Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) a member of the committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee.

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

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I will vote to support this amendment. I think, as my colleague from Virginia has pointed out, this would have been better had we had an opportunity to go through the legislative process, to hear from the States, and to really thoroughly hash this out. However, I do think that this is worthy of bipartisan support and plan to vote for it. However, I must observe that, as my colleague from Ohio mentioned 2 o'clock in the morning, intruders and the need for protection, I think back to 2 o'clock this morning, when, in the dark of night, this House really failed the mothers and fathers of America, in my judgment, failed to enact common-sense gun safety measures that the country demands. While I support this measure, I must note that it is not the answer that America seeks to the tragedy of children and gun violence.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Under current law, persons who sell their firearms from pawnshops and later seek to claim their firearms are subject to background checks. This amendment would create an exception to the Brady background check requirement for persons redeeming a firearm during the year after it's been pawned. While the description for this amendment says it ensures that guns pawned for more than a year are not returned until the owner passes a background check, I think that this description may confuse Members, because this amendment does in fact instead create a new loophole in current law. Under this amendment, people who leave their guns at a pawnbroker for less than a year will no longer be subject to a background check. Similar proposals were offered by Senators Craig and Lott in the other body, the U.S. Senate, and were explicitly nullified in the Senate by Senator Lautenberg's amendment. The explanation is simple, this amendment is a dangerous one. Felons try to redeem firearms at pawnshops four times more frequently than felons try to buy guns from gun dealers. In fact, according to the ATF, 1.4 percent of the purchasers seeking to purchase firearms from licensed dealers are felons or had some other reason why they were ineligible to purchase a gun. In sharp contrast, 5.4 percent of persons seeking to redeem their firearms from pawnbrokers were felons or had some other reason to be there. We require as much vigilance at pawnships, as we require when dealing with licensee dealers. This amendment does not meet that standard. That's why I rise in opposition. My good friends from Texas are concerned that the amendment helps ameliorate discrimination against poor people, but we must point out that poor people, just like rich people, cannot be charged a user fee for background checks. Congress explicitly prohibited such fees in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 1999, so this is not about money. Crime, gun-tracing information shows that criminals are regular pawnshop customers. While 13 percent of federally licensed gun dealers had one or more crime guns traced back to them during 1996 and 1997, 35 percent of federally licensed pawnbrokers had one or more crime guns traced back to them. This amendment would allow felons to raise cash with guns that they possess illegally. This amendment will make pawnshops safe harbors for criminals with guns, and I urge my colleagues to vote no. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think we do disagree, but if the gentleman's point is that right now children can lawfully possess assault weapons, without any restrictions and therefore this is better because they can have assault weapons if they are farmers or if they are employed they could have an assault weapon, is that essentially the point that the gentleman is making?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, when I found the amendment I did go read through the statutory scheme and I could see very clearly that the gentleman was conforming this amendment to the scheme that he has just referenced. The question I have is whether or not assault weapons should not be treated a little bit differently than rifles? And as I mentioned earlier, 17-year-olds out on the ranch out in the Mount Hamilton range where the wild boars and rattlesnakes are, and they are out in the pickup trucks with the cattle with the rifle, and to me that is a lot different than having a semiautomatic assault weapon. So the question is, did the gentleman mean to make assault weapons really in the same posture and standing as rifles on the farm?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Ms. LOFGREN. We do very much disagree, and I thank the gentleman for yielding for this question.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I did want to briefly note that my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) has an idea that we are not yet ready to pursue and that we hope we will have an opportunity tomorrow, if we are able, to perfect this idea by unanimous consent to pursue it if it works out. I did not want to neglect that. We do not need to go into it now, but we will work diligently tomorrow morning. I thank the chairman for the opportunity.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think an effort to remove the lawful ability of juveniles to possess assault weapons is an important thing for this Congress to do. I think that it is a very strange world we live in where a 17-year-old cannot vote, cannot go drink a beer, but can have an assault weapon. That to me does not make any kind of sense at all. So when I saw this amendment being offered, the title of the amendment, I was very enthused about the opportunity. However, I must confess that I oppose the amendment as it is drafted, because as one reads through this amendment, the loopholes included are large enough to drive a truckload of assault weapons right through them. If Members look at page 2, line 6, the subsection outlawing assault weapons, semi-automatic assault weapons, as well as large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, does not apply in a whole series of sections. One is in the course of employment, and that is not defined, but tell me what kind of employment requires a 16-year-old to use and possess an assault weapon? Further, there is a specific delineation that it is legal for a juvenile, anyone under 18, so I guess this could be 9, 7, 8, it is not clear, to possess an assault weapon in the course of ranching or farming. I know there are kids in my district who ranch, who have to have rifles. There are rattlesnakes and there are wild boar out in those hills. I understand that the ranchers need to have arms to be protected. I do not object to that in any fashion whatsoever. However, I do not know of a situation where little kids need to have assault weapons because their family has a farm. Further, if the child wants to use an assault weapon for target practice, hunting, or several other things, then it is lawful for them to have the assault weapon. I do not think this is control of assault weapons. I do not think that the provisions of this act will do anything effective to prevent juveniles from owning and possessing assault weapons. I think that is a shame. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I think that if anything, it goes in the opposite direction and specifically authorizes children to possess assault weapons. I think that is a preposterous situation, and would urge opposition.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be here this evening while it is only 10:30 in California and to say that assault weapons equipped with high capacity clips containing multiple rounds of ammunition make it possible to shoot shot after shot in rapid succession to kill children in seconds. High capacity clips in Littleton, Colorado permitted two boys to mow down 13 classmates and their teacher. In 1994, Congress addressed high capacity clips. I was not a Member of Congress then but the cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), was. He supported the 1994 ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. If I had been here, I would have, too. While that had good effect here at home, high capacity ammunition clips continued to be imported from other countries. That is because of a loophole in the 1994 act. This amendment makes sure that the law will now succeed in doing what Congress intended to do in 1994. From March to August of last year, more than 8 million large capacity clips were imported into the United States, each clip having a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition, many with the capacity of 35 rounds, 75 rounds, 90 rounds, as high as 250 rounds. Why should Americans abide by a restricted law that foreign manufacturers may disregard? The clips that were imported over this 6-month period could have accommodated some 128 million rounds of ammunition. That is about a round of ammunition for every other American. That is a rather large loophole. I ask each and every Member in this Chamber to look to the intent of the original ban in 1994 and the adverse impact this loophole had in Littleton and to the will of the American people. Then I ask that we cast our votes in support of this sensible amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell amendment and in support of the McCarthy amendment that will protect the children of America. Mr. Chairman, the Dingell amendment does one thing. It would make sure it's easy for criminals to get guns shows and flea markets. Do hunters need that? Do sportsmen? No. With the instant check proposed, most purchasers will be approved quickly. But the criminals won't. The gun lobby wants to try to scare normal sportsmen into believing that keeping felons from buying guns means duck hunting season is canceled this year. I hope that the honest sportsmen and women of this county won't buy it and I hope that the House will not either. Vote ``no'' on this deceptive amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this spring, like other mothers and fathers across the country, I froze when I heard the news of what was happening in Columbine High School, and I think, like the other mothers across the country, my first reaction was, ``Are my kids safe?'' As we sorted through the massacre that happened there, all of us parents realized that something needed to be done. Finally, the United States Senate acted. They adopted modest gun safety measures for our children. Since then, in this House, what an odd dance we have seen. What could have been simple here in the House of Representatives has become complicated--too complicated. Tonight, however, we have a chance to make it simple again. And what do we need to do? We need to vote for the McCarthy amendment. We need to vote for the Hyde-Lofgren large clip amendment, and, by supporting these amendments, we will conform our conduct with what the Senate did. Will this solve everything? No, it will not. There will still be disturbed children. There will still be neglected kids who do wrong. There will still be children whose conduct is skewed towards violence. But we know this. If those boys in Colorado had not had all of those guns, a lot of other good kids would have been alive to graduate from Columbine High School last week. So it really is easy tonight. Stand up for what the mothers and fathers of America want us to do tonight: deliver to them the sensible gun safety laws. They expect no less.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the McCarthy-Roukema amendment to save America's children. Mr. Chairman, it is time for this House to come together on a bipartisan basis and do what the parents of America expect us to do, what they have hoped we would do since the moment a high school in Colorado became a killing field. We are charged by the friends and neighbors and parents who elected us to this chamber to protect this nation's children. Some people in America, and in this Chamber, would have us enact stronger measures than those embodied in this amendment. But these are the gun child safety measures the Senate was able to approve. Let us at least do this much, pass what the Senate agreed upon. If we do this much, we will not only take a step toward meeting our obligation to the parents of this nation. By making these protections the law of the land, we will also be making history. We will make history when we listen to the parents of America and prefer the safety of children over the special interests, teeming in the Capitol and fighting against sensible gun safety measures. Can't we do this much for the mothers and fathers of our country? As a mother of two school-aged children, I understand the depth of feeling of other parents. When my kids, or yours, go off to school, we don't want to think, even for a moment, that we might never see them again, because some boy brought a semi-automatic to class and opened fire. We know all too well, because of what happened in schools from Colorado, to Kentucky, to Oregon, that this is no exaggeration. I'm the first to concede that these common sense gun measures are not the whole answer. But they can and will make a difference. We know that if the boys who murdered those students in Colorado had not been able to obtain the weapons they did, the slaughter would not have happened. For every law there will be violators. No system is perfect. But we know that the existing Brady bill has kept thousands and thousands of ineligible persons from purchasing weapons--it stopped felons from purchasing or possessing such instruments of destruction. If we can decrease the number of guns available to troubled kids, it can only help. For those who say it's not worth it, unless it's 100%, ask yourself, would you feel that way if it was your teenager who came face to face with a disturbed man with a gun bought at a gun show and loaded up with a high capacity clip? If you could prevent that, wouldn't you do it? Next Sunday is Father's Day. I can't help but think tonight about the teacher, a father, who escorted students to safety at the cost of his life in the Columbine Massacre. I can't help but think of the mothers and fathers who learned later that day that the son or daughter they loved more than life itself had been killed that day. While some of us may celebrate Father's Day this weekend, others will most certainly not celebrate, because they hurt so badly. Before we leave these chambers this Father's Day weekend, let us give our friends and neighbors who sent us here something that says this tragic loss of life, of young and old, was not in vain. Let us make these moderate, common-sense gun safety measures the law of the land. Then let us return to our districts with pride that we have made a good start on a difficult problem.