that is because in his motion he distorts the actual interpretation of the Second Amendment and interprets it in such a way that courts do not. I would like to briefly reference some of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have addressed the issue of the Second Amendment. The most prominent one is U.S. versus Miller, a 1939 case where the court said, In the absence of any evidence tending to show the possession or use of a shotgun at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the Declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment will note it must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. In another case, U.S. versus Hale, a 1992 case from the 8th Circuit and not overturned, but the Supreme Court opined that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the Federal Government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia. The Second Amendment has often been used to try and thwart sensible gun safety measures. In 1992, six of the Nation's former attorneys general wrote in a joint and bipartisan letter, and I quote: For more than 200 years the Federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized State militia. It does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. Mr. Speaker, the Nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy towards guns and crimes, and that was signed by attorneys general Nicholas Katzenback, Ramsey Clark, Elliot Richardson, Edward Levy, Griffin Bell, and Benjamin Civiletti. I think it is important to outline the vast number of cases that have reached the same conclusion, and I submit for the Record a list of all of the court citations that established this point: Court decisions supporting the ``militia'', rather than ``individual rights'' reading of the second amendment u.s. supreme court U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) u.s. courts of appeals U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978) U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975) Hickman v. Block, No. 94-55836 (9th Cir. April 5, 1996) U.S. v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995) U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988) U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972) U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971) U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972) Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983) U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971) U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the conference committee on this item has met just once, formally. That was on August 3. I am a member of that conference committee, as is my colleague, the maker of the motion here today. At that meeting, and this is only the second time I have been on a conference committee, but we made statements at this meeting. I did, too; we all did. At the conclusion of the statements made by all the Members of the Senate and all the Members of the House who were present, I tried to offer a motion that we would continue to work and to try and get something substantive done. It was ruled that that motion was out of order. We could not even vote on whether we should actually begin work. What was told to me at that time was that it was necessary for the staff to meet and that they would meet throughout the recess; and, therefore, we could get this to a resolution. There was a lot of hope expressed that, by the time, roughly, that school started, we would have something ready to go. It is now September 23, and we are still not ready. I have listened to the discussion here today. I am aware and do readily believe that there have been discussions between the ranking member and the chairman, and I commend those discussions. But there is an aura of mystery around this. The other conferees, or at least I will speak for myself, I am not aware of the substance of what is being discussed. I hear various things from the press that concern me greatly. I have no way of knowing whether those press reports are accurate or inaccurate. But I am aware that there are some things that really do need to be in the final product, which is why I think this motion to instruct is a good one. The first part of the motion directs that we should have a substantive meeting. It has been nearly 2 months since we had our first meeting, and so I think to have our first substantive meeting is not too much to ask so that we could make motions. There is one motion that I would like to make, and it is a necessary one, and it has to do with high capacity clips for assault weapons. As we know, the Senate had a provision in their bill, and we of course became grid locked and did not have anything on that subject. Subsequent to all of that, on really a technicality type of thing, the Senate's provision was deemed inappropriate since it raised revenue. So there needs to be some kind of motion for that to be reinstated. I mention this in particular because I think it is one thing that really does need that attention. I am aware, as a matter of fact, I am proud that the amendment here on the House side was the Hyde-Lofgren amendment. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) certainly does not oppose the substance of this. I think that we need to do this. Certainly the loophole that was created when Senator Feinstein and others pursued this a number of years ago turned out to be nothing that was anticipated. Millions of these high capacity clips are coming in from foreign providers. I would just say that the TEC-DC9 that was used in Columbine could not have been effective if the ammo was not available. So let us get on it. Let us do it in public. I believe in sunshine laws, being from California. I think, if we have a little sunshine on this process, it will be hard for those opposed to hold their heads up high.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501. The form of the motion is as follows: Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the House on the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501, be instructed that the committee on the conference recommend a conference substitute that includes provisions within the scope of conference which are consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (e.g., (1) requiring unlicensed dealers at gun shows to conduct background checks; (2) banning the juvenile possession of assault weapons; (3) requiring that child safety locks be sold with every handgun; and (4) a Juvenile Brady bill.)

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) for purposes of a notification. (Mrs. McCARTHY of New York asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) Notice of Intention to Offer a Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1501, Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am confident that this motion to instruct will receive support when we vote on it from both sides of the aisle, and that is a good thing, but it certainly does not solve the concern that brought me here today and has consumed our time here this evening. As I think through the scenario of how we got to this point in time, I think back to earlier in the summer when we had almost a surprise, really, to some of us that the United States Senate was able to come together after the terrible tragedy in Colorado at Columbine High School and to come up with a set of modest, centrist measures that would make the availability of guns less so, in the hopes that the violence that beset the youngsters in Columbine and in other schools in other parts of our country would be diminished. When this House took that measure up, and I believe it was something like 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning, we ended up with a measure, when all was said and done and the amendments concluded, that the NRA said vote ``yes'' on the bill, and handgun control urged us to vote ``no'' on the bill. We did not have a strong bill, as the Senate had done. So, we moved on to conference. Now, the conference committee met just once, on August 3, and each member of the conference committee was permitted to make a statement, and I did as well, and then we left town, and the conference committee has not met again since. Now, I understand that the chairman has, in fact, on many occasions supported centrist gun control measures. He voted for the Brady Bill; I was proud to be a part of the Hyde-Lofgren amendment on clips, and I am hopeful that we can get some sound things done. I realize that this is not easy, but it also needs to move apace, because it is now September 22; and when we talked in July, we were anxious to get a good measure that would be in place before school started. And now, as I mentioned, my two high school students are starting to fret about the mid-terms that are almost here; and we will be recessing soon if the target date is to be believed. And so unless we can pick up the pace, I am concerned that we will not achieve our goal of getting good, strong, solid, sensible gun control, gun safety measures adopted; and I want to do that. I can assure the chairman, I want a bill. I want to be able to tell my children that we managed to get something done that might make them a little bit safer from gun violence. I want a bill. Mr. Speaker, the chairman said, do we want to prove that the Republicans cannot run the House. Well, no. I think on September 22, without our appropriations done, that has already been proven. We do not need to prove it with a gun bill stalled in the conference committee and not brought to the floor. I want strong legislation. I will work on a bipartisan basis to get that done, but what I will not do is to stand silent if the measure comes back and there is actually less safety for the children of America than exists in current law. That I cannot do. That is what we were faced with that early morning in July when the House took up its measure. It is not comfortable. It is not a delight to stand here and make motions to instruct and to be somewhat obstreperous; but I would rather do that than not come to a conclusion, than not to stand up for the mothers who I represent in this House. And when I go home and I am in the grocery store, the other mothers want to know how come we cannot get this done, something this simple. They cannot understand it. And I cannot really explain it to them, because I cannot understand it either. So let us reach out across the aisle, let us work together, let us get this done. Let us make sure it is solid, that it is valid, that it is honest, it is true, it is tough, and it is done promptly. I would urge that we bring some of these discussions out into the open. There have been many discussions between the chairman and the ranking member, I understand, and I have no doubt that they are sincerely done and difficult discussions. But sometimes the light of day can help move things forward a bit. So I am hopeful that we will be able to do that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the participation of all of the Members of the House. I look forward to a very positive vote on this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 13 children a day are being killed by gun violence. Perhaps we have repeated this statistic so frequently that we do not fully feel it anymore that these are children, and that is a shame. I ask the Members here in this Chamber and listening to this discussion in their offices, how we can possibly ignore any legislative measure that could help protect these children? I ask the Members on all sides of this issue to agree with me that, whatever else we do, we agree we shall not pretend we are making children safer at the same time we are building into our legislation weasel worded modifiers and exceptions that make the promised protections meaningless. After I gave notice of this motion to instruct the conferees last night, the Associated Press was told there was a compromise being circulated by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I wish to make that A.P. article a part of this Record. Since the A.P. article was received in my office this afternoon, I have asked the chairman for a copy of his proposal so I can determine for myself whether it is, indeed, a compromise I could embrace; and I am hopeful that I can get a copy of the proposal. I have had members of the press call my office about this proposed compromise, and I am all the more concerned that we not offer some proposal that might have loopholes. That is why I thought it was necessary to propose this motion to instruct. Since there has been no joint meeting of the conference or staff since early August, and I have had to read the AP wire to learn what is going on, even as a conferee, I ask the Members of this body to instruct the conference: One, not to include loopholes that favor the wrong people getting guns, those who have been arrested, those who have restraining orders, and those who have been adjudicated mentally ill; Two, not to weaken current gun safety laws; And, three, not to compromise the ability of law enforcement officers to find those criminals who use guns in the crimes that they commit. First, my colleagues may ask what loopholes I am worried about. I am worried we are going to define gun shows or gun vendors in such a way to make the Lautenberg gun show provision ineffective, if not meaningless. I am worried that we are not going to define background checks in such a way as to exclude some persons we really should be concerned about. Second, my colleagues may wonder how we could weaken current gun safety laws. Would anyone in this chamber want to permit the interstate shipment of firearms by mail again? Do we want to repeal the Lee Harvey Oswald gun provision? Third, my colleagues may wonder what could compromise law enforcement's ability to fine those criminals who use guns in the crimes they commit. Well, suppose the records to run the gun check on the purchaser were destroyed immediately after the check was run. And suppose the gun show vendor did not have to retain the serial number of the gun? How would law enforcement follow the trail to the bad actor who bought that gun? There are those in this House who prefer that we do nothing. The NRA's chief lobbyist says, and I quote, ``Nothing is better than anything.'' That is what this House did only a few month ago. The House majority whip made his position crystal clear when he was quoted in The Washington Post as saying that killing the gun safety bill was ``a great personal victory.'' Does the majority whip really want this House to do nothing when it comes to the safety of our children? Does the majority prefer to release its proposal to the press rather than to the conferees? In other words, does the majority really prefer to have a news story rather than a legislative solution? I hope not, and I trust not. I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct as a further guarantee that this Congress does something, that it does something meaningful, that it does something soon, and that it does it in a bipartisan way, in the best interests of the mothers and children of this country. Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press article I referred to earlier is included for the Record herewith. Hyde Floats Compromise Proposal on New Gun Controls (By David Espo) Washington (AP).--The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is circulating a proposal designed to break a months-long deadlock over the sale of weapons at gun shows, congressional officials said Tuesday night. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., is proposing a two-step system of background checks. Most gun show sales could be cleared within 24 hours but others could be delayed for up to three additional business days for additional investigation. Republican and Democratic aides said Hyde's proposal includes a ban on importing certain large capacity ammunition clips as well as a requirement for the sale of safety devices with handguns. It also includes a lifetime ban on the purchase of a handgun by anyone convicted of a gun-related felony as a juvenile. And minors would be prohibited from possessing assault weapons. Separately, GOP aides said any compromise juvenile crime bill would likely include a House-passed provision allowing the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools. Supporters claim that would help promote morality; critics say it is unconstitutional. Any compromise is also expected to toughen prosecution of juvenile gun-related crimes, and provide additional federal funding for anti-crime programs. Hyde has outlined his gun proposal to Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on his committee, as well as to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was not clear if any senior GOP leaders had yet turned their attention to the issue. The gun control issue has been percolating in congress since last spring, when two students invaded their high school in Colorado and killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives. The Senate passed a series of gun control provisions a few weeks later, but a slightly different set of proposals died in a House crossfire when Republicans complained the measures were too strong and some Democrats griped they were too weak. Efforts at a compromise have moved fitfully since, and Hyde's proposal marked an attempt to find middle ground before lawmakers go home for the year. The gun show issue is widely regarded as the hardest to resolve, given close votes in the House and the Senate. Under Hyde's proposal, all gun show purchasers would be subject to a 24-hour check under the proposal. Those that hadn't been cleared by then would be subject to a wait of up to three additional business days. Hyde's proposal defines a gun show as any gathering of five or more sellers. The Senate-passed measure would give the government three days to complete the required background check. The House measure that was defeated called for one day, but extended that to other sales outside gun shows that now are covered by the three-day rule. Current law regarding gun shows requires background checks only for sales by licensed dealers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the wise comments of the chairman and ranking member. I am concerned, however, that despite all the good will and the coming together about this motion, we met last on August 3, we gave speeches to each other as conferees; and now it is September, midterms are almost here, and we still have not gotten anything into law. So that is a concern, and it is shared by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).